"Metus" Overture

Beethoven is a bit outside my experience in terms of understanding what it is the man does, but I can comment on the emotions this piece evokes in me.

Although parts of it are indeed very dramatic (to good effect), this piece maintains an air of regality and dignity. It is very well executed.

I'm also glad to see this piece has received such excellent advice.

Got an mp3 handy?

that was really good. That was so far beyond me........i don't know.

Amazing. I don't think I noticed anything wrong with it (I'm still new). The dynamics were amazing also. I was caught off guard every time it got really loud. Turned up speakers.....POW.... had to turn them down again. Excellent.

I could listen to that over and over! I probably will, too.

:):D:toothygrin:

The piece is very big and lush in the way of harmony and orchestration, and I like your use of the winds and strings. You made use of the themes and motifs in a way that let them develop throughout the piece while still being recognizable, which is part of the reason that your overture is one of the best pieces you've posted. Even with that, though, I think you could have done more with texture and counterpoint, and you sometimes used the percussion uneccessarily, imo. It's a pretty classical piece, and it's well thought out. It's long, but not too much so, and it's one of the better pieces you've posted, like I said.

Good job. That's my first thing to say. I don't know how much experience you have composing, but this certainly is full of life and has a good musical shape and flow to it.

Also kudos on finishing a large score.

Now I'm afraid I'm going to have to rip it apart in a small, kind way. I hope. :huh:

First of all - Orchestration.

OK, now you say this is written for your high school orchestra. How good is this orchestra? A lot of this is really rather difficult writing. I know your signature says you play the violin, but for a high school orchestra (unless it's a massive, and v. talented school) these violin parts are pretty much impossible, and certainly impractical.

Also, does the orch. have 4 timpani?

More points:

Things like tenuto marks on semiquavers in a fast tempo.....They will either be totally ignored, or they will actually cause the part to be played less well. So you'll have to make a decision - is the mark necessary? (Again, my comments are for a high school orch.)

There's a place where you have mf and leggiero marked on the same part. This is the same sort of thing again....a conflict of interests. mp might be more efficiently taken in by the players.

All these things are in the interests of getting as good a performance as possible with the few rehearsals that you will probably have.

Just a few notes on harmony:

Sometimes you have moving parts in one group of instruments, and harmony in another, and the two conflict. Sometimes the groups just aren't quite in agreement about the overall harmony. Be sure that you know what each chord is supposed to be; that all passing notes do pass (and end up on a consonance); and that all the groups of instruments agree (are playing the same basic harmony).

There are a few harmonic progressions which are awkward. This'll improve with more study.

Try not to leave bare fifths - they work only very rarely. (E.g., opening of Beethoven's 9th)

Try to use chord inversions based on logical bass motion. Be sure you know what inversion each chord is in.

Let sevenths fall by step.

OK, now I'll make a few comments just going through the score chronologically.

Btw, I thought the piece was quite well linked through with that dotted motive.

Anyway:

page 3. Don't divide your 'cello and double bass so much - they should primarily be in unison (sounding octaves).

Bar 19 - that D# in the tpt. (sounding C#) conflicts with the harmony. Bar 20-21 the C in the tpt. is a seventh, and, like all dissonances, sevenths have to fall stepwise.

There's some harmonic confusion pages 10-11.

Bar 84 - open 5th is a little ugly.

Page 20 - the bassoon solo is slightly ungainly, and some of the surrounding harmony is confused.

Bar 160 - the C major here would work better in root position. (Having the G in the bass is causing the dissonance of the 4th from the bass to higher parts)

Bar 208 - con brio is a little ambiguous here. Perhaps something less often associated with tempo, con fuoco maybe. Either way, it's not a typical marking to put there....likely that players won't all be doing the same thing - mixed signals, resulting in a weak overall impression.

Just as I'm at about page 32 I should make another instrumentation note. These sudden 'stabs' - where everyone comes out of silence to play one accented note.... those will be hard for the amateur orchestra to play successfully, and together. Especially if they're coming in on a high note, which they sometimes are. You can hardly get rid of these though - they're important to the piece, but I'd personally go easy on such things writing for a high school orch.

Page 35 - again, 4ths in bass. That pedal in the double bass provides perhaps *too much* stasis. The melodic figure in the dbl bass would be better doubled with the 'cello.

Page 39 - not sure how good your vlns are, but F#s are high, and very likely to be out of tune, especially in a moving passage like this.

Bar 274 - Pllel 5ths in winds.

Page 41 - use simile instead of sempre here.

Page 43,44 - a bit of harmonic confusion.

Bar 307 - bare fifths.

Page 54 - some nice modulations. The build up to here was good.

Till the end is mostly the same. There are a couple of bits where the timp. part is implying the wrong inversion of the chord, a couple of dynamics issues, but mostly fine.

Also, pages 7-8 - I would not entrust that melodic figure to the viola, as violas are almost always understaffed and poorly played in student orchestras.

OK, that's me done commenting.

Sorry I've been so critical, but if you're getting a performance, I believe all these things will help to make it successful - which is what it's all about.

I like the piece overall.. it definitely has potential, and already shows a good musical feeling. You just need to work on harmony a bit (esp. learning to use dissonances correctly), and maybe make the orchestration a bit easier for a high school orch. to play.

Good luck with the performance.

Hey very nice piece so impressive. If i would have a suggestion is that maybe in some parts i notice melodies kind of "serious" or "elegant" that you give to oboe, wich makes it sounds something comic. I would change this lines to other instrument, say flute maybe clarinet or horn. Im so glad to hear this.

Bravo!!!

Wow Daniel, what a post! That is a truly professional critique! And no, I don't think you are mean.

