Saul's Music Space

[Szykneij]

I wonder how many musicians here would find the 'another dozen or so problems' in the score...

Most would. When I'm examining scores of pieces I'm considering for my student orchestras, I'm looking for passages they might have difficulty performing due to their skill level. I would certainly recognize passages that are impossible for anyone to play.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I wonder how many musicians here would find the 'another dozen or so problems' in the score...
If you want to dig for problems , you would find hundreds of them...not only with regards to my own music, but other composers as well.

No need to dig, and you're simply evading the clear-cut questions I asked. Everything I found was lying right there on the surface.

[Franco]

Most would. When I'm examining scores of pieces I'm considering for my student orchestras, I'm looking for passages they might have difficulty performing due to their skill level. I would certainly recognize passages that are impossible for anyone to play.

Oh, don't you know writing what is impossible to play is a sign of genius, to wit: Beethoven's crescendo markings under sustained notes in his late piano sonatas.

[Saul]

Oh, don't you know writing what is impossible to play is a sign of genius, to wit: Beethoven's crescendo markings under sustained notes in his late piano sonatas.

Haha!

[(poco) Sforzando]

Haha!

No orchestra would ever accept this piece, but on the off chance any did, I'd like to hear your "Haha!" when a group of hard-boiled musicians start sniggering at the ineptitudes of your "orchestration."

[Saul]

No orchestra would ever accept this piece, but on the off chance any did, I'd like to hear your "Haha!" when a group of hard-boiled musicians start sniggering at the ineptitudes of your "orchestration."

I didnt publish yet, didnt I ? I appriciate your comments and will look into fixing any problems in the score.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I didnt publish yet, didnt I ? I appriciate your comments and will look into fixing any problems in the score.

Good luck trying to find a publisher . . . .

[Luke]

I wonder how many musicians here would find the 'another dozen or so problems' in the score...
If you want to dig for problems , you would find hundreds of them...not only with regards to my own music, but other composers as well.

It's not really digging, though, Saul, the problems lie on the surface and are, I assume, rooted in you not really having enough experience of playing in orchestras/studying orchestral scores etc. And I don't mean looking at a few scores, I mean sitting with you head deep in them for weeks and months and years, soaking up what can and can't be done, and also, importantly what is usually done in order to obtain a particular effect. There are plenty of things in there which look playable and which sound playable when a computer does them, but which aren't workable in real life, or which would be so difficult as to make the piece unworkable, which amounts to the same thing. And many of them are easily sortable*.

For instance, if I just look at the string parts, there are chords in there, as RoF points out, which are playable but unwieldy, and they'd sound ugly, and be dangerous to ask for  - but all you really need to do to make this absolutely fine is to mark 'div' over the top and let the players sort it out from there. Those three part viola chords starting on page 2 are the worst, not only is it really not possible to ask a string player to triple-stop repeatedly and as an accompanying part (you can get away with the double-stop, but I'd div. that too, it would sound much more secure and gentle), but the chord you ask for can't be played anyway.

Again, there are those fast figurations in the strings, 32notes, which you ask to be played separate bows. This is very hard to play with real accuracy, especially at the reduced dynamic I guess you want here, and en masse the effect would just be scratchy and messy. But simply add bowing marks, let the trem figures be taken in long bows (maybe divide the bowings, too, so that there isn't a bump when all the players change bow at once) - and the thing would be fine.... What often happens when pianists write for strings is that they forget that to a string player a slur is not just a 'play this smoothly' line, it's a precise technical direction, and the absence of a slur is the same. So if you write your score like that, it isn't just missing out a phrase mark, it really is as good as telling the players they have to play with separate bows, even though they will be itching to play slurred! They won't like that, and the silly thing is, you probably meant slurs, but just missed them out because, as a pianist, they are to you more of an expressive notation than a technical one.

There is also an issue with asking the strings to play these figurations in the larger intervals, as that involves crossing the string repeatedly at speed - again, very hard to do neatly, almost impossible to do quietly, messy when played in a group, though the slurring I recommended would make these bits easier too. Finishing the piece as you do, with that octave trem figure in the cello, is particularly uncomfy to look at - that's not orchestral writing, that's really like the transcription of a left hand trem on the piano.  (In fact, in general, you'd be better writting these figures with trem notation, rather than as strict 32nds, because that will loosen the players up and allow them to desynchronise themselves, which will give the effect you intend, I think).

And then about halfway through the piece we have double stop problems in the violins again, this time playing melodically. The double stops might be possible, but they'd be ugly and risky again, and again dividing them would improve the sound 100%. But the triple-stops, violin II, bar 52, with the enhramonic notation thing again - they are impossible, full stop, because you can't sustain a triple stop melodically. Divisi, again, would sort this instantly. Cellos the same, page 22...and...well, it's the same problem repeated I guess, so maybe it only counts once. But it happens alot!

The thing is, and as I've already said, I really rather assume that you meant all the stuff I've just mentioned (and there would be plenty more to mention even without any digging). These are just oversights, and easily correctable with a few clicks of a mouse. But they are the sorts of oversights that it needs to become second nature not to make, when orchestrating.

