# My "Symphony No 1 - mov 2" (remastered)



## alphabetgreen (Jan 13, 2010)

Whilst trying in vain to download EWQLSO's new free package, I took a break and had a go at remastering the above (different IR, para EQ, compression etc). Now I'm beginning to wonder whether I need it. Miroslav's still holding out for me. I really like the intimacy. 

http://www.box.net/shared/xlgekg7b6v


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jan 17, 2010)

According to my box account, this has been downloaded (not just played) several times (last count 25), yet I never receive advice or comments, and I refuse to believe that the work is perfect.

I've noticed this with a few of my previous works. Bit frustrating to be honest.

It's like giving away free hot cakes at the market in the hope of gaining a bit of market research for future development, but everybody just comes and scoffs them all.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jan 18, 2010)

re-peat @ Mon 18 Jan said:


> alphabetgreen @ Sun Jan 17 said:
> 
> 
> > It's like giving away free hot cakes at the market in the hope of gaining a bit of market research for future development, but everybody just comes and scoffs them all.
> ...



Okay, firstly. Many thanks for spending time on my behalf, not only in accordance with this particular reply, but also taking the time and trouble (more trouble from what I've read...lol) to try listening to my pieces. I wasn't aware of this.

I think I may have phrased my last question somewhat ambiguously. I may be wrong, but I assume that you thought I was asking "Why don't people comment on my music?" (I have already asked Frederick privately this question, to which I received a perfectly credible answer, rounded off with the encouraging words "hang in there") whereas what I was asking here involved more of a technical issue. You see, according to my 'box' profile, music that I have posted many months ago is still being downloaded. I haven't severed the links because I'm happy for people to do this. But also on the 'box' website, there is a choice whether one 'downloads' or 'plays', so what I was in fact asking was why are listeners choosing to 'download' my work as opposed selecting 'play', realising that "the cakes are in fact humongous" and giving up on it.

Nevertheless, you have made your opinion about my music quite clear in a public arena, so as a matter of courtesy, I would be doing both of us a disservice by ignoring it. I'm not going to blithely announce the old "well, music is subjective" argument because I don't believe you would entertain it for one minute, plus, it's a bit of cop out in my opinion, and I'm not so sure if it's entirely true anyway, even though I do get off on music from the British punk scene of the late '70s. 

This isn't, would you believe, the first time that you have publicly commented on my music. Before I had even heard of 'V.I. Control', one of my early pieces was produced by a third party (Mr X) with my approval and thanks, and then posted here (without my approval). Your comments, although very constructive, were more disapproving of the production at the time, and the limited attention you gave to my composition was positive. But what struck me as strange, when reading your above critique (if you can call it that), was that you state "I'm not saying that listening to music should always be fun" yet when commenting on "Mr X's" production, you clearly advised that not ALL effort should be made to achieve a more realistic mock-up if it was to be at the cost of the listener's pleasure. I may be wrong to associate the words "fun" and "pleasure" as synonymous, but they certainly arouse the same connotations in this instance.

You must really wonder why I do post my pieces to this website because in answer to your question "Surely, you're not hoping for a discussion on the sound of your string orchestra? Or your usage of reverb? Or an interesting talk about musical structure and form?", I say "well....... yeah, as a matter of fact, I am". And I have actually received sound advice from some genuinely outstanding musicians on this site. I'm not a great producer. I'm not even a good one. I could blame my tools but cop-outs aren't my thing as I mentioned previously. But since live musicians are out of the question (at the moment) how else can I display my music? And after displaying my music "invariably rendered with some of the most unpleasant sounds you've ever heard", how can I improve upon them when I'm being ignored?

For some time, I've started to believe that this is maybe the wrong forum for me, for although it's chief slogan is "musicians helping musicians", a better one in my opinion might be "producers helping producers". Having said that, I have received advice and help from people on this website that has been indispensable to me, and if you believe that my production techniques are unpleasant to listen to now, you should have heard them when I first started mocking up my compositions. So, I will continue to abide by Fred's advice and "hang in there".

I try to gain something positive from all comments made about my music, and yours is no exception. Composition-wise, I don't believe my music is "meandering" or "aimless". Whilst dedicating the latter part of my life to intense musical study, I've become especially interested in form and development (cyclic and motivic development, especially). Therefore, to understand or even "enjoy" my music (I'm not announcing this directly at you, you understand), and in order to catch various recapitulations and recognise the development structures, then it is necessary to listen to the whole movement, and in some cases, the whole work. However, I should have known that this is far too much to ask of anyone, especially on a site that specialises in virtual instruments, as opposed to composition in its own right. And as a result, I will make any future postings much shorter (on this website). If you witness me posting full movements on any other website, please remember what I said. 

