Flute Concerto in D (Classical Style, Student Piece 1)

   Finally had the time and money to buy Print Music and Garritan Personal Orchestra 5, and do what I find to be the most fulfilling hobby in the world.

     Its a bit rough.  I now know I can harmonize a chord progression, find catchy melodies, but improvisational sounding sections will require a little study and practice.  I learned the importance of proper PLANNING, as something like this (7+ minutes of music) with key changes is beyond what I can reasonably hold in my head.

  That said.  I like it.  A good student opus 1--at least for me.

   Tell me what you think.  Please.

Please check the delay on your strings in the playback - particularly the violins and the violas. The delay is too long and it sounds like the strings are badly behind the woodwinds.

   Munchen-- I don't detect a delay.  Perhaps you are referring to the eighth note accompaniment in the opening section, which sound a bit syncopated.  Shortly thereafter you will see the software renders the score correctly---cadences etc. are exactly coordinated.

The Garritan "Lush Strings" has a very soft attack--which also might heighten the sense of a delay.   The smaller ensemble samples were sharper in attack but not the overall sound I wanted.

On 9/4/2022 at 2:24 PM, Rich said:

   Finally had the time and money to buy Print Music and Garritan Personal Orchestra 5, and do what I find to be the most fulfilling hobby in the world.

 

     Its a bit rough.  I now know I can harmonize a chord progression, find catchy melodies, but improvisational sounding sections will require a little study and practice.  I learned the importance of proper PLANNING, as something like this (7+ minutes of music) with key changes is beyond what I can reasonably hold in my head.

 

  That said.  I like it.  A good student opus 1--at least for me.

   Tell me what you think.  Please.

This was a very pleasant listen, with all the elegance and lightness one might expect to find in a classical-era concerto. The music made harmonic sense (no forced progressions or unnatural flow) and the cadences were well-placed and convincing. It was quite nice.

I think the score could use a bit more attention, though. There's an extreme lack of dynamics placement: a very important layer of any musical composition. That is the first thing I would address. Secondly, there aren't many articulations provided, particularly slurrings. The viola passage beginning at M46, for example, could probably do with some bowing instructions (i.e., slurs) as I don't think individual bow strokes are going to have the effect you're looking for. (And it would also render it much more playable for the poor violist.) Thirdly, your rests are not consistent, sometimes being reduced to the greatest denomination and other times left with an array of 8th note rests. It would be nice if those were cleaned up somewhat. Fourthly, there are some enharmonics I would take a look at. In a few places you have an F-natural on a passing upward note that would be better rendered as an E-sharp. There may be some other misspellings, as well, particularly in the minor section of the piece... I just don't have the time to look at that closely right now.

All in all, a pleasant listen. Thanks for sharing!

Jörfi

Quote

I think the score could use a bit more attention, though. There's an extreme lack of dynamics placement: a very important layer of any musical composition. That is the first thing I would address. Secondly, there aren't many articulations provided, particularly slurrings. The viola passage beginning at M46, for example, could probably do with some bowing instructions (i.e., slurs) as I don't think individual bow strokes are going to have the effect you're looking for. (And it would also render it much more playable for the poor violist.) 

    Thank you for your time and comments.

           I'm glad you found it pleasing in some measure.   This is lonely work and half the time I wonder if I'm not simply just going insane!  Nice to know I am at least approximating my goals.

    Your comments are spot on.   This took 3 months, done in fits and starts after the initial work.  Towards the end I just wanted to "get the notes down".

           Now that I see it as a whole, its seems worthy of polishing up.  The slurs and other articulations are sorely needed, and will help make it more interesting (and playable, as you point out!).    Also, the dynamic markings need to be included.  I would like to to stick to classical period practice and keep them minimal.  (I did this with the flute part as well--- the flute doesn't go below low d which was the lowest a classical flute could manage--or above e'''--the top practical note at the time.

   All of these would help keep it idiomatic for the time period (1770-1800 or so...).

    I would like to work on the transition from the minor key development to the recapitulation, as I think the ear needs to be prepped for another measure or so, with a solid V7 chord.   The cadenza is perfunctory and needs to be shortened to 45 seconds and made more adventurous---faster notes and using the higher register.

   Also the last iteration of the A theme sounds stale at that point.  I'd like to make subtle modifications to make it more interesting.

    I will take time to clean up the score as well. 

