3 Elegies

Very dark, indeed, but it strikes me as strangely whimsical too, as though it's bitter and angry, but can't help but feel the cosmic humor/irony "of it all" (in the middle, especially). That's just my thoughts, though. I like it!

UPDATED VERSION

I worked a bit on the choppyness. Both in preformance (made tempi more gradual so the differences seem less), and in the notes (make some passages more fluent)

I changed some of the harmonies a bit.

The ending has undergone a more obvious change. The high trumpets sounded too jubilant or heroic. The 3rd trumpet (and others) play in ms 166, a motive a minor second below the others, thus giving it a more yearning sound. More elegiac, I think.

I appreciate it if you let me know what you think

Ok, I FINALLY got around to reviewing this piece. I must say, it was sad that I waited so long because this is one of the best pieces I've heard on YC. So congrats and please accept my apologies for the delay.

This piece is, well, brilliant! I must say, right off the top, I thoroughly enjoyed this piece. The theme, the development, even the orchestration are all very well done. There's quirks here and there, but they don't degrade the overall piece in my opinion. Really, you should be proud of this work. As per my "typical" reviewing style these days, my comments will be split into musical and technical categories.

Musical

As I said above, the piece is thoroughly enjoyable. The main melodic motif is great. Simple, just the two half notes trying to gasp for air. I love how you made the piece get more and more complex the further it went along, especially harmonically, but kept that same motif constant, as to give the piece unity. I know you mentioned that it may not be called an elegy, well I beg to differ so far. I believe it is quite sad, tragic even. It most certainly is an elegy, just a complex one. Sorrow is not all bad feelings. Indeed, when one grieves for a loved one, they think not only of the bad but of the good as well, and I think you balanced that very nicely here.

Some points I especially felt worth commenting on:

• Overall, the piece desperately needed some percussion. There are moments that just begged for a nagging xylophone line or cymbal crash or ominous chime. Make full use of the massive percussion section that is available in today's orchestras. While the timpani are great, they don't have anywhere near the expressive capabilities that the full section has, especially when used judiciously.
  
• The development was very good. Harmonically is was very interesting and pleasantly ambiguous. It was refreshing not *really* knowing the key and yet still feeling a bit grounded.
  
• The brass seemed a bit underutilized, especially the trumpets. In the moments of real volume (thank you for making the piece have a large dynamic range by the way), the brass will add lots of sound. Consider some more brass in general too, since they can be very ominous and eerie when played quietly, epically with mutes.
  
• Bar 121+: My favorite section in the piece. The low horn chords are absolutely gorgeous! I loved that moment. Well done. The following moment with the entangled woodwind solos was also memorable. The Oboe solo at 134 is perfectly placed.
  
• The ending seemed a big anticlimactic actually. I would have loved to see a bit more dying away and more diminution of the motif. Also, the texture was far to bright to treat an EmM7 chord with any due justice. I think a more tragic ending would really justify the piece being called an elegy.
  

Technical

Just to point out of few specifics:

• Don't split the winds onto one instrument per staff unless the rhythmic complexity makes two parts on a staff prohibitive. Clearly this is not the case here. I'd recommend reducing the like instruments with their usual partner staff in the score. There's several reasons behind this, probably the most significant is to save space in the score. If you have fewer staves, it is easier to read with "less" information on the page and, literally, bigger notes.
  
• Horns 2 & 4 should not use bass clef throughout. Indeed, use them if there are extensive ledger lines, but not otherwise. This seems to be a common misinformation in orchestration these days.
  
• Don't use time signatures larger than 3/2 unless it makes sense in context or the piece is written in a large meter. (See Holst's Mars (middle section) from "The Planets" where he uses a 5/2 time signature because the music is written in in that large meter.)
  
• Bar 3+: "pizz." and "arco" are technique markings, not expression markings and thus should not be italicized.
  
• Bar 13-14: Why non-div? Is there a reason behind it? Volume? Color?
  
