Classical Critique

Daavid

Hi All,

My name is Dave, I'm new to the boards. Ithink this is th right place to post this, if not though could one of the mods be kind enough to move it and let me know where it should go.

Anyway, on with the post.. I've written some classical music recently and well to be honest, I'm not sure how good it is as classical isn't really my forte. It started as a project my dad asked me to do as he quite like classical music and he knew I liked to write music.
All of my pieces were composed on computer because I can't read or write sheet music.

I have uploaded a few pieces to the following location:

http://webstorage.btinet.net/index.php
Username : daavid@bowiewonderworld.com
Password : bowie

The classical pieces are in the folder called "Classics"

I'd really appreciate some opinions from the people who post here and like classical music. Also any pointers or criticisms on particular pieces would be great.

Thanks,
Dave

RedPlanet

I get no sound when i play these mp3's.
Using Windows Media PLayer 9

Daavid

Hmmm, try winamp. I checked them all in media player 10 before I uploaded and they seemed fine.

Actually, I just tried in media player 9 and they seemed fine aswell.

banquo

Hey dave, what software did you use? I'm also a big classical-music-via-pc guy.

Daavid

I used Reason 2.5. Probably not an ideal option but I'm familiar with it. It has its limitation, but some of the instruments get a very realistic sound when done right.

Custom22

Piano Concerto No1. : It is a little too vague, in terms of melody. The arrangement is fine really but it is pretty unimpressive overall. not bad though.

Piano Concerto No.2 : A little bland in terms of dynamics and the melodic range of the piano at the intro. The string line from 0:30 - 0:35 is unpleasing. Overuse of percussion in the the second half starting at 0:57 in my opinion. At 1:24 I would avoid using the kettle drum and tambourine. I would add more grace notes (thats taste though) and possibly as an alternative to keeping the rhythm using percussion some pizzicato strings would work nicer...? Generally its quite good, but too rich really in my opinion. Its got too many elements competing and the piano is a little ploddy in it overall. Dynamics are pretty much non-existant, which may bedue to the nature of the recording, so I think that that can be remedied.

Great Wall: Overall nice piece especially in the string melody and horn (or is that more string, sound is weird) interaction and suspensions. Very cinematic. The only fault is the boring paino segments, they are ok, just boring. The entrance of the strings is a bit abrupt, the whole thing (like all of the pieces so far) is quite brash (but thats mainly due to dynamics not being presesnt). The only fault really is the slightly boring piano line, just gets annoying after a while. Best one overall yet.

The Escape: Strong introduction, but i think it needs time to breath before the second string theme kicks in at 0:20. The second theme needs rhythmic focus by having some sort of synocpation or stress on key notes. The doubling of the string parts at 1:06 (ish) by a French horn (is it... I;m not 100%) isnt really that interesting. I think some use of cannonic ideas in the higher resister (or lower one really) would generate more interest. variation is what is needed, counterpoint. I know that might sound a bit Barouqe but overall thats pretty much the tones you are getting, "gothic" sounds, for want of a better word. The second string melody with the semi-brieves is not really that effective. Overall ok, but forgettable. Still, worth making.
The Soldiers Danced: Nice suspensions and interplay between the various parts and good choice of rhythm, but it would be more suited to chamber music than an Orchestral work. It sounds contrived in an orchestral setting. Too much. The string melosy at 2:00 - 2:05 is not great either. I would have tried tochange it rhythmically or at least tonally, although rhythm is something that needs to see a little variation in this piece. Its ok overall, not my particular taste though. Ending bar needs work too, just to make sound more interesting and memorable.

