Song no.3 for Organ

Being in isolation because of having a bit of corona (I'm more bored than sick, although feeling quite warm at the moment) makes me want to compose. So I composed a little Song again for organ, the third one now. It is different from the others although it takes an idea further. The other two Songs also have a sense of layers but in this one I strech the layer idea further. It's more about horizontal lines but they share a common modality: tonality (Bb major). The left hand is the most important voice since the other two repeat. Love to hear what you think. It might be a bit too short but if I make it longer I sure should make also a variation in the right hand otherwise people get annoyed very quickly. Maybe I am already. I feel some inspiration coming for this one from pygmee polyphony, although highly simplified rythmically. (you probably don't hear my personal inner connection). It does have a bit of folk in it. Hmm. Hopefully you enjoy and let me know what you think.

Reminds me of Debussy's "Pagodes", the parallel fourths definitely manage to make it sound bucolic. However, the short repeating phrase structure, rhythmic clash between the middle and lower voice and the lack of breaks and cadences makes it hard to follow the piece, which contradicts the folk atmosphere of the first bars. I took a quick listen to your other organ pieces and the change of harmony as well as pauses in the melody in your Song No. 2 are much easier to follow. The same goes for your first Song.

Maybe you should insert an audible cut at the end of each phrase(i. e. cadential movement) and tone down the  velocity of the middle voice? As it is, it sounds quite frantic and diverts attention from the lower voice.

Also: Sadly, the volume is quite low and the left hand is the hardest to pick out, so maybe you could upload a differently mixed version? 

On 4/7/2022 at 5:11 AM, KStoertebeker said:

Reminds me of Debussy's "Pagodes", the parallel fourths definitely manage to make it sound bucolic. However, the short repeating phrase structure, rhythmic clash between the middle and lower voice and the lack of breaks and cadences makes it hard to follow the piece, which contradicts the folk atmosphere of the first bars. I took a quick listen to your other organ pieces and the change of harmony as well as pauses in the melody in your Song No. 2 are much easier to follow. The same goes for your first Song.

Maybe you should insert an audible cut at the end of each phrase(i. e. cadential movement) and tone down the  velocity of the middle voice? As it is, it sounds quite frantic and diverts attention from the lower voice.

Also: Sadly, the volume is quite low and the left hand is the hardest to pick out, so maybe you could upload a differently mixed version? 

 

Yes I guess you are right. Better return later to composition when healthy. On the other hand: I'm fascinated to layers that go on and on over eachother with no end in sight. It gives a sense of eternity to me, but I guess what I like is a bit odd because people like to breath with the music. In this music the right hand is very much in a tight box. The left hand is more free rythmically and the foots are most free rhythmically speaking. Does the fact that melodically the second voice is most free but not rhythmically make it feel weird? Why are the clashes wrong? I added below a new music file. Is the second voice better like this?

Yeah, that's better. I suppose a .midi-file would work better for analysing a piece because of the fine-grained control, but then again, some people come to this site and steal pieces to upload them to MuseScore or elsewhere.

More on topic: The upper voice has a constant two-measure phrase, where every note is on the beat. In contrast to that, the middle and lower voice use held notes abundantly and are of varying phrase length. Middle voice: 4 measures, then 6(or 3+3?), then 4 again, 4 again, then 7, then 4 again(measured by the upbeat sixteenth note). The lower voice is even more irregular. This is already hard to follow, because the phrase lengths do not line up. When you add your irregular rhythms to that, which often accent different beats, it gets really confusing.

I would try to limit the freedom each voice has. Give each voice a regular phrase length(e. g. #1 stays at 2 measures per phrase, #2 gets 4 and #3 gets 4 or 8). The middle voice plays small note values, so maybe it should try to play a long note on a constant beat and. The lower voice does not follow the 1+2+...-pulse of the upper voice, so maybe you should select one rhythm(maybe take 2 measures of 3+3+4+2+4).

It is not that what you are doing is wrong, it just seem like you are biting off more than you can chew. Of course, it is all a matter of taste, but I would take a regular model and then try to modify it instead of starting with such free voices. 

On 4/7/2022 at 1:46 PM, KStoertebeker said:

More on topic: The upper voice has a constant two-measure phrase, where every note is on the beat. In contrast to that, the middle and lower voice use held notes abundantly and are of varying phrase length. Middle voice: 4 measures, then 6(or 3+3?), then 4 again, 4 again, then 7, then 4 again(measured by the upbeat sixteenth note). The lower voice is even more irregular. This is already hard to follow, because the phrase lengths do not line up. When you add your irregular rhythms to that, which often accent different beats, it gets really confusing.

I would try to limit the freedom each voice has. Give each voice a regular phrase length(e. g. #1 stays at 2 measures per phrase, #2 gets 4 and #3 gets 4 or 8). The middle voice plays small note values, so maybe it should try to play a long note on a constant beat and. The lower voice does not follow the 1+2+...-pulse of the upper voice, so maybe you should select one rhythm(maybe take 2 measures of 3+3+4+2+4).

It is not that what you are doing is wrong, it just seem like you are biting off more than you can chew. Of course, it is all a matter of taste, but I would take a regular model and then try to modify it instead of starting with such free voices. 

 

 

Biting of more than I can chew? Well... Is that a projection from you to me? I know perfectly well what I am doing. Have you for instance noticed that the pedal is a constant repetition from the Bb in bar 9 until the F in bar 10?

27 minutes ago, Jan-Peter said:

Biting of more than I can chew? Well... Is that a projection from you to me? I know perfectly well what I am doing. Have you for instance noticed that the pedal is a constant repetition from the Bb in bar 9 until the F in bar 10?

 

Oh, I did not mean to offend you, but I think your other works worked better because you had less going on in parallel: Rather homophonic, but with more emphasis on the melody and (really delicate) harmonies. In this work I have trouble keeping up with the individual voices and feel quite lost, hence I suggested you to make it more comprehensible by removing some of the irregularites. Or, to answer your question: No, I did not notice the constant repetition in the pedal. Visually, I could spot it in the score, but not aurally. You may have introduced ideas which are hard to spot by ear. 

8 minutes ago, KStoertebeker said:

 

Oh, I did not mean to offend you, but I think your other works worked better because you had less going on in parallel: Rather homophonic, but with more emphasis on the melody and (really delicate) harmonies. In this work I have trouble keeping up with the individual voices and feel quite lost, hence I suggested you to make it more comprehensible by removing some of the irregularites. Or, to answer your question: No, I did not notice the constant repetition in the pedal. Visually, I could spot it in the score, but not aurally. You may have introduced ideas which are hard to spot by ear. 

 

Yes I guess you are right, I guess my advantage is that I do know how I made the piece while someone listening for the first time comes with different expectations, especially compared to the other pieces. Anyway thanks for your advice! I think about it.