Music Composers Unite!
I made this new piece just using glass sounds, I found a lot of possibilities like melodic potentialities and textures. I used exclusively crashing glass sounds in different tempos and combining different processes.
I hope you enjoy !
Hi Ray, thanks for your words.
I understand all this processes and manipulations of sound were made so many years ago. It's fantastic to think that in 2017 theres a lot of people continue enjoying this kind of sonic art. I'm not sure artistic value can be based exclusively in novelty. In this era, when almost all was already made... this is a very philosophic thing. Which are our values, now? What we consider valuable in this era, this conturbated XXI's century.
Most important for me now, is to be happy making different kinds of music.
I like the concept, however I think there is some unfortunate conflict with the aesthetic and the way it actually sounds. So the description had me really intrigued and I was expecting it to sound a certain way. Now it's pretty unfair I think when people say that music doesn't sound how they want it to but when you have a piece of music exploring the sound of broken glass you are kind of forcing me to expect something from it and hopefully get some new perspective.
The middle section and then more importantly around 3 minutes in I feel that the music reflect the title/concept and it's rather nice. However in the beginning it's very bassy and there is a lot of electronic modulation on it. This doesn't fit with the idea of glass breaking in a conventional sense, even if it is something that happens. When a lot of glass breaks its so loud that it sort of drowns out other sounds and makes this booming sound. As true as that is it's still not the first thing you think of so it might have been better to save that sonic landscape for later and focus on more traditional glass sounds first.
Furthermore and along the same lines I think that the electronic sounds are a little too heavy and distort the sound a bit to much and or sound electronic. When I think of glass I think of clean and clear, the sounds that you created are interesting but they don't really complement a glass theme.
Lastly it might have been nice to hear more variety with pitch and rhythm with tuned glasses and breaking sounds. Thats obviously not necessarily what you where going for so I don't want to shove my opinion on to you.
Overall I think it's interesting and something that you can explore in a hundred different ways. Thanks
Hi Alex, how you doing? Thanks for your comments.
Yes, you are very right at the point "This doesn't fit with the idea of glass breaking in a conventional sense".
My idea was to create a path with processed sounds of breaking glass, to show you almost at the final section
one not processed sample and more "pure" sounds.
Why I didn't began with pure sounds? Because for me is too obvious when you read the heavy suggestive title of the piece, then you hear glasses sounds in the very first measure... that's not interesting at all, IMO.
I remember an statement from Kubrick, saying something like "sometimes real is not interesting".
I really agree with that position. I was discovering another potentialities in that kind of sound that are beyond the REAL sound.
If we develop the capability to hear the composer's idea from the directions and choices he's showing for you, then we can talk about more interesting things. I feel people hears music WAITING something, expecting tittles matching sound in the more obvious way, thinking "I would have done in other way"... etc. Our efforts, when we are listening, must be comprehend the composer's formal thinking. And distinguish the elements he use for that, and feeling the path he creates to show you something.
If you do that, then we can talk about creative process, formal issues, ideas developing in time, harmony, etc. and not about "how I would have done". I'm sorry about the criticism of your lecture, I don't want to sound "harsh", but IMO, critics makes us grow up. Musicians have to learn to hear music, in deed.
Thanks for the reply, I don't take your comments as harsh at all, I'm glad you have good reasons for what you are doing.
I feel like subverting expectations is fine and I agree that we can create anything with music and it's not a chance for our ears to just relax in a comfy chair to paraphrase Ives. I still feel like the title of a piece is your chance as a composer to inform the listener and the title being sculpture in glass does set a certain precedent.
With your explanation the sound does have a changed effect; a broken glass is still a sculpture just in pieces
I feel like a took a journey through an environment - very animated and surreal.. and engulfing. Also, I could feel a definite architecture to the structure - and arranging of 'events'.. I enjoyed the experience.. Thanks for posting.
Thank you Gregorio!