Exeliksis for Chamber String Orchestra...

Aha!

Ok, cheers for the explanation.

just keep in mind that I'm not the one conducting, nor bringing the performance. Do not wish to take credit for the great job that Neil did (the conductor) and the orchestra of course.

And again thanks for the nice words :)

Alright, so let's start by saying that I liked this and that the performance was pretty good.

I followed the score and music, and looked a bit at your analysis. However, I'm a fan of music for the sake of music, so I stuck with just the score and the music.

And the impression was, well, I found it definitely interesting, even if it's a take on the same'ol elements. The cluster formations are nice, and I like the overall effect caused by the progression into them.

About the handling of the string orchestra, I particularly liked the certainty with which you handled the groups and I can see why you would want what you did.

Taking cues from Penderecki, Xenakis and such other composers I think you're using the textures/colors the effects bring in order to provide a skeleton, which I also think works in this case rather well.

However because of this, the piece can seem like it is made up of smaller segments and the overall "effect" is not of one single progressing ..thing, and instead it's of a lot of smaller things grouped together.

In fact, it would be safe to say that while you did announce the clusters near the end and when they came it contributed to the overall feel, there is sometimes a feel of lack of musical material development. That is to say, you put forth a LOT of material, and new elements pour in over the length of the piece, but there's little room to cement them as part of the whole.

Like I always say, if this is the effect you wanted, then alrighty. But I would've developed more on the single ideas you have going there, rather than throwing more and more stuff in there as it goes along.

Now, specific to the score, I'm seeing a lot of markings, specially beginning at measure 158 which I simply can't hear, though I see them written down. I'm left wondering if perhaps this was the intention, or perhaps the performance was not that good in this particular section.

Could also be that this is like parts in Penderecki's Threnos where the effect is meant to cause a cacophony where each individual effect is lost to the "whole", if this was the intention, then I would say it was accomplished.

But overall, I would say that I enjoyed this, it was a nice listen and did not waste my time at all. The score is clear and readable, though I would do a little more organizing of the writing, or spacing out the scores a little, but that's just me. ;P

SSC (may I ask what the initials stand for?)

Thank you for your thorough post! I'll try to reply to all of your points and hope I won't miss any. :)

First of all, thank you for taking the time and for enjoying the music. I certainly accept, outright everything you say in your post, as it is your personal opinion. Sure, I'll attempt to justify most things you mention, but still your opinion is as valid as mine and as everybody else's . ;)

Now quote per quote:

Alright, so let's start by saying that I liked this and that the performance was pretty good.

I followed the score and music, and looked a bit at your analysis. However, I'm a fan of music for the sake of music, so I stuck with just the score and the music.

And the impression was, well, I found it definitely interesting, even if it's a take on the same'ol elements. The cluster formations are nice, and I like the overall effect caused by the progression into them.

Thanks and yes it's a bit of... the usual, but I wasn't searching for anything completely unique, and just something to... progress and develop. So yes, it is the same'ol elements, probably.

About the handling of the string orchestra, I particularly liked the certainty with which you handled the groups and I can see why you would want what you did.

Taking cues from Penderecki, Xenakis and such other composers I think you're using the textures/colors the effects bring in order to provide a skeleton, which I also think works in this case rather well.

However because of this, the piece can seem like it is made up of smaller segments and the overall "effect" is not of one single progressing ..thing, and instead it's of a lot of smaller things grouped together.

hmmm...

Here I'm not sure, as this piece is in fact in 4 "movements", which are dead obvious every time. 1st part from the begining until where the violas go solo, 2nd part from viola solo until before the big clusers, 3rd part big clusters, 4th part fast outro...

Everything (seems to me at least) is coherent and does derive from the same material, so I'm not exactly sure to what you are refering. It's not a single movement but it is a single idea.

In fact, it would be safe to say that while you did announce the clusters near the end and when they came it contributed to the overall feel, there is sometimes a feel of lack of musical material development. That is to say, you put forth a LOT of material, and new elements pour in over the length of the piece, but there's little room to cement them as part of the whole.

On the contrary, I'd say that I don't use any material really apart from transformations of the original "series" and the developement of the idea of the cluster, which primitively gets introduced very soon at bar 5 actually. The new elements appear in the end of the piece, after bar 158 (which again do have a point, but are not a part of the "series" or any other idea really). It's "all" counterpoint really.

The developement which the title refers to (exeliksis = evolution, in Greek) happens in 2 different levels: First the division of the string sections to solo instruments, second the movement out of consonance and into dissonance. Reaching dissonance, also means, in this case, out of the melodic material, which is rather consonant (the "series" itself). Without the series, all I felt that was left, was the clusers... Not exactly music, but...

Like I always say, if this is the effect you wanted, then alrighty. But I would've developed more on the single ideas you have going there, rather than throwing more and more stuff in there as it goes along.

Can you indicate the "more and more stuff" that I threw in, cause I find it that I kept to rather minimal material actually and lots of developement (of course, I can probably understand what you mean, since if you take any melody and break it into developement you can end up with pretty much anything... so...)

Now, specific to the score, I'm seeing a lot of markings, specially beginning at measure 158 which I simply can't hear, though I see them written down. I'm left wondering if perhaps this was the intention, or perhaps the performance was not that good in this particular section.

Could also be that this is like parts in Penderecki's Threnos where the effect is meant to cause a cacophony where each individual effect is lost to the "whole", if this was the intention, then I would say it was accomplished.

Yes, with 20 (didn't count) different lines happening at the same time and not actually going more for cacophony and independent (or is it independant?) sound rather than micro stuff (ala Ligeti) or something simmilar. The idea (more theoritically, but I did find that it also works sonically) was that up to then all strings, although they had different pitches, they were rather the same, grouped together in sync, so this breaks up, the last thing to break before the end. The full independance.

Keep in mind that the orchestra was a student orchestra, and I was aware of that, so I did intentionally keep things somewhat simple and I am very happy with the performance and recording (and really happy with the conductor, Neil Ferris)

But overall, I would say that I enjoyed this, it was a nice listen and did not waste my time at all. The score is clear and readable, though I would do a little more organizing of the writing, or spacing out the scores a little, but that's just me. ;P

Thanks again, and indeed the score could use a bit of cleaning up, but I doubt if even the 1% of all composers in the earth really touch earlier scores! :D Give me a decade or so and maybe I'll touch it up later... hehe... (no, actually I must clean it up, in all truth. I know I must and will. Actually, not too long ago I bugged QCC about comments on the score, which he very happily and professionally provided)

Thank you for your time. :)

I see what you mean with the development. I did get the impression you were shooting for "OK I have the tone material, now I'm going to work it in different ways" approach, but the effect I got was that instead of working the same material it sounded like new things instead.

About the structure; well, if you intended four movements and separations, then alright. I wasn't sure if that was the idea, so I just figured you had different "phases" of the development shooting for a larger overall picture or effect of sorts.

I do see it's the same basic idea throughout the entire thing, just presented in different ways apparently. But because of that some of it may end up getting lost in the process.

And, well, if your tone material is really minimal then any transformation or variation will sound drastically different. If your tone material is just the note G, for example, the moment you play it as an A it won't be really expected that A is a variation of G, yet in theory it should be.

My favorite part of the piece were the clusters and the "each violin at the time" thing you did, but mostly because the bass instruments were providing a contrast. I think that clusters are music, too. ;D

I think perhaps a better way to define the beginning and sections where there is a counter-point style development (like the soloist viola parts) would be to call it interval-related sections, which is more accurate. Or at least sounds more with what you're working with than the tone-organization system. But that's just semantics and junk.