Jess' Compositions

[Karl Henning]

Excellent!

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Sounds good! Which completion is it? 

The standard Eybler-Süssmayr.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I've really been trying to get the kinds of sounds I hear in my head onto the manuscript paper...I feel as if I am improving by writing these bagatelles for flute and guitar. Three completed, two more to go. I do want to know if the third bagatelle should be written in 10/32 rather than 5/16, what do you think?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kypg8y97fsu3jih/Bagatelles%20171001%20-%20Full%20Score.pdf?dl=0

[Monsieur Croche]

I do want to know if the third bagatelle should be written in 10/32 rather than 5/16, what do you think?

Of course this depends upon the psychological import you want to give the players along with the metronome marking(s).

Regardless of tempo, unless it is actually rather slow, 10/32 sounds way overly precious, and perhaps will be more in the way of the players rendering it than not. 

Everything truly depends as much upon the tempo and the metric as to how you want the sub-groups 'intuitively' felt and inflected by the performers -- which circles back to the psychological impact of what the players first see and continue to see and how they then perform it.

If you want the players counting/thinking '10' then go ahead.  I believe that will be at least a tiny bit laborious, and possibly (and perpetually) hamper their rendering of the piece.  The largest number we can imagine -- before it gets broken into sub-groups -- is FIVE. Ergo, I think counting five and rather intuitively feeling the 32nd values will do you, the score, and the players, in better stead.

Either one, along with tempo marking (and the fact they are called Bagatelles) should render something that feels "fleet."


Best regards.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Of course this depends upon the psychological import you want to give the players along with the metronome marking(s).

Regardless of tempo, unless it is actually rather slow, 10/32 sounds way overly precious, and perhaps will be more in the way of the players rendering it than not. 

Everything truly depends as much upon the tempo and the metric as to how you want the sub-groups 'intuitively' felt and inflected by the performers -- which circles back to the psychological impact of what the players first see and continue to see and how they then perform it.

If you want the players counting/thinking '10' then go ahead.  I believe that will be at least a tiny bit laborious, and possibly (and perpetually) hamper their rendering of the piece.  The largest number we can imagine -- before it gets broken into sub-groups -- is FIVE. Ergo, I think counting five and rather intuitively feeling the 32nd values will do you, the score, and the players, in better stead.

Either one, along with tempo marking (and the fact they are called Bagatelles) should render something that feels "fleet."


Best regards.

Really the feeling I'm going for is two pulses of equal duration divided into five smaller pulses.....perhaps it could more sensibly be written as 2 lots of quaver-tied-to-demisemiquaver?

[amw]

I would go with 10/32.... although the beaming makes the phrasing clear, the way musicians tend to read 5/16 is looking for groups of 2+3/16 or 3+2/16.

Another option would be to keep the 5/16 time signature and double the note values, or keep the note values as they are and change to 5/32, specifying a tempo marking "in one" (quaver-tied-to-demisemiquaver = 64, in this case)

[Monsieur Croche]

Really the feeling I'm going for is two pulses of equal duration divided into five smaller pulses.....perhaps it could more sensibly be written as 2 lots of quaver-tied-to-demisemiquaver?

Then the numerator ten makes complete sense, especially if, in the piano part, you mind the beaming so it looks like 'piano notation' vs. flute / choral notation, with each note with an individual flag.

I would tend to make it 10/8 vs. any lesser denominator, just to avoid what I think of as overly-fussy notation, a clutter of 'caviar' on the page by way of flags, rests.  No musician past the first few years training is senseless enough to think an 8th, 16th or 32nd has a tempo value or particular quality, after all;  we all rely upon metronome marks and perhaps other directives for that :-)

Especially looking forward to audio realizations of these scores...


Best regards. 

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Thanks for the advice. I am actually opting to re-notate the groups of five as quintuplets in 2/8 time, considering I want the main beats to be in 2 above all. Having all the rhythmic information of each note provided in the flags, beams and stemlets allows for less confusion with the articulation and colours shown through use of different kinds of noteheads (such as empty diamond noteheads for breathy tone in the flute). My main concern with composing at the moment is to expand my knowledge and improve my composition of a wider variety of idiomatic timbres and techniques of instruments in a chamber music context.

[Monsieur Croche]

Thanks for the advice. I am actually opting to re-notate the groups of five as quintuplets in 2/8 time, considering I want the main beats to be in 2 above all.

Lol, exactly my afterthought after my last post, when I stepped our for a smoke; its standard for some triplet notation, with the simple directive 'sempre.'

I agree, it seems the clearest for what you want, the intent (and actual reading) also the most direct and clear for the players.

Since you agree w me, good choice, lol.


Best regards.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I am still going to change the time signature for no. 3 in a later version once I go back and edit these further, but for now here are all five bagatelles.

[Monsieur Croche]

I am still going to change the time signature for no. 3 in a later version once I go back and edit these further, but for now here are all five bagatelles.

