Medley on a Theme by Yoshimatsu

So I wrote this hoping to base all of the melodic material in my piece on the original theme by Yoshimatsu (Waltz of the Rainbow Colored Roses).  However, I deliberately didn't listen to the original piece (only the first couple of seconds where the fragment of the theme is presented) so as to, hopefully be inspired only by the fragment and allow for more possibilities which might have been tainted had I known how Yoshimatsu developed it in his piece.  I came up with many versions of the theme in my musical notepad and then more extensively in my notebook without really any idea of how I was going to put the piece together.  It was just lucky that I somehow managed to create themes that progressively accelerated in tempo when put side by side with each other.  I decided not to include the theme itself in my composition as I thought many people might take that route so I thought it might be more fresh to present the listener only with original versions/transformations of the theme.

The theme in it's original form (as in both the rhythms and the pitches of the theme) does not appear anywhere in my composition.  However, I kept the piece in it's original key of D minor, so the pitches of the original piece should be easy to spot for anyone looking through the score.  I also used inversions of the theme, retrogrades and inversion retrogrades (loosely rather than strictly).  With respect to the inversions and inversion retrogrades I used tonal/diatonic versions rather than "real" inversions (I transposed them diatonically into the key/pitch level I wanted them to occupy).  This is a medley where each of the themes that comes up is a variation of the theme.  Also, the bass-lines, accompaniment figures and counter-melodies are also based on the theme.  Although the harmonic progressions aren't directly derived from the theme.

Let me know what you think of the result and if you have any curiosities about specific transformations of the theme!  Also - it would be great to know if anyone actually voted for my piece so let me know (since I didn't win 😖 LoL).  If you didn't vote for my piece and would like to let me know why that would be great too, so feel free to criticize!

Hi, I actually voted for your piece for second place as I felt it was quite interesting! However, it wasn't without some noticable flaws. While I understand it was a medley, the issue kind of lay in the fact that there was no clear structure. The development of the themes and such seemed to come about at often unexpected timings, which was also partly due to the transitions needing to be improved so that the piece will sound more seamless. In addition when it comes to instrumentation, I would have preferred if there was more representation in the winds particularly, especially since oftentimes it felt more like it was 1 wind instrument playing with the strings rather than a full orchestra, so maybe you could have made a climax or chorus at the end? That was my thought. I found the development to the theme interesting and unique, and was quite a fresh take on the theme. However, to be honest, to me the main drawback about this piece was that  the piece as a whole seemed a little pedestrain. It seemed to lack character which could have been attributed to the lack of a realistic portrayal due to the midi simulation. There is no real drive that pushes the piece forward and keeps the listeners' attention. While the idea of the development of the theme is there, for example you could have added more countermelody, more interesting backgrounds and a suitable narrative that could justify its flow. That's my honest feedback for now, if there's anything else I will comment further. Thanks for participating, I still really enjoyed your piece!

14 hours ago, Joshua Ng said:

While I understand it was a medley, the issue kind of lay in the fact that there was no clear structure. The development of the themes and such seemed to come about at often unexpected timings, which was also partly due to the transitions needing to be improved so that the piece will sound more seamless.

I kind of agree with you that I just kind of pieced together all my material in order from slowest to fastest tempo.  I was counting on them being unified by the fact that they're all based on the same theme which I was hoping would bring some thematic unity to the various parts.  I tried to give each section an even number of measures before transitioning into the next.

14 hours ago, Joshua Ng said:

In addition when it comes to instrumentation, I would have preferred if there was more representation in the winds particularly, especially since oftentimes it felt more like it was 1 wind instrument playing with the strings rather than a full orchestra, so maybe you could have made a climax or chorus at the end? That was my thought.

You're right there again that this piece was mostly conceived as a string orchestra piece with some winds thrown in.  In the end I felt like including flute and piccolo even though they play minor parts because one of the variations near the end was conceived in a more extensive orchestration with 1st Violins, Flute and Oboe on melody and 2nd Violins, and Clarinet on a countermelody, and Violas and Horns on another countermelody with Cellos, Basses pizzicato and Bassoon on the lowest inversion retrograde variation of the theme.  I did include a kind of chorale-like setting of the theme at the very end with the brass and the strings but I could have expanded that to include the woodwinds to have the whole orchestra finish on a tutti.

14 hours ago, Joshua Ng said:

I found the development to the theme interesting and unique, and was quite a fresh take on the theme. However, to be honest, to me the main drawback about this piece was that  the piece as a whole seemed a little pedestrain. It seemed to lack character which could have been attributed to the lack of a realistic portrayal due to the midi simulation. There is no real drive that pushes the piece forward and keeps the listeners' attention. While the idea of the development of the theme is there, for example you could have added more countermelody, more interesting backgrounds and a suitable narrative that could justify its flow. That's my honest feedback for now, if there's anything else I will comment further. Thanks for participating, I still really enjoyed your piece!

