Sinfonia Canadensis (Symphony no2 - first 3 movements)

Originally Posted by QcCowboy

I think the only place where there's been any "problem" with accepting criticism, is that AA maybe feels his comment should carry more weight than I am giving it credit for. I've gone over this work with a number of people with far more impressive credentials than either his or mine, and his criticism just doesn't fall into any of the categories discussed with those people. So I can safely feel strongly that his criticism, while valid in his eyes, is just that: "valid in his eyes". Not mine.

Correction.

I made an observation of a particular aspect of your piece that I didn't care for.

You responded that you didn't understand my observation.

I elaborated on my observation.

You responded that you are a professional with years of experience and that my comment only pertained to the first six measures of your piece.

I elaborated further illustrating in the first 60 measures where my observation was coming from...

Now that this is clear, I have no problem with you giving my assessment absolutely no regard. Really, honestly, I could care less. What I do care about is an assumption based on an inaccurate review of the thread thus far.

And, yes, you were a bit belligerent in your responses and rather sensitive when it came to hearing any negative/constructive feedback. As I kept explaining that it was nothing personal, you kept attacking my credentials instead of addressing the specific comment I had. This is technically known as an ad hominem argument, a logical fallacy of argumentation.

And I've asked some around here on the shoutcast... you seem to have a reputation for being sensitive to criticism.

Originally Posted by TB

If you would use the energy you used by writing all this comments for composing, you could post a finished work and not a work in progress.

Yeah, probably.

just noticed that this thread has been dug up from the grave. its at the top of the forum list thingo.

nice job. i dont have much to say for/about symphonies, because...i cant write them...dont know how to orchestrate...and its now...2008. so any advice would be useless.

If you would use the energy you used by writing all this comments for composing, you could post a finished work and not a work in progress.

You could extend that further to say if you just never got on the site at all then you could get more composing done... but then you wouldn't be able to get the criticism you need because you would not be interacting with other composers.

I'd just like to comment on the first piece, Forets Boreales if I may. I will listen and comment on the other movements when I have a bit more spare time!

I recognise Garritan Personal Orchestra as your soundset, and I usually find it hard to be moved by music unless it is a real orchestra, or incredibly convicing 'mock-up'. However, there were several 'moments' in this piece that really did something to me, and if I had to be embarassing honest I felt the urge to actually 'conduct' several of the passages.
I wasn't sure what to make of the music at the beginning, primarily because the music I've been listening to recently is very different, harmonically speaking. However within a matter of moments I felt I knew where I was.
After the initial climax, the following section is really beautiful and incredibly evocative. You begin on Ab flat minor (or at least suggest it), moving through some beautiful chords, you eventually reach Aflat major. I found this section to be particularly poignant, especially the unexpected movement to Aflat major.
I'd like to draw your attention to something I found to be particularly intriguing. At 00:48, you write in an unexpected chord (unexpected to me!). This momentarily purplexed me, but the following resolution restored my faith. It's hard to explain properly, but you are always one step ahead of the audience. You put some unexpected harmonies that may at first confuse, but the resolution is always meaningful and allows the listener to suddenly grasp your intentions. Basically it's the 'What was that?... Oh Now I see!' moment, something I particularly enjoy to hear and is in my opinion one of the hallmarks of particularly clever harmonic writing. I hope that makes sense to you!?
As I mentioned earlier, the piece is incredibly evocative. Yes, the title of the piece forces the listener to 'see' certain images, but when I first listened to the piece I actually didn't pay attention to the title of the piece, yet it immediately conjured up images of lush forest and lakes! I think this is a testament to your ability to convey images in your music.
There are many specific moments which I found to be particularly poignant, but rather than write a small essay and potentially bore you to death, I'll just say that on the whole this was rather beautifully done. It's not really like anything I've heard before. Perhaps I would describe it as an North American take on Ravel or Debussy, but still it's incredibly unique. It's often very complicated and involved, but never too much so.
Really great stuff and I look forward to listening to the other 2 movements when I have some time!

Hey, I'm not much of an expert so I don't think I can truly critque it. So I will mainly say where I stand from a purely listeners point of view, and I will keep it short

1st movt: Loved the begining, very grand. Few dissonances that I personally didnt like...but that's purely a preference thing. It was all clearly well thoughout.

2nd movt: Bascially if you can keep me interested during the slow movements, then it's a good piece
This one did that, the begining very graceful almost serene. Then with that thundering section about halfway through, simply wonderful.

3rd movt: A joy to listen to. Same as with the 1st movt...a few dissonances (but that's my opinion). Also loved the sudden ending.

Sorry I'm not really much help from a critical point of view. But I just thought I'd tell you I loved it!

Although there were those few moments with the dissonances, that is purely personal and all else I can add is: Hurry up and finish the remaining movements!!!
Then you will have to get a performance of it

Can't wait to hear the rest

Lex

guys....seriously...this is from 2006. QC kicks more butt now than what he already did in that year.

Originally Posted by goodridge_winners

guys....seriously...this is from 2006. QC kicks more butt now than what he already did in that year.

Just 'cause its from 2006, does that mean that we can't comment and tell him that we thought it was/is awesome.

Originally Posted by goodridge_winners

guys....seriously...this is from 2006. QC kicks more butt now than what he already did in that year.

I'm sure he does, but this is still impressive work that deserves an appraisal.

Prairies:

Another beautiful piece. On the whole I'd say I enjoyed it very much so, but there were a few moments I found to be a bit too dissonant for my liking. This is only to do with a slight lack of familiarity with music written in the last 50 years or so.

The opening chord in itself is very interesting. One of the things I really have appreciated about the first two movements of your work, are you choice of harmonies/chords. They seem to be constructed from what I would call 'conventional' chords, but are treated or 'coloured' in such a way as to create a very unusual (to me) and beautiful result. I suppose you would refer to this type of chord as synthetic chords? The bitonal chord at 03:11 is another wonderful example; it's very seductive and inspiring.

Just from listening to the first two movements has actually inspired me to a degree. I am not saying I am about to 'rip you off' but I am very interested in your approach and I am finding myself able to come up with much more interesting chords infront of a piano, just from listening to this work.

Thank-you for listening.

Actually, they "seem to be" is correct.
However, in fact they aren't.

I use mostly what are called polychords. Meaning it is "normal" triadss that are stacked one on top of each other.
It isn't actual polytonality, because I don't treat the componant triads as harmony, but rather use each polychord (aggregate chord) as a complete entity in its own right.

Since polychords ARE made up of "normal" triads, depending on the density and distibution of each polychordal mass, it will have a normal need for resolution. The direction I decide to go for that resolution is what colours the progressions. Sometimes I will let one componant dominate the directionality, other times, the other. And sometimes, I "force" a directionality based on combined elements from both componant triads.

The direction I decide to go for that resolution is what colours the progressions. Sometimes I will let one componant dominate the directionality, other times, the other. And sometimes, I "force" a directionality based on combined elements from both componant triads.

I think that latter is the most exciting approach (just in general really).