Nostalvania Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) Just a short jazzy piano version which i want to share with you guys. Remix: https://app.box.com/s/kf1ao6rwkzt0z763fe4b Source: http://youtu.be/XgPeQGeJ3z4 Thanks for listening Edited January 14, 2014 by Nostalvania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Man, you should extend this. This sounds awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Continue please, Markus. Another winner here. You're so talented! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nostalvania Posted January 14, 2014 Author Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Thanks guys! Ok, i think i'll add more stuff. I already have some ideas. Changed back to work in progress. Edited January 14, 2014 by Nostalvania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nostalvania Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) Alright, here is the newest version: https://app.box.com/s/rnux4rk0o8ii28vxelu8 I'm not 100% sure about the transition at 1:20, and i dunno, maybe the part from 1:26 - 2:10 is a bit long. Ending could be improved, i think. Feedback would be welcome! Edited January 16, 2014 by Nostalvania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Strader Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Alright, here is the newest version: https://app.box.com/s/rnux4rk0o8ii28vxelu8I'm not 100% sure about the transition at 1:20, and i dunno, maybe the part from 1:26 - 2:10 is a bit long. Ending could be improved, i think. Feedback would be welcome! I was HOPING something good would happen by 1:26 because up to that point, apart from some nice jazz chording, it was pretty much a cover. I do think the part that follows up until 2:10 is a little repetitive... and no offense intended... I thought the part at 1:47 until 2:10 specifically seemed a little basic or uninspired. I love the chords when you get back to the source after that! I like the expansion in that section much more than the more straight vibe that you had during the beginning. I agree that the ending could be improved as the transition back into the source at 3:11 seems like you were maybe going for a dramatic sound? But instead to me it sounds just a little late. Like that introduction should have come earlier during the previous part. I love the quiet build up for the "chorus" section of the source there, and the repeat of the verse is pretty much called for so that was really nice. The very ending is basically as close as you can get to a fade-out in solo piano. You really gotta let that chord breathe, as it is, it really sounds like you just faded out the end of the mp3 instead of letting the notes reach a natural conclusion. Eep, eep. Not that big of a deal but could definitely be fixed, in my opinion.. I think it would be good. I hope you don't think I was being overly nitpicky or harsh, I was analyzing the piece pretty closely. I'm very familiar with this source, and I love solo piano... I really enjoyed your piece and I'd love to see it on the front page. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nostalvania Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) I was HOPING something good would happen by 1:26 because up to that point, apart from some nice jazz chording, it was pretty much a cover. I do think the part that follows up until 2:10 is a little repetitive... and no offense intended... I thought the part at 1:47 until 2:10 specifically seemed a little basic or uninspired. I love the chords when you get back to the source after that! I like the expansion in that section much more than the more straight vibe that you had during the beginning. I agree that the ending could be improved as the transition back into the source at 3:11 seems like you were maybe going for a dramatic sound? But instead to me it sounds just a little late. Like that introduction should have come earlier during the previous part. I love the quiet build up for the "chorus" section of the source there, and the repeat of the verse is pretty much called for so that was really nice. The very ending is basically as close as you can get to a fade-out in solo piano. You really gotta let that chord breathe, as it is, it really sounds like you just faded out the end of the mp3 instead of letting the notes reach a natural conclusion. Eep, eep. Not that big of a deal but could definitely be fixed, in my opinion.. I think it would be good. I hope you don't think I was being overly nitpicky or harsh, I was analyzing the piece pretty closely. I'm very familiar with this source, and I love solo piano... I really enjoyed your piece and I'd love to see it on the front page. Thank you. Thank you Brandon! It seems that you pretty much confirmed all my self criticism. I really think that the part from 1:20 - 2:10 is too long and i agree that it's a bit repetitive, i'll try to shorten that section. Well, the part at 1:47 - 2:10 is actually just a basic groove to make the final switch to the 6/8 part and it's also kind of a introduction for the next section (2:10). Maybe i can figure something out to make it a bit more interesting. I totally agree with you about the ending (3:32 - 3:43), it's just not good and i'm gonna fix that. The arrangement actually isn't finished yet, i'm planning to add 1 or 2 extra minutes and most likely bringing back the main melody again. Edited January 18, 2014 by Nostalvania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nostalvania Posted January 19, 2014 Author Share Posted January 19, 2014 (edited) New version: https://app.box.com/s/6i4ffx1nfs565sc887pb So i worked on the transition at 1:20, added some more source (2:22 - 2:34, 3:43 - 3:59) and now there is actually a real (but probably cheesy) ending. Let me know what you think. Edited January 19, 2014 by Nostalvania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nostalvania Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share Posted January 21, 2014 And another update! Version 5: https://app.box.com/s/t5rabda7ng5sz5gthqjt I added octaves at 0:56 - 1:19 to get more variety. I also changed the chords from the outro at 3:59 - 4:09, and some other little changes here and there. Feedback welcome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) And another update! Version 5: https://app.box.com/s/t5rabda7ng5sz5gthqjtI added octaves at 0:56 - 1:19 to get more variety. Hm... I dunno, the octave-playing seems really hard to do in real life. I just tried to do that at the rhythm and tempo you wrote it, and I feel like it would be way more sloppy if played live, especially at 0:56 - 0:57 and 1:00 - 1:01. I liked the change of dynamics after 1:26. Great chords near 2:00, and the rhythmic variations at 2:24 were slick. At 3:20, it makes me think there's not much reverb on the piano. Maybe a more auditorium-like reverb could add more live-ness to this. The ending was pretty snazzy. The only thing I would change about it is the last note at 4:23. Personally, I would have liked it to just fade out after the big scale up. Sounding great, man! Loved the personalization on this. Harmonies and rhythmic shifts were fantastic. Keep it up. If you want, I could master it for ya. Edited January 21, 2014 by timaeus222 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nostalvania Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share Posted January 21, 2014 Hm... I dunno, the octave-playing seems really hard to do in real life. I just tried to do that at the rhythm and tempo you wrote it, and I feel like it would be way more sloppy if played live, especially at 0:56 - 0:57 and 1:00 - 1:01. But i played it live!!! ...... No just kidding Hmm... i think you're right, it's probably a tad unrealistic, I'll try to humanize it. Thanks for the feedback Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Strader Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 If you did play it live with your midi keyboard or whatnot, maybe don't worry about it. Nobody at OCR is going to be so solo piano elitist that they say "Hey, this is a 3-hand piece, we won't accept it." I got a 3 hand piece waiting to be posted. There's nothing wrong with that. xD The important thing is whether it is good. I like this a lot now, it's pretty goshdarn solid. Nice work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 It may just be me, but I'd rather receive very few nitpicks on a mixpost whenever possible. Obviously, the less nitpicks, the more passable, so... you know, every little bit counts. I think that if you choose to not fix a significant nitpick, then there may be a chance of you missing that detail again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nostalvania Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) Nobody at OCR is going to be so solo piano elitist that they say "Hey, this is a 3-hand piece, we won't accept it." I got a 3 hand piece waiting to be posted. There's nothing wrong with that. Cool, i feel relieved now. Well, i originally did play almost everything live, except for some parts like the octaves at: 0:56 - 1:19 and a few other places. And of course i edited and deleted some notes after the recording. I'm just too lazy to play everything again just because i made one or two mistakes. But i have to say, as a piano player i have the aspiration to write something that actually can be played by a human being, otherwise it's almost a bit like cheating. Edited January 21, 2014 by Nostalvania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Strader Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 But i have to say, as a piano player i have the aspiration to write something that actually can be played by a human being, otherwise it's almost a bit like cheating. I agree strongly, however I have no issue writing something that takes 2 human beings sitting on the bench together. It's actually totes romantic if you think about it. If it sounds good either way, it should be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I agree strongly, however I have no issue writing something that takes 2 human beings sitting on the bench together. It's actually totes romantic if you think about it. If it sounds good either way, it should be fine. Yeah, but then you have to think about who's using which hand... and for what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Strader Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yeah, but then you have to think about who's using which hand... and for what. I know right, totally romantic. That's why I like writing 3 hand pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.