@Acclarion said:

Thanks, Paul. "Listenable" isn't probably the most flattering emotional response one would hope for, but it sure beats, "yuck".

Cheers,
Dave

It is important for us to be honest with each other. Our family and friends will never tell us the truth because they are our family and friends. We all need honest feedback in order to thrive and continue to improve. BUT, I draw the line at actual insults or harsh comments. I hope to never, ever, say something hurtful about the work of a living composer. So, does that make sense? Is it helpful?

I like some of your pieces better than others. That should not be a surprise. This piece was good enough that I wanted you to know that I listened, but it didn't blow me away. If I was listening to it in a live concert I would offer polite applause but not a standing ovation. 

I hope that is helpful. 

I agree that it is important to be honest, but I think you and I approach this in a different way.  Your opinion is valid, as is your right to let me know what you believe is "good enough" or worthy of your applause.  That said, I don't really think your feedback helped me in any way improve as a composer.  First, you offered no technical reasons for why my piece is only good/worthy of polite applause.  It only let me know that it's not good enough for you to get overly excited by.  Second, you have very strong views of what you like, and stylistically, from both of our past offerings, it's highly unlikely that any of my music will match your sensibilities (take for example when you told me that no string quartet has ever impressed you, and mine was much the same).  You've also expressed disinterest in the music of others with a more modern flare, and so, we're already coming from two very different areas of interest...which of course means, it's inevitable that my style won't line up with yours and there's nothing wrong with that.

So with that in mind, I am happy when you and me find common ground and interest, even though I already know you're not naturally drawn to my style of writing.  I do appreciate you letting me know where my music stands with you, and I'll hopefully one day share something worthy of your standing ovation 😊

All the best,

Dave

Hi Dave,

I agree with almost everything you wrote. 😊  And I am impressed that you remember so much about my aesthetic preferences, or at least partly. Let us leave aside the difficulty of writing for the string quartet for the moment, as that is such a big topic and involves special issues.

If you want more detailed feedback I am delighted to provide it, as you are one of the most active members of this community and I deeply respect your ability as a serious composer. 

First let me point out that I am just one retired amateur composer, so my opinion isn't worth much. Your music is not atonal or random or offensive in any way. I like many of your compositions. In fact, lots of music being written today is very pleasing to me. For me, it is not a matter of when the music was written, but the quality of the music itself.

I sort of wish I hadn't started this since as I get older I find it harder and harder to engage in discussions that could turn into debates. OK, about your piece. Perhaps a comparison is in order.

Your piece "The Exorcism" is, in my opinion, one of the best things you have ever posted. The piece is filled with emotion and pathos. The use of each instrument is superb. Lots of variety of colors and textures, but always contributing to the emotional context of the piece. Having some instruments resting frequently adds to their impact when they enter. Harmonic choices are excellent, particularly in the creative use of pedal tones. I am not saying it is "perfect" nor is it something I would have written, but it is a piece that I would give a standing ovation.

"Fantasy for Flute and Piano" contains some wonderful, rich romantic harmonies and the flute part is mostly very idiomatic. I realize that you named it a Fantasy, so you are not obliged to provide form, but in the absence of form, something else is needed to propel the piece forward. It is obviously not a show-stopping bravura showcase for the flute. Nor does the piece offer a melody that captures our hearts like "The Lark Ascending" by Vaughn Williams, which sounds just as delicious performed by a flute as it does on the violin. The piece does not "to me" convey a clear emotional appeal like "The Exorcism." There is nothing wrong with the piece. It is very workmanlike. My concern is not with what it contains but what it lacks. You can do better. You have done better in the past, so I know you can.

Best wishes,

Paul

Hi Paul, 

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts in such detail.  While I'm sure we're going to lose everybody on our back and forth, I'm happy to respond to your post with my perspective.  If nothing else, we'll each have a better understanding of how we think about and approach music, both as creators and listeners.  My comments will be bolded below yours:

@Paul McGraw said:

Hi Dave,

I agree with almost everything you wrote. 😊  And I am impressed that you remember so much about my aesthetic preferences, or at least partly. Let us leave aside the difficulty of writing for the string quartet for the moment, as that is such a big topic and involves special issues.

For sure, the string quartet is a unique beast.  My personal interest in writing for strings has emerged in recent years, as I enjoy the ability to write contrapuntally, and the nimble responsiveness of a small string ensemble allows me to go from long, lyrical espressivo writing to virtuosic, "hair-raising" (yes, bad pun) passages and everything in between.

If you want more detailed feedback I am delighted to provide it, as you are one of the most active members of this community and I deeply respect your ability as a serious composer. 

Thank you.  