The last orchestral piece I wrote, which was performed last year (to very nice reviews, thank you...  ) was quite tricky at times for the players, but was all conceived correctly for their instruments - it was hard because I was asking for lots of notes, or whatever, not because I was asking for things the instruments weren't cut out to do. Which is why, I think, none of the players told me that anything I'd written wouldn't work, and quite a few of them said they enjoyed playing my music because it was fun to play and stretched their instruments in the right way. As Sfz implies, having your music read through by an orchestra is about the most nerve-wracking thing a composer can sit through. I've been lucky with my experiences of it - although maybe all those years with my head in scores was paying off, that's all. But even so, I learnt certain ways of thinking after my first experience with a real life orchestra that helped me write my next piece in a certain light. There's nothing like experience from the inside.


* just as your notation issues would be solvable with only a little work. There are lots of those here, too, btw - rhythmic ones, where you've made simple rhythms hard to decipher by incorrect notation (e.g. the oboe in bar 29); and enharmonic ones again (lots of funnily spelt chords, for a start - triads which look like something else because you've used e.g. C natural instead of B sharp)

The thing to pick up on here, Saul, is not the mistakes - mistakes are good, they are how we learn. It's that they are easy to solve, and easy to remember not to make next time. The important thing is to try to learn from them. I remember the first pieces Rappy posted on this board (or an earlier version) years ago now, when he was maybe 14 or 15. Frankly, they were a mess in lots of ways, but he kept coming back, learning from the things that were told him....and look at him now. The guy is something of a wunderkind! That new piece of his is just fantastic, and I really can't fault him on all the basics of notation, playability and so on.

[Saul]

It's not really digging, though, Saul, the problems lie on the surface and are, I assume, rooted in you not really having enough experience of playing in orchestras/studying orchestral scores etc. And I don't mean looking at a few scores, I mean sitting with you head deep in them for weeks and months and years, soaking up what can and can't be done, and also, importantly what is usually done in order to obtain a particular effect. There are plenty of things in there which look playable and which sound playable when a computer does them, but which aren't workable in real life, or which would be so difficult as to make the piece unworkable, which amounts to the same thing. And many of them are easily sortable*.

For instance, if I just look at the string parts, there are chords in there, as RoF points out, which are playable but unwieldy, and they'd sound ugly, and be dangerous to ask for  - but all you really need to do to make this absolutely fine is to mark 'div' over the top and let the players sort it out from there. Those three part viola chords starting on page 2 are the worst, not only is it really not possible to ask a string player to triple-stop repeatedly and as an accompanying part (you can get away with the double-stop, but I'd div. that too, it would sound much more secure and gentle), but the chord you ask for can't be played anyway.

Again, there are those fast figurations in the strings, 32notes, which you ask to be played separate bows. This is very hard to play with real accuracy, especially at the reduced dynamic I guess you want here, and en masse the effect would just be scratchy and messy. But simply add bowing marks, let the trem figures be taken in long bows (maybe divide the bowings, too, so that there isn't a bump when all the players change bow at once) - and the thing would be fine.... What often happens when pianists write for strings is that they forget that to a string player a slur is not just a 'play this smoothly' line, it's a precise technical direction, and the absence of a slur is the same. So if you write your score like that, it isn't just missing out a phrase mark, it really is as good as telling the players they have to play with separate bows, even though they will be itching to play slurred! They won't like that, and the silly thing is, you probably meant slurs, but just missed them out because, as a pianist, they are to you more of an expressive notation than a technical one.

There is also an issue with asking the strings to play these figurations in the larger intervals, as that involves crossing the string repeatedly at speed - again, very hard to do neatly, almost impossible to do quietly, messy when played in a group, though the slurring I recommended would make these bits easier too. Finishing the piece as you do, with that octave trem figure in the cello, is particularly uncomfy to look at - that's not orchestral writing, that's really like the transcription of a left hand trem on the piano.  (In fact, in general, you'd be better writting these figures with trem notation, rather than as strict 32nds, because that will loosen the players up and allow them to desynchronise themselves, which will give the effect you intend, I think).

And then about halfway through the piece we have double stop problems in the violins again, this time playing melodically. The double stops might be possible, but they'd be ugly and risky again, and again dividing them would improve the sound 100%. But the triple-stops, violin II, bar 52, with the enhramonic notation thing again - they are impossible, full stop, because you can't sustain a triple stop melodically. Divisi, again, would sort this instantly. Cellos the same, page 22...and...well, it's the same problem repeated I guess, so maybe it only counts once. But it happens alot!

The thing is, and as I've already said, I really rather assume that you meant all the stuff I've just mentioned (and there would be plenty more to mention even without any digging). These are just oversights, and easily correctable with a few clicks of a mouse. But they are the sorts of oversights that it needs to become second nature not to make, when orchestrating.

