Light Music, for 'Cello and Harpsichord (score rev. 2011)

I don't actually have any constructive criticism, so this comment is basically useless. But you deserve the review and I want the reviewer statistic point. I can definitely hear the Schnittke influence, which you didn't mention here but you did in the first time you uploaded this.

The tree falling in the forest question can be extended to include the entire universe. Does the universe exist if there are no sentient beings to experience it? What is the point of such a universe and how is it different from nothing existing at all? In all its grandness and incomprehensibility, the universe has no meaning without we feeble beings to experience it.

So yeah I really enjoyed this.

Nothing much to add, either, except that I think you should definitely include this.

The only thing I have of interest to add is, perhaps, somewhat useless. I think I've read from Berlioz that, though it is little known, technically, the 'cello is played an octave below how it's written when the clef changes directly from bass to treble, with no tenor clef in between. Take from that what you will, and definitely make sure to look it up if it's any consideration for you, since it's likely that I may be misremembering.

All in all, I thought the piece was really great!

Thank you guys for the feedback. Wayne - I'm aware of that notational practice, but that particular practice is no longer in use. During the Romantic period, that would have been true, however: good eyes, hah.

Voce, this is one of my favorite pieces of yours. I know some parts of the recordings weren't great, but it's a very cool piece. I love the instrumentation and the way you use both instruments. I won't spend to much time criticizing this because I do think it's an effective piece. I think the material in the harpsichord could be much more developed. I say this because the main melodic material nearly always seems to be in the viola, Why not switch it up a bit, in fact, I think if you were to do that it would make the piece a bit longer (which I think would be good also).

The only thing I have of interest to add is, perhaps, somewhat useless. I think I've read from Berlioz that, though it is little known, technically, the 'cello is played an octave below how it's written when the clef changes directly from bass to treble, with no tenor clef in between. Take from that what you will, and definitely make sure to look it up if it's any consideration for you, since it's likely that I may be misremembering.

No-noo-noo. Avoid this like the plague. It is a counter-productive and ill-conceived practice that wastes a lot of time for cellists today, and was not even universally used historically. Mercifully, nobody uses it any more, even though it still appears in Dvorak and Schumann parts from time to time. (Rant over).

Voce, I remember reviewing this piece before and liking it. The live recording confirms my feelings. I think this would make a very strong impression on a college portfolio for several reasons: it shows an appreciation of and willingness to utise different compositional techniques; it shows a knowledge of the instruments involved and a decent grasp of how to put a piece together from different elements. It is more than 'mature' enough in style and the gravity of its content (especially given that a significant number of fellow applicants are going to labour under the delusion they will win over college professors by plagarising Eric Whitacre) and having such a good recording only makes the piece sound stronger. Certainly there are no significant weaknesses I could identify on a first hearing, and it's quite likeable music even though some listeners may regard it to be in a less 'accessible' style. You might well get asked about whether the 'Brahms' quote is intentional though!

I think the piece could be made stronger by altering the interpretation of the opening of the last movement, as at present it is too similar the the first movement in tone. I suggest taking all the dynamics down and use some bowing effects to re-cast it as a much more fragile ending, perhaps also putting some of the harpsichord writing up an octave. I am cautiously going to second Morgri's comment about the harpsichord writing being less adventurous than the cello, although I felt this was less of an issue in the second half of the piece. But I don't think the length needs altering.

Other things to think about in the score are whether you want to indicate how the harpsichord should be coupled (if played on an instrument with this facility) and to at least number each movement, perhaps even give each one a title.

Hey Voce,

A big thing college composition prof. look at is score preparation. The idea is to make your score look like it could be a published score. (Side note: Also, for performers, it's a psychological factor, the better the score looks, the more it looks as though you care about your music and the better they're going to want to play it. ) Alright, enough of my lecture/rant/ etc. It seems a lot about the music has been said so I'm going to reserve my opinions of the music itself right now and focus on the score presentation.

I looked over the first movement and I have some questions: (I'm not sure if this is a live performance, (sounds like it is) so the performers my have already covered this with you.)

1) At m. 10, in the harp. what note do you want that note to be trilled with? If you've a particular set in mind then the performer is going to want to know exactly what note to trill with, and so would the reader of the score. It could be a G, F nat, or E even, which ever one you want, put it in there as just a note head in parenthesis.
2) m. 9, in the harp. left hand, you've got a triplet indicated but you have no brackets around it. (like in the Vc m.2)
3) Harp. mm 14 and 16, you've got a bracket around the triplets but its underneath, try to get that on top of the staff. Usually you want them on top, always.
4) m. 12, the ties on the left hand notes, that usually indicated a 'let vibrate,' but due to the nature of a harp., its a bit confusing because harps. aren't like pianos where the decay is slow and that would work but with a harp....?
5) This is big: you've a few decrescendo with absolutely no dynamic markings which causes a few problems; 1) it forces the reader, and performer, to look back at the previous marking, and 2) its makes the read and performer guess to where you want the decrescendo to end (p, pp, ppp?)
6) an overall inconsistency is the fluctuation between flat and sharps. Look at m. 3, the harp, and you'll see sharps and flats used together unnecessarily in the first chord, sometimes it is necessary but here it is kind of superfluous. Why not make that Bb and Eb into a A# and D# making for smoother readings?
7) The overall look of the measures themselves looks kind of uneven. I'm not sure which notation program you use but in both finale and sibelius there is an option to evenly space the measures, I'd rec. that. It looks more professional when that is done. Also, I notice you have a scheme of 5,5,5,5, 8 grouping of measure per stave, try and even that out a bit. Play with it and see what looks best.
8) the fermata in the harp. at the end. Reflect that in the cello. This is important because when you'd make parts for the individual players, the cello won't see the harp. part and get confused as to why the count is suddenly different. Break m. 23, in the cello part, into two half note rest and put a fermata over the second rest to reflect the harp.'s fermata.

There was one or two more things I wondered about but I'd have to talk to you about them, not list it in a bulletin, so if you've any questions with the list or wonder how to do exactly what I'm talking about feel free to ask or message me on here. Also, when I say 'the performer' I mean that in generalities.