Fire and Ice

This work uses a few ideas that I sketched out (two ideas to be exact) at school the past three Thursday nights. I was originally going to do this for full orchestra - but I felt the ideas lent themselves better to a chamber work. The C section I might revise a bit, not sure yet. Tell me what you think!Fire and Ice

This is a strange piece, even for you, Jason :lol: But I like it -- it sort of uses a pseudo-chromatic scale (as you often skip notes in the scale). I also like how you build-up the piece -- I suppose that the beginning's slow, sterile-sounding mood is the "ice" section, and the accent-heavy, sharp allegro is the "fire" section.

The only thing that stuck out to me as missing was the ending -- I wanted things to get zestier and even more fiery for a finale, after your return to the icy mood. I guess what I mean to say is, I didn't get burned enough in the allegro :thumbsup:

This is cool! Thanks for sharing, Jason :D

Well it sounds very good - probably one of your best pieces so far. Just think it needs a performance to check dynamic balances (you may need more dynamic markings after a reading - you may not).

What I like about it is it shows your love of counterpoint but you do a very good job connecting it to the texture of the piece. A good example is the call and response among arco strings and winds against the string pizzes in between beats. There are other places but that is the first to come to mind.

As for the piece I think it is finished as it is for a movement and you should do both - keep this and then orchestrate it - it reminds me a little of Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra, so you may want to check the score for that.

As for the score layout - a little crowded with two systems on a page and one or two collisions with dynamics and notes. For a full score reading I think you can reduce the staff size a little. For parts you could try reducing the other parts to cue size and highlight the part the score is for - or just print parts and provide a full score to all players.

PS. When you get a reading be sure you have a good oboist - a section such as 50 - 67 while quite possible is quite a stretch to have an oboist continuously play without even a rest here and there.

Thanks Zach and Chris. Zach, I'll look at changing parts of the allegro section. That was something I, myself, was worried about (i.e. that it wasn't as 'fiery'). Chris, thanks for your kind words. I'm very glad you like my piece. Means a lot.

i like it

I worry about that hits section at like 4:25... Just didn't seem to flow that well.

A lot of call-and-response and repetition.

It was a nice theme, but I'm not sure if it held up over 7 minutes.

I worry about that hits section at like 4:25... Just didn't seem to flow that well. A lot of call-and-response and repetition. It was a nice theme, but I'm not sure if it held up over 7 minutes.

Did you look at the score? Or was this solely based off the rendering? Going back over the score, I don't see any real 'call and response'. The piece is slightly repetitive, I agree - but is it to the point of being saturation? I hope you expand on that. The theme of the B section (flute and oboe first B section and flute and violin second B section) is my favorite - I find it haunting, and really just stumbled on that theme during my weekly thursday night piano practice marathon at school while waiting on my other half. I'll look over measure 68 (4:25ish) and see if I can smooth it out more to make it flow better. I thought the flow was exceptional that part - the rendering doesn't do it justice at all, imo. Thanks for listening!

Just the rendering. That might have been the problem with that section.

The call and response is just in how the theme bounces from player to player. Not a complaint, just a comment -- in fact it's a central part of the piece from what I hear.

Just the rendering. That might have been the problem with that section.

The call and response is just in how the theme bounces from player to player. Not a complaint, just a comment -- in fact it's a central part of the piece from what I hear.

Ah yes, I wanted to minimize the counterpoint to some degree in that - and felt it would generate interest to pass the material from instrument to instrument (like switching from flute & oboe in the B section to flute and violin).

I like the turn your composition has taken. The piece is haunting, overall. It sounds like a ritual is being conducted, particularly in the sections with pizz. The midi pizz. sounds more like percussion than string to me; it's like you wrote in hand drums, and this adds to the eerie quality. I don't mind repetition as a general rule, but 12 to 14, 68 to 70, and 82 to 84 is a bit too drawn out for me (probably because of the predictable pattern that comes before). I do love the section with the viola ostinato, but I might try to vary that as well. Don't forget cautionary accidentals (like a flute C-natural in 36).

Here's the thing about repetition and ostinatos. The parts that get obviously repeated tend to become background music. This is fine for some purposes (maybe meditative music or dance music), and maybe it's what you want in this piece. But when you switch up your patterns it brings an instrument or timbre more to the forefront and doesn't let the listener forget about it. I'm beginning to think that some compositions I looked at this semester don't really have foreground, middleground, background... Hmmm. It's more like Renaissance counterpoint in which there's not really one distinct part. Sorry, now I'm getting off on a tangent.

I like the turn your composition has taken. The piece is haunting, overall. It sounds like a ritual is being conducted, particularly in the sections with pizz. The midi pizz. sounds more like percussion than string to me; it's like you wrote in hand drums, and this adds to the eerie quality. I don't mind repetition as a general rule, but 12 to 14, 68 to 70, and 82 to 84 is a bit too drawn out for me (probably because of the predictable pattern that comes before). I do love the section with the viola ostinato, but I might try to vary that as well. Don't forget cautionary accidentals (like a flute C-natural in 36).

Here's the thing about repetition and ostinatos. The parts that get obviously repeated tend to become background music. This is fine for some purposes (maybe meditative music or dance music), and maybe it's what you want in this piece. But when you switch up your patterns it brings an instrument or timbre more to the forefront and doesn't let the listener forget about it. I'm beginning to think that some compositions I looked at this semester don't really have foreground, middleground, background... Hmmm. It's more like Renaissance counterpoint in which there's not really one distinct part. Sorry, now I'm getting off on a tangent.

That is exactly what I wanted. For instance, when I have the cello and the 2nd violin take the chief motif and transform it into accompaniement for the C section - I wanted that, and the viola playing the melodic material from the b section, to serve as the underpinning for the new ideas unraveling in the other 3 instruments. The rendering, I dont think, gives that much justice as all - real musicians, on the other hand, would.

Well, this is certainly a piece I'd like to hear live!

Well, this is certainly a piece I'd like to hear live!

Well, if you know a string quartet and a flute and oboe player... please feel free to print the score out and email me a recording of the performance!!!

jason_woodruffin@yahoo.com