Can you spot the modern accessory in this tune?

[PeterG]

link to the mp3: Title: The Work Life Balance
lo-fi URL: http://www.soundclick.com/util/getpl...d=5884516&q=lo

hi-fi URL: http://www.soundclick.com/util/getpl...d=5884516&q=hi

Greetings,

This tune was inspired by the everyday returning work and the balance with the life after work. Can you recognize he accessory that every one has these days and tends to ruin even the most special moments in life?

Originally I called this "unruhe" .Any suggestions to a better name are welcome.

A question on the score; in several places I imagines the left hand playing notes on the right side of the right one (m.28 for example)... Is this the correct way to represent it? It seemed the best visual representation of what acually happens.....

Oh, and before you say anything about it Steve; the repeat is in on purpose as I found out by listening that the second time around you hear it, it has a different feel to it even though it has exactly the same notes. I guess this is due to the fact that you are used to the tempo and the amount of notes per square inch... ( at least that's how I experienced it).

As usual; let me know what you thought of it and learn from your remarks...

And if you should want to play this; PLEASE DO! (and let me hear your version; I can't play it for another 3 year or more I recon)

kind regards,

Peter

P.S. I wasn't 100% sure this is the final pdf attached and it's not fully cleaned up yet. but I din't want to wait for that.....

P.P.S. the Finale GPO playback is taking off the edge a bit.... I imagine that played by someone who understands the stressed feel will make it so much more....uhm.... alive I guess.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by PeterG

This tune was inspired by the everyday returning work and the balance with the life after work. Can you recognize he accessory that every one has these days and tends to ruin even the most special moments in life?

Before even looking and listening, I'm going to guess it's the Cell Phone.

Let's see...

[stevel]

Originally I called this "unruhe" .Any suggestions to a better name are welcome.

I don't think you necessarily have to name a piece based on what it was inspired by, or even it's program. "Invention" was sufficient for Bach. This sounds like a "Frenzy" to me (sorry, close to Halloween and that's a Hitchcock film).

A question on the score; in several places I imagines the left hand playing notes on the right side of the right one (m.28 for example)... Is this the correct way to represent it? It seemed the best visual representation of what acually happens.....

But that's not right. In piano music, the default is, if it is on the lower staff it is played by the LH, and if it is on the upper staff it is played by the RH. Period. So you should have a clef change in your lower staff. There are exceptions of course, and when this is done, the indication "LH over" (supra) is given. While it seems logical to write them as you did, there's no reason not to follow tradition - furthermore, you don't want the pianist's eyes to have to jump all over the page to find notes.

Oh, and before you say anything about it Steve; the repeat is in on purpose as I found out by listening that the second time around you hear it, it has a different feel to it even though it has exactly the same notes.

Ok. As long as you thought it out. Actually, it didn't even bother me this time.

I guess this is due to the fact that you are used to the tempo and the amount of notes per square inch... ( at least that's how I experienced it).

I agree. There's no so obvious repeats, and when it does, enough time has elapsed to make one wonder if this is truly a repeat at all.

As usual; let me know what you thought of it and learn from your remarks...

One thing I did want to address Peter - and this has been true all along but I didn't want to inundate you with negative comments from the git go:

Your voicing of chords, especially in the LH, is a bit mushy.

Firstly, your LH (especially, though it's also true of the RH as well) is often a "chord". I would like you to consider a "less is more" philosophy. Now, this is very true of Romantic Period music where Pianists were trying to emulate orchestral writing and used a lot of octave doubling with the inner parts of chords filled in (4 note chords in each hand). It gets a little dense after a while. Additionally,as I mentioned before you've got an interesting mix of that, and then a more Baroque "perpetual motion" (what's called "fortspinnung") mixed in. Traditionally, that would have a lighter texture, and yet you keep "plodding" along with those thick chords.

There's nothing wrong with this, but I would seriously consider making it a personal challenge to yourself to see if, every time you're tempted to use an 8ve, or a LH chord, that one or two fewer notes wouldn't be better. They may or may not, but it seems you kind of default to "LH thick chord mode".

Along with that, your LH is often in the depths. Why not consider moving some notes up? If you play low, and play chords, you get a pretty muddy-sounding LH part - and these are often not noticed on synth playback because the lower octaves are often not brought out well.

