Violin concerto, part the 1st (9'00")

All right, here is the completed draft of the first "movement" of the violin concerto I've been working on. I'm confident there will still be plenty of changes made, especially as I consult with the violinist dedicatee, but I'm going to put this here for feedback for now.

Two sections — andante con moto and moderato assai — played without pause between them. I've included both sections individually, as well as the combined file in case the stopping bothers you. I've also included the score, which is more or less cleaned up (haven't finalized the rehearsal markings yet btw).

This is all quartal and polytonal harmonies. I'm not apologizing for it, just be warned that this sounds very little like Beethoven or Brahms or Bach (maybe more like Bartók). The sound file has been rendered by Noteperformer... so please try to interpret the score accordingly! (For example, the triple stops in the violin part will likely be played more like acciaccatura and not simultaneously as in the recording.)

Feedback is always appreciated, even if it's as generic as "I didn't like it." (Although hopefully that won't be the case!) If you have any questions, I'm happy to try to answer them.

Happy listening!

Edit: I've removed the sound files and added a link to this "album" on SoundCloud, that way you can keep up with the latest fine tunings. I'll update the changes to the score whenever I have more of the next movement written. The latest iteration of the 2nd movement features an improved climactic moment in the first half (beginning around the 2:30 mark). It's still unders light construction, but the main ideas are there. Do let me know what you think.

Furthermore, the piece has been given an actual name: Ferðalok (FEHR-thah-lawk), Icelandic for "Journey's End." The movement titles have likewise been reflavored to provide (hopefully) a bit more imagery. This is based on a poem by the same name.

Thanks for all the feedback received thus far; it's been extremely useful!

It's a beautiful piece. Are you perchance a violinist? (I'm a not very good violist but have talked aplenty with a retired professional in a local orchestra and looking through that part can see nothing 'impossible', acknowledging how the triple stops would be played (assuming they're played 'upward'. tell me if I'm wrong).

I'm happy enough to accept the work as it is with the minor exception of the closing bars (starting at around 174) the brass, while exhilarating came over too powerful. I'm not sure how you could tame it, assuming you'd want to. It's a grand end to what for much of the time is a translucent texture. I can't see a point in those bars where an earlier build up could start. Perhaps just a touch quieter might make it come as less of a surprise. 

There are moments elsewhere where balance and dynamics might be adjusted slightly as I'll bet you'll recognise yourself. I felt the violin should be a little more out-front and wonder if noteperformer hasn't let you down there. When solo it's fine but it's easily weakened in the mix. Perhaps you want it that way?

As a movement it holds together well - an accomplishment indeed - so if you changed the musical structure and/or harmony that would be because you've changed your mind about its development.

I briefly looked through the score but if I may say so, it's obvious that you know what you're doing so I didn't go into much detail. 

I'd love to hear your final rendering or, if it comes to it, the live performance.

Cheers for now. 

3 minutes ago, Quinn said:

It's a beautiful piece. Are you perchance a violinist? (I'm a not very good violist but have talked aplenty with a retired professional in a local orchestra and looking through that part can see nothing 'impossible', acknowledging how the triple stops would be played (assuming they're played 'upward'. tell me if I'm wrong).

Thank you! I am also a not very good violist, though I do own a violin and did my best to work out the fingerings/bowings of some of the more difficult passages.

4 minutes ago, Quinn said:

I'm happy enough to accept the work as it is with the minor exception of the closing bars (starting at around 174) the brass, while exhilarating came over too powerful. I'm not sure how you could tame it, assuming you'd want to. It's a grand end to what for much of the time is a translucent texture. I can't see a point in those bars where an earlier build up could start. Perhaps just a touch quieter might make it come as less of a surprise.

You know, I hadn't considered that the ending would be uncharacteristically bombastic — it was written early on in the life of this work, and I'd decided on creating a 'foreshadowing' of the ending about midway through the piece (the tutti passage at around 2'30" of the moderato section) to prepare the listener for it. However, now that I listen to the closing bars and take the transluscence of the piece into consideration, I agree that it's too much. Thanks for the heads-up!

10 minutes ago, Quinn said:

There are moments elsewhere where balance and dynamics might be adjusted slightly as I'll bet you'll recognise yourself. I felt the violin should be a little more out-front and wonder if noteperformer hasn't let you down there. When solo it's fine but it's easily weakened in the mix. Perhaps you want it that way?

I noticed that, too. I've not used Noteperformer before so its mechanics are new to me; it seems it plays things with relativity, as you noticed. I'm going to work on a better rendering. Hopefully that will address these issues of balance and dynamics.

