Moth to a Flame - Wind Quintet

I wrote this piece as a class assignment. The title says it all. I used a lot of canonic writing for this to sort of symbolize a bunch of moths following each other to their eventual deaths. Inspiration was found in Texas, on s host-home's back porch. They had a bug lamp, over a trash can, the trash can full of dead bugs.

I decided to give a bit more attention to Bass Clarinet and Bassoon. Bassoon holds it own, as far as solo literature goes, but Bass Clarinet gets overlooked very often, so I made it the lead.

Please comment as you see fit. I'd love feedback on playability, instrument character, etc. This is the first piece I've written for so small an ensemble, so I'm tentative about how it sounds to others. Thanks.

Moth to a Flame.mp3 - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage

Moth to a Flame .pdf

First of all, I hope you know that this isn't a "standard" wind quintet. While it's okay for doublings (alto flute, English horn, Eb clarinet, contrabasson -- if you haven't already you should check out Ligeti's Ten Pieces for Wood Wind Quintet, it's got a lot of doublings, and also happens to be a tremendous piece), you're probably not going to find a horn player that doubles on trumpet. That being said, if you're looking for a performance of this piece, you're going to have some trouble finding a WWQ with a trumpet player. (I don't know much about you, so who knows, you could have players lined up, or not care if its played or not). So, I'd like to ask you, why would you decide to go with a trumpet instead of horn, what's the purpose of that?

Your piece is quite bland dynamically, you just have large sections in the score marked forte or pianissimo (there are a bit more in the beginning, but not much after that). I really would have liked more subtle (and perhaps some not so subtle) dynamic shifts within individual lines to bring out certain things. I think you also over do it a bit with the arpeggios. They fill up the majority of the score. There are other ways to create harmonies. Your rhythms remain pretty much unchanged and I would have liked more variety in that department (see Nancarrow's Player Piano Studies for examples of more complex rhythmic language in canons). I wasn't too enthusiastic about your pitch choices either (you cadence too frequently) and there isn't much variety in that department either (I understand this is canonic, but that's not an excuse, really -- see Ligeti's (again) Lux Aeterna or Carter's Canon for 3).

I didn't study your score too closely, but I didn't see any major issues in terms of playability or anything. In terms of "instrument character", there is none. Any of those lines could be played by anything with pretty much the same result. You should explore the instruments' tone qualities a bit more.

I think you could make this work well, but it needs some tweaking.

Ruthless!!!!!!! But I do appreciate a realistic critique. I'm here to get better...

I know this isn't standard. There's a trumpet instead of a horn simply for the fact that I wanted trumpet instead of horn. I'm not sure why. This was a class assignment, no intent of having it played, BUT...I'm a student at a University. We have no wind quintet, so I'd literally be putting one together, in which case, instrumentation doesn't matter.

The dynamics were sort of choice, but I agree, I could do more on small swells to add more depth to the piece. The decision was to make it a very sort of mundane sound. I wanted it to sort of coast on same dynamic, but the addition of instruments, and the rhythmic alterations (arpeggios, whatever) would add to the perceived volume of the piece, building up to the final section, where it's intentionally loud.

Instrument character, I also completely agree with you, as does my teacher. Considering it's a canon, this is inevitable, as writing 1 line, for multiple instruments, playing in the same key will make it work for some instruments and not for others. I know that it is possible to write one that works perfectly for all, but I'm inexperienced at this sort of writing. I realize that the writing is simple, and playable by any instrument to the same 'effect' possibly, but in my opinion, the effect is different depending upon which instrument is playing. I will have to disagree on this matter, considering, if I replace trumpet with horn, the piece will change drastically. If I replace bass clarinet with marimba (though similar timbre in the lower register) the piece will change drastically. Each instrument in and of itself adds it's unique sound. (And now I remember why I wanted trumpet instead of horn.) Yes, any instrument could have played this, and I see your point, but the instruments I chose give it the sound I wanted, hence why this isn't a brass quintet, or a percussion quintet, etc.

Overall, thanks for the critique, I will listen to those pieces you recommended, and I'm sure they will help a lot. I will take into account everything you've said to better myself in this form of writing.

Ruthless!!!!!!! But I do appreciate a realistic critique. I'm here to get better...