The Dangerous (Overture No.1): Probably the most intersting of all the piece, nice laering and climatic effect. Nice percussive touches although perhaps the two cymbal hits at 1:06 and 1:09 are overkill. A flute stab chord may have been more impressive. 1:40 is a geat moment, feel it building up. Afterthe hit at 1:48 the violins hit a very high resister which I think is perhaps a little too high really. It sounds a bit forced (that's, again personal taste). The entrance of the piano at 2:20 is a good idea but I think the actual notes played are not really ofmuch use. Some broad sweping arpeeggions dominating the higher resisters with some nice semi-quavers and syncopation would have added a new texture to that area and allowed a variation of the melody and rhythm maybe. Nice woodwind lines at 2:40 I would have gradually faded the strings out to cease at 2:50 though, you do seem to aknowlegde this and start to make the strings less pronminent which is great. The buildup that ends at 3:12 with the dialogue between the low strings and piano, shoul, be extended. I think its just a little short. But thats not actually ncessary REALLY. I think the voice of the piano of the piano is very eak in the dialogue and even afterwards it doesnt really do that much worthwhie. This is the area that needs most work. Going on a bit further now I think the climbing melody on the horns at 4:33 is a bit clumsey but not bad at all really. Once again, lose the tambourine. The stop at 4:48 is a little odd. The repeating triange starting at 4:54, 5:00 and so on is superfluous and not needed in the slightest. There are some rumbles going on at 5:24 to 5:30 that also seem a little odd and out of place. 5:36 if not much earlier is really when a dramatic key change should really be taken. It would shed new light on the new ideas that enter and continue at 5:48 . Its pretty good anyway though, I'm just getting sick of the harmony by this stage. The ending is poor, but thats easily, and seriously ditch the triangle. Oveall the most ambiutious and best piese you have. The cheesey "MIDI" sounds are never easy to work with so fair play. There is more of an emphasis placed on dymanics here which is good. Good piece.

Wow, long post. Hope you can get through all that crap. Sonme of your stuff I enjoyed, others not. Good overall though.

Dont treat musical ideas as "riffs" but rather as phrases. Classical music needs variation and experimentation. Repeatition is ok, just not as much as is in pop/rock music *generally*.

Daavid

Wow, thanks a million for a such a detailed post. I really appreciate it. Your input will be very useful I hope as you seem to know more about the correct progressions of classical music than I. (As I mentioned I'm completely new to this). I'll probably have to brush up my musical linguistic skills to properly understand some of it.

If you would be interested in reviewing more for me I'd really appreciate it, I have a few more pieces done. Let me know, and thanks agani!

Custom22

Daavid wrote:

Wow, thanks a million for a such a detailed post. I really appreciate it. Your input will be very useful I hope as you seem to know more about the correct progressions of classical music than I. (As I mentioned I'm completely new to this). I'll probably have to brush up my musical linguistic skills to properly understand some of it.

If you would be interested in reviewing more for me I'd really appreciate it, I have a few more pieces done. Let me know, and thanks agani!

Firstly, you're welcome. I enjoyed listening to what you had so it wasnt really much hassle apart from the typing it up (sorry for all the typos). Secondly, lose the idea of there being a "correct" way to compose. There are just certain ways that sound better (again, subjective.. but there are standards if you get me) or, more precisely, achieve a desired effect in a way that is more.... effective!. Just do what you think sounds best and worry about "rules" afterwards. Learning some musical terms is definately good way to start as you'll be able to understand critique as well as describe music a little quicker. Again, its not absolutely essential. You don't have to know what a tool is called in order to use it perfectly.

Keep posting stuff.

Daavid

More in the same place in a folder called Classic 2

Custom22

Can't open them.

Daavid

Weird, I just tried dloading them myself and they seem to work ok. I used Windows Media Player 10 to play them. Did you try that?

