Scherzo for string orchestra

This will probably be the last thing I post for a while in the MW forum.. I'm a VERY slow worker, and this doesn't count as "recent". It was actually part of my master's thesis.

The only reason I now have a recording of it is that I FINALLY got Finale and GPO to work properly with strings... after all these years.

So, it's a VERY classical scherzo, perfectly "normal" form.

A brief and foreboding introduction (which lends its material to accompaniment figures later on), leads directly into the VERY light-hearted and rambunctious skipping scherzando first theme. The second theme is a sort of fanfare-ish rising arpeggio figure.

I break with strict scherzo form a bit further on by introducing a new motif. first in the celli, then later in the violas and violins.

The trio section is a sort of Mahlerian dance in 6/4. The scherzo returns and builds to a dramatic cadence.

A brief reprise of the trio theme (thinly disguised as a famous symphonic quote... extra credit to whoever identifies it) presents the short coda, whereupon the work ends in an explosion.

This piece is pretty "virtuoso" in its string writing. It MAY have its premiere in November of this year... I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

recording

WOOHOO!!!

this is being premiered November 11th, in Seattle Washington, by the Octava Chamber Orchestra.

I gotta get my butt in gear and send out the orchestral materials, or else they're going to be stuck working from 8.5x11 photocopies made from PDFs of the parts... NOT good.

well, I may as well keep this thread alive myself... it's going to have to go on life support pretty soon.

The printers just sent me an email letting me know the orchestral materials are ready. I'm happy it's costing a LOT less than I had expected. I had to have six of each 1st and 2nd violins made, then 4 of each viola and cello, and two contrabass parts. The parts are in what we use as "standard" publisher format in Montr

I'm not sure why no one is replying to this thread. I thought it was a fine piece and had a surprisingly diverse tone quality and texture for just strings. Thanks for posting the score - I intend to study it to see how you create these effects ( I just got the Finale 2008 upgrade installed so it's encouraging to hear your work using this). There is a lot of complexity in the part writing.

Good luck in Seattle!

Well, definitely good luck in Seattle! That's awesome that your work will be performed! Congratulations! :-)

Now, as to the work itself, I think the reason why nobody is commenting on it is because it's not terribly obvious what is going on for most of the A material. You have a very moody dark opening that sets us up for a dramatic mood, and then when the violins join in, they play this spritely tune that doesn't really seem to be a tune. It's more a wandering dance across the strings that neither begins nor ends anywhere in particular. And after the first page, those ominous chords in the lower strings disappears altogether, something that I thought was rather disappointing. I was looking for them to make a return.

Now, you definitely create an interesting aural atmosphere in this piece. It just floats above the consciousness, and every time I feel like I'm about to understand what the theme is doing, it sneaks away from me. Honestly, by the time we reached the trio section, I felt lost in the interplay between the strings. It was never boring, and you hinted most fiendishly at melody, but I never could settle in.

The trio section soothes this need somewhat. You start with what is a standard '3/4' meter bass oompah, and the violins pretend to cooperate for a time. But as in the A material, you start to escape. It never seems to completely get away, leaving us the illusion that we are understanding.

The return of the A material did not miss a beat, and I had thought we'd find a return of the ponderous chords. If not at the beginning, then at some key climactic moment. But alas, they were gone for good. The tension is discernable here, and there is a brooding sense of excitement in the music. You build up nicely, and then throw us for a loop when you quote Tchaikovsky's Pathetique. It makes me wonder if this wasn't a hidden theme all along in the rest of the work.

The finale is a dash of excitement and I think brings a satisfying and convincing close to the work.

I prefer your Cello Sonata, but still, great job, and here's hoping you have a smashing success in Seattle!

Matusleo

Mat, if I were your teacher right now, you would have the highest marks in the class!

You somehow manage to perfectly grasp everything that is going on in this piece.