I'm grateful that you have advised me to "focus my musical brain on a smaller-scale challenge" because there probably are "many interesting musical problems to solve in small pieces". Would you be interested in setting me such a challenge? I'm not asking for much, just something that would require about 20 seconds of music from me. If not, then so be it. But please, please, please don't ignore this response to your post. That sort of ignorance (not that you are ignorant, far from it) really isn't my "cup of tea" (I'm gonna have to using a new set of metaphors, "tea and cakes" doesn't really cut it).

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## rayinstirling (Jan 18, 2010)

Who is this Mr. X character, I'd like to give him a slap, for mixing :lol: with the wrong people (person).


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Jan 19, 2010)

alphabetgreen @ Thu Jan 14 said:


> Whilst trying in vain to download EWQLSO's new free package, I took a break and had a go at remastering the above (different IR, para EQ, compression etc). Now I'm beginning to wonder whether I need it. Miroslav's still holding out for me. I really like the intimacy.
> 
> http://www.box.net/shared/xlgekg7b6v



Do you need it? (EWQLSO) 
Yes.

It is perhaps redundant to say anything after that veritable thunderstorm above, but still...:

I think you have posted many pieces using Miroslav in the past, and often the response has been more or less that you should update your sounds.
This is still the case ...and i have also listened to most of your pieces, but had very little to say in return that would be of any positive value to you.

The reason im posting now is that in another thread i noticed you gave some advice on eq`ing ...and consequently posted a diagram showing your recomended settings...which to a great extent could account for the rather odd sound Miroslav Philharmonic is producing for you.

In this instance, i would suggest you remove the EQ , as Miroslav is perfectly capable of sounding good,... if not very good on its own merit.
If you feel it lacks definition, you could try to add some subtle hi frequencies to add air, but the Miroslav Strings are commonly thought of as being one of the better sounding string libraries and it would probably serve your purpose better to leave it alone.

But as i am quite sure you have encountered...it has a very limited ability to reproduce anything beyond the simplest arrangements....and if you realy wish to improve your realism and mockup quality there is no way around it, and no eq will be able to transform that library into something comparable to the current standard.

Hopefully that was of some constructive value to you.

All the best.
-Peeclone.


----------



## George Caplan (Jan 19, 2010)

I have a soft spot for Canterbury.


----------



## Newport (Jan 20, 2010)

I like this piece. There is some good music on this board, but sometimes it makes a change to have something different from a lot of the crash/bang/wallop school of classical music (not that there is anything wrong with that style of course - I'm just saying it makes a change!) I use sample libraries myself, and they ain't going to sound like a real orchestra whatever you do to them. After all it's the music that counts at the end of the day. Upgrading your libraries will improve the sound quality, but it's easy to descend into a spiral of upgrades. If your writing is good enough, let that do the talking and not just the sound quality.


----------



## Alex Temple (Jan 20, 2010)

Having spent several years composing almost exclusively with MS GS Wavetable sounds, I think I can can listen with a sympathetic ear towards the music in spite of the sounds it's being presented on. That said, I do think you can get more mileage out of the sounds you're already using if you ride the expression curve a little more. For an adagio movement like this one that is crucial, not just for defining the overall shape of the phrase, but also to give nuance to the individual notes.

I liked the first two minutes or so of the movement. The constant suspensions were the most interesting part to me as they provided a lot of tension. Unfortunately they also led me to believe that their use would somehow escalate throughout the piece - and here I was disappointed. I'm afraid you lost me after the oboe solo once you started moving into the lurching string arpeggios. These outlined less musically satisfying progressions than you started out with, and from here the piece seem to amble from one subject to the next without a structure I could really stay interested in. 

These impressions are based on a single listen. The piece may make more sense after subsequent hearings, but I think having better sounds would put you in a much better position to expect people to listen a second time.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jan 21, 2010)

Thanks Pzy-clone. 

Your many observations were indeed constructive. 

I also agree that Miroslav strings are capable of sounding good, yet they do have their limitations as you say. In fact, the strings used in this piece are a blend of Miroslav and HALion. HALion strings don't have the warmth of Miroslav, but they are far more versatile. I'm a bit angry, because HSO was strongly recommended to me as the best overall orchestra library my budget would permit (I already had Miroslav), yet in general, I only use the strings. It disturbs me me that I could have been better suited buy EW Silver, VSL Orchestral Strings 1 or Peter Siedlaczek's String collection, as I invariably revert back to Miroslav whenn it comes to woods and brass. 

What I will do is, replace the samples with what EWQLSO instruments I have (If I can work out how to use the 'play' interface), and I will, at your suggestion, remove the EQ.

Once I've posted it, I'd be grateful to hear your opinion.

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## nikolas (Jan 21, 2010)

Simon,

When you post such lengthy scores you'll always fall into the danger of offering 'too much'. You've just posted the 2nd movement, so this is... the main meal, with no first course, no soup, no maffin, no drinks, nothing.

