• Very nice! I listened to it once, probably need to listen to it one or two more times to get a better idea of its structure. My first impressions, though, indicate that you have a lot of nice things going on in there...

    ... but -- and I don't know if this was supposed to be intentional -- the instrument patches you're using are too ... how should I describe it? They sound like their attack is too weak, or reverb is too high, or something, and it's making the music sound rather unclear and muddy. I feel like they are spoiling the fine music underneath. They also make it hard to hear the themes clearly.  Is there a way you can tune the instrument patches so that the notes are clearer?

    Also, do you have a score to go with it? Perhaps that might alleviate the unclear instrument patch sounds somewhat, by making it easier to follow the music.

  • Great piece, Tim, 

    One listen here, as well.  I love the way it moves about harmonically, rhythmically, with some really nice orchestration..  Is that a pipe organ I hear in there? or a harmonium?  If it is, I like it.  But I think it isn't.  I agree with HS about the muddiness hiding the quality and clarity of texture.  Quick fix: throw a parametric eq on your master channel, boost your mids all the way, sweep across (especially around and below 1K) and identify the nastiest frequency range, then cut it to taste: check out "reduction equalization."    Everything will clarify when all that's gone, and yes, maybe too much reverb. Really nice piece of music though that needs some sunlight, to make it sparkle.


  • nice work bro. very rythmical and harmonium. What software did You use to compose this track??

  • Thank you for the valuable comments. I use Finale 2014 with the Garritan voices. I've just finished cleaning up the score and am posting it, and I'm meeting with a friend tomorrow who is very good at mixing. I'm afraid I'm not terribly knowledgeable on such things. I really appreciate the comments and kind words.

  • Hey! I think I'd kinda just echo the critiques these others gave. I do want to say though that I really enjoyed the transition at about 2:30. Also that I like the softness the instruments have throughout the piece, but wish that at that moment they could get a little bit more in your face.

  • Thanks for the comments! Bob, I agree with your comments 100%! I usually use longer melodies and develop them extensively (sometimes too much). This was something completely different than anything I've tried before. I wrote it without a roadmap of where I wanted it to go and just let it take me there. It's called fractures because it mirrors where my head was after my divorce a few years ago. What I was aiming for was, disjointed feelings, moods and emotions that eventually resolved into the recap "push" of the melodic fragment near the end before kind of dissolving into self doubt again. Like I said when I first posted it, I'm not certain I like it very much, but I think it is a fairly accurate interpretation of where my head was following my divorce. Is it good music? I don't know, but it was certainly therapeutic! Lol
  • Hi Tim, 

    I read Bob's comment, and realized that I felt similarly about my perception of possibly fragmented melodic ideas, but said nothing.  Your explanation about where your head was at after your divorce, really casts some nice light on that as a potential issue - now no longer an issue, in my mind.  I can relate to that plight, and after another listening, it all comes together.  I really like this piece even more now, after reading your post.  Thanks for clarifying, and thanks Bob for bringing that question up.

    I get so much from hearing about the intention behind a piece.   In this case it really completed it for me, and yes, to my ears it's "good music."  Thanks again, Tim.

This reply was deleted.