15 minutes ago, Quinn said:

As a movement it holds together well - an accomplishment indeed - so if you changed the musical structure and/or harmony that would be because you've changed your mind about its development.

Thank you! No, I would likely only be changing the solo violin passages per the advice of the violinist. I'm afraid my composing style isn't quite his preference, so I feel I should at least let him play a part he finds enjoyable.

17 minutes ago, Quinn said:

I'd love to hear your final rendering or, if it comes to it, the live performance.

Yes, thank you! Me, too!

I have zero experience of quartal or polytonal harmony and I listen to little music that incorporates it, especially in its entirety as you claim.

Even so, I am nonetheless enchanted by the 'disturbances' that you have captured. I feel that this music is more relatable to the human experience over which the urge to sugar coat with niceties and artificial unity are resisted.

Thank you for sharing... it has been enlightening 😉

4 hours ago, Markus Boyd said:

I have zero experience of quartal or polytonal harmony and I listen to little music that incorporates it, especially in its entirety as you claim.

Even so, I am nonetheless enchanted by the 'disturbances' that you have captured. I feel that this music is more relatable to the human experience over which the urge to sugar coat with niceties and artificial unity are resisted.

Thank you for sharing... it has been enlightening 😉

I very much appreciate your taking the time to listen and provide comment. I am quite moved by your humble remarks, particularly the bit about the music relating to the human experience. That is the ultimate goal of each piece I write: to echo what it means to be human within the confines of the aural arts. This particular work may be easier to 'hear' that within, owing to the singular voice of the solo violin; nevertheless, I am glad you were able to find the 'enlightening' connection. 😉 

I’m impressed! This is really well written. I have a few comments; take them with many grains of salt as most are stylistic and I’m not well-versed in the style of this piece—so they’re mostly blind and possibly irrelevant.

Firstly, make sure you have a little note somewhere that says that the score is in concert pitch. I'm certainly not complaining though; it was far easier to follow the score not having to read a whole bunch of transpositions at once.

Long ride for the solo part here. Be aware that some of the double/triple/quadruple stops and leaps you've inserted will probably be very difficult to execute at performance tempo. I'm sure your dedicatee is very talented, but make sure they're able to pull these off while maintaining the integrity of your markings (and of course good intonation and sound quality). I'm not really worried about impossibility, though, since I know you play the viola. One spot that caught my eye at the get-go: m. 19-23. Those leaps are really up there, and probably nigh impossible to execute while playing pianissimo. And then in 22-23, even though that passage is easier than 19-20, it's still going to be really hard to play quietly. Same for 64-66. That crescendo will probably end up quite a lot louder than mezzo-piano. The triple stops at 53-54 and 57 will also be very difficult just in terms of fingering and intonation. It also looks like the first two triple stops in m.70 are impossible. The first one will either require Db on the G string, A on the D string, open A, and B on the E string, or else a leap from the D string to E mid-double stop. The latter of these probably isn't feasible. I'd add a second A to the score to make it clear (if that's what you're going for, that is). The second triple stop requires both an Ab and Db simultaneously. Since these are on the G string, that isn't possible unless you notate the Ab as a grace note to indicate that it isn't part of the chord and should be played before the Db and Bb. But be aware that the triple (double?) stop won't sound as smoothly this way. But that's better than being impossible, right? As for m. 88, the G and C# double stop is impossible, no way around it. I might stop focusing (or focus less) on the solo violin with my comments for the rest of the piece, so I'd advise you to do a really good proofreading session for the violin part and check for feasibility. I probably missed other impossible double stops since I wasn't particularly looking for them, so make sure you screen the whole thing. On the high notes, it might be a good idea to put in harmonics (natural, not artificial) where you can. I know you've done this in several places to achieve a certain color. But putting them in more places (especially faster notes) will improve the intonation, won't change the tone color (too much, at least), and will make some of the high sections much easier. I'm writing that looking at m.109, where all of the notes could be harmonics and the part would become much easier and probably sound quite a lot better. Another thing; most of the difficulty in the piece is the double stops and the leaps, and a great difficulty they are. If I were your dedicatee, I would appreciate varied items of difficulty (for example, a fast passage could work well in the character of this piece). Also (this I'll talk about more later), expressiveness is my favorite challenge as a violist. Technical difficulty is all well and good, but there's not as much interpretation in that. Make sure you have plenty of chances for the soloist to express themselves as a musician--really, that's the most important part of any concerto--and not just show off their quadruple stop and shifting skillz. I enjoy the chords, though. Don’t mistake that for me saying I don’t.