On your piece, from a compositional point of view: The melody enters very very very late. (right before the switch of character). Right until then it sounds like a huge intro, a prelude to something. Your harmonies are interesting I'd say, but you stick (for the first five minutes at least) to solid block chords, with very little movement. This is tiring, even for a 2nd movement. Around the middle you switch again and have a bit of movement everywhere, for the big bang (which never comes...).

You also change your harmonic language, starting like early 20th century, and moving to Beethovens' time in the middle of the 2nd movement. It's quite inconsistent I feel.

Your orchestration is also rather poor, since there is little colour to be told and doublings are somewhat timid on it's own. Transformations and motific use of orchestration is almost non existant. 

Don't get me wrong, I find it 'catchy' and the 1st theme is beautiful. But it remains a tiring work for the above reasons, at least for me.

No reason to discuss anything about the production or rendering values. I dissagree with Piet about this whole thing, since I'm assuming that this is not the end product, but just a means to get your music out there and your wish would be to have a live concert of the whole symphony, rather than a (great) mockup with VSL or LASS or HS or anything like that. So for what, I feel, it is it doesn't sound too bad!

Thank you for posting and sharing. Don't stop sharing. There are many musicians amongst us and the VI in the name is just there to remind us of the moto "musicians helping musicians", rather than having a full meaning of Vitrual Instruments forum.


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 21, 2010)

nikolas @ Thu Jan 21 said:


> You also change your harmonic language, starting like early 20th century, and moving to Beethovens' time in the middle of the 2nd movement. It's quite inconsistent I feel.


Nikolas, while I agree with your overall assessment, I do have a question about your comment above. Didn't John Adams also present an eclectic mix of styles in his latest premiere "City Noir"? While the performers looked either contorted, uninterested or disturbed, the critics and audience seemed to love it (and the conductor was forced to say it was great - even though he showed what "great" really was with the following Mahler). This sudden change of harmonic language bothers me in both pieces. Its much easier to listen to Hindemith or Stravinsky who establish a consistent language throughout. What are your thoughts regarding John Adams mix of styles and how do you see it different (if so) in this case?


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Jan 21, 2010)

Regardless of what anyone has to say in this thread, I bet you money if the library itself was top notch, and the sequence used all available features of that library, the tone of this thread would be different.

it's nice writing, I like it. I agree with some cases it being way long and disjointed. But the main complaint is the samples. The strings are completely lifeless, and that's what you chose to focus on (the winds aren't bad)


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jan 21, 2010)

[quote:d4f571f818="nikolas @ Thu 21 Jan, 2010 10:09"]Simon,

When you post such lengthy scores you'll always fall into the danger of offering 'too much'. You've just posted the 2nd movement, so this is... the main meal, with no first course, no soup, no maffin, no drinks, nothing.

