NRKulus

Thank you, Peter! Sorry it took nearly 2 months to reply... it's been a crazy summer. I like your suggestion to post both versions in order to compare them, so I'll edit the original post to include the original choral version as well! I appreciate your thought about doing one for choir and instrumental ensemble! The main reason I'm not (in addition to being tired of this piece) is that (1) I'd have to do lots more orchestrating and messing around to get it to work (for instance, the band version is a whole tone lower than the choir version to better suit the ranges of the instruments, and I'd have to figure out a way to reorchestrate so they both work in the same key) and (2) it's unlikely anyone would ever perform it. Thanks again for your kind words!

This is a wind band arrangement of a choir piece I did a couple years ago. (That piece is also on this site!) The original choral version was for a Hallowe'en virtual choir, and in this arrangement, I tried to use the expanded palette of the wind band to evoke even more spookiness. I'm fortunate that most of my choir works are performed live--but the same can't be said for my band music! So I spent an inordinate amount of time making this recording in my DAW with samples from VSL Special Editions v. 1-2. The sequencing process took considerably longer than actually orchestrating the piece did. It nearly destroyed me. I don't know how people who create entire orchestral film scores in DAWs do it. So... if you're one of those people, feel free to comment on the sequencing/mixing as well. I tried to make it sound as realistic as possible. I hope you enjoy it! (ALSO! The link to the original choral version is here: https://www.youngcomposers.com/t41687/strange-is-the-night-halloween-virtual-choir/#comment-1186698054)

Quinn, I think you're right for the most part. I might have come across a little strongly in my post above because I was annoyed at the autism thing surfacing on multiple threads over a couple days. I felt like that wasn't the first time either, but going through this forum, I see the vast majority of discussions are quite respectful. So I might have been a little unfair to the forum's overall culture in my first post, and I apologize for that. And the viewpoint intolerance that I mentioned is just what's being discussed in this thread: the tendency to attack the person based on their viewpoint. (Which, again, is probably rarer here than maybe I implied in my original post.) So I think we're actually in agreement there. I have to disagree with the "if you feel uncomfortable, leave" mentality, though... I'm not a mod or admin, but I would think they would want as many composers as possible to feel welcome here. And it's generally not a good look to make people feel unwelcome based on their identity (which tends to happen when multiple people use that identity as an insult). That's all I meant.

Thanks, SSC. From what I've observed, it's not usually too bad here, but there are little things like what I mentioned that can make people uncomfortable about posting or feel like their viewpoints might not be welcome... so I thought it was important to point out.

Hi! I don't post a lot anymore on this forum besides reviewing people's choral music, but I feel the need to chime in after reading this, as well as the other 3-page thread that's presumably being referenced here. One thing both threads have in common? Using "asperger's" or "on the spectrum" as either an excuse for disrespectful behaviour or a straight-up insult (the latter was by the person who was banned for his toxic comments on the other thread--rightly, in my opinion). Well, I am on the [autism] spectrum (not the only one on this forum, either) and I'm pretty sick of people using my condition as a synonym for either "mean" or "stupid". I promise you that's not what it means. In fact, the discussions on the autistic forums I'm a part of are generally more mature and respectful than the ones here. So I don't know about toxic masculinity, but this is another example of intolerance on this forum. (And yes, intolerance for differing viewpoints is another pretty pervasive one that's already been addressed in this thread.) I can't speak for others, but it's part of why I post as little as I do--and I'm always extremely careful what I say, lest I give people more ammunition for conflating autism with something it's not.

