Viral Declamation

Well I enjoyed it greatly. I love when the pizz. are against the arco in the bass line. I just agree with people with the score, mainly the beaming. I had a hard time following cause of it. Otherwise the piece was great. I could probably tell 8 or 9 different stories off the top of my head with this music. Great work!

Originally Posted by Morgri

THEN CHANGE THE KEY OF THE PIECE SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO!

j/k...

Or you're dealing with a 10-note chord........

Key signatures, feh

Wow, I'm glad I clicked on the link for this piece. It's great! I loved every minute of it. The inventive rhythms and instrumental settings keep up a constant drive and the slow passages come just at the right moments. I find the length good too.

It works rather well harmonically, but with time it seems a bit too minor-third-heavy. Diminished chords are awesome, but after a while my head starts to "ring" with this chord and desire something harmonically new. It's quite a bit like Satie's "Véxations" in this regard, only that Satie deliberately wants to avoid any feeling of "drive" or development, an idea which it doesn't seem you strived for. The theme also is -very- omnipresent. It's not that it gets boring - the rhythmic drive and the use of the instruments keep it going well - but after a while I still wished for a little bit more variation in the intervallic constellation. How about stretching the theme at one point, for example, and maybe turn those minor thirds into fourths, or even sevenths, creating really large jumps? The theme is striking enough that it would still be recognizable, but it would sound completely new and "excessive", which I think would fit very well within that style.

It would even be interesting to consider a version where the intervals of the theme change more and more every time it appears, slowly drifting off into "distortion", but that may be a little bit over the top and too far from your (really good) composition. (I just can't help going on the "what would I do" track when reviewing other people's pieces, sorry for that.)


Concerning double-sharps, enharmonic changes etc.: It is true that in several passages some things are enharmonically written strangely, in a way that doesn't seem to make much sense for voice-leading. Take bar 40 for example: In the Violins it would seem much more logical to write the fb's as e's, and in the Violas the db's as c#'s, so you get lines that move in minor seconds instead of augmented unisons. If you heard such a phrase I'm sure most people would hear it as minor seconds and not as augmented unisons too. The Cellos in the second half of this bar have this very weird line that is acoustically just "C-major" but which is written very strangely, without any apparent reason in voice-leading. Writing this bar as f, ab, f, a, b, c, c, b, c, d, e would make a lot more sense. The same applies to many other parts, like all the parts surrounding this one in the Violins and Violas.

I know that one often encounters enharmonic problems when writing diminished chords, even more so diminished 7th chords, but in cases like this, where the chords don't fulfill a specific harmonic function and you're writing for individual voices/parts (and not a piano, for example) I'd always go for clear, readable lines, and not worry to much about the vertical structure of the chords. I.e. write all notes enharmonically in such a way that the line of this instrument makes most sense, regardless how the notes of the other instruments are written. (Within reasonable limits of course: Constantly all sharps in one instrument and all flats in another may be confusing for the conductor with time. But I'd still rather confuse the conductor when it comes to pitches than the musicians, who actually have to play them.)

There are some examples where you heavily used "enharmonically uncommon" notes, where it makes a lot of sense too. Bar 72 for example may seem to be notated unnecessarily complicated at first, but all those sharps and double-sharps make sense for that line. Even though I personally might disregard "proper" voice-leading in such a situation and enharmonically simplify some of these notes. But your way of writing this passage is certainly "correct". (In some other parts, where your notation actually seems "incorrect" I get the impression that it comes from some copy-and-pasting and transposing. Is that so? Nothing wrong with that in the least, but I'd always check whether everything is well written enharmonically after transposing something.)

ClarinetMicheal: thanks for the review! I'm glad you liked the pizz. section, i wanted to give a comical-eerie-sadistic feel in it, and I played with the rhythm on paper millions of times in my theory class before i got it just right. Once again, thanks for your time listening man, I'm happy you enjoyed this as much as I did writing it.