On your piece, from a compositional point of view: The melody enters very very very late. (right before the switch of character). Right until then it sounds like a huge intro, a prelude to something. Your harmonies are interesting I'd say, but you stick (for the first five minutes at least) to solid block chords, with very little movòƒÒ   Àà¸ƒÒ   Àà¹ƒÒ   ÀàºƒÒ   Àà»ƒÒ   Àà¼ƒÒ   Àà½ƒÒ   Àà¾ƒÒ   Àà¿ƒÒ   ÀàÀƒÒ   ÀàÁƒÒ   ÀàÂƒÒ   ÀàÃƒÒ   ÀàÄƒÒ   ÀàÅƒÒ   ÀàÆƒÒ   ÀàÇƒÒ   ÀàÈƒÒ   ÀàÉƒÒ   ÀàÊƒÒ   ÀàËƒÒ   ÀàÌƒÒ   ÀàÍƒÒ   ÀàÎƒÒ   ÀàÏƒÒ   ÀàÐƒÒ   ÀàÑƒÒ   ÀàÒƒÒ   ÀàÓƒÒ   ÀàÔƒÒ   ÀàÕƒÒ   ÀàÖƒÒ   Àà×ƒÒ   ÀàØƒÒ   ÀàÙƒÒ   ÀàÚƒÒ   ÀàÛƒÒ   ÀàÜƒÒ   ÀàÝƒÒ   ÀàÞƒÒ   ÀàßƒÒ   ÀààƒÒ   ÀàáƒÒ   ÀàâƒÒ   ÀàãƒÒ   ÀàäƒÒ   ÀàåƒÒ   ÀàæƒÒ   ÀàçƒÒ   ÀàèƒÒ   ÀàéƒÒ   ÀàêƒÒ   ÀàëƒÒ   ÀàìƒÒ   ÀàíƒÒ   ÀàîƒÒ   ÀàïƒÒ   ÀàðƒÒ   ÀàñƒÒ   ÀàòƒÒ   ÀàóƒÒ   ÀàôƒÒ   ÀàõƒÒ   ÀàöƒÒ   Àà÷ƒÒ   ÀàøƒÒ   ÀàùƒÒ   ÀàúƒÒ   ÀàûƒÒ   ÀàüƒÒ   ÀàýƒÒ   ÀàþƒÒ   ÀàÿƒÒ   Àá ƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   Àá	ƒÒ   Àá
ƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   Àá ƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   Àá ƒÒ   Àá!ƒÒ   Àá"ƒÒ   Àá#ƒÒ   Àá$ƒÒ   Àá%ƒÒ   Àá&ƒÒ   Àá'              òƒÒ   Àá)ƒÒ   Àá*ƒÒ   Àá+ƒÒ   Àá,ƒÒ   Àá-ƒÒ   Àá.ƒÒ   Àá/ƒÒ   Àá0ƒÒ   Àá1ƒÒ   Àá2ƒÒ   Àá3ƒÒ   Àá4ƒÒ   Àá5ƒÒ   Àá6ƒÒ   Àá7ƒÒ   Àá8ƒÒ   Àá9ƒÒ   Àá:ƒÒ   Àá;ƒÒ   Àá<ƒÒ   Àá=ƒÒ   Àá>ƒÒ   Àá?ƒÒ   Àá@ƒÒ   ÀáAƒÒ   ÀáBƒÒ   ÀáCƒÒ   ÀáDƒÒ   ÀáEƒÒ   ÀáFƒÒ   ÀáGƒÒ   ÀáHƒÒ   ÀáIƒÒ   ÀáJƒÒ   ÀáKƒÒ   ÀáLƒÒ   ÀáMƒÒ   ÀáNƒÒ   ÀáOƒÒ   ÀáPƒÒ   ÀáQƒÒ   ÀáRƒÒ   ÀáSƒÒ   ÀáTƒÒ   ÀáUƒÒ   ÀáVƒÒ   ÀáWƒÒ   ÀáXƒÒ   ÀáYƒÒ   ÀáZƒÒ   Àá[ƒÒ   Àá\ƒÒ   Àá]ƒÒ   Àá^ƒÒ   Àá_ƒÒ   Àá`ƒÒ   ÀáaƒÒ   ÀábƒÒ   ÀácƒÒ   ÀádƒÒ   ÀáeƒÒ   ÀáfƒÒ   ÀágƒÒ   ÀáhƒÒ   ÀáiƒÒ   ÀájƒÒ   ÀákƒÒ   ÀálƒÒ   ÀámƒÒ   ÀánƒÒ   ÀáoƒÒ   ÀápƒÒ   ÀáqƒÒ   ÀárƒÒ   ÀásƒÒ   ÀátƒÒ   ÀáuƒÒ   ÀávƒÒ   ÀáwƒÒ   ÀáxƒÒ   ÀáyƒÒ   ÀázƒÒ   Àá{ƒÒ   Àá|ƒÒ   Àá}ƒÒ   Àá~ƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   Àá€ƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   Àá‚ƒÒ   ÀáƒƒÒ   Àá„ƒÒ   Àá…ƒÒ   Àá†ƒÒ   Àá‡ƒÒ   ÀáˆƒÒ   Àá‰ƒÒ   ÀáŠƒÒ   Àá‹ƒÒ   ÀáŒƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáŽƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   Àá‘ƒÒ   Àá’ƒÒ   Àá“ƒÒ   Àá”ƒÒ   Àá•ƒÒ   Àá–ƒÒ   Àá—ƒÒ   Àá˜              òƒÒ   ÀášƒÒ   Àá›ƒÒ   ÀáœƒÒ   ÀáƒÒ   ÀážƒÒ   ÀáŸƒÒ   Àá ƒÒ   Àá¡ƒÓ   Àá¢ƒÓ   Àá£ƒÓ   Àá¤ƒÓ   Àá¥ƒÓ   Àá¦ƒÓ   Àá§ƒÓ   Àá¨ƒÓ   Àá©ƒÓ   ÀáªƒÓ   Àá«ƒÓ   Àá¬ƒÓ   Àá­ƒÓ   Àá®ƒÓ   Àá¯ƒÓ   Àá°ƒÓ   Àá±ƒÓ   Àá²ƒÓ   Àá³ƒÓ   Àá´ƒÓ   ÀáµƒÓ   Àá¶ƒÓ   Àá·ƒÓ   Àá¸ƒÓ   Àá¹ƒÓ   ÀáºƒÓ   Àá»ƒÓ   Àá¼ƒÓ   Àá½ƒÓ   Àá¾ƒÓ   Àá¿ƒÓ   ÀáÀƒÓ   ÀáÁƒÓ   ÀáÂƒÓ   ÀáÃƒÓ   ÀáÄƒÓ   ÀáÅƒÓ   ÀáÆƒÓ   ÀáÇƒÓ   ÀáÈƒÓ   ÀáÉƒÓ   ÀáÊƒÓ   ÀáËƒÓ   ÀáÌƒÓ   ÀáÍƒÓ   ÀáÎƒÓ   ÀáÏƒÓ   ÀáÐƒÓ   ÀáÑƒÓ   ÀáÒƒÓ   ÀáÓƒÓ   ÀáÔƒÓ   ÀáÕƒÓ   ÀáÖƒÓ   Àá×ƒÓ   ÀáØƒÓ   ÀáÙƒÓ   ÀáÚƒÓ   ÀáÛƒÔ   ÀáøƒÔ   ÀáùƒÔ   ÀáúƒÔ   ÀáûƒÔ   ÀáüƒÔ   ÀáýƒÔ   ÀáþƒÔ   ÀáÿƒÔ   Àâ ƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   Àâ	ƒÔ   Àâ
ƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   Àâ ƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   ÀâƒÔ   Àâ ƒÔ   Àâ!ƒÔ   Àâ"ƒÔ   Àâ#ƒÔ   Àâ$ƒÔ   Àâ%              òƒÔ   Àâ'ƒÔ   Àâ(ƒÔ   Àâ)ƒÔ   Àâ*ƒÔ   Àâ+ƒÔ   Àâ,ƒÔ   Àâ-ƒÔ   Àâ.ƒÔ   Àâ/ƒÔ   Àâ0ƒÔ   Àâ1ƒÔ   Àâ2ƒÔ   Àâ3ƒÔ   Àâ4ƒÔ   Àâ5ƒÔ   Àâ6ƒÔ   Àâ7ƒÔ   Àâ8ƒÔ   Àâ9ƒÔ   Àâ:ƒÔ   Àâ;ƒÔ   Àâ<ƒÔ   Àâ=ƒÔ   Àâ>ƒÔ   Àâ?ƒÔ   Àâ@ƒÔ   ÀâAƒÔ   ÀâBƒÔ   ÀâCƒÕ   ÀáÜƒÕ   ÀáÝƒÕ   ÀáÞƒÕ   ÀáßƒÕ   ÀáàƒÕ   ÀááƒÕ   ÀáâƒÕ   ÀáãƒÕ   ÀáäƒÕ   ÀáåƒÕ   ÀáæƒÕ   ÀáçƒÕ   ÀáèƒÕ   ÀáéƒÕ   ÀáêƒÕ   ÀáëƒÕ   ÀáìƒÕ   ÀáíƒÕ   ÀáîƒÕ   ÀáïƒÕ   ÀáðƒÕ   ÀáñƒÕ   ÀáòƒÕ   ÀáóƒÕ   ÀáôƒÕ   ÀáõƒÕ   ÀáöƒÕ   Àá÷ƒÕ   ÀâDƒÕ   ÀâEƒÕ   ÀâFƒÕ   ÀâGƒÖ   ÀâHƒÖ   ÀâIƒÖ   ÀâJƒÖ   ÀâKƒÖ   ÀâLƒÖ   ÀâMƒÖ   ÀâNƒÖ   ÀâOƒÖ   ÀâPƒÖ   ÀâQƒÖ   ÀâRƒÖ   ÀâSƒÖ   ÀâTƒÖ   ÀâUƒÖ   ÀâVƒÖ   ÀâWƒÖ   ÀâXƒÖ   ÀâYƒÖ   ÀâZƒÖ   Àâ[ƒÖ   Àâ\ƒÖ   Àâ]ƒÖ   Àâ^ƒÖ   Àâ_ƒÖ   Àâ`ƒÖ   ÀâaƒÖ   ÀâbƒÖ   ÀâcƒÖ   ÀâdƒÖ


