The Dance of Untruth (piano and orchestra)

merci Dallas

pour la déclaration de droits d'auteur, j'ai tout simplement copié celle qui se trouve au bas des pages de mes éditions Durand et Fils.. donc, s'il y-a un erreur qui s'y est glissé, on pourra blamer Durand et fils

ahaha! j'ai trouvé... cette copie de la partition est une préléminaire... donc, il y-avait effectivement erreur, mais cela a été corrigé dans la version finale.

This piece is obviously a major accomplishment from an experienced composer. I enjoyed, as someone else pointed out, the stream of consciousness feeling to it, although I would like to comment on some issues I think have been caused by this. Please don't mistake any of my criticisms as 'I know this and you don't', as I'm sure you have acquired much more experience than I have in your composing life. I just mean everything as suggestions!

The idea of a tone row creating the melodies is a great starting point for a piece, but I don't think you've used it to really create a melody. It seems to twist and turn, always keeping a memorable shape to it (which is possibly the only really striking motif in the piece). But I think you went a little overzealous in your development, creating masses of moving lines and constantly shifting tonal centers and such, losing content of melody and thusly, losing me!

This happens in another way, in your softer, slower sections. It seems to get too tonal. Not to tonal for me, but rather too tonal for the piece itself. And there is seemingly no transition between these sections and the more dissonant ones. Going into 165 is a great moment, with heightened tension all the way from 155, and not too commotion going on to mask the row in its twisted glory. But what is 165?? Suddenly we are supplanted in a completely different tonal world and a different texture, all at once with no warning. I'm not sure if you had an answer for this when you composed it, but I feel it's too much change at once. Perhaps if you treated this more as a different movement, you could develop what you have in this section at 165 more thoroughly. What I mean is that I don't think it fits between the surrounding material very well.

As for orchestration, I think it's fine (except for some range issues - particularly in your brass and clarinets - too high!), if not a bit overly rambunctious as far as counterpoint and individual lines go. There might be too much going on in certain moments, although I'm not sure whether a live recording/performance would clear up some of these moments, or add to the confusion. From my experiences hearing orchestra readings of some of my colleagues, too much stuff going on always detracts from a piece, although this could just be my particular taste. Still! It's harder on the players!

But aside from all that, I think it's a wonderfully crafted piece, obviously having had the thought, work, and love put in it that a great piece of music needs.

Greetings,

Though I am not much for overtly chromatic works, I think this is an excellent twenty-forth opus! I have been poisoned by early listening to Schoenberg and Sorabji, so this music reminds me of their... unique music. If the War of Tonality were to come up again, I'd stay on the tonal side. Thankfully, this music does not intrude on atonality to an excessive degree. The sevenths, diminished, and augmented chords do not resolve in a way that fits my personal tastes, but as a STYLE you have certainly found your own. There is a grandiosity mixed between Rachmaninov, Bartók, and Shostakovich .. with a tad of Prokofiev!

Whatever someone may think, or however many composers you amalgamate to explain this music, it is YOUR music. This is an excellent effort!

This is pretty amazing. Like Nikolas said, its really fresh and its just so cool and interesting. The stuff you are playing around with is just so amazing. Great themes, orchestration. I can't say much more.

Great Work!

thank-you for the comments all.

Oingo, just a tiny explanation: this is a pretty old work of mine. I revised it last year, but made no changes to form/structure. Mostly the orchestration and some minor internal details.

I agree wtih you that the form isn't always the most convincing, from a purely structural point of view. Mind you, it was meant as a sort of programmatic work, so the extreme contrasts WERE what I was aiming for at the time.

I think had I written this more recently, there would have been a bit more blending between the disparate elements.

I WILL, however, take exception to the "too high" comment regarding brass and clarinets. To the best of my knowledge, this is all written well within the normal playable range of the instruments. Would you care to point out any particular measures that raise a red flag for you?

Thank-you for taking the time to comment in-depth.

There is a point after box 46 where the 1st clarinet has to hold an F - yes, still in the playable range of the instrument (as are all the notes written for all 3 of your trumpet parts), but I think it's a matter of stamina. An Eb Clarinet would much rather be used there, and the sound I'm sure would be better throughout that passage, as it requires less air to play that on the smaller instrument. The trumpets use all their range equally in this piece, and constantly jumping up to Bbs and Bs I think would prove difficult. That's all I meant regarding range issues, perhaps a little to high in their playable register too often.

Oh, and I hope you get the rights to turn Delores Clairborne into an opera! Do you have an opera company you are working with currently?

Sadly, Dolores Claiborn is already being negotiated by another composer, so that has fallen through.

I do have a librettist I will be meeting with over the next few months, regarding an idea for an original opera.

As for the production, it will pass through the production company that Alan Belkin and I have started. I have a couple of excellent groups in mind for the performance along with some excellent singers interested in participating.

Okay...

I promised to return after having listened to this some more, and indeed, that I have done. And all I can honestly say is this - I do, indeed, love this piece of music very much, and find some of the more telling piano passages (like from the cadenza) playing through my mind every now and again, but... this is still so very far beyond my scope of analytical understanding. I hear the interwoven themes here and there, but I can't put what I think of it into words, if you know what I mean. In short, I'm admitting that I need to further my studies. A lot.

