1RadicalOne - I am wondering if you are not using voice leading on purpose? it makes the chord changes seem very abrupt (you might want that, I am just asking...)
The chord changes are indeed abrupt. It's an artifact of my compositional style. I write music as the following:
I set a bassline chord progression, each with a constant note length, usually 2 bars. After that, I base every other voice on top of that. Sometimes, voices build all on top of one another, like here. Other times, they come and go in groups. All transition into piano at the end, and most end on a C-G-C chord variation.
I think there some devices you are just not aware of.... passing notes, inversions once the busy arpeggios begin you don't really notice it because that provides something smooth for the ear..... That said you can do whatever pleases you. I make rhythmically messy sound collages and use the delay effect to muck it up even further... Just for fun of course,,,, It's all an experiment!
It would be difficult to make any smooth transitions between these chord changes without drastically altering the piece. (But then again, I think the intent is for the music NOT to sound conventional here.)
And we get into another musical quirk here, because usually a pattern lasts 16 measures, not 15. I kinda recall them being longer in V2 of this, though.
The internet is a place for different experimental sounds for sure. Just wondering, do you both use inversions of the chords or do stack them straight up on the root note that it's named for? It's probably are really dumb question. Just wondering.
I use the latter. Acutally, it's really simple. Here, for example, I use a CGC chord. I then drag as a unit up or down, and it is now based on Ab, or F#, or Dx, etc.) Hence the odd structure.
PrismLW composes in a more traditional style. I'll bet there are inversions, as he did show them to me. (We know each other in real life.)
If I were to make a piece that uses that sequence of notes, I probably would probably replace the E with an inversion of C and the A with an inversion of F. Either that, or replace them with minor chords.
1RadicalOne (almost) never uses inversions or minor chords, which is what makes it different from practically everything else.
I once used chords that weren't minor or major, or anything else of a specific category. My first piece, "Space Conquest", is essentially random. It's the only successful one I've made with a melody, not just harmony.
They're not inversions. They may sound like it because the baseline sometimes moves a different vertical amount than the melody.
PS
The '1' at the beginning is unnecessary - after all, my true callsign is "RadicalOne". Someone had merely taken that first on YouTube, so 1R1 was a reasonable permutation. So, for a short form, R1 is fine.
Actually, I just remembered what the most 'conventional' composition R1 wrote is - it's the outro to the Theme and Variations in C that's on my account. There actually were inversions and minor chords in that one.
1RadicalOne - I am wondering if you are not using voice leading on purpose? it makes the chord changes seem very abrupt (you might want that, I am just asking...)
thePuzzledDragon 2 years ago
The chord changes are indeed abrupt. It's an artifact of my compositional style. I write music as the following:
I set a bassline chord progression, each with a constant note length, usually 2 bars. After that, I base every other voice on top of that. Sometimes, voices build all on top of one another, like here. Other times, they come and go in groups. All transition into piano at the end, and most end on a C-G-C chord variation.
I write harmony because I have no musical skill.
1RadicalOne 2 years ago
I think there some devices you are just not aware of.... passing notes, inversions once the busy arpeggios begin you don't really notice it because that provides something smooth for the ear..... That said you can do whatever pleases you. I make rhythmically messy sound collages and use the delay effect to muck it up even further... Just for fun of course,,,, It's all an experiment!
thePuzzledDragon 2 years ago
Well, the chord sequence is as such:
C-E-G-C-A-F-G-C
-Repeat up +3
-Repeat up -3
-Repeat up P4
It would be difficult to make any smooth transitions between these chord changes without drastically altering the piece. (But then again, I think the intent is for the music NOT to sound conventional here.)
PrismLightwave 2 years ago
That last C is incorrect. It isn't in the sheet music.
1RadicalOne 2 years ago
Whoops. The sequence is C-E-G-C-A-F-G, but the last G lasts for two more measures than the rest.
PrismLightwave 2 years ago
One measure more. Most last 2 bars, the "cadence" ones last three.
1RadicalOne 2 years ago
And we get into another musical quirk here, because usually a pattern lasts 16 measures, not 15. I kinda recall them being longer in V2 of this, though.
PrismLightwave 2 years ago
The internet is a place for different experimental sounds for sure. Just wondering, do you both use inversions of the chords or do stack them straight up on the root note that it's named for? It's probably are really dumb question. Just wondering.
thePuzzledDragon 2 years ago
I use the latter. Acutally, it's really simple. Here, for example, I use a CGC chord. I then drag as a unit up or down, and it is now based on Ab, or F#, or Dx, etc.) Hence the odd structure.
PrismLW composes in a more traditional style. I'll bet there are inversions, as he did show them to me. (We know each other in real life.)
1RadicalOne 2 years ago
If I were to make a piece that uses that sequence of notes, I probably would probably replace the E with an inversion of C and the A with an inversion of F. Either that, or replace them with minor chords.
1RadicalOne (almost) never uses inversions or minor chords, which is what makes it different from practically everything else.
PrismLightwave 2 years ago
I once used chords that weren't minor or major, or anything else of a specific category. My first piece, "Space Conquest", is essentially random. It's the only successful one I've made with a melody, not just harmony.
1RadicalOne 2 years ago
And Space Conquest is in a totally different style, and happens to be a really good piece in that style.
Also, there are some parts in NanoTech which I *think* are inversions, but 1R1 claims they're not.
PrismLightwave 2 years ago
They're not inversions. They may sound like it because the baseline sometimes moves a different vertical amount than the melody.
PS
The '1' at the beginning is unnecessary - after all, my true callsign is "RadicalOne". Someone had merely taken that first on YouTube, so 1R1 was a reasonable permutation. So, for a short form, R1 is fine.
1RadicalOne 2 years ago
Actually, I just remembered what the most 'conventional' composition R1 wrote is - it's the outro to the Theme and Variations in C that's on my account. There actually were inversions and minor chords in that one.
PrismLightwave 2 years ago
There were?
1RadicalOne 2 years ago
After listening to it carefully, it's much simpler than I thought it was. But then again, playing repeated black notes on the piano is difficult.
PrismLightwave 2 years ago