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 21, 2010)

alphabetgreen, can I ask you what is your musical background?


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 21, 2010)

I thought the piece was just fine until the oboe tune. At that point there just simply isn't enough contrast with the earlier section(s) particularly in tempo. If it had slowed down or even sped up considerably there you would have felt more sense of change. Instead you feel it's the same basic thing with very slight change.

Don't be discouraged! You are working in long forms which are quite different in nature from song or film cue forms. If you outline your form first (perhaps modeled on a standard Classical piece from one of the giants) then you will give the listener the psychological contrasts they are anticipating. Of course defeating those expectations is a formal device as well but I would practice more conventional form use before venturing away from that.

I liked the harmonic movement at the beginning and the clarity of it. If you execute each section that well you will be in very good shape. I just think you need more contrast between sections.

EDIT: I think you need more tempo variation _within_ your musical phrases. Try having the first half of phrases faster than the second half (or whatever your intentions are which may be the opposite of that.) You certainly have the talent to make very good music.

Whoever said you were sort of mixing musical eras is correct so I would aim for more constancy harmonically.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jan 21, 2010)

Newport @ Wed 20 Jan said:


> I like this piece. There is some good music on this board, but sometimes it makes a change to have something different from a lot of the crash/bang/wallop school of classical music (not that there is anything wrong with that style of course - I'm just saying it makes a change!) I use sample libraries myself, and they ain't going to sound like a real orchestra whatever you do to them. After all it's the music that counts at the end of the day. Upgrading your libraries will improve the sound quality, but it's easy to descend into a spiral of upgrades. If your writing is good enough, let that do the talking and not just the sound quality.



Thank Newport. I'm glad you enjoyed it


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jan 21, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Thu 21 Jan said:


> alphabetgreen, can I ask you what is your musical background?



Sure. I studied Music and Music Technology A'levels at Nelson College, Lancashire, where I was lucky enough to receive 1 to 1 composition tutelage from Arthur Butterworth MBE. I tend to hold him up on a pedestal because I learnt so much from him.

From there, I went to complete a 3-year Music degree, majoring in composition at Queens University Belfast, leaving with a 2.2 (with honours)

Since then, I've been composing avidly.


----------



## Newport (Jan 22, 2010)

Thanks for the response. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who writes the occasional "meandering" piece. As much as I try to stick to some structure or form, I do tend to go meandering off on a tangent. Form is great, but there's also space for free form as well I think! Keep up the good work!


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jan 22, 2010)

rayinstirling @ Mon 18 Jan said:


> Who is this Mr. X character, I'd like to give him a slap, for mixing :lol: with the wrong people (person).



Hmm... me too, for different reasons of course. Namely for not being able to fight his own battles


----------



## careyford (Jan 22, 2010)

To your earlier question, I download rather than play so I can listen on my workstation rather than my laptop. Also, with a longer piece download gives more flexibility for when I listen. I don't have to keep the window open or start and stop the piece.

As for the piece/composition, I haven't made time to listen to it yet.

Best,
Richard


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jan 22, 2010)

careyford @ Fri 22 Jan said:


> To your earlier question, I download rather than play so I can listen on my workstation rather than my laptop. Also, with a longer piece download gives more flexibility for when I listen. I don't have to keep the window open or start and stop the piece.
> 
> As for the piece/composition, I haven't made time to listen to it yet.
> 
> ...



Thank you Richard. That is a perfectly plausible explanation, and it's nice to know that you intend to listen to it without distraction. 

Furthermore, I hope you enjoy it. Although, judging by your collection of software, I can only hope that you will manage to divorce yourself from the less than mediocre production and concentrate on its compositional merits only.

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jan 22, 2010)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Thu 21 Jan said:


> Regardless of what anyone has to say in this thread, I bet you money if the library itself was top notch, and the sequence used all available features of that library, the tone of this thread would be different.
> 
> it's nice writing, I like it. I agree with some cases it being way long and disjointed. But the main complaint is the samples. The strings are completely lifeless, and that's what you chose to focus on (the winds aren't bad)



Thanks Nathan. I agree that the strings are lifeless. This was mentioned above by way of lack of expression. I did actually draw expression envelopes in all of the instrumentation (not percussion obviously), but many ears are better than just my two, so I will be looking at ways of improving the string sound. I actually have some EWQLSO strings and a PLAY interface. Once I've tackled how to use it, I will be posting up a new version.

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## rayinstirling (Jan 22, 2010)

alphabetgreen @ Fri Jan 22 said:


> rayinstirling @ Mon 18 Jan said:
> 
> 
> > Who is this Mr. X character, I'd like to give him a slap, for mixing :lol: with the wrong people (person).
> ...



Simon,

Let's draw a line under this right now.

We don't get on now, I tried to befriend you but that's history, and I realize you are quite unwell so I'm certainly not wanting to be held responsible for making you more ill but, I fear whether I'm around or not you are getting yourself into a state by just being involved in forums. Easy for me to say as I can go anywhere and do anything away from the room I'm in but you may not have that pleasure.

No more wise cracks from me and I hope you get well soon.

Sincerely

Ray


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jan 22, 2010)

rayinstirling @ Fri 22 Jan said:


> alphabetgreen @ Fri Jan 22 said:
> 
> 
> > rayinstirling @ Mon 18 Jan said:
> ...



Ray,

That's actually a nice thing to say and I'm pleased that I can see the human being in you again. I've always been willing to make the peace, but haven't been pro-active in that area for fear that I might be talking to a brick wall. If it is because I refused to apologise publicly for the two words that I used to describe one of your mixes in a public forum, then I am perfectly willing to retract that decision. Therefore, I am truly sorry.

Anyway, this discussion is not appropriate for public viewing so I'll be writing to you privately in due course.

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jan 22, 2010)

Newport @ Fri 22 Jan said:


> Thanks for the response. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who writes the occasional "meandering" piece. As much as I try to stick to some structure or form, I do tend to go meandering off on a tangent. Form is great, but there's also space for free form as well I think! Keep up the good work!



Form is a weird concept nowadays. Let's take 'sonata form' for example. In the early classical period, it was straightforward. It was a form that had been developed from 'binary form' (which is strange in itself because anybody would have thought that it was more of an evolution from 'ternary form' i.e. A-B-A).

Sonata form is, as everybody knows, split into 3 parts.

a. Exposition
b. Development
c. Recapitulation

Now, in the early 1700s, the composer would 'expose' the first subject in the key of the symphony, play around with it, re-orchestrate it, and then 'expose' the second subject in the dominant key of the symphony and do the same. In the 'development', the composer would then play around with both subjects, intermingle them, develop them motivically by splitting them up, adding new notes, taking notes away etc..... all in a vast series of different keys (when I was a young boy, I always loved symphonies, and it was usually the first movement of each because of the development section, although I never actually knew the particular reason as a kid) making the music move forward in a very exciting way until it would suddenly stop, and the 'recapitulation' would begin. The 'recapitulation' would sound just like the exposition, except the second subject would remain in the tonic key instead of moving up to the dominant.

Now then. That was in the 1700s. As the 1800s was approaching, composers started adding certain elements to this form to suit their own style of composition. The main culprit for this, as everybody knows, was Beethoven. Instead of 3 parts to a movement in sonata form, there would now be five or even more. Namely:

Introduction
Exposition
Development
Recapitulation
Coda

...thus making the form more flexible. However, the more flexible the form became, the less recognisable was its structure, until the 20th century when Shostakovich wrote his 5th symphony. The first movement of this symphony is, as the composer dictates, in sonata form. Yet this movement introduces 4 very important motifs almost immediately, one of which continues throughout the symphony. Also, the only reason I know where the development starts (when the piano comes in) is because I put my hand up in class and asked the teacher. Otherwise, I would never have been able to work it out without intensive study.

So, as you can see, the concept of form nowadays is very vague, but no less important. The music that I put up in this thread is a modified form of 'slow movement ternary form'. 'Slow movement ternary form' is where the composer writes a slow solemn interlude that maybe repeated with different orchestration or even developed motivically to some extent. The second part would then be in the opposite mode of which the first section was. What is meant by that is if the movement starts in a minor key, the middle section would usually be in a major key, and then followed by a version of the original section. A good example here would be the second movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony, where he starts with a series of block chords in a minor key, and gradually develops them climatically, adding a sublime melody to accompany the block chords. Suddenly from nowhere, he completely changes the mood of the movement by introducing a major melody and accompaniment that's a bit more 'upbeat', before returning to the solemn (yet beautiful) nature of the opening chords.

However, I'm really pushing it here because I introduce a series of block chords on the strings, followed by a repetition on the brass. This series of chords isn't recapitulated until the end of the movement (although they do reappear in the finale of the symphony as previously mentioned). The music in between, although different does relate either to the series of chords mentioned above OR to material from the rest of the symphony (it is a cyclic symphony). The oboe melody for example (that is repeated on the bassoons) is prevalent in all movements (apart from the scherzo). The climatic arpeggios in the strings also appear in the finale (except at a much faster tempo and with a 'big bang' at the end, which is lacking in the second movement).

This is the reason that I have displayed whole movements in these threads. If I could get away with it, I would throw up the whole symphony for discussion. But sadly, there are very few people that will sit and listen to a whole 30 or 40 minute work by an unknown composer. I'm not complaining here, because I myself would only do so under exceptional circumstances. However, in order for the listener to seek out any _'organic structure'_ as Re-peat says, one would have to listen to the music at least twice, and with the poor quality of the production, that may well be asking too much. What's more, if one was to listen to the whole symphony at least twice, I am confident that they would 'get' it, as Arthur Butterworth did. When he first contacted me after receiving it for the first time, he informed me that he had only heard the first three movements. When I asked him how he liked it, he was a bit non-commital and said it was OK. I called him two days later (about something else), and he immediately interrupted me to exclaim how he liked the symphony, so hopefully, if anyone out there does have the patience to listen to the whole work without distraction, and then play it again a couple of days later, they may feel the same. However, it's a bit of a long shot to expect anyone to do that.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jan 22, 2010)

