Leaderboard

This is my first composition for Bass Clarinet. I appreciated the possibilities of the lower range that it affords. I hope that you enjoy it. I would be very interested to hear how it would sound played on an actual instrument.

Thank you for your reaction. Because there have not been any reactions before, I thought this composition was too ''low-leveled'', but your feedback really makes my day. :) I am glad you enjoyed it. You are right about the piano, there are two reasons for the more accompaniment role: The piano part had to be relatively simple, otherwise my friend could not play it. It is obvious that I would write something more ''interesting'' and complicated, when writing for a professional pianist. I am not a pianist, so sometimes I find it hard to know wether a passage is playable or not. Originally, the second movement was meant to be a theme and a set of variations. However, the movement now consist of the theme and only two variations. Maybe I should revise the end, as you say. Indeed, the ending of the third movement lacks emotion and excitement. I will try to improve it. Again, thank you for your constructive feedback and stay tuned for more!

Okay, I know I've already posted, but I just got to the second movement, and it's beautiful! I do feel like the end of the second movement is a bit sudden. The third movement is well done, relating to the theme but not too similar. I feel like for such a triumphant beginning, the ending seems to be lacking emotion and excitement. I'm amazed by this piece and by how much thought and emotion you must have put into it. Well done!

Hi Julien, Nicely done. Bringing the cascading 16th note effect into the restatement of the main theme at m. 29 is a great move that provides a wonderful sense of unity while adding interest. A few comments: 1. The pedal markings are adding a lot of visual noise to the page. You might consider using the modern "schematic" notation with the horizontal line instead. 2. When you're considering where and when to use your dynamics, think about the structure of the piece. Use the dynamics to highlight the structural elements that interest you. 3. The transitional material in mm. 14-17 is doesn't fit the rest of the piece. You've got two ideas that dash past in four measures like the Odd Couple on a Vespa scooter. Neither the dotted 8th/16th fanfare nor the "toy piano" music grows organically from the material surround the transitional period. While I could readily accept m. 14-15 being a little fanfare to usher in a new section (without themselves being further developed), m. 16 beats 3 & 4 present a compelling idea. I honestly felt cheated when it left so quickly to make room for the syncopated material following. Too much interesting material is a great problem to have as a composer, but it is a problem nonetheless. The piece itself is very compact, in essentially an ABABA form. The two main ideas are provide great contrast to each other and plenty of developmental possibilities. The foreign transitional material crowds the piece and obscures an otherwise tight form. Replacing it with transitional material drawn from either of the main themes would make more sense. But don't toss it! There are always more pieces to write.

Overall this is a very well written piece. I like the melody and the variations that you use to keep the listener interested. Like other have mentioned, I would like to see more dynamics. The beginning is a little slow in my opinion, and could use a little more work on keeping the interest of the listener. Other than that, I think this is a great piece with lots of potential.

Hi. Thanks for uploading the score, too. I love to see it while listening. I have no idea about writing for brass, but I think it must be quite difficult to do it for an ensemble like this one, where the instruments share the register. To me it sounds very nice and I don't care about the rules. I mean, we should know the rules, and then they can be broken. Why not? I don't understand... OK, the result can be bad, but not necsessarily. I had a teacher who told me (when I completed the courses on Harmony): "Now forget all the rules and write music". Greetings!

@Monarcheon, I totally get that these are the basic rules. Just offering a different perspective as a low brass player who has played a lot of tuba choir lit over the years. That said, certainly hope you wouldn't get a lower grade if you break the rules in an intelligent, defensible fashion.

@Adrian Quince these are the basic rules I was taught and I will stick by them, mostly because breaking the rules means a lower grade :)

I have to disagree with a couple of things here: Not really. This is well within the capability of a good tuba and euphonium players. Circus marches from the turn of the 20th Century have more demanding parts, especially for euphonium. See The Melody Shop, The Circus Bee, Entry of the Gladiators (when played at circus tempo), Barnum and Bailey's Favorite, etc. Crossed voices are nearly unavoidable in writing for low brass ensemble. The compass of the instruments involved is such that the bass clef will inevitably get crowded with more than a two voices. The physical nature of brass playing precludes keeping some voices above the staff for a protracted period to create more open spacing. Therefore, it's not a matter of if the composer crosses voices, but how well they do it. Most of the time, the voice crossings are pretty clean. They're either two different lines with distinct identities or a single active line moving through a static chord. That said, the voice crossing at m. 17, beat 3 does sound awkward to me with the B-natural and B-flat colliding. In fact, to my ear, the B-natural in that figure is a trouble maker all the way through m. 23, because it's either colliding directly with a B-flat or causing a cross relation with one. Even in the contemporary idiom, it was jumping out at me.