Removed

Removed

Before I get round to discussing the actual notes, there are few things that would be worth mentioning:

What sort of orchestra is the competition for? I'm on the shortlist for an orchestral competition at the moment, but as the organisation is a university one of the guidelines was that the music was suitable for performance by a good amateur band. It apparently is, as it's scheduled for performance next month, but I was acutely aware when writing of the need for tailoring the music to the ensemble, and not just in terms of technical considerations. It would be helpful to know if your entry is for any particular occasion or venue as this will play a large part in how successful the piece is both musically and as a competition entry.

I assume you've worked from a definite list of the instruments available, how many percussionists, etc, which specifies exactly who can play what and what percussion instruments are available. I would be curious to know what a 'marching machine' is as I have never come across this instrument mentioned in any orchestration text, either European or American.

I can’t really advise you on a name, because as the composer it’s up to you to decide what the music is about and to use both the title and the notes themselves to convey this. Do you have some kind of programme or idea that was the basis for this work?

Now the music:

Tonality and structure: There are very few accidentals, suggesting that the music is firstly not in a very chromatic style but also does not modulate very much or with any great rapidity. In fact the music remains in the same tonal area for pages and pages: bars 54-123 - that's nearly hundred bars - are not only in the same key area but seem to use pretty much the same notes for the entire duration of this section. You might be aiming for a kind of neo-minimalist style but the rest of the score does not seem to me to fit this idiom.

The piece really seems to rely on a simple formula: a melody is presented over a single drone chord (in a minor key/mode), sometimes with a simple rhythmic accompaniment. Then there is an accelerando, before the same or similar melody is heard again loudly as a full orchestral tutti and then possibly once again. Lather, rinse, repeat over a different chord. There is no developmental thread running through the piece, little sense of the piece being a coherent whole with any overall narrative. Rather, it is a collection of segments like a medley of tunes strung together. Whether or not you agree, I feel a piece of music should tell a story – whether that story is explicit or abstract - and that different musical elements represent the characters and what happens to them over the course of time. That doesn’t happen here.

Rhythm: The music relies very heavily on quite simple and somewhat clichéd rhythms to give any motion to static harmonies. Indeed, rhythmically there is very little of interest in this piece, no important rhythmic motifs and with very banal rhythms in the melodies. The opening section of the piece is a particularly over-used cliché with the slow-notes-over-infinitely-long-pedal (the contrabasses will find the first 22 bars thrilling to play, I’m sure) but there is almost nothing going on here rhythmically apart from some very long notes. No way is this interesting enough to hold the listener’s attention.

Texture and orchestration: Almost no counterpoint. Textures are often maintained for long periods with little or no variation. I don’t think your melodies are interesting or inventive enough either to merit development or to be simply a ‘good tune’ (Tchaikovsky, for example, was pretty hit-and-miss at writing development sections in his music, but his music is still incredibly appealing because the tunes are so good and so instantly memorable. Of course, his excellent orchestration also helps). Some of your instrumental parts are eye-poppingly difficult in places. You might like to advise the use, as Richard Strauss does in some scores, of the 'Aerophone'; a somewhat Heath-Robinson device to enable winds to sustain indefinitely by pumping air into their mouthpieces, as it is one of the few ways to get, for example, the flutes to play bars 15-22. Of course, another is to divide the line between the two players, allowing them to breathe and perform the crescendo much more effectively. You need to specify contrabasses with a bottom C extension (only some of the players will have it) to play the opening drone. The string writing in bars 143, 146 etc. is practically unplayable at that speed, far too pianistic. But in general your orchestration is just dull. You treat each instrument as just a sound and don’t write for its particular characteristics and strengths, such that this music might as well be written for synthesizer. There are no instrumental solos, for example, and in tuttis you simple copy and paste instruments of a similar range together (how often did I see cello-trombone-bassoon doubling each other verbatim?). Nowhere is a group of instruments each given a contrasting individual line, nowhere does just one family of instruments play alone. There is no writing that actually makes use of what an instrument can do – string harmonics and tremolos, brass muting, wind articulations, extended techniques: these kind of things all bring the orchestra to life and actually make a flute part a part for flute and not just for anything with the same range. In addition, you do not specify solo or a2 markings for wind and brass.

Notation: A complete absence of any phrase or articulation markings, as you say - but do you really add these in at the end? Surely part of composing a melody or accompaniment figure is deciding how it will be played, and so slurs, staccato and breathing will be an integral part of the music that you 'hear' at the same time as the actual notes.

Final remarks: You might have gathered that this style of music isn’t my cup of tea. It’s very reminiscent of film and TV music that relies on the recycling of a few devices already mentioned but which is intended to be in the background anyway. Whereas you are proposing a stand-alone work for symphony orchestra, and for entry into a competition at that. I have to say I really don’t think this is interesting or original enough to do very well, aside from the technical weaknesses present . What in the music is you, and you alone?

