I wrote this love song about a year ago for Classical arrangement.
This time I arrange and mix it as the Pop and Easy Listening.
Hope that you will enjoy it! Any comments or feedbacks would be great!
Thank you for listening!
LongStudios
Pop and Easy Listening (Love song)
Pop and Easy Listening (Love song)
- Attachments
-
[The extension mp3 has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
Sounds like Richard Clayderman and Paul Mauriat with 20 synthesizers.
It's well rounded with pure tonic, pure dominants.. I'd tend to throw in more subdominants just to keep things moving. There seems to be many moments where the progression seems to "stop". The rather mechanic accompaniment also emphasizes these inactive spots. By mechanic, I mean that the accompaniment is extremely generic, almost has no connection to the melody what so ever, and most parts are playing "patterns".. makes them sound like pre-fab accompaniments from a keyboard. (intro is more well arranged)
Also, the intro progression seems abruptly cut off with the sudden interruption of a I. You went VI -> V -> I, which makes sense in terms of function, but because of the previous progressions it seems to call for VI -> V -> IV -> V, and so on. (partially because the melody starts with a I)
In the main melody (A section), you went I -> V -> II -> I. The melody in this section is quite fast for such a slow progression, but that aside, the melody does some strange things during the next sequence. The next sequence goes VI -> V -> V, with VI dwelling several measures. During VI, I'd steer well away from the iv note, here being the F.
Skipping ahead to the part where the high string hits v, or G.. Strings to G, C, F.. again, iv is an avoid note.. furthermore, the left strings plays E, and the right plays F, and that's just harmony gone wrong. F can be taken as a passing note, but then you need to go down to E at some point. In the next block of chords, the strings hit a long E, which is a 9th from the root D (II) should probably also go to either a D or F since the progression dwells on that chord for some time.
That's about all I can say.. Overall, I'd concentrate on writing lines that are not "just there".. Personally, I'd make the melody more deliberate, move around much less, and support it with more interactive lines that actually get affected by the melody.
I understand that you are going for a specific sound, consciously or not.. it's the Richard Clayderman sound, or the sounds of those days.. perhaps it was called Easy Listening back then.. Sadly, nowadays I don't think this style of sound lends itself to being listened too much.
I'd most definitely put a more stylish twist on things, make it an urban sounding bossa nova lounge piece or something. Add some more twists and turns in the progression, and put more character into each of the parts.
The fundamental shift in theory, in my opinion, is that older styles like this, are made of continuous parallel lines (all parts there, most of the time), while a more modern approach is built more of blocks. (easy to recognize parts come in and out, very quickly) I think funk influences and sampling technology had a lot do with the shift in approach, but it's worth putting some thought into.
Keep up the good work!
It's well rounded with pure tonic, pure dominants.. I'd tend to throw in more subdominants just to keep things moving. There seems to be many moments where the progression seems to "stop". The rather mechanic accompaniment also emphasizes these inactive spots. By mechanic, I mean that the accompaniment is extremely generic, almost has no connection to the melody what so ever, and most parts are playing "patterns".. makes them sound like pre-fab accompaniments from a keyboard. (intro is more well arranged)
Also, the intro progression seems abruptly cut off with the sudden interruption of a I. You went VI -> V -> I, which makes sense in terms of function, but because of the previous progressions it seems to call for VI -> V -> IV -> V, and so on. (partially because the melody starts with a I)
In the main melody (A section), you went I -> V -> II -> I. The melody in this section is quite fast for such a slow progression, but that aside, the melody does some strange things during the next sequence. The next sequence goes VI -> V -> V, with VI dwelling several measures. During VI, I'd steer well away from the iv note, here being the F.
Skipping ahead to the part where the high string hits v, or G.. Strings to G, C, F.. again, iv is an avoid note.. furthermore, the left strings plays E, and the right plays F, and that's just harmony gone wrong. F can be taken as a passing note, but then you need to go down to E at some point. In the next block of chords, the strings hit a long E, which is a 9th from the root D (II) should probably also go to either a D or F since the progression dwells on that chord for some time.
That's about all I can say.. Overall, I'd concentrate on writing lines that are not "just there".. Personally, I'd make the melody more deliberate, move around much less, and support it with more interactive lines that actually get affected by the melody.
I understand that you are going for a specific sound, consciously or not.. it's the Richard Clayderman sound, or the sounds of those days.. perhaps it was called Easy Listening back then.. Sadly, nowadays I don't think this style of sound lends itself to being listened too much.
I'd most definitely put a more stylish twist on things, make it an urban sounding bossa nova lounge piece or something. Add some more twists and turns in the progression, and put more character into each of the parts.
The fundamental shift in theory, in my opinion, is that older styles like this, are made of continuous parallel lines (all parts there, most of the time), while a more modern approach is built more of blocks. (easy to recognize parts come in and out, very quickly) I think funk influences and sampling technology had a lot do with the shift in approach, but it's worth putting some thought into.
Keep up the good work!
Hi Ken,
Wonderful review!
You are right about the Accompaniment; it’s needed some touches for the final arrangements.
“Sounds like Richard Clayderman and Paul Mauriat with 20 synthesizers”
Wow, I don’t have 20, may be 10 (Just kidding!).
I had another arrangement in 2005. I’m not sure if it was better?
http://www.planetz.com/Pulsar/files/mus ... es_192.mp3
About the harmony issue, it took me a while to pull out the score with embedded chord arrangements.
Form there I know what you meant, there really was “Em” and “E7” in the aggressive chords and the Root key was C (not D or F).
Again, thank you for the listening and the comments.
P/S: I will post the Chord-Editor-Tool snapshot in shortly (for refference).
My best,
LongStudios
Wonderful review!
You are right about the Accompaniment; it’s needed some touches for the final arrangements.
“Sounds like Richard Clayderman and Paul Mauriat with 20 synthesizers”
Wow, I don’t have 20, may be 10 (Just kidding!).
I had another arrangement in 2005. I’m not sure if it was better?
http://www.planetz.com/Pulsar/files/mus ... es_192.mp3
About the harmony issue, it took me a while to pull out the score with embedded chord arrangements.
Form there I know what you meant, there really was “Em” and “E7” in the aggressive chords and the Root key was C (not D or F).
Again, thank you for the listening and the comments.
P/S: I will post the Chord-Editor-Tool snapshot in shortly (for refference).
My best,
LongStudios
Last edited by LHong on Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.