Finally, you tend to have a lot of second inversion chords. Now, this is modern music. The problem is, it's modern music with an obvious relationship to things of the past - and especially those things like the LH chords and the perpetual motion ideas make it sound like "Hey, this guy's trying to emulate Bach meets Chopin". As soon as listeners have that mindset, they start comparing you to Bach meets Chopin. They can't help it - it's human nature to compare to what we know. As a result, while there's really nothing "wrong", in the listener's mind, some things will sound "wrong" with what they're comparing it too.

Your second inversion chords would be major culprits here. Furthemore, when you voice a chord in 2nd inversion, you get a 4th on the bottom a lot of time, which again, in the low notes, is not such a happening thing.

Just to give you an example:
First chord, LH - 2md inversion. According to traditional practice, this is flat out wrong.

Here, I want you to try an experiment - I want you to sit at the piano, and play, while holding the pedal down (so all the notes blend), starting from the low end: C C C G C G C G C G C and then, while all those notes are holding, play a single E somewhere - You should hear a Major chord spring out. You can do it with Eb if you like. The point is, no matter how many roots or 5ths you have, it only takes one 3rd to make the chord major or minor. Thus traditionally, composers double roots first, 5ths seconds, and 3rds last (and rarely double 7ths by comparision). The only thing they might otherwise double is a melody or bass line (and then it's about line, not chord).

Your chord in m. 1 beat 3 is a good example. Why is that D in the LH? Bb D Bb? Why not Bb F Bb? Why not Bb and Bb? Why not, jsut Bb? Why not just the higher Bb?

Another side issue here is, you've got Bb D Bb / Bb D G - you know what that sounds like? a Bb chord. You've got three "roots", two "thirds", and no 5th! In fact, it sounds like a Bbsubs6 chord (or what people would call a Bb6 today). If you want this chord to sound as a Gm chord, you may want to consider "balancing" the voices so that the root is heard as G minor. Because as it is now, as G minor, you've got 1 root, 2 5ths, and 3 3rds, which is exactly the opposite of traditional voicing.

Now, you may say, that's OK, I want it to be non-traditional. That's fine. Then why is it in 4/4 (with a C no less), using standard rhythmic values, standard chords, standard Baroque patterns, etc. It's fine to be eclectic, but I would think one's eclecticism would be intentional rather than accidental. And to the listener, this would probably come of as accidental, or as one other person I've discussed similar situations with agreed - "amateurish".

You also like a lot of 4ths, and, especially in the Bass, 5ths. These are rare. Composers used to avoid 5th because of their "open" sound (except in places where the open-ness could be tempered by other notes) and 4ths even less common. When I see this, my first thought is usually "he's a Guitarist" because they've been raised on pop music in 5ths, 4ths and "power chords".

There's nothing wrong with them, but let's say you're sending your listeners mixed signals.

So the LH beginning m. 2 = Bb/D - A/D - A/Eb (a tritone this low?).
M. 7 LH 2nd inversion
M. 8 LH, beat 1 and 2, 2nd inversion - and the second one of these a closely space triad no less.

Why does the LH jump from Bb at the end of m. 11 down to C at measure 12? And why is the LH so low throughout that section? Can it not come up?

Why in m. 15, second half, is it simply G/D pairs in both hands where previously it's been chords throughout this passage?

So again, I'm not trying to dog you Peter, but I'm trying to get you to think about, are these sounds really the sounds I want? If so, OK. But I see a problem with your LH in that it has a tendency always be low, a tendency to have a lot of chords where they may or may not be necessary, have a lot of 5ths and worse, 4ths - especially in those 2nd inversion chords, which all contributes to a very dark, and un-detailed LH.

Furthermore, it seems you have a tendency to treat the RH and LH very distinctly. The hand over is good, and in the previous piece you had some inner parts taken by the both hands, but in general, much of what you have is like 12-17 where you've got both hands participating in the same thing, but they're miles apart!