cjs19

On first inspection, and Ill try to be brief, as I tend to become a real ass when i talk too much about form and contrapuntal techniques. You have some good ideas and seem to understand the methods needed to create atmospheric music. If Im to be a little brutal, I think youre being a bit cheeky calling it classical music, or even naming your pieces Piano Concerto whatever. As you learn more youll discover it takes a lot to call a piece a concerto, in short a full conversation of ideas between the orchestra and whatever your concerto instrument is. Custom22 has given any advice that I can offer already but mainly, and again Im trying not to be harsh, I hope it's all constructive, I feel his point about thinking about classical music as phrasal rather than riffed is the main point you should start from. At the moment it sounds a little like Philip Glass, an american composer who attempts to justify his lack of musical creativity by cliaming his pieces are minimalist and by this he just uses repetition to the point that its almost torture. Not saying that thats what I perceive from your music but it just lacks somewhat in whats called development. It would be excellent pre score film music though. Try listening to some inspired melodic music, Mozart, Stravinksy, and this might give you an idea of how a theme can be hinted at early in a piece and developed later on or vice versa. Above all listening to this music will give you an understanding of the delicate relationships that exist between certain families of the orchestra, and as Custom22 said the need for harmonic migration or key changes. At first you will struggle with this , everybody does but in time if youre any good youll be able to change a piece from major to minor or change the key, or diminish it just by playing one note and the suggestion will be enough to change the direction. Overall it's very impressive what you have done with a computer and in someways more impressive than coming from a classical training background as you havent been drilled with rules and conformities. Rules shouldnt be adhered to always but music should always be pleasing to the ear and classical standards set guidelines to achieving this. A simple rule being no doubling of thirds in harmonies i.e in chord C (C,E,G) only double the C or the G in other parts, otherwise it weakens the chord. However then again at some points this may be desirable. Another simple rule is no octave repetition, i.e playing the same melody an octave higher. To classical composers this was seen as lazy in terms of idea development, essentially like Picasso using the same colour in another part of a painting because he couldnt be bothered mixing a new one. These are all formalities and I suppose just directions to creating a truly unique and pleasing piece. I hope none of it seems condescending. Some recommended listening however I feel is necessary if you are to progress.
Mozart's Serenade in Bflat Major "Gran Partita": Excellent to grasp the idea of phrasing.
Beethoven's Piano Concerto in Eflat "Emperor": A perfect example of the dialogue between piano and orchestra and what can be achieved.
Hope this helps and keep it up, above all Im just happy to see some people are still interested in composing such a fine art.

Custom22

cjs19 wrote:

...but music should always be pleasing to the ear.

I agree with a lot of what you have said, but I seriously don't agree with this. Music is about expression and creativity. If the composer wants to express himself by including extreme dissonance or hashness in th epiece it is completely of no impact on how beautiful or great the music is. Ithink it is far more important for a piece of music to be expressive and origional in some way than to be pleasing to the ear.

Also, I think that some of the conventions of classical music you outlined make the process of composing a lot more strenuous than it should be. Put simply, I dont think you should haveanypreconceptions as to what is "bad" practise when you begin composing. It is through your own experimentation that you will arrive at your own conclusions and develop a voice that is unique; uncoloured by convention. This is how to keep things progressive, or at least how to stop music from being held back. However, I think many of these conventions sound good, some I think are nonesense, thats me personally. You may feel they are all nonesense. Fine, make music your way, thats important. Ideally, books on the nature of music should be read. So, books on theory, the nature of the orchestra etc. I try to pick up anything I hear, but never adhere to what somweone says unless I hear it in pracise or try it myself. Never take any of these conventions written down in a book to heart before trying them yourself. Not even in the lightest way. Its counterproductive to becomming a unique composer. Thats my opinion on it.

Custom22

Seans Clarinet: Too much percussion in my opinion, doesnt do anything for the piece I think. Especially around 2:05, whats the story with all that. Oi, I think I heard some bloody triangle again!:v: Ditch it.

Voicless: i thought it was going to break off into some big Baroque counterpoint at 0:30. Don't really think the repeatition does much either. I think the whole thing is unessarily rich. Too many instruments playing. Its just that same (.... - -) rhythm over and over. Sounds unfinished.

Dear Death: Interesting intro. Much more controled than the other pieces. And there is development of ideas that is good. I think I get the whole epic thing you may have been going for. Probably the most effective piece you've written that I've heard. The change at around 1:43 and the introduction of new percussion is a little odd, not necessarily bad though. Much better than a lot your stuff. Seriously, dont feel the need to repeat so much though. Unless you are going to develop the idea, people will lose interest.

Eastern Influence: I didn't hear anything to great here. Some cheesy eastern sounding lines running throughout but overall fairly lame. No lasting memory of anything really within the piece. I think its pretty weak. Maybe one or two moments are worth talking about but I don't know really.

ChildlingHard to make that piano sound good, no matter what you play. What a horrible piano sound, so fair dues for getting it sounding any way musical. I thin kit sounds like a good pop ballad but I dont think its particularly classical in any way. If played by an orchestra well you could easily imagine it in afilm. not my thing, but ok. Childling eh? he he :v:

The Haunting Arrgh! Too much percussion I think. Think of percussion as a special effect in orchestral music, save it for when you need it. Its like glitter glue. He he. Use it everywhere and its unneeded, tacky and if it gets on the carpet it wont come off for ages (no actual extended metaphore in that by the way:) ). Overall, pretty uninteresting, but it has its moments.

