Of Flowers and Memories

This is another choral piece of mine. I didn't think it really belonged in the major works section because of its short length, but it's still one of my better musical achievements. I originally wrote it for a fellow choir member who lost her mother to cancer, but it was never officially performed or dedicated because the choir didn't have enough time to learn it. It is a piece set to a poem that I wrote myself. It is called "Of Flowers and Memories." I spent about half a year working on and perfecting this piece when I didn't have anything else to do. Here's a Finale file and a midi of the work. There are a few ridiculous notes in the piece, but they are OPTIONAL, and are written as such. Critiques and comments are appreciated! Thanks!

-Adam

I like your use of dynamics. However, some choirs may find it hard to such so loud for very long.

One thing I might do rather than have the whole choir stop at a time to take breaths is to keep one part going, perhaps bass or soprano, and then let them sneak one in when the rest of the choir can cover them.

The major chord at 2:23 doesn't sound so great in this theme.

This song reminds me of one my choir performed, "In Remembrance." Not because of sound, but because of intent... Remembrance was written for a wife who was suddenly killed in an auto accident, and the song reflects greif, anger, and finally acceptance, using both latin and English or the words. It was a powerful piece. I think with the right choir and director you could achieve the same effect.

Thanks for the comment! I understand where you're coming from about the major chord, but I have a reasoning for that. The text says "and from the remains of a withered flower may spring a flower anew." That carries with it a feeling of rebirth and new life from old. I picture in my head a flower blooming. I thought the major chord would portray that feeling and that sort of mental picture when added to the text. Would you suggest, however, that I put a minor chord or a chord with no 3rd in its place? Additional comments are appreciated. Thanks!

-Adam

Well done. This is beautiful.

What electronic media do to choral music especially is so disappointing. It says a lot about the uniqueness of the sound of the human voice that despite the application of our best technology, we can do no better than "Choir Ahs" in duplicating it...or something as ghostly and odd as the vox humana stop on a pipe organ.

Even so, I was able to understand what you were after here. My compliments to you on a perfectly lovely poem, to begin with. The music amplifies the sentiment of the text well, and there are some heart-rending moments. It's a pity your school choir couldn't perform this piece. It doesn't seem too difficult, especially omitting the optional notes...though school choirs can have difficulty with divisi passages and such. Frankly, only professional choirs could manage the highest soprano and lowest bass options, but obviously you knew that.

Measures 13-14 are magical, but followed by those parallel triads in 14, it seemed to me you might have done something richer there. By measure 15 you're doing more what I'd have expected in 14 following that lovely moment from the ladies. Likewise, measures 23-25 that beautiful descending tenor line (as a tenor myself, I love you! ), so fitting to the text, are worthy of a composer the likes of Jean Berger. It was a mature and very musical decision you made in giving that line to the tenors in their middle-upper register, instead of the altos in their chesty lower register - you seem very well aware of vocal quality as well as range considerations.

In measure 28 I see what you're after, but I really think you could have done something more creative and effective than having both the tenor and the soprano resolve parallel up to the D-flat...and I'm not just saying that from the point of view of a classicist. I just don't think it works here. Were I you, I'd have weighed whether it was more desirable to have the soprano melodic line continue up that scale, or let the tenors have their passing dissonance resolve up; in the end, I'd probably have let the soprano have it and I'd have taken the tenor down to A-flat instead of up to D-flat.

I really wanted to like what you did in measures 30-33, but all those parallel triads...I dunno. I think I understand the effect you were after...Rachmaninoff does similar things in his choral music quite effectively, including parallel triads, but he approaches it differently and uses it sparingly - and of course, he's Rachmaninoff, so it has a magic and sense of place that almost defies analysis. What follows in the womens and mens parts is superb word painting, though...very effective.

Anyway, I suppose what I'm trying to say is that this piece is so good, the few places where (IMHO) it isn't as good really stand out. To me, anyway. I realise you're not trying to follow any particular classical model, but even so there seem to be too many parallel triads going on here. Too much of that sort of thing makes it sound too 'pop,' and I don't think that's what you were after. There were also ways you could have filled out some chords and added richness without appreciably changing the harmony. I'll show you a couple of places if you like, but don't feel obliged to ask. This is an extremely personal expression, and I have no desire to intrude.

Congratulations on a fine work.

Thanks for the wonderful critique, J. Lee! ...and of course, I'd love to hear your suggestions! I do believe there is room to improve this piece, but sometimes I get to a point in a work where sometimes my lack of experience prevents me from seeing exactly HOW I can improve it, without changing the substance of the piece which I have come to love so much... so yes, show me the places where you believe it can be improved. I'd appreciate that very much from an experienced composer.

