Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Quinn

  1. Agree with Tónskáld Doing anything to Eine Kleine is likely to sound clumsy unless done with great care. You have to make it sound as if written for an orchestra rather than just strings. There's possibly a case for reinforcing the strings at the very outset (maybe a couple of other places too) but thereafter a choice need be made between strings taking the tune OR the winds. When it comes to the second subject in bar 28, only the strings can bring that off with lightness so doubling them with winds, particularly horns / tpts will thicken the texture to lose all lightness and barely contrast it with the preceding stuff. If you had composed this work yourself and wanted to bring off that tune (bar 28) you'd probably just choose strings or winds anyway. At bar 5 you could consider letting the flute carry the tune, Vn1 being silent. Bar 11 give the top note to the flute, the lower one to the oboe like you do in bar 15, a far better arrangement. If you still want the Vns playing here, let them be sustained minims (1/2 notes)no grace notes. However it all depends on the effect you want in which case who am I to comment? Have you access to a DAW and good sample library so you can try your ideas out? (Your rendering doesn't seem entirely to reflect your score.) You may have exactly what you want in which case please disregard what I've said. :)
  2. It's okay, keeps to the standard "epic" formula . The mixing needs a touch-up in parts to avoid blurr and distortion, everything fighting to get to the front. Well done.
  3. You need the freedom to compose what you want; not be slave to a DAW. Can you switch off the "key" or scale or mode? You can't modulate to new keys or even do interesting harmonic progressions without accidentals so if you want to use some of the main chromatic chords (in a key - chords that don't exist in that key) you'd be stuck. I haven't used a key signature for ages. I just draw in the piano roll notes as I see fit. May take a bit of getting used to but once you can, you're free!
  4. Quinn


  5. I hadn't noticed it as a tendency. The link you give is about creating an amorphous wall of sound. I don't think that necessarily relates to brass writing in an orchestral score. Slight off-beat notes on and off may help to humanise a piece as you observe. Sorry I can't help.
  6. If you mean those you can acquire on line as pdfs have a look at https://imslp.org It claims on 13 June it had 475000 scores.
  7. First movement. There's very little to be said. It's a seriously accomplished piece, a lyrical viola part that doesn't fight too hard with the orchestra possibly because the orchestra is fairly subdued much of the time. You have a knack with thematic development, all 15 1/2 minutes of it. Quiet and subtle, occasionally an interplay of melodic lines. The orchestration is brilliant as is the rendering. It might almost be live. A difficult cadenza at the end and a great build up to the closing measures. . Very well done. A pleasant listen. If this isn't a live performance I hope it becomes one soon.
  8. It shouldn’t be difficult except to keep the piece light. The harmony and vertical chordal structures are well laid out by Mr M. All orchestration need do is reinforce the sound as needed, or swap out string phrases for winds to change timbre. There’s scope for antiphonal phrases like measures 1 and 2 against 3 and 4. No worry about those “triple” stops. They’re just arpeggiated chords to get a fullness of sound on the first note. An accented down bow I'd guess giving an incisive sound. You can replicate the effect any way you want. The opening phrase would be detaché anyway but it’s up to you to interpret how Mozart would expect it to be articulated – one of the challenges. You could lay the opening chord out as double stops for all string instruments. They shouldn’t sound clunky. From m5 he wrote many double stops, light and staccato. The opening cello could play G & D together, likewise the viola, the violins unison B and G. Or swap out the string double stops or arpeggiation for winds. Could be woodwind or brass. Depending on your style that first chord alone could be reinforced followed by something lighter. I won't comment on your choice of instruments as you'll discover what you need as you progress. Good luck.
  9. Best to talk to her about what she can do. Sketch a few things up and ask her to try them and if she can't find out why. Ask her to play something advanced - if she fancies a concerto she should have a fair repertoire even if part of an ensemble. Can you write for other strings? If so, consider the difference with the bass - the extra long stretches and time (just milliseconds but even so) changing positions, string jumping, etc so don't expect quite the agility of a violinist....sure, there's a double bass Paganini-a-like out there somewhere but try whatever you write with your performer as you go along. As I understand, that's a fairly normal approach. Edit: I couldn't immediately find any double bass studies but looked up the ABRSM Grade 8 that embodies a fair repertoire. She if she can access and play any of the 2020 syllabus. She may already play some of them. https://us.abrsm.org/en/our-exams/bowed-strings-exams/double-bass-exams/double-bass-grade-8/
  10. Frankly I think it's a travesty doing this to Beethoven. If he'd wanted it for instruments other than the piano he'd have composed it for them. However, one thing your work has in common with Beethoven is that he doesn't expect his oboists to breathe or relax their embouchure! I'd question the oboe being an appropriate timbre for this work.