• Bar 16: cresc. collision
  
• Bar 19: hairpin collisions
  
• Bar 23: Starting here I would keep the 2/2 and perhaps use 3/2 or even 1/2 where necessary. That first motive with the 2 half notes should stay separate in baring from the quarter note figure in the woodwinds. This adds a subtle psychological division between the two parts. More importantly, it will be easier to read than all those whole and half rests.
  
• Bar 26: I would not add trumpet there. The tutti woodwind sound is great all on its own. The trumpet would have a semi-hard time playing quietly when it hits the B#(!) (use C please!).
  
• Bar 36+: Perhaps a key signature to mitigate all the accidentals? See if you can work something out, even if it the key signature isn't the true "key" of the section.
  
• Bar 44: Strings should be marked div. (not italicized)
  
• Bar 48: Tempo collision with Violins
  
• Bar 72: If you want a soft and hollow timbre, I suggest keeping the first violins divisi in octaves. Switching to both sections will make the sound richer and louder. Is this what you want?
  
• Bar 77: div. missing in cello
  
• Bar 81: The metric modulation marking is ambiguous. Best clarify with a tempo marking, arrows, a metronome marking, or combination thereof.
  
• Bar 93: Slurs are getting fat.
  
• Bar 127: pizz. whole in D.B. unclear. Make it a quarter or half with an "l.v." symbol.
  
• Bar 140: Same as bar 72
  
• Bar 158: div. markings missing in strings
  
• Bar 166: You have a tricky rhythmic problem here. There's the triplets against the slower quarters. First, I would change the bars into smaller units, as per the beginning. Then, you've got a couple options. Either write a *different* time signature for those that have the triplets (in the case of 2/2, 6/4, or 3/2, 9/4) so the quarter = the triplet quarter in the slower half note tempo (horns would use this). All instances of the triplets need to be quarter note triplets for clarity. (There are cases here where there are two 8th note triplets right next to each other with a phrasing of 2-2-2, a big no-no.)
  
• Bar 176: Rewrite as 2/2 and 2/4 (or 1/2)
  
• Bar 177: Rewrite as 2/2 and 3/4
  
• Your last bar is empty. Finale problem?
  

Again, great work and I wish you luck on your future compositional endeavors Jaap. :thumbsup:

Thanks Justin for this most extensive review I've gotten sofar :) Maybe the most applauding too; it made my day :)

I used to write for smaller orchestra's. So I'm not familiar with all the effective use of brass and percussion. I will look into that.

About the horns convention. I saw you give that same remark at another place. Is this a modern convention (like omitting key signature was an old one), or has it always been this way?

The anticlimax. I maybe don't understand you correct, but you hoped the motive and texture to get thiner and overall softer and dying away? Right?

I think it is, in a way. At least, I hope it to be. (I will maybe space the strings a bit wider in 194 and further, to get a thiner chord). But a part of this elegy is the endlessness of it (8th figure, from ms 180+) going onward like a mill, or so...

The key signatures seams to be a recurring topic. The way they are notated as they are now is as follows. I want to emphasize that the small melodic figure after the 4 half note motive gets bigger and bigger.

When I convert that to 2 times 2/2 and then a 2/2 for the melody, (and then again 2 times 2/2 for the 4 halve notes) then this aspect gets lost. I really want to keep the additive meters to keep this clear. I agree that a measure becomes than more of a phrase signifying unit. I am even considering to rebar the first measures to 6/2. This way, the hemiole in ms 16-18 comes out more clearly).

But if this is really unclear, or not done, or whatever... I consider changes. But if possible, I would like to keep it this way...

Many, many thanks for the effort to point out those collisions. I usually pay little attention to them... I also used to italicize arco/pizz/div. etc. I got used to that idiot habit of mine. I used to think my scores had it that way too, but I looked again in some and turned out you were right. So I am giving this habit of mine up, and italicize only the expressive expressions.

