Using the two recordings of Triton Fanfare on the VT Online website (http://tech.vsb.bc.ca/users/mreid/files), compare the two recordings and identify which one is BETTER and WHAT made it better.
Be sure to pick ONE, not "both for different reasons". Fence-sitting is a sign of mediocrity...take a look at the sign above the door in Rm 511 if you're curious about mediocrity.
Have fun...this is due by 10pm this Friday, as usual.
mr
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think that the second version was better than the first version because there was an obvious sense of more attention paid to details. For example, I heard very few “real marcatos” played in the first version (most recognizable when listening to the trombones). There wasn’t really any punch to the notes. Also, the tempo of the first version was slower than the second (which can also be recognized by seeing that the second piece is 5 seconds less than the first). With the more upbeat tempo, I think that the second version felt livelier. I also felt that the flutes in the second version played their dynamics with more detail than in the first version because they became quiet during the right places (e.g. another section’s soli), and became much louder during the trio, I believe. Also, since the last note generally makes the largest impression, I think that the second one sounded even better because most of the trombones really “ripped metal” as Mr. Reid likes to say (while the first version’s last note didn’t seem as significant). The second version just sounded more fun than the first.
ReplyDeleteI think that the second version of the recording is better. Although I wasn't there for family reasons, I can clearly sense that the second version was played with more confidence.
ReplyDeleteDuring the whole time, the parts seemed to be interconnected and it flows constantly. (Meaning that there was no "gap" when some players breathed) The melody of the piece seemed to sit just on top of the bass instruments. The dynamics were exaggerated just enough for the right effect.
I think that the second recording of triton fanfare is better because there are more clearer distinctions of the articulation and the dynamics. We crescendo slowly and also played the accents more clearly. There was also more flow in the second piece. In addition to that, in the first version there was an obvious squeak when it was mostly all quiet, while in the second one there it wasn't as obvious. The ending of the second version was also more powerful than that of the first, in which the last note was more clean and short.
ReplyDeleteI think the second recording was better, mainly because all parts were noticeable to a certain degree and where necessary. When ever the melody came in, the 'background' is just loud enough for it to be noticeable in comparison with the first recording. I had a sense that the second recording was also more together in comparison with the first, so it gave parts of it a unified sound rather than a scattered one, specifically towards the end of the piece.
ReplyDeleteI prefer the second version because it has more of a flow to it rather than a sudden change (like the first version). In the second beginning the low brass gave a stronger boost to the high register instruments. Also the release of the phrase lead to a more natural fall into the next section. Compared to the dragging of the 1st version, the middle section was more sung out thus creating a forward flow. Despite some tone inconsistency, I actually enojyed the tritone in the end though it is a little random.
ReplyDeleteI believe the second one is better than the first one, partly because it seems to have more personality. When I say personality, I mean it seems like the players are having a good time playing the second one rather than the first one. In the first one it seems...really plain, but the second one is like 'Whoa!'
ReplyDeleteI like the second version better, because you could clearly hear the dynamics and articulations better and the crescendos and decrescendos were more exaggerated. Also you could hear more of the solis that the first version didn't show off as well (baritone, oboe etc) and the entire piece just seemed to flow together nicely and the release on the last note was good. For the first version it just seemed that we were dragging a lot and was just not as into it.
ReplyDeleteSECOND ONE FOR THE WIN!
ReplyDeleteI find that in the first 8 bars there was more attention towards small details like the dynamic marking. I could hear the accents more from the other instruments rather than just the trumpets.
Moving on, I thought the flutes and clarinets played it a lot more smooth in the second rehearsal. I heard a lot of small spaces not sure if they were staccatos or not. The cresendos in both pieces were pretty good. Almost like a "senior band crescendo".
Awesome rehearsal.
I pick the second one for its better shaped music, and a good rythm. It was very smooth and clear with all the musicians shaping it by playing together. The second recording sounded better than the first.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that the second version is better than the first version because it sounds clearer and the music is more shaped. The second version of that piece sounded more like it was played together and on beat. The rhythm was good and the notes were accented.
ReplyDeleteI like the second one more, because to me, the beginning of it seems to have a crescendo, while the second one doesn’t seem to have a noticeable one. As well, the second one seems to be more synchronized and smoother. Their accents are clearer, and I could actually tell the difference between the different dynamic changes, and to me, the first is less noticeable. The first one kind of seems to drag a little, because parts aren’t played together enough (I think...). And for the second one, it has a crisper ending, with an accent. I thought that the ending note/bar was nicely played, for the second one.
ReplyDeleteI think the second recording was better because there was a better balance with each instrument's part. For example, in the first one, I could mainly hear the trumpets and barely anyone else. However in the second one, I thought the trumpet and other instruments that played in the middle flowing section blend very well and I could still distinguished each instrument. As well in the second one, there was more change in dynamics that then first one.
ReplyDeleteI think the second version is better because, like everyone so far has said, there was a lot more attention to detail. In the beginning of the second version, the crescendo could be heard, while in the first version it was almost non-existent. At about 34 and 54 seconds into the recording, the clarinets (and I think the flutes), who had the melody, could be heard, whereas in the first version, it was covered by the not-as-important trumpet part. Also, near the end, when the trombones and other low instruments had the melody, the eigth notes were marked clearly with space in between and less sloppy than that of the first recording. It was phrased well and the articulation more accurate, which might have lead to less dragging of the piece.