    I do appreciate your comments.  You clearly have had formal training and I appreciate the time and interest very much.    

  After corrections  I'm going to set this movement aside and work on a Baroque sonata with continuo as a palette cleanser.   I'd like to come back and write a ABA andante for the middle movement...

                Thanks again!

It is very nice and pleasant sounding on first hearing.  There are some incongruities though in your phrasing.  For example, the first phrase that the solo flute plays in this concerto, it winds up being a 10 measure phrase.  Not that that by itself is a bad thing.  I think it was Haydn who, more frequently than other classical composers, wrote odd numbered phrases in his music.  In this music though I feel like the musical ideas are extended too long, where it could have easily fit within a 4 bar antecedent, 4 bar consequent structure with a feminine cadence at the end, like this for example:

It might just be a matter of taste but the phrase above seems more balanced and simpler to me.  I don't know if you will like your original version better or if you see where I'm coming from with this.  Your concerto, as is, works fine but is at the same time full of such little rhythmic idiosyncrasies that are more characteristic of a lack of refinement/polish.  It's a great work for an opus 1 though!  And your musical instincts are on the right track.  I think what might be a great further source of study if you care to pursue it - listen to Mozart's "A Musical Joke".  One of the movements has just such phrasing flaws as you exhibit in this concerto.  Obviously Mozart thought it was great material to make fun of beginner composers, but if you feel that you like your original version better - by all means keep it as is.  I just thought I'd bring your attention to another way of looking at it.  Thanks for sharing this concerto!

EDIT:  On second listen through your concerto I do notice that in many places you yourself already present this phrase in the form I suggested.  Touché!  LoL.  I guess you wanted the other phrases to exhibit some variation instead of sticking to the original proportions of the phrase.  Also, I guess this isn't technically a 4 bar antecedent, 4 bar consequent phrase.  More of a sentence structure.  My bad.  I'll leave the rest of my review as is though.

Quote

EDIT:  On second listen through your concerto I do notice that in many places you yourself already present this phrase in the form I suggested.  Touché!  LoL.  I guess you wanted the other phrases to exhibit some variation instead of sticking to the original proportions of the phrase.  Also, I guess this isn't technically a 4 bar antecedent, 4 bar consequent phrase.  More of a sentence structure.  My bad.  I'll leave the rest of my review as is though.

                Thank you for the listen and comments.

               Yeah, I sort of evolved the 1st theme as the piece progressed.    As a matter of fact I do believe that although it is an antecedent and consequent phrase, the second half--usually at the dominant  and ending at the tonic IS missing!   I sort of made this 1st theme stick by force of will, and it seems to work, but formally it is a boo boo---and one I didn't repeat with the second theme.  Somebody check me on this.   

               To be fair to myself, i was learning Print Music and struggling with getting the VST right while I was beginning this piece---a lot was going on!

   But yes, formal proportions, phrasing, planning modulations, development, etc.. need to be front and center.   When I had a plan things went much smoother and I could concentrate on finer issues of taste, sonics, and asthetics.    

                                Thank you for your comments they are helpful.  It is all very encouraging.  I'm trying to make time to make corrections.

On 9/6/2022 at 12:10 PM, Tónskáld said:

The viola passage beginning at M46, for example, could probably do with some bowing instructions (i.e., slurs) as I don't think individual bow strokes are going to have the effect you're looking for. (And it would also render it much more playable for the poor violist.)

As a string player I actually think the viola passage at m46 is fine as it is. That could be played fairly lightly with a brush stroke and be perfectly playable with at least some practice, and also light enough to be accompanimental. It's hardly the most gnarly part in history.

My biggest concern about this piece overall is actually the lack of emphasis on the strong beats that happens occasionally. Multiple instruments may be tied across the bar line at the same time without any other instrument providing a clear downbeat. As such the rhythmic cohesion gets a little jumbled.

Quote

As a string player I actually think the viola passage at m46 is fine as it is. That could be played fairly lightly with a brush stroke and be perfectly playable with at least some practice, and also light enough to be accompanimental. It's hardly the most gnarly part in history.

My biggest concern about this piece overall is actually the lack of emphasis on the strong beats that happens occasionally. Multiple instruments may be tied across the bar line at the same time without any other instrument providing a clear downbeat. As such the rhythmic cohesion gets a little jumbled.

 Sean---

    Thank you for having a listen and the comments.

