Re: Cannon
- From: "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:54:11 -0500
"Steve Latham" <llatham@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:wHw7f.25058$i31.3538@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:11lsnr5kekt2j59@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>I just created my first cannon yesterday. Its not really a true cannon(I
>>call it a free cannon) but was just an experiement.
>
> By the way John, a Cannon is a weapon. A Canon is a piece of music.
>
heh, duh... I didn't notice the difference ;/
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/jon_slaughter/Music/Cannon1-02.mp3
>
> Very nice. I like the way it tapers off at the end.
>
thanks. I do like it towards the end starting at about 30 seconds or so.
The middle seems a little muddy though.
>>
>> I know there are some problems
>
> Where?
>
Well, there are some parts where the lines get a little mixed up and muddy
startin about 15 seconds or so. Its becauses they all move in 16ths or
something(or there is just to much motion I guess). Just seems to all run
together when I hear it.
> but I tried to make it somewhat classical.
>
> Well, the harpsichord makes it more Baroque sounding, but most people call
> that "classical" anyway.
>
Yeah, thats what I ment. Bach like. Baroque is the proper term ofcourse.
> I
>> didn't pay complete attention to the progressions all the time but tried
>> mainly to keep the lines flowing and independent.
>
> Progressions aren't as important as the lines in linear compositions,
> which canons are.
>
Yeah, but they are still important? One still has to have some sort of
pulse? and a large part is due to the harmony? It seems one can get away
with some bad harmonies, as long as they are not to bad, if it makes the
lines better and there is some other important feature that cannot be
changed without destorying the theme. i.e., I've tried to modify the
subject to make the harmony better in certain instances but it seems it
can't be done without destorying the subject... in other cases it is ok.
i.e., those leaps in the subject are very characteristic and if changed
seems to cause a lot of problems unless its not noticable(if other lines
draw attention away from it). i.e., I had to violate some cp rules just so
my lines will still be "recognizable".
>>
>> What can I do to make it sound a little more classical?
>
> Why? It's fine like it is.
>
Well, it could be better.
>
> Change the sound to Piano.
>
I started with a piano but its much harder to get it to sound right.
Sometimes certain parts of a voice seems to be brought out for no reason and
clouds the subject. I had to add a lot of dynamic accents and stuff but
there are some problems with it because the difference between mf and f, for
example, seem to make the line jump in volume. i.e., I tried to make the
subject always be louder than the other voices so it would stand out more
because at times it can be hard to ear(especially the alto). I suppose its
because the computer doesn't know how to emphasize what needs to be
emphasized though... sounds clearer on a harpsichord though.
> Pay a little more attention to harmonic progressions which is more a
> classical counterpoint than baroque polyphony feature (not saying it's
> non-existent or anything).
>
How? I tried somewhat to do that but it seems extremly complicated at points
because you only have one voice to add the 3rd note of the harmony. The
others are pretty much determined. Like say when I have 2 voices going on
the subject then the 3rd voice can't do much and sometimes its just
impossible to get a good chord. Though it seems that while I can't get a
good chord on the inital part of the beat of that chord I can usually divide
the beat and add another note so its a good chord.
i.e
at one point I have something like
F
C
C
and I can't do anything about it really unless I want to screw up the
lines... but I can subdivide the top into F E so I get
F E
C
C
and instead of thinking of that as a Fmaj6/4 with no 3rd I think of it as a
I with no 5th. Not sure if this is the proper way to do it but it seems to
work for the most part.
The way I'm thinking about it is that if I get in a spot where I get a "bad
chord" I can de-emphasize it by subdividing one of the voices and adding a
tone so that atleast part of the beat is a good chord(which in effect, I
think, makes the note that "caused" the problem a NHT).
As far as I can tell though, its very important to have alternating
consonance and dissonance(don't have to be exact though). The consonances
seem to "absorb" the dissonances so they are not all that bad.
> Have a subject that's a little more "melodic" than "figuration" - those
> faster running 16th notes are always more like Baroque ideas - perpetual
> motion, fortspinnung (the spinning out of ideas), etc.
>
>
ok.
> I didn't modulate in
>> the piece at all simply because I wanted to keep it simple and the
>> subject is "well" defined in the key of C and it seems to get destroyed
>> if any note is modified(which caused some clashes). Theres a few areas
>> that sound pretty good to me but some kinda sound strange. What I have
>> noticed is the how easy it is for the ear to pick out the subject and its
>> fragments when they occur.
>
> I agree - additionally, it's short enough that a modulation is not totally
> necessary. I like the descending sequence when it happens - kind of saves
> it for me.
>
What sequence is that?
>>
>> Hopefully its not to bad because I plan to try to create some more as
>> they don't seem that hard(because most of it is already composed once you
>> have the subject down).
>
> Yeah - see my responses to the Bach analysis thread. You know, if this is
> free, you are getting closer to a 2-part invention, but you'd need more
> key areas to make it more of a larger piece than a canon by itself
> typically is.
>
Well, I was just trying to compose something and the canons didn't seem that
hard and atleast I had some "blue print". But I want to try those other
factors that are used too in writing canons such as imitation at other
intervals and messing with the subject by inversion, etc... But ofcourse I
want to take it by baby steps so I don't get in over my head and not end up
learning anything.
> Don't foget to try augmentation, diminution, inversion, and so on. You
> might want to do some research on these as there are some "tricks" to help
> you write them, so they can remain more strict if you want them to.
>
Yeah, I will once I am comfortable with getting things to sound decent. I
have played around with them a little though. I actually did use
augmentation at the end ofcourse ;) (along with a ritardando)
> I was thinking of using the subject for several cannon
>> experiments and even a fugue beause I really like it.
>
> JS, meet JS.
>
heh
> Just want some
>> criticism before I move on to more complex things incase there are some
>> big issues.
>
> It's certainly worth trying to set the "subject" in different settings to
> see what you can do with it, but you should try some different "types" -
> in the Baroque they had different "families" of subjects - ones that were
> chordal arpeggiations, ones that consisted of slow moving whole and half
> notes, chromatic ones, etc. Some types lend themselves well to certain
> treatments (like obviously, something that goes up might work well in
> inversion to "balance" the direction).
>
Yeah, but I was thinking, while the subject might not be the best, I do like
it and it would be cool and instructive to see how it worked out in many
different settings. If I ended up choosing a different subject for each new
setting then I'd get a new set of problems each time(since I'm sure some
subjects are easier to use in certain settings than others).
> Steve
>
Jon
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cannon
- From: Steve Latham
- Re: Cannon
- References:
- Cannon
- From: Jon Slaughter
- Re: Cannon
- From: Steve Latham
- Cannon
- Prev by Date: Re: Changing the key of a piece
- Next by Date: Re: All the music's on his way OUT >>>
- Previous by thread: Re: Cannon
- Next by thread: Re: Cannon
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