I think there are lots of good things in here. I listened to your older choral pieces on this site, and I think this is easily the best one yet. It's more rhythmically and texturally interesting and varied, and you do some nice things with text setting and melody, especially in the long melismas. I like the textures in spots like m. 13, where you have different levels of rhythmic activity in different voices, but the words are still intelligible because of the long sustains and melismas. It's a kind of simple polyphony that doesn't obscure the text. I found the score hard to read because of a lot of simple things you could easily fix. (1) When you have multiple rhythmic lines on the same staff, the stems of the top line should go up and the stems on the bottom line should go down. So the tenor divisi in m. 49 is one of the only divisi parts that's actually notated correctly; most other divisi parts (and the piano part in general) are hard to read because there are slurs and stems crossing over each other. (2) In voice parts, dynamics are usually written above the staff so the lyrics can go right below the notes. Compositionally, there's a nice sense of building in mm. 33-36, so I'm curious why the tenors and basses drop out in m. 37. The part at 37-40 really feels like the climax of the piece (especially given the meaning of the text... this is well done) but having only half the choir singing here undermines this sense of climax. I think keeping the tenors and basses in until the end of 40 would make this moment much more effective (and then having them drop out in 41 would really enhance the subito pp. You'd be orchestrating to match the dynamics, so to speak, rather than against the dynamics.) There are some very small issues here and there that might make certain chords hard to balance. They're quite minor, so I'll only mention a couple. Choral singing is such a rich sound that 3rds (especially minor 3rds) in the bottom half of the bass clef usually sound murky and unstable, so the downbeat of m. 31 would sound better if you just put the top basses on a G3 (and it would be smoother voice leading as well). And the low E in the basses at m. 11 won't come through at forte... so to avoid it being overbalanced by the tenors, you could double it up the octave in the upper basses (especially since a lot of baritones won't be able to sing the low E anyway). Lots of little things like that become more apparent when you hear the piece sung live... and this piece certainly deserves to be sung, so I hope you manage to get it in front of a choir.

Wow! If Gould says it's ok, I stand corrected. It's true that when I first looked at the score (having not had the recording yet), the rhythm in the first measure gave me a little confusion at first, but in the 2nd measure I immediately knew what you meant... which I suppose is what really matters. And I think it really shows that you sing each line while listening to the others... they all sit very well and are very singable. It's a good practice that I wish more choral composers would follow. (I do that too for my compositions, trying to sing one part in the correct octave while playing the others at the piano... although when I sing the soprano and alto parts, it sounds like Florence Foster Jenkins at best and an angry coyote at worst!)

I really like how you've set this text. The way you've used melismas and repeated fragments makes everything flow really naturally and intuitively. This is not easy when working with such a prosaic text. On the whole, I think it's a really charming, effective composition, but the work with melody, phrase structure, and text setting are especially nice. I agree with the others that the piano part shouldn't be a problem, but you could renotate some of the rhythms to make it even easier to sightread. The recurring rhythm you have in mm. 1, 3, 5, etc. should be rewritten with ties to show every beat. (Basically, it's good practice to show every beat that has 16th notes in it--see the "rhythm" section under https://blogs.iu.edu/jsomcomposition/music-notation-style-guide/ for a better explanation than I can give. This page also explains why it's good to show the 3rd beat in mm. 2, 4, 6, etc.) The individual voice lines are all really nice, but there are some harmonies that could be revoiced for better balance, easier tuning, and a clearer sound. Like in m. 65, the lack of a root in the voice parts combined with the overtones from the doubled 3rd might create the impression that the choir is singing a different chord from the piano. Not a bad thing by itself, but since singers tune by ear, it's likely to create intonation problems and a muddy sound in less advanced choirs. (And even when you're not missing the root, doubling the 3rd of a major triad can destabilize a choir's intonation, since its overtones clash with the root and the 5th.) By a somewhat similar token, in m. 45, I really like the move to B minor 7... but it's undermined by the lack of a root in the voice parts (and again, the same sense that the choir is singing a different chord from the piano).

This is very good work, especially for one of your first choral pieces. The vocal lines are all very singable and, despite the "free counterpoint" feel of most of the piece, there's still a good sense of melodic cohesion. The big pauses help define the form and prevent the listener from getting lost. But you could try preceding some of them with more unresolved harmonies for more of a sense of momentum and continuity (as it is, I think the form stagnates a little because every section ends on some kind of D minor or F major harmony, both of which feel like a tonic in this key). When setting a text in a language you don't speak, it's always good to say the words out loud (silly as it may seem) while you're coming up with melodies--and generally make sure you know where the emphasis happens on every word. Most of the text setting here was all right, but there were a few things that might seem awkward to someone familiar with this text (especially when you emphasize and draw out the first syllable of "Maria", even though the 2nd syllable of that word is emphasized in speech!)