As for the style, I think you've done really well. I can't say that I know a lot (anything, really) about this style and won't pretend to, but here's one thing I do know: going back to one of my comments on the solo violin earlier, there need to be so many chances for the soloist to be expressive. That looks different for everyone. After reading your response, it’s apparent you’ve put a lot of thought into constructing the thematic material of the concerto. You’re fortunate to have a dedicatee for this concerto, which means (and maybe you’ve talked about this while meeting with them?) that you have the opportunity to insert passages exclusively suited to their creative voice. You said that the violinist isn't a huge fan of your compositional style. Adding more “traditionally” melodic segments to the soloist part could be a great way to make him/her enjoy the part much more and balance the style you’ve written in with their playing style. Additionally, that could even work really well as a way of contrasting the ensemble and soloist and providing opportunities for musical dialogue. Just food for thought. 

You also might consider adding just a few places where the harmony is more traditional (I’m saying that as someone inexperienced with this style, so again, grains of salt). I mentioned to you that post-romantic music is so enjoyable for me because the modern compositional techniques coupled with traditional elements make for more expressive, more impactful (to me) music. I'm not telling you to X out all of the long dissonant passages, but I would have enjoyed places of harmonic resolution (in terms of modern to traditional, not necessarily a cadence) Even if you just have these a little bit, everyone will be happier: the soloist, the orchestra, the audience (that's an important one), and even you, I'd wager, because the musical style will possess greater balance, making everything in the piece more meaningful. Think of whyThe Rite of Spring might be regarded as one of the greatest musical masterpieces of the 20th century even by general audiences—it’s very dissonant, very polytonal, right? For me, Stravinsky's masterstroke was to provide relief from all of the hard-on-the-ear material. He did this within movements, but also provided long sections of surprisingly consonant harmony. My favorite movement of the Rite is 'The Round-Dances of Spring’ because of the relief it brings—that makes both the traditional and contemporary aspects of the piece more impactful. I’m sure that his contemporary writing was also brilliant and there’s something to that too, but I’m no expert on that.  

Quinn said that the ending is too bombastic for the translucent texture, and he's right. I actually really like the end though. If you’d like to keep the end as it exists in this score, I just have some brainstorm-y ideas. I would vary the texture quite a lot more. Give more textural time to the woodwinds and brass. Based on just the sound of the MIDI recording, the concerto is very string-heavy (I’m not saying that after intensive score review); that isn't a bad thing (and a live performance would probably yield a very different texture), BUT even MIDI playback can make distinctions between different textures! I don’t even now how applicable that is to your piece, but it’s always good advice so I’ll leave it.
Also, I missed out on a climax, which would make a louder ending smoother.

Another thing: where are the color and character changes? Perhaps it's just because I'm not used to this style (or maybe just MIDI), but I couldn't really hear any. 

Anyway, I think that constitutes most of my feedback. This is really good, and I'm excited to see how it turns out! 

Jacob

35 minutes ago, JWNewton said:

Long ride for the solo part here. Be aware that some of the double/triple/quadruple stops and leaps you've inserted will probably be very difficult to execute at performance tempo. I'm sure your dedicatee is very talented, but make sure they're able to pull these off with good intonation and sound quality. I'm not really worried about impossibility, though, since I know you play the viola. One spot that caught my eye at the get-go: m. 19-23. Those leaps are really up there, and probably nigh impossible to execute while playing pianissimo. And then in 22-23, even though that passage is easier than 19-20, it's still going to be really hard to play quietly. Same for 64-66. That crescendo will probably end up quite a lot louder than mezzo-piano. The triple stops at 53-54 and 57 will also be very difficult just in terms of fingering and intonation. It also looks like the first two triple stops in m.70 are impossible. The first one will either require Db on the G string, A on the D string, open A, and B on the E string, or else a leap from the D string to E mid-double stop. The latter of these probably isn't feasible. I'd add a second A to the score to make it clear (if that's what you're going for, that is). The second triple stop requires both an Ab and Db simultaneously. Since these are on the G string, that isn't possible unless you notate the Ab as a grace note to indicate that it isn't part of the chord and should be played before the Db and Bb. But be aware that the triple (double?) stop won't sound as smoothly this way. But that's better than being impossible, right? As for m. 88, the G and C# double stop is impossible, no way around it. I might stop focusing (or focus less) on the solo violin with my comments for the rest of the piece, so I'd advise you to do a really good proofreading session for the violin part and check for feasibility. It would sure stink if you had to take a lot of time with your dedicatee to do this when you can do it on your own time. I probably missed other impossible double stops since I wasn't even looking for them, so make sure you screen the whole thing. My advice, also, on the high notes, is to put in harmonics (natural, not artificial) where you can. I know you've done this in several parts to achieve a certain color. But putting them in more places (especially faster notes) will improve the intonation, won't change the tone color (too much, at least), and will make some of the high sections much easier. I'm writing that looking at m.109, where all of the notes could be harmonics and the part would become much easier and probably sound quite a lot better. Another thing; most of the difficulty in the piece is the double stops and the leaps, and a great difficulty they are. If I were your dedicatee, I would appreciate varied items of difficulty (for example, a fast passage could work well in the character of this piece). Also (this I'll talk about more later), expressiveness is my favorite challenge as a violist. Technical difficulty is all well and good, but there's no interpretation in that. Make sure you have plenty of chances for the soloist to express themselves as a musician--really, that's the most important part of any concerto--and not just show off their quadruple stop and shifting skillz.