So I'm just going to give you a very broad thing: think about using the LH high, and the RH low, and both hands close, and both hands far apart; think of chords in the top and line in the bottom, and line on the top and chords in the bottom; think about chords distributed equally between the two hands; think about not writing chords at all, and simply using melody - as a single line or in many octave doublings. In other words, there's a lot of ways to present material and I get the feeling you're kind of locked into this rather rudimentary "piano" structure of LH low, RH high, and the two hands don't share in things.

Now again, I want to remind you that what you've done is not necessarily bad, and there are certainly pieces that do exactly these things - if you want a muddy bass, this is one way to get it. But if you don't, this is probably not the most effective way of handling it. You may want a "big" sound throughout that never lets up. This is one way of doing that. But if you want the texture to lighten up some, you might need to experiment with fewer notes in LH chords, a change of register, or both.

I agree that most people don't take full advantage of the piano's range, and have a tendency to "stay in the middle", but, if you notice, those that do extend the range typically only do so by doubling the bass at the octave. And that's not to say you MUST extend the range in every piece, but I think variety is certainly nice (especially the longer a piece gets). One of the main weaknesses of many pieces is that they substitute pitch variety for other things that are far more likely to tire the listener - texture/density being one of the big ones. And 9 times out of 10, the reason that things get too dense is that composers tend to err on the side of more notes, bigger chords, and more range covered, when sometimes, a single well-placed note can say far more than 10 notes covering the keyboard.

Some things to think about.

Steve

[PeterG]

Hi Steve !

Originally Posted by stevel

I don't think you necessarily have to name a piece based on what it was inspired by, or even it's program. "Invention" was sufficient for Bach. This sounds like a "Frenzy" to me (sorry, close to Halloween and that's a Hitchcock film).

Don’t be sorry for that. I like “Frenzy” (good movie! LOOoove Hitchcock) In general I do want to name the pieces as the name can point the player in the right direction with respect to my intentions with it. At least when I’m playing pieces for my lessons it helps to visualize something if there is a good title to accompany it.

Originally Posted by stevel

But that's not right. In piano music, the default is, if it is on the lower staff it is played by the LH, and if it is on the upper staff it is played by the RH. Period.

Ok, thanks. I’ll change it

Originally Posted by stevel

Your voicing of chords, especially in the LH, is a bit mushy.

Originally Posted by stevel

Firstly, your LH (especially, though it's also true of the RH as well) is often a "chord". I would like you to consider a "less is more" philosophy. Now, this is very true of Romantic Period music where Pianists were trying to emulate orchestral writing and used a lot of octave doubling with the inner parts of chords filled in (4 note chords in each hand). It gets a little dense after a while. Additionally,as I mentioned before you've got an interesting mix of that, and then a more Baroque "perpetual motion" (what's called "fortspinnung") mixed in. Traditionally, that would have a lighter texture, and yet you keep "plodding" along with those thick chords.

There's nothing wrong with this, but I would seriously consider making it a personal challenge to yourself to see if, every time you're tempted to use an 8ve, or a LH chord, that one or two fewer notes wouldn't be better. They may or may not, but it seems you kind of default to "LH thick chord mode".

I hear what you say Steve and indeed I liked to get a big sound. I know, my ears tell me, that the further down you go to the left on the keys, the bigger the interval should be in order to actually hear both notes together in stead of a mushy mess. The engineer in me can explain that as half a note apart in the low range is only a few Hz difference whereas in the high range the same interval is a far bigger frequency difference hence the interaction is quite different.
Having said that, I am going to revisit the notes and see if I can scrap some but I don’t want it light; the low, accented chords are there to push the stressy notes forward. They must “boss them” (dark voice of a BIG man popping in saying: “aren’t you done yet?”) give a need to hurry up, rush it… At least that was the intent. I’ll see if I can express that better than I did.

Funny you mentioned the Baroque motion you notice in there as well and you’re on the mark there; music in my view has to move forward and I was brought up with a big preference for Baroque music (I loved the structure, movement and stricktness (this is probably not English, but I hope you understand) at the time I played the oboe. I was not into Romantic music at the time, but now I’m adult and do appreciate that more).

Originally Posted by stevel

Along with that, your LH is often in the depths. Why not consider moving some notes up? If you play low, and play chords, you get a pretty muddy-sounding LH part - and these are often not noticed on synth playback because the lower octaves are often not brought out well.