The triplets at 166 are tricky indeed. I thought that it would be clear that the triplets in the horns stated 3 quarters in the time of 2. The confusion appears when there are also triplets stating 3 eights in time of 2. I want to rewrite the horns in eights too. That seems for now the most consistent option.

About the 2-2-2 no-no: I think you mean the woodwinds in ms 168? Is the articulation a no-no (because thats the way I articulated this motive throughout the piece) Or should I notate it more clear?

Well. Extensive review, extensive response. Thanks again, Justin. I am really glad you liked it so much. The 3rd movement is based again on 4 halves. But differently developing. That movement is becoming the least elegiac of all; therefore still in doubt whether to keep the name Elegies or not... Maybe when I post that movement I have decided...

I updated the score.

There were some questions left over, so here's a reaction. Note that the new score has new measure numbers since I finally took the advise to notate some other time signatures. (SYS should be happy too :) )

Bar 13-14: Why non-div? Is there a reason behind it? Volume? Color?

Yeah; I want a full sound, I thought dividing would make it too thin.

Bar 26: I would not add trumpet there. The tutti woodwind sound is great all on its own. The trumpet would have a semi-hard time playing quietly when it hits the B#(!) (use C please!).

Hm... I have here a written crescendo. Each motive an instrument extra, and ran out of instruments (piccolo that low has not the volume yet) so turned to the trumpet.

Not sure to change the B# (and A# for the winds in C, going to talk in C now). Melodically there is a major third, to the F#. And down from B an A# makes more sense. The B and F# are notes in the E6 chord. The A# could be Bb to fit in the Bb64 chord, so I see your point, but like to let the melodic rules prevail over the harmonic, this time. I agree thats a subjective choice.

Bar 36+: Perhaps a key signature to mitigate all the accidentals? See if you can work something out, even if it the key signature isn't the true "key" of the section.

I cannot decided what key it is in. Maybe Eb? But then, if I go to c# e or f# minor, Eb major creates a lot accidentals again. So, either way, there are a lot accidentals (change c# e f# to db fb and gb feels like cheating, and wouldn't solve it either). For now I choose to keep it the way it is, and put the sharps of the few FISes in a Eb context between brackets for clearity.

Bar 72: If you want a soft and hollow timbre, I suggest keeping the first violins divisi in octaves. Switching to both sections will make the sound richer and louder. Is this what you want?

I want it a little louder indeed. (see added oboe, dynamics in strings from ppp to pp). I keep it thin to continue the divisi and octavate both

I accept with information:This one starts out similarly. The brass are very ominous and foreboding. This one just doesn't quite seem like a true Elegy. Mind you, everyone has a different expectation of a work based solely on the title.

I accept with information:This one starts out similarly. The brass are very ominous and foreboding. This one just doesn't quite seem like a true Elegy. Mind you, everyone has a different expectation of a work based solely on the title.

I am not sure what you mean. You quote a sentence of jawoodruff like its your own. The brass is about the 2nd elegy, the first contains less brass.

I am unfamiliar with the expression "I accept with information:"; it could be me, but it makes no real sense to me.

This combined with the fact you joined only a few days ago and posted sofar posted one post (this) suggests me that you are a bot?

I hope I am not insulting a human being now :D

===========

OK, while I am posting to my own topic I just could give an update on the whole project.

I think I keep the title Elegies. I also agree that the title could be misleading, but the fact that Tokkemon understood them as complex ones has strengthened my view.

I have been busy, working with other stuff, and with the 3rd movement, and updating the others. There will be an update of the mp3 of the 2nd movement, with a bit more tempo changes and articulation to add to the feel of the elegy. Sorry I haven't anything more to say for now. I'll keep you posted.

SYS should be happy too

I'm always happy, even when I don't feel well :)

ok, let me see you changes .....:blink:

.....

ooooouu yeah, looks much better, I could conduct that and listen Madonna at the same time and I wouldn't lose the tempo :D It's clear enough now.