  11. I had to turn it off after 50 seconds. The ostinato changed but by then it had started to pall. I really don't think much can be developed from this. Best to leave it as just a short piece. There are various devices in music to bring about tension and resolution or present a string of novelties and surprises that hold listeners' interests so if you want to develop thematic material you have to learn how to do that. Study scores of composers who seem to fit in with your aims.
  12. What a damnably stupid and condescending remark. D'you think you're the only person here who went to school? You seem to overlook the number of posters here from overseas who are eloquent enough in English to communicate their message, for a start. And an intelligent one at that even if it doesn't suit your polemic. What an insult. Tell you what - go have a look at those guidelines yourself. You authored them. Read and apply them. You seem to think that you need, hell, any kind of secondary or tertiary education to practice the Arts. You don't. Have you even got a "proper" job? Stop insulting people. Stop insulting the intelligence of many who are probably a lot more intelligent than you simply because they aren't hiding behind academia. Once again, now, I'll sit out. I didn't join this outfit to watch people being insulted by someone still fresh from their high school. Dialectic won't work when it comes down to personal insult.
  13. Thank you for that, Pietro. I try to keep the harmony moving and it's been useful keeping in touch with these tonal forms. Cheers.
  14. There's often a "truth" hidden in old adages, one being that if you can't DO it (compose or perform music) then teach it. If you can't teach it become a musicologist, historian or critic. Attempting to apply science to the arts is a waste of time. For a start it can never be better than a soft science where the researcher heavily influences the outcome/conclusion (you have enough evidence of that happening in this thread). All the so-called scientist can TRY to do is tell us what isn't necessary: why music works, if it works. Over millennia, that hasn't mattered. Composers composed and performers performed (sometimes both in the same person). They evolved the material that now feeds these academicians. They deal with history, not evolving theories that predict how the future will unfold. They're historians - collectors and analysts of historical data, they're the people who come up with labels. They try to legitimise their activities by pushing into things like neuroscience but with what aim? I can't think of any. (Sure, yes, psychoacoustics is a science because it conforms to scientific methodology. It turns hypothesis into theory that results in applications said to be useful. Like we have digital audio compression based on its findings. But that's about how we receive and perceive sound - and nothing to do with why individuals prefer "types" of music. When the boffins were coming up with colour television they used our perception of colour contrast to decide how to balance the mixed RGB signals to give viewers the most pleasing experience (within the limits of available technology). That didn't come trying to understand the process of entertainment.) And, I suppose, marketeers and record companies have a far greater understanding of what's acceptable to the public based on sales figures rather than pseudo-science. As I asked: do these academic researchers facilitate anyone as a composer (in common terms, make them a better composer)? Truthful answer: No.
  15. Quite liked the piece. I felt the orchestration was a little dense toward the end and would have had trouble associating it with ice and January. That could be because I HATE winter and the cold (my thermostat switches me into hibernation at < 10 C!) but still liked the basic tune. The sudden ending didn't worry me at all. Sometimes with music like this rocking between tonic and minor subtonic or minor dominant it's better that way. Besides, the work is short and an obvious cadence would have come across a tad trite. Nice work.
  16. Dead on. And these are the conventions recognised by any group, community, country, etc., developed through time by shared orientations. When you consider the extent to which popular music dominates western musical culture is it any wonder that tonal music is the most accepted convention. Pop music is ultra-conservative particularly these days when it's manufactured by committee or syndicated imagination and plugged relentlessly. It's more about scene than musical composition: fashion, slang, behavioural gestures so (as a guess) the simpler the music the better but that's beside the point. Perhaps if music had set out à la John Cage, spattering ink on sheets of music paper things would be different. But they didn't. They evolved intuitively. Disruption of those conventions narrows acceptance because the range of "meanings" (hence communication) narrows in the face of expectations. If you're expecting nothing then something will be communicated but at a different level. Other factors come into play though. It's a big subject. As Srockhausen said, to impress him a compose has to astonish him - and be original! ....Whether it's good or not that we aren't all Stockhausens, I couldn't answer.