Ah, but I love the basses. I played bass-guitar and doublebass (plucked like in rock&roll) for fun for a while.

Originally Posted by stevel

Finally, you tend to have a lot of second inversion chords. Now, this is modern music. The problem is, it's modern music with an obvious relationship to things of the past - and especially those things like the LH chords and the perpetual motion ideas make it sound like "Hey, this guy's trying to emulate Bach meets Chopin". As soon as listeners have that mindset, they start comparing you to Bach meets Chopin. They can't help it - it's human nature to compare to what we know. As a result, while there's really nothing "wrong", in the listener's mind, some things will sound "wrong" with what they're comparing it too.

I hear what you say here Steve and I do have a preference for those inverted chords. I like the sound of them and want to put them in as a result. I guess it’s part of my “style” ?

Originally Posted by stevel

Another side issue here is, you've got Bb D Bb / Bb D G - you know what that sounds like? a Bb chord. You've got three "roots", two "thirds", and no 5th! In fact, it sounds like a Bbsubs6 chord (or what people would call a Bb6 today). If you want this chord to sound as a Gm chord, you may want to consider "balancing" the voices so that the root is heard as G minor. Because as it is now, as G minor, you've got 1 root, 2 5ths, and 3 3rds, which is exactly the opposite of traditional voicing.

Originally Posted by stevel

Now, you may say, that's OK, I want it to be non-traditional. That's fine. Then why is it in 4/4 (with a C no less), using standard rhythmic values, standard chords, standard Baroque patterns, etc. It's fine to be eclectic, but I would think one's eclecticism would be intentional rather than accidental. And to the listener, this would probably come of as accidental, or as one other person I've discussed similar situations with agreed - "amateurish".

Well, I do not think in chords when I’m writing down the notes to be honest, I listen and try to mimic the sound in my mind. That leads to the use of untraditional chords, inverted chords etc I guess. Question; did it sound amateurish? If yes, I need to do something about that (and will).

Originally Posted by stevel

(a tritone this low?).

Yes, as they are part of A,C,Eb but the three of them together sound too blurred so I removed the C.
When I read you comments I “fanatically” removed / changed several (if not all of these notes but then it became too light; the left hand notes sounded Ok, nice even, but did not give the push anymore; it was too…uhm… non-committed / frivolous?

Originally Posted by stevel

Why does the LH jump from Bb at the end of m. 11 down to C at measure 12? And why is the LH so low throughout that section? Can it not come up?

Uhm, actually the handwritten version has m.12 & 13 with the left hand an 8ve higher, which is better than this. Reverting……

Originally Posted by stevel

Why in m. 15, second half, is it simply G/D pairs in both hands where previously it's been chords throughout this passage?

well, to get ready for the next 2 bars I guess. Where it’s no longer chords but rushes off to the chord of m.18

Originally Posted by stevel

So again, I'm not trying to dog you Peter, but I'm trying to get you to think about, are these sounds really the sounds I want

I know you do Steve and that’s why I really appreciate you taking the time and efforts to comment like you do.

I do need to learn how to create a sound and as you might have seen I’m experimenting with structures and left/right cooperation to find out what I can do with it. I noticed that writing notes directly into Finale has the disadvantage that it lacks the “ear”-check (part of it was written like this as I wanted to continue working on it but the piano woke everyone up), but writing at the piano has the disadvantage that I have the tendency to loose the thing I hear in my mind if I don’t hit it on the mark but hit something else (that sounds good or bad or interesting) on the piano keys in stead.

Thanks again Steve !

Peter

[stevel]

LOOoove Hitchcock)

Good Man!

I hear what you say Steve and indeed I liked to get a big sound. I know, my ears tell me, that the further down you go to the left on the keys, the bigger the interval should be in order to actually hear both notes together in stead of a mushy mess. The engineer in me can explain that as half a note apart in the low range is only a few Hz difference whereas in the high range the same interval is a far bigger frequency difference hence the interaction is quite different.

That's true. Musicians usually attribute this to the Overtone Series. But generally speaking, to maintain the same aural "distance" between notes, the lower you go, the farther apart they need to be. However, obviously, if you want some effect that close low notes give you, then you know it's available for use.

