Home  Articles   Profiles  Forum  Chat  Lessons  Archives  Search   Store   Contact
Register Board Rules Member List Member Map Password Recovery Search Today's Posts Mark All Forums As Read Calendar Library
Go Back   Young Composers Music Forum > Upload Your Compositions for Analysis or Feedback > Orchestral and Large Ensemble

Welcome to the Young Composers Music Forum. You are currently browsing as a guest - join today to post messages, upload music, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Reply

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old May 2 2008, 4:27 PM

flint-wwrr's Avatar

Seasoned Composer
Group: Members
Joined: 10-August 07
Posts: 580
Member Number: 3361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Userdoe1560 View Post
Play measure 127 on the piano. Does it sound muddy? I don't think so. If the ensemble was attacking and releasing more clearly, I think that issue would be remedied.
That is your problem right there. You cannot translate that sound from a piano to an ensemble. The only reason it doesn't sound as muddy on a piano is due to the nature of the piano itself. It's not your ensemble's issue, it's yours. It will simply always sound muddy due to the register and the instuments involved.

Quote:
Yes, I know the background parts are boring. I have a few good reasons. Firstly, they aren't supposed to draw the ear because they are background (duh). Honestly, I prefer it that way.
You want your music to be boring and two-dimensional? You may want to re-think that idea. Writing interesting backgrounds is an important skill and an important facet to composing interesting music. Because let's face it, if the only interesting part is the melody, the music becomes boring!

Quote:
As for the 32nd notes...how do they not fit in? If I wrote two whole notes tied together, would that be out of place? As far as I'm concerned, it's a simple straight rhythm, just like the rest of the piece.
I'm saying that suddenly your woodwinds go into "double time" and while the rest of the ensemble doesn't change. That sounds out of place to my ears.

Quote:
As a matter of fact, if I had written more dissonant harmonies, I'm sure you would criticize them for being inconsistent with the rest of the work.
Not if you incorporate them intelligently. Dissonance doesn't necessarily mean jumping from Bach to Stravinsky. Simply adding added 6th's, 7th's, 9th's, or even passing tones would be more interesting.

Quote:
pppp is excessive, I'll give you that. ffff is not. It gets the point across. I can promise you that if I had ff or even fff written there, that section wouldn't sound as good as it does.
Well, I disagree. I've never found that exceeding ppp or fff has ever been effective or necessary. Feel free to disagree, though. Personally, every time I've been in an ensemble and there has been a written ffff, the ensemble simply plays unmusically.

Quote:
Although I appreciate your criticism, the last line is patronizing. You cannot congratulate someone on something and then basically call what you just congratulated weak.
It's unfortunate you felt that that was patronizing, that certainly wasn't my intent. I certainly stand by my statement and think that you could truly improve what you have written with changes.
__________________
Woodwind specialist: Piccolo • Flute • Alto Flute • Bass Flute • Oboe • English Horn • Eb, Bb, A, Alto, Bass, Contra-alto, and Contrabass Clarinet • Basset Horn • Soprano, Alto, Tenor, and Baritone Saxophone • Bassoon • Recorder • Voice: Bass-Baritone/Counter-tenor
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old May 2 2008, 8:23 PM

Starving Musician
Group: Members
Joined: 21-February 08
Posts: 20
Member Number: 4304
It's not boring and two dimensional. It's straight forward and simple, but music does not have to be complicated or difficult to be beautiful. In another piece, I would agree that said background part(s) would be a boring, but in this context, it works well.

The clarinets don't go into double time- the phrase still has the emphasis of 4/4.

For the dynamics, I wanted it to be unmusically loud at the ffff. Did you listen to the recording? It's the best moment in the piece! about the pppp, I already agreed with you.

About my harmonic language: Do you think you could write a piece this convincing with just block chords? You could say that this is a weak piece and from the perspective of an academic composer, I whole heartedly agree with you. But from an expressive point of view, I think this is great!

Apologies for misinterpreting your comment as patronizing. Once again, I appreciate your input. However, as I composed I knew exactly what I wanted and wrote exactly what belonged. I'm not saying that there is no room for improvment in my work; anyone who makes that claim is a fool (unless you're boulez). What I am saying is that I am aware of what could be conceived by others as holes in my work. I was aware of them when I composed the piece, but chose to leave them there. You can call me a stubborn idiot, but I would rather write what I think sounds good with the hopes of improving later than follow the "accepted" aesthetics of music, some of which have driven our art nearly into the ground. Don't forget that music is about expression, my friend.
Reply With Quote

Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 8:33 AM.

RSS

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Proprietary software and modifications Copyright ©2005 - 2008, Young Composers
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0