|
Post by Dave Dexter on May 25, 2019 17:31:54 GMT
A few new pieces being uploaded recently! - that makes this either a good or bad time to add to the pile. soundcloud.com/davedextermusic/bricks-under-ivy-demo/s-8Sav8I hadn't written anything since last November and was starting to feel the familiar worry. I wanted to write something more ambitious, and my first attempt was rubbish. It was accompanied by the most severe imposter syndrome I've ever experienced, either thanks to the dry spell or the influence of the last classical piece I'd heard that I knew was all over the music even if I hid it well. I knew it was illogical but it didn't matter. In trying to find something interesting I wrote a short phrase which had potential, and that slowly became the piece linked here. The score is uncondensed and exported on a large paper size for now so a bit of a clumsy read - a few things to fix and check, some ornamentation and lines to add, but it's mainly there. It's - for me - a long piece that you could call a tone poem, I suppose, with an intent on developing a number of different themes and sections in a more traditional style than my normal score-esque composing. Perhaps Mike and his 30+ minute work is to blame, as on average my pieces are about 2.5 minutes. He's certainly the reason I added some harp bisbigliando. It marks my first composing for piano, for which I studied some Chopin scores to check notation and sent to a friend to see if it was readable. The piano part is close to pastiche on occasion, but it seemed the right parts at the right time. As an example of my endless imposter syndrome/guilt over things that aren't guilty-worthy, I never composed for piano before because it seemed too easy a way to improve a piece. Stupid, right? It's just an instrument, but it's how I think. The score is attached in two parts. Any thoughts musically or notationally, please fire away. Still things to be fixed! Ok, I should go and listen to some of your new music.
|
|
|
Post by BootHamilton on May 27, 2019 21:04:43 GMT
That little key change @ 1:37, 2:00 and three-something is intriguing. I dig that. By around 2:20 or so, I could have used some relief from that over & over 4 bar phrasing. Some type of respite before charging into the finale. I like the general feel and the melody figure. I just think it gets a little sing-songy in it's repetition. Perhaps a break in rhythm or an 8-bar development section. I know little about these things - 'just giving you some first impressions. It hits me as either too long for what's there, or too repetitive for it's length.
I know this is called a 'demo'. But that mix drives me crazy. It's all R or L. There's nothing anywhere at all in the middle, nor anywhere else in the stereo spectrum. I truly would have preferred mono.
|
|
|
Post by gx on May 28, 2019 16:30:19 GMT
Hey Dave.. I couldn't get away from the theme of Tallis ref. - as treated by V Williams.. (A tune that had a big effect on me when I first heard in my teens..) I liked the orchestration, but I think that the piano is a tricky instrument to participate in this fabric... When it entered w those triplet chords, it sounded like an announcement - like we might break into a Rach. like concerto.. But then the piano seemed to want to fade back into the fabric somewhat.. If the piano is treated in a more linear way either highlighting various other instruments, or relegated to a timbral effect - as one might use a mallet instrument - a la Bartok, or Shost... it tends to become more integrated into the fabric... but perhaps this is not what you were going for. Of course, I liked the vibe... and I felt that the orchestration kept the chord pattern repetition fresh for a while, but I do agree w Boot, that perhaps the repeating could have been a bit less. I did hear a few 'pops' on there, but perhaps that was just my system misbehaving. Nice work , Dave.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on May 28, 2019 18:03:12 GMT
That little key change @ 1:37, 2:00 and three-something is intriguing. I dig that. By around 2:20 or so, I could have used some relief from that over & over 4 bar phrasing. Some type of respite before charging into the finale. I like the general feel and the melody figure. I just think it gets a little sing-songy in it's repetition. Perhaps a break in rhythm or an 8-bar development section. I know little about these things - 'just giving you some first impressions. It hits me as either too long for what's there, or too repetitive for it's length. I know this is called a 'demo'. But that mix drives me crazy. It's all R or L. There's nothing anywhere at all in the middle, nor anywhere else in the stereo spectrum. I truly would have preferred mono. Thanks for listening, Boot. Which over and over phrasing did you mean? There's a lot here I'm proud of as a direction I don't normally take, but being proud of music is often a mistake. I'm not 100% confident myself in the structure, but I feel that played live and organically - which was the intent, someday and somehow - the piece would transform. The rises and falls and rhythms would become much less mechanical. Mix-wise, it's not what I'm best at but I do think it sounds good on my monitors without overbalancing and abandoning the centre field, and I'm spending less time on that these days. It uses a very similar direction mixing setup to my orchestral recordings, although they were a) real b) had a mike tree that provided a centre track as well. Hey G! Ok, this is a surprise as that piece - which has been as impactful for me as for you and something I've tried hard not to copy - was furthest from my mind when composing this. I'm trying to hear it in there and still can't, what is it that evokes it for you? The resolve to the major at the end of the main theme, which is a very Tallis/sacred choral trick? The piano was added almost by accident, I heard a piece that used deep piano bass at certain moments and realised it was foolish not to use a texture. Everything else developed from that. I think if I removed those triplets the piano would sit better as an accompaniment that occasionally supports the themes led by the strings. Can we get a vote maybe, can you and Boot pick one or two sections you felt were pushing it and ventured into filler territory? The pops were some unexplained corruption in my export, if I ever finish this it'll be attended to. Thanks very much for listening and commenting, both of you.