Basically, low notes produce secondary vibrations that are within the frequency range of hearing, or being perceived of as "beating". This may be a desirable effect, but can be a problem. It's not as big a problem as you go higher because the beating either exceeds our range of hearing, or produce secondary notes that are "in tune" with the notes you're playing.

Having said that, I am going to revisit the notes and see if I can scrap some but I don’t want it light; the low, accented chords are there to push the stressy notes forward. They must “boss them” (dark voice of a BIG man popping in saying: “aren’t you done yet?”) give a need to hurry up, rush it… At least that was the intent. I’ll see if I can express that better than I did.

I can understand that. But, why don't you think about going the other way? What about even smaller intervals? What if you've got a bass line in 3rds? How is that different from 5ths? What effect can that be used for? What about considering grace notes for a "squashing" sound? There might be many more effective ways to get what you want - there might not - but I think it's more instructive to try them and toss them out, rather than not try them at all.

Funny you mentioned the Baroque motion you notice in there as well and you’re on the mark there; music in my view has to move forward and I was brought up with a big preference for Baroque music (I loved the structure, movement and stricktness (this is probably not English, but I hope you understand) at the time I played the oboe. I was not into Romantic music at the time, but now I’m adult and do appreciate that more).

We would say "Strictness" but even that's not the best word choice. Precision is probably more what you want :-)

Ah, but I love the basses. I played bass-guitar and doublebass (plucked like in rock&roll) for fun for a while.

That's fine. Your next piece should be for Double-Bass and Oboe, or write a trio for Oboe, Double-Bass, and Piano. You could do it similar in style to a Baroque Trio Sonata, but maybe with a "rock and roll" attitude.

I hear what you say here Steve and I do have a preference for those inverted chords. I like the sound of them and want to put them in as a result. I guess it’s part of my “style” ?

Nothing wrong with that. I just mean, make sure you allow yourself to try alternatives as well.

Well, I do not think in chords when I’m writing down the notes to be honest, I listen and try to mimic the sound in my mind. That leads to the use of untraditional chords, inverted chords etc I guess. Question; did it sound amateurish? If yes, I need to do something about that (and will).

This is kind of a sticky point Peter. Whenever you start a piece of music, your listeners will start making assumptions based on their previous listening experience, which we can generally assume is largely Baroque, Classical, and Romantic period-based. The problem is, you can go to something like Sibelius' web site and see hundreds if not thousands of pieces by people who obviously are attempting to compose like Mozart et al, but who don't truly understand the style, and merely use the cliches of the style. Listeners tend to understand that what they're hearing are poor imitations of Mozart, rather than competent works by another composer whose "cliched Mozart style" is just "their style".

So, is "your style" really your style, or is it a poor copy of someone else's style. Or, if your style is you being competent at your style, will listeners perceive it that way as well?

Yes, as they are part of A,C,Eb but the three of them together sound too blurred so I removed the C.

So you did it there, but not other places :-)

When I read you comments I “fanatically” removed / changed several (if not all of these notes but then it became too light; the left hand notes sounded Ok, nice even, but did not give the push anymore; it was too…uhm… non-committed / frivolous?

Yes - there's a difference between "light" and "heavy" and "dense" and "open" sounding chords. It might not be a case of removing the notes, but re-voicing the notes. Even changing the register of things can affect the overall "weight" and "density".

Uhm, actually the handwritten version has m.12 & 13 with the left hand an 8ve higher, which is better than this. Reverting……

And you think I just glance at these things!!!! :-)

well, to get ready for the next 2 bars I guess. Where it’s no longer chords but rushes off to the chord of m.18

You don't sound too sure :-)

I noticed that writing notes directly into Finale has the disadvantage that it lacks the “ear”-check (part of it was written like this as I wanted to continue working on it but the piano woke everyone up),

That's why I tell people Finale is not a Composition Tool, but a Tool one can use to aid in composing.

but writing at the piano has the disadvantage that I have the tendency to loose the thing I hear in my mind if I don’t hit it on the mark but hit something else (that sounds good or bad or interesting) on the piano keys in stead.

You said you did a handwritten copy - do you not write things down as you go while at the piano?

