Rhapsody for Orchestra, Piano & Harp in C-sharp minor

Interesting piece and certainly ambitious. I found it to be a little poppish in terms of its harmony. I also think that it could be made a little shorter, the piece drags a little from the 5-8 middle mark. Also, as some people said the variation isn't enough. Perhaps instead of just ornamentation you could develop your ideas into more dramatic climaxes because at times the piece does sound repetitious and lost. But, the orchestration was good and your melodies aren't bad. With a little work this could be even better.
Oh, and don't mind Justin Tokke, (whisper) I think he's retarded.

Matthew

There is something about this site that seems to bring out the worst in people. A lot of the members here (like Michael Witkor) will give you a honest idea of how a piece feels, not just spend the time cutting you down, which seems to be the modus operandi of many members here.

This piece has some real nice moments in it and a few that are perhaps overdone, but you seem to know that already. Few people nowadays will take the time to listen to a piece that is over 4 minutes long. It sucks that we all have such a limited attention span, but that is what the media has done to us. I still compose longer pieces and just hope for the best.

Well done

Ron

^ Hey guys, thanks for the levelheadedness (not to mention the politeness). I haven't noticed any of Justin's posts before, so I thought maybe he was just having a rough day or something. But I guess this does explain the Merlin/angels/Romans bit. o.O

I indeed do usually write fairly accessible music, which of course isn't very highly regarded in the "classical music" world. I suppose it's because I used to write inaccessible and even experimental music (never for the sake of inaccessibility, mind you), but most people just didn't like it. Most people I know just listen to what's on pop and rock radio stations, so "orchestral music" is far enough of a stretch. >_<

Nonetheless, I have more than enough "easy music" for any casual listener who would want to give my music a listen, so I think I've finally gotten that out of my system, and from now I can write music that challenges the listener, rather than appealing to their sentimentality...

[/tangent]

Anyways, yeah, I'm definitely going to stop repeating melodic patterns without enough "obvious" modification. The piano part in the middle is definitely too long (though, does it seem misplaced? The instrumentation does take a sharp turn...).

Originally Posted by MatthewSchwartz

^ Um, actually I do do what your third sentence suggests. You didn't notice any key changes in this piece? It modulates at least seven times...

What exactly is the "original theme" though? The "pirate" theme plays once in full at the beginning, very briefly one-third in, and once more abridged two-thirds through. It's in a different key each time...

Thanks for sharing your opinion, though. Always appreciated.

Yes, I see the key changes. Just a personal opinion, they occur too seldom, and they are some of the changes used most frequently when modulating music (at least I do, don't know about others), full step ups and downs, and fourths up and down. There may be exceptions that I missed but thats generally what I came up with.

The original theme is the one you had in the beginning, and I know you come back to it, but it doesn't have to be too similar, you could start off with the same interval and trail off into something else, keeping the original feeling though. Sorry if that wasn't clear the first time. What software did you compose this in? If its anything compatible to my archaic finale 2006 I'll see if I can add things to this piece to show you what I mean. Only I'm leaving to the US soon so I might not have time to edit it until I come back.

I think the middle piano section is fine, if shortened a little bit. I'd like to see someone play that interval at measure 169
Looks like this piece is going to yield you a lot good in the long run

^ Mmm, I usually try to stick to modulating to the dominant/subdominant/relative major or minor/occasionally parallel major or minor/ because all other modulations just seem kind of awkward to me. Maybe you've found ways for other modulation patterns to work effectively, but personally the changes in tonality are just too jarring to be convincing to the listener (at least that's the experience I've had).

Ah, I see what you mean about starting with the same interval and trailing off into something else. Definitely a good suggestion that definitely makes sense.

I wrote this in Finale 2008, so I don't think it'll work in Finale 2006. :/

Yeah, the piano part in the middle started out as a purely orchestral arrangement (with no piano) and basically I just did a piano reduction of that and put it in the forefront. I don't plan on this ever being performed, so playability's not too big of a priority for me.

Well...have fun in the US. Try not to get fat.

I actually like what you have going here, but two things:

First, it sounds like you're just throwing all your ideas in the same bucket, and then trying to sort them out. There are some really nice things here, like from min 4:00 till the shift in 4:50, then what comes after is pretty cool. I mean, those are all pretty nice ideas and I like how you did them but they simply overshadow everything you did before or after this. Specially when the build up of that section comes in 5:40. Cool stuff, but it seems like it just occurred to you and you kept on writing without really worrying where it was in relation to everything else.

The real problem is that the idea you start at minute 5 something is going on, and on, and on. By min 10 it stops being as dramatic as I think you wish it would sound by virtue of sheer repetition. You obviously noticed since the original theme shows up abruptly right after and just derails whatever you had going beforehand.

So, that's sort of clumsy, since even if you were intending to do an A-B-A form of sorts, you could've handled the transition better. Also, the ending introduces a new motive/melody contrast (though based on the harp solo sections) and it's sort of weird since it gives the impression the thing's going to continue. .... But then it just ends.

My guess is that you planned some of the structure, some of the harmony, but you just wrote it as you went along. I also notice some strain near the end, as if you just wanted to end the damn thing. Specially telling is the sudden cut at min 10 to the A/ending part. It sounds like you ran out of ideas. Stuff like this gives it a very very uneven feeling, it's like some parts are really well written and some are there just to make a point.

Also, min 8 is a tribute to Yann Tiersen or what? ;P

The second problem is basically the score and orchestration. The orchestration does sound pretty... OK, it does its job, but honestly the instruments are not really being used as well as they could be.

The brass and horn could use more characteristic/individual writing, rather than working as a group for most of the piece, same with the strings.

Also, the percussion seems sometimes only an afterthought and some parts (specially with the rhythms and so on) could've benefited from the extra oomph.

Sorry I'm using minutes instead of measures and etc but I was using the mp3 as reference because I didn't feel like looking through such huge score to find 4 or 5 measures.

In conclusion, well. This needs some polishing and it'll be great. Even it out, tend to the details, rethink some of your orchestration, work on the transitions and so on.

In the second violin, harp, and viola parts throughout a lot of the piece, you can replace the 16384th notes (or whatever they actually are) with grace notes. That would make them both readable and playable. Other than that, I don't have much to say, because I didn't get a chance to listen to it.

^ How are grace notes easier to read?

Btw, I'm not really interested in the readability or playability of this score, but rather the mp3 itself...

Just a quick note, regardless of the musical aesthetic, I suspect that you have not had much training in writing for orchestra.

I understand that your score is "a mess" (which it is... ugh ), but I just don't understand why your 1st violins don't play until so many pages later.

You need to work a bit more on your orchestral textures. I have to admit that I didn't sit through the whole piece. I found it dull. Not because it was written "in a traditional manner" or because of the harmonic langauge, but because of the over use of repetition (literal or not, it's STILL repetition).

One of the difficult things we learn as composers is good development. Obviously, you have the "easy" part down pat - you have the musical ideas. Now you need to work on the hard part: editting, developing, knowing when to drop an idea.

You say that you're not interested in how your score looks?
I take this to mean that you want to compose "by ear" therefore, rather than by developing material on the page?

If your intention is to be a composer, well, this is my opinion as a working professional, then you would be best to learn how to deal with music on the page. It's a much surer means of understanding what you are doing.

^ How are grace notes easier to read?

Grace notes are certainly not hard to read, especially when compared to rests and notes with many rhythm dots, or notes with 5+ stems (and I believe some of your notes have 10 stems), which are just confusing. The only thing that is lost in the conversion is the exact length of the note - and few performers will be able to play an exact 16,384th note anyway.