That said, I shall keep this piece in mind as I study more and more of the more modern side of theory (I'm still such a Classicist / Romanticist). It has intrigued me, and re-inspired me to pursue musical education as far as I can. For that, I must thank you, seeing as I've been going through kind of a rocky time with my own musical motivation.

But, I'm not going to get all sappy on you here.

Merci bien d'avoir écrit cette musique, et de nous l'avoir montrées; en marquant assez de mots pour m'exprimer, je ne peux que dire que c'est bien fantastique !

A plus,

Dallas

QCCowboy:
Im going to start my comment in character of an untrained listener, one that has just been introduced to a very dissonant work.
*gets into Character*



OH MY EFFING GOSH! THAT WAS EFFING TERRIFIC YOU EFFING SON OF A B! OH MY GOSH.

Ok now that is out (obviously, effing and B stand for tabboo terms, but I dont think swearing is healthy)


Now into a proper, trained musician train of thought:

I was absolutely impressed by this fantastic collaboration of harmony, rhythm, motifs and sound! What an incredible feat of music this is. Absolutely fantastic. Your pianistic writing absolutely astounded me; there weren't any passages in there that I saw that seemed impossible to play. Everything was so meticulously crafted; so much detail. I mean, 8 years of work and revision would obviously bring this, but that 8 years has CERTAINLY paid off.

GPO is what im guessing you used, and surprisingly it did a fantastic job of portraying your work, give or take volume control. You look like you have really mastered finale/sibelius/whatever you use as well, as the score is tidy, and playback is marvelous. I would love to see your creation progress...see how you do everything you do.

Now in regards to analysis, there were a few things I picked up. Obviously, this work is complete, and so whatever I am saying would be applied to a latter piece.
I read what you posted, saying it was a Symphonic Poem with Piano Obligato, so a lot of the notes I took down during listening to the piece are contradicted by this statement. However, I will say them anyway:

Piano Concerto: In piano concertos we hear, particuarly those of a traditional stance, we hear throughout the piece, piano solos in between. I didnt hear/see much of these. It was as if the orchestra was constantly moving, and the piano would come in and just...add to the already thick texture. The mixing of the recording obviously didnt really bring out the 'ff' over the orchestra's 'f', and a live recording would see acoustics and all that stuff, changed...but I thought that some of the impressive piano passages you wrote were covered completely in a thick cover of other instruments. The virtuoso on the stage would be destroying his/her hands tearing out these massive passages, only to have the orchestra drown them out.
I am contradicted by Rachmaninov's 2nd Concerto here, where near at the end of the first movement and the third movement, there are tremendous chords hammered out in triplets building to a massive climax, along with the orchestra shouting out the climax as well...yet the piano is playing a rhythm that makes it heard out over the orchestra.
I dont know, it is YOUR piece so you can do what you want with it. It is probably exactly what you wanted, I just feel that you would be wasting the pianist's energy putting 'Sorabji-like' passages underneath a thick layer of instruments.
Now, I did notice however that you 'took this into thought' at bars 169 - 201. The piano was playing running passages while the orchestra was mumbling a melody out beneath. I thoroughly enjoyed this part of the piece, giving you Kudos for writing so well for the piano.
To sum up this paragraph, I would like to draw attention to the cadenza. Again, what a fantastic showmanship of years of work...it is a brilliant 47 bars of music...however, again, its saved for just the cadenza. There were so many moment in this cadenza I thought, 'oh that would have sounded nice earlier in thepiece' or 'why is that here, and not at the beginning?'. A fantastic cadenza, of passages that could have been spread out more. Thats all for that. I thought the entrance of the orchestra with the piano playing that tremdous scale down the keyboard at bar 325 reminded me SOO much of a Mahler symphony (particuarly the 1st one, movement 4 - DONT CONTRADICT ME 'MAHLER FOLLOWERS', this is my opinion). It's fantastic, and I know it is YOUR passage, but I just had a 'mahler' thought in that bar.

Im not a master of Orchestration, so I wont say anything about that, except at the end (bar 418 - 420)...BRILLIANT CLIMAX TO AN END OF A PIECE. I can imagine those old men in the audience yelling out 'Bravo!'...you know, the ones you hear in those live classical recordings...'bravo bravo'.

With that, I leave...100 Kudos for this fantastic work. I would upload it to my MP3 player, but then I will start composing in that style...and whats worse, my piece will sound like yours, which defeats the purpose of trying to establish my own musical ideas. Can't stain the imagination. I will definately be looking out for a live performance recording sometime though of which, I will undoubtedly add to my "Great YC Compositions" folder on my computer.

Amazing.

Originally Posted by oingo86

There is a point after box 46 where the 1st clarinet has to hold an F - yes, still in the playable range of the instrument (as are all the notes written for all 3 of your trumpet parts), but I think it's a matter of stamina. An Eb Clarinet would much rather be used there, and the sound I'm sure would be better throughout that passage, as it requires less air to play that on the smaller instrument. The trumpets use all their range equally in this piece, and constantly jumping up to Bbs and Bs I think would prove difficult. That's all I meant regarding range issues, perhaps a little to high in their playable register too often.

I disagree on both those points; the trumpet parts are only slightly difficult at this point in the score, and a Bb Clarinet player would be perfectly at ease with a high F6. Even a modestly competent clarinetist should be able to play up to at least a G6* within the dynamic range of fortississimo through niente. Air is truly not a factor at that point.

*above G6, you're in a new series of partials, which are much harder to control