  17. Here goes. First trial upload to see if I've got it right. In a way it was as a challenge at a summer school. My effort put 2nd and 3rd entries below the countersubjects. Only problem was having to spread the middle part between the thumbs of both hands here and there. The 3rd subject entry is doubled simply to reinforce it - same in what passes as a very brief stretto rounding it up. Had to be short: time limit. Duration 1'40"
  18. To be honest it did seem to grind on a bit, too little variation in the thematic material, saved by changes of key here and there. Even when the theme changed the harmonic rhythm seemed to follow the same path. Part of the problem is the rendering itself - sounded as if the pedal was down the whole time, blurring the rhythm and harmony, didn't give the reiterated notes much of a chance to bring out the rhythmic inflexions particularly in the bass. A pianist might leave the pedal up and play some of those notes staccato. The rendering didn't render the dynamic changes well - hardly any difference between forte and piano. But then I have to confess not being too enamoured of the natural minor scale, no leading note so cadences are always weak. All this is of course, just my opinion, Let's see what others think.....
  19. No use arguing with a confronter, someone who argues for its own sake. The person can't embrace the basics of semiotics. Anything that impinges on our senses communicates something as long as in the case of sound, there's a hearer/listener, The issue is the degree with which the recipient hears/listens and is able to recognise and give meaning to the sign/sound/stimulus . It entails reference to their previous experiences of the phenomenon/stimulus. Conventions and codes developed over millennia from probably an intuitive start, that is, sound organised into something recognised by consensus as "music" allow most people, conditioned to accept these codes, to create meaning. Even so, the decision of whether a person classes an experience as music is entirely theirs. They may not go along with the consensus. The neurophysiology of hearing, discriminating and assimilating, complex as it is in total, indicates that communication takes place even if the consequence is rejection. Arguing the definition of words with meanings colloquially or technically accepted (in the conventions of the milieu) is a scorpion dance but gets nowhere!
  20. What's a "dunno dude" ? testing BB[/I] doesn't switch off. [/i]and on.
  21. Because of its length it works fine. I don't think the bass at bar 22 is difficult. I wasn't sure what you meant about bar 9 - what you meant about crossing. I was expecting to see the tenor taking the lower part but it didn't....so? From a cursory glance the piano reduction follows the 4 parts but I notice you slip in an extra part here and there and it doesn't - e.g. bar 36 not too happy with that. At that point is there any reason why it shouldn't keep to the voice harmony? All in all, good amateur singers should manage it. Naturally the text calls for the minor key so in a concert of part songs/madrigals it would need contrast with something "happier."
  22. Equal temperament so closely approximates a natural scale that to most ears without a high level of discrimination wouldn't know the difference unless the sound/instrument is rich in upper harmonics (say from the 9th upwards + the 7th) and particularly in chords. Keyboard instruments would be a bit of a problem without it. However, others do use different temperaments like Just Temperament. In either case notes representing multiples of the lower partials of a fundamental "get by" the more remote one's don't. Sustained tones bring out the worst. It afflicts some wind instruments that at best only approximate the equally tempered scale (for reasons of their construction). This is why pop music IS popular. It's the scale set in an ultra-conservative structure plus the visceral effect of rhythm that make it acceptable to a majority. There is no perfect chromatic scale. It's a subject that interests academics involved with the physics of music and generally doesn't matters to a composer accustomed to the western 12-ET scale. But that is a generalisation. Some composers and other musicians can. Boulez was notorious for this. As for language - semiotics. There will always be problems about the relationship between sign and signified (words are signs) because meaning is the business of the recipient. Even concrete words vaguely signify which I suppose is why we have adjectives/adverbs to draw us down the semantic hierarchy a bit. There's common language all right - it comes with the idea of codes - in brief the agreed shared understanding of a set of ground rules but it's thrown off by things like dialect, the limits of individuals' vocabulary and varying interpretation of said codes. The written word alone eliminates many cues that exist in face-to-face encounters. And there's the problem that some things can't be described like our experiences. There's no experiential vocabulary. If I told you I had a toothache there's no way I can describe or you could understand the quality of my particular toothache. If you've never had a toothache the statement would be meaningless. Likewise try to describe what red is without pointing to a red object. Such is it with the perception of music when attempting to describe it. A common referent is needed and that's usually metaphorical which is hardly better. I sometimes wonder how music critics get away with their bull - trying to describe in words what music sounds like!
  23. Like I said I'm sitting out now. If you can't get your head around the common-sense, consensus view (and it is just a view, it'll never be a definition) of what an artist or creator is then I've nothing more to add. :)
  24. Well, I don't want to turn this into an argument so I'll leave it there. I move no goal posts. I was giving a view. I am WELL aware than an amount can be taught. That's what species counterpoint was about after all. But it doesn't make someone artist or creator.
  • Create New...