"Wasteland" in G minor

Ok, first of all... I must be sick.

I started jotting down whatever came to my mind when I started the first bars of this piece on the piano, and it eventually grew into this oversized mammoth of ash.

Finale's left hand does not help AT ALL, since it's too hammered and square. So it gets really annoying. I want a human player!!

Basically, I wanted to keep the same repetitive left hand pattern (without the annoying hammering) because it gave me the feel of... well... a wasteland.

This is nothing but wandering around in "tonality" much like if lost in an empty wasteland, interrupted by two very short waltzes of delirium tremens and three moments of delusions of insane grandeur, the last one supposedly the strongest yet the shortest.

I've already been told that it's too long (oh, so very long!), but I seriously have no idea of what to remove. It all seems so... grayish neutral.

And weird.

So there you go. Don't expect anything like I usually put here.

mp3

M. Bulteau - ''Wasteland'' em Sol Menor.pdf

I feel that lenght is this piece's only flaw. The harmonies are wonderfully eery and all the waltzes and moments beyond the piece's main rhythm also work quite well. I think you should stick to this kind of harmonic language, since you managed to make an otherwise very repetitive piece quite interesting.

loving esnips doesn't work on my computer. -_-

I think it is pretty good but yeah the length... I mean the idea of a wasteland is really nice cause that is exactly what it sounds like, but I think you need to change the tempo up more without the space of long wasteland in between. Because really who wants to be in a wasteland for all that long... But overall a good peice and I'm glad you shared!:)

There're a lot of notation issues with your score.

Measure 3, right hand: when that rhythm pops up, use a dotted 8th note rest before the 16th note.

Measure 28, right hand again: you need to break the dotted 8th note into a 16th tied to an 8th.

Measure 50 and 52: the "rit" goes ABOVE the staff, not in the middle.

Measure 58, right hand: break the dotted 8th.

Measure 97, right hand: what were you thinking when you wrote that rhythm? re-divide that rhythm into something readable and logical please.

Measure 188, right hand: same thing.

Measure 132: the pedal marking goes beneath the bottom staff. Always.

Measure 134, right hand: do I need to say what the problem here is?

Measure 135, left hand: technically, you are supposd to avoid mixing accidentals. this SHOULD be respelled either all sharps or all flats.

Measure 150: why is there a "pedal off" marking right in the middle of that staff, and after a measure of silence?

Measure 156: guess what the problem here is?

Measure 158: here the problem is you're repeating yourself. No need for a second accel.

Measures 184 and 188: guess.

Measure 190: I highly suggest you respell the G flats to F#. It is more logical for the voice-leading from the E natural of the preceding measure, and avoids that notationally ugly diminished 3rd.

There's a whole bunch of the same notational errors repeating through-out the score, so it's up to you to clean them up now.

QC has picked up on all the notational issues now.

As to the piece itself, I found the main flaw was that the main theme was a little too dull.

Like Tom

I like some of the unexpected harmonic twists such as b. 8. I think you did a very good job of portraying a wasteland in this piece. Like 186-189, with that lone arpeggio circling up and down. And how it ends up in the same place as it began. It does have a very "wandering" feel to it. Very nice piece. I would have perhaps liked it to stray a bit more from the melody and accompaniment layout, and I also agree that you should check over your enharmonic spelling, and I agree about the long length. I think when pieces get this long they need to have more of a sense of where it's ultimately going, rather than "wandering around in a wasteland".

Heh.

About the notational issues and things like "a[n Ab] chord that was spelt G# C Eb", my scores are never clean unless I really need them for something (which hasn't been the case yet), and notating chords like that is finale's automatic fault, since I use a synth to write.

So I just strike the chord and it writes it. I don't pay attention to those notational things since I have yet to need a clean score for anything. :P

About the weirdly positioned pedal markings and stuff, QC, they're basically things to regularize playback sound, nothing else.

Rhythm division, however, is still completely alien to me. So that could be justifiably wrong, since I know nothing about it yet. :P

You mean you played it into Finale? I see. I think you should tidy it up a bit, I doubt I'm the only one who'd get a bit put off by the weird spelling of chords, while playing. At the very least, it'll look nicer.