First off, thanks for the compliments!  I worked hard on coming up with my own original variations of the theme and I was far from using all my material when I finished putting together this piece although I don't know if I will ever return to it to more exhaustively express those.  My question is - what made my piece seem pedestrian - was it the tempo?  You mention that the piece lacks drive to push it forward.  I on the other hand felt like your piece was sometimes a little rushed.  Maybe our different approaches to tempo have somewhat biased our ear towards the music?  When writing my piece I was also dealing with juxtaposing variations which were all conceived at different tempos so I had to accelerate from the slowest to the quickest often compromising the desired tempo at the beginning and ending of each variation.

As for adding more countermelody - I felt I did that.  Each variation has countermelodies or canonic imitation to it that I deliberately also based on the original theme.  Although I guess your complaint could be interpreted to be in regarding to how those countermelodies were orchestrated which could be richer and more involved.  Also, as you mentioned, my rendition of the piece suffered from lack of realistic sounds.

Anyways - thanks for your vote and for reviewing my piece and letting me know what you thought about it!  Congratulations again on your win!

10 hours ago, PaperComposer said:

what made my piece seem pedestrian

Hi! I appreciate that you took the time to craft a lengthy reply! Hmm, to elaborate on what I felt was a bit pedestrain, it was not the tempo. I would say possibly the playing techniques used is one of the main parts that I felt was a bit pedestrain. Maybe you could include more styles of playing techniques? I will draw some examples from the strings your orchestration was mainly using strings. You could have included different playing techniques especially given the strings' wide range of such. For example, pizzicato, glissando, harmonics, ponticello, spiccato, martele, marcato, sul tasto, you get the idea. I feel the piece can be elevated to an even higher level if you included such techniques. Especially with the midi simulation where the sound of arco strings started to become a bit grating, it would have been nice to have say a pizzicato in the middle. Even say a simple change in say bowstrokes such as a slur-staccato rhythm, tenuto slurs which make it sound half detached would have been very interesting. In addition, maybe including a rhythmic motif outside of the theme that is easy to latch on to could help? It would provide some continuity especially in a medley where more continuity is needed rather than a theme and variations, some sort of continuity other than just the theme would have helped.  In addition, the note values you used were often similar throughout the medley and unchanged for most of theme, and for  a piece that needs to develop the theme, that could have been far more explored. Another point I found slightly pedantic was the register. You took a very safe route with the registers of instruments, especially with strings I would say. You could have included a cello melody say in the treble register or violin playing very high notes. You could afford to be more adventurous in your instrumentation.
 

Also, I forgot to mention in the first reply, the articulations could have been improved. For example, m. 65-86, coming as a string player myself I feel the quavers in the strings would be better off slurred. 
 

I would have preferred it if you mixed up the fast and slow sections so that they're alternating, because it will draw out more contrast than say going from the slowest to the fastest material. 

10 hours ago, PaperComposer said:

Although I guess your complaint could be interpreted to be in regarding to how those countermelodies were orchestrated which could be richer and more involved.

Yea, I think I did not word it properly in my first reply, my apologies. The countermelody is there but needs to be more distinct. I would say that while there is countermelody, the issue is more in the orchestration and instrumentation. The countermelody could have been better executed and be made more distinct, yet it should be more memorable so that it really stands out and feels more like an independent voice in the middleground. This may have due to the midi simulation, but that was my thought after listening through it again. Maybe what you could do is make the background softer? Or make it less interesting so it does not hog the attention of the middleground. Alternatively, you could alter the register so that the countermelody is in its own unique register. Especially since your instrumentation has extensive doubling and many parts played in the same register, this is just going to muddle the sound of individual instruments and make the countermelodies and canonic imitations you mentioned get muddled and unintelligible. I would also say that you could add more instruments into the background to make the background sound richer. 
 

I hope that clarifies some stuff!

8 hours ago, Joshua Ng said:

Maybe you could include more styles of playing techniques? I will draw some examples from the strings your orchestration was mainly using strings. You could have included different playing techniques especially given the strings' wide range of such. For example, pizzicato, glissando, harmonics, ponticello, spiccato, martele, marcato, sul tasto, you get the idea. I feel the piece can be elevated to an even higher level if you included such techniques. Especially with the midi simulation where the sound of arco strings started to become a bit grating, it would have been nice to have say a pizzicato in the middle. Even say a simple change in say bowstrokes such as a slur-staccato rhythm, tenuto slurs which make it sound half detached would have been very interesting.

I am not a string player so usage of those extended techniques does not come naturally to me.  I did use pizzicato briefly in the basses.  You mention measures 65 - 86 - I intended those figures to be under a single legato/phrase marking but admittedly, this was a rush job so I didn't get to include all the little details in the score that I should have perhaps.

8 hours ago, Joshua Ng said:

In addition, the note values you used were often similar throughout the medley and unchanged for most of theme, and for  a piece that needs to develop the theme, that could have been far more explored.