...and the reason that the choir didn't get to perform it was that I had finished it only about two months before our final concert, which would have been the last opportunity to perform it. I think that, had I finished it sooner, we could have pulled it off. We just had too much that we were already working on to start a new piece.

-Adam

Adam, I finally got a "round tuit," and I'm posting a .mus file with a few suggestions. The little nudges and changes should be obvious to you since you're intimate with the piece.

The sections with a lot of parallel triads I pretty much didn't touch, because I'm not sure how to "correct" them, for lack of a better term, without changing the character completely. The idea wasn't to change the character of the piece, just to outline where I thought a few things might be improved. These are just my opinions, based on my experience and sensibilities.

It's a really beautiful piece.

Thank you very much, J. Lee!! I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to do this! I think it sounds better. I was unsure about the changes in the first few measures (the parallel fifths between the tenor and bass that I had written to begin with were definitely intentional, btw), but as I listened, it grew on me. I was just so used to hearing it the way I had written it that my mind resisted the change at first. I like the changes to some of the harmonies that you made, without changing the chords. I have one question though. Do you think I should change the tenor on the third beat of measure 29 to a Bb, or do you think it sounds better on the Ab? I keep hearing the Bb in my head for some reason, and it just feels like it should be that way. Is there a reason why it shouldn't? Just wondering!
Thanks again,

-Adam

That was the place I mentioned in my first post. You know, the more I look at it, the more I'm inclined to advise you to stick with your original idea and resolve the tenor up to D-flat along with the soprano.

My concern was that your original progression involved hidden parallel octaves between the tenor and soprano lines, both of them resolving the same way, and my "solution" avoided that. But what I wrote was strange voice leading, trying to force a "legal" harmonic progression needlessly. Stick to your original idea...it's fine.

I'm glad you found a few of my suggestions acceptable. Have you studied much theory? Didn't you say somewhere that you're going away to university to study composition?

First off, I'd like to compliment you, Mr. Graham on your expert analysis and fabulous suggestions. I think you should seriously consider becoming a teacher. As far as I can tell, you’ve got what it takes. In my biased opinion, it’s the most noble and important profession on the planet - underpaid of course, but so rewarding as to easily make up for such a deficiency. I didn’t start doing it until I was older than you are now. It’s never too late to start teaching.

Now, on to the matter at hand. I had previously taken a look at this piece and was debating whether or not to tackle it - there were other choices and I think I had just recently done one of Piano Guy’s pieces. I think I had pretty much decided to pass because I found it a tad pedestrian and plodding. Those parallel fifths right off the bat made it plod all the more and they didn’t fit the text; I think that put my ear in a bad place. But in coming across Lee’s very perceptive observation that it reminded him of Berger, I gave it another listen with that in mind and it all fell together. Although personally, I still think quarter = 60 is a bit slow - that certainly didn’t help it to plod any less.

I have one question though. Do you think I should change the tenor on the third beat of measure 29 to a Bb, or do you think it sounds better on the Ab? I keep hearing the Bb in my head for some reason, and it just feels like it should be that way. Is there a reason why it shouldn't? Just wondering![/b]

PG, Measure 29 - your Bb solution - I love it - The reason it works is that it subtly lets the chord hang through the rest as the part continues down to the Ab on the following measure. Good voice-leading through a rest creates continuity, seemingly implied, but very real (remember, you’re in the middle of a sentence) and an added bonus is that it becomes an easier read.

Last two measures - I wouldn’t bother to put a low Bb in the bass part. It comes across as being presumptuous. I’ve never met a bass that could consistently even reach it, much less hold it as long as you have specified, and I’ve worked with some real good ones.

Other than that, Lee has masterfully covered all the bases and I feel as if I’m no longer alone with my preferred style of critique/analysis on these forums.

Thank you, Leightwing. I did meet a bass once who could actually go all the way down to the F, a fourth BELOW that Bb (No kidding, I stood there and watched him do it), and I wrote that in because I thought that perhaps if there were even ONE guy like him in a choir, who could hit it, then it would sound simply awesome. I guess there just aren't many out there. It still sounds alright without the note, however.

On the subject of tempo, if I was conducting it, I would probably move it along in some places a little faster than written, and add a lot of rubato that's not heard in the MIDI. It's hard to electronically simulate the level of expression that I intended for this piece. It certainly wasn't intended to "plod" along at one tempo the whole time. I don't have specific marks for it to accel. or ritard., because I want that part to be open to a little interpretation. I can't wait to go to college and begin my major in Composition, so I can possibly have this piece performed (and perhaps even conduct it myself).

Thanks to everyone again for all the comments and the help! I really appreciate it!

-Adam