Slow, Slow, Fresh Fount for soprano and flute choir

10805405265?profile=RESIZE_710x

Audio file with score display at MuseScore Slow, Slow, Fresh Fount for soprano and flute choir

Comments welcome.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Image: detail from John William Waterhouse - Echo and Narcissus

 

 

 

 

You need to be a member of Composers' Forum to add comments!

Join Composers' Forum

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Hi Jon,

    I liked the tune... Serene...

    I enjoyed the 'drop drop drop' section.  Placed skilfully.

    Maybe you could have used similar techniques for the rest of the piece also.

    4 voice all the way through is quiet the same thing...  Maybe just two voice or even one

    as variations... And keep it changing maybe...

    Thanks for sharing.

    Al

  • Jon, as you seem to post almost entirely little works for voices, you really should invest in a choir which can sing them like one of the EWQL ones. or at the very least something which provides better quality than these very basic vowels. It's pretty hard to enjoy what at times can be quite charming music at this level of reproduction.

  • Hi Jon,

    I enjoyed the music itself.  The production, as David Owen alluded to, could benefit from some improvements.

    To offer an analogy:  when selling a home, we stage it to look its best because we want to derive the maximum possible interest/sale price.  A real estate agent once told me when listing my house, to "turn the music room back in to a dining room, because potential buyers will not be able to imagine the room as an eating/congregating space with a piano in the middle of it."  

    As musicians, and especially classical and/or "score" composers (those that actually write music with notation first, rather than directly in a daw), we tell ourselves that our interest is in composing, and that any reasonably skilled musician will be able to hear beyond the midi and imagine a live performance.  This is true...to an extent.  A professional conductor once told me that he "almost passed" on my piece simply because the midi rendition was not terribly exciting.  This was in the first year of my work with virtual instruments.  He further suggested that, in today's environment, to even have a chance to get noticed, one must go above and beyond to excite a performer's interest, with a virtual rendition that blows them away.  

    So, the question is, what is your "why?"  If you write for your own pleasure and are satisfied with the results of your midi renderings, that's great!  If your goal is to treat strangers on the internet to a beautiful listening experience, as we all do on forums such as this, then consider that nobody is attached to your music upon first listen, like you are when you are writing it.  Finally, if your goal is to shop the music to potential performers, I would suggest, regardless of their ability to read a score and imagine what the music could sound like, they too, would like to be inspired to perform it.  Putting some consideration in to the production by using the best available tools, will help.

    My own personal why (not that you asked!), in terms of the amount of effort I put in to virtual performances is, so that, absent any performance with "real" musicians, I will still remain satisfied that I've given my music the best possible chance to make an emotional impact, first with myself, and then, with those few that may also enjoy it.

    Wishing you continued success with your beautiful songs,

    Dave

  • Thanks for the comments, which I'll keep in mind.

    I understand the argument for using a better DAW, and I don't want to seem to be ungraciously rejecting criticism -- I make a point of welcoming it, even adverse criticism.  But I'm just not convinced by the argument for a better DAW in my case, because:

    • I've found that there are members of this and other forums who have been willing and able to make useful comments on my audio files, including those of songs using choral ahs.
    • I always warn in my posts that I'm posting a software generated file, and if it includes vocals, that the vocals are choral ahs, so anyone who doesn't like that can just pass over that post. (Incidentally, over the past year only about one third of my postings of my compositions here have been of compositions including vocals, though they have been more frequent of late.)
    • I suspect that any performer who would judge whether my work is worth performing on the basis of how fancy I've made the audio file is not someone I could form a successful artistic relationship with anyway.
    • In fact, all of the small but respectable number of performances my compositions have achieved have been as a result of submitting audio files like I currently make, including choral ahs, to calls for scores.  So it seems to work.
    • A more sophisticated DAW might give me the opportunity, or even impose the necessity, of effectively conveying my personal interpretation of the composition, which I don't want to do, because potential performers might take that seriously.  I don't want to tell a performer how to perform my composition, I want the performer to decide that.
    • If I ever get an online recording by actual humanoid entities of a composition which I've posted to a forum as a software generated audio file, I revise that post to link instead to the real performance, on which comments can still be made.
    • I can't resist the temptation to be a dinosaur out of step with almost everyone else in the modern world.
    • I personally hate virtual vocalists, except when they're used in novelty numbers for space alien voices ("It was a One-Eyed, One-Horned, Flying Purple People Eater...")

    I emphasize again that I hope forum members won't consider the above an expression of general unwillingness to accept criticism, it's just that on this particular point, I simply and fundamentally differ from what seems to be the universal currently received wisdom.

    • perfectly valid arguments in my book! I won't raise this matter again.

       

This reply was deleted.