First let me point out that I am just one retired amateur composer, so my opinion isn't worth much. Your music is not atonal or random or offensive in any way. I like many of your compositions. In fact, lots of music being written today is very pleasing to me. For me, it is not a matter of when the music was written, but the quality of the music itself.

First, retired amateur composer or not, your opinion as with everyone else's is worth plenty.  Musicians, especially those with formal/academic backgrounds are often quick to dismiss anything but the most intellectual arguments rooted in a deep understanding of theoretical principles and musicology.  However, absent the ability to describe why a person does or doesn't enjoy a piece/style of music, everyone is able to determine for themselves what resonates and what doesn't.  To that end, they're entitled to share their views from their own perspective, recognizing that others may have a completely different perspective.

I sort of wish I hadn't started this since as I get older I find it harder and harder to engage in discussions that could turn into debates. OK, about your piece. Perhaps a comparison is in order.

What could turn in to a debate doesn't have to turn ugly.  A spirited conversation is far more enjoyable than a vicious back and forth (goes without saying) but is also preferred to no discussion at all.  Many of us share our music here to crickets, so at the very least, you've stimulated a discussion that will give us all a chance to reflect on our own views/interests.

Your piece "The Exorcism" is, in my opinion, one of the best things you have ever posted. The piece is filled with emotion and pathos. The use of each instrument is superb. Lots of variety of colors and textures, but always contributing to the emotional context of the piece. Having some instruments resting frequently adds to their impact when they enter. Harmonic choices are excellent, particularly in the creative use of pedal tones. I am not saying it is "perfect" nor is it something I would have written, but it is a piece that I would give a standing ovation.

Thanks for this.  To tackle the end first, how does one describe a "perfect" piece?  Is there such a thing?  What are the criteria for musical perfection?  Anyway, as to the other points, The Exorcism speaks to you precisely because the criteria you value were met.  I was apologetic in posting it because I was aware that many that favour a strong melodic focus, with more conventional harmony and form might be disinterested.  There are those that I know would prefer to sit in a concert featuring the Fantasy for Flute and Piano over The Exorcism.  There are also musicians that would probably enjoy the challenges of performing The Exorcism, even if the audience was less excited by the piece.

"Fantasy for Flute and Piano" contains some wonderful, rich romantic harmonies and the flute part is mostly very idiomatic. I realize that you named it a Fantasy, so you are not obliged to provide form, but in the absence of form, something else is needed to propel the piece forward. It is obviously not a show-stopping bravura showcase for the flute. Nor does the piece offer a melody that captures our hearts like "The Lark Ascending" by Vaughn Williams, which sounds just as delicious performed by a flute as it does on the violin. The piece does not "to me" convey a clear emotional appeal like "The Exorcism." There is nothing wrong with the piece. It is very workmanlike. My concern is not with what it contains but what it lacks. You can do better. You have done better in the past, so I know you can.

To be succinct, you mentioned your concern is not with what it contains but what it lacks.  I suppose if we used this criteria in evaluating every piece of music, we could easily find that Bach lacks Mahler's powerful orchestration, Mozart's piano music lacks the depth and emotional impact of Beethoven's, etc.  When we look at a piece in reference to any others, there will always be elements that appear in one piece and not another; there will always be a purpose behind the piece, why it was written, and why certain decisions were made as to the style/aesthetic/technical qualities of the piece.  

I write very quickly, and on a whim, almost always.  I put "pen to paper" within 60 seconds of sitting down at the keyboard.  Once that initial measure of music is written, I develop it whether I want to or not, without revising, re-thinking, re-vamping anything.  Why do I do this?  Because if I were to put so much thought in to what I was doing prior to starting, I would never write anything.  As modern composers, we're inevitably going to bear the burden of being compared to centuries of greats.  We're also going to have to find meaning in what we write for ourselves as well as hopefully, for others to enjoy.  All those forces make it virtually impossible for any individual to confidently sit down and believe that the next thing they write, will be satisfactory to all.

Fantasy was written on a whim, as I mentioned, in a brief discussion with my wife.  Two days earlier, I had written a woodwind quintet, that's the complete antithesis of Fantasy and in a different universe than The Exorcism.  At the same time, I'm still working on an orchestral suite that's again, different.  As a composer, for me, the fun/challenge is trying to push myself to do different things, with very little outside inspiration/purpose other than my own artistic development and hopefully, the enjoyment of a small audience that "gets it."  

Each piece will inevitably fall somewhere on a spectrum...some technically challenging, some with a heart-wrenching melody, some with a completely identifiable sonata-allegro form, others with insane 5 part counterpoint, still others with complex poly-rhythmic elements, or extended instrument techniques, etc. etc. etc.  What your detailed reply served to do, is to put in to words why you appreciated a certain piece more than another, and I can totally respect and understand that, so thank you :)

Music is so personal, and our reasons for liking things may be justified by "defending our arguments", but they can just as easily be silly/irrational/nonsensical.  I won't apologize for liking a bubble gum pop song, just because I'm aware of Mahler (who incidentally I have very little interest in listening to compared to Bach, Mozart, or Faure, for example...let the attacks begin!)  The one thing I'm grateful for is that I have the ability to explore my own voice free from any outside influences, or the urgency of doing music to make money (not that I wouldn't like to, mind you!)

Thanks again, Paul for sharing your thoughts.  I hope we can all continue to celebrate the talents of the many brilliant people on this forum, many of whom are quiet sources of inspiration to me.

Cheers!

Dave

Best wishes,

Paul

Hi Dave,

I agree with much of your post. To address your last point first, I don't see any reason why any exchange between us would cause me to cease being active on this forum. Nor would I "dislike" someone personally because they disagree with me about music. I do realize that others make a choice to personally dislike me because of my views, but so be it. 

I have been involved in countless discussions over the past 40 or 50 years about musical aesthetics. I earned a degree in mucal composition in 1976 and the same aesthetic arguments were going on then, 42 years ago. I expect similar discussions about all art have occurred since the beginning of art itself.

Picture an after the concert party with six young composers of modernist crap. They have all just contributed pieces to an important  "contemporary music" concert. It is a scene of unintended satiric comedy. Every piece is magnificent, the composers are all brilliant, the pieces pure genius, and if anyone suggests otherwise, they are mercilessly attacked en masse. The composition professor arrives and all turn to him in rapturous applause. He is the greatest genius of them all. Surely all of them are destined to be famous and successful composers. I was one of those young people, and this was an actual scene from my life. Sadly 42 years later, none of the young composers, or the professor, have become famous and successful composers. 

I keep writing and deleting additional paragraphs as I am not sure what else I can add that will be both honest and helpful, and it is important to me to try to be both honest and helpful. I know that you did not ask for my help or value my experience or honesty. I do not make that presumption.  I look forward to listening to your next composition. 

Paul

On this piece my immediate response was the flute sounded extremely good, realistic, and expressive.  So I disagree with the post from Jos about it not being adequate.  It was actually better than a lot of the official demos.  

But that may not be good enough now.  It is becoming a little silly on the demos of VSL - This one is "correct" and that one is not.  In other words, the musical taste of this or that person is now the decider. Not the samples.  But that actually shows the quality of the library and performances. 

Post removed due to unwanted misunderstandings.

Jos

Jos,

Sorry - I realized I shouldn't comment further.

Hi Dave,

I had the opportunity this morning to take the rest to listen to your piece. And I want to congratulate you with this beautiful piece and the (of course in my ears but that's always, I just can't use other than mine 😊 😉 beautiful rendition of the flute. The overal tone, somewhat thin like a flute can sound, and I like that sound, it has a kind of flexibility in it, but also the nice use of the dynamics, what takes you long with the music, beautiful. I understand Becky very well that she said, that this is perhaps one of your best renditions. And a good cooperation between you and her: she asks for a piece for flute and piano, and there it is...

Thanks guys for keeping the piece alive...its shelf life has exceeded expectations and hopefully I'll receive a whopping 2-5 additional listens on Soundcloud as a result of the discussion :)

William:  I'm honoured that someone with your mastery of VSL instruments thinks highly enough of the piece that it could be a demo.  I've never been asked by VSL, and of course, would have loved to, but as another composer that doesn't frequent here often reminded me, my music and mockup skills aren't good enough.  I'd prefer to listen to your opinion, though :) 

Jos:  Your opinions and thoughts re. your flute preferences are completely valid, informative, and appreciated.  As the late Canadian TV chef, "The Urban Peasant" James Barber always said when cooking:  make do with what you have (he was always missing a key ingredient for his dish and would substitute things...of course, he never ran out of sherry, which he would drink while cooking and breathing heavily through his nostrils).  But I digress.  My point is, I only have the standard libraries, not extended, and while I always strive to create the best performance I can, to be honest, even if I had access to another 30 samples of a staccato note, I'd quickly be overwhelmed by the possibilities and probably would question every decision I made even more than I already do.  As long as I'm happy with the overall performance, I recognize there will always be things that could be improved, and of course, a live performance is still a goal for most of these pieces.

