Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

Just now, I finished my work for flute and piano.

It is a contemporary classical, but I added a poetry to it.
Rather than experimental music, it is emotional music.
MP3 is played by the computer.
Piano part may have been a little too hard.
What do u think?

Views: 588

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

When listening, the musicality is here, and it makes for an interesting listen. I don't think it's notated in any reasonable way, however. I think the notation needs an overhaul, beginning with making sure the denominator in the meter is the same throughout (example: 3/8, 7/8, 9/8, etc.). I would also check with a pianist for readable piano notation. Additional instructions would be helpful in playing the extended flute technique which is labeled "sffz aeolian".

While I can picture hearing this at a recital, I can't fathom musicians getting to that point with its current notation!

It's a very beautiful piece of music. Thank you for sharing!

Beautiful! I do not think you can simplify the piano part considerably. 

Thank you for your comment.
And the denominator of the time signature change frequently, you'll be playing hard indeed.
But, in order to suppress the extent to which the current method of changing the rhythm freely, I have gone astray.
 in order to facilitate the playing, those who hide time signature might be good, like the etudes of Messiaen.



Janet Spangenberg said:

When listening, the musicality is here, and it makes for an interesting listen. I don't think it's notated in any reasonable way, however. I think the notation needs an overhaul, beginning with making sure the denominator in the meter is the same throughout (example: 3/8, 7/8, 9/8, etc.). I would also check with a pianist for readable piano notation. Additional instructions would be helpful in playing the extended flute technique which is labeled "sffz aeolian".

While I can picture hearing this at a recital, I can't fathom musicians getting to that point with its current notation!

To Mr. Bob Porter, Mr. Rudi, Mr. Andrew Gleibman,

Thanks a lot!!

It's a good thing he's not here, then!

But seriously, Ronald, do you know what it is called? I would prefer using its "real name". I'm sure I must have known once upon time. Without the proper term, I may be doomed forever having to call it, "the digit below the slash that looks a denominator, that really isn't, for it is not a fraction, thing".

Dust Composer (Ronald Hutasuhut) said:

A professor offended simply because I used the term denominator for time signature; "We can't say it's a denominator for it's not a fraction" he said in anger. 

Yes, removing the time signature, or a suggestion to ignore it, might be helpful. It is such a nice piece, it would be worth getting the notation readable for musicians. :)

Nobuyoshi Tanaka said:

Thank you for your comment.
And the denominator of the time signature change frequently, you'll be playing hard indeed.
But, in order to suppress the extent to which the current method of changing the rhythm freely, I have gone astray.
 in order to facilitate the playing, those who hide time signature might be good, like the etudes of Messiaen.

In the next work, I will consider to remove the time signature.
Thanks for the advice.


Janet Spangenberg said:

Yes, removing the time signature, or a suggestion to ignore it, might be helpful. It is such a nice piece, it would be worth getting the notation readable for musicians. :)

Nobuyoshi Tanaka said:

Thank you for your comment.
And the denominator of the time signature change frequently, you'll be playing hard indeed.
But, in order to suppress the extent to which the current method of changing the rhythm freely, I have gone astray.
 in order to facilitate the playing, those who hide time signature might be good, like the etudes of Messiaen.

Oh my, this notation is madness. Get Finale or something, this will at least make it readable up to a point automatically... even if a major overhaul is necessary. I would go for semi-free notation - probably 4/4 is the most convenient time signature, but you could swap between common measures and free notation for the loose parts. Also I would replace most of the long notes with whole notehead + horizontal line. Or quarter notehead without a stem, that's even nicer.

The piece is great.

OK, I'll buy the Finale in the near future.

it is too expensive, but it seems to me there is a need.
If I bought the Finale, I would fix this score.

Thanks.

You are correct, the score is very readable. There are some unconventional points, but they are easily deciferable with some study. I would put an effort into clearing the look a bit, moving some marks that clash with notes and so on.


Bob Porter said:

What software did you use to write this? I don't think you need different software. I'm not sure how much of the score needs to be "fixed" at all. I have seen many scores like this. I don't know how piano players figure them out, but they do.

I disagree that this score is easily decipherable with "some" study. Deciphering this score would be a monumental task, and there are two performers that need to do so. A new software won't clean it up, an understanding of notation for the performers' needs will.

The music itself sounds playable, and would be attractive for many flutists to play (I am a flutist, so I can't speak for pianists!). Nobuyoshi, this is a wonderful piece. You certainly have the composer's instinct and talent. Notation is a separate, but necessary skill, and can be a bit stifling. (When I compose, I often do so without any time signature in mind so I don't get distracted by the notation.) Adding the meter afterward, and making the notation as easy as possible for another person to read can take forever.  Perhaps there is a contemporary composition teacher you may be able to consult with where you live?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2017   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service