|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 27, 2018 21:03:16 GMT
Hey everyone! My session is looming and I decided to revisit, and hugely re-orchestrate, one of my very first pieces - first one I posted to Ning I think, back in the day. We can talk later about giving myself annoying deadlines, it's all good prep for the real world, but I have two ways of ending it and I'm not sure which I prefer. It's not great sample work btw. So it's the big final crescendo of an, even for me, very Hollywood-esque piece. In the "nasty" version attached you can see/hear it ends on an Ab. Oboes and flutes play the top phrase which sounds very, you know . . . lydian. I added this in the re-orchestration, and it clashes with the lower original phrase played by bells, glock and harp which has a sinister natural A. The "nice" version raises this to a Bb which obviously doesn't clash, but sounds somehow too easy. I boosted the relevant instruments in the mix so you can hear them better, in real life I'm prepared for them to be supporting rather than emphasised. I'm leaning to the nasty version, does anyone have a preference either for more harmonically spicy nasty or clean, shining nice? I tried natting the Ab in the woodwind phrase, but that sounded rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 28, 2018 2:10:49 GMT
Dave.
For me, I can't help but feel that the purpose of an ending is to tidy up all the loose ends and bring everything to a conclusion. A large part of me wants to say that the A against Ab might be better used in the body of the piece to build tension. Let the music beat itself up through out the piece. Perhaps the ending ought to be a glorious reward. A pageant of hard won ecstasy. But what does a notation software user know?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 28, 2018 4:28:38 GMT
Dave. For me, I can't help but feel that the purpose of an ending is to tidy up all the loose ends and bring everything to a conclusion. A large part of me wants to say that the A against Ab might be better used in the body of the piece to build tension. Let the music beat itself up through out the piece. Perhaps the ending ought to be a glorious reward. A pageant of hard won ecstasy. But what does a notation software user know? I suppose not knowing the previous 90% makes the context difficult. This is the original version - musically the new one is almost identical, except a few details like the one in question, a key change and all the orchestration fixes. As it seeks more to replicate 2m40 of changing score rather than be a self-contained piece in itself, there's tension and reward throughout . . .
|
|
|
Post by gx on Oct 28, 2018 4:31:14 GMT
Idk, the power of the ending seems to override - the clash is not so obvious… but just felt, a bit… For that kind of ending, I think a little bite is just fine… (it is not distracting at all for me.. If you are leaning that way, I'd go w it, as it seems to match the 'energy' there.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 28, 2018 13:31:05 GMT
The clash is certainly worth a try. Maybe it will be perfect. I've written stuff that had plenty of half steps grinding against each other. Just not on the last note. Close to it, though.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Marko on Oct 28, 2018 13:57:21 GMT
Nasty for me. The nice version seems to sudden and , well, "nice." Nasty version leaves some tension and yet still resolves.
My only concern would be balance of the instruments that are the source of said tension and that it not feel like wrong notes.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 28, 2018 14:23:42 GMT
Thanks all. It's only the late addition of flutes/oboes that draw out the clash a little more - the A-Ab resolve of the last two notes was always there and clashing against the harmony, which was why I liked it. Bob - it does resolve, technically. It doesn't end on the dissonance, which I'd still rebel against Tim - it's harp, glock and bells so there's no issues of intonation. In my experience at that dynamic the bells and harp will be felt but not heard, if that makes sense, with the glock giving them definition. If you have a specific concern there, please say - it might not have occurred to me. If there's time I could try both - could even record without those three instruments and track them as an overdub for both options in mixing - but I think I've already decided, just was interested in any consensus.
|
|
|
Post by driscollmusick on Oct 28, 2018 14:36:08 GMT
Nasty, definitely. The off-notes remind me a bit of the sparkles in this Richard Strauss
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 28, 2018 14:41:14 GMT
I read that as "Penetration of the Rose". Those clashes are delightfully unexpected. I think we all know who I got my sparkles from, if unconsciously, and he probably got his from Strauss among others... if unconsciously.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 29, 2018 2:56:15 GMT
"Bob - it does resolve, technically. It doesn't end on the dissonance, which I'd still rebel against " Well OK then. It was hard for me to hear exactly what note it was on.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 29, 2018 15:39:24 GMT
"Bob - it does resolve, technically. It doesn't end on the dissonance, which I'd still rebel against " Well OK then. It was hard for me to hear exactly what note it was on. It resolves back to the Ab root. It's a passing moment but what else am I going to do if not obsess over minor details? Be happy?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 29, 2018 22:08:22 GMT
Happiness is over rated. Composers seldom attain it. Otherwise they wouldn't be composers.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 29, 2018 23:09:10 GMT
I'm happy with this music -> a.[composes new piece] -> b.this new music sounds much better than the previous piece, it's garbage! I'm happy with THIS music -> return to b.
Not quite true, but I've held off sending music around for years because THIS piece is going to be the one that really shows me to my best. Then THIS piece.
|
|