Thanks, CyberPianist. I tend to agree with you about the 3rd piece. I actually wrote that one first, after decades of avoiding solo piano music! I'm also glad people seem to be enjoying the 2nd piece, because that one took me far longer to write than the others. That one is obviously more melodic than the others, and it took a few revisions to get the piano to "sing" in a way I was satisfied with. I think I've been spoiled by writing for voices.

Sorry if this was a rhetorical question; I'm gonna answer it anyway since it's something I would have wanted to know as a "young" composer! Basically, because John Williams is awesome! I think a lot of it also comes down to recurring intervals and motives (that little lower-neighbour, almost-Dies-Irae thing is everywhere, most measures seem to start with a descending semitone, and the vast majority of intervals are either semitones or minor 3rds, especially early on). To my ear, it also seems like there are also lots of octatonic sets (maybe he switches between them by common tone? Not really sure.) A lot of it comes down to repeating and transposing short, simple, almost-tonal fragments in unexpected-but-consistent ways. I think having a fairly simple rhythmic profile and discrete phrases also helps--there are still lots of patterns for the ear to latch onto, even if they're not as obvious as Mozart. I'm personally reminded a lot of Bartok by the first half of this piece, but maybe that's just me.

Very well written, played, and animated! You pack a lot of harmonic complexity into these short pieces, without ever overwhelming the listener. I felt like the 3rd one was the most harmonically adventurous, especially at the beginning. You go pretty far afield without losing any sense of tonal focus. I think your good sense of phrase structure and tension/release enables you to do this: the music is always pushing forward toward a cadence, even if we don't really know where that cadence is going to be. I don't really have any criticisms, since these pieces are short and do what they're intended to do very well--and you wrote these years ago, so maybe you're already doing things differently now anyway. Was that really animated by AI? It's amazing how well the performer's fingers and movements match the audio.

Thank you, Luis! Thanks for mentioning the resonances in the Nocturne... are there particular parts it stuck out to you? I mixed it on headphones, which I've heard isn't advisable. Yes, I think it's fair to call it impressionistic! Certainly in the sense that it tries to capture sensations and impressions, but not tell a concrete story.

Hello! I managed to make it through almost 20 years of composing and achieve some small successes as a choral composer without ever writing a solo piano piece. Ironically, I think I'm more comfortable writing for just about any ensemble than solo piano. I finally started to overcome that aversion last fall (and I posted the piece that would become the 3rd movement here)... and now all 3 movements are done. I'm not sure how I did, since it's something new for me. All 3 movements try to capture the movement of water in some way. In the 1st and 3rd movements, I focused a lot on texture and colour, trying to explore the piano's many sounds and registers while still staying grounded in traditional (if somewhat obscured) harmony. The 2nd movement is more melodic. The movements are posted separately below, since it's easier to listen to (and comment on) a 3-or-4-minute movement than it is an 11-minute suite. I posted an earlier version of the 3rd movement (Undertow) here last fall, so I'm especially curious to hear people's thoughts on the other 2. Thanks for listening! 1. Sunshower 2. Nocturne (The Moon in the Waves) 3. Undertow

Hi! I think the vocal writing is pretty good--all the lines are nicely singable and fit well together. I think the B-flat chords in the first section create a nice, sort of unconventional tension that keeps the energy going through the cadences, and I kind of missed these flat-VII chords in the 2nd half, after the key change. Speaking of cadences, the only one that didn't sit right with me is the one in mm. 45-46. To me, it kind of prematurely stops the song's momentum when you emphasize the tonic chord so strongly in the middle of a section. It also breaks the 1-chord-per-measure harmonic flow you had going on. So I'd personally change one or both of those chords to something less resolved in order to keep the momentum going. The other little thing that bothered me was m. 17, where the piano kind of haphazardly slips into and out of unison with the sopranos. In general, it works well to have the piano in unison with voices (especially on a melody) or it could work to have it harmonizing with them (keep in mind they're very different sounds that won't necessarily blend, though)--but switching so quickly between these two probably isn't advisable. I think it creates an unwanted emphasis whenever you switch to/from unison (the tritone at the end of the measure especially sticks out, which you probably don't want in a weak rhythmic position) and maybe interferes with any sense of flow. But those are little things. I hope you have a chance to make more forays into choral writing!