First of all, some notational comments:
There are no dynamics throughout the whole piece, which makes it very difficult to understand what you want to hear.
Even if finale plays it as you want it without dynamics, real players won't, so you have to be careful with that =) I am not saying you should have a dynamic under every single note, but you could indicate here and there a few dynamics, or even in words (softly, loudly, as loud as possible etc), if you want to have less dynamics specified.
Another notational issue is the instruments - although you do specify all the instruments in the beginning, later in the first page already you omit the abbreviations of the instruments next to their respective staves, which wouldn't be so problematic if you continued showing all the staves whether they are empty or not, but since you omit some staves, it's hard (in fact, almost impossible) for us to know what instrument are playing at any particular moment (unless when they are all playing together).
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
Also, from measure 30 onwards, your bars are so long (in terms of duration and note-values included in them) that you can only fit one measure per system, so maybe you could rethink if you actually need barlines at that section of the piece or not (in terms of strong/weak beats and accent, that is). Taverner does that quite a lot, he has some measured bars, and some unmeasured bars that run for a few pages, and then goes back to measured bars.
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. Your sense of rhythm is very good (or at least, the rhythmic values in the piece as you've written them are very interesting =P ), and I think you should hold on to that.
I really like the chords at m.36 onwards, especially m.40. However, I think that while the horn entry should be loud, the rest of the instruments should come in really softly, and the double-bass should start playing softly while going louder and louder until the beginning of m.41 (the horn could also go softer and softer after the loud entry and after the other instruments have entered). It would create a kind of peculiar sonic cloud that suddenly appears around the horn sound (which seems central to the piece, since it began with the horn playing that A), and then the focus is shifted to the double-bass which has this quasi-soloistic passage in the following measures.
Overall, it looks quite tonal, or rather, modal (although there are some very clear chordal passages). It's neither good nor bad, although I am afraid some people from in here may say that it's "oh, very dissonant" and stuff like that =X I personally think that you didn't start writing this piece on paper or on the piano, because there are absolutely no accidentals (apart from the occasional Eb on the double-bass and much later on the bassoon) up to measure 25, which basically reminds me of my earlier pieces on finale, where I just wrote
on finale and thus I rarely used accidentals. Of course, you might have had some of the ideas on the piano (it is equally easy to fall in that trap while playing the piano, if you find it more easy to play the C major/A minor scale than any other key - which is why you should become equally proficient with all the keys, if you're not already). Or, it might have been your choice, I really don't know, I am just guessing here =P But if it's because of the finale/piano trap, then you better do something about it =)
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 =)
In general, it doesn't seem to have a specific form, although motifs do travel from one instrument to another (m25-27, m.79-83 etc) although it is quite sectional, and you also have some slower (in terms of pulse and movement) sections, like the "Brilliant" (m.40-41) and the "Majestic" (m.88) sections, which seem to kind of break the flow of the piece and enriching it (or it could be that you found you couldn't write such a lengthy piece like the faster sections, so you added those slow ones to keep going - again, I am just assuming here, and if that's the case, then you should work to develop your development skills and fight this "weakness", but if it's 100% your choice, then ignore this comment =P )
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
*sigh* There's my comment
I could comment more, but I can't listen to the mp3 (I hate midi
), and I am too tired to keep reading the score
Anyway, upload more works of yours. Den yposxomai oti tha grapso toso megala sxolia kai sta alla kommatia, alla tha prospathiso =P
Ta leme! =D
Apr 5 2008, 10:56 PM
You indicate a duration of 7 quarters (which is pretty straight-forward as a whole-note and a dotted half-note) as a half-note tied to an eighth note tied to a triplet consisting of a quarter-note tied to an eighth note, which in turn are tied to another eighth note tied to a dotted half-note D= I assume this is a mistake that has been overlooked? =P You do this kind of unnecessary tying in other places too, such as m.10 of the horn, m.13 of the double-bass and m.14 of the flute (among nuuuuumerous other appearances throughout the score) - please do avoid that, since it only makes it harder for the players to read. No, in fact, players will ask "why did you write it this way?" and you'll say "um.. I don't know, it's a mistake", so they'll say "well, if you don't bother with your score, neither will I" and they'll just walk away =P 
Linear Mode
