Lyrical Piece In F sharp Minor

This work is Called 'Lyrical Piece In F sharp Minor'.

It is scored for Harp and Flute. I love the combination of these two instruments.

Cheers,

Saul

LYRICAL PIECE HARP & FLUTE.MUS

you should provide midi files also. :P

youre right but the midi destroys the music.

Saul, I don't see why you think a MIDI file would "destroy the music". You aren't even using Finale to its utmost to get the expressivity it is capable of. Your file looks exactly like a simple MIDI file. It has next to no dynamic markings, no phrase markings, no expressive markings.

Ok, so on to the music itself. This is quite pretty. It sound a litle bit like the musc of Faur

Thanks for these comments Cowboy...

I really dont know how the Harp works... do you know?

you could profit from a good book on instrumentation/orchestration. they noramlly give lots of good examples of how to use the different instruments and any particularities they might have.

one easy to use and understand book is the Walter Piston book "Orchestration".

the thing about the harp is that it basically has 7 strings. each string has a pedal which starts out in the "flat" position, moving the pedal one notch puts the string in "natural" position, and moving it one more notch puts it in "sharp" position. the 7 pedals are paced on each side of the foot of the harp, with 4 pedals on one side, and 3 on the other: E-F-G-A, and B-C-D.

so if the note C is sharp, then ALL the Cs on the instrument will be sharp at the same time. Every single chromatic change requires a pedal movement. there are 7 pedals. so heavily chromatic music will require LOTS of pedal shifts. it's not really idiomatic for the instrument.

Years back I took out one of his books from the Library I think it was called 'Harmony". Anyways I thought the book was written in a very boring way. I tried to read through it but was not inspired it was so boring and uninteresting. At time when good information is written in an uninteresting way its hard to follow. Anyways, I think I might get some of his books in the near future.

Years back I took out one of his books from the Library I think it was called 'Harmony". Anyways I thought the book was written in a very boring way. I tried to read through it but was not inspired it was so boring and uninteresting. At time when good information is written in an uninteresting way its hard to follow. Anyways, I think I might get some of his books in the near future.

Saul, it's not a spy novel. It's a book on a very technical subject. It's rather difficult to make it "exciting".. unless you yourself are excited by the subject. Almost all books on technical subjects are a bit arid at first. once you start to understand the subject they become really quite fascinating.

I actually find that the Piston "Harmony" book is one of the LEAST arid harmony books I've seen.

All that to say that the Piston "Orchestration" book is actually a lot of fun to read, with lots of examples and fingering charts. It's quite useful.

He doesn't go into enough actual detail about orchestration, and it's really more of a manual on instrumentation. However, it's stil a very useful book to have. Somehow, I think you'd find an actual orchestration text, like Adler or Rimsky Korsakov, too arid.

I have the Adler book on harmony .. its much more interesting then Piston thats for sure but I'll give piston another chance.

As a general rule of thumb, until you are familiar with writing for an instrument, you should either be consulting with a player of that instrument (if you don't yourself) or following established guidelines for writing. This allows your pieces to sound idiomatic, and will increase your chances of getting your music performed.

As far as the score goes, you should make sure it is presentable before you post it. You don't need the blank measure at the end, though it is an improvement over the 20 or 30 blank measures at the end of most of your pieces. There are also almost no dynamics, phrase markings, or articulations. Are you asking for it to not be performed?

As for the music.

1) It hurts to say this, but there are many times when you shouldn't have both instruments playing. If you're going to write an extended passage in octaves or in unison, unless there's something incredibly interesting going on between the voices, or unless it's a climax point or if you're just doubling a part for a large (more than 10 voice) group, you shouldn't write it. Sounding together in real performance, the attack on the harp and the sound on the flute are not going to go well together, and unless you have an excellent flautist and a wonderful harp, the two are not going to play in tune with each other for THAT long of a time. No way.