The last orchestral piece I wrote, which was performed last year (to very nice reviews, thank you...  ) was quite tricky at times for the players, but was all conceived correctly for their instruments - it was hard because I was asking for lots of notes, or whatever, not because I was asking for things the instruments weren't cut out to do. Which is why, I think, none of the players told me that anything I'd written wouldn't work, and quite a few of them said they enjoyed playing my music because it was fun to play and stretched their instruments in the right way. As Sfz implies, having your music read through by an orchestra is about the most nerve-wracking thing a composer can sit through. I've been lucky with my experiences of it - although maybe all those years with my head in scores was paying off, that's all. But even so, I learnt certain ways of thinking after my first experience with a real life orchestra that helped me write my next piece in a certain light. There's nothing like experience from the inside.


* just as your notation issues would be solvable with only a little work. There are lots of those here, too, btw - rhythmic ones, where you've made simple rhythms hard to decipher by incorrect notation (e.g. the oboe in bar 29); and enharmonic ones again (lots of funnily spelt chords, for a start - triads which look like something else because you've used e.g. C natural instead of B sharp)

The thing to pick up on here, Saul, is not the mistakes - mistakes are good, they are how we learn. It's that they are easy to solve, and easy to remember not to make next time. The important thing is to try to learn from them. I remember the first pieces Rappy posted on this board (or an earlier version) years ago now, when he was maybe 14 or 15. Frankly, they were a mess in lots of ways, but he kept coming back, learning from the things that were told him....and look at him now. The guy is something of a wunderkind! That new piece of his is just fantastic, and I really can't fault him on all the basics of notation, playability and so on.

All fine points that I will consider, thank you.

[Saul]

Prelude In F major No.2 for Piano, Harp & Flute.

Score included for download.

Cheers,

Saul

http://www.youtube.com/v/mTkaiAxZp_M

[Joe_Campbell]

I won't speak for the musical quality, but at mm 41 the piano part becomes waaaaay too difficult for the type of music this is, if not impossible. Seeing as how the flute and harp AND piano LH are doubling these notes, I don't think there'd be any problem with leaving out the 16th notes in the RH from mm 41-43.

[Saul]

I won't speak for the musical quality, but at mm 41 the piano part becomes waaaaay too difficult for the type of music this is, if not impossible. Seeing as how the flute and harp AND piano LH are doubling these notes, I don't think there'd be any problem with leaving out the 16th notes in the RH from mm 41-43.

Its playable, but thanks for the remarks, anyways.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Its playable, but thanks for the remarks, anyways.

Saul: he's a pianist, I'm a pianist, and we both thought the same thing. Even if it's playable, it's extremely awkward. And Joe's post points to one of the pervasive problems in the piece; i.e., the virtually constant doubling and the failure to write idiomatically for any of the instruments, especially the flute and harp.

But why do I even bother . . . . 

[Saul]

Saul: he's a pianist, I'm a pianist, and we both thought the same thing. Even if it's playable, it's extremely awkward. And Joe's post points to one of the pervasive problems in the piece; i.e., the virtually constant doubling and the failure to write idiomatically for any of the instruments, especially the flute and harp.

But why do I even bother . . . . 

So what if its awkward?

That's the way I want the pianist to play it, and its playable.

[Luke]

So what if its awkward?

That's the way I want the pianist to play it, and its playable.

no, on second thoughts, Luke, don't go there, it's bedtime.....

but you ought to bear in mind the other thing Joe said, too, not about the difficulty itself but about it's place in the context of the piece. It's SO important (it's something Rappy took on board, or learnt elsewhere, or whatever, and his music leapt forward enormously when he did):

the piano part becomes waaaaay too difficult for the type of music this is

(my italics). The type of music this is - it's about making everything of a piece. Difficult stuff is fine, in the right context. In the context of what happens before and after this passage in the piano part, the difficulties there make the passage stick out. It's only a small point, seemingly, butit's that sort of balancing act, thinking about every note and every passage in their relation to every other passage, which composing asks of you all the time.

[(poco) Sforzando]

So what if its awkward?

That's the way I want the pianist to play it, and its playable.

No it's not, Saul. It is physically impossible to hold down the lower octave quarter notes while playing the sixteenths. And coming from someone who faked his way through the Moonlight Sonata by leaving out all the minor ninths, that's quite a claim on your part.

[Luke]

...And coming from someone who faked his way through the Moonlight Sonata by leaving out all the minor ninths, that's quite a claim on your part.

...yes, but they're dissonant, you know....

[Saul]

No it's not, Saul. It is physically impossible to hold down the lower octave quarter notes while playing the sixteenths. And coming from someone who faked his way through the Moonlight Sonata by leaving out all the minor ninths, that's quite a claim on your part.

The music here is a suggestion to what I want to create, the pianist should try his best to live up to what I want, I don't demand perfection, but those notes need to be there .

[(poco) Sforzando]

The music here is a suggestion to what I want to create, the pianist should try his best to live up to what I want, I don't demand perfection, but those notes need to be there .

They were phoned in from God?

[Joe_Campbell]

God must have left one too many voice mails...I've never seen so many doublings.