The Name Game Pro Tip:
  1. Didja accidentally blow through the whole, "We're using our real names" thing on registration? No problem, just send me (Mike) a Conversation message and I'll get you sorted, by which I mean hammered-into-obedient-line because I'm SO about having a lot of individuality-destroying, oppressive shit all over my forum.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. You're only as good as the harshest criticism you're willing to hear.
    Dismiss Notice

The Realm Of Light And Shade

Discussion in 'Critique & Feedback' started by Jeff Hayat, Aug 27, 2017.

  1. #1 Jeff Hayat, Aug 27, 2017


    Still working on my craft, so feedback/suggestions/criticisms, and ideas to improve are all welcome.

    A few notes:

    I bummed a string thing from Sonokinetic - it works there (well, I think so...), and I don't have samples that can sound like that.

    :55 - does the rhythm of the horns throw you off a bit?

    The celli @ :1:21 - I had to raise the volume quite a bit... I am assuming that they would be able to cut through like that.

    Does the end seem like a bit of a cop out? I suppose I could have done something else/more there, but I need to move on to other things. So, I did what I did :)

    Anything else?

    Thanks for listening!
     
    Patrick McClanahan likes this.
  2. #2 Mike Verta, Aug 27, 2017
    I say this all the time because it is a bulletproof self-critiquing test: Play the piece with two hands on the piano; see how interesting it really is. If it can't be reduced to an interesting, playable piece, it is either aleatoric, or boring. So far, you've got a really extended introduction until the halfway point, at which point it's some other piece. So maybe just start with the first idea and develop it INTO an idea. Right now you just have a device or two; a sound or two; an orchestration or two, but no music; no story; no structure. You can add instruments all day and night and change colors a thousand times, but all of that is vertical development and it goes, but goes nowhere.
     
    Paul T McGraw and Rohann van Rensburg like this.
  3. #3 Alexander Schiborr, Aug 27, 2017
    Hi Jeff

    First of all, I like the mood of your piece. The orchestration is clear and your use of colors shows that you are not doing orchestral music since yesterday. I appreciate also that you incooporate different colors in the orchestra.
    For me the piece starts interestingly with that nice arpeggiated E min+#5 / Gmaj+#5 idea, very classic stuff. But I feel after 30 seconds in the track, you should better move on with another idea OR take this idea to develop it. What you do is mainly that you repeat your idea and for it starts to get boring at 40 seconds because you continue repeating it PLUS your energy gets lost because you thin out thr arrangement. The listener has an expaction that "there is something exciting coming" and though I like the lyrical section (40 seconds an so on) by its own..it is for me missleading due to my expactations because of your first 30 seconds. To enhance your piece I would just kick out the whole part from 28 seconds on and build a short transition and a light crescendo and head on with your piece at 1:00 min.
    But if you like to keep it like that, you better make sure to develop your motif (the two sci fi chords) a bit more. Its cool sounding but the idea is VERY SIMPLE. I would say you can present these 2 chords (e to g) twice and then head on.
     
  4. #4 Alexander Schiborr, Aug 27, 2017
  5. #5 Gharun Lacy, Aug 27, 2017
    Hi Jeff
    All in all the piece is competent and does pass Mike's 70% rule for sure. I think you waited too long after the intro to bring that arpeggio back. You spent plenty of time making it a thing and establishing it as a pattern. There is your life line through the entire piece. Trying moving it down an octave or two (To cello or bassoon) and let that carry you through the progression @ 0:37. It's such a simple but effective figure that you could move that all over the orchestra (rhythmically, melodically, harmonically) to give you listener a path to the end were you bring the original idea back in brass.
     
  6. #6 Patrick McClanahan, Aug 27, 2017
    Nice. I enjoyed your piece. If I remember correctly from VIC, you are a big LOTR fan. I can hear that in your melody.
     
  7. #7 Jeff Hayat, Aug 28, 2017
    Thanks for the replies guys! :)

    So, I appreciate the comments; this is what I am looking for, as opposed to "WOW - sounds great!" Which doesn't really help me. Thanks, mom. :( Therefore, please do not mistake my intentions here, as I am not questioning out of arrogance nor indifference, but lack of understanding.

    Yes - huge LOTR fan, for sure.

    Alex - thanks for the audio thing :) So, :29 - :37 doesn't work? First off, the orchestration actually gets a bit bigger there. :) I got your chord change ideas from the DB audio... What I was trying to do was transition somehow from that part into the next, by "ending" it.

    Gharan - "I think you waited too long after the intro to bring that arpeggio back"... where in the track are we talking here? And try moving what down an octave or two?

    Finally - Mike.... I get what you are saying about the piano bit. You said, "maybe just start with the first idea and develop it INTO an idea"... I thoght that was an idea, and I thought that I fully developed it later, when I came back to it. I hear this being done all the time - why does the way I did it not work?

    As for structure, how is there none? Having an A part, a B part, and then coming back to the A part with a diff arrangement does nto constitute structure?

    Also, seems like you are saying there is vertical dev, but no horizontal dev. Any tips on how I can improve on that?

    Thanks again!

    ps - what's the 70% rule?
     
  8. #8 Gharun Lacy, Aug 28, 2017
    @Jeff Hayat
    The 70% rule basically means you pass (Mike mentioned this in one of his classes). Your piece is competent, well written and can be inserted to a film in context and work just fine. Everything else is trying to get to that next level.

    So you start the piece with a 8 note figure on glock with a 4 note figure on woodwinds. My brain equates both elements as part of the arpeggio creating the forward motion. You spend about 30 secs working this as an element. Even after you introduce the five note string motif, the arpeggio is still the dominant element. @0:38 the arpeggio exits and you go into a string progression modulating up. @ 1:00 you go into what I hear as your B section building in intensity and you bring the string motif back @ 1:23. The arpeggio makes it's return appearance for a few bars at the end.

    What we are all saying is that the string progression into the B section feel like separate ideas with no real thread linking them with what came before. What really makes it stand out is that the piece is so short. @ 38 seconds we are ready for the arpeggio and string motif to develop more and thus tell more of a story. Maybe drop the 4 note figure (previously on woodwinds) to low strings with brass playing the 5 note motif and high strings with some dissonance based harmony. You can then strategically and sporadically hit us with a variation of the 8 note arpeggio figure to remind us that we are still listening to the same piece.

    For me, in your A - B - A format, there isn't much that ties the B to the A.

    I'm sure Alex and Mike will have different takes as my ears are the more novice of the crew.
     
  9. #9 Jeff Hayat, Aug 29, 2017
    Thanks, Gharun :)
     
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page