Keep it comming. do yourself a favour, get a good orchestral sounds sample set. What you have sounds crap. It really does. Garitan Personal Orchestra sounds good and is cheap. I think if I was you I'd get Garitan Orchestral and agood Virtual Piano strings, you would only have strings and piano sounds but they would be of high quality and you would learn how to compose well so that when you need French horns, Basoons, Clarinets etc. you could go out and build upon the set. I think it would make your stuff sound so much better.

cjs19

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjs19
...but music should always be pleasing to the ear.

I agree with a lot of what you have said, but I seriously don't agree with this. Music is about expression and creativity. If the composer wants to express himself by including extreme dissonance or hashness in th epiece it is completely of no impact on how beautiful or great the music is. Ithink it is far more important for a piece of music to be expressive and origional in some way than to be pleasing to the ear.

"Music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music."

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Im afraid I take side with a master on this one. No matter how experimental in thematic motive, music cannot exist purely on the basis that it is anyones game. We are hereby entering an argument that covers all areas of art. Is a splash of paint on a page a piece of art? It may be to that artist but is art a self indulgent medium or a medium for detailing an idea to an audience. Without the audience there is no music. Therefore whether we like it or not a musician must create music that pleases the audience firstly and it is only within this that a musician can make any valid artistic point. Otherwise we can play any sound at any frequency and spend the remainder attempting to justify is validity. There are mathematical frameworks that govern music whether we like it or not. The scales are built on them and are even thought to be representative of celestial movements, thus giving rise to an ulterior reason for music. Whatever the case, music which follows tonal, harmonic, melodic and formal structures has and will continue to be the most endearing music. A piece that repeats a single arpeggio for it's entirety, or is overtly dissonant, can claim to be nothing more than a post modern lacsidasical effort.

Daavid

Thanks for the input, Custom22. I'm sure you're entirely right with your critiques, particulaarly regarding the percussion. (nice metaphor by the way ) Listening back to the pieces with your comments in mind seems to open my ears a bit more. Thanks for that.
cjs19, you are absolutely right that I'm being cheeky Those names were more for my own humour more than anythnig because I don't really know what a concerto is technically, or an overture. I thnik the music can fall very vaguely into the classical genre, though I know I'm not about to be asked to compose any ballets or anything just yet . Like I said I'm just trying my hand at it and I'm quite enjoying it, so I might stumble along the way but I'm willing to get back up and keep going for it.

Both your points about my repetitive use of 'riffs' taken on board, I'll try to avoid this in my next piece. Thanks guys.

Custom22

cjs19 wrote:

"Music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music."

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Im afraid I take side with a master on this one. No matter how experimental in thematic motive, music cannot exist purely on the basis that it is anyones game. We are hereby entering an argument that covers all areas of art. Is a splash of paint on a page a piece of art? It may be to that artist but is art a self indulgent medium or a medium for detailing an idea to an audience. Without the audience there is no music. Therefore whether we like it or not a musician must create music that pleases the audience firstly and it is only within this that a musician can make any valid artistic point. Otherwise we can play any sound at any frequency and spend the remainder attempting to justify is validity. There are mathematical frameworks that govern music whether we like it or not. The scales are built on them and are even thought to be representative of celestial movements, thus giving rise to an ulterior reason for music. Whatever the case, music which follows tonal, harmonic, melodic and formal structures has and will continue to be the most endearing music. A piece that repeats a single arpeggio for it's entirety, or is overtly dissonant, can claim to be nothing more than a post modern lacsidasical effort.

I disagree entirely. At what point do you call something overly-dissonant? At what point do you deem something to be self indulgent? This is purely relying on subjective assumptions.

Mathematical frameworks do not govern music. They are just a methodology that we employ to help us understand music. And it works very well.

A composer should never be limited by his audience. How do you guage an audence anyway? This holds back how a composer can express himself. Surely an unneeded limitation.

A Piece of music that repeats an arpeggio over and over must still be classed as music, alongside Mozrat, Brahms, Beethoven or whoever but it would probably be an uninteresting, annoying piece of music. Its ridiculous to discount it as being music. The Crazy Frog ringtone is music too.

Music is inherently anyones game. Once you can imagine your own music, you have really created it in its most basic form; the idea. The same applies to visual arts like painting, or written ones like prose. You will only be remembered as a great artist however, in any one of these genres, if you transformthese ideas, these notes in your head into artwork that can exist outside your imagination; like a paiting ora written score. There should not be any censoring for the audience. The focus should be on absolute expression of the ideas you have to give. Its hard enough getting these ideas expressed without waterig them down (or the opposite) for an audience to handle. If the idea is really interesting, you shoul really do all you can to presrve it, and give the world your own take on music.