You've got a great eye/ear for this! I've actually met with the violinist in person since posting this and we made almost the exact changes to the stops you made mention of here. Some of the problematic passages you've mentioned were changed to "rolled" chords, some triple stops omitted altogether, others given the grace note you talked about.

I will add the harmonics notations; thanks for that recommendation!

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the narrowness of the technical difficulty here. The idea behind the stops was not to increase difficulty for difficulty's sake, but really because I love stops on the violin. And I guess I disagree with your point about there being a lack of interpretation there. Perhaps less interpretation than in a fast, difficult passage. In any case, your point about the addition of a fast passage is noted. This piece is being composed rather open-endedly, and as I add more thematic material, I will likely come back to revise the earlier movements — including a fast passage or two in the 2nd movement, should the muse within demand it. 🙂 

51 minutes ago, JWNewton said:

One comment for the whole thing. Courtesy. Accidentals. In a piece like this where there isn't much of a tonal center, they are a necessity. 

This comment has me confused. Are you saying I neglected to put them in? I've gone back through the score a few times now and can't find where I missed them...

(Also, we will have to agree to disagree about the lack of a tonal center.)

58 minutes ago, JWNewton said:

As for the style, I think you've done really well. I can't say that I know a lot (anything, really) about this style and won't pretend to, but here's one thing I do know: going back to one of my comments on the solo violin earlier, there need to be so many chances for the soloist to be expressive. I hope I put enough typeface emphasis there 😉 I know that the style of this piece isn't very melodic, so if I were to write this piece, doing that would be the biggest challenge for me by far. Related, you said that the violinist isn't a huge fan of your compositional style. Adding melodic segments to the soloist part would be a great way to make him/her enjoy it much more. It could even work really well as a way of contrasting the ensemble and soloist and providing opportunities for musical dialogue. I seriously can't say this enough. 

I hope what I'm about to say doesn't come off as condescending, lol. I truly don't mean it that way.

The idea that this isn't melodic or melody-driven really gives me pause. There are 3 themes here (4 really, but one hasn't been developed yet) that have the necessary characteristics of a melody: they are constructed from a scale and they have a recognizeable pattern.

Theme 1:

Theme 2:

Theme 3:

The rest of the music in these movements is derived from these 3 melodies. Now, if you mean lyrical melodies, I would agree that these themes are not Tchaikovsky, lol. To me, though, they sound expressive, and the way the violin leaps around from tritone to tritone gives me chills. But I will take what you've said into consideration and see what expressive opportunities present themselves. 😉 

1 hour ago, JWNewton said:

You also need places of consonance. I mentioned to you that post-romanticism is so enjoyable for me because the modern compositional techniques coupled with traditional elements make for more romantic, more impactful music. I'm not telling you to X out all of the long dissonant passages, but you do need to have places where the harmony is tertiary. Not even that--you need some traditional harmony. Even if just a little bit, everyone will be happier: the soloist, the orchestra, the audience (that's an important one), and even you, I'd wager. Think of The Rite of Spring, one of the greatest musical masterpieces of the 20th century. It's very dissonant, very polytonal, right? To me, Stravinsky's masterstroke was to provide relief from all of the hard-on-the-ear material. He did this within movements, but also provided long sections of surprisingly consonant harmony. My favorite movement of the Rite is 'The Round-Dances of Spring.' Give that a listen (the LSO has a great recording!) and I think you'll have a really good picture of what I'm trying to get at here. 

Here, again, we will have to agree to disagree. I think consonance/dissonance enters into the realm of personal taste. For instance, I think this piece borders on being too consonant, dangerously approaching tertian harmony in a few places. I am familiar with The Rite of Spring and admire Stravinsky's handling of the material — but Stravinsky is not me, lol. (Wouldn't that be nice, though?)

