Obscene Obsession for Full Symphonic Orchestra

Originally Posted by thatguy

Nikolas

I just listened to this again (for the againth time) and you do something so wonderful with this piece. It seems like everyone wanted resolve to the tension, judging by the comments, but the funny thing is i didnt ever feel teh tension/resolve atmosphere of it. This piece makes me view music in such a different and unique way. I'll be honest, i didnt follow the score (because i was sick of getting lost lol), so i just sat in the dark and listened as intently as i could. I cant describe it, im not that advanced in music yet, but it jsut seemed like one gigantic coherent and incredibly clear whole. what you do with this piece i have no idea, but for some reason this piece made so much sense to me. It was very easy to view your audio painting, and im just flattered that you stick around this site (along with a few other advanced composers) to broadcast your beautiful work. yes, i do believe this is beautiful, partly because of the fact like i said that i honestly cant see a need to resolve. ya its dissonant and chaotic, but i feel the different themes you used and extravagant colors of the orchestra add to the fire, and i just couldnt stop staring. you are a fantastic composer, one of the best that ive heard.

my favorite parts were many, some that stand out though are, well, like i said i couldnt follow the score, but a little over halfway through this you had something that sounded like hasty footsteps, and ya it scared the shit out of me . also, you quoted stravinsky's rite of spring in here..i loved it! the last i will mention is the end section, where i heard some of the most picture-esque beautiful orchestration. kudos again Nikolas, fantazmic work!!!

Vince

Vince, (thatguy)

Thank you very much for your kind words! It's marvelous to see your work so well received and appreciated! It makes everything worth, you know.

________________________________

I think it's time to explain in much detail the coherency that some of you hear and some of you don't!

This whole piece is based on a giant fractal starting on the very very first note and ending in the last note of the piece. No gaps, no nothing, except the small rest between chapter 6 and 7.

It is divided into 7 chapters/movements which are all played attacca (except 6-7 as I said before).

You start out with 5 notes and each chapter you add an extra note (pitch that is). So in chapter 7 you have ended in (5+6) 11 pitches. there is a single pitch absent from the whole work. There is nowhere to be found. Last chapter death ends 1/16th before the pitch should normally appear!

Now the fractal guiding it:

You have 5 extra extra long notes (sustained) in chapter one. ACEbFG# . These are the 5 pitches appearing in Birth, btw. In various durations, each of 20 something bars or so!

These notes (the durations that is), are divided into 2 and 3, each one like this:
AcebCebEbfg#Fg#G#dA
(the d being a new pitch, introduced in chapter 2/creation)
Each note of the above is again divided by 2 and 3 and this carries on for 7 times in total.

Last chapter, death, has been resolved in continuous 16th notes, duration wise, but ptich wise it all is guided by the first 5 pitches still!

Here is the awful notes (in score format) of the fractal alone: www.nikolas-sideris.com/oofractal.pdf . If you go towards the end (around page 17-18) and check the D (which stands for death), you should see the continuous 16ths, as well as the full score of the actual death score (orchestrated), minus the orchestration of course.

There you go, analysis blown away!

Again thank you for your post, Vince, it was great!

Originally Posted by ClassicalSax

I agree fully. I didn't really want the tension to resolve, in fact, when it ended, I wanted more tension! "Is that all?!" was the thought going through my mind. However, I loved the piece from start to finish. Birth was my favorite section, especially the huge buildup to the climax to the end. I have to agree that the second half was slightly lacking (what it was lacking however, I'm not sure). Also, the second section (I forget the name) seemed to drag on a little bit, with all the repeating lines and what not. If I had written it I probably would have added some more melodic stuff in the bass instruments underneath all the upper woodwind chaos. But hey, it's your piece, not mine.

All in all, great job. There may be some orchestrational flaws, but I'm not one to be all nitpicky with the score analysis and whatnot. It sounds great as it is anyway.

- ClassicalSax

Thanks CS!

I just wish I could get it performed live! That WOULD BE awesome!

YEs, I do agree that there is a tiny bit of a design flaw there (with refering to the fractal 100% and not leaving the piece to breathe at all, thus maybe draging a bit), but now what's done is done! It took SO long to finish that there's slim chances to retouch this, unless I have plenty of time and there is a good reason!

Other than that, if, by any chance, you're refering to QCCs comments about the score, they were very helpful! I'm all up for any comments to become better. I need it as well you know, as much as you and anybody! (does this sound a bit too much? Hope not... :S)

My only question is, how many times must I sacrifice a lamb to this musical God, nikolas.

Originally Posted by DOFTS

My only question is, how many times must I sacrifice a lamb to this musical God, nikolas.

Try this link:

www.donatetomusicalgodNikolas.com

I can't believe I actually clicked on that

As always with your music, I vaguely understood it, and greatly enjoyed it

I'm not sure I can tell you anything constructive, but I just wanted to let you know I enjoyed it - considerably more so than the first time I listened when you first uploaded it, when it scared the hell out of me.

Mark

Really amazing stuff here. I enjoy this kinda stuff. I love the colors and everything thats happening. Really enjoyable I loved it. So much emotion, its really quite good.

It's a difficult one, this.

I didn't enjoy it, and I think it was because, modally, it never moved from its ground: the sort of major-minor stuff around F. Always was there. And you did interesting things, rhythmical shifting and what have you, but ultimately I was left rather uninspired, the piece having tried to take me somewhere, but in doing so smothered me a little bit. I'm talking in extremes, but its the kind of piece that is so homogeneous that it makes you want to cough and get a drink of water afterwards.