I feel like I did that as well although I can understand that complaint because many of the faster variations which I put into the piece were originally conceived in 6/8 but I couched them into 3/4 (or 6/4 rather) and upped the tempo so as to craft more continuity between the different variations and to have them lead from one to the other more smoothly in terms of using similar meters and tempos.

8 hours ago, Joshua Ng said:

I would have preferred it if you mixed up the fast and slow sections so that they're alternating, because it will draw out more contrast than say going from the slowest to the fastest material.

I think mixing up the different tempos instead of going from slowest to fastest could also have made the different variations seem more disjointed and disconnected though.

About the issues of balancing the background vs. the countermelodies - I felt like I did try to do that as well but I felt like I needed more dynamic levels than just pp, p, mp, mf, f, ff and in MuseScore 3 ppp and fff don't seem to work very well (maybe they're just for display purposes).

Anyways - thanks for your input!  I will definitely keep all those things in mind in the future!

Hmm I would say the simplest and conventional way would be to use pizzicato, and yea you should have use more pizzicato to make the work more interesting.

Other than that, I agree with your comments! Just a quick tip in musescore 3 as I used to use it for composing, if you want the marking to be for example mp, but for the midi to sound mf, u could notate it down mp on the score first, then add a second dynamic marking mf directly on top of it and make it invisible. That way, it says it's mp but it's actually mf! Disclaimer though, I don't think it works the other way round, it only applies when the invisible dynamic marking is louder than the visible one as musescore takes the louder one as preference. As for such, you could put an invisible dynamic marking on the very next note as a workaround.

56 minutes ago, Joshua Ng said:

Just a quick tip in musescore 3 as I used to use it for composing, if you want the marking to be for example mp, but for the midi to sound mf, u could notate it down mp on the score first, then add a second dynamic marking mf directly on top of it and make it invisible. That way, it says it's mp but it's actually mf! Disclaimer though, I don't think it works the other way round, it only applies when the invisible dynamic marking is louder than the visible one as musescore takes the louder one as preference. As for such, you could put an invisible dynamic marking on the very next note as a workaround.

That's a great tip that I didn't know about!  Thanks for that!  Although what I have most trouble with is quick crescendos and decrescendos on a single note.  Right now the only way I see of doing that is to split the note into two or more parts and give each part a different dynamic with a hairpin in between them (say for a sforzando piano kind of effect).  It looks kind of bad in the score and there's no way to just hide that extra stuff and make it look like just one note as far as I know.  Thanks again!

On 1/1/2021 at 1:32 PM, PaperComposer said:

Although what I have most trouble with is quick crescendos and decrescendos on a single note.

Hmm have you tried using invisible accents? The accents (with tenuto) increase the dynamics for a particular note temporarily for Musescore so you could use that? But it does come with its own side effects like sounding too forceful. It appears that this is an issue with most notation software, note just Musescore, as sudden cresc. and dim. are normally not well articulated. The other option is to put in an invisible dynamic marking on that note and put another invisible dynamic marking on the next note with invisible crescendos and diminuendos between 

9 hours ago, Joshua Ng said:

The other option is to put in an invisible dynamic marking on that note and put another invisible dynamic marking on the next note with invisible crescendos and diminuendos between

Right - that can be made invisible.  But the note would still have to be split into two parts (say a half note would have to be split into two quarter notes tied to each other) and there doesn't seem to be a way to make it look like just a half note again without destroying the dynamics and hairpins you established below.

9 hours ago, Joshua Ng said:

Hmm have you tried using invisible accents? The accents (with tenuto) increase the dynamics for a particular note temporarily for Musescore so you could use that? But it does come with its own side effects like sounding too forceful.

I haven't tried that - thanks!

22 hours ago, PaperComposer said:

Right - that can be made invisible.  But the note would still have to be split into two parts (say a half note would have to be split into two quarter notes tied to each other) and there doesn't seem to be a way to make it look like just a half note again without destroying the dynamics and hairpins you established below.

Hmm that is true. If I were in your situation, I would have notated down a crescendo or dim. over just that single note and maybe play around with and increase the velocity change in the crescendo or diminuendo. However, both methods are not a great workaround and hence when I was still using Musescore I tended to avoid sharp hairpins over a single note because of this. The paid software, such as Dorico (which I've switched to now) and Sibelius, both have hairpins so you could try looking to upgrade your software if this is a really pressing issue. 

There is a way to do this in MuseScore 3 that I just found!  https://musescore.org/en/node/289983

You just make invisible rests in an unused voice on the staff where you want the added dynamics.

4 hours ago, PaperComposer said:

There is a way to do this in MuseScore 3 that I just found!  https://musescore.org/en/node/289983

You just make invisible rests in an unused voice on the staff where you want the added dynamics.

 

Oh nice! Thanks!