I see some slurs in Page 6 woodwind, ... only 2 tones ? , is that correct, (remember I used to skip the slur thing and I only started writing slurs recently) are not slurs in woodwinds mean the breathing phrases ? because if that's so, those slurs will give hiccup to the players :toothygrin:

lol

The slurs are intended that way. To emphasise the kind of "seufzer" (german for sighing, i think). I don't think there will be a real hickup. I agree that the attack on each of the first slurred notes will be like a small accent.

So. I finally posted the third movement.

I am not yet satisfied with the result, so feel free to give some critique.

I'dd like to point out the simultanious quotation from th previous 2 movement. mv1 is quoted at ms 268, 271 and 275, flute and oboe; mv2 is quoted at 272 and 276 in the clarinets and 1stviolin and viola.

Some questions about the piece.

• Is it compared to the first movement sufficiently contrasting, or is the momentum of half notes getting boring?
• Is it too long? (I tend to say yes, its 9 min)
• Is there enough interesting going on?

So. I hope you like it

It seems interesting. But too long perhaps.

I'm not sure what to say.

I shall comment eventually, likely next week.

ok, thanks.

Please note the score is not yet made tidy. You may comment on ugly slurs and collisions but I did not looked into it myself ;)

I think the beginning is pretty drawn out.... and it does seem pretty long in general. The middle sections kept my interest... but I would agree in saying that it is too long.

The Adagio section's half notes seen pretty loud at first---> perhaps bring the volume down more?

Jaap, I think of your 3 elegies, I enjoyed this one the most!

I do think the transition (or lack of transition) into the 6/8 bars in measure 70-something could use some of your attention. Also, I feel like the poor tubists were neglected.

But other than that, I really like what you have here. For me, you had lots of attention-keeping dialogue in the upper woodwinds, which I am always a big fan of. Your score looks very nice, and you've done a very nice job!!

Well, whattaya know! I found some time today to listen and comment. I'm optimistic because I was really impressed with your first symphony, Jaap, so this one should be just as good, if not, better.

This one has considerably less problems than the first. I did find it to drag on too long, but only until the final recap starting at 259. I loved the preceding 7/8 section, though I would have written the horns in a 4 unison, not in octaves; more power that way. What I was really hoping for was a brash segue into the opening half-half motive that you've used throughout these elegies. I would have made it really loud and obnoxious, really capitalizing on its pathos, but it is no longer distant. It is in your face!! That would have been a suitable ending IMO. And then, even better, have it die down into nothingness. You did a bit of that in the first elegy, now really bring it home this time! Use that brass and percussion section to their full potential.

Some technical matters:

• Again, the pet peeve of writing things on separate lines. I see a slight rationale in the fast section, but really, like instruments should be on the same lines.
  
• Horns sometimes need bass clef, esp. 2nd and 4th. I would be cautious about how low you right for horn all the time though. It is a beautiful sound down there, but don't overuse it. I thought, by the end of this piece, I had heard enough low horn and wanted to hear some loud powerful soaring horn lines in the top register. Strauss was a great lover of those, especially in 4- or 8-part unison. Just listen to Ein Heldenleben, you'll know what I mean.
  
• Trombones: measures 31-33. My favorite bars in the whole piece! :-D Very effective trombone writing there. Thank you.
  
• As with elegy No. 1, you need more percussion. Not a lot, but some more. Some well-placed cymbal crashes and snare drum lines would do the fast section wonders for its momentum. In some places, especially in the 3/8 scherzo-like part it tends to drag because there's not much pushing it forward even though there are 16th notes everywhere. The only time I felt it pushing ahead was when the triplet 16ths started to come in at 111.
  
• 111-118: Very nice string writing; reminded me of Tchaikovsky. However, I would stick the two lines you have in Vl. II in Vl. II and Vla. respectively and move the Vla. part to the cello. Less divisi when it isn't necessary is a good thing!
  