I absolutely own that these harmonies are not for everybody. I also have to own that I can't write music that makes everyone happy... so I have to write what makes me happy. And in a work couched in nothing but quartal harmonies, it goes against everything my intuition has to offer to introduce tertian harmonies — and that's not even considering the fact that I think quartal harmonies sound wonderfully fresh on their own.

(The entire concept of consonance and dissonance is embedded in the strategy of using quartal harmony, by the way. As these first two movements are meant to be darker in color, they are going to consist of more dissonant fourth intervals.)

1 hour ago, JWNewton said:

Quinn said that the ending is too bombastic for the translucent texture, and he's right. I actually really like the end though. So here's my take on what you could do. I would vary the texture quite a lot more. Give more time to the woodwinds and brass (by the way, nice job on making their parts breathable; they will love you for that). The concerto is very string-heavy; that isn't bad, but you have so many other opportunities for texture! Don't waste them. Add more shape to the musical landscape, both with texture and dynamics. Also, I missed out on a climax. I'm a firm believer in maintaining listener engagement in music, and exciting sections are a great way to do that. Another way to do that is to have more thematic material. Remember when I mentioned that 😉? Anyway, having more of a climax will make a louder ending smoother.

Ah, yes, great points. (I don't know about this being a string-heavy work, though. If anything, I think the woodwinds have the biggest part, and the violins/violas aren't even introduced until m. 23.) There is a climax at m. 89 and again at the end of the score (m. 174), also some moments of "increased dynamics" at m. 24 and 142. I agree, though, that the climactic moments could be better and am currently working to expand the material at m. 89.

1 hour ago, JWNewton said:

You have a lot of motivic development that adds to the piece, and that's wonderful. I have just a thought about that. Have you ever listened to Mozart's Jupiter Symphony? It, along with the 40th, is typically regarded as his best (and one of the greatest ever). I ask because of what he does in the fourth movement. Mozart takes the five major themes from the other movements (along with four new themes) and makes this giant fugue-ish counterpoint thing. Usually I don't recommend Wikipedia, but the article about the symphony is pretty good and will illustrate what I'm talking about. Here it is: link. What I'm getting at is that you could do something similar. Maybe not in these two movements, but at the end (if there's another movement). Take all of the motifs that you've developed and put them together to make a really cool climax.

You may have noticed that the two themes are brought together at the end of the piece, thrusting it into the next movement (yet to be written, of course).

2 hours ago, JWNewton said:

Another thing: where are the color and character changes? Perhaps it's just because I'm not used to this style, but I couldn't really find any. 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. To my ear, this piece has lots of color and character, but I don't really have enough information to answer that question.

2 hours ago, JWNewton said:

Anyway, I think that constitutes most of my feedback. This is really good, and I'm excited to see how it turns out! Just remember: more melodic material!! 😉 

Yes, and thank you for your detailed feedback! I'm sorry that I wasn't able to address a lot of the issues you brought up, but I'll keep them in mind as I trudge through whatever lies ahead for this piece.

Thanks for taking the time to listen and comment!

Best,

Jörfi

13 hours ago, Tónskáld said:

You've got a great eye/ear for this! I've actually met with the violinist in person since posting this and we made almost the exact changes to the stops you made mention of here. Some of the problematic passages you've mentioned were changed to "rolled" chords, some triple stops omitted altogether, others given the grace note you talked about.

I will add the harmonics notations; thanks for that recommendation!

I’m glad at least some of this was helpful! 😅

13 hours ago, Tónskáld said:

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the narrowness of the technical difficulty here. The idea behind the stops was not to increase difficulty for difficulty's sake, but really because I love stops on the violin. And I guess I disagree with your point about there being a lack of interpretation there. Perhaps less interpretation than in a fast, difficult passage. In any case, your point about the addition of a fast passage is noted. This piece is being composed rather open-endedly, and as I add more thematic material, I will likely come back to revise the earlier movements — including a fast passage or two in the 2nd movement, should the muse within demand it. 🙂 

No, the fast passage has nothing to do with interpretation. There’s more interpretation in chords than fast notes, I think. But I really phrased that horribly. There’s plenty of opportunity for interpretation in this concerto, but I think there could be more. Pēteris Vasks’ Cello Concerto “PRESENCE” (2015) is one of my favorite contemporary works, and elements of your piece remind me of it (though they are very different). I don’t know if you’ve heard it before, but I think you might find some inspiration for this piece in listening to it. At least, it will clarify what I’m trying to say with the solo interpretiveness. 

I do enjoy the stops; don’t let me convince you otherwise. All I was saying is don’t overuse them (it seems that the vast majority lot of the solo material is chords, so I was just suggesting a proportion change).