There is ONE minor detail, and THAT may be more because of the "interpretation" (ie: a fault with Finale and GPO's playback) than a fault in your analysis... the opening "ominous" material DOES return, quite a bit. It is in there as punctuation at all the larger cadential passages :D

The entire "mood" of the piece is one of aggravated schizophrenia. Thus the difficulty in identifying material and direction. Clarity is lost because of the hazy vision. There is a sense of "fracture" in the thematic material, accentuated by the criss-crossing of lines, the tossing back and forth of bits and pieces of thematic material.

The trio section is in 6/4, actually. And it is a massively slowed down rhythmic distilation of the scherzo material.

What might not, at first glance, be obvious, is that the trio theme has the same melodic contour as the Pathetique theme... thus the quote. It was a "happy" coincidence that the outline was so similar, and I decided that if it was going to sound similar, it may as well sound outright "the same". The "pathetique" quote also reminds us momentarily of the mood of the opening. Imagine, if you will, that these opening chords lead up to the Pathetique quote, but are interrupted by the scherzo and trio themselves.

I would like to ask your permission to quote part of your comments in the programme notes. Would this be possible?

Mat, if I were your teacher right now, you would have the highest marks in the class!

You somehow manage to perfectly grasp everything that is going on in this piece.

Really? I thought I was missing something the entire time! Just trying to hard to 'get it' I guess. :toothygrin:

There is ONE minor detail, and THAT may be more because of the "interpretation" (ie: a fault with Finale and GPO's playback) than a fault in your analysis... the opening "ominous" material DOES return, quite a bit. It is in there as punctuation at all the larger cadential passages :D

Okay, in retrospect, I see that. Despite the amazing nature of Finale, there is still that weakness that only a true orchestra can overcome.

What might not, at first glance, be obvious, is that the trio theme has the same melodic contour as the Pathetique theme... thus the quote. It was a "happy" coincidence that the outline was so similar, and I decided that if it was going to sound similar, it may as well sound outright "the same". The "pathetique" quote also reminds us momentarily of the mood of the opening. Imagine, if you will, that these opening chords lead up to the Pathetique quote, but are interrupted by the scherzo and trio themselves.

Which is appropriate given the ominous manner in which the Pathetique opens. I must tell you that moment felt like the culmination of your work. It was as if for one moment all the chaos gave voice to a singular lament, and we had a peek into the soul.

I would like to ask your permission to quote part of your comments in the programme notes. Would this be possible?

Truly? I'd be honored! Thank you. :)

Matusleo

Well there's really not much left to say, after Matusleo's review :) but there is something of a dearth of reviews here, so here's my tuppence worth.

I like the crescendi/build-ups at the end of the 1st showing of the scherzo, and at the end of the piece - great, but they're almost too short.. or there are too few throughout the piece.

The string writing is excellent, although I feel sometimes there are too many divided sections for not much gain - so many parts leads to complete homogeneity, and lack of the feeling of "voices". This doesn't really happen in this piece, but it could have in the hands of someone else.

I enjoy the contrast of moods and atmospheres throughout the work - there are some unique harmonies to each section, and of course the one balances the other well in mood and tempo and complexity et cetera.

Also, the thematic linking between the sections is good.

Some nice cadences in there as well (btw, I think I heard a passage that was entirely (or nearly) tonal :P)

Sorry for the bitty comments, but I'm totally wrecked. I enjoyed the piece in any case; good luck with the performance.

let's say that the rather "extreme" contrapuntal density was related to the nearly diatonic thematic material. I think if the contrapuntal density had been lesser, it would have just sounded banal and "ordinary". The level of contrapuntal density (which will be sensed more in a "live" setting where the instruments are spaced out on a stage) creates more of a sense of frenetic movement. A sense of "I recognize that... but not quite".

As you know, this is NOT my normal style of writing. Were I to write something this dense today, it would probably be considerably more dissonant as well (cf. cadence at the end of the Scherzo of "Symphony in C").