I hope you don't think my intent was to be mean and "ruthless", I only meant to provide just what you said --- a realistic critique!

No not at all. As I said, I appreciate it completely. I am not comfortable with this style of music, so I want to accustom myself. A lot of what I write is for orchestra with singer, basically very grand accompaniments. So writing specific music for solo instruments without them being accompaniment is shaky unfamiliar ground. Again, thanks for the input.

I like The piece.

But then I like small ensembles and I do enjoy an odd set up instruments.

I also doubt if this would work well, but the proof would be in an actual performance.

It just seems that the trumpet would be too overpowering. Perhaps if it was muted. A Bass Clarinet and a Bassoon is also odd. While their timbres are similar, I know that when used properly, as in making sure each is in the correct range for the sound wanted, they would make for a good listen together. I love using the Bass Clarinet in my pieces and have enjoyed every piece I have heard that has one in it.

I think though that it is great practice to compose for the traditional wind Quints and Quartets. But then I also think it is great practice to compose String quartets as well.

Nicely done

Ron

Thanks Ron. I think the trumpet is low enough to remain under control dynamic wise, when it needs to. A mute is an option, though. I doubt I'd ever have this performed. As you said...practice is good, and that's all I see this as.

I mostly looked at the bass clarinet part.

Its in the range, but for bass clarinet, I would prefer low notes as do other bass clarinetists. As a bass clarinetist, I would hate that part. But it does seem fun. As a clarinetist, I love high notes XD So it would be an Okay part for me =P

The 32nd notes....wow! I dont mind the first set, but A to B...that is hard. I hate having B's next to A's or C#'s fast.

Good to know. Is that the break? Where are other trouble spots? These are things I like to know.

I am not much into orchestration, so from what I can tell, it's fine.

BUT, as for the music itself, I think your main issue was the MOVEMENT of the piece. For the most part your piece seems to be a bit "bland" (quoting an earlier poster). I think you could spice up the first section with some more runs in the notes. Maybe a scalar set of 32nd notes to carry the theme through the piece. Maybe a motif of some sort. What I find is that the piece harmonically is stagnate.

NOW, on to what's good. The second half of the piece (the one that's more in 6/8), is very rhythmically interesting. :) I loved the interplay of the instruments, and the countermelody was brilliant! It was kind of pompous-like actually, but I like that sound. Your hemiola is nice, and it almost could be mistaken for a relaxed pirate shanty, if you aren't looking at the score. But, I LOVED it! It was very cool.

So, put more rhythmic interest into the first part, and you'll have a very nice piece!

Good to know. Is that the break? Where are other trouble spots? These are things I like to know.

Yes, that is the break.

I agree mostly with Morivou. I found the first part much less interesting than the second. The second melody was great, and how things kept get adding on was very cool!

I love wierd instrumentations, so I like your choices XP

And for the dynamics problem, I agree that it's slightly bland.

One problem I had was listening to the three quarters notes behind the melody in 6/8 time. It was too out of time for me, distracting.

well... this piece would sound more dynamically pleasing if you heard it live. if you think about it, professional musicians are going to ADD their musicality to a piece. I know I do... BUT, OMWBWAY (I can now spell your name without the added aid of looking at it cause I NOW know what it means), I think you could add a little more guidance.

Impresario, NEVER judge dynamics of a piece of music on what plays back... use your imagination on what you might hear in a live performance.

Hmm, I'll work on everything everyone has said, and use this as an opportunity to grow...I'll repost after.

Well to me this was an okay piece but one never gets pulled into the piece and intrigued with what you do, it seems as if its just a drone at times. The one thing that really confuses me about this work is its form the parts of it don't, well at least to me, seem to flow as if they are one piece. Also, when you come to your coda type thing at m. 71 feels like your just putting it in so you can just finish the song because you are getting sick with it or something like that so if you could maybe build into that coda in a little different way i think it could work. This composition has potential you just need to work on it.

Thanks. I just recently decided to work on it, and try and make myself better at this sort of thing. I'll make the transitions smoother. Might be up in a few days, please everyone check back and comment once I've worked on it and reposted.

I do not know a thing about these type of ensembles so I can't comment on that.

But, I did enjoy listening to this.

My favorite part was the flute and clarinet duet in.. ..around the middle I.