13 hours ago, Tónskáld said:

Here, again, we will have to agree to disagree. I think consonance/dissonance enters into the realm of personal taste. For instance, I think this piece borders on being too consonant, dangerously approaching tertian harmony in a few places. I am familiar with The Rite of Spring and admire Stravinsky's handling of the material — but Stravinsky is not me, lol. (Wouldn't that be nice, though?)

I absolutely own that these harmonies are not for everybody. I also have to own that I can't write music that makes everyone happy... so I have to write what makes me happy. And in a work couched in nothing but quartal harmonies, it goes against everything my intuition has to offer to introduce tertian harmonies — and that's not even considering the fact that I think quartal harmonies sound wonderfully fresh on their own

Yes, these were more of the guesswork comments. I defer to your judgment; you’re the expert, not me.

Still, I stand by my advice to include some sort of harmonic resolution. Remember that all great music has balance that helps to take the listener on a journey, especially in a large work like this. And I, as a listener with probably more exposure (though still a negligible amount) to contemporary music than the audience for when this work is performed, found the journey hard to engage with. Just something to keep in mind. 

By all means—write what makes you happy, though. That’s more important. 

13 hours ago, Tónskáld said:

Ah, yes, great points. (I don't know about this being a string-heavy work, though. If anything, I think the woodwinds have the biggest part, and the violins/violas aren't even introduced until m. 23.) There is a climax at m. 89 and again at the end of the score (m. 174), also some moments of "increased dynamics" at m. 24 and 142. I agree, though, that the climactic moments could be better and am currently working to expand the material at m. 89.

I think the string-heaviness might just have been MIDI’s fault. You know the score better than I do. 
I’m glad that you’re working on the climaxes!

13 hours ago, Tónskáld said:

You may have noticed that the two themes are brought together at the end of the piece, thrusting it into the next movement (yet to be written, of course).

I didn’t notice that. Good on you for bringing the motifs together. 
 

I think a lot of things with this where just stylistic differences. It seems that our tastes with contemporary music vary slightly—so write what makes you and the soloist happy and what you think best for the piece—not what makes me happy. 
 

Again, just reiterating that I enjoyed listening to your concerto. 

13 hours ago, Tónskáld said:

1 hour ago, JWNewton said:

No, the fast passage has nothing to do with interpretation. There’s more interpretation in chords than fast notes, I think. But I really phrased that horribly. There’s plenty of opportunity for interpretation in this concerto, but I think there could be more. Pēteris Vasks’ Cello Concerto “PRESENCE” (2015) is one of my favorite contemporary works, and elements of your piece remind me of it (though they are very different). I don’t know if you’ve heard it before, but I think you might find some inspiration for this piece in listening to it. At least, it will clarify what I’m trying to say with the solo interpretiveness. 

I do enjoy the stops; don’t let me convince you otherwise. All I was saying is don’t overuse them (it seems that the vast majority lot of the solo material is chords, so I was just suggesting a proportion change).

Yes, point taken. As I gain clearer vision into what this is going to become (roadmap only thus far), I imagine there will be a lot of changes to help balance this out.

And, please, don't think for a second your comments aren't helpful; they are. I'm hopeful that the finished product will make everything "sound" better.

1 hour ago, JWNewton said:

Yes, these were more of the guesswork comments. I defer to your judgment; you’re the expert, not me.

Still, I stand by my advice to include some sort of harmonic resolution. Remember that all great music has balance that helps to take the listener on a journey, especially in a large work like this. And I, as a listener with probably more exposure (though still a negligible amount) to contemporary music than the audience for when this work is performed, found the journey hard to engage with. Just something to keep in mind. 

By all means—write what makes you happy, though. That’s more important. 

You bring up an important point here that needs addressing and which has two possible answers. First, I am by no means an expert at this and have taken your objections into consideration. Chances are this is hard to engage with because I'm just not a good composer. But there is a second possibility, difficult to address without coming across as supercilious. When I first got into classical music, I adored Vivaldi and Mozart and Beethoven... and abhorred Bach. I always told my fellow music geeks who enjoyed Bach that "he just didn't do anything for me." The truth was I didn't understand his music. While Vivaldi and company had recognizable high points and low points, melodies that were easy to follow, harmony that made sense to me, Bach's music was much more obtuse. Denser. Richer. It wasn't until I purchased a score of his Brandenburg concerti and orchestral suites and actually studied his music that it all began to come together. I finally understood what he was doing, what his music was about. Nowadays I regard him as the zenith of musical composition. His genius is unsurpassed. I can tell similar stories about the music of Schönberg, Berg, Hindemith, Messiaen — it was little more than "noise" to me at first, difficult/impossible to engage with until I understood how they were putting their music together.