|
|
|
Post by BootHamilton on May 28, 2019 20:31:20 GMT
This is a lot of 2-chord change over the course of 4 bars. i - v - v - i, w/ variations/substitutions such as... B- F# F# B-; B- F#7 F#b9 B-; B- G F# B-. (9 times til C Major 00:59 mark) 1:03 Starts same chords, very slight variation ; i - i - v - v 6 times until 1:37, where that A minor comes in: A- A- F# F# B B B B (and the A- there is beautiful) but then right back to that friggin' B minor. Arggghhh...Instead of a return to B-, consider that B Major as a perfect place for a key change. If you you want to keep the same pattern at that point, I would consider taking advantage of that B Major as a turnaround chord to lead into the pattern you started with (B- F# F# B-) but now F#- C#7 C#b9 F#-. That's one thing you could do. The other would be to tell me to bugger off.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on May 28, 2019 22:40:04 GMT
This is a lot of 2-chord change over the course of 4 bars. i - v - v - i, w/ variations/substitutions such as... B- F# F# B-; B- F#7 F#b9 B-; B- G F# B-. (9 times til C Major 00:59 mark) 1:03 Starts same chords, very slight variation ; i - i - v - v 6 times until 1:37, where that A minor comes in: A- A- F# F# B B B B (and the A- there is beautiful) but then right back to that friggin' B minor. Arggghhh...Instead of a return to B-, consider that B Major as a perfect place for a key change. If you you want to keep the same pattern at that point, I would consider taking advantage of that B Major as a turnaround chord to lead into the pattern you started with (B- F# F# B-) but now F#- C#7 C#b9 F#-. That's one thing you could do. The other would be to tell me to bugger off. Well, one man's critique is another man's . . . not critique. The sneaking feelings I have about this piece don't really start until later on! I could talk a lot about my approach to chords and progressions and the weird irrational urges that govern them, but if ever I feel stymied by something it's by the concept that certain progressions aren't appropriate, or "proper", or advanced, or mature, or original enough. Most of the time it's ridiculous and influenced by the way in which I learned chords and write. I tend to feel happiest composing when not doing so under the ominous feeling that everyone's going to judge me for going from Am to D. I feel the build in this piece until about 3.40 is enough to carry the repetitions, and as authority I draw on the many wonderful pieces that repeat a lot, or play the same thing but a semitone higher. You know I never even considered that 1:03 is going to F#? because of the inversion I used with a B root. I just thought it sounded good; btw, that's originally where the piece started, and I did have the idea of this as several short movements originally. I tried that key change and found it much less enjoyable than moving back to the minor, even though on the face of it I should love that turnaround. Is there a traditional stigma against major to minor or it's just not your thing? Though I've realised one of the main reasons this piece was nagging me, even though a live performance would probably make me forget it - the strings will not shut the f*** up. There isn't the movement between sections I try and achieve normally. 3.40-4.14, re-arranged purely as woodwind perhaps, would make a big difference. Otherwise the strings don't quit it for - jesus. They never stop. That's sloppy, Dave. Time for a rewrite.
|
|