I didnt' exactly "play" it. Finale can recognise notes from a synth. I choose the duration and, instead of using the mouse to place the notes, I touch the keys on the synth.

That's beginning to sound a lot easier and faster than typing. If only I had a midi controller.

Since this came up, I thought I would add/subtract from these thoughts, as I am a stickler for score presentation myself:

Measure 3, right hand: when that rhythm pops up, use a dotted 8th note rest before the 16th note.

In all my training as a composer, I was always taught that dotted rests are sloppy and should never be used (but I use them anyway, as well as many publishers).

Measure 50 and 52: the "rit" goes ABOVE the staff, not in the middle.

I checked 10 piano scores last night by 7 different publishers/editors. In all cases, the "rit.", "accel.", "rall.", etc are always between the staves except in one case where there was a crescendo in the way so the "rit" was above the staff. There were several cases, also, where crescendi and other markers were "broken" to accommodate a "rit." "A tempo," however, was always above the staff, with one exception.

Measure 97, right hand: what were you thinking when you wrote that rhythm? re-divide that rhythm into something readable and logical please.

There is nothing wrong with challenging rhythms (aside: I know in this case it was Finale's own doing as he played into the software, so they aren't intentional). Are you familair with the tale about the orchestra that re-wrote Strav.'s Rite of Spring into 4/4 meter? Strav himself asked the percussion section how they pulled off the piece so tightly and when someone told Strav. that they rewrote it into logical 4/4 meter, Strav. threw a fit.

Measure 135, left hand: technically, you are supposd to avoid mixing accidentals. this SHOULD be respelled either all sharps or all flats.

I already read that the composer in this case played the notes into Finale and the software spelled the chords for him. But what if he were composing serial music or music completely based in theory (why do double-flats exist, then? Augmented 6th chords often have mixed accidentals); there is nothing wrong with mixing accidentals if it represents what he wants, theoretically. Yes, it's a pain in the butt to read, and it wasn't intentional here, and I respell things in my own scores, but I don't understand it to be incorrect.

Measure 158: here the problem is you're repeating yourself. No need for a second accel.

Piu accel should be used instead, if he wanted a second step of acceleration. In long passages, though, I don't think a reminder is so bad (after all, courtesy accidentals are used regularly in engraved music).

Just my thoughts.

If the second accel. is a reminder, it should be placed inside brackets. As it is, it's ambiguous.

If the second accel. is a reminder, it should be placed inside brackets. As it is, it's ambiguous.

I certainly don't disagree and would do it that way myself.

There is nothing wrong with challenging rhythms (aside: I know in this case it was Finale's own doing as he played into the software, so they aren't intentional). Are you familair with the tale about the orchestra that re-wrote Strav.'s Rite of Spring into 4/4 meter? Strav himself asked the percussion section how they pulled off the piece so tightly and when someone told Strav. that they rewrote it into logical 4/4 meter, Strav. threw a fit.

In the case of Stravinsky you can see a reason for not putting it into 4/4 time. He apparently wanted the piece to be "jagged", not flowing steadily and thus made the time signatures fit the musical blocks instead of pushing the musical blocks into square measures. The decision is made for musical reasons. Arguably, when exactly the same sound can be achieved with a simpler notation it is a valid question whether it shouldn't have been notated differently. But it's still a totally different question than a case where a certain rhythm is written needlessly complicated without an apparent reason. It is possible that there's a reason behind the notation in bar 97 of course, but it seems much more likely that, as you said, it's just "what Finale did on its own". So I'd definitely change the notation in that measure.

I already read that the composer in this case played the notes into Finale and the software spelled the chords for him. But what if he were composing serial music or music completely based in theory (why do double-flats exist, then? Augmented 6th chords often have mixed accidentals); there is nothing wrong with mixing accidentals if it represents what he wants, theoretically. Yes, it's a pain in the butt to read, and it wasn't intentional here, and I respell things in my own scores, but I don't understand it to be incorrect.