MMKA:  So nice to hear from you again!  Hope all is well, and thank you so much for your kind comments.  Yes, Becky does a great job commissioning pieces from me, but without any monetary payment :) lol

I love this...playful, yet dramatic, especially like some of the chording with the piano...

Since I have to run out the door in few minutes, I wanted to comment but briefly.

The composition itself is great. What I would love to hear is a more intimate setting. It sounds like Im listening to this over a PA. Id love to have this sound like Im standing next to the piano and flute player. I guess what I mean is, similar to how the newer Synchron piano releases have a preset for player or intimate, so would I love this piano to have that sort of sound in this piece. The flute sounds like its a mile away, and it really is missing something tonally, its almost ear piercing at points, which is something that at a live, unmic'd performance, should be a rare occasion. Perhaps it needs to be eqd, specifically, bringing the lower mids up and dialing down the highs a smidge and some of the reverb dialed back?

As to critiques, we are all musicians and sound engineers here. We are not posting to the masses who, generally speaking, have no idea what is authentic and what is not. We certainly dont listen on beats earphones and most of us generally hate this culture of mixing for ipods and phones. When a piece is posted here, first, expect critiques. Second, critiques should be made in a constructive way. Be specific. Finally, as Paul instructs in the bible, start with what you like about the piece. Even if you are having trouble finding something you like, find something, anything.

I want to comment further, especially on what I like about this piece, because I feel like Im giving that aspect short shrift, but I have to run out the door. Perhaps tomorrow I will listen to it again and comment on some specific aspects. As a pianist, I found the chord structure fascinating, just a hint of one of the things I liked :)

Hi "littlewierdo",

Thanks for checking this out and reviving the thread :)  It did stir quite some debate, didn't it?  As for the piece itself, I'm glad you enjoyed it, and that you found interest in some of the harmonic choices/progressions.

As for the sound aesthetics, we all have our own ideas of what sounds authentic.  As we do live in a world where expectations from everyday listeners is influenced by the larger than life sounds everywhere else, I do try with small chamber pieces to make them sound "bigger" than perhaps might be 100% authentic in an intimate concert setting.  When my wife and I released our first classical accordion and clarinet CD 15 years ago, my cousin, who never listened to acoustic/concert music a day in his life, put the CD on his system, turned to me and said, "you guys need more bass...nothing's rattling on my shelves."  Becky and me turned to each other and gave that knowing glance of "he'll never get it with his Dolby-rattled, 10 subwoofers in his Honda Civic-loving frame of mind."

In spite of all this, we're still happy with how this piece turned out, even if there are elements of course that could be improved (starting with having access to the full library instead of just the standard for additional flute articulations, as Jos pointed out.)  

As for your suggestion of offering a kind word up front regardless of what one thinks of something, this is my philosophy completely.  You get more bees with honey than with vinegar.  Unfortunately, in the composition world, too many composers are so insecure/competitive/downright dismissive of others, that the desire to break others down and humble them prevails in their communications.  I posted an orchestral work on another forum that made use of the Synchron Strings, and a composer there wrote to me:  "Is this a joke?  It doesn't sound remotely realistic!"  That was the only thing he wrote until others came to my defense, at which point, he still didn't apologize...just doubled down with his holier than thou opinions.  Ah, the internet :)

Cheers,

Dave

That makes me particularly mad when somebody doesn't even mention the composition.  It is true that mixing is extremely subjective, and yet everyone always acts as if it is completely straightforward and obvious.  This mix seemed to suit the piece perfectly.  I also don't want chamber pieces to sound too dry.  I remember hearing live recordings that are so dead sounding. They don't have to be simply because it is chamber music. 

Im so glad that you understand what I was saying. Im on the other side of the aisle, worried someone will misunderstand what I say as being too harsh and critical.

I have been going through some of the pieces here in the forums and listening to them, commenting on ones that I feel like I have something to say.

By the way, what I was imagining listening to this, what if I were just leaning on the piano and listening to the pianist and flute player play this, thats what my comments so in-eloquently should have said yesterday haha.

Im relatively new to all of this. My collection of soundfonts is limited (I just finished buying the special edition complete, which has taken nearly a year to purchase), I work a minimum wage job 60 hours a week while going to school for astro physics. I dont make money with this music hobby. I enjoy it, and only now do I feel like I have enough of an orchestral library that I can make competent music. I have the experience with composing, Ive been writing orchestral music all my life, but as I keep saying in other places here in the forums, these days, it is not enough to be a composer, one must now be a sound engineer, in addition to a composer.

All of this to say, I listen to alot. Im trying to learn from others. There is no reason to re-invent the wheel, and regardless of what anyone says, music isnt 100% original. It is all derivative. People accuse John Williams of stealing licks from classical pieces or other composers, and I say, no, its an homage to the greats.

