Elegy for String Orchestra

[Brett Harrington]

I made an account here to get some feedback for my most recent piece, anything would be very helpful!

 

https://youtu.be/N9Sk-SqFkpY?si=9wW_owO0aiIfRhfo

[David]

well it's certainly nice to have a serious work for a change on the forum (not that I have anything against the lighter side). This unfolds very beautifully and naturally. The harmonics from 4'20" is a nice touch, though I'd prefer an accompaniment. As the work goes on, I start to feel the need for a bit more textural variety -- the melody could perhaps be given to the cellos for instance in places and there could be more variety in the accompanying rhythms, for instance some skipping triplets or something and slightly more developed counterpoint as it starts to become a bit static. The end is curiously abrupt though I guess that's what you want.

Musescore shows here that it's finally coming of age with v.4 and its new MuseSounds --- certainly for those without too much money, it's becoming a genuine alternative for both mock-ups and notation. Only some very odd transitions (above all from 8'03") mar the overall expressive effect. Overall, a really nice, even memorable work.

[Brett Harrington]

Thank you for your comments!

I definitely felt it grow repetitive as well, bit I wasn't sure what to change or where to change it. Now that I've heard that same criticism from someone other than myself, I'll definitely look into fixing it.

Again, thank you for the help

[HS Teoh]

Very atmospheric beginning and gradual crescendo. I did find though, that after a while the main theme started to sound worn out; perhaps adding a contrasting theme might help? Or at least a 2nd subject to provide some relief from the main theme, so that the listener's ear doesn't tire out from hearing the same theme over and over. Or maybe some melodic development or variation over the course of the piece would help keep it fresh. Just throwing out some ideas here.

Around 8:20 or so, the sudden jumps in dynamics sound quite awkward. It probably would work well with a real string orchestra, but the computer rendering sounds quite jarring. Perhaps using short crescendo markings might improve the computer output?

[Brett Harrington]

Thank you for your comment!

It definitely needs some more material or to be shorter in general to stop it from being so repetitive.

Musescore made 8:20 sound really odd, it's meant to be subito jumps in dynamic (but without half of the harshness). I think it would sound good with a real string orchestra, but I doubt that opportunity will just pop up.

Again, thank you for your help!

[John Driscoll]

Lovely theme and very cinematic. The opening build works quite well IMO. I actually liked this quite a bit, so please understand my critical comments in that vein.

I second Teoh and David's comments regarding the repetition. There simply isn't enough material here to sustain 11 minutes. I'd say you need real contrasting material before the main theme returns or to start mercilessly cutting everything but the best moments and make it a much shorter 4-5 minute piece.

I'm also not convinced by all the key changes. In general, I think key changes need to be earned, both technically and emotionally. I was especially confused what was going on around the 8 minute mark; it did not seem in character with the music before and felt more like a bit of noodling in order to get to replay the theme again?

The dynamics jump at 4:54 also stood out to me (not sure if that's MuseScore but I thought maybe it was an audio glitch?).

Do you know the Gorecki 3rd? I felt evocations of that here.

[Brett Harrington]

Thank you for all of your criticisms!

I wanted the section around the 8 minute mark to build tension, but it does seem a little out of place in hindsight.

I don't believe there was any audio problems at 4:54. I wanted the quiet harmonics to suddenly jump up to the full string orchestra.

I've never heard of Gorecki, I'll look it up.

Thank you again for your time

[David]

the issue at 4'54" is a seemingly slightly truncated attack but is pretty minor in the scheme of things. There are already mentioned worse oddities in the rendering but are generally outweighed by its generally expressive nature. Listening to this again, I'm even more impressed with the theme which actually strikes me as being quite Mahlerian (and would not disgrace him). Inspiration is far more important than craft in my book though of course the ideal composition has both. I'm pretty sure that there's no need for a contrasting theme here -- only some greater variety in its treatment in some ways which have already been suggested. It may not be technically the best work so far posted on the new incarnation of this forum but I think it's the most affecting so I look forward to more.

I'm not that interested in the score per se but it does seem that some of the hairpin markings are rather short and not always totally logical which probably contributes to the rather forced dynamic changes at times.

[Dave Dexter]

Can you attach or link the score? A video with the score embedded and changing with the music would be really useful.

[Brett Harrington]

I'm not sure how to make the score move with the video, but here is a link to the score.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WORvkY-mlB5uY91DIH3UunuQDvXMXaqV/v...

[Dave Dexter]

Thanks for putting up the score - critiquing the music itself is personal and I don’t feel I’d be useful there, but there’s some engraving and notation issues I think you could sort out pretty easily. Caveat: I may not know what I’m talking about, but have decent practical experience.

Key signature: opinions on this go back and forth, but I think this work should be keyless and all the accidentals written in. A lot of musicians are used to it, I’ve spoken to some fairly big time conductors on what they prefer (no keys unless the piece is entirely in one), and it’s what I’d do. Your key changes a lot, often just for a few bars (or one bar - go home, b113-6, you’re drunk), and a C score would be cleaner. Certainly I’d drop keys from b87 to b124.

Divisi/unison: b78, 82, 86 etc in 2nd vns you need to add “div.” (and “unis.” subsequently). Unless these are written to be played as double stops, but in this case I might even specify that, since divisi is far more usual than stops in orchestral string writing. The slurred passages like b103-4 make me assume this is meant to be divisi, though.

Voicing: you have a few moments, I think only in 2nd vns, where the divisi is ambiguous. b133 - I’m assuming this is divisi for two beats then unison for the D#, but for clarity you’d have to again specify div. and unis. on the D# or (what I’d do) make the D# a double-stemmed note. This leads us to:

Cellos: my instinct would be to write these on one staff using up and down stems to separate the voices. I’d do this in the score - however I think the cellos don’t play unison once for the entire piece? So keeping them as independent lines could be perfectly acceptable, and I’ve simply never come across it myself.

General engraving: there’s a lot of minor but consistent issues in your dynamics, mainly in the many cresc. and decresc. lines. Sometimes they go through bars, sometimes they don’t, sometimes they rise and fall in position without needing to. b26-32 in 2nd vns sums of most of these issues. or b36-7 in cellos - 2nd cello the cresc. stops before the line, in 1st it goes through it.  It’s all pretty readable I’d say, but you may as well make it unimpeachable and create the best possible first impression for anyone potentially programming it.