(The topic title line doesn't allow room to name the piece... never mind).
Recently completed. Doesn’t represent much of a stylistic development for me as it reverts to symbolism, something from which I was hoping to move away.
It’s athematic, arrhythmic, calm - mostly. Wisps of themes drift in soon to evaporate, and it makes use of silence and the sonic equivalent of lap dissolves.
I always appreciate comment with thanks. Basically done it still needs a little work and will be finalised in a month or so.
It’s unlikely to be performed live but may get a “virtual” airing at one or more of the music interest/appreciation groups in which I participate. I may submit the score to the BBC but as usual with little hope.
MusOrchXVI defin-eve-perfms-ext-end250923-160.mp3
Replies
Since all percussion is unpitched, I’d write it on a single-line stave.
The harp needs ideally a pedal chart to start with and then ongoing changes written in. Timp tuning also needs establishing from the start. Speaking of timpani, you haven’t written it into your instrumentation and it should be in bass clef. Your Gb at b95 is unplayable - drop an octave for a 23” or ideally a 20”, if you really want it high, or two octaves for 32” or 28” (it’s at the extreme range of either, I’d go for a tight 32" over a loose 28")
Horns - the way you indicate voices and instruments is a bit ambiguous. At b43 you instruct “2”, by which you perhaps mean the 2nd voice - or horn 2, but there’s no horn 2 in this stave. Likewise b17-19, hns 1&3 are unnecessarily confusing. I’d write them without the rests for the other horn and just add 1 and 3 as appropriate. Maybe it’s a convention I haven’t come across, but combined staves don’t need to default to indicating both voices as you do a few times. b47, are these a2? There are similar moments throughout. Your later usage of a2 at b82 makes these bars (like 76) more confusing since you seem to be breaking your own rules, and then when you indicate horns correctly from b113.
b81, trombones - I assume that writing two trombones into the trombone 1 stave is just a clerical error (and makes tbn 2&3 unclear, since it could be a2 or 2 or 3). I would only use up AND down stems when the two voices differ significantly enough to require separation, as you did with the horns in b54 onwards. The trombones from 81-84 are in rhythmic unison so I’d write them as you do in b85, possibly the gliss in b83 should stay as is for clarity. And there’s some redundant rests gummed up in there. Same deal in b93-95, writing stems in only one direction would also let the staccato dots lie directly and neatly above the notes. And 121, long held chords definitely don’t require voice splitting.
b95-6, similar with horns. I’d write b96 as a2 until the harmony to avoid the double notes. I’d also write numbers with full stops (and ensure they’re right on the note, which you don’t always do) but that could be unbearable pedantry.
As for the score, I'll bear your comments in mind when I do the final revisions.
I certainly agree about timpani tuning but I'm unlikely ever to dictate harp pedal settings. To me it would be rude!! given the harpist is likely to be professional. In scores I've studied it didn't happen and now wonder if it's an affectation brought on by composers rather than the demand of players.
I'm truly grateful for your listening and looking at the score in such detail / commenting. Much appreciated I can tell you. And once I've re-examined these details it could affect the way I approach engraving in future.
I HATE notation software. Sometimes it's unpredictable, sometimes it doesn't work properly and needs "workarounds" (example, changing voices involving tuplets). I'm going along nicely...hit a problem and it takes hours to work out what has to be done. The recent example of trying to remove a graphical cover to this score. It took over an hour to fail as none of the suggested instructions work.... It should have been dead simple. Increasingly I don't bother. My browser lets me extract individual pages from the pdf score, which I can then treat with Tippex and bundle them back in when I send the score off to be printed.
But enough of me moaning...
Again, sincere thanks for your work and attention on this score.
Bests,
Ivor
Harp... I *always* work out pedalling - it's in a lot of scores that I look at - and I think composers should as a matter of routine, for various reasons (spiel incoming):
Harpists have told me they at the very least like to see a composer has made an effort, that said probably other harpists don't like it;
It's not SO esoteric that a composer can't get it right or pretty close with a little study and time;
And perhaps the most important reason, working through pedalling will often indicate if you've written a bad or unplayable part. It will also generally tie in with the prevailing spelling and enharmonics of the piece and strengthen things generally. Working on harp has often brought things to my attention elsewhere in the score.
As came up in discussion with Jon Corelis' piece, harp can also be pedalled *against* the prevailing key in order to set it into more resonant flats where possible - there's room for this in your part I think. Say b19, C# D# E could be pedalled Db Eb Fb.
Your harp part is also sparse enough that pedalling should be easy to work out. With more involved parts it is, I admit, an absolute nightmare that my untutored brain collapses under.
Very much understood re NS. I've taken a long time to get mine into a shape that produces professional results. Working out how to notate multiple voices consistently, and creating a set of rules to stick to, only came together fairly recently.
I have a suspicion that BBC R3 won't play sample mockups or tarted-up demos. No reflection on yours - if I thought they would I'd try sending some of mine in - it just seems really unlikely given the plenitude of real recordings they have. But if you know different, that's good intel.
It's not SO esoteric that a composer can't get it right or pretty close with a little study and time;"[/i]
A-hah! Well, I do make the effort to make sure everything is playable with minimal pedal changes even if chords or progressions look weird as is often the case.
.
As for the BBC I send the demo so they can hear the mockup rather than work through the score...if they're so inclined which they probably aren't. I doubt many on the administrative side are capable of realising a score in their minds...especially mine!
I've posted the corrected version (which doesn't mean other corrections may be necessary).
Thank you again for pointing out.
Firstly many thanks for listening and your kind comment there.
As for the BBC I started from the notion that they broadcast recordings anyway. They set 192kb mp3 as adequate for DAB at the outset but unless I misunderstand, Radio 3 now goes at 320kb. So it hardly seems a step further to convert a 24bit-resolution wav to mp3 to broadcast provided the basic work + rendering met whatever criteria.
Admittedly it isn't a live recording - samples come in cans (and there're never enough articulations to do all we/I want) but as you say much work is worthy of airing.
As for the notation stuff, it defaults to far too much and takes effort to defeat sometimes. Like 'percussion'. If I want to use a perc stave it forces me to use instruments of its own choice on the various lines. I don't want that. And I don't want to spend half the rest of my lifetime finding out how to defeat it. The answer should be easy and obvious - but it isn't. Then...what can you expect from stuff thrown together by computer programmers - suitable for technophiles?
It altogether gives me enough frustration and headache that in future, unless I intend to submit a score elsewhere I won't produce one. Timeline is: for every 8 hours of composition time, there follows about 2-3 days getting it into the daw then about 5-7 days wrestling with the engraving from the midi export. Like I've said, I'm the Ned Ludd around here. :)
.
.