Leaderboard

Okay. So I've listened to this entire work three times now with score and I've read over your program notes and comments on this thread each more than once. And before I say anything more, I think I should preface this with saying that I really dislike Schnittke's music. I've read plenty of his writings and have made numerous attempts at trying to listen to his music. There's no doubt in my mind that he was a very intelligent and very open-minded man. However, I just really can't stand most of his music. And since I don't care for Schnittke much at all and, if he was an influence (though I honestly don't hear much of one), there's a chance I just don't 'get this.' Now, all of that being said, I just... can't say I care for your piece. To me, it feels very frivolous and even kind of vapid. I suppose this was partially (if not entirely) the intent but, for me, it doesn't even seem to work on this level. And reading and re-reading your program notes, I just can't help but feel you've failed in your intentions with this. You speak of the opening movement, saying that it opens with a 'harsh, awkward' 12 note row and concludes with a 'sentimental melody.' Now... none of this was particularly conveyed to me at all. The opening of this first movement didn't sound very awkward at all, let alone 'harsh.' If anything, the opening cello melody sounded contemplative, as if it's reflecting on a tragedy. The harpsicord enters and seemingly mocks the cellos pain with some offbeat chords. The cello continues its mood and the harpsicord responds with baroque imitations. My personal interpretation of this is something of a drama between two strata. The cello represents the fleeting, emotional individual in pain while the harpsicord representing some sort of aristocracy (this is made especially clear to me based on the choice of instrument which very sound is almost inseparable from the 'High Baroque' era) that is unaffected by the plights of the individual even antagonistic. It's most likely that I'm reading far too much into these opening ten or so measures but, at this point, I do see definite potential for a compelling piece of music. And, to me, your opening measures clearly suggest this sort of interpretation. My problem comes in very soon though. You never go back go back to this dynamic (other than close to the very end which, had the preceeding material been more compelling, this would've been an excellent ending.) In fact, you even pretty much abandon any sort of 'dialogue' dynamic that was going on between the cello and harpsicord for most the rest of the piece. After this, the harpsicord takes on a much more traditional role of an accompaniment that entirely supports the cello line. You remove any sort of tension or opposition from the piece. I realize I'm partially being unfair to this as it seems that your intentions were to create some tension through polystylism and a lack of stylistic unity. Except... that never happens either. While my biggest problem with Schnittke is that his stylistic shifts are dumb, obvious, and unconvincing, my problem with your piece is the opposite there are no stylistic shifts. Your supposed 'awkward, harsh' twelve note row and 'sentimental melody' sound very much of the same character and I wouldn't even have guessed they were meant to be be opposed in some nature. To me, the stylistic tensions came between the cello and harpsicord which, as I said before, you quickly abandon. On a separate note, I also do have to comment on your rhythmic sense. Now, compared to a lot of the compositions I see on this site (and compositions by 'amateurs' in general), this is very advanced. You do manage to avoid a sense of periodicity whenever it doesn't suit the music and your cello lines, at times, display a lyrical capriciousness about them that is beautiful. However, you still seem very stuck in what I like to think of as the 'quadruplet mentality.' For the most part, all of your rhythms land on square metrical pulses. You sometimes ties a note over from the last measure and avoid the strong 'first' beat of the next measure (such as measures 5-7 in the first movement) but this is a rare occurrence. Also, almost all the rhythms are written in straight quadruplets with rarely anything in the way of triplets (and when they do occur, they're 'decorative' effects.) And while I can't say your music has a 'pulse,' it was clear to me that you composed in this sort of way. To be fair, this doesn't hurt your piece quite as much as it hurts others but I do feel that this especially becomes a problem during the segments in which you intended to be 'harsh' and 'awkward.' A lot of people underestimate the value that rhythm has in articulating dissonance and this is especially the case in music outside the tonal realm where dissonance is primarily articulated by rhythmic tension and release rather than harmonic. Some of your harpsicord lines in particular lack the bite that I'm sure you intended because they fall in such predictable, safe rhythms. I think your rhythmic sense also hurts you in terms of the polystylistic mentality that you're trying to convey as the rhythmic procedures are pretty much uniform throughout. Again, rhythm has just as important role as pitch in conveying and articulating stylistic shifts and when you use mostly uniform rhythmic procedures, you convey that everything should be heard homogenously (this is an effect that can have great effect too but it doesn't work at all in your piece in my opinion.) My recommendations are to try and avoid landing 'on the beat' so frequently. Something I like to do is say, in the instance of four half note and I want to increase the sense of tension and anticipation. I'll subtract a sixteenth note from the first one, then maybe an eighth from the next, then an entire quarter note from the next, followed by lengthening the next half note by another eighth to add stress. So, the resulting rhythm would be one that never lands on a typical landing point and creates a sense of both anticipation and unpredictability. Something else I like to do at times is compose different voices in different subdivisions of the meter. So, one voice may be firmly in quadruplets while another may be in triplets and another in quintuplets. This combined with avoiding typical metrical stresses can both create a deeper independence of voices and add an almost 'weightless' quality to the music (ligeti employed this sort of technique regularly.) Now, I've essentially been typing train of thought this entire time so I'm likely rambling and poorly focused here. I want to just reiterate that I don't think this piece is bad necessarily. I feel like it has a lot of potential and this isn't even potential that is squandered by the length. The length is near perfect in my opinion, I just can't say the same for what actually happens during it. I just feel that this is the result of a young composer who is not entirely aware and not entirely in control of his material. I'm not trying to suggest that you should go in the direction that I suggested above in order for this to work. I'm simply saying that, based on what you have, that is how I saw it (which I do think would make a much more compelling piece but that's entirely subjective) and that, in my view, you were not able to convey much of any of your intentions. I think this could very much use a re-write as there is certainly an idea worth salvaging in here but I'm not sure I so much agree that this piece should be expanded. The length is perfect for your intentions, just not the content. I hope I haven't come off as overly negative or pretentious in all of this. I do legitimately want to help.

