Exchanging Glances

Written as a companion piece to Brahms' Symphony No. 1, Exchanging Glances has the same instrumentation but a very different feel. Rather than using E minor, I begin the piece in E Phrygian eventually shifting to G major and then to E Aeolian (or E minor) then eventually to E major. The structure is somewhat Sonata Allegro, but somewhat like Sonata Rondo with a ritornello rather than an introduction. It is the blending of modes, forms and rhythmic patterns that bind the piece as if we are never really sure whether those glances our direction really are for us.

Exchanging Glances

On page 8, starting measure 61, you have those 16th notes in the cello pizz, they're too fast and it won't come out clearly in a real performance. Page 12, measure 99, you have pizz. cello again mp again horn and trumpet mf, it won't be heard. You should probably also mark the strings there mf because trumpets are always very loud. Also, why do you have down-bow marking in the bowed strings here? They are un-necessary, that's what the players would be doing anyway. Page 17, what is the point of this page? Fast scale runs? This range of the runs and the dynamics are very dramatic, but it doesn't really follow logically from the section before or into the next section, so it kinda falls flat. Also it sounds very thin. The woodwind thing starting at the pick-up to 159 is a cool idea. Page 23, trumpets need to be p, they're going to be blaring here how you have it (which might be what you want). Page 36 flutes is very nice.

You've got a lot of great ideas in here, but you really need to read up on orchestration. I started pointing out things above, but the problems are really too numerous for me to mention them all. I think the piece has the potential to be very nice. Find a good book or two on orchestration, I recommend "The Technique of Orchestration", which I got in an undergraduate class, but I often have to look up things elsewhere. There are probably better books, but it doesn't really matter, because you need to read about the basics.

Good job!

to JohnBucket: Thanks for the comments; let's see if I can answer some of your questions.

The scale runs are obscure by design. Numerous film scores use different meters in the runs to create a sense of flow and not specific notes, which is what I was going for here.

The WW at 49-52 do cut off too abruptly and I'm working on that. I've a new score/recording but still not happy with that section.

Structure of the piece (as I see it):

As Sonata-Allegro

Introduction

A - first theme

B - second theme

C - development begins

H - recapitulation (after short false recap) (first theme)

I recap second theme

J - coda - which is recap of introduction

As Sonata-Rondo

Theme A

A - Theme B

G - Theme A

H - Theme B

J - Theme A

It doesn't really work as a Sonata-Rondo form, but the concept was there. Beethoven and Mahler did it much better.

to Last Life:

Thanks for the comments.

I disagree with you in regards to the "16th notes in the cello pizz" - they are not too fast for a quality orchestra. My university orchestra struggled with them certainly, but I've heard professional ensembles play section pizz much faster and certainly as clean.

I also disagree with marking one instrument louder than another to compensate for the instruments inherent volume. It is the role of the conductor to bring out these elements. I choose to orchestrate with dynamic consistency, rather than compensate for instrument intensity - except when regards to tessitura or number of players.

at mm99, the cello pizz is accent, not actual sound. It is heard when played by a live ensemble, or I should say, it is missed when taken out. The conductor of the university orchestra suggested the same thing and then retracted this statement when he took the cellos out of the mix.

Many of my bow markings are unnecessary, but I'm pretty meticulous with them. To date string players have thanked me for them, so I continue to include them.

Page 17, I like the runs. I agree I'm not sure how much they fit. I'd like to include more of these, perhaps with the strings, but I haven't found a place for them yet. They sort of reflect the short runs the strings have - just not very effective.

P23, trumpets... see above statement about dynamics.

The way I approach orchestration is consideration of the tessitura of an instrument --what the sound color of a given instrument is in a given range. For example, the horns sound as if they are playing higher (and louder) than trumpets between high C and the G at the top of the treble clef (concert). Because of this it is possible to create the sensation of the music climbing even though the actual pitch isn't (see mm190-191 where the horns take over from the trumpets, even though they drop the pitch an octave).

I also use number of players to compensate for volume. In other words I'd double horns on a part when I have a solo trumpet playing against them. Or I'll put two clarinets (or two flutes) in the treble staff against an oboe in the same range. But the flute up an octave and there is no need to double it as the sound is piercing enough.

I try not to put ww against brass unless I just want to add a touch of color, because the ww are not a loud as brass. But even with that a solo oboe or solo clarinet can add color to a solo trumpet even at the same dynamic level. The audience doesn't necessarily hear the ww, but they'd miss it if it was absent.

I do have several orchestration books and refer to them often. Adler's The Study of Orchestration, Kennan's The Technique of Orchestration and Rimsy-Korsakov's Principles of Orchestration. I refer to them often. While I appreciate Kennan's approach, he tends to agree with you in terms of dynamic orchestration. Both Rimsky-Korsakov and Adler do not.

Hopefully you see that my orchestration of this piece is not accidental, nor uneducated. It is with specific intent. I VERY much appreciate your comments and pondered many of those same issues as I wrote the piece. However, I opted for what you see in the score...

Again, thanks for the comments,

Chip

I also disagree with marking one instrument louder than another to compensate for the instruments inherent volume. It is the role of the conductor to bring out these elements.

In a professional setting, it's not the conductor's job but the performer's. :) The conductor is the failsafe for when the performer doesn't know.

10/10

Just got to listening to this, and I find it great. There's a lot of tonal and modal E-related stuff, but the different orchestrations seem to pull it off quite nicely. I can't add much to the technical discussion going on, but this is a very enjoyable piece of music :santa: