|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Sept 26, 2019 15:48:09 GMT
Dave,
There are so many rules for writing 16th century music that it is entirely possible to write convincing examples of it without ever hearing it as you go. Sit down with staff paper and start writing. We did it in college all the time. As Mike says, there are certain conventions to keep in mind, pieces of the puzzle to fit in, but it can be done. If you look at surviving manuscripts, there are often few markings, if any. Not like today where composers feel they have to mark every note so that their intentions are known. Performers knew (and know) exactly what was required of them. There are Baroque solo concerto scores that are a melody line over a figured bass. Copies were handed out to whatever size group was handy. Much like a jazz group would play from a lead sheet today.
We can pick apart your piece all day. After all, you asked for it. Many excellent ideas have been suggested. That's because it is a good piece to start with. But in the end, it's your piece.
Uninteresting recorder information. Today, recorder is pretty much considered a toy. It is very easy to play. Fingering is simple, and you just blow into it. But playing it well is another matter. Anyone can play notes, but playing music is another thing, altogether. True of any instrument. Years ago, I was a member of a Renaissance music group. Just for fun. Kind of like a bridge club. Recorders, shawms, krumhorns, zinks, sackbuts, viols, and lutes. As well a a portative organ handmade by one of the members. Quite different from playing in my usual orchestras, concert bands, choirs, and rock bands.
I don't hear anything wrong with your recorder samples. You'd have to fiddle with them to get the octaves correct that you have written.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Sept 26, 2019 16:24:00 GMT
Well, yeah - if I'm in a situation where following a rule compromises my music, and I can't think of any way to make it better via the rule, I ignore the rule. I found a few moments in this piece where I simply like, say, a parallel octave movement. Wire a dynamo up to Bach's grave and let him power Swansea for a few minutes. But being at least a little aware of what I doing wrong means I can make informed decisions about when to keep doing it.
A heavily marked score can look comfortingly professional to me, but I try to be pretty minimal. Musicians will figure it out, and have done. I find older scores interesting because they were almost certainly written with a specific ensemble in mind, or at least in the knowledge that they would be played, and the composer would probably be there to provide intention. Tallis and Bach were writing for a job, for musicians and singers they likely got to know well.
Your Renaissance group sounds great fun. Out of interest:
Not the reason I used recorder samples this time though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Sept 26, 2019 22:12:23 GMT
Dave,
Those are copies of Renaissance recorders. Different in bore and construction from the Baroque recorders we usually see. Looks like tenor, bass, 2 great bass, and a contra bass.
I took the first page of your score, reduced it to piano and played it back with a choral patch, to get what you are after. As a piano score the parallel moves really stick out. And there are some awkward jumps. I'm Right with you on the rules. To tell the truth, I've forgotten most of them. There are some I try to adhere to as a knee-jerk reaction to getting bad grades in counterpoint class in school. Many work because they help the music sound more full and western, and less Chinese. Flowing, singable voice leading is important in vocal music. See if you can sing the parts you write,
|
|
|
|
Post by gx on Sept 27, 2019 16:30:35 GMT
Well I couldn't possibly add another thing, except for the observation - what an awesome and helpful group we have here!! A striking ray through a dark sky. ('and I say to myself - what a wonderful world')
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Sept 28, 2019 0:03:50 GMT
Did you like it?  Although that's a dangerous question to ask a composer. I haven't liked music since 2013. Yeah, it's a good group. I've given similarly hard critique to composers on Ning and they've literally rage quit the forum. Or I've got critique that was just plain rude. Well, we all either have expertise or experience or both here, so it's a better environment. Well I couldn't possibly add another thing, except for the observation - what an awesome and helpful group we have here!! A striking ray through a dark sky. ('and I say to myself - what a wonderful world') |
|
|
|
Post by gx on Sept 28, 2019 2:23:32 GMT
I thought your piece had a certain sweet and sad quality which I feel was worked to good affect. Despite this, I must admit to having a dim ear to this kind of harmonic movement {edit}. Nonetheless, I did appreciate a couple of the subtle harmonic surprises.
But, the thing I really enjoyed was your sense of rhythmical flow. Really wonderful!
(ps.. Dave, please remember that I have found much of your music quite exciting, and very compelling!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Sept 28, 2019 13:45:15 GMT
There was no need to edit G, I wasn't offended (for context, and if you don't mind me saying, G finds this kind of writing a bit tame harmonically and prefers the bite of other composers like Monteverdi & Purcell? If I remember right?) You said it evokes a very English feel. Writing online can remove nuance so this isn't a "ah! gotcha!" response, but that's exactly what I like and am going for, almost to the extent of cliche. Admittedly, if I was writing only for myself, I would work in some more anachronistic progressions here and there, or adapt this style into a more unexpected progression. I played very safe as this piece is for a contest and choir that sings a lot of early and traditional sacred music, and there's some chords you just don't use when evoking that style. But, as if I don't go on about it enough, the classically English approach with its often rigorous tonality is home to what I consider the best music in history. Good enough for them, good enough for me, although I steer clear of the false relations and dissonant surprises that someone like Tallis used. Magnificent as he was, though, if I had to only listen to one choral piece forevermore it would be this, by Bairstow, a much later work. You may appreciate. Apologies if I've linked it before, I think it's extraordinary. I thought your piece had a certain sweet and sad quality which I feel was worked to good affect. Despite this, I must admit to having a dim ear to this kind of harmonic movement {edit}. Nonetheless, I did appreciate a couple of the subtle harmonic surprises. But, the thing I really enjoyed was your sense of rhythmical flow. Really wonderful! Oh and thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by gx on Sept 28, 2019 19:14:02 GMT
Hey Dave, I mostly edited bc I felt I was just rambling on. (and I sensed that That was what you were 'going for' - that English feel - which you did achieve imv.)
But your characterization of my post in right on.
Ive done an arrangement as well of 'Let all mortal flesh'.. (I like the bright and dark juxtaposition in that one). I'll check this version you posted a bit later.
Cheers.
ps. That was quite wonderful version of 'Let all..' Very beautiful and powerful.
|
|
Although that's a dangerous question to ask a composer. I haven't liked music since 2013.
