Which Kayo Dot song is the most advanced, compositionally, in your opinion?

FuSoYa said:
I think i'm going to do wayfarer actually... or, a new one if i can finish it up in time/ if I can get people together to record a rough version of it (so doubtful though).
Speaking of which, what sort of plans do you guys have for a follow up to CoTE at this point?
 
Standard Midi is very, very limited. Sibelius is one's best bet if they want to do something advanced but it still won't help much. You can only do so much to a shitty sample anyhow.

Firedwarf: thanks

I think Wayfarer is a good choice.

no plans for a follow up... probably will be something entirely separate.
Will you continue to be very light on the riffing and more into dynamics as in CotE or will there be a return to more linear themes in the vein of MotW? I was reading one interview where it was explained that you have no love for 'traditional' metal arrangement (string of riffs) anymore, and that MotW (I think you were still MotW then) would instead focus more on the open-chord dynamics and orchestration that later on indeed defined the sound of your debut as Kayo Dot. This shift was related to a desire to emulate classic composition by someone in the band. But there are quite a few composers (contemporary and classical) that use linear composition and repeated thematic sequences like Mussorgsky or Chopin or even Phillip Glass.
 
Helm said:
Sibelius is one's best bet if they want to do something advanced but it still won't help much. You can only do so much to a shitty sample anyhow.
I was referring to the sheet music you can produce with the program. According to my music teacher, some professional sheet music companies use the program. The midi sounds you create obviously sound pathetic, but the actual music composed on it can be outstanding.
 
Static said:
Ahh, my moranity has served a purpose. :rock: :Smokin:
morans.jpg
 
FuSoYa said:
[....] Additionally, I think they're likely to find interesting a composer's own creative ways of expressing in notation an unusual part; in other words, yeah of course i could notate this stuff, I'm writing it by hand, not using Cakewalk or Finale or something retarded like that.

Furthermore for the effected stuff, believe it or not but they want specs on all the digital or electronic equipment used, so for a certain effected guitar part, I'd have to include the specs R Tap 0.110 ms/ L tap 0.256 ms/ decay 3.267 ms/ gain 0.0 db/ flange 30 % etc etc
I think Finale is quite good, for a notation program.
You could use photoshop, though (in addition to any other conservative way of notating).

Developing your own style of notation ("playing directions" might be better) was quite common during the 20th century, was it not? If I remember correctly, Schonberg had his Schprechgezang(?)-thing for transcribing a recited text in an awkwardly precise way. Penderecki used bizarre charts. I even remember seeing a funny "airplane piece" (actually- a drawing of an airplane(!)) by John Cage once (can't imagine how it would sound like, but he probably worked out an odd system for the musicians to interprate it). You might be able to make up something similar (to various degrees of madness) for the effects (keeping it fresh and your own, ofcourse).

Do the technical specs have to be that accurate? Is there no place for the musician to bend these figures a little? (though in a particular recording it was used that way) I can't seem to imagine the effect of a 10-20% change in the timing of these effects, so I wouldn't know. (no production experience)

btw... hi!
I only listened to samples on the site, and a few songs by Maudlin of the Well, just recently. (So obviously I have no suggestion in mind for a composition to hand on.) I was very impressed by what I heard though. I should probably get one of your albums soon, 'cos it sounds like you had one of the most interesting releases to come out last year.

Good luck! I hope you get that grant.

all the best,
shikuz