Your example of the recurring arpeggio piece is strange. It completely depends upon its exceution. If that recurring arpeggio remains interesting throughout the entire piece then this composer has created something worhtwhile.

Mozart belonged to the Romantic tradition. Beauty was of massive importance at that time. Elegance, balance and all that stuff. He lived in a different era, his statement had its own conext, as does mine. Why should I accept the opinion of a man who has been dead for more than two hundred years when I do not live in that time? I know you can obiously have the same view, but I think his opinion is so loaded; historically speaking, so much has happened since his death in music. Things that throw what he said into great doubt.

Great art, including music of course, in my opinion, presents me with something new; a new way of looking at something, a new sound, anything that shows me there are still people inventing in the world. Mozart showed his audience something new and thats why he's remembered. All the great artists throughout history were progressive innovators. If someone creates something that is in some way giving the world something GENUINELY new, it will be appreciated, if not by it contemporaries, then by some future audience.

Custom22

Daavid wrote:

Both your points about my repetitive use of 'riffs' taken on board, I'll try to avoid this in my next piece. Thanks guys.

Dont be too worried about being a classical composer. Compose what it is you want. Arrange how you like, and then let yourself fall into a category. It may be classical, pop or whatever. You'll, most importantly, be creating your own, original work.

However, if you DO, for some reason, want to force yourself into one genre then you would probably be better off adopting some of the genre's most identifiable traits. (ie. Classical conventions etc.)

Don't compose for the genre though. Compose your own tunes and you'll fit in somewhere. There be plenty of genres.

cjs19

I find this debate interesting and as you seem the intelligible sort feel free to PM me with any remarks so forth. Essentially Music does not equal noise. Although in my nature I tend to rebel against conformity and established rules, I find that in music it is useless to do this. Oh in all manner and circumstances and by all means, express whatever it is that comes from your mind but be sure to annotate it so that it may become intelligible. The greatest art is not the mere scribblings of the mind. Art lies within the transition of thought to page. In this there should be ultimate tailoring (not censoring) but creation of something other minds can understand without explanation. Imsure I would find it very difficult to discern anything from my single arpeggio piece other than the fact that the composer was either extremely boring or was lacking mentally. I do not consider any sound of the world justifiable of the term music. A car horn is not music unless it is juxtaposed with a combination of other tones, even then all it can express is a fancy car horn. We must tread very carefully in defining music and Im afraid that nowadays there is far too much that slips through the net due to miseducation.
Does beauty, elegance and balance hold no value in todays music? I think beauty, elegance and balance are just a few of the many attributes of what one may term fine music of any era. The reason you should accept the opinion of a man who created music 200 years ago is that you already have, it is instilled in the human mind to conform to these regulations whether you like it or not. Moreover the reason you should listen to what he said is that he did not discover these things, he only realised them, and was perhaps the finest example we have on how to employ these methods to express ideas, sentiment, and philosophical thought. The music of Mozart was nothing revolutionary, it was built on the idea that the human ear and intellect adheres to certain archetypal modal systems that were present in Greek music. Greek music was built on numbers. Without getting too Dan Brown I will say just this, that there is a framework for beauty and its realisation. Mozart and his contemporaries whether knowingly or not employed this framework in their composition. This framework is seen in nearly every piece of music today. The cantus firmus, became the liederspiel or the modern pop song. Transitional harmonies and modulations laid the foundations for Jazz. Every rhythmic phrase in any piece of music can be traced to something inherently classical thereby based on the modes. The crazy frog my friend is not music. It is a human calamity that endeavours through marketing to appeal to unintelligent minds. It is not a case that I dislike it or not, it just doesn't classify as music. Music, with word or not, is as you said an expression of an artistic, philosophical, even revolutionary thought and therefore it "must" adhere to the notion that all art adheres to, and that is a constructive, logical framework upon which it can lay its questions, discussions, and analogies. A repetitive squabble from a computerised amphibian or a single repeated arpeggio, no matter how delicately dynamicised or phrased, do not lend themselves to artistic expression. As for interest as you said, any that can exist is contrived on the part of the composer and the listener. They are ultimately limited, even disabled in what they can define. Just as a car horn can only ever be a car horn.