Of course, I am no Bach or any of those aforementioned fellows, but I think the same principle could apply: the extent to which a listener can engage with music is limited by his/her ability to understand it. It's easy to get lost in music if you've no idea what's going on, yet it doesn't always mean that it's a random amalgamation of musical pitch and rhythm. You mentioned in an earlier post about there not being much of a tonal center in this work, and I'm glad you said that because it helps me understand where you're coming from. In actuality, this piece is extremely tonal — it's just not diatonic, and I think you (and many, many others) are conflating tonality with diatonic tonal centers. The "key" here is determined by a scale of 8 notes. And because of the way the scale is arranged, tertian harmony is unwieldy (for example, plagal and imperfect/perfect cadences are not possible). The best I can do to inject "traditional harmony" in this work is to have a random major/minor chord show up... which I think would sound largely out of place except to end the piece and give it some resolution. I'll be happy to tell you all about my composing process and how this piece is musically structured!

2 hours ago, JWNewton said:

I think a lot of things with this where just stylistic differences. It seems that our tastes with contemporary music vary slightly—so write what makes you and the soloist happy and what you think best for the piece—not what makes me happy. 
 

Again, just reiterating that I enjoyed listening to your concerto. 

Yes, and thank you once again for your thoughtful and honest feedback! I really do appreciate it — and it is very helpful, despite what you may think.

1 hour ago, Tónskáld said:

You bring up an important point here that needs addressing and which has two possible answers. First, I am by no means an expert at this and have taken your objections into consideration. Chances are this is hard to engage with because I'm just not a good composer.

That isn't true. You are an excellent composer. 

1 hour ago, Tónskáld said:

Of course, I am no Bach or any of those aforementioned fellows, but I think the same principle could apply: the extent to which a listener can engage with music is limited by his/her ability to understand it. It's easy to get lost in music if you've no idea what's going on, yet it doesn't always mean that it's a random amalgamation of musical pitch and rhythm. 

I definitely think it's more for this reason that I'm struggling a bit. Make no mistake: this piece is wonderful, and even I, someone completely inexperienced with the sort of harmony you employ here, can tell that. But I'm very limited in my ability to understand it, and so struggle to engage with it. 

I must admit this thread has taken a puzzling turn. The discussion makes my critique look rather pale!

As a reviewer I have to be aware that I’m not the composer so there’s no point in referring what I’d have done re my own preferences. Rather than think how I would have composed it, it’s what I felt the composer was trying to develop. So any suggestions have to be seen in that context. Hence it’s often useful to have the score to “see through” the rendering where necessary.

I felt that as an accomplished composer you’ll know what you’re after plus or minus a few details at this stage and, given it’s a multi-movement work, would almost certainly make adjustments small and large as you went along and probably on completion – in keeping with your own style and taste.

Likewise, Noteperformer, while very good, does have a few oddities thanks to its part-modelled (rather than sampled) sounds. It can deceive, hence again the score is useful.

So, please accept that my critique wasn’t intentionally superficial. I had no problems with the balance of consonant v dissonant. And I do believe that violinists would individually interpret their solo as they saw fit. Benedetti would sound nothing like Kennedy, etc!

Cheers.

10 hours ago, Quinn said:

I must admit this thread has taken a puzzling turn. The discussion makes my critique look rather pale!

As a reviewer I have to be aware that I’m not the composer so there’s no point in referring what I’d have done re my own preferences. Rather than think how I would have composed it, it’s what I felt the composer was trying to develop. So any suggestions have to be seen in that context. Hence it’s often useful to have the score to “see through” the rendering where necessary.

I felt that as an accomplished composer you’ll know what you’re after plus or minus a few details at this stage and, given it’s a multi-movement work, would almost certainly make adjustments small and large as you went along and probably on completion – in keeping with your own style and taste.

Likewise, Noteperformer, while very good, does have a few oddities thanks to its part-modelled (rather than sampled) sounds. It can deceive, hence again the score is useful.

So, please accept that my critique wasn’t intentionally superficial. I had no problems with the balance of consonant v dissonant. And I do believe that violinists would individually interpret their solo as they saw fit. Benedetti would sound nothing like Kennedy, etc!

Cheers.

Your comments were perfectly adequate and very appreciated! There is merit to every response/criticism so long as it comes from a place of honesty. While I can't do much for a stylistic preference different than mine, I can certainly address other issues that have cropped up — and which I was blind to!

Thanks for taking the time to qualify your original comments. Insightful, as always.

