|
|
Post by Tim Marko on Sept 4, 2017 20:05:54 GMT
A bit of background. This was written as part of a suite I was doing for a contest at another site. It involved combining visual art and music ala "Pictures at an Exhibition". I picked to work with paintings by George Seurat. Unfortunately, I won't be able to finish the work in time, but do plan on continuing with it. This piece was from a study of his called "the Angler". Seurat spent much time sketching and painting individual parts of his overall paintings. This was a study for "An Afternoon in the Park on the Grand Jette". I haven't figured out how to marry sound and image on youtube yet, so I'll do it this way. Angler Score.pdf (305.68 KB) The angler This will take you to the picture The Angler This is the soundcloud link. Any and all comments are appreciated. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Sept 5, 2017 8:29:57 GMT
Hi Tim,
I liked the introspective and somewhat melancholy feel to it. It was a big help posting the link to the picture as I could imagine the anglers state of mind according to your music.
I would advise that you incorporate phrasing and bowing in your parts as a matter of course. They should be inextricably linked with the musical thought and of course on a practical matter, essential for a performance. Although the string divisi is obvious, you should still mark it in the score, but the interlocking of vlas and vln 2 is well done. Bowing on the strings should also be marked with a view to helping dynamics and the natural feel of the music.
The tempo indications (ralls and other) should be in bold and larger text for a conductors convenience as opposed to barely discernible italics and don't forget to mark an opening dynamic for the cor anglais solo!
All said though, I feel that it would come off in a live performance. My only criticism is the harmonic progression from b6-10 which has been done to death in all styles of music, but that is just me and it really didn't detract from a nice listen.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Unger on Sept 5, 2017 17:50:57 GMT
I really liked the sense of "completeness" that you achieve, which I find is often hard to accomplish in a piece of such brevity. I also really liked your choice of setting it for chamber orchestra since it gives it an intimate feel. It is all to easy to want to include more instruments than are actually necesary which leads, in many cases, to a lot of messy parts rumbling about. Here there was nothing of that extra fuss just a genuine feeling of sincerity to your well executed ideas. Also beautiful solos, by the way!
|
|
|
|
Post by gx on Sept 5, 2017 18:10:08 GMT
Hi Tim. This is quite lovely and evocative. I enjoyed it:) Thanks for posting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Marko on Sept 6, 2017 19:38:22 GMT
First, thank you all for listening and commenting. It means a lot.
Mike, Sorry to say, I'm embarrassed by the score. As you pointed out, many things are missing or incorrect. When I combine the movements together into the final score, I'll go through my usual proofreading and fix these things.
The progression you pointed out was totally different when I started, but what I had didn't quite work. As I redid it a number of times, I ended here almost by accident. The time constraints led me to just go with it, but now that I can spend more time with it I will definitely be redoing this section. I have a few ideas that I'm going to play around with. Thanks again.
Funny you should say melancholy. That's how I saw the painting; an old man fishing alone and examining his "life?" When my wife listened to it for the first time, she liked the music, but didn't think it went with the painting. She saw a person fishing on a bright sunny day. We all see differently.
David, The entire suite does use a full orchestra, but for this movement I didn't see a problem with letting some of the players tacet. I agree, "just because you can, doesn't mean you have to." This will be the slow movement of the work.
Gregorio, after hearing much of your work, that means a lot. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Sept 6, 2017 21:47:07 GMT
Tim Marko: I didn't know what to make of this piece when I first heard it, but after hearing it twice, I'm starting to like it more and more! Very evocative of a quiet, contemplative mood. Two things stuck out to me: (1) The opening english horn theme is nice and spooky, and has quite a bit of whole-tone-scale flavor to it. I felt a bit sad that you didn't take advantage of this a little more in the tutti sections, which currently is mainly just traditional (classical) harmony. With a curiosity-piquing opening theme like this, I thought you could have at least snuck in an unexpected chord or two as an allusion to the theme during the tutti passages. Or a standard chord modified to have a whole-tone-y flavor. (2) The octaves in the 1st violins in mm.31-34: perhaps Mike Hewer can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would avoid dividing the 1sts this way especially in such a climactic passage; instead, I would write just a single melody for the 1sts at the higher octave, and have either the 2nds or the violas double the 1sts at the octave, and fill in the harmony with the remaining strings (either divided 2nds or divided violas). I wouldn't bother with doubling any of the secondary lines at all, like you did here with the 2nds and violas. There are also some misspelt accidentals like the Fb in the bassoons in m.20 (should be E natural), but I guess others have already pointed this out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Sept 7, 2017 12:43:15 GMT
Hi Teoh,
I don't personally see any problem in this sort of divisi as balance is maintained, provided the cellos don't get too carried away. There are of course many ways to score the passage as you suggest, but Tim has done a reasonable job there with the interlocking of vln2 and vlas. The melody will stand out if for no other reason than it is the top line.
