Concerto for Soprano Saxophone and Strings

Andrew, that actually makes a lot of sense to me now... when I look at the solo part, it uses a lot of clarinet clichés.

When the piece moves into the key of G (ironically, at letter G), the solo part hangs incessantly around concert B4, which is not a good note for the soprano saxophone (it's the open C# on the saxophone) and it won't sound good because the soloist keeps changing timbre.

In the last movement, why 6/16 and 7/16 - when 2/4 and 5/8 work just as well and are far easier to read? You don't get extra points for making your pieces difficult to read. *chuckle*

At letter CC, you need to mark all the tremolos from 424 to 431, then mark a single sul ponticello in measure 424. At 432, I'd use ord. instead of nat. to cancel the pont.

Oh, I forgot... the altissimo A before letter EE seems tacked on. Perhaps if you expanded the cadenza and worked up to that A instead? Right now it comes at you from left field.

The figure G thing is a very good point actually. I didn't think of that. I'll consult my soloist first (she is a VERY good saxophonist), but I may well change that.

To be honest, the entire cadenza passage is a bit "tacked on"! I wasn't sure what to do, so I just put the words "ad lib. cadenza"...mainly to make the soloist squirm, because I'm harsh like that (and, after working my way through some classical cello concertos, I feel that the improvised cadenza is something of a lost art). But I do see what you mean about the high A. I'll put in some impressive sounding arpeggios to lead up to it or something.

As for the bizzarre time signature: the main reason it's like that is because of phrasing really. The beat is felt as 4+3, 2+2+2. Using 2/4 and 5/8 might just make things even more complicated, although I do admit that writing everything in quavers (making the time signaures 7/8 and 6/8) would make it more readable. Besides, I've become desensitized to confusing time sigs after playing The Rite of Spring

Again, thanks for all your comments.

Hi Flint.
6/16 + 7/16 is completely different to 2/4 + 5/8. 6/16+7/16 is the actual feel of the music. I haven't looked at the score just heard the rhythm and it is a great little idea.
Andrew

No, it isn't. At that point, the beat (according to the notation in the score) is dotted eighth = (some number). How is it any different than quarter note = (same number) and making the notes triplet eighths?

I'll post an example from the score when I get home tonight.

EDIT: I'll correct myself... it wouldn't be 2/4 and 5/8, it would be 6/8 and 7/8 - played at dotted quarter = (some number).
That's what I get for posting from work and relying on my aging memory

Yes that makes sense. I was only going on what I heard. But 6/8 or 6/16 is much of a muchness. Maybe 6/8 is a little less daunting on the page - less of a psychological stumbling block, where 6/16 suggests you are going to put your fingers into overdrive.

Originally Posted by ablyth

Yes that makes sense. I was only going on what I heard. But 6/8 or 6/16 is much of a muchness. Maybe 6/8 is a little less daunting on the page - less of a psychological stumbling block, where 6/16 suggests you are going to put your fingers into overdrive.

Exactly.

I believe that it's important for composers to understand that you don't get bonus points for making your music hard to read. I've seen countless pieces passed over simply for the fact that they "looked hard". This is especially important when attempting to get new orchestral works performed, since (close-minded) orchestras tend to pigeon-hole new works as "noise" and presenting them with a "difficult-looking" score just gives them another reason to not bother with it!

Composing is not (or should not be) about hearing a MIDI representation of your work - it's about hearing it played by real musicians. Only then do you actually find out if your music works and how it really sounds. Sorry to harp (HA!) on these points, but I really do want to see everyone here improve, and I believe my advice will help with that!

I see what you mean. I wasn't going out of my way to make the music "look hard"...it was the just way it turned out for some reason! But I'll probably turn everything to quavers at some point before the performance, just to keep the string players happy!

Sorry, Andrew, I didn't mean to imply that I was accusing you of that. My intent was to indicate that one should always look to present their music in the clearest way possible. Please take no offense.

No, don't worry, none was taken! Thanks for all your advice.