pijanowski-kangas

Thanks for posting! I can say that, though the double bass stops at the end of the piece are technically playable, they are a bit awkward (particularly the D-F in m. 218-219) and I wonder if they are necessary. In general, dense voicing at the bottom of a chord can lead to muddiness. A more traditional voicing which might lead to a brighter sound would favor wide intervals (octaves and then fifths) on the bottom. In any case, I would probably recommend against using double bass stops in general unless you need that particular sound. If it's just the notes you want, they can be put elsewhere (such as low brass or bassoons). For me, the piece seemed to "find itself" at m. 116. The chordal passage which begins the piece also caught my attention, and the melodies from m. 9-45 flowed nicely. The piece became more nebulous between m. 46 and m. 115. Perhaps this could be a place to consider cuts? If that entire middle section was removed, the piece would feel to me like and introduction & chaconne... not sure if that's an actual form, but I think it could work well! And one miscellaneous note: I was a bit confused by the occasional strange time signature. They appeared between phrases, such as at m. 37, m. 45, and m. 149 (among others). The 6/4 at 149 seemed particularly confusing because for the following section I just ended up hearing beat 3 as beat 1, which caused m. 158 to sound a bit off when the stresses realigned with the bars. Hope this helps! I enjoyed listening.

Hi! Well, I really liked this piece. I will say, firstly, that your command of development and themes is impressive. Section A immediately caught my attention. After that, section B felt very natural (I liked the significant contrast). I lost the sense of rhythm at C, but it was regained around m. 65. I am not sure that this is an issue- in the case of a real performance, the polyrhythms would likely not be completely mathematically exact, and I suspect they would sound quite pianistic and not confusing (almost like notated rubato?... maybe I am misinterpreting your goal). After B, the music was was often dense and complicated (and always quickly developing) The piece could have become homogenous, but the presence or absence of polyrhythms and the many different tempi provided variety; additionally, the piece was short enough to make the density work, rather than drag the piece down. I liked the abrupt ending! (On a second listen, the sections became even clearer and any remaining sense of homogeneity was lost). The only moment where I was confused was at the transition from C to D. There was a nice cadence, and then at m. 85 it went into something else. At that moment, I got the sense of a medley. Overall, I found the piece engaging and clearly well-crafted. I wonder if you had listened to Sofia Gubaidulina's Chaconne when composing this? I was a bit reminded of that piece in your harmonic language, which felt based in tonality, yet incorporated surprising dissonances and "twists". I was reminded of that piece most clearly in the more contrapuntal sections, such as A and G (also m. 112-114, in the scalar passage). Thank you very much for posting!

Well, I added two more variations. I felt like the transition from variation II to variation III was too jarring; I inserted a variation in between to bridge the gap from II, which is a very slow, solemn funeral dirge, to variation IV (used to be var. III), which is a bright, rhythmic dance. To elaborate on each variation a bit: Introduction: The 3:2 polyrhythm is established. This will recur throughout the piece. Fragments of ideas for later variations interject the rhythmic ostinato. Theme: Presents the melody with a few of my own touches as far as orchestration and harmonization are concerned. Variation I: Violins I and II play a running line that elaborates on the melody. Fl, Ob, Cl, Trp, accent the main notes of the melody (mostly), passing it from instrument to instrument. The Texture builds to an anticlimax and dissolves into a trumpet call over the polyrhythm from the introduction. Variation II: A brass chorale, interspersed with tam-tam (sorry for the terrible midi). The tuba line is mostly the original melody, sometimes ornamented, though the trumpet takes the melody when it enters. The "B" section of the melody (that part accented by three chords: Adim7 AmM7 and DM) returns as three strikes of the triangle and string pizz., colored by cl and fl. On the repeat of the B section, however, the full orchestra returns with the original chords. Variation III: A harmonic undercurrent for hrn and vla is established. The bassoon soloist comes in gently. The bassoon melody is actually the inversion of the original melody, though with different rhythms. This variation aids in the transition from II to IV. Variation IV: A dance-like variation in 7/8 (3+2+2). The clarinet takes the lead; it augments the original melody with ornaments and modal variation. The high strings, flute, ob, and bsn give support to the clarinetist in the form of a lively background texture. Variation V: This variation utilizes a tone row based on the order that each of the 12 notes appears in the original melody. The row is: D E C# B A F G C Bb F# Eb G#. The contrabassoon and tuba intone a deep bass line, accenting certain notes in the row in accordance with the rhythm of the initial melody (though significantly slower). Above that, the vla and cello form 4-bar ostinato based on the tone row. The ostinato is at the same polyrhythm from the introduction; the rhythm is also established by the timpani and percussion. Occasionally, the vibraphone colors the vla and cello. At the movement's end, the ostinato and bass line cease, and a high, dull pizzicato texture emerges in the violins. It fades into nothingness. Not sure how many more variations I'll do... I think the piece will end with the introduction and theme again, or something similar. Hope you enjoy! Of course, feedback is appreciated.

Thanks for listening. Were there any spots in particular that you felt were too much?

I really enjoyed this piece! The textures were nice, and the melodic segments were expressive. If I made one note about the score, I think around m. 50 there was flutter tongue in the flute part audio, but not in the score? And something about the orchestration: due to the way the strings were divided into many parts, there was usually a very full string sound, often with four or six part harmony. By the end of the piece, I wondered if the orchestration of some of those parts could be mixed up a little... of course, this is just a personal preference. Also, in the context of a suite of pieces, the consistency of the strings might be a nice contrast to another piece. Thanks for posting!

Just the beginning of a set of variations I started the other day. Compared to some of the other projects I'm working on now, this is relatively "conventional" (i.e. it uses a traditional form, is basically tonal, is for a standard ensemble); I just wanted to do something enjoyable that I'm not going to worry about too much as a reprieve from some other more "serious" pieces that have been taking up a lot of my energy. Hope you enjoy - of course, feedback is welcome and appreciated!

Wow! I really enjoyed listening to this. It uses enough contemporary techniques to feel new and interesting, but not so many that it's inaccessible. I can't wait to hear the other movements. For me, a score would be helpful. On the other hand, not having a score forced be to really listen to the music, rather than just read it. I felt that the solo-ensemble balance was really good. Each phrase flowed naturally to the next. I loved the climax at the end. For these movements, it felt like the relationship between the soloist and the ensemble was often call-and-response, though not always. I think this worked well. Maybe later in the piece it could be interesting to explore other soloist-ensemble relationships? Also, might I ask if any techniques in particular guided the tonality (or lack thereof) in this piece? Thanks for posting this!