Sinfonia Canadensis (Symphony no2 - first 3 movements)

well, I can answer maybe the "why no contrabass" question.
If you notice, the register of that first beat isn't very low. So it's a relatively "medium seated" sound on that first accent.

The contrabass comes in on the second sfz, where the register has deepened somewhat.

Had the double bass played on the 1st sfz, the sound would have been deeper, and left nowhere to go with the second sfz. Or at least, LESS places to go with the 2nd sfz.

Some of the divisi/non-divisi decisions are related to a sort of sonority I'm looking for. When you use octave doublings you are reinforcing certain partials and creating a particular sound. When the part is more divided (ie not simply octave doublings) then the sound has more complexity.

One of the reasons for leaving out the contrabass from SOME notes of a phrase is to lighten to general sonority, and then to allow it to deepen and darken when the contrabass returns.

Hi. I found this to be very attractive music. In spite of your statements about fast music I found the third movement most interesting if a bit short. I understand that you are aiming for conciseness in your writing but I thought you could easily do more with this movement. My obvious move would be to add a B section and then work back to a repeat of what you already have. This seems almost to be suggested in the existing movement as you work up to a climax at the end only to stop. But of course I don't have an overview of your complete structure and your 4th movement may be a logical continuation.
My concern would be that with two adagios and a not very fast opening movement (ie the traditional moderato opening) you are giving your audience a lot of slowish music and the three minute allegro is not providing a weighty enough balance to add a bit of dramatic zing.

You did understand that the music has a specific programme, right?

The only way to lengthen the 3rd movement would be to lengthen each of the initial sections. I had considered this at one point, but feel that it meets the requirements of the programme at this length in this form. Altering the form by adding what you call a "b section" would undo the form and alter the programmatic intent (by the way, adding a section would make it an "f section", seeing as it already has a, b, c, d, and e sections!).

The next movement (the 2nd adagio) will ALSO be relatively short.

The final movement, will be longer.

I also needed to look at the over-all length of the work as a consideration.

Thank-you for taking time to listen to my work.

You were kind enough to comment on my piece. I feel I should return the courtesy, if it's okay with you, QC.

Ok, here's what I don't get... then I'll shower you with praise

On your score, you have English Horn and Bb Clarinets showing key signatures. Yet, your F Horns don't show a key signature. Is this on purpose, or is this just another format that I never knew about?

I also wonder how you decide on whether or not to use a key signature at all. I've known some composers who refuse to use them, and still others who will use them when excessive amounts of flats or sharps are necessary for a particular section of music. Otherwise, I've generally been told not to use them unless they "become necessary." I just go with what I'm comfortable.

I don't quite get the contour of your melodic lines either, especially in your fanfare. I'm not a fan of the fanfare (sorry), and I think there are some things that could be worked out from a content standpoint. Some of your melody feels, at least to me, as though you're attempting to use all notes of the chromatic scale... but it seems that your contour decisions are almost always centered around this one scale. Maybe I'm not hearing it clearly, but have you considered other linear grids like the Hectatonic, Octatonic, or even Whole Tone scales? Mixed Modes (someone mentioned some poly-tonal techniques)? Have I just been missing them altogether, because I just feel so far removed from what you're going for in the first movement? I think the dotted rhythms are appropriate, but even those don't seem to make sense with the linear contour you're using (up and down, up and down... no real distinctive idea standing out).

I just get the feeling that I'm listening to one large chromatic (it's interesting, don't get me wrong) group of ideas. Maybe I'm not hearing it well enough from the Midi rendition, but I just don't hear your ideas in the context you may intend me to hear them. Maybe I just don't hear what you like about each idea. What is it about these ideas that is personal to you? What connects them to the environment (the harmony) I'm hearing around them? Maybe if I knew what connections to listen for, I'd understand the personal nature of the work with more appreciation for the ideas. Right now, I'm just at a loss for what I'm supposed to get from it.

Though I may not get all of it, I do get the level of your orchestration. MAN! I really love the decisions you make in orchestrating your ideas. I think what I'm missing in content in the Fanfare I'm gaining in orchestration on the whole. I did like Prairie quite a bit, and you executed your peak perfectly. It's the sign of a really great piece when you can get so much out of it from a simple Midi rendition. I got a lot from your build into a complete moment of "moving silence" and could feel your whole ensemble resonating at that moment. And what a great chord to bring me back to... the stasis was appreciated there, because I didn't want it to go ANYWHERE. Your patience shows in moments like that, because it takes more than technique to understand that kind of moment... it takes intuition and keen musicianship...

So, it's a great work. Hope my comments are useful to you.

My best,

-AA

just to answer one of your questions:

it is usual to give key signatures to english horn and clarinets, which are transposing instruments as you well know.

However, it is also usual NOT to give key signatures to the horns.
notational convention allows for the existance of both horn parts with and without key signatures, however, it is more "correct" to write horn parts without key signatures. The horn part, however, is still transposed as per an instrument "in F".

