River Fantasie

[Stenir]

Final set of parts.

[reith]

I was hoping you'd be able to get the score in, with or without PMing the administration. I haven't time right now to reconstruct the score - even with notation software I'd have to enter it part by part. I'll listen to part 2 later though, with the knowledge of what it's scored for.

[Stenir]

I'll post the score this evening. I got home late from practicing with the band I originally starting writing this for, so I was just happy to get uploaded what I did.

[Stenir]

Here's the score. I've tried to move stuff out of the way of other stuff (slurs, etc.). I'm still learning the nuances of the program.

But all problems aside, here's the score for everyone to peruse.


=====
Edit: 13 Mar 2007

I have posted the currently in work revised edition. For more information, see my latest post.

[reith]

Thanks for that. I'll listen to part 2 this evening!

Edit: Unfortunately my broadband has gone down and the password-holder has to call its admin to get whatever it is, reset. It's a promise I'll be back as soon as I'm on the air again. Sorry about that.

reith

[reith]

Ok, borrowing a computer this morning so able to dld part 2.

As you've said this is your first major composition, I hope you don't mind me making some of these comments - they're meant sincerely as we all have to do our first major composition. However, if you don't like them, please PM me and I'll alter them.

Also, these sound like midi-based renderings - could be finale/sibelius - none of which do music any favours though we try to listen through them. Looking at your score, the work would be much livelier played live and the moments of brilliance would stand out. You have piccolo and clarinets so they could really add brilliance in tuttis and climaxes.

You've done some excellent part writing under an excellent tune but don't often capitalise on their possibilities.

The whole work strikes me as too slow too long with too little variation in texture and voicing/registration. The more vigorous tail to Part 1 (rehearsal 72) leads back into the opening tempo that carries on into part 2.


EDITING IN PROGRESS...site trouble again this morning' 2nd edit - giving up right now. I've made notes and will type them up later - took me 1/2 hour of tries just to type in what's above here.

[Stenir]

I've got a Condensed Score in the works that I'll post as a Finale file.

Reith, please do post any and all notes. Although the timing of the piece at a strict tempo (which we all know tempo is never a constant 66 or 132) came out to be 15 min, I had the same thought about the length of the piece. So I tried running it through in my head and "conducted" it, and the piece dropped to about 11 1/2 minutes. Much better.

If you would like, go ahead and be as specific, now that there's a score. I hope you can help me make the piece better. The more notes, the better.

That goes for everyone else as well!

[reith]

Sorry, I almost lost my rag this morning trying to get stuff posted...ah, the vicissitudes of life!

My comments were more structural than detailed because your scoring looked good on paper but wasn't being well rendered in the audio files.

In Part 2 (169) things seem to start slowly but I absolutely loved the scoring/sound at 185, specially when the trombones/hns come in at 189. VERY nice. Even more at 194. But the few bars 'break' at 206 seemed to break the flow. Good when it picked up at 210 though it came to a musical halt at 218? I think this may be another case of real life working where the midi doesn't. A real ensemble could really squeeze some expression from it.

It took of at 4.31 (rehearsal 237). Nice raw 5ths and some real punchy energy. But at 5.10 (bar 3 p 21 - no rehearsal mark) it stopped apart from the tambourine - then more of the same only louder. Then at 6.03 it stopped again. It really felt as if some build-up to a climax was needed. This may mean modulating or introducing some figure that allows you to modulate - or doing something radical with the material - variations possibly, a major-sounding one? One with the theme inverted? Then ending on a tutti statement - perhaps in unison, very loud and at a slightly slower pace to really say 'here's the end bit!'.

But then, you're the composer and it's your call!

To sum up, congratulations on coming up with a work of this length as a first big one! Good solid melodies, good contrast when the tempi do change, and great scoring with some fabulous sonorities.

The dirge/chorale like sections seem too long overall (if I might be so bold, pruning may make it more engaging, specially taking out the bars where it seems to grind to a halt) and a work of this length cries out for a climax based around your main themes. I thought it was going to happen around 7.18 but no. Ideally it would come somewhere in the middle of part 2 - suggests itself just before the light bounce starts at 237 without going back to the initial slowness. Trouble is, you don't want to upset that glorious opening to part 2! You definitely need a bigger ending.