A few comments in response to your comments:

This will (when its finished) be for the Toru Takemitsu composition award. Yes there is a set orchestration that I can use, which allows for 4 percussionists (including timpani). The marching machine that you ask about, is actually not that un-common in today's literature. In fact I performed a piece with my college that used it only last semester. (I am a percussionist). Its harder to explain, so if you just google it youll find what it is, as well as even how to make one.

Your comments on the music:

Tonality and structure; Im not sure what you are trying to imply with the comment about accidentals or even the modulation. I realize that there are not many accidents because the melodies I had in mind while writing are tonal to it's key, also at this point and time in the music I did not want to modulate to a different key. It seems that by your comment your implying that the music must change keys and not remain true to a key in order to be well written. One thing that popped into my head is Arvo Part's "Cantus in Memory of Benjamin Britten." The entire thing is simply a descending a minor scale that is layered in, without any accidentals, however is still extremelly well received and written.

You say that there are different "medleys" that seem to just be strung together. But they are all connected in their own ways to one another. There is a strong relationship, up untill the key change, of the tritone and minor 3rd from C. This is just a quick thought however about the connecting pieces.

Rhythm; Yes the beginning is very slow, because that what I was hearing...and in all honesty, If it wasnt slow notes over slow notes, it would be fast notes over slow notes, or fast notes over fast notes...all of these combinations have been done and done a million times. There is plenty of extremelly slow music out there that last much longer than what I have in the beginning of my piece, but people listen to it. So Im unsure why you would say that the rhythmic complexity, is not complex enough. I have all types of rhythms in there so Im not sure what you looking for within the rhythm...in order to "attract" a listener.

Texture and orchestration; it seems that you dont want me to have instruments doubling parts? yes I like to put cello parts in the bassoon and trombone, because that is the sound Im looking for...it would be extremelly difficult to write for a symphony orchestra and having each instrument an individual part. As far as specifics for different instruments, I tend to do this much later in the composing process, I like working with the big picture and keeping the big picture in mind. This means I write and punch in melodies of just the notes first to see whats going on.

On a side note, It seems that much of your comment is personal opinion of how you dont like this type of music? Id like to know what you think needs to be better in my piece, you pointed out many things that you thought was "wrong" but no advice on how I could possibly fix it, or improve on it.

Yes, apologies, I realised soon after putting this up that I hadn't actually offered you much in the way of advice on how to improve/finish this. But I've got to say that based on having had several works rejected from competitions myself, my comments are probably along the lines of what the judges of this one would say. I had a look at the Takemitsu competition and it is a major international event; the judges are all really successful and respected composers and thus any entries have to be really special to get noticed. In my experience, originality is the main thing that wins competitions - nobody is looking for a derivative work based only on tried and tested things in existing music; they want something bold and different.

Now, I'm going to double-post which I know is bad style but probably neccessary due to length. Here I will briefly respond to your comments. Then in the next post I will offer my ideas of how to finish this piece.

Tonality and structure; Im not sure what you are trying to imply with the comment about accidentals or even the modulation. I realize that there are not many accidents because the melodies I had in mind while writing are tonal to it's key, also at this point and time in the music I did not want to modulate to a different key.

Ok, I may not have been entirely clear here. Modulating to a different key is not the same as using several chords within a key area, which is what I would like to see. If you think of sonata form, the first subject group is (traditionally) in one key, but that doesn't mean the composer uses only the pitches of that one chord. Nonetheless, I think the following point will address this issue better:

It seems that by your comment your implying that the music must change keys and not remain true to a key in order to be well written. One thing that popped into my head is Arvo Part's "Cantus in Memory of Benjamin Britten." The entire thing is simply a descending a minor scale that is layered in, without any accidentals, however is still extremelly well received and written.

The Cantus is so clever a construction precisely because it uses only the descending pitches of the scale and instead creates renewal of interest through other parameters. The piece gradually changes in colour as the orchestra moves from very high registers to very low, the dotted rhythms create interest in their own right and also allow interesting cross-beat dissonances, and the bell appears at seemingly random places (actually they're not). Now to ask a rhetorical question: why, although only using one tonal idea, does this piece not become boring over its eight minute duration? Aside from the factors above, the answer is that there is nothing else to make this idea seem boring compared to. Because only this one idea is used, we do not feel that some parts of the piece are more lively or more tonally interesting than others. And so this is the problem with you piece: becuase you do have sections that are faster or slower or more rhythmic or use more chords, when you use very simple ideas with no interest they seem less convincing in comparison with these parts. If you just used a C major chord the whole way through but found very innovative things to do in other parameters then the music would be both original and work as a whole. This is what Part does and thus why the Cantus is so successful.

Rhythm; Yes the beginning is very slow, because that what I was hearing...and in all honesty, If it wasnt slow notes over slow notes, it would be fast notes over slow notes, or fast notes over fast notes...

I know this may sound subjective, but what you wrote at the beginning was just not interesting enough to serve as the start of a piece. An opening must draw the listener in, capture their interest and hold it. A better discussion of the properties of an opening section than I can write can be found on composer Alan Belkin's site (do read the rest of it; it's a very valuable resource). I will repeat though, that the device you use has been so utterly over-exploited it is almost devoid of any effect for the purpose of this work.

