Leaderboard

Thinking in circles about questions like this wastes my time, so I'm going to devote two long paragraphs answering the question and waste my time... to spite you! MUWAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, it was there, waiting to be said. Someone had to do it. :D

Music can be used in both a positive and a negative way, let's start from there. by positive I mean that it creates an effect that gives a human being joy by negative I mean that it creates an effect that creates agony on a human being. using these statements I'm restricting my point to the effect of music on humans. However: There was an experiment. scientists took a plant, and put it in a room with nothing but a stereo system. the experiment was divided to two different attempts in which they tried to effect the plant by music. the first attempt featured classical music (I think specifically Bach) The second attempt was some sort of metal music. they found out that when they let the plant "hear" Bach the plant grows closer to the stereo system. When they let it "hear" metal, it tried to grow away from the stereo system. This is very interesting, because this proved that music has an effect on the world OUTSIDE the human psych. if we take this into regard, and we look at some certain metal music concert and the way that the crowd often "fogo" with each other, we can definitely see that the music causes a violent effect in these humans. Personally I believe that any sort of violence is a "bad" thing. however, I don't believe that metal IS "bad" you can see all sorts of metal that causes good effects on humans. So now my point is devided to two parts: 1. Music has a both positive and negative effects on humans 2. Music has a both positive and negative effects on Plants It's pretty safe to assume at this point that music has an effect on everything. You can experiment and scientifically explain it in many way, but the simplest way is to just watch. music evolved everywhere in the world, so it truly has an effect EVERYWHERE. My final point is: Music can be used in many way, and it obviously has an actual effect on the world. it can be bad, and it can be good. good and evil are a very delicate matter, and very, very subjective, it's truly difficult to argue the specifics of this. It can be indeed used as a weapon, as we've seen in history But we've also seen how it can cause great joy. Finally, I belive, that since humans, can not exist without music, it's not up to me to decide, if it is good or "bad" it is almost (and in a way is) a force of nature, I cannot doubt the wind, or a volcano. It's just there.

Okay, honesty time... and hopefully this will be helpful. First, overall, I think the work is film-esque. It would make for a great soundtrack to a movie or game (maybe even an audio book or some lengthy online commercial). So, keeping perspective in mind (that I like this 'for' that kind of genre), I want to just make sure to begin with a positive. You've put a lot of work and thought into this, I can tell. I think your ideas have grit and hold interest. So, these are all positive things that should be said... from beginning to end, you held my interest either with your sonorities in Part I or your intensity and (what I'll call) your 'vamping' of the rhythmic pattern in Part II. I'll dissect some of these things for each part below, but I've also got to bring you back to earth just a bit. A 15 minute piece is not 'short' in the professional performance arena. I have a 5'30" piece (Eternal, posted in this forum) that is likely too long to be programmed by a majority of professional groups. If I wanted to get an orchestra to read my work, I'd probably get 'some of it' read, maybe 2-3 minutes of it. Only if I was very lucky would the whole piece be read by a professional group from beginning to end (if the conductor asked the performers to remain an extra couple of minutes to read the whole thing and the performers agreed to rehearse it 'for free' - and performers like to get paid, they WILL make a fuss if they don't like the whole work). My strategy is to get the conductor and performers to just read 'some of the work' and 'want to hear the rest' as they are reading it. It's a longshot, but it's worth it if it works. I want my music to be convincing enough for performers to 'want' to keep playing it... This is your 'criteria' From a perspective of 'performance', the work is far too repetitive... you'll get a couple of minutes of reading time, professional performers will likely catch on to how repetitive the work is, and they may feel a little disappointed or disinterested. It's not about the sound or the quality of the work... I'm just trying to point out that this piece, when performers look at it, is going to be viewed upon with entirely different lenses. So, 'variation' and 'interest' are 'key' ingredients here that I just want to touch on. My suggestions are only 'suggestions', don't look at this as 'your piece sucks, this is better'... all I'm looking for are ways to create more variety in different sections of the ensemble where this repetition is taking place so your performers will not only love 'hearing' your piece, they'll love 'playing' it. Minor Score Edit Note: F Horns, when arranged on two staves, are traditionally grouped 1st & 3rd Horns on one staff, 2nd and 4th Horns on the next staff. I don't know if you were aware of this, I just wanted to make sure to mention it. Part I Strings (mm 1-22): You have the same, exact rhythm for 22 measures. I realize this is a mood-setting event, but you can break up some of the monotony through imitating the rhythmic events between the violins and violas. You might even like the sound of inverting some of your harmonies (keep the chords you have, just play with when the individual pitches sound and break those pitches up among the different string sections). You can create a 'sound-wave' from section to section which would be REALLY neat to hear from playing inside the orchestra, even if it caters more to the performers than to the audience. Brass (mm 23-40): Here you have some whole notes sustaining some harmony with 3rd Tpt and Tbn playing some scalar linear material somewhat sporadically. It might be more musically convincing for those lines to have maybe just a little more melodic shape to work contrapuntally with the other families of the orchestra in those measures. You could state in the 3rd Tpt/Tbn the beginnings of this contrapuntal material, then use the horns, 1st and 2nd tbns, and maybe solo 1st Tpt in the upper register to sort of reinforce this activity... which reinforces the purpose of the original lines you have dedicated just to the 3rd tpt and tbn. Woodwinds (mm 1-40): I'm just kind of bored with the use of the Piccolo and Flute... I think the 40+piece string orchestra is going to drown out most of your homophonic woodwind activity. What's interesting though, is you have nothing really doing much to reinforce the harp or dance around it other than the glock in the percussion. And night is a perfect time for little gestures like the Celeste/Glock (have you considered a Celeste instead of a Glockenspiel for that gesture, by the way?) to be reinforced by flutes and a piccolo. Let your Clarinets create some imitations of those gestures as well, deliver some real 'depth' to your 'Night'. And really try to develop that glock gesture more... give it a story, let it prance a little... give it more 'life'. Use the woodwinds to help you deliver that gestural component more convincingly so it doesn't feel so 'haphazardly placed.' Does that make sense? Percussion - in general, they don't really care in orchestra. They're happy playing something interesting, they're happy not playing at all. They're probably the group in an orchestra you can abuse the most... so I'll leave all of that up to you. Now, I've commented on Part I. If you want my comments on Part II, reply and I'll offer them. If this isn't helping you, then I'll stop here.