As you know, divisi scoring like this is very common and Tim has done some homework there I think, although I might have spaced the lower vlas a little differently in places, to create a less dense texture under the cellos, and perhaps not have so much octave duplication in the vln2 and vla parts. Still, the writing as it is would still work ok - but could be a little more refined.
What Tim needs to do is mark in bowing to enhance the emotion and dynamics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Marko on Sept 7, 2017 22:26:32 GMT
Thanks for listening Teoh.
As I told Mike, the progression he pointed out was supposed to evolve to the more tonal aspect but it didn't work out and I ended up here.
The divisi is a device to introduce a lot of thickness within similar planes of sound. V1 doubles melody at the octave, Vln. 2 upper and Vla. upper double at the octave and Vln.2 lower and Vla. lower double at the octave. Even though it's a divisi section, the doublings give an incredibly thick sound which is hard to hear in the mockup. The thickness makes up for the loss in volume by the divisi.
As Mike pointed out, there are problems with how I handled the cellos, but that's on me.
Thanks again for listening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Sept 8, 2017 6:44:33 GMT
Loved this. I think it's the second time recently someone's music has reminded me of the Aliens score (it's those haunting woodwinds) and towards the end the impression was of an existing vocal song or folk theme arranged for orchestra due to the regimented rhythm and strong romantic melody. I'm with HS Fuguestate in having reservations on the extensive string divisi - I would leave vn 1 untouched at all points and limit div to vn 2 and vla, if absolutely necessary. But that's based on things I've read, even if they make perfect sense, rather than being in a room with strings assessing how different divisions sound. There's certainly some wonderful divisi in classical repertoire but I'm probably coming from a score perspective where melodies are often unis across strings rather than divided. Anyway - excellent stuff. I remember your generous fixings of my string score a while back so I know your notation is on point when it has to be  |
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Sept 8, 2017 16:18:32 GMT
Mike Hewer Tim Marko: It seems that I might be offbase about the divisi passage, having based most of what I said on what I read. Now I'm all curious about this notion of creating a thickness of texture with divisi, something I've never thought of before. Can somebody enlighten me on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Sept 8, 2017 17:57:29 GMT
Teoh, I'll bet you know or have at least heard V Williams Tallis Fantasia.....
The density of string divisi is a homogenous and relative one. Relative in the sense of balance - equal divisi will be effective at any dynamic and at f upwards is very powerful and visceral because it oft times feels very personal to me due to the more intimate sound on each line. Care is needed if the string texture is mixed with other sections if one wants to maintain a balance, but the intensity of filling the bandwidth with all strings can be anything from highly charged to a wall of supreme expression and dignity. I can immediately recall the beginning of the slow mvt of Vaughn wiliams 5th symphony for a dignified and gentle wall of sound, but the literature is replete with divisi writing as you undoubtedly know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Marko on Sept 8, 2017 22:37:12 GMT
Teoh,
The idea behind this particular divisi lies in each of the three lines is double at the octave. It could have been scored as Vln. 1, Vln. 2 and Vla, but by dividing the lines as I did, the voices all overlap. It works for strings because of the homogenous timbres as Mike said. The vln. 1 upper will still be forefront because of the register and receive support from the lower octave Vln. 1.
The "thickening" occurs with each line overlapping the others. I wasn't as careful with the cellos as I should have been. They overlapped the lower viola part and probably would have added a muddy sound. They should be kept below the violas and probably merely doubled with the bass. I'll try to get some other references for yo beyond the ones Mike already shared where you can hear it recorded with real players.
|
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Sept 12, 2017 21:40:04 GMT
Ah, I see what you were trying to do now. That's a very interesting technique that I've never thought of. Will have to keep it in mind when I want a "thick" string section sound. Thanks for the tip!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Sept 12, 2017 23:02:11 GMT
My worry/interest in divisi comes from balancing with the rest of an orchestra. A 12-10-8-6-5 string-only orchestra with 2-part divisi on vn, vla and vc would sound great, and will blend well with other families and lower dynamics (I'd assume) but when getting to forte and tutti sections, won't it lose some definition and cut-through? But then maybe you just wouldn't use that texture at loud moments - as Mike said, my feeling is it's more of an intimate, complex sound. I'm happy to be shown wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Sept 12, 2017 23:11:00 GMT
Dave Dexter: Yeah, the same thought did cross my mind too. It would work well if only the strings are playing, or if the other instruments are thinly orchestrated. But if we're talking about a tutti at ff with blaring brass, I'd probably want to completely avoid dividing the 1sts (or whatever is carrying the main melody at the moment), and maybe even bolstering the 1sts with an octave doubling by the 2nds or the violas. I'm undecided about dividing the middle strings in this situation, though. Perhaps they could be useful to fill in any missing notes from the harmony in the middle register? Or would that be too "muddy"? Or useless if they'd be overpowered by the brass anyway?
|
|