Yes, I am quite confident in my orchestra's ability, as I have asked a string player within that orchestra about the difficulty, and they seem ok with it. We do have 4 timpani, yes. The tenuto marks on the semiquavers are a sort of emphasis, saying don't slur it, but keep the bow on the strings. There's probably a better way of saying this, but I don't know. And the difference between mf and mp, well as QC said, the dynamics should be uniform in the score, so I just wrote lightly underneath in order to give an idea of how it should be played.

I agree I have to do more harmony study, but I think some of the places where you pointed out "confusing harmony" weren't so, but I could be wrong (page 43 and 44 only).

I also did not notice the parallel fifths in that one part! My mistake :D .

I'm fairly confident in the performability, but thanks for your comments!

And millyway: I don't know why an oboe would sound comical, maybe its the midi, but I'm sure that in real life, those parts won't sound "comical". Thanks for the post :D .

Sorry if I'm derailing this thread (see it as a friendly bump :P), but what exactly is the reasoning behind "uniform dynamics"? Is there any objective, technical reason against different dynamics in different instruments? (I would understand it if you used the entire range of dynamics scattered across the orchestra all the time as that would result in a rather "grey" sound, but that's obviously not the question here.)

Of course you shouldn't just rely on dynamic markings to balance your orchestra, that certainly doesn't work. But it still seems logical to me to write every instrument in the dynamic you want for that instrument and not some weird "uniform dynamic". (Well, if you really want to write in a certain traditional "style" I understand it, but otherwise? Any concrete reasoning?)

Apart from seeing much more sense in a detailed, conscious choice of individual dynamics in contrast to uniformity, none of my teachers have ever argued for "uniform dynamics" and I've always only seen positive effects of very specific, individual dynamic markings in my own orchestrations. (The actual dynamics weren't always the best choices in every case of course, but I've never had the impression that the result would have been better with more uniform dynamics.)

(Not even to mention the countless examples of excellently orchestrated music that very carefully indicates individual dynamics for every instrument.)

If you have different dynamics in a passage for every part of the orchestra it is a SURE sign that you did not orchestrate properly.

Remember that a forte flute does not sound the same as a piano flute. If the passage is marked piano for everyone but that flute is marked forte, the sound will NOT be "soft with a flute coming out of the mix".. it will sound like a flautist blowing his brains out while everyone else is relaxing.

This could be true (Not a quote of you, Gardener)

I fully agree that notating the dynamics individually is a very clear and direct way of indicating to the player their role in the music. However, I rarely see this being done. I am doing this merely out of convention, after looking at the scores of Beethoven's and Schubert's symphonies.

Also, I think that having uniform dynamics makes players feel part of a specific group (such as having Bassoons, Flutes, and Oboes at piano will make them feel part of a group). From personal experience, playing forte while others play at piano eliminates the "group" feeling, and makes it seem soloistic.

There are some passages within the overture (the trumpet beginning) where I do want a soloistic feel and I think that having the trumpets at mf while the rest of the orchestra is at mp is fine, but due to convention I wrote it uniformly. I am pretty confident in the dynamic orchestration of the piece. Again, please let me know if there are any glaring errors.

So those are my (hopefully logical) reasons.

Well, if you look at scores from the 20th century, you will find individual dynamics a lot. In the early 19th century dynamics just weren't notated in all detail, and even much less in the 17th or even 16th centuries. The composers of these times didn't focus on dynamics as much and concentrated more on notating other aspects of the music.

But look at a score by Var

You will all be happy to know that I have an mp3 to put up. From now, I will work on the changes that Daniel brought up... I'll notify you again when I finish that.

OK

I did most of the things that you said, Daniel. I didn't change much in your "orchestration" section because, like I said earlier, I am quite confident in its playability by my ensemble (which was what you mainly pointed out). I did not find any sixteenths with tenutos in the fast tempo.

I couldn't really change much with harmony, but I will take note of those things in future pieces.

I changed all of the suggestions that you made chronologically, except for the ones regarding my ensemble and confusing harmony.

I must say this is by far one of the most energetic piece I have heard in quite a while..fancy that you you finally put up an mp3, it sounds excellent, very beethoveny thought..but anyway...great composition

Thanks, Roman

yes, I did put up an mp3, but the dynamics were off. I'd seriously reccomend the midi. Also, I am a little surprised by people saying that this is very Beethoveny. I'm not that skilled yet, and the inspiration for the vast majority of this came from Schubert symphonies.

thanks for the comment :)

Well, it sounds great! Im no expert on classical music, so i cant give proper feedback, but it sounds pretty well! I like the beginning of the piece :)

omg.....I love it man...Im so jealous

would your first name happen to be Ludwig? :O

Thanks!

No, lol, my first name isn't Ludwig, though I wish it was!

I'm honored to have your first post be about one of my pieces too!

Welcome to :yc: !

A really nice work. I'll let the experts give the detailed critiques on it, but I have none. I liked it as is.

Good work! :thumbsup:

it is a good music

i like it very much

dark-happy

Wow! I'm blown away! Very Beethoven-ish and dramatic!

I am in love with this very startling and insanely conservative (in the best possible sense) work. It has all the power of later Mozart with an occasional smack in the face distinctly like Haydn's infamous sforzandi.

Beethoven, too, and Brahms' tragic overture seem to play parts in this, but there's also something else. This 'something' is displayed in a mere two-note descent at the end of measure eight, in the strings. Something about this sound (of an F minor chord slipping down to E and G with an A-flat and F still in the bass) moves me deeply, as if a rush of cold air had shot up my spine. The effect lasts a mere moment and then is gone as measure nine appears, but it leaves a mark. This is chilling and excellent music, even if you compensate for my newbishness. :)

String Orchestra variations II.mus

String Orchestra variations II.mid