You know, I've listened to this several times now. I really wish I could offer some type of advice or critique, and even though it's hard to do so when I know there are more movements to come, I still wish I could. I don't play violin, or any orchestral instrument for that matter, so I'm glad there are at least a few violinists that can share their thoughts on a piece meant to place it at the forefront. 

I've dabbled with quartal and quintal harmonies before, but to me they've become a device I use in composing, rather than a structural component building the actual overall harmony. It's fascinating to hear how masterfully you wield it. It's a beautiful dissonance maybe one day I'll understand more. 

However, just because it's foreign to me doesn't mean I don't appreciate the beauty of it. I'm not a physicist, yet I'm in awe of the James Webb photos recently taken. I'm not super into metal music, but that doesn't mean I don't love what Meshuggah and Vildhjarta bring to music. I'm someone who appreciates all kinds of music and art, and I think it speaks volumes for your music that you're able to reach people like me; even though this isn't a style I would write in, I absolutely love your musical voice. 

I'm a fan of the sparse orchestration. I think it would be a hindrance for you to try and create lush gigantic harmonies with such yearning thematic material. I did like the ending of the moderato assai section, I felt like it needed a bit of girth near the end. 

I'm excited to hear more of this, and it's fantastic for you to be able to work with the violinist as well. I'm sure you learned a lot by conferring with him/her; how great for you as a composer! Will there be a recording of this piece?

Absolute fantastic piece you have here, and I'm excited to hear how you revise this as well as the next movements. Keep us updated, and thanks for sharing!

6 hours ago, Thatguy v2.0 said:

You know, I've listened to this several times now. I really wish I could offer some type of advice or critique, and even though it's hard to do so when I know there are more movements to come, I still wish I could. I don't play violin, or any orchestral instrument for that matter, so I'm glad there are at least a few violinists that can share their thoughts on a piece meant to place it at the forefront. 

I've dabbled with quartal and quintal harmonies before, but to me they've become a device I use in composing, rather than a structural component building the actual overall harmony. It's fascinating to hear how masterfully you wield it. It's a beautiful dissonance maybe one day I'll understand more. 

However, just because it's foreign to me doesn't mean I don't appreciate the beauty of it. I'm not a physicist, yet I'm in awe of the James Webb photos recently taken. I'm not super into metal music, but that doesn't mean I don't love what Meshuggah and Vildhjarta bring to music. I'm someone who appreciates all kinds of music and art, and I think it speaks volumes for your music that you're able to reach people like me; even though this isn't a style I would write in, I absolutely love your musical voice. 

I'm a fan of the sparse orchestration. I think it would be a hindrance for you to try and create lush gigantic harmonies with such yearning thematic material. I did like the ending of the moderato assai section, I felt like it needed a bit of girth near the end. 

I'm excited to hear more of this, and it's fantastic for you to be able to work with the violinist as well. I'm sure you learned a lot by conferring with him/her; how great for you as a composer! Will there be a recording of this piece?

Absolute fantastic piece you have here, and I'm excited to hear how you revise this as well as the next movements. Keep us updated, and thanks for sharing!

Thank you for the wonderfully kind and thoughtful words — they mean a lot to me! I'm glad you also enjoy these fresh, mournful harmonies.

I doubt there will be a recording of this in its orchestral form; more than likely it will be an orchestral reduction. Better than nothing, though, right?

Also, I provided a link to the SoundCloud file so you all can follow along in "real time" to the changes I've made. Link in the original post.

Thank you again for taking the time to listen and comment! It's very helpful and encourages me to keep writing!

This is a very sophisticated piece. I think it grows on me the more I listen to it!

I haven't used quartal or quintal harmonies yet, but might give it a try.

If I may just ask a technical question.

I wondered whether it's essential to add all the slurs by hand; or if the scoring software can try to calculate the best bowing strategy, and insert them automatically?

28 minutes ago, Alex Weidmann said:

This is a very sophisticated piece. I think it grows on me the more I listen to it!

I haven't used quartal or quintal harmonies yet, but might give it a try.

If I may just ask a technical question.

I wondered whether it's essential to add all the slurs by hand; or if the scoring software can try to calculate the best bowing strategy, and insert them automatically?

Hi, thanks for taking the time to listen and comment! Once you're adept at using tertian harmony, I do recommend exploring other harmonic species or even non-diatonic scales. You may hate them... but you may fall in love with them, too.

I use Sibelius and, as far as I know, it does not automatically calculate the slurring. I do it all by hand.

Well I do like Bartok: so there's hope for me yet!

It's a shame there's no auto-slur.

The latest piece I've uploaded here has 320 measures: so it probably needs well over a thousand slurs on the string parts.

I might just write "legato" and have done with it!