Leaderboard

This is my "Three Transformations of an Original Theme for Solo Violin, Op. 292". It is my second set of transformations for solo violin, as well as my second set of transformations ever. Quoting myself from the description of my initial set of transformations, the "Five Transformations of an Original Theme for Solo Violin, Op. 260": "Whereas in variations you have always to variate from the main theme, in transformations, you transform from the initial theme 'a' into 'b', and then from 'b' into 'c'. You are, in other words, freer." This time around, I considered the theme to be the first transformation simply because, unlike the case of a theme and variations, the theme of a series of transformations is neither more nor less important than any of its transformations. In fact, either of the three transformations in the current piece can be considered to be the theme, not necessarily the first one. We can therefore say that the major difference between a set of variations and a set of transformations is that the latter is not theme-centric while the former is. Making an analogy with atonality in which there is no tonal center, we might say that in transformations there is no thematic center, There is merely a relationship between individual transformations, between different embodiments/treatments/expressions of related musical themes. In my compositional output, I can say that I see the transformation as occupying a middle ground between the sententia and the soliloquy. Each transformation is longer and more developed than a sententia but less so than a soliloquy. Another way to think of transformations would be as "variations on no theme", or "variations of a composition" or "Variations of composition/composing". Here is the link to my first set of transformations: http://www.youngcomposers.com/archive/music/listen/7998/five-transformations-of-an-original-theme-for-solo-violin-op-260/

Thanks for your customary detailed review and constructive criticism Monarcheon. Thanks Maarten for your review and opinion. Thanks Martim for your review and opinion (which I just saw) also. As for the issue about the usage of opus numbers, I think the following page should throw some light on the matter: http://classiccat.net/dictionary/opus_numbers.php I think the key phrase is the following: "Since approximately 1900, composers tended to assign an opus number to a composition, published or not." By the way, I did not assign opus numbers to my pieces until they reached Op. 189. That was the first piece, back in January 2014, that I assigned an opus number to. However, obviously, I could not start from Op. 1, since as you can see, I had already composed 188 pieces before it (not including the pieces that I had composed earlier using a less sophisticated notation program, or even earlier, using paper and pen). Moreover, I had numbered those 188 pieces in a separate file on my computer. So it was not difficult to start using opus numbers continuing from the number of pieces I had in that file of numbered pieces. Till then, I had refrained from using opus numbers perhaps out of a false modesty, thinking that it would appear like "boasting". But the advice of my cousin who has a "DMA" degree (Doctor of Musical Arts) in "Keyboard Studies" completely changed my perspective about the matter. Essentially, what she said was that it would give the listener an idea where an individual piece stands in my output. Now I don't regret starting using opus numbers and advise every composer to do so. It is a great way to organize one's compositions. The number 292 admittedly might seem inordinately high and maybe unintentionally "boastful", but as Sojar rightly mentioned, most of my compositions are short and written for solo instruments or chamber ensembles. So that fact might serve as a qualification of that relatively high number. Maybe I should from now on put an asterisk next to the opus number and provide that explanation in order not to unintentionally mislead my audience. Opaqueambiguity's initial question might seem to reinforce that idea. But then again, who determined how long compositions should be before they can be considered opuses? I don't think anyone did.

I dont really care about opus numbers but I have to agree with opaqueambiguity. About the music, I think it doesn't have a well definied charachter. For example the first repetition on the 2 transformation, it's a very odd passage from Am to CM in that part. If you wanted to do that on purpose I just dont get the point but its my bad then. But I think in general the three transformations are very well structured but in my opinion, the musical ideas should be better worked/thought to give a better defined charachter. Its just an amateur opinion, dont take it too seriously, and I dont regret hearing those 3 pieces ;) Best Regards

I will return as a judge for this competition. I hope we can get some more people signing up to compete! I know the deadline is soon, but a huge orchestral work definitely isn't necessary!

I really liked the third movement of this piece. The first two I thought were too trapped in their own heads to really come out be their own thing. What I would teach students is to always build, never regress to a lower state of energy (unless a conscious decision to surprise an audience) and I think the first two movements don't do that as well as the third. The whole thing overall is quite beautiful, but the third is a brilliant toccata, with perfect references. Overall, a great find.

Well, I am not a conductor, but I imagine that even though a lot of my favorite pieces would end up being my top things to want to conduct I think there is a difference. I think there are a number of incredible things to be found in composition. I think I love music for more then just power. I like it for its subtleties and its innovation. I like atmosphere. I love listening to all kinds of stuff for all kinds of reason. However, I think the main qualifier for dream conducting pieces is enormity and power. Just outright epicness. A great example from my list is that Ravel's La Valse is not particularly high ranking on all time favorite pieces to listen to, but it would rank pretty high on my conduct list because it is all of a huge orchestra. The instrumentation provides such a giant sound and it is exciting. I feel like leading an orchestra that plays things like that and giving a great performance would be satisfying in the sense that you are in charge and are molding and guiding this enormous sound. It is like shooting fireworks. It is like any other creative process where hours of work goes in and the final process and result is pure joy and elation from the pay off. There is something special about a full orchestra playing superbly together. There is almost really nothing more exciting and life altering then hearing these great performances of great music in great halls. To be apart of iconic moments is special. I can only imagine the thrill of having a front row seat as conductor to Tchaikovsky's March Slave or Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy or even Saint Saens Organ Symphony. What an enormous and powerful sound. It would be incredible both to hear, but also to be in charge of.

That can be so, but I think Opus numbers give more structure and clarity. About the music: Well done! Interesting lines.

It depends. Oftentimes I've felt very cheated by a certain interpretation a conductor had on a certain piece when I was in orchestra and I wanted to rebel against it ;) Tchaikovsky 6, despite being one of my favorite pieces, is definitely an example of that, which is why it's number one Also, for me, sometimes there are piece that have not-as-good orchestration that sound really nice anyway (i.e. Gershwin Cuban Overture), so that may be a reason. Like @Adrian Quince said, there are pieces I love, I don't think I could do justice to, like Berlioz's Requiem, such a huge piece. Sometimes there's an emotional part of a piece that I need to be up in front to be a proper conduit for. Brahms Symphony No. 2, second movement is an example of that, where there's a lot of subtleties a recording I think misses, but I'm not a huge fan of the piece in the first place.

Depends where I am and how complicated the idea is. If I'm at home, and it's fairly short and memorable, I get my laptop and put it straight into the composition software. If I'm driving, walking the dog, or it's long/complicated enough that I'm worried I'll lose it before I can get it down, I sing or hum it, and record the audio using the "voice memo" feature on my phone, so I have a record to listen back to as I input it later. If I'm sitting in the middle of a bunch of people and public singing is not an option (waiting for the train, waiting for a concert...), I'll write it out by hand. Even if the all intervals and rhythms aren't perfect, it will be enough to remind me later so the idea doesn't get away. It's probably a good exercise to write things out by hand anyway... If you're bad at it, you could put it on your schedule to write out melodies you already know by ear (but haven't seen the sheet music to) once a week. If you get frustrated by your own messiness doing it by hand, you could use composition software, but turn the sound off on your computer until you think you have it right and then use the playback to check and grade yourself. Keep the crappy results in a file somewhere so you can see how you improve, week to week.