...all of these combinations have been done and done a million times.

Taken to its logical conclusion, why bother to compose anything then? Yet we do.

There is plenty of extremelly slow music out there that last much longer than what I have in the beginning of my piece, but people listen to it.

See my point above about Arvo Part's Cantus.

So Im unsure why you would say that the rhythmic complexity, is not complex enough. I have all types of rhythms in there so Im not sure what you looking for within the rhythm...in order to "attract" a listener.

Maybe complexity is the wrong word. Complexity in itself does not make for good art. Carefully controlled variety, however, does, and that is what would improve your writing. In any case, I stand by my point - this piece is less rhythmically diverse than Mozart or Haydn, and coupled with what we have already said about needing to generate interest in tonally stable periods, comprises a weakness in this piece.

Texture and orchestration; it seems that you dont want me to have instruments doubling parts? yes I like to put cello parts in the bassoon and trombone, because that is the sound Im looking for...

I don't think that's what I said. I am certainly not opposed to instruments sharing a line for short periods, neither is any composer in history! Cello-basson-trombone is in principle a very good doubling if volume is needed, but where I see it here it is not so good because the trombone part is so difficult. The thing is, orchestration is as much an art in itself as any part of composition and must be done with as much care. It's not a computer going to play this, it's real musicians who have spend decades studying their instruments (we hope). You owe it to them to make their parts interesting and practical to perform. Thus doubling, solos, or any other kind of orchestration must be studied and written with utmost craft.

...it would be extremelly difficult to write for a symphony orchestra and having each instrument an individual part.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Plenty of contemporary composers literally do, but even historical composers take care to use each instrument in an idiomatic and effective way, such that the parts are quite unique to the instrument.

As far as specifics for different instruments, I tend to do this much later in the composing process, I like working with the big picture and keeping the big picture in mind. This means I write and punch in melodies of just the notes first to see whats going on.

Okay, I have to get a bit more tough here. 'Working with the big picture' is the sort of meaningless guff one spews out when a job interview suddenly isn't going so well. Do you apply this principle to every aspect of your life? If I want to drive from London to Manchester I just point the car in roughly the right direction and hit the loud pedal, because that's 'working with the big picture', right? Where the actual road goes, speed limits, how much fuel I need, that's all trivial detail that doesn't matter for now, hmm? As a composer you are solely responsible for every aspect of your composition from the overall structure to the dot on a note in the fourth horn part. Thus you need to have a clear idea of what is going on - not about absolutely everything at once - but clear enough that your ideas are polished, coherant and of quality. Take a look at Beethoven's sketchbooks - he spends ages revising and refining his ideas until he's absolutely happy with them. The 'Ode to Joy' melody went through about twenty drafts before he wrote the tune we know today. He did not splash down the first thing that came into his head and come back to it later. In any case I'm not clear what your 'big picture' is anyway. What is the structure of this piece? How does it develop? What are you trying to communicate?

On a side note, It seems that much of your comment is personal opinion of how you dont like this type of music?

I could fob you off my saying that any comment is subjective, but I hope I have made and can continue to make clear the practical weakness in this style, which unfortuately translate into wekanesses in your piece. As I started out by saying, the judges of this competition will be thinking along similar lines.

Part two to follow later. I have to practice.

As promised, I will now spend some time suggesting how to improve this:

Now I've said enough times that I find the beginning dull and unengaging. So what to do? Well, I can see two immediate options. The first would be to put some kind of melodic feature over the chords you have. What exactly this entails would be up to you, but it should have some relation to material already in the piece. The other would be to have some kind of colouristic or harmonic effect - the 'gong dipped in water' is a start, but how about having the initial C pedal as a forte-piano in some instruments whilst others hold it on? Better still, you could have different instruments crescendo and diminuendo one by one to colour the note in differrent ways. That would maintain the simple essence of the idea but make it much more interesting.

You could write much more personal and attention-grabbing melodies by using features such as wide leaps, many different rhythms, swapping notes of a melody between instruments, melodies at different tempi, combinations of different articulations, etc. I really think your melodic writing is way too 'constrained by the barline' as is the way your chords move.

The rhythmic sections later on: Why not have less regular and predictable rhythms? You could keep changing where the chords come by using irregular bars, use two or more chords which rotate in differernt combinations, hocket chords between different combinations of instruments, have random silences, anything like that. Check out the music of Louis Andriessen for ideas.

Orchestration could do anything really, go wild with new and contrasting sounds and colours. Use or ignore tried-and-tested combinations of instruments as you wish. You really can give each instrument a completely individual part if you want. Above all, you're a percussionist, so show off what the percussion section can really do.

Structure is going to be a bit more up to you. You could have some kind of rondo where each section is repeated but with substantial changes (different mode or key, made longer or shorter, different material but based on the first time round), or some kind of arch form. Or find a way to make the piece end in a completely different mood to how it started. I would get rid of one of the accelerandos into a faster repetition of the tune; you can only really do this once before it sounds like the music is repeating its ideas too much.