Piece for Guitar and small orchestra(in progress)

[Boneman]

Any comments or advice always welcome!


Not finished as in it needs polish now!

[PeterG]

Greetings Boneman,

Thank you for sharing this nice piece; lovely is what comes to mind first.

I'm no Steve so don't expect detailed, technical questions or comments from me, but I guess you won't mind a few impressions / questions?

- have you considered replacing the guitar with something else, a piano? (ok, ok.. I know I'm a piano man it seems but I think a piano could be a better match to the ensemble).

- I specifically liked the wind instrument parts, very beautiful harmony..

- the transition to the faster part is very nice with the flutes. This part I like a lot but here even more I think the guitar part could come out stronger. Don't get me wrong; I think they are good guitar parts, I like the sound of them, but just think it's a bit outplayed by the ensemble with their full harmony sound.

- the transition at 3'39 is a bit sudden, unlike the previous one where I thought...."He, nice". Here I thought " What??........ oh"

Can you share the score too please (in private if necessary)?

Thanks, I enjoyed listening to it.

Peter

[stevel]

Originally Posted by PeterG

Can you share the score too please (in private if necessary)?

Thanks, I enjoyed listening to it.

Peter

Score please Kevin.

Steve

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Boneman

Any comments or advice always welcome!


Not finished as in it needs polish now!

Kevin,

Forgive me if I pay extra attention to the Guitar, but I'm a trained Classical Guitarist so I can't help myself!

One of the problems with Guitar is composers don't seem to know how to treat it - is it a solo instrument, an orchestral instrument, both? As a Guitarist, I see it as all of those but what I see with other composers is a tendency to compose for it as if it were a solo instrument, even in an orchestral setting (and this is partly due to the fact that the majority of works for the instrument are solo, and not orchestral).

I think the key thing to remember is, just because a Guitar CAN play chords, doesn't mean it HAS to play chords.

Just to give you an example, in your first Guitar section, you have it accompanying itself. Good.

But later you've got places where it would be better just to let it take the lead line, or the accompaniment, not necessarily both. I don't have the score up right now but I'm thinking of a spot where you have whole notes in the lower part - A - Bb - and up, and moving notes (8ths I think) in the upper part. Some other instrument - horn or bassoon is doing the whole notes too. There's no need to make the guitar part difficult by giving it the whole notes as well. And this brings me to my next point:

Guitar is a quiet instrument - while most performers today will amplify, it still should be assumed it will be played acoustically, and that scoring should be light. As a result, trying to do things like have th guitar double a pizz bass line while it plays a melody line as well are ineffective. It's best to let the bass have the bass notes, and give the guitar the melody.

In fact, I'd say one of the main reasons to include guitar is to do those things that orchestral instruments can't do as well (on single instruments or in families in some cases): Chords, Arpeggiated Accompaniments, and Melody Lines with a distinct Timbre.

Doing something like a Guitar arpeggiated accompaniment with a Flute or Oboe melody can be quite effective.

Doing something like quiet string or wind chords (sustained) with a Guitar melody can be quite effective.

In both cases, the Guitar should be ONE OR THE OTHER - play melody, or play accomp - not both.

I think that's where most people get lost - they kind of feel like it's a little to simple to ask a guitarist to "just" play a melody when they can accompany themselves. But hell, Cellists can accompany themselves can't they? And we give them melodies all the time. Guitar is no different, just a different timbre. That timbre will stand out against sustained background chords.

Only in sections where the guitar is a featured soloist (like your first entrance) is it really worth doing multiple parts in an orchestral setting.

Now, that's not to say you can't have a Guitar Bass line and Melody, with Viola doing an inner part or even counter melody. But when you start asking a section of strings, or a pair of Bassoons to play against it, anything the Guitar does that is too similar to their parts will get swallowed.

Chords are another effective guitaristic device - and I don't even mean "strumming" (which is it's own effect and is quite effective because it's so different from any other texture in orchestra writing) - just playing chords on the down beat for example. While this is basically the Guitar taking an accompanimental role, it still produces a nice Timbre, and textural variation that stands out.

I feel like you've got some nice uses of the Guitar in here, but there are a few spots that I think you could "simplify" the part by letting it become "just accompaniment" or "just melody" and not trying to do both.

Now, more specifically about the piece. Hmmm. You've got what I call "patched together" syndrome - right at the top you've got this really nice intro with the Dm7 moving to Cm7 chords, and then, when the guitar comes in, it does something COMPLETELY different. Now - I'll say that actually both parts are nice - on one hand, I love that dm7 to cm7 change, and it struck me as odd that you didn't continue that into the guitar section. But on the flip side it was kind of cool that the Guitar sets up this "antithesis" to the intro. Unforutunately though, this doesn't continue. So it's like I never know if the guitar is going to be "with" the piece, or "in argument" with the piece. At worst, it sounds like "hey I have this part" and "hey, I'll stick this part with it" and you get strange transistions to quite different parts.

Now, I'm not saying it doesn't work. You've got sections coming back, and you've got nice dialogue between parts, etc. But for me, it's like, on the edge of being a little too "patchwork". It's close enough to "I meant that" to work, but you're on a slippery slope there I think :-).

I want to say something Kevin, and I don't want to offend you becuase I mean this totally constructively, but, I just sent a post for Peter's piece and mentioned the sort of "pseudo-classical" style of composition. Yours is sort of like that too. What I mean by that is, looking again at the guitar part -

It's very unusual. It's not "wrong" - it's not unplayable (I played through it all the way and didn't catch any funkiness - there are a couple of cumbersome spots, but nothing a pro couldn't take care of). But it's very "un-guitaristic". Again, that's not a bad thing - it's nice to have something refreshing.

