Orchestration project that got a little out of hand.

Hi all. I was recently assigned in my orchestration class to write two waltzes, one in the style of Johannes Strauss and the other in a modern style. They generally aren't very long, but I really got caught up in writing this piece, putting it together in only a few hours.

A little backstory: I've been listening to a lot of Terry Riley, Steve Reich, John Adams, and Sujan Stevens, so minimalism is the game here and though the midi file (pardon the basic finale midi... I'm on school computers while mine is in the shop) plays each change 4 times, it should be noted that in a performance, each two bar section would ideally be played more and the changes in the instruments would not happen all together, but gradually. Of course if someone wanted to simply play everything twice with each change happening as it occurs in the music, that would be fine. This piece borrows heavily from "In C."

Anyway, feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

-Mike

contemporary waltz.mus

contemporary waltz.mid

Notation issues:

1. you need to write the number of repeats!

2. measure 29, timpani: NO! that is NOT how you notate a timpani roll. If you require 2 timps for the roll, indicate it.

I'd much rather have looked a fully written out score than all those repeats. I know it takes less room, BUT... it also limits what you are going to do with the music.

I think there are a lot of spots where it would have been interesting to hear some phasing across those repeat barlines.

While I actually REALLY liked the piece, the end is a HUGE let-down. Very "bleh". It feels like you just ran out of ideas.

My suggestion is start over from the beginning, but in full-score (ie: NO REPEATS!) and go further with this. It seemed to stop just when it was getting going.

Also, maybe play with a few more dynamic shifts?

Upon further reflection, I completely agree with your comments about the ending. Initially I thought to keep it intentionally abrupt, even disappointing, but I don't think that that fits with what this piece is doing. I rarely make apologies for my music, but this was a one shot endeavor, completed over the course of about three hours in the very early morning and that idea sounded much better at the time.

Insofar as your comment about a "full score" versus what I have, however, I'm a bit puzzled. The aim of this piece is minimalist, heavily borrowed from Riley's "In C" (so much so that the title of the piece, for those concerned is "In 3") The order in which the lines change, how long each section is dwelled upon, even, to a lesser extent, how to follow the dynamic markings (in a micro versus macro idea) is up to the conductor and performers, and I think that writing the whole thing out goes against those ideas. Perhaps this isn't the best way to do it, but I suppose my main issue in creating a score that looks like "In C" (pictured here) is that I'm looking to write a series of short waltzes for orchestra, and I want this, as well as my orchestrations, included versus "In C" which can be played by any ensemble of instruments.

Anyway, I really appreciate the comments (though why would measure 29's roll need two timpani?) and look forward to more of your thoughts. Thanks!

In response to your last question, I think it's because it looks like a tremolo between two notes, even though they're the same notes. You might do this if you wanted to have a roll between 2 timpani on the same note, I guess....

I wonder how that would sound different from a roll on just 1, though :hmmm:...

It wouldn't. It's just a roll.

well, probably not, but perhaps the fact that it's two different drums instead of the same one would create a slightly different effect, I don't know. It's probably too subtle to be of any use...