Sure, it's not necessarily incorrect in all cases. But we're talking about this particular case. There's no apparent reason to write the chord like it was written there and another notation would be a lot easier to read, so it makes sense to change it, right?

I understand your points very well. I'm definitely against saying "X is incorrect and Y is correct and you must always do it like that." There are no such absolutes in music (a least not anymore). But when talking about particular examples, we can still make reasonable guesses about what was probably written with a clear musical intention and what seems to be arbitrary and could be optimised. And if that criticism is wrong, the composer who wrote it can still protest and say "no, I wrote it for reason XYZ which is important for that piece".

If the second accel. is a reminder, it should be placed inside brackets. As it is, it's ambiguous.

The second accel is once again a playback necessity, else Finale would've gone back to the previous tempo after two measures.

But when talking about particular examples, we can still make reasonable guesses about what was probably written with a clear musical intention and what seems to be arbitrary and could be optimised. And if that criticism is wrong, the composer who wrote it can still protest and say "no, I wrote it for reason XYZ which is important for that piece".

I agree completely, but my instinct felt like QCs comments were definitive, but I may have just interpreted them incorrectly.

So, if his examples were regarding this piece and this piece only, sure I agree, except for the comment about the placement of the "rit." :)

Berlioz:

The ear is the final judge. You wrote a brilliant piece of music. It was powerful, yet poignant, conveying an idea of loss, regret, bereavement, perhaps wisdom hard-earned. It wasn't happy or thrilling or comical, but I'm sure it wasn't meant to be--the title is a good fit for this piece. And at twelve minutes, it's not too long.

The carping about the notational aberrations are inconsequential to me, since my playing ability is such that I couldn't attempt it at all. I understand that some regularization of the written form is necessary if we are to have a common musical language that allows everyone with the requisite playing ability to play it. But look again to my first sentence. In the end, nothing more need be said.

Good work.

Walter Rhoads

I can see how it seems grayish, but I like that its grayish , if it is?.?

I really got the sense of a Wasteland from this piece.

I also liked the chords you used in the piece.

I really don't know enough about pianos to be of any more use xD

I don't know how you'll take this,

but,

the piece sounded very wandering-ish, in a very desolate way. The wetness of the sounds added to the effect and really made me feel like I was in a pointless, but engaging trance. Somewhat like a Wasteland, yes.

The harmonies were pretty varied, but that's just it. There wasn't a lot of counterpoint or counter melodies, which I believe would have made it a more interesting piece for its length.

Good. I liked it.

In all my training as a composer, I was always taught that dotted rests are sloppy and should never be used (but I use them anyway, as well as many publishers).

In my experience, the only dotted rests acceptable in X/4 or X/2 time are dotted eighth rests (or possibly also 16ths). In X/8 or X/16, etc., dotted rests up to dotted half rests are acceptable provided they don't obscure the central beat division.

There is nothing wrong with challenging rhythms ... Are you familair with the tale about the orchestra that re-wrote Strav.'s Rite of Spring into 4/4 meter? Strav himself asked the percussion section how they pulled off the piece so tightly and when someone told Strav. that they rewrote it into logical 4/4 meter, Strav. threw a fit.

Well, that was Stravinski, a world-renowned composer. Us lesser-knowns would profit more from making the music readable than dazzling the compositional elite with inscrutable notation and lightning-fast-changing irregular time signatures. Orchestras don't like to perform new works (generally...), and if you happen to actually get one to deign to perform a "new" (*sniff*) work, making it difficult to read isn't exactly a smart move.

Just my opinion, of course.

EDIT: BAH, just realized this is for piano (was commenting on other's posts and not the work itself). Write what you want, those pianists are an odd lot.

Yer piece sounds sexy. I felt it long, but not overly long. The name comes through, everything is shrouded in fog.. :-D Sounds kind of like a very long variation of

. (can't deny that the theme sounds similar :-/)

Nice outpouring.

I enjoyed this. Very cool! But a bit too long ;)