Oh wow. I have to apologize to everybody involved for going AWOL like that. I've been so incredibly tied up it isn't even funny. Jim, thanks so much for taking the initiative like that, I really appreciate it as I'm sure everyone else does. Congratulations to the entrants who all produced some stunning work in their own way. It was an honor to have y'all work with my melody.
Yikes! Let the voting begin.
Best Regards,
Ric Zimmerman
The little voices in my head are singing four-part harmony.
Gary has kindly created a new thread for this duel with a poll for voting.
http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/...ad.php?t=35943
I would suggest we now consider this particular thread closed and reconvene discussion/comment on Gary's thread.
Richard N.
Finale 2003 to 2007 ~ Garritan GPO, JABB & Strad ~ Sonar 6PE ~ Kontakt 2 ~ WinXP Home SP2
Athlon XP 2200 ~ 1.5 Gb RAM ~ M-Audio Sound Card ~ M-Audio 88ES MIDI keyboard ~ Evolution MK-461C
Bach Strad LT16MG, LT36G, 42B + B&H Sovereign Studio Tenor Trombones ~ Holton 181 Bass Trombone ~ Getzen Bass Trumpet ~ Yamaha TR4335G Trumpet ~ B&H Euphonium
Cool...thanks Gary!Originally Posted by Richard N.
Jim Jarnagin - no not THAT Jim Jarnagin, the other one.
I thought the rule was to arrange the melody as is. In fact the others had a free approach of the melody : motives repeated, bars added... This is 2 different jobs, the second is more complex, needs more time and thus, the result is richer and longer.
Tresic,
Though it has never been explicitly stated in either the first or second round, I think the intent was that the motive be "recognizable". In other words, you are free to develop it as much or as little as you want. I didn't make the second round on time, but for the first round, I took the given motive thru four different modes...so only one repeition (the third I think) actually repeated the motive verbatim.
;-)
jim
Jim Jarnagin - no not THAT Jim Jarnagin, the other one.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks