The first tango of 2008

[ttw]

Just another tango.


Also cannot attach pdf from my computer. Will try later.

http://www.thelinkup.com/shared/qps8hrw8ugg4

This takes one to the page for sharing. No help files on the new link site.

The pdf file.

http://www.thelinkup.com/shared/ayf4xan1ovk7

[stevel]

Originally Posted by ttw

Just another tango.


Also cannot attach pdf from my computer. Will try later.

http://www.thelinkup.com/shared/qps8hrw8ugg4

This takes one to the page for sharing. No help files on the new link site.

The pdf file.

http://www.thelinkup.com/shared/ayf4xan1ovk7

Some Comments if you'd like them Tony:

It's starting to sound a little like "how many different things can I put in" - that is, every idea is great, but it seems like you're trying to fit so many of them in that it becomes more of a compositional exercise (not that that's a bad thing) than a "piece".

I used to catch myself doing this - I'd make a list of all of the things I wanted to include in a piece - but sometimes you have to leave some of them out - they just don't fir, or there's too many, etc. I had (and still have) to force myself to "prune" my ideas constantly.

One thing that caught my attention was the "German +6" which is really a bVI7 - it's cool, but it's a little "bluesy". Again, not that that's a bad thing and it's certainly refreshing in this type of piece. But I'm wondering if it can't be "prefaced" in some way to make it a little more "part" of the piece - otherwise it kind of sounds like yet another cool idea I'm "forcing" into the piece.

Somehow, a lot of the 16th note motion seems a little "busy" at times - especially when coming out of a melodic statement like in m. 8. It sort of "takes away" some of the finality of the melodic pattern and "smears it out". IMHO, measures like 3 and 9 work better where there's a definite ending to the statement, and then the 16ths "pull us in" to the next statement (as opposed to "stealing our attention away" from the existing statement if that makes sense).

I think the inner part in the LH in 58 is way cool, but I feel it's not implemented very well. To me it seems to "get lost". Part of this is the coming together on unisons or the voice crossing. For example, in m. 61 that Bn "should" lead up to C rather than a rest. It's like either your line gets cut off mid sentence, or, the B jumps to the Ab, which seems unlikely (plus that chord could use a third). Same thing happens at 59 - the D should go somewhere - Eb?

I realize this is coming from the previous section, but there's no law that says it has to be EXACTLY the same both times - you can change direction, intervallic distance, octave, and so on.

I was joking about this with another composer colleague while recording some of his works (let's say he's fairly well-known) and I said "see - we'd tell a student "MAKE YOUR LINES GO SOMEWHERE" and he said "yes, I would tell them that, and here I am not following my own advice".

It caused a sonic thing that both he and I noticed, and a problem for the performer as well. So something to think about - this is a nice inner line - make it go somewhere - in fact, if you have to leave something out, the things we've already heard should suffer - we already know what they've done, and we can "fill in the blanks" - but it's harder for us to do that on this newer, fresh idea (at least in this context).


What's with m. 85? Jumping down to the Eb/C dyad seems a little extreme. You've got some other extremes in here as well:

m 77 beat 3 and 4 - good lord man!

This is partly still because of the LH in the depths syndrome. The "bass" doesn't always have to be from C in the bass clef down! One of the best "relief" sections is from m. 50 on where the bass comes out of the depths (and the long notes are a welcome change as well).

It actually helps out at 58 when the "bass" becomes the "tenor" and then the new bass comes in - but as I said, unfortunately the "real" bass takes over (or takes away from) the tenor line.

At 81, try the bass part up an octave - or hell - start it on middle C! You're going from ff to mp - why not help out by "lightening" the texture as well by bringing the bass notes up.

Speaking of lightening the texture - consider those chords like at m. 2 - does the octave really need to be included or would the 6th be sufficient. If you want an accent, put an accent mark :-) It's also hard to get to things like that at this tempo, but that's a whole nother issue.

Finally, the ending is a bit "forced" I feel - it's like, gee, I've used up all of those ideas I set out to use, so let's end it". Seems a little "sudden" or "abrupt" and maybe even unnecessary - do you really need a "new" section to close, or can some existing material be used (I realize you're using motives and exact repeats, but I mean it sounds like you're "developing" at a time when you should be "tying up loose ends").

I know, I know, I need to "prune" my comments! Sorry these kinds of things just pop into my mind as I'm thinking about it. Overall, this is still progressing compared to the others, and, I think it's quite good as is. Of anything, the m.58 passage is the only real "flaw" in this to me. The rest of the stuff I'm just being nit picky about (i.e. stuff I try to keep myself from doing for various personal and experiential reasons).

Peace,
Steve