Spastic Trinket

Hello, everyone. I'd would greatly appreciate some advice on this new composition of mine. I've been composing for many years, however this is the first piece I've composed entirely by notation. I've recently been infected by a nasty writer's block disease, and am wondering if this piece is even worth pursuing any further. Any feedback is welcomed.

MP3

PDF

Thanks in advance!

Nigel

I dont like this you should try harder

Gee, thanks for the constructive feedback, dolt!

I think this ended too suddenly.

the links are dead =[

I think this ended too suddenly.

I'm not done with it yet. When it's done, it will have a proper ending. Here's an update with working links: MP3 PDF

It really would be nice to receive some actual constructive feedback on this.

The lack of constructive feedback might be due to the nature of the piece. it's been done, many many times. Bring it forward a few centuries and it might strike up more conversation.

As far as it goes though, it seems solid in its style. I like the pointilistic bits, and the staccato ostinato in the bass, but I'm not one to know much about olde-music, other than its harmonically plain, rhythmically predictable and such. It's lively and full of energy though so thats good =)

Thanks, Globutron. I guess I don't know what you mean by "bring it forward a few centuries". Do you mean add more instruments? Incorporate more complicated orchestration? Bring forth some weird harmonies and dissonant chords?

I had originally typed out a rather lengthy reply covering many small points, but I accidentally lost it. Doesn't matter too much though, many of the points were just small details (generally concerning orchestration or notation), and since this is still an incomplete work, they might still change anyways.

But just two major things concerning the notation:

- First of all, if you write for transposing instruments, either have a transposing score, or clearly write on the first page that it's a score in concert pitch. (In a traditionally tonal piece like this, I'd advise on a transposed score.) Anything else is very confusing to read.

- If you're using only one of each wind, use a singular when indicating the instrument names. It took me a while until I realized that despite there being a part for "Clarinets", one for "Horns" etc., more than one weren't going to show up.

Thanks, Gardener. So, if I don't use divisi for the parts, they should be singular? I prefer the ensemble sound, so should they still be singular in name?

Ahh, so you do want several of each wind, just all in unison? Then it's of course normal to write the instrument names in plural form, but you might write "a2" "a3" (depending on how many players there are per part) or "unis." above the such played notes, to clearly indicate that all players play. Note however that this is highly unconventional in orchestral music. Individual instruments (with the exception of strings/choir voices) pretty much always have individual parts, even if now and then they fall together to play the same thing for a bit (or rest for a bit to only let one player of this instrument play).

Writing for wind ensembles in unison can be effective, but generally only if you do it very consciously, as you need to be aware of the problems this brings: More instruments playing the same things will make the sound get a lot "thicker", while not making the perceived volume that much louder. This means that these instruments will cover up other instruments more, without actually sticking out themselves, giving you a more opaque and less transparent/"chamber-musical" and agile sound.

Furthermore, you won't be making use of the full dynamic palette of the orchestra like this, since you won't ever get a really quiet piano (since there are always so many instruments playing), nor a really loud forte (since the instruments aren't spread out to many notes/registers, which is an important part in achieving a full "forte" sound) - which will make the whole thing sound rather restricted in a narrow range of sounds.

Lastly, you need to be even more careful about balance problems like this. A flute may be audible if paired with a horn and a trumpet, if it's set carefully for just three instruments in total. But if you have a whole horn register and a whole trumpet register and the flutes aren't playing exceptionally high, it will be extremely hard to come through there. Not even to mention the problems you'll get from any non-professional orchestra when it comes to exactness, especially in technically challenging parts.

So really, I'd recommend that you rather reduce the number of winds you use, but make more use of individual parts per player, letting individual instruments rest for longer bits, playing with different combinations etc. A carefully balanced orchestration for a relatively small orchestra will often be much more effective than having a huge orchestra play the same five or six lines all the way through. And even if you're absolutely against separate parts within an instrument, at least consider changes between "solo" and "a2"/"a3"/"a4" sections, and octavations, to bring out the orchestral range of dynamics and registers more. (Btw. this also goes for the bass voices. Your double basses for example are almost always playing with the rest of the strings - it might be worth considering letting them rest a bit more inbetween, so that the lowest register isn't always present, allowing you to "open a greater room" at the low end at specific passages by letting the basses set in.)

But anyways: First of all, you may want to consider how many of each wind you want in the first place - because this will have a great influence on orchestration.

I had originally typed out a rather lengthy reply covering many small points, but I accidentally lost it.

you mean that you clicked "Submit Replay" and then the "working symbol" remained too long and if you click reload page then page is empty ....

That happens to me often .... so I copy the text before posting (when writing long)

I also copy before sending mails .... I wrote a very good once but the page failed to send and I decided to not "tolerate" that again ...:D

Thanks, Gardener. I've made some changes based on your suggestions.