Leaderboard

Hi Vadrif: I can certainly appreciate the amount of work you put into this.. As always Monarcheon, hits the nail squarely on the head.. What I'm gonna propose here, may sound off the wall on first reading. but bear with me. A while I composed an extensively long piece call 'Treatise On the Walls'. It is posted on this site This was based on Pink Floyd's 'Another Brick In the Wall'.. then I just kept expanding on it. It really is a challenge to write a long piece, have it interesting, cover a lot of territory, but have some continuity. Part of the process I used in composing, but more so refining after the original writing sessions was 'binge watching' some great TV series on Amazon Prime I watched several shows consisting of 3 - 5 seasons.. The eye opener for me, was a miniseries on 'The Unabomber'. The guy who was mailing bombs in the 90's.. The FBI had recently started using a 'behavioral analysis unit'.. This is the science of figuring out the 'back history' of someone, by the evidence. Of getting psychologic with it. They totally developed the science of studying linguistics (how a person wrote or spoke).. to determine the exact geography and age of the Unabomber.. They made 'profiles' based on the bombers activities. I then watched 5 seasons of 'The Wire'.. One of or perhaps the best piece of TV writing ever made.. What intrigued me was the ability to carry a premise and situation thru 5 long years of TV.. Their success depended on extremely great writing, great actors, great casting. I looked to find analogies in long piece of music.. So this is a method I developed. I somewhat embarrassed to admit here, I know practically nil about classical music, especially symphonies. I'm sure there is a good deal of 'methodology' used. Watching the TV shows - I boiled it down to: 1. There are characters (which would be the different instruments used in your piece) 2. The casting is the choice of instruments used to generate the melodic, harmonic parts. 3. The script - is when you introduce new situations, and know when to circle back to a basic premise, for continuity and stability (Know when to bring the main, auxilary motifs again. When to plainly restate it, when to mutate it a bit. So I generated some musical parts. then I stepped back and did 'behavioral analysis' on the different parts, motifs, sounds etc I had so far created, and then worked on enlarging and lengthening the piece So I would very carefully select a 'sound palette' (choice of instruments to be used). I deal with a lot of esoteric sound libraries, and I look for the emotional qualities of the patch, or instrument itself. I then craft the musical statements it will sound, depending on the emotion quality of the sound itself. I began to see, the different parts of the piece, served a specific function, I could repeat that, or modify it (changing to keep interest and motivation) A big part of my process was too listen to what I had done - INCESSANTLY.. Put the music on loop, with a notebook and pen.. keep taking notes. I would play it all nite, while sleeping. wake up in the morning with a mental list of issues to address. Believe you hit the point on the 100th listen where a certain part 'has got to go'.. It's may be striking at first. but it doesn't 't hold up.. Good music to me, holds up to countless repeated listenings. I love many artists, and still listen to their work 50 years later, because it has 'staying power'. (I'm old) Your pieces have strong emotional content, which I like very much.. I like some of your other pieces. I did get the work behind what you put into this piece I know what I'm proposing here may sound off the wall to some, but in a certain way, music is an analogy of an aspect of life.. Hope this gives you something to think about.... Mark

I pretty like this. All parts are really beautiful and I enjoyed listening to it. The orchestration and choice for instruments is excellent. The sound of the music is nice. Note that I use the word sound. In my opinion, the description (the part with all numbers) is far-fetched to be honest. I like how you want to create a piece with all symbols you mention in the description, but I think one can go too far. I namely feel like you want to drown the audience in an ocean of facts and numbers. Furthermore, I feel some elitairism, which is not my taste. Please correct me when I am wrong. Honestly, I hate Maths, so this does not help to appreciate these time signatures and other things. I do not understand why one would do difficult, when one could do easy. The confusing time signatures only cause confusion and the performers will not appreciate that. For me music is on the first place and how it is created is not as important as how it sounds. Just to state clearly, I really like your work and it sounds amazing. However, in practice it can be very hard to play and all these numbers and facts seem to have gotten more priority than the actual music. If this is the way you compose, do not let me stop you from doing it this way. Well done.

I'm assuming you like the sound this produced, kind of Boulez or Webern in nature, so fair enough. I will just say, I'm not personally a fan of that kind of applicative-aleatoric sound. My only thing to say I guess would be your nested tuplets are kind of harsh especially with the mixed meter you use. Interesting stuff... I don't have this kind of patience to write this kind of music.