March - the first movement of the Spring Trilogy for cello and string orchestra

This is the first movement of my Spring Trilogy (March, April and May) from a full album by here presented cellist Bernardo Brizani, who selected four composers to create a full twelve-month cycle of seasons. The score already has all three movements but the recordings are presented on separate videos.

This movement begins with slow, murkly chords in strings while cello shows a contrasting, arabesque-like energy. The middle part of the movement is a bit more agile and brighter in sound, while the ending returns to the initial mood. The music has neoromantic features but I do believe it is mostly in my own idiom.

Anything I say isn't gonna be very useful, since you've clearly gotten a performance of it, so it's obviously “good enough,” but I'll throw some stuff out.

What an interesting piece, here. It has some very Barber cello concerto-esque vibes, mixed with almost a little bit of Meyer's violin concerto? I love the harmonic language you used throughout and it's very refreshing to see some good string writing. I really liked the transition back to the opening material: I love cascade effects because I'm a normie, but it's used really well here to bring us back to the original register too, which is clever.

I think the only real musical note I have is just wanting to hear a little more textural variation. Like, I think the upper strings are homophonic with each other essentially the whole time, which is admittedly a nice split from the full homophony of the intro/ending material, but it feels like—especially at big moments—there could have been some more counterpoint. 

I have a few score nitpicks, like sometimes your markings that feel like they should apply to the whole group aren't done so (e.g., cresc. in bass in m. 16, mp for cello in m. 17). Bass note spacing issue in m. 73, etc.
I was very surprised to see you mix flats and sharps in m. 77, especially when the cello acquiesces to the B major in the orchestra by the end of the measure, but I understand wanting to make the contour clearer in the solo instrument. 
Have you considered using beam over rests? I'm sure you have; it's just some of the rhythms starting in m. 58 are (despite being totally fine with practice) kinda rough to look at on first glance, and you're at the disadvantage of doing it with 16ths and not 8ths as is normal for that kind of texture. 
m. 62, in my mind, clef changes are applied only to the note and not any rests; I'm sure it makes spacing look better having the clef change in the solo be just at the beginning but it made me do a double take. 
And I'm just selfish, but I'd have loved to see some bowings (🙂), just for that little extra professionalism pop, haha.

Great work and very enjoyable to listen to!!

29 minutes ago, Monarcheon said:

Anything I say isn't gonna be very useful, since you've clearly gotten a performance of it, so it's obviously “good enough,” but I'll throw some stuff out.

What an interesting piece, here. It has some very Barber cello concerto-esque vibes, mixed with almost a little bit of Meyer's violin concerto? I love the harmonic language you used throughout and it's very refreshing to see some good string writing. I really liked the transition back to the opening material: I love cascade effects because I'm a normie, but it's used really well here to bring us back to the original register too, which is clever.

I think the only real musical note I have is just wanting to hear a little more textural variation. Like, I think the upper strings are homophonic with each other essentially the whole time, which is admittedly a nice split from the full homophony of the intro/ending material, but it feels like—especially at big moments—there could have been some more counterpoint. 

I have a few score nitpicks, like sometimes your markings that feel like they should apply to the whole group aren't done so (e.g., cresc. in bass in m. 16, mp for cello in m. 17). Bass note spacing issue in m. 73, etc.
I was very surprised to see you mix flats and sharps in m. 77, especially when the cello acquiesces to the B major in the orchestra by the end of the measure, but I understand wanting to make the contour clearer in the solo instrument. 
Have you considered using beam over rests? I'm sure you have; it's just some of the rhythms starting in m. 58 are (despite being totally fine with practice) kinda rough to look at on first glance, and you're at the disadvantage of doing it with 16ths and not 8ths as is normal for that kind of texture. 
m. 62, in my mind, clef changes are applied only to the note and not any rests; I'm sure it makes spacing look better having the clef change in the solo be just at the beginning but it made me do a double take. 
And I'm just selfish, but I'd have loved to see some bowings (🙂), just for that little extra professionalism pop, haha.

Great work and very enjoyable to listen to!!

 

Wow, a lot to digest...

About bar 16. I guess I was sloppy not to add crescendo to basses.

About mixing sharps with flats: I prefer diatonic intervals to diminished even if the vertical structure looks strange, I guess for practical reasons (for example, this always happens when harp is used).

Beam over rests: from my experience, it depends what type of metre is used. I try to properly control the beaming but sometimes it looks a bit rough. Still, we are used to such notation at the ear and rhythm training sessions. 🙂

I usually don't add extra bowings, unless I am 100% in necessity for the specific articulation. Maybe I am a bit more aware of the bowing since I have a daughter who plays double bass. 🙂

Anyway, thanks for the comment. You really pointed out specific situations which made me take some extra peeks in the score. 🙂