December 30, 200916 yr I think this is my favorite of your pieces I have heard...I really like the textures/harmonies at the beginning and particularly your use of harp. I wish you had sustained the departure from tonality (speaking of which, in C major?? haha) to the end, I think the last system could be improved upon with just a few non-triad notes. Some spice. also, Iol'd at the "(1990- )" underneath your name.
December 30, 200916 yr I like your ideas Justin. But to be honest, this doesn't exactly tickle my fancy. Some parts I thought were good... but those were few and far between. It's nice seeing you use a more expanded pallet - but... this just doesn't sound like you. That said, i especially loved the harp usage this work. EDIT: I should probably elaborate a little on my comment: I think its nice your attempting to utilize this expanded pallet now BUT I think the problem is, from solely my perspective, your not using any foundations on which to build upon it seems. You were making good headway finding your own sound with the Late Romantic style - something which is a good thing, I think! This is like a complete start over for you. Perhaps if you incorporated these more expanded harmonies within your Romantic foundation - like a few have done in the past.... It'd be a little different than this. Iono, this is all a subjective rant really... Edited December 30, 200916 yr by jawoodruff
December 30, 200916 yr I remember I had listened this one before. for now only 2 little remarks: * ms 1.3 violin 1 a G#, canonic response violin 2 at ms 3.3 has a Ab; why? * your score is beautiful as always, except for the end of a legato arc at ms 25, page 7, Harp What had little graham to say?
December 31, 200916 yr Author I like your ideas Justin. But to be honest, this doesn't exactly tickle my fancy. Some parts I thought were good... but those were few and far between. It's nice seeing you use a more expanded pallet - but... this just doesn't sound like you. That said, i especially loved the harp usage this work. EDIT: I should probably elaborate a little on my comment: I think its nice your attempting to utilize this expanded pallet now BUT I think the problem is, from solely my perspective, your not using any foundations on which to build upon it seems. You were making good headway finding your own sound with the Late Romantic style - something which is a good thing, I think! This is like a complete start over for you. Perhaps if you incorporated these more expanded harmonies within your Romantic foundation - like a few have done in the past.... It'd be a little different than this. Iono, this is all a subjective rant really... I get what your saying. Rest assured, this is not my norm. I did it more as an exercise, to try something that didn't sound "Mahler-esque" and write something a bit more tonally ambiguous. My next Symphony (in E-flat) will be much more of a Romantic idiom with splashes of atonality thrown in.
December 31, 200916 yr It was boring to me. Its more like an ambient music, than something I can enjoy. But good for an exercise however as you mentioned it.
February 24, 201016 yr I love it! A couple questions though, what notation software do you use to render your works? I've been trying to do diamond noteheads on finale and sibelius to no avail. Commenting on this piece, I agree with all here, it's very nice and yet very boring, even slow and somber pieces like this can have some flare to them. Work on that.
February 24, 201016 yr There's no escaping tonality, mwahahahahaha! Anyway, I think it's wonderful that you're stretching your chops and I enjoyed this piece. You made sure that the heckelphone is heard and your orchestration looks good. Since this looks about ready for performance I'll mention things to consider in the score: You might want to slide the F# grace over a bit in m. 15's piccolo line. Do you mean for the piccolo slur in 24 to start on the first A? You have an unruly slur in the harp part at 25. Why write out change to naturale in 26 then have naturale again in 28? And isn't naturale French? Unless I'm confused I'd stick to norm. or the shorter ord. Are those harp glissandos in 37 actually 18 tuplets? Does Sibelius default to the cautionary accidental in your heckelphone line at 40? Remove that crescendo wedged in the double bass part at 49. Great work! How long did it take you to complete?
March 2, 201016 yr I quite like this actually. About not being Mahleresque... your main theme is still rather Mahleresque =P But I think this is one of the most interesting piece you wrote and not just interesting for the sake of interesting. I quite like a lot of the sections here too. The effects you created with Harp, Crotales and other percussions are great. There are also some really great moment, like bar 23. I somehow thought this piece is a larger piece and should go longer. But oh well... It's great anyway, I like it!