• 136+: This section was gold. Expect I would be slower to add other colors around the low brass. This is really the first time in the piece where the trombones can play the half-half motive alone and they should do so. Show off the pathos of a low trombone chorale. I would delay the entrance of the woodwinds a few bars, perhaps as far back as 146. This will also make that quirky staccato 8th figure fresher in the high winds. Also, either some Glockenspiel or Xylophone is in order on that little figure. :)
  
• 157-158: This transition could have been much better. The solo clarinet didn't cut it for me.
  
• 196+: The half-half motive starts to get boring at this point. I would spice it up a bit more. Also, I think some great pathos could be added with some ominous tam-tam strokes.
  
• 216+: I would expand on that trumpet solo. It was a nice change and really came out of the texture like a really nice expressive solo.
  
• 230+: Stick the second cello part in the Basses. Less divisi is more.
  
• 247+: This was brilliant. The hammering brass almost half-half motive and the loud horn theme are great compliments. As noted above, I would not have the horns in 8vas here. It would be more powerful with a 4 unison. This would be a different story if we had 8 horns to play with though. Mahler would do a 5 on the upper and a 3 on the lower all the time.
  
• 257+: I didn't like that the accompaniment suddenly stopped. I suggested an alternate coda above. From this point on I didn't really like it. It just sounded like more of the same, indeed, what had happened in the beginning. Very half-baked I guess would be the word. I would just cut it from here and start anew to the end. I understand its not finished really so I guess that's why the very end didn't make sense.
  

That's what I have. Needless to say there's score issues, but I'm sure you'll fix that in due time. Be careful of adding dynamics. There are many that are missing, especially at enterences after long rests. Also, more expression markings, like subtle cres./dim. and descriptive markings would certainly be welcome, as the score seems devoid of them.

Again, great job Jaap! I thoroughly enjoy listening to your stuff. Well done and, as always, happy composing!

it is a good works , and i like it :sith: :sith: :sith:

Thanks for all the response! Collin, Angela, and Justin in particular :)

First of all, this is no symphony. I used to write one, and another even move juvenile one, but I am not satisfied with the first and forth movement. I even thought I left the latter unfinished. The 2nd and 3rd movement of that symphony (op63) are fine btw. I think they can be heard on my soundclick account. But because of this overall negative experience I thought I write a less pretentious piece. So, no symphony.

The writing of instuments on separate lines is new to me. I used to write study-score like, multiple woods and brass on a single staff. I thought is was a study-score convention to make it as compact as possible. Since I got Fin2009 with a selecion of GPO I want for the sound the difference if say a single clarinet or 2 clarinets in unison. So I could not use "a2" from the aural effect I wanted to recreate. And write all "a2" passages with layers seems too much, cluttering and less clear as to write the single instruments on seperate lines. Besides, when it's even to be preformed (although I do not have the connection to get it preformed) I can easily print out the single 2nd clarinet part. Those were my considerations to write seperate lines.

I like the compact study score more than the way it is now. It originaly was even study-score-like. I do not (yet!) want to undo that work and make an eye pleasing score when I loose the aural and print-parts advantage I have now...

I am not a brass-man. Know the least of that section of the orchestra, maybe percussion too. Ok. So I welcome the remarks on decent horn and percussion writing. The 8va issue was caused by my thoughts on range. I thought Hrn 2 and 4 need not to go too high. You are right in assuming I want that powerful sound. I fear that going to 4 horns in unison (which is a appealing suggestion) leaves the clarinets and bassoons obsolete. 2 Clarinets cant compete with 4 horns. The bassoons an octave below makes even less sense, I guess. Is a division like 2 cla + 3 hrn and an octave below 2 bsn + 1 hrn a nice midway? The melody need not to get too thin, I want a broad sound, thats why I octavated it.

As on percussion: I am adding xylophone, cymbals and tamtams to mvmt 1, and also a little to mvmt 2. I am not sure if I had those uploaded yet. (The tam tam wouldn not get loud enough, so I think the MP3 is not yet finished) In this movement I had cymbal rushes in mind at ms 310, (in the current coda, which might need some rethinking;) )

Speaking of the current coda. I like about the current coda the final chord, consisting of all notes of the used scale, and besides the F# also the F natural for the quasi phrygian mode I sometimes use. This is a kind of breakthrough for me, coming from adding major 7ths 2nds and 6ths to make the harmonies more interesting to adding them all. I think its a result of listening the Schnittkes Nagasaki Cantata.

What also needs to be kept is the final piccolo note. Its a unifying element of these three movements, like the peep in your ears after hearing a loud explosion or something like that. The feeling of deafness after being hit, not yet feeling the pain... This is how I "have it die down into nothingness."

As said I am no brass-man, as Justin obviously is. So, I'm glad it pleases him when I use pathos of the trombone chorus. I use it because of what its capable of playing quiet. You also like the brash, really loud obnoxious sound: "...capitalizing on its pathos, but it is no longer distant. It is in your face!!"

I also want to use that, but I think you want too much. I use some eruptions of dynamics to show the agony, even in final chords. But is has to stay an elegy, a lament, a cry at most. Not a obnoxious show-off for the fanfare.

I agree I maybe not able to use brass and percussion to their full potential, but maybe need not to (at least dynamics wise) in these movements.

The divisi issues. Is this because you got much reaction on your divisis in your symphony? I will listen to your remarks about the div around 230. But not around 111. I want it to be thin, soft. As the violins are the largest section I figure I want to keep them divided. Especially moving the lower 2nd half of the 2nd violins to the violas at ms 116/7 is too high for the violas, making the sound of that mid-voice too bright.

So, I leave it here. I really appreciate your comments. Keeps me sharp. :)

Want to give it a (short) rest and then start shaving and polishing. Adding more expressions. Improve some boring harmonies; write better transitions (not my thing). Thanks for now.

I love your ideas this piece. Very mature sounding. My only critique will be in the orchestration. First, I noticed that throughout a large portion of the work you have all of the winds doubling the same line either on the octave or unison. I loved the passages which you did utilize variance, imitation, and contrapoint (i.e. mm 132 - 157). In my opinion, that is your best wind writing this piece. Your usage of the various 'sounds' the winds produce and the combination's there greatly added depth to this composition. Secondly, your horn parts mm. 174 - 179 are quite high in particular when you have the trumpet below them doing resonance tones. I'd really love to hear that passage with trumpets blaring too... I think it would add to the dramatic factor there! Aside from those few critiques I feel your structure is sound.. or at least appears to be. Very good work! It's nice that I get to hear one of your orchestral works

Thanks for you comment

I use often doublings in the ww. That is to stand clear against a broad sounding orchestra. Like in the beginning (ms24-40 or so) I wanted a crescendo withoud writing one so I increased the number of instruments.

You make it sound as if there are only doublings. I'd like to point to ms 49 and 50. In 49 there are doublings for oboes and clarinets, parallel 6ths. But in ms50 the oboe is between the paralel 6ths of the clarinets. Texture looks the same, but not everything is doubled ;) I'd like you to comment (if you have the time) to the other two movements as well. I think there is a little bit more counterpoint and soli in the wind (but maybe not much to convince you ;) Thanks for pointing this out...

The horns are high, agreed. If I understand you correctly you want to add trumpets? If I'd do so, I lose the yarning sound of the 2nd violin (octaves with major 7th, 2nd flute and 2nd clarinet and 3rd trumpet). The horns are for the momentum mainly. The slow chordal movement of the rest has little dramtic impact if there is no momentum. Thats what the horns provide. 4 horns, with their mighty brassy sound at ff stand clear enough against the whole orchestra to be heard, without overpowering the other notes.