2) All of your rests are too long between phrases. You have continuous motion for a long period of time, and then 4 beats of silence. Instead of just stopping and starting, think of a way to bridge between your phrases, or at least only make the rest a beat or two long. Instead of having a blank meaure , try having an instrument come in on an upbeat, or something like that. It will help make the music a little less... well.. boring.

I have to say, again, that for the amount of development that you (don't) employ, this is too long. I'm glad to see more chromatic harmonies, but the motives don't feel very developed. They're repeated, varied, and just repeated some more. the entire piece should be a slow, organic transformation.

It's pretty.

But boring.

Basically you have that same triplet type rhythm repeated over and over.

And over.

Interrupted by temporary periods of silence and a part in the middle with other stuff. It wasn't that interesting at all, especially since everything is in unison. Basically, I'm repeating everything QC already said.

Also, you have practically every note in triplets.

So why not use 12/8 time, or 6/8. That'll make it simpler to play.

Your harmony is something special in this piece, I'll give you that.

The harp, as mentioned earlier, is pretty much unplayed...

The unisoins in the flute+top staff harp are unimaginative.

Either way there are many things, all metnioned in the previous posts, that could use some "fixing", but of course this is up to you really...

There is little to say after QC really...

But again, well done on the hamonry, it is beautiful.

I'm sorry but could you post a midi file? Its just that I don't have finale so I can't listen to it at present. I'm sure midi won't destroy the music, although its probably a lot weaker sounding than finale. I would really like to hear it.

Saul, it's not a spy novel. It's a book on a very technical subject. It's rather difficult to make it "exciting".. unless you yourself are excited by the subject. Almost all books on technical subjects are a bit arid at first. once you start to understand the subject they become really quite fascinating.

I actually find that the Piston "Harmony" book is one of the LEAST arid harmony books I've seen.

All that to say that the Piston "Orchestration" book is actually a lot of fun to read, with lots of examples and fingering charts. It's quite useful.

He doesn't go into enough actual detail about orchestration, and it's really more of a manual on instrumentation. However, it's stil a very useful book to have. Somehow, I think you'd find an actual orchestration text, like Adler or Rimsky Korsakov, too arid.

I agree about Piston's Harmony, I found it really interesting, from start to finish, I find his manner of teaching very easy to follow, and not the least bit boring.

I've ordered Piston's Orchestration, in fact, it should've arrived yesterday, damn them :) I have RK's Principles of orchestration, are there any other books you would suggest for actual orchestration?

Mark :)

I have got piston's orchestration. I borrowed it from my teacher at school. Its very useful (IMO).

Anyway I now have finale notepad so I can listen to your music after all.

First off I just want to say that the harmonies in this piece were really cool and I loved the bit on page 5 that differed from the first idea. Harmonically it was great. My criticism would be that the melody is perhaps a little rhythmically repetitive which made it remind me of my violin playing exercises rather than a tune (don't take that offensively). Having said that I enjoyed the chord progression in that melody a lot and I liked the pitch of the notes. Maybe if you were to just change the odd note here and there and spice up the rhythmic pattern it would work better. I'm sure you agree with me on that point because I noticed you did try to alter the pattern of the harp at the end with the semiquavers to make it more interesting. Because the piece feels like its in compound time and not simple time throwing in the semiquavers after having the triplet pattern for so long really confused me as a listener because its like a change of time signature. It took at least 5 bars for me to adjust to it. Maybe if you change the time signature and rewrite it out (I know that requires a lot of effort but I think the piece is probably worth it) you could start messing around with the melody and accompaniment rhythmically with more ease. Your other option would be to condense the piece and make it shorter.

Overall though I enjoyed it. It was nice to listen to and worked well on the whole.

you might be surprised to know that I have the Piston orchestration book next to me at all times while I work.

Often times, it will be for simple things like fingering details, or trombone slide positions, but I still have it at my side when I'm working. I may not be turning to it as often as others might, but Is till do refer to it quite often. So even with multiple degrees in music, books like that are invaluable resources.