What a fun piece! I like your treatment of tonality in this piece - everything seems fresh, the way you take us into different keys then back again! It always feels 'edge of your seat' harmonically! I can understand the point you made in regards to Daniel's comment about the complexity of some of the passages, and how sometimes the divisis seemed to add unwarranted complexity and a thinner sound, however. I can hear this sounding very alive yet incredibly light during a live performance. It would be a sense of not exactly knowing what's going on, but it's not overbearing in any way because of how you manipulated rhythm and motion around the orchestra. It's so light, although maybe not as efficient due to some balance issues, but it is possible that the fake sound caused those issues.

All in all, a really nice piece, with a good harmonic identity and although some balance issues regarding how thin you've orchestrated some parts, I'm sure you'll have a great performance of a fun piece in November. Enjoy the states! ;)

Thank-you Oiongo.

I have always been fascinated by minimalism, and I suspect that somewhere in the back of my mind there was a tiny bit of John Adams going off while I was writing this. When I look at this score now, while it's not in any way "minimalist", it still has a few of the textural characteristics (my piano concerto has considerably more minimalist colours).

I find it strange that both of the works I submitted for my Master's degree are getting their first performances the same year. One I was sure would be played right away and never got any responses from musicians, the other (this Scherzo) I was sure would rot away in my desk drawer for years and never see the light of day (well, it DID rot for quite a few years). And lo and behold, both are being premiered this year... and better yet, both in another country! There's a French expression: Nul n'est proph

I quite liked it, has very modern/fun feel about it. Only quip I can find with it is that several times I felt as though the piece was going to fall apart, but that's cause I'm weird

Cheers and keep composing!

Will

actualy, Will, you aren't weird... you were supposed to feel that way. The idea in spots WAS of a piece of music "falling apart".

Notice when the contrabass and violas are "trying to get back into the rythme" during the trio section? They're all off-kilter.. and eventually seem able to catch up to each other. Or even jsut the brief section before the trio starts, where the music seems to decompose.

There's alot of frenetic writing and almost nonsensical effects. it's done on purpose. I think I had a bit of a cartoon image in mind when I wrote it as well.

As for keeping on writing, well, since thats what I've chosen to do for a living, I guess I'm stuck with it! I'll do just that, thanks! hehehe

As for keeping on writing, well, since thats what I've chosen to do for a living, I guess I'm stuck with it! I'll do just that, thanks! hehehe

*shudder*

I can't imagine people having to like what I write so that I can eat. That's a pretty brave choice. While I always loved music, I never ever considered it as a career.

Your piece feels like an ominous introduction followed by an extensive and somewhat deranged fugato. Here there seems to be attempts at coherent expression thwarted by eposodic outbursts of chaos where each part emits thematic snatches with seeming disregard for what the other is doing.

The middle section recalls the opening atmosphere and offers some respite from the extreme density of texture. I saw it also as acting as a kind of harbinger of what is to come. Since, when the original material returns, it does so with a renewed unity of voice and expression. It's almost as if, it finally accomplished what it was trying to do all along. I also liked the cheeky reference to the opening material at the very end. It suggested that the cycle of conflict was going to be repeated, bot no, all had been resolved.

I only 'got it' when listening a second time without the score. I guess it was too difficult to scroll the score with the music so I ended up not hearing anything. I didn't know whether I liked it after the first listen, now I think I do. It's not really an emtional piece but it says something through its form and construction. Maybe it's the tension between individual independence and collective purpose.

I thought those were all random notes, I couldn't find coherency in it. This music is too difficult for me, I need to have a strong melody which isn't really present here. Or it could be the bad mixing/sound quality of course.

I think it's fantastic. The only two things I didn't like:

I think the trio may have been a little long and I didn't much care for the Tchaikovsky quote (I don't think it fit). Other than that, congratulations and well done.

Well, mixed reviews are better than all bad or even all good reviews!

I'm sorry you didn't understand the piece, Katchum. I'm going to presume you don't listen to much contemporary music.