But this takes me to something I mentioned to Peter - when you write something like this, it sets people up for the expectation that the piece is going to be fairly "normal", and when you don't follow "normalcy", you end up with people thinking you don't know what you're doing - even if what you did was intentional.

I'll give you an example - when you get to the chordal sections - I think you've got some D minor chords on the down beat alternating with maybe a minor or something (or is it when you change key?) - I remember the Dm chords with an A in the bass. 2nd inversion? Kind of funky.

Now, a guitarist might play a high chord like A D F# while the strings play Ds underneath, but to voice a Dm chord A F D with the A being the 5th string (that's A in the first space of the bass clef for non-guitarists) you get kind of strange thing happening. That's something you might get in a solo setting (because Guitarists take advantage of open strings) but in an orchestral setting, it seems like you'd want the chords in more "normal" positions - Root position, or close position with another instrument taking the bass.

Additionally, the other patterns you have are not very guitaristic. Once again Kevin, this is not "wrong" but it's just that these are close enough to real guitar parts that they seem "wrong" rather than "intentionally different" if you see the distinction. I think this might come off as "hey, this guy seems to know enough to make possible voicings and combinations, but why does he do THIS, when THIS is so much more sensible".

I'm trying to remember your guitar opening, which is melody notes with an accompaniment of arpeggiated chords. But here's a funky thing on guitar - I think your 2nd harmony is Gm, and you have a G Bb arpeggio. The problem is, G and Bb are likely to be taken on the same string which makes them less "arpeggio like" and more "melody like" - so what happens is your accompaniment constantly changes between a "line" and "arpeggiated chords". A good guitarist will pull it off, but again, it's not so "logical" from a guitarist's perspective. It might be better for example to provide a counterpoint to the melody that's obviously linear rather than chordal, or, simplify the chords so they are not arpeggiating all the time, but have some whole notes (or it's in 3/4, so you know) and filler tones where necessary.

And like Peter - what's with all the 2nd inversion chords? Just because you CAN write 2nd inversion chords doesn't mean you HAVE to write 2nd inversion chords! Asking the Guitarist to play all of those voicings with the 5th in the bass is kind of strange - especially if a lower part has a different bass note.

So Kevin, I'm not trying to poo-poo your work. It's a quite enjoyable piece. I don't know that I'd ever want to play it though because it would take such a mental shift to get out of "what was this guy thinking when he wrote this" in order to get the music down, I'd get frustrated with it probably.

What I would do is go through the piece and with the Guitar part say "what exactly do I need here" Is it good enough just to have the melody. Is it good enough just to have a few punctuation notes or chords. Is it good enough to simply let the guitar play an accompanimental role. And so on.

Hope that helps,

Steve

[Boneman]

Thanks for the comments. I have done some jiggling.

[Majesty]

I took a listen....

I think you did a good job in creating a serene and tranquil piece.
I feel that the harmonic progressions are a bit static and repetitious. I think that if you are going to use repetition the way you did in this piece you should employ more variation in in theme and texture to keep it interesting and not so static.

You open up with a nice and interesting harmonic happening, but then the theme doesn't seem to ever make any kind of return in variation or a motivic fashion.

The cheery up-beat theme @ 2:20 is a nice contrast and change. But, I also think that section can benefit from some variation and motivic manipulation instead of straight repetition.

It was a nice piece to listen to. I hope you don't mind my comments.

[Boneman]

thanks for the help and comments.
I have little skill at developing a theme etc so rely on a degree of repetition in my music. I could do with some help in that department! I will be getting the piece performed next year and would like to make this a piece to remember, therefore I would be grateful for some input.
Steve has already helped and I have taken his comments on board, I think!

[Majesty]

A good way to learn and improve development skills is to study works that are "Theme and variations" as well as Sontat forms pieces. They will be very good as a way to introduce yourself into some possibilities on how to handles and develop material.

[Boneman]

Thanks for that. I do tend to write music sometimes as if it were a song hence the repetiotion I suppose!

I wish I had time to study musical form but then I feel I would be writing like others and not myself.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Boneman

Thanks for that. I do tend to write music sometimes as if it were a song hence the repetiotion I suppose!

I wish I had time to study musical form but then I feel I would be writing like others and not myself.

Why? Beethoven studied musical form and didn't feel like he was "writing like others" - or if he did, he didn't give a damn.

You say this Kevin, and I want to make a point - and don't take this as a criticism - there are thousands of composers just like you out there writing in exactly the same "untrained" way. So I ask, which is worse - writing like a bunch of other poor composers, or writing like a bunch of good composers?

Now, yes, originality is good. But I think a lot of people mistake "ignorance" for "originality". Hey, I'm original because I'm not using a V7-I cadence. Yes, your as original as the other thousand people you don't know about who don't know about you who are also thinking they're original because they're ignorant ( I mean that in the "uninformed" meaning, not the mean-spiritied one people often use) of what's going on in the compositional world.

Basically what happens is, if you learn lots of stuff, you can choose to use it or not, but, if you don't learn anything, then you can't use things you don't know about, and furthermore, you may be using things you think are original, but turn out to be commonplace in certain circles.

So yes, don't let "rules" restrict you - do what your ear tells you. But be informed about the decisions you make so you can be making them for the best musical result, not an uninformed one.

Best,
Steve