               I have made a first pass at articulations and the 16th note arpeggio accompaniment in the violas and violins in the piece will be slurred in 8 note segments.  As an amateur violinist and a score reader, this seems to be a sound correction.  It will add to the fluidity of these sections musically and be a heck of a lot kinder to the bowing arm.  And being slurred, the string players will have more control over nuances in the passages, I would think.   So while they are playable, these other concerns are paramount.  I didn't mean for it to be an endurance test.

    As for the strong beat emphasis, I don't see anything an average community orchestra couldn't handle.

   Beyond that, the section starting at bar 37 leading to the cadence seems a welcomed relief to a pretty relentless driving rhythm, which generally carries throughout.   It seems--to me--a welcomed relief to the ear to have a break, and a general lightening of the texture.

  If you have a specific example, I'd find that useful.    I'm quite sure a professional orchestra could play this in their sleep.  

Hey---

  I've completed the revisions.  Thank you to everybody for comments/suggestions, particularly Tonskald and Peter-

  I did add slurs/articulations where needed---particularly 16th note passages in accompaniment.  I added dynamics, going fairly light and in a restricted range--generally mp to mf.    Classical scores seem to generally be marked up p or f, with little gradation (at lest Mozart scores). Much was left to conductors it seems, and this just doesn't work with computer replay.

   So, I made judicious use (I hope) of dynamics, making rather obvious changes in volume, and several cresendos/diminuendos.  I also used dynamics to bring out or put lines in the background.  For example, the violist is just working so hard and I find the line to be buried, so I upped the volume.  Elsewhere I put the bassoon bass in the background a tad.

                                               All in all, it helped.

  I cleaned up the score--I tried to standardize the rests and found a few errors in notes that got cleaned up.   A few changes were made in scoring---usually around transitions.

     The rendering from my admittedly low end software has a few minor glitches with dynamics, but otherwise it is a reasonable playback.  The score has my intentions.

   Like my hero Mendelssohn, the urge to fiddle with a score forever is strong.  Its again not perfect, but I think much better.  

  On to the next thing.  When the ABA second mvmt. is done, I'll likely have a second look at the Allegro.

    Thanks again everyone!  The comments helped a great deal---whether used or not, they got me thinking.  I've found I LISTEN to music differently now that I am involved in composition--and in a good way--much closer and listening for inner voice details, texture, form...

 (PS: Ooops caught an obvious mistake--- v13 is much better!  Thus proving the Mendelssohn comment.)

I found this very impressive, a very cleverly written little composition. There are moments listening where I feel like I'm listening to someone very well known, there are moments in this that stand out as very beautiful, it sounds like you are making great use of both major and minor scales with quick phrasing that with the lower strings playing the chords end up resolving very well. You introduce the piece with the strings accompanying the flute and other woodwind melodies. Very well done.

Thank you Tom--

    When I was 10 a movie called Star Wars came out.  Maybe you have heard of it?  As much as I loved the movie, the music blew me away--moved me.   I played flute in band because of Princess Leia's theme---which is very beautiful.  John Williams was my first music teacher, honestly.

    Another movie in 1984--Amadeus--turned me on to Mozart.  While  I listen to many dozens of composers now, I must have heard a thousand hours or more of Mozart before I was 25.  The same way "normal" kids listen to rock bands.

   So, while I did my homework for this concerto movement--listening to 18c composers like Devienne, Franz Hoffman, Vanhal, Anton Reicha--my spiritual guide must be Mozart.  What I see in his music compared to his contemporaries (both capable and less so..) is his gift for melodic line (aside from flawless judgment).  The score for his G major concerto is on my desk, and I referred to it to get a general feel for "WWMD"?

         Pleasant and natural sounding is about all a starting composer can wish for.  If you found it beautiful at times, well, I am humbled.   I will thank my patron saint--Mighty Mighty Mozart.

     I will be writing pastiche for some time.  I know I am weak in counterpoint (of course) and in writing improvisational-style passage work and true motif development.  The hardest thing is to sound off-the-cuff.   I will have to push myself out of my comfort zone that this piece allowed me to romp in.

          But you comments and the comments of others make this work a positive pleasure.

  I am knee deep in work and only just managed to make these last edits, but I do hope to get back to listening and commenting here and returning the favor.  I see how helpful a few insightful comments can be.

  Thanks again.