My music experiment

[Ann Rodela]

I am a newly hatched composer and posting this short piece of music I made with Finale software.

Any thoughts? 

Experiment.mp3

[Bob Morabito]

HI Ann--

I'm all for experimenting and trying stuff, as some of our best work comes from that--those "happy little accidents" Copland wrote about-
but for me the original version worked much better.

Thanks..keep up the good work!

Bob Morabito

Ann Rodela said:

I am surprised that this post stirred so much passion. I do welcome all opinions. If I didn't want an opinion then I wouldn't post it.
So thank you all for your sincere replies. :)I did add Wah effect with audacity software (freeware) and you can hear it at this stage.


Andy Schofield said:

Hi Ann
Well you've certainly caused a furore on this thread.....lol
I listened to your piece with interest at first not sure what to think....... but it grew on me and I listened again. You do need to write what you want to write and I applaud you for that. I think it would benefit greatly from some post production reverb and a little EQ'ing which could give it more depth and fatten it. I disagree about the percussion (other poster) and think that with more percussion to bind it together and that reverb applied it would come together in a more rounded way. Keep at it.
Sizzler

[Ann Rodela]

Thanks, Bob. I think the first experiment is better too. :)

[Ann Rodela]

Thanks Zach. This is good advice. :)

[Jack Pickett]

Yeah - s'alwight.

Keep it coming. :)

[Simon Godden]

Personally Anne, I believe this piece shows a certain amount of courage and imagination. But the piece really lacks discipline. Using strange timbres and tone colours is fine, but you must understand that each one needs to have a role to play. Randomisation, whilst acceptable in an aleatoric or indeterminate sense, often displays elements of carelessness and a desire to convince listeners that they must either "like it or lump it". I don't mean this in any nasty way, believe me.

What I would really love to hear from you, is either:

a. A short piece (about 20 or so measures/bars) using four simultaneous voices (either choral or strings preferably for there homogenuity) using traditional triads and cadences. OR

b. A piece of a similar length to the above, using a tone row (a formation of notes whereby each of the chromatic notes in the scale is used only once) in its original form, inverted, in retrograde, and both. Also in four homogeneous voices.

If you could manage to bring that off (and I don't see any reason why you can't), I could listen to your subsequent "experiments" with a more discerning ear.

Of course, this is only my advice. You're quite welcome to ignore it.

Good luck in whatever you choose to do, and keep up the good work.

Cheers,

Simon

[Simon Godden]

Kris. Surely you mean "irrelevant at best and misleading at worst".


Kristofer Emerig said:

The question here is; Lack of discipline, or lack of desire to work within formal methods?

Simon,
In almost all hypothetical cases, I think you offer good good advice here, but I felt compelled to mention one possible exception. The one glaring omission that I repeatedly see in analyses of others' work is the failure to consider the composer's intent, or at least taking an educated guess at such. Commentary which does not recognize the composer's intent might be misleading at best and irrelevant at worst.

This here is a pertinent concrete example. If Ann's compositional approach here is essentially impressionistic, filling a space of time with aural experiences she prefers to express (a "sound painting", if you will), your feedback might be wasted. And yet, I deem it a good prescription if her intent is to convey organized ideas via sectional or organic forms.

Initially, it is essential to assess what it is one wants to achieve in their writing. In Ann's case, if it is the latter, then I think you've offered a good prescription here; If not, you're right back to "like it or lump it".

Simon Godden said:

Personally Anne, I believe this piece shows a certain amount of courage and imagination. But the piece really lacks discipline. Using strange timbres and tone colours is fine, but you must understand that each one needs to have a role to play. Randomisation, whilst acceptable in an aleatoric or indeterminate sense, often displays elements of carelessness and a desire to convince listeners that they must either "like it or lump it". I don't mean this in any nasty way, believe me.

What I would really love to hear from you, is either:

a. A short piece (about 20 or so measures/bars) using four simultaneous voices (either choral or strings preferably for there homogenuity) using traditional triads and cadences. OR

b. A piece of a similar length to the above, using a tone row (a formation of notes whereby each of the chromatic notes in the scale is used only once) in its original form, inverted, in retrograde, and both. Also in four homogeneous voices.

If you could manage to bring that off (and I don't see any reason why you can't), I could listen to your subsequent "experiments" with a more discerning ear.

Of course, this is only my advice. You're quite welcome to ignore it.

Good luck in whatever you choose to do, and keep up the good work.

Cheers,

Simon

[Ann Rodela]

Thanks Simon this is good advise. Very good and helpful critique. I didn't expect the listener to like it or lump it.

[Ann Rodela]

Hello Kristopher. Nothing gets by you. I admit it I intended to lead the listener through an impression of a time and place in the bare desert with a faint breeze.

[Gavin Brown]

I enjoyed this little whimsical thing. I've used the coach whistle in Finale too!

[Ann Rodela]

I think Finale is fun software.  Thanks for listening. :)