hugobouma

I don't get it. Here I am, with a (to me, at least) serious and significant piece of considerable size, in which I have invested much time and emotion, providing an eloquent explanation and a clean score, and yet it is slowly slipping off the front page, seemingly unnoticed by the masses. Is it because I haven't reviewed enough yet myself? If this is the case, please tell me so, because I will try to fix this as soon as possible. Or have I missed some (unwritten) rules about this forum? I'm just very curious as to what could be the matter... Apologies for the bump, Hugo Bouma (and if you have nothing to add because it is already perfect, I'd like to hear that too ;) )

To me, the relatively rare dissonances in this piece were a bit too unexpected. Just when I was getting into the modal, contrapuntal atmosphere of the piece, something threw me out again. If you de want this effect, try to be a bit more subtle, it now sounded rather like I was too lazy to fix a mistake in my own counterpoint. Don't get me wrong here, I do like to be reminded that I'm in the 21st century. Take, for instance, by Messiaen. It sounds very archaic, but underneath that, you can hear that it could only have been written after the onset of musical modernism.

Very enjoyable piece. I remember listening to a lot of minimalism a few years ago, and this nicely captures the spirit of these kinds of pieces. I do, however, think that your melodies could sometimes use a little less sense of direction. This is never a bad thing of course, but I feel that in minimalist music, these themes need to "emerge" almost unnoticed from the texture. The section starting at m. 50 is a good example: I like the melody a lot, but it's just there, with accompaniment, and it's had a proper introduction. I don't really think you need to introduce themes like that here. Also, the melody in m. 115--it's again a nice melody, and it deserves the presence, but it has chosen the wrong style of music to manifest itself. Another thing: your score does not really clarify why you would need two (antiphonal?) orchestras, because most of the time, they're playing the same notes. You could do a lot more with this idea if you would make it more antiphonal, more of a question-answer game or something like that. I have to concur with Black Orpheus on the percussion bit. I do like your orchestration though, you've managed to emulate Adams' and Reich's styles of orchestration quite well. But why this choice of instruments? Almost all instruments play in the soprano-alto range, and I'm thoroughly missing a viola part :P To me, this is rather a large chamber ensemble than an orchestra per se, as every part is played by one performer only.

Don't tempt me, or I will make it before you can... :P

I'd say this is by all means playable. Note that for a melody in fourths, like your example, you use a different finger for each note. If the melody consisted of fifths, the performer would need to use the same finger, on different strings, for consecutive notes. That, or go crazy with position changes.

Thanks for your comment. You may be right about the unisons, but the fact is that I purposefully kept the music rather simple, in order for the (amateur) orchestra to be able to play it. From my experience of playin in orchestras, I know that, although it may be a detriment to the orchestration, it is more rewarding to play if everyone gets to do something every once in a while... That, and I composed in a piano score before orchestrating, which tended to fill up with material quite quickly. Remember, for most chords I needed at least 6 different notes. I like to think of it as "heterophonic", meaning that although parts may be quite similar, they do not stay the same ALL the time.

My first upload here on YC. This is a symphonic poem of about 13 minutes, in (kinda) two movements, commissioned by the Amstelveen Symphony Orchestra for their Fall 2010 programme, which has a "Birds" theme (Amstelveen being a suburb of Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Archaeopteryx is the name of a species of dinosaur fossil that has bird-like properties such as feathers, a beak and the ability to fly. (more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx) My piece depicts the different stages in its "story"; starting with the primeval soup and ending with its first flight. The piece is also an exercise in coherence of themes: almost all of the material is built from a specific 6-note chord: a dominant seventh with added b9 and #11, which I find fascinating because of its tritone symmetry and its austere, static sound, ideal for depicting something like an ancient, fossilized creature. It also marks my first attempt at writing for a full symphony orchestra, however, the Amstelveen Symphony Orchestra is by all means an amateur ensemble, and they insisted on it not being too difficult, which is reflected in my orchestration.I'll be glad to hear any comments and answer any questions. Archaeopteryx