ReplyDeleteI liked the second recording better because it had "senior" level crescendos. I think the balance between each instrument part was much better than the first one. The background parts were much better than in the first. I think we payed more attention to the accents and markings too.
ReplyDeleteThe second recording of Triton Fanfare was better because, unlike the first recording, it could be heard that everyone was listening to each other, being more synchronized and played in a more balanced style.
ReplyDeleteI think that the second recording was better because the dynamics were more noticable, it felt like it was more in time than the first one and it was more balanced(you could hear the lower instruments better).
ReplyDeleteSorry for being late!
ReplyDeleteI totally think the second one is better because it sounds more shaped and together than the first one. It also shows that the players are more focused and attentive to detail.
I'd say the second for sure. The articulation, musical style and all the "stuff" we talk about in class defineatly sounds more 'important' in the second one than the first. And of course, the ending. No matter how great a piece is, if the ending sucks, then the entire piece goes down the tube. The first one KINDA had this effect. it wasn't BAD... but it wasnt great either. So yeah, the second one sounds much better for me.
ReplyDeleteI think the second recording was a little bit better than the first. The second recording included a much broader sound and you could hear the articulations a lot clearer. One thing I noticed as a percussionist that after the drum rolls in the first recording they had a suspended symbol finishing off the crescendos which was a part that I thought was better in the first recording than the second one. I’d have to say I thought the first recording had much more distinguished crescendos.
ReplyDeleteI say the first is better!
ReplyDeleteJust to be different.
I think that the second recording is better. I think that the dynamics are better and it sounds like each section is playing as one all together. I also think that the articulation and accents are better.
ReplyDeletei think that the second recording is better because the tempo seems to be a bit faster than the first. the faster tempo makes it a bit more enjoyable and the notes seem to be more clear. it also sounds like the second recording was played with more confidence
ReplyDeleteTo be honest I cant really tell but i think that the second one have a better quailites of sound and that is a bit more moving compare to the other one but i am not too sure
ReplyDeleteIt seems pretty unanimous that the second recording is better. For one thing, we are playing the notes right...From listening to version 1 of the recording, I would have thought we were a beginner band and not a senior band, particularly at the beginning. We weren't playing the right notes, or together, or in time. The second one just sounded more professional.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there's much of a difference, but I think the second version was played with more confidence and the sound produced was slightly more clear. The crescendos in the second piece also seemed more gradual.
ReplyDeleteI prefer the second recording over the first. As many people said, the sounds had more flow in the second recording. The dynamics weren't really more GRADUAL whereas I felt that they were more exaggerated. Or maybe that's just the volume button I might have accidentally pressed. Many other said that the parts were more distinct and clear in the second recording. I disagree with that. I felt that in the first recording, the parts were distinct, although not as clear, but still noticeable. The problem was that in the first recording, the sounds were jagged and felt out of place, as opposed to the more (I won't use the word "blend") fitted sounds of the second recording.
ReplyDeleteFor me as well, I like second recording better. There were more dynamic changes and more feeling with different style. And most important for me (at least), there was less dragging at the end than the first one.
ReplyDeleteI found that the second recording was better. Most everyone seemed to be more focused and paying more attention to the notes, tempo, and articulations. The first recording however sounded sloppy and, like Kayleigh said, sounded like it was done by an elementary or beginner band.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree w/most people here in saying that version 2 was much better.
ReplyDeleteThe beginning started off way more confident than the frist version. The blending of the saxes and clarinets in their melody was WAY better. It was very well balanced, without any one instrument dominating the other. And then, when the trumpets took over the melody, they matched the dynamic of what the clarinets and saxes had set. Like alot of other people said, there was alot more variation and musical expression. Even the end was much better. The trombones still played strong and we ended with a little bit of 'oomph"
Also, I heard oboe in the second one! :P
I personally prefer the second one over the first. The first sounds like it was being played by a band who have just received the music. The accents and crescendos were more exaggerated on the second and the first's were barely noticeable.
ReplyDeleteI prefer the second one (v2) in the first one, everrything was played well.. but it sounded..."flat" or "2-imentional" and it sounds almost as if it was made on the computer. But the second one you can TELL the "3-dimentional-ness" of the music. Feeling was added to make "v2" and no computerer program can make that.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely the second one. It was play with more confidence from the first beat onwards. The first one was good but it sound as though the band hadn't had as much practice as the as second band. The second band had obivously been practicing longer.
ReplyDeleteI liked the second version better. The various parts in the first version seemed to be played in different ways, and with different dynamics than the other parts. In the second version, the parts fit together more. The first version also did not feel like it had any flow to it, and that the parts came in more independently than as an ensemble.
ReplyDeleteVersion 1 displays little or no function of rhythm, something essential to making this piece interesting. Poor dynamic changes and lack of dynamic texture or colour change makes it lack-luster. Rhythmic accuracy is off in the trumpets. The tri-tone is played weakly in the trombones.
ReplyDeleteVersion two is up tempo, making the piece drive forward. Functions of rhythm are evident somewhat throughout. There is dynamic texture; crescendos and decrescendos are better, although not best. Harmony parts are brought out, most likely because of the melody players listening to them. The ending is much cleaner.