Others may feel differently and hopefully they'll give a listen and comment.


cheers,
reith

[Stenir]

I figured my ending needed a bit of work. But tonight, hopefully, my community band director will want to try it out. Things always sound much different in real life than through a synth.

As far as the Clarinet solo/trios go (obviously I like Clarinets), they really are meant to be played with the same flow, but at the performer's speed. I hope that made sense. Vary the tempo, but not drastically where it doesn't sound the same.

I think 66 bpm at the start is really meant to be the 72 at Reh. 22. That 72 is more like an 88, if you catch my drift. I think I may have a tendency to put things slower so I can hear all the interactions, and then that tempo gets stuck in my head.

I see what you mean at 206. I might try taking 206-209 out and take out the repeat of 202-205, but leave the Clarinet/Horn pickup into 210. So basically it would be 202 203 204 205 202 203 204 205, with the 2nd 205 having the 3 eighth note pickups into 210. Do you think that might be an option?

I know I saw the word Tambourine, so lemme make a complaint about that first. I don't know why, but when it rendered it messed up a bunch of the Tambourine line. Many of the rolls didn't render, but you probably caught that between the score and the files. Other than that, hopefully it wasn't too distracting.

Bar 3, page 21. I think I'm wanting those notes to be sfz and then decrescendo. At the start of the next page (Reh. 261), I'm thinking about doing straight inversion. You know, imperfect inversion. I think that's what it is. If you go up a second, you go down a second (F G A would then be F E D, etc.). I'm wondering how that would sound. That would change that part up a bit.

And instead of repeating Reh. 298, I'm thinking (although it might change the chording, since the 3rd and 4th beats of the four bar phrase are Bb in the 4th measure and Gmin7 in the 8th) about doing it a 4 measure phrase, repeat that, and then go into a second four measure phrase. I found a new chord progression I like, and in minor, as well. The first two measures would be Gmin, maybe a 7th thrown in. The next two would be a Edim7 chord, with an F to go between the two. It wouldn't be as full of motion as what 298 is now, so it should help the transition.

And there's a low C that isn't reachable by Bass Clarinets notated in the score. Trust me, it's not in the parts. I just didn't catch it when I went back in to format the score.

I've not so much hated the ending, but generally disliked it. It is a good ending, mind you, but I think I need to rescore the 6/8 theme so that there's more motion in the upper winds instead of a direct copy of the before. Keep the melody in the brass, keep the moving 6/8 versus 3/4 rhythms, but rescore it. What do you think?

But as far as the actual "coda" to the piece, I'm thinking of adding each of the main melodies together. I have to see if that's even possible due to their different chord structures. Perhaps where the Clarinet has the solo over the rising chords add a restatement of the opening Clarinet choir theme? Then move from that into contrasting the two themes from the beginning? Add the brass underneath it.

Nice, I think I have an idea...time to short score it.

I'll post it later as a separate short score to see what you think.

If you find anything else, Reith, let me know, please. This has really helped me out. (And it's not about duration, but how the piece plays out. Everyone knows I'd rather listen to a 30 minutes piece written well than a 3 minute piece of crap. That's honesty for ya.)

[Stenir]

My band director wants to do the piece even though I've told him I'm going to do some of these revisions. Does anybody want to help me go through the score and nit pick things? I know Reith has done a good job, but if someone wants to give it an in-depth review or knows someone that could, I would love that have that to help me.

Naturally, they'd have to read the suggestions already made to know what I as the composer thinks and what Reith thinks.

For now, I think the opening up to 151 is alright. I'm assuming that based on the statement that Reith made. 152-168 (the end of the first part's mp3) is apparently too slow. Am I assuming that correctly? If I'm not, let me know.

I have my badly hand-written score from a long time ago, but I'm going to hand-write a new one with all the changes. And for the first time in my life, it'll be in pencil!

That's so sad to say.

Well, we have until about the 20th of March for you guys to do what you do best and help make this piece a further success than my being able to compose it originally!

EDIT:

I'm debating on whether to add more percussion. Non-melodic at the least, but I'm not certain on melodic.