There is no other piece I can think of that sums up the musical crisis at the start of the 20th century more than the Sacre. Even if much of the musical material just came from Stravinsky "noodling" at the piano, as is evident in some bits (for instance the Danse Sacrale, which is basically left-RIGHT! left-RIGHT-left-RIGHT! left-RIIIGHT-chordchordchord :P ) but that's an aspect of this crisis as well, if you think about it. Traditional melody and tonal-ish harmony were disappearing in favor of tone rows and dissonance. Basically, Stravinsky had found a point of balance between "how far can you go?" and compelling, dramatic music. The sad part is, that he had all but exhausted this particular idiom after the Sacre. In this half-hour, he provided enough ideas to last the composing world for decades, in rhythm, harmony, treatment of themes & melodies and orchestration. (On a side note, I once read something about the text that was supposed to go with the bassoon solo: I'm not an english horn! I'm not an english horn! This is too high for me, I'm not an english horn!) I had the privilege to play the Sacre a few months ago, with a student orchestra, in the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam. I couldn't help but note that this is the only piece I know where even the sixth viola (me) has a solo at some point; exactly 29 notes which only I was allowed to play! Felt honoured by that. Playing the Sacre is an awesome experience, my advice to everyone is therefore: if you are ever offered to play it, DO NOT DECLINE THIS OFFER. No matter what instrument you play. All the 100+ parts are as interesting (and challenging) as a solo piece. So, to sum it all up: "meh, seen better" :P

I'd say I like "the low note" in that piece more. That is, right before the climax, the violas drop down to a low forte Db, below the cellos. As a violist, that is one of the nicest notes I've ever played :) A few more: -Mahler: Das Lied von der Erde-5. Der Trunkene im Fruehling, the last cadenza before the final restatement of the theme. -Bartok: Concerto for Orchestra, fifth movement, the brass fanfare over busy 16ths in the strings, about in the middle of the movement. -Rachmaninoff: Symphonic Dances no. 1, the saxophone solo -Beethoven: Symphony no. 8 in F, final movement: the odd C# in the exposition, which resolves to F# in the coda -Stravinsky: Le Sacre du Printemps, the 3 chords in the climax of Rondes Printanieres. Sums up the entire piece for me.

Depends on the intended bowing of those notes. If it has to sound like the tremolo in the other voices, it should be notated as a double-stop with strokes through the stem. If, however, you want the D and C quickly alternating, which is what this notation seems to indicate, they should be slurred together to be played on one bow. (Both those techniques are indeed not difficult at all, but the compromise--alternating notes combined with tremolando--WILL be very awkward.) PS. I seem to like the word "awkward" very much; that is simply because it has no direct translation in my native Dutch... :P

1st movement: 1st violin, measures 64 and 66--two simultaneous notes on the lowest string (G) are impossible to play. 2nd movement: 1st, 2nd violin, viola: these double stops require awkward high positions. 3rd movement: 2nd violin, m.1: unprepared high notes should be avoided 1st violin, m.10: tremolo across 2 strings is kind of awkward Bass, m. 86: be prepared for a really muddy sound there Bass, m. 100: avoid double stops when you have only 1 player on the part. Overall: avoid large leaps, unprepared high notes and quick non-diatonic runs. I recommend you to read Berlioz's Treatise on Instrumentation for idiomatic writing for strings and also for clarinet, about which I as a string player know very little about. Hoping that I have been helpful, Hugo Bouma

I love the atonal-bordering-on-jazzy chords you are using throughout the piece (ex. mm 36-46 in the first movement, 19 onwards in the second, 35-39 and 58-61 in the third movement) and the rhythmic complexities in the third movement. The consequence of this might be, however, that your piece becomes very difficult to play. For example, some of the chords in the slow movement are very tricky if they have to be played non divisi, which will be the case in a string quintet. Also, the first violin especially has a part that could be a concerto in itself! Take care not to overcrowd the texture with too many different lines, especially if your intention is a solo piece with accompaniment-it should be clear which instrument HAS the solo part, which I think is the point of a concerto (or concertino). You do have a good sense of structuring a piece so that it will proceed in a logical manner--I might just be one of the worst offenders in this category, so I should know;)--every movement has a clear feeling of beginning, development and ending, which is a virtue all of its own. I might even learn some things from this piece! All in all a more than pleasant listen. Thank you for uploading this! Greetings, Hugo Bouma