Wow! Thanks for taking the time to listen to my piece and write such a long post with your comments! I really appreciate that! Thanks!
I haven't put any dynamics yet on purpose. I am to present it to my teacher next Saturday and I was thinking of working the dynamics together... On the other hand I could try to work on the dynamics myself... In any case, I understand that the complete lack of dynamics makes it more difficult to properly hear it and comment on it as it is practically something not complete yet and I am sorry for that...
As far as the name of the instruments are concerned, I do have an issue with that. I just don't like any kind of abbreviation or mention of the instruments before the staff. I really need to find a solution on that, because, as you correctly said, it can be misleading and confusing...
Quote:
|
There are also some minor mistakes, like clashes of noteheads and beams/stems, as well as forgetting the courtesy accidental when having long notes that last through two measures (like in mm.16-17, where the Eb on the double-bass is held until measure 17, but since 17 is on another system, you should have put a courtesy accidental (in brackets) in the beginning of m.17), and the upside-down fermata on m.23 (double-bass again). Also, on m.35, flute part, you have a quintuplet around 5 notes. I assume this is a mistake? =P
|
Regarding the first notational mistake you mention, I couldn't find any kind of clash. Could you please specify a place on the score where this happens as an example in case I have misunderstood you? I wasn't aware of the other mistakes. I didn't even know what a courtesy accidental is or that the fermata can be upside-down. I shall correct them, though I must say that I prefer the fermata as it is. I like it being closer to the note...
The quintuplet on m. 35 is not a mistake. It's a quintuplet "inside" another quintuplet, so the result is a quintuplet with 6 notes. It's funny that you mention that though, because I didn't like it either and I changed it to a sextuplet.
The fact that at some places only one bar fits per system is kind of problematic indeed, but I don't think the no-bars solution would be ideal for the occasion. Perhaps a landscape orientation of the score instead of portrait would look better...
Quote:
|
Furthermore, in measure 31 (mainly the horn, trumpet and viola parts), you have so many irregular groupings of notes (like triplets, sextuplets, quintuplets etc), that it becomes confusing to the performer whether they have to compress (i.e. play 5 notes in the space of 4) or expand (i.e. play 5 notes in the space of 6) the note values. Which is why you should always write the quintuplets and stuff like " 3:4" (3 in the time of 4), so as to avoid confusion.
|
Yes, you are right! I think that apart from the regular triplets or sextuplets there are some more irregular groupings you mentioned that need to be specified. I'll go fix that later, thanks!
Your idea on the dynamics on the chordal passage is really interesting. I still haven't decided anything regarding the dynamics, but I find your idea very interesting. Thanks! The only problem however is that in the particular passage, the horn doesn't "sing" a particularly interesting line so that to put any special emphasis on it...
The piece is tonal, modal, polytonal and polymodal (at the beginning). There is always a tonal center. What makes it dissonant at places is the use of polytonality and complex rhythms apart from the CODA where I've intentionally mixed minor with major (I've heard that first time in Rautavaara's work and I really liked it) to create a specific impression of incompleteness or being lost...
Although I admit that I haven't learned to work on paper, I don't think that this is the reason there are no accidentals at the beginning. I just wanted to be that way. By the way, I am very interested to know how some composers work in the traditional way. I think it would benefit me a lot to learn composing this way...
Quote:
|
Also, the other reason I suspect this is a finale work is because the rhythms are very strictly around one specific, and they are not freely interchanged (for example, m.31-32, and kind of until 36, among other places). It's like having building blocks and just putting them on top of one another, but that's now how you build a house. Again, if this is 100% your choice, ignore my comment, but if it's not, work on that =)
|
No, this was a decision of mine. The thing is that before starting writing the piece I decided to create in my mind some relations between the instruments that I would later apply on the score. If you notice the piece's counterpoint is most often "local", it doesn't expand throughout the seven instruments' lines. Even in the more complex passages the counterpoint is built through the different thematic, rhythmical and contrapuntal relations between the instruments. And mainly that's the reason the piece doesn't have a specific form. I don't know why, but I don't really like working in forms. Perhaps this is because of an apparent weakness of mine. Being an inexperienced composed I can't possibly say it's because of this or because of that, but it's something that I like to avoid... I am grateful though that my teacher asks from me to write pieces in different forms every time, because if I want to move from something away, I must first come to know that in full in order to abandon it or change my mind and accept it, if you know what I mean... I do agree that the piece appears sectional, loose in terms of cohesion if you like and personally I believe that this is its main weakness (and perhaps mine as a composer).
Quote:
|
I personally don't find it too bad, although I must admit I found the beginning quite boring in the mp3 file. However, it looks more interesting than it sounds like, which is why you shouldn't rely on finale, especially when writing dynamics I would prefer it if you had included just a bit of bending and quarter-tones, for example in the second measure and fourth measures, when the bassoon plays the same note with the horn, the horn could be bending the notes a quarter tone down, and then up again. I would really love that in the beginning, it would add a lot =D
|
Again you have an interesting idea here, but as I have it in my mind, I wouldn't really like that effect...
Thank you for your helpful comments, Laonicos! You were really helpful and it was very kind of you to write such a long post. Thanks!
I am going to correct some things now on the score and perhaps begin working on the dynamics! I'll then upload the finished "product".
Alexander
Y.Γ. Σ'ευχαριστώ και πάλι Λαόνικε και δια της ελληνικής! Τα λέμε!
