The American Frontier

Mmm......

Let me preface my comments by giving the obvious disclaimer that you are an advanced composer and so all the things you do well,
I'll assume you know, and I'll just get right into making myself feel better by belittling others.

The form feels off to me. It felt like a "middle" section and as if referencing earlier ideas. The reason for this is, I felt, due to the climax of your piece happening very early. :37 sounds like where you are "bringing it home".

You don't HAVE to conform to this but the "Golden Ratio" would be a more successful approach for your piece I feel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

Mozart used this all the time. A perfect example is the 2nd movement of the Jupiter symphony. The recap happens right at the golden ratio. Coincidence ?

I would experiment taking the material from 1:09 until about 1:32 (is that a bag pipe ? My least favorite instrument in the world. Delete that ... no burn it ) and putting that before the material at :37. I am sure some massaging would be needed. Then from 1:44 to the end you can leave alone, or maybe cut 1:34 to 1:41 and have it replace the pad at 2:11. It would make it feel like more drama is still to come. A "To be continued"

 

Then we are on good terms. I am listening just thru my laptop speakers, so very lo-fi.

The other thing, and depending on how much you like the style, is check out some later Americana too.
The "New World Symphony" is a masterwork and when I recently revisited it, I was amazed at how much interest is created
besides the harmonic language. It's a great piece.

About two years ago I was hired to do the music typesetting for a CD (that as the same artwork BTW) of American Romantics

 

@George Streicher - lovely little miniature there. Really enjoyed the performance, orchestration, & transparency (nice clarinet and flute samples too). I think that there's a couple of things performance-wise you can work out once you get the form locked in:

• Some of the back side (decrescendos) of the string swells are unnaturally abrupt in the intro. It may be a bow change sound, but it could be messier or more fluid.
  
• I think the string bass is a little forward in the mix (in the first :20 or so seconds). Hard to say for sure (listened through headphones).
  
• The harp arpeggios (starting around :24) are a little too measured rhythmically or equal in velocity compared to a live player (has a quantized/duplicated sound - maybe humanize it a little more).
• The low brass pads (from :59-1:23) need some breaths programmed in. Those lines can be stagger-breathed in a live performance if you want a full wall of sound, but at that volume and duration they'd be filling up pretty regularly.
• The last 3rd of the piece sounds great (maybe a touch more rubato into the last chord and more measured decay on the release of the last note).

Exceptional attention to detail on the woodwind solos and melodic lines throughout. @Doug Gibson 's advice about proportion was also well-taken... don't climax too early, and leave some time for cuddling. Looking forward to hearing you expand on the piece.

 

Nice evocative piece. A pleasure to listen to. Agree with Doug about the Golden Mean. As far as the muddiness you mentioned, I didn't really notice it. Why not use some subtractive eq it if it bothers you?

 

Wow, that's like 100 times better. I mean..... it's hard to give exact advice as only you know what your goals are.It seemed (and still does) that it's not a craft issue with you, but a philosophical idea on how much a "general audience" will tolerate.

One thing to point out ..... your harp player "clanks" it @1:47. I don't think you really want that. Unless you are getting subversive.

I would also say that this piece seems ripe for Theme and Variations. You already have your tune.
This way you can work on other areas of your craft without having to sacrifice the "Tune" you already have.
This means you can explore further things you hinted at in the "tune". Like the move to Ab which is really nice, and sounds like a development section could be following.

The other thing, that concerns me, is how you treat the bass and melody. They are always coming in at the same time. I am worried this is a blind spot.

There are three ways in which this occurs: 1) Melody first, then accompaniment 2) Accompaniment, then melody 3) All together (“tutti”).

I think you can explore much more variety here, and notice how it changes our perception of the composition without doing anything fancy with re-harmonization and what-not.

 

@George Streicher very nice piece. The steady improvements were fun to follow. The v3 is unquestionably the strongest and your work has paid off. Sometimes less is more. I like the piece as it is. Could it be better if longer? I don't know. I guess it all depends on your own intentions. But I certainly would not see anything wrong with leaving it just as is.