I see your point on the horns. What I was refering to in my comment on the horns is well... you have the trumpets doing the resonant note for that passage. You could bring in a trumpet (just 1) to assist in the buildup of momentum. Not really the entire section per se. Regarding the winds, there were a few passages that the entire winds were doubled as I said. I did see where you had used other than octave/unison doublings. I will listen to the other movements - was just busy when I commented on the first. I also realized I HAD listened to your work before...this very one in fact. It's come a long way since you posted it earlier.

Thanks for your comment. I read the previous topic and also saw you commented before. I'll see your next comments appear, when you have time.

Just some initial thoughts on the first elegy revised:

Very good! This is much better. The added percussion adds a lot of character especially the snare drum's military-like pathos really giving the piece a sense of "doom" or "tragedy".

Two issues still: bar 175: the polyrhythms here are still confusing where the faster line is in triplets but is really in two. Either use dual time signatures, or write the section out in 6/4 where the current half = the new dotted half, OR write all the 8th triplets as quarter note triplets. The latter idea seems to be the most sensible.

Bar 207-208, 210-211: The horns (1,3) are in the very top of their register here and will drown out everyone else, even the brass who are playing quietly. They simply can't play up there soft. Take horns 1,3 down an octave.

2nd movement: I must say the revision of the 2nd movement far surpasses the version I heard earlier! Very nice work! I especially love the Grave. The sectional contrast between the A section (Grave) and the B section (Agitato) is also well done. I noticed the thematic connection as well - very good work!

3rd Movement: The third movement has good material but something is missing from it. I'm not sure if its the orchestration or the overall structure of the work but it just sounds like something is missing. I love the more animated section and your working of the chief thematic material in it.

My overall favorite of the three is the 2nd movement.

Just some initial thoughts on the first elegy revised: Very good! This is much better. The added percussion adds a lot of character especially the snare drum's military-like pathos really giving the piece a sense of "doom" or "tragedy". Two issues still: bar 175: the polyrhythms here are still confusing where the faster line is in triplets but is really in two. Either use dual time signatures, or write the section out in 6/4 where the current half = the new dotted half, OR write all the 8th triplets as quarter note triplets. The latter idea seems to be the most sensible. Bar 207-208, 210-211: The horns (1,3) are in the very top of their register here and will drown out everyone else, even the brass who are playing quietly. They simply can't play up there soft. Take horns 1,3 down an octave.

tuplets. you have been talking about these before. I have not clear what's exaclty wrong. There are four tuplets, worth a quarter each. Each tuplet starts with an eighth, so its clear that they are tuplets staing 8 eights in the time of 2, again, worth a quarter. Is the problem solved if I say the measure is 4/4 in stead of 2/2?

about the High horns, I think you are right. that high and playing mp is not so realistic... But I like it the second time to be higher than the first. Lowering an octave feels I leave a gap in the chord that needs to be filled; but by what instrument???

2nd movement: I must say the revision of the 2nd movement far surpasses the version I heard earlier! Very nice work! I especially love the Grave. The sectional contrast between the A section (Grave) and the B section (Agitato) is also well done. I noticed the thematic connection as well - very good work! 3rd Movement: The third movement has good material but something is missing from it. I'm not sure if its the orchestration or the overall structure of the work but it just sounds like something is missing. I love the more animated section and your working of the chief thematic material in it. My overall favorite of the three is the 2nd movement.

I love the Grave too. Its funny you like it so much now. Most changes were in the Agitato. In the Grave I only added articulation (and hidden tempo changes) for a more expressive MP3 rendering. Your remark on the third movement is intriguing. I almost agree that there is something missing. It is a bit similar to the first movement, but compared to it, it is less powerfull. But I hope you could help me find this. Suggestions are welcome. I have thought it was due to its longer length, it tends to get boring. (And if I may say so its a bit bold to let the audience listen and half hour based on halve note motives...)

Please help me fix this. At least find what causes the feel of something lacking...

Thanks both for your remarks. Much appreciated!