"Old Ones" Submission

Thanks again to Mike for the absurd amount of time he spent helping us all out for free.

Got my piece in early enough this year, but I'd unfortunately only had an old/stale piece to submit as I have been a great deal less active the last few months than I would have liked. Was still, of course, interested in what Mike had to say.

That said, I wonder if my template/mix was getting in the way. It seemed like the chord choices weren't clear to the listener upon a first listen, even though there was a relatively obvious "progression" (not saying it was good, or developed, but it wasn't just a static chord). The melody seems unclear to the listener as well. I realize now the samples I have for spiccato sound suspiciously like Bartok pizz.

Mike's general advice was to figure out the main idea on piano and work the idea (he did say there were "lots of trainwrecks in there" and I'd love to know broadly what that refers to, I imagine some of that is orchestrational). That said, that is something I initially did. I don't think his advice would be a great deal different upon hearing the piano version (as there's a lot to work on and it all involves the basics), but I'm curious to know what other users here would have to say/critique. I think I may have submitted the finished version on a thread somewhere before, but don't remember if the piano idea has made it on here.

Again, an old piece and there's much I would change now. My own critique of the basic (piano) idea:
-While I like the note choice of the melody, it doesn't seem to be something people can follow easily on the first listen. I'm not sure why, as it's not rhythmically complex, long and is repeated. I do recognize it's not well developed and not a strong melody. Dillon gave me some advice on it previously -- do others find it too rhythmically static to grab their attention?
-The chord progression: I personally like it and the tonality (I don't think it's all that out of left field when it's clear what it is), but the piece lacks rhythmic interest and development in a way I have a hard time pinning down
-The piano version is kind of for "2.5" or "3" hands and I find kind of distracts here and there. If I did it over I would stick to what's playable only with 2 hands, but my piano skills are certainly lacking.
-Overall it seems to suffer from "modern TV intro" syndrome -- it's not melodically focused or strong enough, and the harmony is too repetitive. I've seen other songs that seem to pull of a steady harmony well, but I don't think there's enough variation or interest in mine to pull that off with a steady rhythm. I'm too close to it to really pick it apart further, and can abstractly see what needs work, but am not sure how I would change it (I probably won't, honestly, as revising "beginner" pieces don't usually seem to be worth it).

Unleashed Version:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sem9ybr4bdc7wiz/Old Ones.mp3?dl=0

Piano Version:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rg7mz12gk0sw6rm/Old Ones Piano Reduction.mp3?dl=0

Bonus: The "steady harmony" piece I think I unintentionally referenced (someone mentioned Dark Souls in the stream and it made me realize where the idea came from). Much stronger melody, rhythmic variation mid-song, and this sense that the melody is constantly "reaching" to get back to where it was, only to fall (appropriate thematically):

 

Thanks Doug, will reply when I have a sec.

@John Eldridge : Thanks for the reply. This is the link to Mike's analysis (3:25:00). The intro bit seemed to throw him off like it did others, I haven't quite figured out why. I think the lack of clarity and the samples distracted from the actual piece. I'll happily throw notation up here as soon as I get home today, no need to transcribe:

 

Thanks for the encouragement and critique! I was worried I was so close to it I couldn't see it for what it was. Who knew a crappy intro could throw people off so consistently!

That intro was sort of a placeholder that I never figured out how to improve. My intent was to try and introduce the piece without diving headlong into the melody immediately, but it's really interesting how it consistently botched the feel of the piece. I was definitely too close to it as it felt obvious when I heard it. I'll have to try an iteration of Martin's idea or something similar.

Thanks for the analysis!
1) Good point, but I think the intro could possibly more interesting. Good place to start in any case. It's interesting you heard it the way you did, and I wonder if it was a volume/VI problem. Will clarify below.
2) I think notation will clarify most of this, actually. The fault is clearly my own in terms of how it was represented, but here's a rough notation for the piece (note: this is based on how the VI's play, I would probably orchestrate differently with an actual string section):
Intro:


So it seems like the first note is too quiet, or the start isn't clear enough, and therefore the downbeat is missed. I remembered that the "Bartok-y" sound is my using Col Legno. Whether or not that would make sense live is another story.


Melody kicks in:





Re: Mike's critique. Again it seems to be a fault of mine in how the final product came out -- he seemed to have difficulty (like everyone else) placing the melody rhythmically, and seemed to hear a single dissonant cluster, rather than changing chords. I'm curious to know what he would have said if those things are more clear. Again, I think it can be improved in the ways I initially mentioned, but I'm unsure what he meant by "trainwrecks" unless they all had to do with the above.

EDIT: Added in chord progression as it didn't seem clear

 

Definitely not. Have no clients and am not looking for any (likely for a while yet).
Happy to try this though. My main issue seems to be fleshing out and developing ideas I already have (go figure), so this is probably a good exercise. Just wanting to make sure I wasn't polishing a turd. Not that I thought it was a turd, but I thought I must be crazy if so many people weren't following it and it got the feedback from Mike that it did.

The materials are interesting because I mostly stole them from you . Good idea though, will do.

Great idea creating maps. I think structure is actually something I've paid the most attention to lately and have really tried to with my pieces, especially coming from a "prog rock" background that's often riff- or multi-melody oriented. The development of a few ideas is a more foreign pursuit. I need to pick up that book, I'm not sure how I haven't read it yet given how much I've studied Aristotle's ideas.
Do you mind elaborating, re: off-form? I can do this with the whole score if it's helpful, but I essentially view it like this:




So in essence, A section, some development and variation on A section and reinforcement of initial idea, B section, turnaround to A section, A section with variation. Really tried to have those melodic lines going the whole time and being constantly reinforced.

 

EDIT:
I'm an imbecile. I linked the wrong piano reduction.

I'm not sure if I uploaded the wrong piano arrangement before or if the file recently got overwritten in Dropbox, but in any case I'll correct the original post.
Not sure if that changes any feedback but hopefully it clears up confusion.

 

Had to change the link yet again as Dropbox wasn't cooperating. Updated now with the correct links: full/orchestrated version (with cello) and pre-orchestrated piano version.