Your harmony is something special in this piece, I'll give you that.

The harp, as mentioned earlier, is pretty much unplayed...

The unisoins in the flute+top staff harp are unimaginative.

Either way there are many things, all metnioned in the previous posts, that could use some "fixing", but of course this is up to you really...

There is little to say after QC really...

But again, well done on the hamonry, it is beautiful.

Thanks for these comments, Nikolas.

Do you have any suggestions how to make the Harp part playable?

You do understand that if I change the piece some of its charm or beauty will be lost? Mabye change the instrument all together and use the Piano isntead? After all I wrote this piece originally for Solo Piano.

Thanks for everyone else for their comments....

Cheers,

Saul

the thing about the harp is that it basically has 7 strings. each string has a pedal which starts out in the "flat" position, moving the pedal one notch puts the string in "natural" position, and moving it one more notch puts it in "sharp" position. the 7 pedals are paced on each side of the foot of the harp, with 4 pedals on one side, and 3 on the other: E-F-G-A, and B-C-D.

so if the note C is sharp, then ALL the Cs on the instrument will be sharp at the same time. Every single chromatic change requires a pedal movement. there are 7 pedals. so heavily chromatic music will require LOTS of pedal shifts. it's not really idiomatic for the instrument.

I disagree. I think it's a very lovely and evocative piece, and from a brief reading of the score, it's not too difficult. if you've seen Faure's harp music, or Debussy's parts for it in his orchestral scores, you'll notice that the chromatic quality is intense - this was a nearly explored feature of late Romantic music, after all. And unless there are two pedal changes on the same side of the instrument at the same time (as you say, 3 on the left, 4 on the right), it's playable. Difficult, but playable. Most of the accidental paraphernalia in this piece seems to be indicative of accidentals in other octaves, which is why it looks overloaded - there doesn't appear to be more than two pedal changes per figure, and even the more difficult can be ironed out quietly and if need be, enharmonically.

I disagree. I think it's a very lovely and evocative piece, and from a brief reading of the score, it's not too difficult. if you've seen Faure's harp music, or Debussy's parts for it in his orchestral scores, you'll notice that the chromatic quality is intense - this was a nearly explored feature of late Romantic music, after all. And unless there are two pedal changes on the same side of the instrument at the same time (as you say, 3 on the left, 4 on the right), it's playable. Difficult, but playable. Most of the accidental paraphernalia in this piece seems to be indicative of accidentals in other octaves, which is why it looks overloaded - there doesn't appear to be more than two pedal changes per figure, and even the more difficult can be ironed out quietly and if need be, enharmonically.

I'm sorry, what is it you are "disagree"ing with?

I just gave a technical explanation of the mechanics of the modern chromatic harp. Is there some element you wish to correct?

Saulsmusic I liked it good harmonies and blah blah blah like everything else people said they liked about. My only real big concern I thought there was, was the rythm of the flute in that main melody. Starting a triplet on the end of a beat like that just seems akward and to me it would be rather difficult to sight read like that. But, thats just my opinion.

I don't think much of this matters anymore, the guy is banned anyway. :)

(and Piston orchestration is incredible, I totally agree!)

I'm sorry, what is it you are "disagree"ing with?

I just gave a technical explanation of the mechanics of the modern chromatic harp. Is there some element you wish to correct?

Yes: I'm disagreeing that chromaticism is not idiomatic for the harp. (once you've picked through that hideous double-negative...) The technical restrictions only apply in extreme cases, such as direct shifts during a note decay and double-sided pedalling. In much of Wagner's music the harpist is changing pedals every quaver note. For a good harpist, pedal fluidity is a vital element of performance; and this piece is playable.

Basically I'm saying that a harp is no more exclusively diatonic than a piano is exclusively chromatic.

(also modern harps are known generally as "pedal harps" to differentiate them from a late nineteenth century development known explicitly as the "chromatic" or double-strung harp that Debussy famously wrote for, further proving my point.)