_However, just in case:_

First Movement

http://www.box.net/shared/3blp9yzp1k

Second Movement

http://www.box.net/shared/h5qdm09lxt

Third Movement

http://www.box.net/shared/xyyogvbghx

Fourth Movement

http://www.box.net/shared/644701yddn

_....as Chris Rock would say.. "Ya never know!"_


----------



## re-peat (Jan 23, 2010)

I didn’t mean ‘form’ in its scholarly sense, Simon. I meant something else. There’s much more to ‘form’ than just providing a structural outline for a piece. ‘Form’ (or better: ‘organic form’) is, what I would describe as an arc of tension and release, or of contrast and balance, which hangs over the entire piece like a large, invisible legato-marking. It's that elusive thing which gives great music its sense of _direction_ and _inevitability_ (and these are, in my view anyway, the two key-words where 'form' is concerned). It’s got little to do with adhering to an established framework (such as the sonata form or whatever) nor does it have anything to do with sprinkling your work with a few cyclic relationships so as to be able to defend yourself when some annoying person comes along to say that your work lacks form and direction.
A huge amount of pretty bad music has been written which has perfect academic form. (The sonata form doesn’t turn mediocre music into great music, does it?). And there’s also countless pieces which lack any such recognizeable form, but which nonetheless have a perfect balance, motion and direction. 

There is no such thing as 'free form' in music, I believe. Doesn't exist. Contradictio in terminis, as they say. The moment you fill a certain timeslot with sounds and/or noises, the moment you've established a beginning and ending, you have to deal with (and consider) 'form' and, as a result, do a certain amount of musical organization.

'Organic form', to me, has everything to do with musical instinct and intuition, and not so much with ‘learned-ness’ (although a healthy amount of the latter will, obviously, give the former much more possibilities to blossom without any inhibitions.)

_


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 23, 2010)

alphabetgreen, I would take re-peats advice, I think he's giving a good honest opinion.
Others opinion here also are excellent. From what I'm seeing on this thread, you should of gone back to work on your piece a long time ago rather than still trying to make theoretical sense of your piece. You already got some encouraging words, but you're just going to have to sweat a lot more to improve your craft, as all good musicians have done. I definitely agree with the idea of writing a short simple piece for now. Sometimes the pill is hard to swallow but better take it now and you won't regret it later on. Talent is 2% and sweat is 98%. Go sweat more and come back with a shorter piece. How about a prelude, ABA form? Try a simple structure like that: Kinderszenen A short piece is much easier to pin point and correct the problems, and I'd love to hear it. :D


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jan 23, 2010)

When you say a shorter piece, are you also suggesting using smaller forces as well as a reduction in time? I'm happy to do that.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 23, 2010)

alphabetgreen @ Sat Jan 23 said:


> When you say a shorter piece, are you also suggesting using smaller forces as well as a reduction in time? I'm happy to do that.



What do you mean, reduction in time?


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jan 23, 2010)

I mean a reduction in duration. For example, instead of a ten minute piece, a three minute piece.

Basically, what I'm agreeing to is to go back to the drawing board, lose a little of the ambition that I had and write a shorter, less involved piece of music. Instead of a symphonic movement (by that, I mean any sort of element of a multi-movement work, be it a symphony, concerto, string quartet etc), I write, as you say, a shorter piece with less forces (just a piano, or piano and violin). a simpler framework (something like, as you suggest, A-B-A , a simple rondo or anything that doesn't demand as much motivic or harmonic development as the more complex forms such as sonata form or sonata-rondo form.

This is what I interpret from you and Re-peat as a suggestion, and I'm happy to do it, I'll get to work immediately and I look forward to the feedback.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 23, 2010)

alphabetgreen @ Sat Jan 23 said:


> I mean a reduction in duration. For example, instead of a ten minute piece, a three minute piece.



That's what a prelude is, a short piece in duration. Chopin has preludes that are 30s.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jan 23, 2010)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Thu 21 Jan said:


> Regardless of what anyone has to say in this thread, I bet you money if the library itself was top notch, and the sequence used all available features of that library, the tone of this thread would be different.
> 
> it's nice writing, I like it. I agree with some cases it being way long and disjointed. But the main complaint is the samples. The strings are completely lifeless, and that's what you chose to focus on (the winds aren't bad)



Thanks Nathan. Not just for your positive appraisal, but the fact that you displayed it. I agree that the strings do sound lifeless and I'm at present, trying to rectify it. I will post the result in this thread.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 23, 2010)

I listened to it again. It seems as if you are almost wanting to do a some sort of variation form at first. You run that very nice chord sequence by about four times. After that you get completely new material with the oboe tune. You could easily take that chord sequence and use is as the basis of variation in the way Elgar did with his Enigma Variations. This would allow you to do a series of short pieces based upon your opening material. Elgar would be an excellent model because he really shows a wide range of treatment of a very basic set of harmonies and melody.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jan 24, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sun 24 Jan said:


> Who are these successful composers you are talking about?



I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.


----------