I'm sorry you didn't understand my melodic contours. There's not much I can offer you in that regard. That is how I construct my thematic material, cell by cell.

I don't use octatonic and whole tone scales for the simple reason that they are limiting and tend to back one into a corner harmonically.

I don't think my harmonic pallette is any weaker for it. Especially considering the extensive use I make of polychordal material and pan-tonal counterpoint. I think if you give the main theme of "Forets Boreales" another chance, you just might latch on to how I am treating my material. There's nothing haphazard about it. Every note has been very carefully planned, and the contour of the phrase carefully and delicately layed out. I spent a good amount of time tweaking those lines.

I'm a tad surprised you find it sounds like "one large chromatic group of ideas", particularly since the harmonic/melodic language I use does not tend to emphasize chromaticism. Generally, my material launches from diatonic cells (think of them like tetrachords). The subsequant tetrachord might not belong to the same key centre as the preceding one, but the general line is still not quite chromatic.

Anyways, thank-you for taking the time to listen to the piece, although I presume you only heard the first two movements, since you didn't mention the 3rd.

I listened to all three movements. I didn't have time to comment on the third, and I'm trying to reserve some of my comments until I've heard everything (to see how ideas are expanded and laid out).

I'm certainly not trying to be critical with my commentary on the linear content. It's probably mostly my preference for simplicity and clarity in the exchange of more important material. On my first two listens (I try to listen to something at least twice before commenting), the thing that really left me wondering what you were trying to do might all boil down to the complexity of the moments in which I may have had an unfulfilled expectation.

A more keen ear for tonal nuance might be lacking, but from an outside perspective, I don't imagine that's what is as relevant to the piece. Some things work, others don't, and no one will ever agree on which do and do not work. That's the beauty of music. I don't necessarily think you need to change anything. The fanfare doesn't seem to give me something to hold onto, and when you have a broad pallet of ideas to pool from, I don't know, maybe I expected something simpler.

I think your harmonic content is great. I almost get the impression (and some of this impression is from your tutorial on creating melody from pre-established harmony) that you have built some of your melodies from the harmony. Your pitch content may be intricate and intentional, and I have no doubt that you have good justification for those decisions. From an outside perspective, from the standpoint of listening for some of the things you employed in creating this work and how they work with the basic fundamental musical aspects, the linear material felt as though it didn't cohesively bond with the overall movement. I heard patches of brass fanfare and a clever woodwind orchestration (keep in mind, I'm writing from memory on this, so correct me if I mispeak).

Don't get me wrong, much of what I'm saying is simply explaining why it didn't reach me the way it reaches you. This doesn't mean I think you should change anything. You might just want to know, though, what doesn't work. I think your technique is great, you're obviously a professional and your work demonstrates your abilities. It may just be preference, but I thought I'd offer it up for your consideration. Simplicity, for me, is just as important as complexity. Everything feels so complex, and you lose me in the process if you don't give me something to hold onto while you take me where you want to go... if that makes any sense.

Originally Posted by Antiatonality

You might just want to know, though, what doesn't work. I think your technique is great, you're obviously a professional and your work demonstrates your abilities. It may just be preference, but I thought I'd offer it up for your consideration. Simplicity, for me, is just as important as complexity. Everything feels so complex, and you lose me in the process if you don't give me something to hold onto while you take me where you want to go... if that makes any sense.

If you can't keep up, that's more a question of your own familiarity or lack thereof with less "traditional" tonal music.

the bolded/underlined phrase above is missing one important detail:

"what doesn't work for me". Since this piece works fine for others. I'm glad you at least tried. I'm sorry you weren't able to keep up.

Originally Posted by QcCowboy

If you can't keep up, that's more a question of your own familiarity or lack thereof with less "traditional" tonal music.

the bolded/underlined phrase above is missing one important detail:

"what doesn't work for me". Since this piece works fine for others. I'm glad you at least tried. I'm sorry you weren't able to keep up.

I think you're missing what I'm trying to say, and I'm getting the impression that you're getting overly defensive about my comments. I'm simply trying to explain what isn't working for me which in turn may not work for others.

Your assessment of my "lack of familiarity" with less "traditional" tonal music is actually 1) a completely false premise and 2) not relevant to my comments, which have nothing to do with the Neo-tonal style of your piece (which is almost traditional in its own right depending on who you ask). My comments aren't meant to be taken as derogatory, but I appreciate the manner in which you address them... "sorry you can't keep up."

Yeah, because that's exactly what I was saying... dude, seriously, wtf? You post your piece here on the site and you, what, want a cookie? Take criticism more graciously and see if it has any merit to what you're trying to accomplish. If it doesn't, so be it...

Also... my quote was...

Originally Posted by AA

Don't get me wrong, much of what I'm saying is simply explaining why it didn't reach me the way it reaches you. This doesn't mean I think you should change anything. You might just want to know, though, what doesn't work.

