Work for pipe organ, feedback sought

[Dave Dexter]

Mockup with score video becuse I can't attach files: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOnzEUsb4EI (mockup uses an organ vst which is serviceable, but doesn't reflect the intended changing mood throughout the piece)

Apologies for two music uploads in a week, but the former was for interest whereas this may well benefit from some critique. It's an (unnamed) work for organ from last year which I want to try sending to various cathedrals and churches. Inspired by the earlier discussion here about Bach and parallels, I overhauled it somewhat and it's now about as good as I can get it.

Vital caveats to consider :) This was composed for a contest to be a companion piece to Bach's "Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAXNtHdQB08), the only Bach piece I've heard that left me completely cold. A little of that DNA survives in my piece, mainly the prevailing Eb key centre, the pedal/melody rhythm in a few bars, and the generally mellow, uplifting tone. However, it was not composed to be especially Bachian - although it was meant to sound very organistic, and it's hard to escape Bach's influence on extremely organ-sounding organ works. Decent chorale voice leading goes cheek by jowl with parallels in this one.

Organs have their own suite of idiosyncratic terminology and limitations which I researched and abided by as much as possible, checking a few parts with an organist. The consensus seems to be that specific stops and colours are best left general and to the organist, which I did for the most part. This was composed for a cathedral organist and assistant, with organ to match, and so might require a simpler interpretation if played on a smaller instrument.

Undeniably a love letter to florid, majestic organ works of the past. Any thoughts are welcome, though if you hate the music itself I can't do much about that. My one specific uncertainty is the broken triplet rhythm in the top manual in b8, beats 1 and 2 - I feel like it doesn't match what's actually being played, but not being a reader can't know for sure. Thanks, all.

[HS Teoh]

The abundance of triplets makes me think that this really should be notated in 12/16 instead of 4/4. It's rather awkward to read so many triplet brackets when things could have been much less cluttered had the notated meter been 12/16 instead.

[Rowy]

Or 6/8. The triplet brackets aren't really necessary all the time. When I use them, I notate them in the first two bars. After that it's obvious that those are triplets.

[Dave Dexter]

The overall rhythm is rooted in 4/4, certainly for the first and final third, and there's a lot of classical precedent for abundant triplets in 4/4. I don't think repeated triplet brackets are cluttered exactly? They're completely unambiguous, which in my experience is vital because musicians can decide to misinterpret something you thought was obvious.

I did see that Chopin, as one example, is often notated for just two bars and then the triplet markings are removed. But then my pianist friend has Chopin scores where they're notated throughout.

I suppose, if the contentions are subjective things like this rather than "these 102 bars are unplayable", that's a good thing for the piece :)

[Rowy]

I honestly don't know what to think of it. There are bits that sparkle and those parts alone are reason enough to publish this work. The rest I don't get, but that could be just me.

[Dave Dexter]

Now Rowy, you DO know what to think of it: you don't like it. And that's fine :)

[Rowy]

You probably didn't know I'm Dutch. The Dutch are known for their straightforwardness and brutal honesty. Well, that's what everyone keeps saying. It's not true, really. We're just being blunt, but as long as everyone thinks we're just being honest, we're getting away with it.

Since I'm a very polite lady, and there is some Belgian blood in the family, I choose a different approach. If I think a piece really sucks, I don't reply. Of course I can choose not to reply because I'm too busy or I miss a post in this wretched forum.

Still, again, some parts have a quirky rhythm and a nice sound to them and I wished there was more of them, because I don't get the rest. It's too modern - or hostile towards the public - and I think you should try to make friends with the public.

This reminds me of my daughter when she was young. She liked me to read stories to her, but European fairy tales can be quite brutal. She listened quietly, but when I finished the story, she always said: ... and then they were all friends.

[Dave Dexter]

I honestly don't mind if you don't like it, the music is what it is - I'm more concerned with engraving and notation.

However, "modern" now feels like a blanket term for things you don't like, especially since you recently said to me that another of my pieces was too dull for modern audiences :) Is this then too *modern* for modern audiences? Feel free to note which passages... I have a suspicion, but I could be entirely wrong.

[Rowy]

Which of your dull pieces do you mean?

[Dave Dexter]

Relics.

[Rowy]

Because of the old technique in 'Relics,' or the old harmony, if you wish, a modern audience, accustomed to more sophisticated harmonies, might find it sounding a bit dull. This is an entirely different matter from appreciating modern music in a contemporary style.

It's like being surprised that the audience doesn't like medieval music, nor does it like serial music, and then ask me, how's that possible?