Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

Can someone look at these six bars of music and examine the chord structure: What is going on here?

What is happening in these six bars of music?

Can someone tell me what seems ordinary or commonplace here, and what seems extraordinary or unusual?

I did not write this.

I don't want to reveal the source, until after people have had time to look at this and offer their opinions about what is going on in this chord sequence.

Thanks to all those who offer their opinions.

Views: 321

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well, when I put the music into photoscorelite I got a warning that some of the music was technically incorrect/weird. I got a warning that this would not play well in sibelius but I put it into sibelius anyway. It plays in sibelius.

I wish that I knew more about chords. I will keep it as an exercise for the future.

To me it looks like 17 pages or 454 bars of bullshit.

A

Bars 1-6 chords: F, Dm6, Dm6/7/9 (clusterish), Dm, Cluster on C, C9, Csus, Dmsus,7/9, F6 (or Dm7), Csus/maj7, Dm9,  and I stop here (bar 4) cause I'm bored. Chords are presented in cluster or dissonant forms without logical coherence or perceivable plan and dissonances are unresolved.

 

B

bars 59-61: Looks like the unquantized result of an uploaded midi file or someone's unquantized playing on a midi instrument. Pretty pathetic.

 

C

bars 92-94: more unquantized/rhythmically incoherent stuff.

 

D

bars 132-134: Innocent (but equally out of place) G minor chords in 1st inversion.

 

E

bars 184-189: more unquantized linear stuff

 

F

bars 296-302: more dissonant chordal stuff as above-nothing new (I suppose the recapitulation starts here :-) )

 

G

bars 452-454: unquatized linear haphazardous notes

 

The rest of the "piece" in bars not referred to is totally silent.

 

Conclusion

The type of material that any one could copy from a track of a bullshit piece of music in sound form and turn into notation and then paste into another bullshit piece of music as a separate track.

I say, Ondib, you do know how to waste one's time, don’t you?

I would have gone fishing but it's cold outside.

Socrates.  Bingo! for part "A" bars 1-6. 

I think ms. 59 and 60  offer the most interest… 

Though, the necessaryness  of the 128th rest in m. 61  (in the context of this composition) is hilarious… 

I haven't a clue what you all are talking about in this thread, but for some reason, andrew, I chuckled reading your post. Thanks.

And yes, an exercise for the future.  I love that expression.  I have gigabytes worth of exercises that will take me through the 26th Century.

andrew thornton said:

Well, when I put the music into photoscorelite I got a warning that some of the music was technically incorrect/weird. I got a warning that this would not play well in sibelius but I put it into sibelius anyway. It plays in sibelius.

I wish that I knew more about chords. I will keep it as an exercise for the future.

ps…In the first 6 bars,  I could see the chords,  if struck asynchronously, could sound a bit like wind chimes… The chord which holds the dramatic tension in relation to the others is the one which falls on the second beat of the 5th measure.  

I hear the first 3 measures as a pretty strong plagal (pre-dominant to tonic) resolution to C major, dressed up with a bunch of diatonic colour tones. These kinds of progressions (with more linear voice-leading) have become fairly standard in some of the choral music of the last 20 years (e.g. Eric Whitacre, Morton Lauridsen, and their many imitators).

The next 3 measures I'm not so sure about, but I guess they're "unusual" in that, although they're mostly diatonic, they don't follow any clear progression of tension/resolution. Kind of like when my 2-year-old nephew fools around on the piano but only plays the white keys. It's kind of hard to guess at their "logic" in the absense of any more context.

O. O, I'm curious about the source--and your reasons for asking about it!  

 

I want to thank Andrew, Socrates, Gregorio, Mariza, and Bob Porter, and Nicholas for all their comments.  Fascinating responses. 

 

Gregorio, said,

 

"In the first 6 bars,  I could see the chords,  if struck asynchronously, could sound a bit like wind chimes… The chord which holds the dramatic tension in relation to the others is the one which falls on the second beat of the 5th measure."

 

Yes, this is an observation that makes a great deal of sense to me.

 

But this contrasts sharply with Socrates' comment:

 

"Bars 1-6 chords: F, Dm6, Dm6/7/9 (clusterish), Dm, Cluster on C, C9, Csus, Dmsus,7/9, F6 (or Dm7), Csus/maj7, Dm9,  and I stop here (bar 4) cause I'm bored. Chords are presented in cluster or dissonant forms without logical coherence or perceivable plan and dissonances are unresolved."

 

Maybe it looks that way, or it "should" sound that way.  But it doesn't.  (I am going to post an MP3, so you can hear it, soon—for those who didn't try to play it on the piano, or play it through a program).

 

Socrates said,

 

"I say, Ondib, you do know how to waste one's time, don’t you?"

 

Well, I apologize if that's how you feel.  But when you hear it, the first six bars, you might feel differently.

 

I think what Kelly wrote was very, very much to the point, and helpful:

 

Nicholas Kelly 9 hours ago:

 

"I hear the first 3 measures as a pretty strong plagal (pre-dominant to tonic) resolution to C major, dressed up with a bunch of diatonic colour tones. These kinds of progressions (with more linear voice-leading) have become fairly standard in some of the choral music of the last 20 years (e.g. Eric Whitacre, Morton Lauridsen, and their many imitators).

 

"The next 3 measures I'm not so sure about, but I guess they're "unusual" in that, although they're mostly diatonic, they don't follow any clear progression of tension/resolution. Kind of like when my 2-year-old nephew fools around on the piano but only plays the white keys. It's kind of hard to guess at their "logic" in the absense of any more context.

 

"O. O, I'm curious about the source--and your reasons for asking about it!  

 

I will definitely tell you the source, which may surprise those of you who have never heard this ever before.  And it's interesting to me that you find bars 4-6 to be more be more irrational than 1-3, and although they may appear that way, I am not sure they are.  It does sound like there is a resolution, that is almost "traditional," in a way.  {I'm really only talking about bars 1-6, like I said in the intro to the thread}.

 

Bob Porter said,

 

"Odd. I also put this into photoscore lite and had no problems. Sibelius analyzed and played it just fine. I confess, I let technology do my work for me. So shoot me.

 

"Seems to be in Dm. Without context it's not possible to say more, I believe. And I suspect that these are not the original note values."

 

Yes, Bob.  "Odd," you say.  Odd, presumably because it just looks strange, or disorganized, as Socrates said?  Odd, because it is really "plays" fine.  Hopefully, no one will "shoot you."  It should play fine.  But, on the other hand, one might be surprised that it does.

 

Let me put up the MP3 I have, so people can hear what it sounded like when I input this into Garageband, about 5 years ago, to be played by piano. 

 

Thanks to all.

 

I will put up the MP3 soon, and then reveal the source a bit later.

 

 

 

THE SIX BARS OF MUSIC:  

LINK BELOW.

Attachments:

Oh, I like that!

Thanks Ondib. It is beautifully driving forward. Is there more of it?

Actually, that's all there is.  You will see why, soon.

It has to do with the source, which grudgingly (perhaps) only provided that little bit.

Socrates Arvanitakis said:

Oh, I like that!

Thanks Ondib. It is beautifully driving forward. Is there more of it?

It's not stated on the score, but it has to be played at 240 bpm

to give it that driving force.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sign up info

Read before you sign up to find out what the requirements are!

Store

© 2020   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service