Gardener

Thanks for the lengthy comment, it's always good to know what people did/did not like about my work. Regarding, the minor-third-heaviness of the piece, I thought it got a bit redundant as well. I'm orchestrating this right now for a competition due at the end of the month, and I did vary it up a bit. In fact, there is a section now where it is based in fourths, as well as the full o7 chord. Sevenths...hmm..interesting thought, I'll consider it!

As far as the voicing, I've also begun my re-writing on that. QcCowboy pointed out how to write better horizontally when I first posted, and that seems to be the consensus with the other comments as well. I have a bad habit of writing how i envision it in my mind rather then what the performer will see. The enharmonics and such, well, I suck at lol. I don't always know when to use what and where, so the examples you have pointed out I will take to heart. Thanks again man, I appriciate you taking the time out of your day to give me your insight to help me become a better composer. I'm glad you enjoyed this piece!

Vince

Vince -

Some excellent work there. Like others have said the articulations and rhythmic counterpoint was a treat. I do wish the second movement were expanded and the the third a bit more succinct. I would encourage you to go back to it after a rest. When you do I suggest strongly one notational change (aside from the ones suggested already)-

Halve the note values for the faster sections for easier reading. For the slow section keep the note values but make half note of fast section equal quarter note of slow section. The challenge of writing your piece is NOT get lost in the articulations and the telegraphic motives. BTW - such motivic material would be excellent for a fugato serving as bridge from the slower movement to the return of the faster section.

Also, the change into a more majorish tonality was welcomed (it happened about halfway or so).

All in all though some good work. You should workshop it with a quartet --- will increase your chances of getting it performed.

Composer:

its funny you mentioned changing the note values, because i debated that the entire time i wrote it, in fact, i would change it to longer note values if i ever reworked it (yet, i am reworking it now but im just adding 2nd violins and it will be for string orchestra not string quartet, but im too crunched with time to do it so meh). as far as the majorish change, well i just HAD to throw it in there, i thought it was a nice touch immersed in the chaos, im glad you caught it! Thanks for the review, ill be sure to post here when i finish redoing the score for the competition im entering this in. Thanks again!

*goes to listen to Composer's organ piece again *

Vince

One more suggestion (tiny one) -

Before adding anything, do my suggestion with note values for the end of the first section to the beginning of the second section. Then look at the notation away from the computer/keyboard and just conduct and sing the score (don't worry too much about pitch accuracy or exact conducting pattern, just make sure your beats are steady). I make a bet you will learn more about your piece from the score than at the computer/keyboard.

Hokay... here's a rundown of things that you need to fix:

First, I strongly urge you to double all the note values in the Andante non troppo (quarter=84) sections - keep it in 4/4 and make it quarter=168 instead. That move alone would greatly increase the readability and neatness of the score and parts.

If you decide to not do (1), you need to do a lot of clean up. Several things I see: single 16th's (almost a universal no-no unless the tempo is exceptionally slow) - use a staccato 8th note instead. In the same vein, any dotted rests in 4/4 should not be used.

A larger issue is that much of the time your beat pattern is obscured due to beaming issues and irregular phrasing. In 4/4 time, you should always be able to see where beat 2, 3, and 4 are (unless you're using extremely simple rhythms, like half notes) Here is an example, straight from your score (m.21)

Notice how you can't determine where beat 4 is... the dotted rhythms obscure the beat.

This is how it should look:

You can see each beat and the music is easier to read.

Now this is how much better it would look if you doubled the note values:

There's no mistaking how this is to be played. This is crystal clear, and even at fast speeds would be easy to both read and play.

I would recommend you go through your entire piece and re-enter all the notes to look like that final example. It would make the piece much more presentable, much easier to read, and it would give both the musicians and the judges and much more favorable impression of your work.

Thanks Flint for the feedback!

I do agree with the doubled note values, im going to do this right away, in fact i dont know why i wrote it the way i did in the first place. i also agree on the obscure rhythmic patterns, i have a bad habit of writing as a composer and not writing how the performer will see it. thank you very much for your time and input, i really appriciate it! its funny because i actually learn more about writing a good score then at school lol. YC university here i come.

thanks again Flint

Vince