I'm not against homogeneity, Messiaen (apart maybe from Turangalila, which is far more conventional) does it wonderfully, but he does it with a kind of colourful finesse and conviction. With your piece, I got the feeling you had chosen to stick to some notes, and stuck to them. You had forced all of your ideas to fit this mould of your notes, resulting in a tiger in an F major-minor cage. Messiaen is stuck in the cage of his style, and what a beautiful style that is, that infinitely detailed, ever expanding vision.

Perhaps its an Obscene Obsession with this pitch world. Who knows? But ultimately, as I've said, the piece itself is tedious to me, and I'm reminded of Schumann (paraphrased): A good title will not save a poor piece.

I'm sorry if I've been harsh, but you've put so much effort in, I feel I should give a valid comment.

L.

Originally Posted by LDunn

It's a difficult one, this.

I didn't enjoy it, and I think it was because, modally, it never moved from its ground: the sort of major-minor stuff around F. Always was there. And you did interesting things, rhythmical shifting and what have you, but ultimately I was left rather uninspired, the piece having tried to take me somewhere, but in doing so smothered me a little bit. I'm talking in extremes, but its the kind of piece that is so homogeneous that it makes you want to cough and get a drink of water afterwards.

I'm not against homogeneity, Messiaen (apart maybe from Turangalila, which is far more conventional) does it wonderfully, but he does it with a kind of colourful finesse and conviction. With your piece, I got the feeling you had chosen to stick to some notes, and stuck to them. You had forced all of your ideas to fit this mould of your notes, resulting in a tiger in an F major-minor cage. Messiaen is stuck in the cage of his style, and what a beautiful style that is, that infinitely detailed, ever expanding vision.

Perhaps its an Obscene Obsession with this pitch world. Who knows? But ultimately, as I've said, the piece itself is tedious to me, and I'm reminded of Schumann (paraphrased): A good title will not save a poor piece.

I'm sorry if I've been harsh, but you've put so much effort in, I feel I should give a valid comment.

L.

Fair enough.

you've not been harsh just a little off with comparisons with Messiaen, etc.. And "A good title will not save a poor piece" sounds bit mean with no reason really. I just don't see the point in such a comment. (apart from saying you liked the title? )

But either way, everyone to their opinion and I do agree about the homogeneity of the piece, it's there, as well as the obsession with certain pitches.

Well these are my thoughts as I listened through your piece twice with a brief pause between them. I do not intend to be hurtful but I speak my mind so excuse me for my bluntness.

-
I found 5 sections to the piece when I listened and I'll go through each one.

Pt. 1-Pt. 2(Cued by the buildup into the large minimalistic texture) - I really like the atmosphere of these two and their developments were very interesting and moving. These were my favorite parts to the piece. I loved it when it kinda of calmed down around 5:00 before the violin stabs came in.

Pt. 3- This part for me felt like it lasted way too long. It was developed overtly and lacked the carrying power of the first two. It also was missing the downtime needed for an enticing theatrical experiance to conclude the rest of the piece. I would have personaly switched this with pt. 2. (Note-Around 7:43 was extremely nice.)

This part of the piece was when I got hopelessly lost within the development of it. The piece had turned into something that had gone on too long and I was starting to lose interest.

Pt. 4- I enjoyed this movement alot but it too lacked the exponential growth I love in music. Did I hear a bit of the second movement for Stravinsky's Rite of Spring with the accenting horns around 11:35?

Pt. 5- I loved that little line at the end of four and beggining of this movemnt! Death = Yummy

-

For me, you summoned Stravinsky's Firebird but left me with no pleasure that I usually find within it.

The music didn't move relatively with the rest of the piece. Towards the end I felt like you had called all your shots off and now its over. I unfortunately feel the same way about Stravinsky's pieces as well. For example I feel that the back half of The Rite Of Spring was quite boring when compared with the first.

-With a note on how I hear things and why they please me- (We are probably of varying opinions on this.)

When I listen to orchestral music I always find the open sounding slow movements to bring the most excitement not the sharp accented ones. I might be in the minority on this but, due to the carrying power of everyone doing legato open phrases vs. short accented phrases there is more to listen to and the sound is much richer and enticing.

I degress, now to put it in a fun little metaphor, "I like my choclate last."

-

Hopefully Provoking,

Karl

(P.S. Good Job with this piece. It was a beautiful piece of music to listen too.)

You know I have problems with 'atonal-esque' pieces in general, and my main concern with this piece is that it doesn't appear to be melodically driven (in the conventional sense). However, the effect you have created is fairly remarkable.
The first section really does stir me, it triggers something I can't quite put my finger on. I think its the fact that it's actually a scary piece of music to listen to, and I think that if this were performed by a live orchestra, would be even more so! I rarely find music 'scary' in this way without there being some kind of accompanying picture, and I think music generally doesn't trigger this particular emotion.
I think there are moments when you've gone too far in my opinion, but the second section to me sounds like a brilliantly successful orchestration of a gamelan orchestra. You've made fantastic use of the orchestra here no doubt. Was there some microtonality in this section or possibly the bit before?
As I said this is remarkable, however I am glad that I can return to the relative safety of Rachmaninov and co.!