In context, for me is redundant. That's why I never included it in the statement since I was clearly trying to explain my own opinion. I'm done. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

AA, if you write "you might just want to know what doesn't work", then you are implying that you know it does not work. Period. Not that it does not work for you. Really, I'm not defensive. I'm trying to help you phrase your comments in a more "judgment-neutral" manner.

I've been writing for a long time. And getting paid to do so for quite a while as well. If you don't understand my piece, then I'm sorry. It also really isn't your place to make suggestions to help me be "understood" by hypothetical others.

Like I said, sorry you don't get the piece and that it doesn't speak to you. I'm not going to change anything because of that. It enthralled the conductor of one of the west-coast symphony orchestras enough to ahve him commission a major work from me. It enthalled the board of directors of that symphony enough to have them repeatedly contact me to tell me that I could have basically "anything I wanted". SO I guess tehre ARE people who are passionate about my music. I'm sorry I can't count you among those.

And again, I'm not "defensive". Why should I be? Are you a college/university professor in disguise on this forum? Does your opinion carry any more weight than anyone else's for any reason? Does it carry more weight than mine?

If you believe you have fond some technical flaw in the 3 movements I've posted, you are quite welcome to expose your opnion regarding those flaws. I'm happy to examine any flaws people find with my music. In a way it helps me understand peoples' perceptions better. however, the "I don't get it" or "it doesn't speak to me" angle is not something I can work with. It just is. There will always be members of the audience who do not get a work presented on a concert programme, whether that be a Mozart piece or a Strawinski. Not all music speaks equally to everyone.

So, like I said, thank-you for your comments, and I'm sorry it didn't speak to you.

P.S. the "fanfare" you keep refering to is only the opening half dozen measures of an otherwise non-fanfare-ish 6-minute long symphony movement. I'm preplexed that that single aspect of the work is all that seems to have caught your attention. Not the "noble" theme that actually opens the symphony (right after the fanfare), nor the dreamy adagio 2nd theme.... in a way, that disappoints me more.

Originally Posted by QcCowboy

P.S. the "fanfare" you keep refering to is only the opening half dozen measures of an otherwise non-fanfare-ish 6-minute long symphony movement. I'm preplexed that that single aspect of the work is all that seems to have caught your attention. Not the "noble" theme that actually opens the symphony (right after the fanfare), nor the dreamy adagio 2nd theme.... in a way, that disappoints me more.

What I refer to is the dotted rhythmic figure you use to introduce the work. You're developing the idea through the entire first movement, and I hear it constantly throughout. It's dull. Either the contour needs more shape, or the rhythm needs more variety. That's not to impune the rest of your work. The fanfare within the first movement is disappointing. You can do more to make it interesting if you're going to use it the way you're using it.

Measure 3, you have the dotted rhythm entrance, like a piece of the figure. That's fine. Measure 25, the Bassoons play the figure almost literally like a scale on the beat with no syncopation. Measures 30-1, you have Horns playing the rhythm with no real shape to the gesture. The Trumpets start to climb the scale like the Bassoons before in measure 32, then just oscillate in the dotted patter in measure 33. The theme is interspersed within all of this, but the fanfare element is just bringing it down. I'll continue... (the Clarinet entrance in Measure 40 is very nice... I love what you're doing here)

Moving on to measure 48, I'm at a point of arrival in the form. I see the same dotted fanfare, the same dull use of interval, the same lack of expression. Truthfully, this is a let down. There's so much more you could choose to do with it here. If nothing else, you can cut loose with the fanfare at this point and break the mold you've been creating for it in the first minute or so of the work. That would be cool. Either way, THIS point of arrival is disappointing. Every note on every downbeat moves up by a second. I'm listening to a scale in dotted rhythmic form, and there's no contrary motion between the Fanfare idea and the gesture in the woodwinds. Everything is moving in the same direction if you consider the dotted B/C# down to F#/G# then back UP to B/C#. And what are your strings doing? Up, up, up... scalar. Boring.

Moving on to measure 58 and 59 between the Horn and Trumpet. You have the same upward, almost linear motion. Measure 60, we do have some variety in the way you begin to develop the idea and finally begin seeing some descending activity, but it's too little far too late. The fanfare is on life support, and now we have to debate on whether to keep the feeding tube in place. We have the same problem with the gesture in the woodwinds a few measures later. Beats one and two of the last measure of page 7, both the same notes, same intervals, the same direction. At this late in the work, this is just killing it for me. I have nothing to hold onto because you're busy complicating things for me harmonically while leaving me wanting more from you linearly.

As you can see, I can go on. I'm perplexed as to why you are confused about this... your fanfare motive is EVERYWHERE in the first movement (not just the first dozen measures), and it doesn't really help you. It's just there. Every time I hear it I'm waiting for it to do something and it doesn't until it's too late. Like I said, you haven't given me anything to hold onto, anything to follow. Sorry if you disagree with this, but as you can see just from the first 60 measures, your "Fanfare" COMES BACK continuously doing the same, dull thing by reiterating a linear scale.