As for the trio section, well, I find two minutes out of a total nine minutes a rather nice length for the trio. I'm not sure the piece would have been as balanced had the trio been shorter.

And the Tchaikowski quote came about because of a marked similarity between the quoted theme and the actual melodic contour of the trio theme. I guess not everyone will enjoy my sense of humour. That's ok. I liked it, which I guess is the important part.

It seemed to lack direction to me. It seemed somewhat random.

which just goes to show, I guess :)

it's quite tightly constructed.

I'm sure. It "seemed"; it didn't "was".

Well, to tell the truth, the effect of "randomness" was intentional.

It's actually quite difficult to pull off.

I worked on this piece for nearly a year with my faculty advisor during my master's degree. It was a constant balancing act of tonal - not quite tonal ; formal/structured - random ; serious - humorous.

I was rather surprised that most of the jury members preferred the Scherzo to the other major piece I had submitted along with my thesis. Funny thing is both pieces are getting their premieres this year.

Packing my bags...

Off to the airport tomorrow morning (Friday) for Seattle.

Rehearsals Saturday and Sunday afternoon, concert Sunday night.

Hopefully, I'll have a good recording from the dress rehearsal.

See you all next week.

Good luck with the concert. Be sure and share the recordings.

Having heard this twice or so I can't say I really like it. It's not my type of thing, and I keep getting the feeling that it goes on and on sounding the same way. There's some contrast in the middle and it slows down, but by then I'm gone already.

I also can't help but feel like there's a lot more that could've been done with the instruments to distinguish their sound and flesh out the character. I don't mean Penderecki-style techniques or such, but the handling from the string groups seems as if it didn't matter if things were played by the violas or the violins, or what goes where. It doesn't apply for changes in pitch beyond the instruments' capabilities, but at the same time that's just the feeling I get.

If that was the point, fine, but otherwise maybe highlighting the unique characteristics of the string sections would've done a lot to give this a more varied sound. And I mean more than the occasional harmonic or pizzicato.

I was also disappointed that the contrabass doesn't do much at all, and it feels like you're just using it as a bass-marking instrument without any character on it's own, which would make several contrabass players I know rather sad even if the part is pretty easy. Another thing that sorta rubbed me the wrong way is that the contrabass divisi looks a lot like typical pianistic-octaves, and well if that's the effect you want fine, but I wouldn't do it.

Then there's stuff like, for example, measure 158; you didn't write anything when the contrabass plays unisono again (I assume it's unisono, you didn't write anything.) If it's still a divisi and you only want the first group to play the line you should write pauses in the second voice so the players know what's going on. But I think it was an oversight.

It would also be nice if you included how many of each instrument the orchestra must have, or options to downsize it or such if there's not enough people. I find that's always a nice thing to do, it's pretty practical and it shows a clear grasp of how you want it to sound were anyone to perform it.

Well, thank-you for your rather critical but thorough comments.

Not to burst your bubble, the contrabass players who performed it enjoyed it thoroughly, They actually came to see me after the rehearsal to tell me how much they enjoyed playing it and how challenging the bass part was and a pleasant change from "simply playing the bass line". So we may simply not know the same sorts of bass players.

Just to clear up any misunderstanding you might have about orchestration: doubling the contrabass in octaves is a sound practice which adds weight to the sound as well as harmonic support (avoids the "thin bass sound" problem). It does not derive from pianistic writing but from an understanding of orchestration.

I guess since this isn't your type of music you may not have noticed the heavy use of individual timbre in the counterpoint, but that's ok. The synthetic recording isn't the best available.

Yes there may be minor oversights in the score with unis/div markings missing. They had probably been corrected by the time of the premiere in Seattle. If not, well, thank-you for pointing them out, I will correct the oversights.

Let me add a "welcome to the forum". You have certainly chosen to burst onto the scene with a critical first post. I'll be looking forward to future postings of your music.