When I critique a piece, it is because I like the piece enough to say it can be improved. I however, understand that my critique is not necessarily the vision of its creator. I like to use real life examples, its why in another thread, I have commented on the use of a solo violin by using a real recording of a violin. To say something doesnt sound realistic isnt enough, youve got to be more specific, and youve got to point the creator to something he can potentially fix, which is something that also bothers me in this realm. So often, a critique is focused around something not sounding realistic, without giving a reason or what can be done to improve it.

@William said:

That makes me particularly mad when somebody doesn't even mention the composition.  It is true that mixing is extremely subjective, and yet everyone always acts as if it is completely straightforward and obvious.  This mix seemed to suit the piece perfectly.  I also don't want chamber pieces to sound too dry.  I remember hearing live recordings that are so dead sounding. They don't have to be simply because it is chamber music. 

Couldn't agree more with you, Bill, on the idea of overly dry chamber pieces.  There's always that balance between clarity, especially with contrapuntally dense passages, and adding enough reverb to add to the sonic richness.

As for the subjectivity of mixing, we all make decisions on how something should sound based on our own sensibilities, technical skills, and available tools.  If you try to "chase a sound" or predict what others will expect a piece to sound like and mix it according to those goals, you'll go crazy because one person will tell you they expect it to sound like you're sitting next to the pianist; another will tell you they were hoping it could have more of the room's presence; a third will say that the flute sounds like it's in a bathroom while the piano is in the Taj Mahal; a fourth will swear the piano is in the bathroom (how did you fit a grand piano in there?!) while the flute is in the Taj Mahal, etc. etc. etc. 

Let your ears decide and if you're happy with it, generally, some others will be...never everybody though.  The internet would break if we all reached consensus on anything!

Cheers,

Dave

My responses in bold:

@littlewierdo said:

Im so glad that you understand what I was saying. Im on the other side of the aisle, worried someone will misunderstand what I say as being too harsh and critical.

You can always spot a person that is harsh/critical for reasons that aren't designed to be helpful/constructive.  No worries here :)

I have been going through some of the pieces here in the forums and listening to them, commenting on ones that I feel like I have something to say.

By the way, what I was imagining listening to this, what if I were just leaning on the piano and listening to the pianist and flute player play this, thats what my comments so in-eloquently should have said yesterday haha.

For sure, one could mix it the way you described.  For my purposes, it was mixed the way I expected to hear such a piece in a concert hall.

Im relatively new to all of this. My collection of soundfonts is limited (I just finished buying the special edition complete, which has taken nearly a year to purchase), I work a minimum wage job 60 hours a week while going to school for astro physics. I dont make money with this music hobby. I enjoy it, and only now do I feel like I have enough of an orchestral library that I can make competent music. I have the experience with composing, Ive been writing orchestral music all my life, but as I keep saying in other places here in the forums, these days, it is not enough to be a composer, one must now be a sound engineer, in addition to a composer.

You're not the only physicist that dabbles in music on the VSL forum.  You guys bring unique perspectives to those of us that (foolishly?!) pursue music professionally/full-time.

All of this to say, I listen to alot. Im trying to learn from others. There is no reason to re-invent the wheel, and regardless of what anyone says, music isnt 100% original. It is all derivative. People accuse John Williams of stealing licks from classical pieces or other composers, and I say, no, its an homage to the greats.

There's 12 tones to work with (my apologies to microtonalists).  We're all going to make use of those same 12 pitches.  Those that came 200 years ago had more original ideas to explore within the realm of tonality.  Doesn't mean modern composers can't write pleasing music that still brings something new to the table while respecting the work and accomplishments of the greats that came before us.

When I critique a piece, it is because I like the piece enough to say it can be improved. I however, understand that my critique is not necessarily the vision of its creator. I like to use real life examples, its why in another thread, I have commented on the use of a solo violin by using a real recording of a violin. To say something doesnt sound realistic isnt enough, youve got to be more specific, and youve got to point the creator to something he can potentially fix, which is something that also bothers me in this realm. So often, a critique is focused around something not sounding realistic, without giving a reason or what can be done to improve it.

This is important, because as William said above, it's very subjective.  When someone suggests how they would rather a piece of music sound, I always try to imagine it from their perspective and they are usually right in that their interpretation is a valid one.  My thoughts on this are that, unless a composer expressly mentions that they are not satisfied with the results of their performance and would like suggestions on how it could be improved, they are likely sharing music that reflects their sensibilities and is mixed to their satisfaction.  Of course offering a different suggestion shouldn't offend, and could at its best, let the composer re-think their own choices.