Daavid

Custom22 wrote:

Dont be too worried about being a classical composer. Compose what it is you want. Arrange how you like, and then let yourself fall into a category. It may be classical, pop or whatever. You'll, most importantly, be creating your own, original work.

However, if you DO, for some reason, want to force yourself into one genre then you would probably be better off adopting some of the genre's most identifiable traits. (ie. Classical conventions etc.)

Don't compose for the genre though. Compose your own tunes and you'll fit in somewhere. There be plenty of genres.

Thanks Custom22. I don't think I will try to adhere to any conventions actually now that you mention it. I think I will just do what is in me and see what comes out. Thanks for all your advice and you Cjs.

Just to throw my 2 cents into the debate thats cropped up, I guess to accept something (anuthing) as music it would need only an audience to appreciate it as such, even 1 person. Doesn't mean its good music though. So I'd have to agree with Custom22, about the Crazy Frog, it may be the single most irritating thing to emerge, but if people are will ing to be an audience for it as music, then I guess it is music.
Some avant garde music doesn't appear ( to my ears anyway) to follow any sort of given patterns and yet is appreciated. (though to be fair, that could just be my un-educated ear).

Custom22

cjs19 wrote:

The crazy frog my friend is not music. It is a human calamity that endeavours through marketing to appeal to unintelligent minds. It is not a case that I dislike it or not, it just doesn't classify as music. Music, with word or not, is as you said an expression of an artistic, philosophical, even revolutionary thought and therefore it "must" adhere to the notion that all art adheres to, and that is a constructive, logical framework upon which it can lay its questions, discussions, and analogies. A repetitive squabble from a computerised amphibian or a single repeated arpeggio, no matter how delicately dynamicised or phrased, do not lend themselves to artistic expression.

Firstly, intelligence has nothing to do with listening to, and appreciating music. I cannot see how you don't classify the tune as music. It follows those frameworks that were explored and developed from, as you said earlier, Pythagrian roots all the way through to classical music and up to this present day. The Crazy Frog has notes, rhythm. Why is it not music. I don't think its very good music, but it does not happen by itself; a human created it. You can't but class it as music; and consequently art. Its just the type of music that will never be remembered because it has nothing to say. If a person bangs on car horn in specific rhythm, creatively, its music. Or if someone starts tapping a table, its music. Once you use sounds creatively you are making music. Whether it is worthwhile or not depends on what you have to say.

cjs19

All I can is refer you to the piece you quoted from my last message. As far as Im concerned music that says nothing is just rhythm and notes, not art. Whether it is memorable or not is irrelevant. I can easily remember many TV Jingles but they are not music. Much of the drivel we are bombarded with today is the same, just rhythm and notes with a clever rap behind it or supposedly meaningingful lyrics. However the standalone music tends to say nothing. If I started speaking random chinese words eloquently but with no coherence, would you say I could speak Chinese? You might be fooled into thinking I could if you were impressed at how competent my pronunciation was, but thats only because you do not know Chinese. Ultimately I will have said nothing. The same applies here. Thats what the crazy frog is, a random amalgamation of ideas with no gravity, the person who created it obviously had no grand statement to make or even small statement, and therein lies it declassification as a standalone piece of music. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. However I do forsee that neither of us will ultimately agree with each other, yet i hope you at least understand my argument. My only wish is that by people realising this, a beautiful, more detailed avenue of music can be revisited. Not reinvent classical, but pay more attention to it's formation techniques, in doing this and this only can we avoid the dangerous clasps of Pop music which has stifled creativity recently. True many bands and artists shine through, but only the ones who realise that music is something to be treated with more respect than it is receiving. Dont waste the notes of the scales on garbage.

Daavid

Hi Guys. I've started working on a new piece trying to take some of what you said into consideration. I've put it to the same place in a folder called "New Piece" The file is called "Classical Piano_V2.mp3" It starts with some very quiet piano so it might be best heard through some earphones or with your speaker volume up a bit. Let me know what you think. (Its a work in progress.)
Cheers,
Dave

Custom22

Too much reverb on the piano.. thats the onl complaint. Some really cool ideas. Work on gelling the parts togeter, perhaps, keep at it.

Daavid

Will do. Cheers