I want to put your patience to the test by proposing not one, but two pieces
the first one (romanza) doesn't say much to me, I don't feel it is mine, while the second gives me great satisfaction and I hope to manage to complete the work with another 2 or 3 mov.
also, it seems interesting to me in terms of construction, because it is very based on simple but effective rhythmic canons.
in short, let me know what you think and feel free to criticize !!
ROMANZA PER VIOLINO E PIANO.mp3
SUITE DEI FRATELLI GRIMM - mov I - IL PRINCIPE RANOCCHIO.mp3
the first (romanza) doesn't say much to me, I don't feel it is mine, while the second gives me great satisfaction and I hope to manage to complete the work with another 2 or 3 mov.
From what I have heard of your previous works, from a quick first listen to these ... I feel the first is more yours than the second... perhaps you are starting to feel a bit too tight in what you were?
dear frank, it might be that you are right, let's say that I am starting to perceive pieces with a markedly "sweetish" vein (which, by the way, comes quite naturally to me) as somewhat superfluous, in the sense that either one writes a masterpiece with a great and immortal melody, or who is interested ??!!
i find it much more interesting and current to fuse the melodic/lyrical aspect with a more dissonant context or anyway less romanticized.
it might be because I have become an avid fan of Rautavara's symphony 7 and Kernis's "newly drawn sky"
I liked the one for orchestra very much, what libraries do you use? I like the other one too, but the overall impression is one of poor coherence because there are many rather different ideas, but it's possible that the rhapsodic element was intentional. I don't like the playback of the romance very much; you need to work more with the keyswitches on the solo violin and perhaps even the piano could have had a bit more body. Anyway, overall they seem like two excellent works, did you write them for a particular occasion or for pleasure/exercise?
In both I used your same libraries (platinum pro xp), but programmed much more haphazardly and without mastering ....
The piano is Steinberg "Holy Grail Grand Piano", nothing special and terrible in strong dynamics.
In the romance I mainly used the viola sound, because the violin seemed thin and unexpressive to me.
They are truly excellent libraries, but if one works with few instruments in a somewhat romantic piece, making them sound good is truly challenging; with an orchestra it is much simpler.
Regarding the notes on the romance, I wasn't looking for a rhapsodic character but a simple ABA, however the structure turned out rather redundant and furthermore filling the piano part may have induced me to throw in too many things...
dear frank, it might be that you are right, let's say that I am starting to perceive pieces with a markedly "sweetish" vein (which by the way comes quite naturally to me) as somewhat superfluous, in the sense that either one writes a masterpiece with a great and immortal melody, or who cares ??!!
i find it much more interesting and current to fuse the melodic/lyrical aspect with a more dissonant context or anyway less romanticized.
it might be because I have become an avid fan of Rautavara's symphony 7 and Kernis's "newly drawn sky"
I had missed this post, sorry
There are those who would pay to have a good melody come to mind and even if I share the point you make about melody towards a more dissonant context, the tendency today is probably quite the opposite.
Too much dissonance takes things too far back (...even too much melody for that). The composer's life is short, anyway I really like the taste of your way of expressing yourself even if it seems redundant to you. I share Geppino's opinion on the fact that there is too much meat and with the material spent you could probably write 3 pieces
As for the other piece, your ideas in the orchestration are often tasteful
And where did you get the harmonics on the instrument from...? This sample isn't in my library, maybe you used the harmonics of the 11 violins? Second thing: did you add all that reverb yourself?
Regarding the "unfortunately" in your PS, I don't quite agree, in the sense that if you knew what figure I "sold" my tracks for the ballet for, you would laugh in my face; I can't even pay back the electricity I spent keeping the PC on. I also take it as an opportunity to practice orchestration, not as a real commission....
I agree with Frank, your orchestrative ideas are very fluid, the one for orchestra is one of your best tracks so far (of those I have heard...).
And where did you get the harmonics on the instrument only...? In my library there isn't this sample, maybe you used the harmonics of the 11 violins? Second thing: but did you add all that reverb yourself?
yes, I had to do it this way, but it is serious that a library of that level does not provide harmonics at least for the violin!
i didn't add reverb, but I used the s mic placement, it's probably the one that uses it the most, in fact your ballet is "drier" in the sounds and definitely clearer in the definition of the passages (provided it isn't the result of your interventions).
Surround miking is only used in addition to the other two: in general, for chamber situations like this one, close miking is more suitable; for orchestral ones, full miking, or, PC permitting, all three together or full and close together; S alone is not good enough.
The beginning of the romance is promising (perhaps I'm wrong, tell me if I am, but is the reverb used for the solo violin a bit too much? They've already told you, haven't they?) especially the piano part while the "lyrical" part is entrusted to the violin, but I note with pleasure that you cannot resist using neck-breaking dissonances, even if at a certain point (at least for me, since I'm barely keeping my head straight these days) I get lost a little; and coming from me, who would make dissonance the anthem for Eurovision, that is "serious"—obviously, this consideration of mine is dictated solely by listening and not by an analysis of the score, which I did see a few days ago.
As a first impression (based on how I'm experiencing things right now), I would always start from the introduction, and from there develop the piece (which you have surely developed taking these elements into account and not just these) in a more compact way, but I also know that you could immediately refute what I am saying because in terms of harmony I am behind you (I'm serious) and I certainly get lost due to things I don't yet know.
The other piece is certainly very well done; either it is a specific moment, or you feel more at ease with orchestrations, which paradoxically turn out better for you despite the large number of instruments used. However, I would like to connect this to something Frank told me months and months ago regarding the fugue in that case: it is much more complex to write it for 2 voices instead of 3/4 etc...; here there could be a similar discussion: when dealing with 2 instruments instead of an ensemble of certain proportions, things become more difficult, but it could also simply be a greater naturalness towards ensembles with a considerable number of instruments, and also of inspiration.