Ok, that makes perfect sense. To me, if a composer has no interest in the audience it is bad for the medium. If the composer has 100% interest in the audience, it is bad for the composer’s artistry since they seek to be the "flavor of the month" and follow a fad. So all composers need to find a balance where they are able to maintain artistic integrity, but also speak to someone. The message can be complex, it can be challenging, but it should at least strive to be understood in some way. Otherwise, it can exist in a vacuum which I don’t think any artist wants. As my quote from Schoenberg above shows, even those who on the surface couldn’t care less about the masses, deep down, they have a longing to be understood and appreciated - to move someone and connect. I am a composer in residence with an orchestra and based on hearing from the orchestra performers, I’ve found most performers to prefer to play something that makes sense to them that speaks in some way, and has something of value to say. They love a challenge as long as it makes sense. So ultimately, who do we as composers serve? Is it ourselves? The performers? The audience? At its best, it will be a combination and not alienate any of the above. The ratio is less important to me because that even changes for the same composer, but at least all of these should be factored and never ignored. I totally understand this because I also play in an orchestra. I have played pieces where I don’t understand what the composer meant. I don’t understand why they did something and this tends to frustrate me whereas a single note played at pianissimo is far more substantial when it makes sense in context to the whole. Performers are ok with challenge, just not nonsense. This is why I believe orchestras are relevant, but must continually strive to be relevant in this environment that increasingly has less and less interest and patience for the effort needed to appreciate it (please re-read the Stravinsky quote in my first post on this tread). This has always been a problem. I highly recommend reading Alex Rose’s book, The Rest is Noise. http://www.therestisnoise.com/2004/05/what_is_this.html

I don't think so. Or at least, I don't do that. If the bassoons (the instrument I typically play) have the most boring or tedious line in the world, I don't go and change it (as long as I deem it a decent part). However, I have done the opposite. I've written for an ensemble where I didn't care too much for the principal oboist. So I didn't give him anything decent and intentionally threw any long, chord tones that I wanted his way. Oops.

good job