196,182 users have contributed to 43,014 threads and 258,396 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 0 new thread(s), 8 new post(s) and 168 new user(s).
This is a demo dedicated to flute 2, written for harp and flute. The timbre is different than flute 1, but does have its own personality.
(Once again, this particular lib is from the VSL download collection)
[url=http://www.guybacos.com/audio/Wolf%20Whispers.mp3]Wolf Whispers[/url]
Comments are welcomed!
Guy
I didn't notice any dynamic range problem. In fact the dynamics are incredibly realistic and varied. This is Impressionist like Ravel or Debussy, but without being an imitation at all. While this works as an individual piece, again - like many other pieces Guy has done - I feel it is so good it really should have other movements and become a sonata. Both flute and harp players would love to do this.
Thanks guys!
Mr String, I preferred to play it safe and made a couple of adjustments, so new mix is in. Of course I welcome constructive criticism. So from what I'm reading from your posts, either you or I, or both, will have to see a shrink. 2 sessions a week should be good to start.
William, Thanks once more, I've said before and I'll say it again, your constant support is very healthy for me. :) It,s true. I should think of elaborating my pieces to other forms sometimes. Will think about this.
Guy
Curiously, Debussy also came to my mind. Why? I don't know. Wolf Whispers has a sound of itself. As you say, there's no imitation. In my view, Debussy would have felt a bit envious. Why do I speak about envy? Well...I once heard that Debussy was not as original as we've been made to believe. According to what I heard, the real source of everything is Ravel. There was a time in Ravel's life when he didn't know one tenth of what Debussy knew about music. Ravel was, practically speaking, undereducated. However, Ravel had something fresh to offer. And, little by little, a group of imitators gathered around him in order to drink of Ravel's fresh source. While most composers of the time acknowledged that Ravel had influenced them, Debussy denied Ravel any recognition. And what’s worse, he even despised him publicly...and other things like that. All the credit went to Debussy, Ravel got little credit. So I feel a little guilty when I think of Debussy and not of Ravel.
(There’s another person that comes to my mind now: Ravel’s sister. She was a woman that came to live here, in Buenos Aires; unfortunately, I wasn’t yet born and couldn’t meet her! Her life was very difficult, economically speaking. She was also a pianist and that was her way of earning some money, not much; she played the piano at parties which certain people of the elite of my country organized. However, she didn’t own a piano, her only opportunity of playing piano was at those elegant parties. Her practise “piano” was not really a piano, it was a portable keyboard which made no sound. She felt very lonely and missed tremendously her brother, Maurice; she also missed the sounds Ravel could create with his piano. That man must have played nicely! I can imagine brother and sister playing the piano, when they were young).
(Please, don’t believe all this information about Ravel, Debussy, and Ravel’s sister...I am telling you this in a very informal way, some of it may be completely incorrect. I should check if I remember things the way they are).
Guy, I cannot believe you are going to mix that again! Perhaps your ears and Williams’s are more developed than mine. Sometimes, the available dynamic range of our digital systems is, simply, not enough. (And, maybe, not even our hearing system has enough dynamic range). It seems to me that our brains have a wider range of dynamics, but these possibilities may be underdeveloped due to environmental exposure and hearing system. In summary, your ears may be right and digital systems may not yet be enough. A composer’s expressive needs may be a bit bigger than the systems available nowadays.
Oh, you want me to see a shrink? I don’t need no “shrink”. However, an “enlargement” would be more appropriate! At least for certain parts of my body...for example, I would like to have my ears enlarged...hahahahahahahahahah! That would be cool, wouldn’t it? Don’t worry Guy and William, I am just trying to avoid writing cold or mean posts, although I may be overdoing it since English is not my native language...nor is wit!Actually your posts are quite witty. Speaking of enlarging ears, isn't there a dangerous South American creature that is a head that flies with huge ears?
Well sir you are talking about the old Ravel-Debussy argument I see. Yes, each has his partisans who fervently believe that only his guy is good and the other is a blaspheming idiot. I love them both however. I feel that Debussy's orchestration though is so great that it is some kind of miracle which no other composer has ever created. Ravel's orchestration is spectacularly good but very understandable and more down to earth. But Debussy's is a miracle partly because of its vividness combined with subtlety.
The discussion of these issues in relation to Guy's music makes me think of the fact that 99% of it is lost on film music. In other words, who would even hear the entire orchestra, let alone the difference between Debussy and Ravel orchestration, in a film with giant robots firing laser beams at each other?
THE FLYING HEAD: in Iroquois mythology, the flying head was a giant winged head with fire for eyes, fangs like knives and wings of strands of hair. It preyed on animals at night, and when it found a human settlement it descended upon it and set on the farm animals and the owners. The flying head was destroyed after eating roasted chestnuts and the fire they were roasted in.
Honestly, I didn't know about this creature(s). In Argentina, the scary monsters are mass media (Russel Crowe, Gladiator's protagonist, is right...I guess you heard about his Robin Hood comments), no kidding; it is truly a global phenomenon. A quick search shows me that flying heads are also a global phenomenon...USA, Bolivia, Malaysia, Peru, etc. I noticed this one: "the Penanggalan, a vampire that it is nothing more than a floating head and neck and has intestines dangling beneath it. This bodiless vampire is female and always female." So nobody is really safe!
====================
Back to Ravel, I didn't know there was an arguement, as you put it: "the old Ravel-Debussy argument". I would like to know who is winning this argument, perhaps a pie chart with statistics would do...say, Debussy 70%, Ravel 30%. Once you know which side is winning, you can subscribe to the winning partisans! It is good to know such argument exists, thanks for the info.
I think I will pay more attention to Debussy in the future. His music hasn't attracted me much up to now but my appreciation of its work may be very poor. I'll try open myself to that "vividness combined with subtlety" you talk about and see what happens.
"99% of it is lost on film music". True! Morover this doesn't only happen to music. Each and every aspect of a film suffers from some form of reduction, it is the movie industry. Besides, people who want to see a movie do not want to be distracted by the music, they want to dream a story. It's the same concept that timpanists apply for playing in an orchestra: support is everything, classical orchestral music requires a timpanist that has the ability to enhance the orchestra. Normally, nobody wants the timpanist to become the protagonist!
P Paul moved this topic from Orchestration & Composition on