Later,
Steve

[sawscape]

In the company where I work, IBM, many people talk about their "work-work balance." This is because they are much too busy to actually have much of a life (I often feel this way, too; especially went I can't get back to composing for a while, which has been true a lot lately). Anyway, the "work-work balance" might be an interesting companion piece.
By the way, I did like the song quite a bit. The two songs I've heard from you show that you have an interesting and fun style. I agree with Stevel about the heavy bass chords, though. I like the bass (notes) a lot too, as I often start with them. But a cleaner use of them can create a better sense of power in the song. I probably would have ended on the final half notes and skipped the final LH quarter note. But that's just my opinion.

[PeterG]

Hi Steve and Sawscape,

Originally Posted by stevel

We would say "Strictness" but even that's not the best word choice. Precision is probably more what you want :-)

But precision is not exactly what I had in mind. I mean strictness in the sense that there is no room for variation, marching exactly in line so to speak, by the book to the letter, in perfect order….. that kind of thing.

Originally Posted by stevel

That's fine. Your next piece should be for Double-Bass and Oboe, or write a trio for Oboe, Double-Bass, and Piano. You could do it similar in style to a Baroque Trio Sonata, but maybe with a "rock and roll" attitude.

It’s probably not going to be like that although I like the thought. One of my goals for writing these pieces is that I want to be able to play it myself (one day).

Originally Posted by stevel

You don't sound too sure :-)

May be , but that’s because the original reply was this: “it sounded like it had to be like this” but thinking about that got me to better understand that there is a line in these notes too to lead to the D,G combination

Originally Posted by stevel

You said you did a handwritten copy - do you not write things down as you go while at the piano?

I do, but this is how it goes: I hear it inside and try to play it (slow if necessary) until it’s close or the same. THEN I write down what I just played. My mind does not analyze the intervals etc of I hear inside; I need t find them by trial and error (lack of experience I guess). Well, if, in the middle part I try to play what I hear but in stead I play something that’s not the same but also interesting I loose the original thought. Very annouying but also sometimes leading towards a new thing that equally nice or better.
I’ll have to live with that I guess.

Originally Posted by sawscape

In the company where I work, IBM, many people talk about their "work-work balance." This is because they are much too busy to actually have much of a life (I often feel this way, too; especially went I can't get back to composing for a while, which has been true a lot lately). Anyway, the "work-work balance" might be an interesting companion piece.

Sawscape, I don’t want to be patronizing here (and trust me, I know what you mean; I’ve been there too and still am from time to time), but in the very end it’s your choice (and no one else’s) how you prioritize your time. In my case some hours of sleep are sacrificed for the music as I write late at night only (the only time available… and it’s nice and quiet in the house).

Originally Posted by sawscape

By the way, I did like the song quite a bit. The two songs I've heard from you show that you have an interesting and fun style. I agree with Stevel about the heavy bass chords, though. I like the bass (notes) a lot too, as I often start with them. But a cleaner use of them can create a better sense of power in the song. I probably would have ended on the final half notes and skipped the final LH quarter note. But that's just my opinion.

Thanks for that and both you and Steve are very welcome to have a crack at the bass notes yourself if you wish. I’ve been fiddling with them for a while now and, in the light of my intentions as explained in my previous post, I have difficulty finding a better way to express it.

Both of you thanks!

Peter

[PeterG]

Originally Posted by sawscape

By the way, I did like the song quite a bit. The two songs I've heard from you show that you have an interesting and fun style.

This might be pushing it, but if you wish to hear more (all 20 pieces I'm happy enough with to share) you can visit my soundclick page: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page...?bandID=698792

There is a certain progression in them (in the sound and in the complexity) as I do learn from all comments received on this forum. They are not in chronological order on the page, but it will make a nice quizz to put them back in the right order (this forum might help too, lot's of them were published here when done).

kind regards,

Peter

[sawscape]

This might be pushing it, but if you wish to hear more (all 20 pieces I'm happy enough with to share) you can visit my soundclick page: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page...?bandID=698792

Sure, I'll take a look... er, listen. I also have a soundclick page...: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page...?bandID=459843

[PeterG]

All,

FYI: I've updated the mp3 file on soundclick to a new version, not completely different, but a bit cleaned up.


Kind regards,

Peter