Star Sword

Hi Louis, These 2 pieces both have the same inherent problem as the first one. They both lack any melodic, motific or rhythmic structure. I couldn't identify ANY clear patterns, or a sense of structure at all. I think you need to take a step back and focus on writing a solid, well structured melody. Just make it really simple.. use a piano sound and just have simple chords in the left hand and a melody in the right. You really need to get that part solid first, before you start thinking about any kind of orchestration. That said, these pieces are not horrible. They both sound pleasant. But they are just too random and not at all engaging. You need to present clear, well structured ideas. Try that piano exercise. Simple chords in the left hand and a melody in the right. And just make your primary goal, to create a simple, clearly presented, well structured melody. And go from there.

Here's an example. All the best!

 

What's with the "pattern" fetish ? His track (first one posted) was basically C minor meandering down.
Very "pattern" based.

I think from memory it went 8-7-6-5, 4-5-6-5, 3-4-5-4, 3, 2, 1. zzzz.

I do think there is a boring side to patterns. If you have heard them already, so many times, why would you want to continue listening to the piece ?

A very good book for this subject is Aristotle's "The Art of Rhetoric". Well worth the read.

I would hope that none of these comments are making the OP question if to continue studies with his teacher. I think his teacher gave very good advice. (mind you, I gave the same..... so obviously no bias on my part.

 

That is why I like you.

Very nice post Alexander. You have been taking the time throughout to write very detailed, and clear reply's. I have no doubt both Louis and the rest of the community are gaining a lot from it. Bravo ! (as we both know, I am sensitive to this and how much time it can take.)

Look, I won't hide my bias. Yes, I personally consider TSFH the "Kenny G" of music composition. Hey, that guy can play..... just hard to listen to.

I have no real qualms about the advice either Alexander or Phillip gave as to it's substance. My only concern ---not really the right word... I am not "concerned"..-- is wether it is too much, too soon. Sometimes people have to discover things for themselves.

We all go through a style craze in the beginning. When someone states - and it could be about any group
"TSFH are in a league of their own who make epic music that has substance, depth, character, and is just awesome." (My favorite part is the "is just awesome") it means they are love with this genre and style.

(Back in the day I learned to play every guitar solo from "Master of Puppets" because well, I felt the same way about Metallica until the black album)

There is a commandment in Hollywood that even bad press is good press.
No matter what any of us think of your piece, this thread now is the most commented on track in the history of this forum. Congrats ! Just like no matter what anyone thinks of the talent of all the tenets at Remote Control, they are IT right now. (TSFH being one of them)

This is a very popular style right now, and regardless of compositional defects would find a demand.
My point is that I have met brilliant composers who no one knows of, and I have met average composers who make a ton from high profile jobs. I have "ghosted" for composers, and I have friends who have ghosted for famous composers.

But Really I Am Not, Telling You Like Everyone Reading this forum would know him.

The one thing that famous composer does have is his finger on the "pulse". Yes, I roll my eyes anytime I hear a wordless choir mocking Orff, or a Bbbrrrammm or however it is spelled.

If you really were looking to say work on a film, getting corrected and brutal feedback is already baked in. That's probably why your teacher told you to get out there. When I worked as orchestrator on a large studio film, the composer sent the mock-up to the director, then the producer, who then sent it to the "studio" where who knows how many people gave advice, and then a list of corrections was demanded. Art by committee is fairly common, and with all the post-viewing audience survey's nowadays.....

The main point is if you are looking to further your career ..... don't wait until you have it all sorted. Get out there and get your butt handed to you and repeat.

If it is just wanting to learn more about the art of music composition (a wonderful thing !!!) chill out on the TSFH and check out some of the classics that surely would have inspired them. Grab the Planets or Firebird, or check out Close Encounters of the Third Kind, or Vertigo if you have never listened to them all the way through.

Anyhow...... all is well. Cheers my fellow composers.

 

You just said it! TSFH is catchy! That is a direct result of good structure and strong, clear patterns.

