Great Piece! x)
Great Piece! x)
First off, my apologies for the EXTREMELY late review -- but, better late than never!
What worked well:
- Interesting, often captivating composition.
- Good mixing.
- Great progression!
I love the introduction, it sounds so very methodical yet boundlessly artistic. Such is classical music, I suppose! I honestly have very little to say here. The mixing was quite good -- everything was clear and easy to listen to/pick out. Also, the composition in general was a real treat to listen to!
What to consider:
- Moog sound worked as a double-edged sword.
- Mostly just a chord progression; further use of dynamics would help!
The intro of the Moog sound at 1:41 was both a pleasant surprise, and just a bit off-putting. I'm torn on whether it is awesome or if it would be best to implement it in another way. As a result, I think it works as a double-edged sword. It both works and does not. That being said, I think it added flavor to the piece all the same.
I understand that you wrote this with a goal in mind (and you accomplished that goal wonderfully), but emotionally and thematically this piece is rather dry. The section from 1:06 - 1:41 sounds quite triumphant, though the rest of the piece is a chord progression through and through. Again, you were working towards a goal, and I always keep that in mind when reviewing so it wasn't that big of a deal. It would have been nice to hear some soaring strings and the piano working together to create more of an emotional response though!
Great piece of music! I would like to hear this mocked up with greater tension and perhaps more melodic content, but otherwise, wonderful job. Keep it up!
Love your review and I agree with all the criticisms about it. Especially the Moog choice and how I implemented it. It's much easier to handle when I can let go of trying to tame it. It tends to make the piece sound a bit chaotic which I can learn to love about this. I've discovered that initial vision and making it reality is the hardest part in music. It could've been so much more, but I mistakenly expected and tried doing this for a contest with limited time. Based on your comment on a lack of melodic content, I think you found out in this piece that I really care for chord progressions more than I do for melody. Thank you for your words!
Coming from more of an engineering/production side of things that composition, I don't feel as qualified to judge this as many of the others - there's a lot to praise regarding your creativity and general structure, though. I found your composition to be quite engaging, but I felt that your production and instrumentation let you down a bit, especially with the synth in the latter half of the song.
You started off quite strong with the solo piano, and the song may have been better were it left as solo piano in my opinion. That is to say, there's little to fault compositionally - perhaps that you had little to mention in the way of breakdowns or softer sections, which could have made the piece more interesting - but otherwise, quite solid work. I just find the synth to be a bit off-putting; it's not even that it's a little thematically inappropriate but more that it's not a great sound in general, especially not for chords, with how aggressive the filter envelope on it is. I also think the way the strings were introduced was a little harsh and sudden, but they sound pretty good afterward.
This is a generally good piece, and I think most of the issue I had was related to that one synth. I've nothing against electronic sounds in classical music, of course :P
But yes, solid work either way!
Fair enough. I wonder if the Moog synth is a matter of taste. The goal in mind, despite how awkward it might sound to some, was to add a retro feel just like the musical examples I've listed on my main page. Not the best sounding synth I couldn't chosen from, but with these musical examples I was comfortable in making that choice. All your ideas would have worked for sure, but I thought piano alone would have been just too safe. Must dare to disappoint for the sake of creative experimentation.
Thank you for your perspective!
So, you've made it to the final round. You've clearly proven yourself. Time to judge by NGADM standards - scoring will be harsher as a result. In any case, here are some pointers for improvement.
-Ah, of course. Straight classical piece. This reminds me a lot of the Invention pieces.
-Very interesting and excellent chord progressions. I very much like it.
-Honestly, this is very well-done, but the biggest problem with it is pretty simple. This is basically a series of chords with straight runs to transition between them. It's very pretty, but very difficult to discern any kind of theme aside from the chord progression - which isn't particularly recognizable enough to make a clear theme. The biggest thing this needs is a change in mood and speed of notes. As it is, it sounds essentially like the same thing the whole way through, with 3 changes - one in instrument, and one in chord progression to something different in the middle.
Final score: 8.5/10. Gripe aside, this is a pretty solid piece - it's simply less composition competition material so much as it is particularly well-composed exercise book material. And believe me. I would absolutely love to have this kind of stuff in my old piano exercise books in order to practice my runs and finger positioning.
Lol you know your classical because it's straight up an Invention piece, or did you just notice the tags? This is actually not that harsh of a review from you. I agree with the criticisms. I'm going to re-upload this with more melodic/rhythmic content from different instruments. Probably not going to change the mood or the speed, but I did find the arrangement to be a little too naked which makes the middle section a bit uninteresting to me. I wanted it to have a little more layers and therefore become chaotic to give it less of a classical feel/"exercise book material." If I had more music than 2:32, I probably would heed to the advice of changing the tempo a bit but I don't desire more of this. Thanks for the review.
Interesting idea experimenting with the 5/8 time signature. I wish you had found a way to lead into the strings' entrance at :57 more. I like the progression of this piece, although I think it needed something more in the way of dynamic contrast. I think you've mimicked the baroque style very well, though. This piece is conclusive, well-structured, and very flowy and smooth. It's also coherent enough to be regarded as a structurally complete work without being overly repetitive. I will say that the lack of dynamic contrast makes it sound almost like it was written for some sort of montage. Especially since this is a classical piece of music, I think you should've made your fortes louder and your pianos softer. I can sort of tell that you wanted the part at 1:07 to be the "structural relief" and/or breakdown section, but it should've been much softer. That way, you could offer some more dramatic phrasing work (i.e., a crescendo) into 1:42. It would help give this piece all of the shape and emotion it deserves. In fact, many classical composers didn't write dynamics into their pieces, and musicians were simply expected to play the dynamics based on stylistic preferences of the time period. However, I personally regard you as the musician as well as the composer, and therefore this piece needs some more phrasing. If that's the main problem I have with this piece (which it is), though, I'd say you've got a pretty strong track here, Phonometrologist. Keep up the good work. ;D
Please contact me if you would like to use this in a project. We can discuss the details.