@Doug Gibson you gave some really awesome advice in this thread. I am constantly impressed by your willingness to give so much of yourself to help others. The advice about changing the emotional arc of the piece made a crucial difference. And of course, we are in complete agreement about the "New World Symphony."

@Bradley Boone awesome advice. What a great ear you have. I especially agree with your advice regarding rubato. Essential for a piece of this type. I would suggest more rubato throughout could add emotional impact.

 

Sure. You're most welcome. I really liked how you have put all three versions right next to each other. That's super cool, and I will do the same going forward.

Well, in my mind my suggestion of Bass/Melody is similar to what happens in pop music. You know how when we return to the 2nd verse something new is added in. (synth etc.) Since your song form was strophic it's an area I feel offer a great return on having a variety, and not just a default pad.

Usually it is the out two voices we hear the most, so it's worth thinking about.


As far as creating separate variations, I think it could be really useful. You can always play around with how to link them. Let's say this music was "Frontier Voyage" theme. Well in a feature there is most likely a few "Frontier Voyage" cues needing music. So you can treat them as separate yet related ideas.

For example as a variation I took your theme and made a canon of your theme. So one time can be about secondary melody, another you can add sus chords, another with instrumentation. Basically just keep on observing the possible potential already within your material


It's often surprising to me when I connect unrelated material how they go better than I think. After you hear the variation I put my first example before it. It, "kinda" sounds connected.

 

Thanks for sharing a version of the PDF score in-progress. I like seeing your iterations as you work through the process.
I like Doug's counterpoint/theme & variation idea too - very useful developing techniques that I'll also be tinkering with forever.

There's something strange happening with the mix in the solo flute at :47-:50 on the sustained note. It sounds like it is traveling (panning) to the left of the mix and back to the center (following the dynamic swell). Is there something going on with your reverb send (are the channel sends set to pre- or post-fader? post-pan?)? I don't notice it hardly anywhere else in the mix, but that stuck out because it is so isolated. Maybe I'm crazy. Regardless, I don't want to turn the composition thread into a mixing thread (the mix/performance is improving in each successive version by the way)! If I think of something constructive to add to the form/development, then I'll happily chime back in.

 

Just keep doing what you already are. Now just edit, and experiment. It will be easier to do so since your piece moves in clearly defined phrases
(ie. this is not a avant grade work etc.)

For example, I would pick a spot (I am going to use the last 6-7 bars of your piece) and do something along the lines of the following.


Orchestration Proof-Reading:

Here I have two I personally would change

1. the harp plays an F over the E and B in the lower. The F/E bugs me as it's not b9 type of piece. Basically I think you are not noticing it as it is soft.
A simple fix would be moving the F to G or an E.



2. Why is Trombone 1 below #2 ? I would take the A up an octave and use an open voicing.


Experiment:

Now you play with ideas and create a "buffet" to choose from. It really is important to know what your intend "affect" you want to create in the listener. There are so many possible devices to use.

Here I created 3.

#1 I took your current harp part and moved this to the clarinet since was featured before. I then gave the harm a harmony instead.

#2. Created a "Sustain Pedal". So with each note of the ascending clarinet one string will sustain the sound on like I was pressing down the sustain pedal on the piano.






3. Here I am just being cheesy and smoltzy. (mockingly) You'll hear the additions without me telling you

So ....create a buffet of ideas

 

Are you apart of the same shared session as the other guy.

For only 15 minute, do not make your piece more difficult to play. In a shared session the first run thru is going to be for the engineer to know what you piece
sounds like and highs/lows etc. It's a write off. Plus the players are having to switch gears from what ever was played before. 15 minutes goes by really, really quick.

 

Which other guy?

https://redbanned.com/threads/my-first-live-recording-—-need-feedback.631/page-2#post-7055