Your piano version of Star Sword is definitely an improvement. Keep on refining that melody. It's still lacking in focus and clarity. I'm still not sure EXACTLY what the entire main star sword theme is. Try to REALLY outline the melody in a very clean and focused way. And repeat and restate it at various points, so that it clearly confirms to the listener, without a doubt, that that's THE THING that your piece is about.

Also watch your rhythmic choices. There were a few rhythmic elements to your lines/melodies that were really random and quite jarring. It almost sounded like notes that were accidently quantized to the wrong note values. Or perhaps it was your intention. Either way, they felt strange and out of place.

But YES the piano version was definitely an improvement, just keep doing more of that and focus on really getting those melodic statements precise and clear, and then restate them, in order to confirm their significance.

And hey, don't be afraid to keep things simple.

All the best. I look forward to hearing your next update!

Phil

 

Actually, being a NYC composer, I can tell you some of those cats have a lot of talent. A lot. For example the lawyer representing Don Jr (not meant for political discussion) went to Juilliard and still plays in a community orchestra. There is something to be said for music study and abstract thinking. When I am on the subway passing through Fulton, or Wall St. I often get a finance guy come up to me and start talking about Steve Gadd or Bernstein etc. I've been hired by more than one retired Wall st. person for recording projects. They are smart...

I get the gist, and in spirit I agree and know what you mean. So would they.

Anyhow....

Do you live or work in a tall building ? If so .... yes big improvement ! If not..... no, none at all.

My poor sense of humor aside...

Since you are a classical fan, and you have used the word "development" a few times: let me ask you this.

In a classical sonata you have the exposition then followed by the "development" section. What is the principle driver of the "development" section ?

That is for sure one thing you need to work on.


I'll even post a sketch type transcription I did of one of Mike's pieces for some string sample library. What is he doing that you are not ?


Patterns and exact repetitions are two different things. Often the more you use it the more you lose it. That's why back in the day they had a 3x rule for exact repetitions, and why I suggested Aristotle. (Art of rhetoric was the 2nd book ever printed by the printing press...... so you know the classical cats had that book.)

Take this phrase: "I came, I saw, I conquered" Perfect.... even "Veni, vidi, vici" (the latin phrase) has the clear sense of three repetitions.

Any more and it begins to loose power. Read this sentence.

" I came, I saw, I conquered, I took a nap, I woke up, I called my Mom, I made a sandwich, I went for a walk, I farted, I wrote about pattern fetish"

The other thing, if you listen to Mikes piece or really any Beethoven work, about patterns is they are most interesting when you have two or more that compete or mix with each other. This is why classical sonata have two subjects (Tonic vs Dominant). Said in common plain talk: Have a B section that is as strong as your A. If you the permeation possibilities grow. If you are Stravinsky....... that's another topic for another day.

 

Ha !! I just chimed in no. Let's see if we can make him go crazy.

The one thing I do agree with you - Phillip - about is the odd rhythmic phrasing in spots. (Alexander should write about how he likes the rhythm)

 

MODULATION. He is changing key centers every 4 measures. The simpler the theme the more pushing through keys it needs.

Here is the midi piano version of the sheet

 

I'm not at all suggesting to keep repeating things absoloutely identically. That would almost be like a copy/paste approach.

Gradually introduced variations in the melody, harmony, rhythm and counterpoint are key to development. But repetition and consistency are equally important.

Take High C's as an example. That very first opening melody is clearly repeated a number of times throughout the piece.

Also this, by John Williams is a great example. Notice how clearly the melody is presented. And just how many times he restates the same melodies. Sure, no 2 times are identical, but he is nonetheless, repeating the same melodies. He keeps coming back to those same main ideas.

 

No one's saying you don't have a melody. You do.
I'm just saying that in my opinion (which is what you're asking for), your main idea should be clearer, more precisely defined and structured better. That's all. But if you're happy with it the way it is, I can totally respect that. It's your music after all. And there's essentially no right or wrong, I guess.

 

I never said you have "no melody". Please show me where and I'll correct it.

One of my main criticisms has been that you HAVE A MELODY....... then you repeat it 12-13 times.