Dear Jessop:

These sound so completely self-assured and fluid.  They also sound, to me, very 'well,' lyric, graceful, and their being just really nice, and fun.
~ Hat doffed in show of respect. ~

I'm also delighted for you. 

Tweak away.  The last one seemed to hold me less, and perhaps it should have some quality of summing up and capping what went before.  This is slight: They are each already eminently listenable and engaging!

You and your colleague have also turned in an equally assured and convincing performance, which gets another tip o the hat.

Well on your way and in good time, it seems!


Best regards.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Dear Jessop:

These sound so completely self-assured and fluid.  They also sound, to me, very 'well,' lyric, graceful, and their being just really nice, and fun.
~ Hat doffed in show of respect. ~

I'm also delighted for you. 

Tweak away.  The last one seemed to hold me less, and perhaps it should have some quality of summing up and capping what went before.  This is slight: They are each already eminently listenable and engaging!

You and your colleague have also turned in an equally assured and convincing performance, which gets another tip o the hat.

Well on your way and in good time, it seems!


Best regards.

Thanks for the kind comments! Yes, I was wondering how to make the final one sound a little more conclusive, but I somehow felt that giving a good ol proper 'summing up' could somehow be a little bit of a cliche.......a cliche I hoped to either avoid or to reference jokingly (the final two bars being almost the same as the penultimate bar of the first bagatelle).

And lol I am very happy with the MIDI playback for nos. 1, 3 and 5, they do certainly come somewhat close to an 'assured and convincing performance' as you say.

[Monsieur Croche]

Thanks for the kind comments! Yes, I was wondering how to make the final one sound a little more conclusive, but I somehow felt that giving a good ol proper 'summing up' could somehow be a little bit of a cliche.......a cliche I hoped to either avoid or to reference jokingly (the final two bars being almost the same as the penultimate bar of the first bagatelle).

And lol I am very happy with the MIDI playback for nos. 1, 3 and 5, they do certainly come somewhat close to an 'assured and convincing performance' as you say.

"...but I somehow felt that giving a good ole proper 'summing up' could somehow be a little bit of a cliche."
N.B.  the chasm-like space betwixt "A good ole proper 'summing up'" and "...some quality of summing up...." [ole school formalist : something other.]

BTW, re: the performances of Nos 1, 3, & 5; congrats then instead on owning or having access to some really good midi samples ;-)
Kudos on the acoustic performances as well....


Always best regards.

[aleazk]

My favorite was the first one. Seconded by the last one. I found the others more like humoresque interludes and not that interesting in comparison with the ones I liked most. Nevertheless, the contrasting musical ideas in all of the pieces make a cohesive, lively and varied whole. Well done.

There's still something in the harmony and rhythm (both in reference to the context in which these passages are inserted in) of your typical rapid streams of notes (particularly in the second piece) that I don't tend to like... they sound a bit too naive and safe... I would like to hear, sometimes, something more unstable and sharp... keep some of the naive ones but make some others more sharp... also, in that way, there will be, perhaps, a vague reminiscence to the first piece, making the whole more connected.

[Rons_talking]

I'm impressed with these works. I too, prefer the first and last. You're taking too potentially florid instruments and creating excitement in your rhythms and gestures. If you can employ  more sul pont with the guitar as well as some additional pizzicato (muted) guitar, that will add to the interest factor.  i like the works and hear nothing "naive" about them but some are more predictable than others, and it sounds like that's something you don't really want. Well done!

[aleazk]

Oh, yes, "naive" is a word I used in previous conversations with jessop, I just assumed he would know what I meant. Predictable, as you say, may be a better term. I find that descending chromatic line in the flute at the beginning of the second piece as a predictable and somewhat banal device from the part of the composer (particularly in the context in which this line is being put; banality is ok if well placed; here, after that very serious* first piece, it's just too abrupt, that's why I suggest to insert it later in the piece and replace the one in the second  bar by a similar line but with more interesting and varied intervals**). That's why I say it's naive, since it's a thing that a student composer would do rather than a professional. No offense to j! It's just a minor detail, but which always irks me when I hear his pieces. Of course, this is just my perception... one can take it or leave it...

*new complexity influenced perhaps?

**Maybe bB-A-G-bG-E?... I don't know, just throwing something. Although, since it's key tapping, I'm not sure how that would even sound.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Oh yes I know what aleazk means

Thanks very much for the suggestion, aleazk. I hadn't thought so much about the pitches for the key taps; I only knew that descending lines are much more effective. Good thing you pointed this out, and predictability in general. I am not really that pleased that I tend to fall back on it so easily and it's an area I am still trying to work on. Hopefully I moved away from it a little bit more elsewhere in these bagatelles.

[aleazk]

Keep the good work! These pieces are quite a jump in quality in your output and learning curve, I think. Also, as Mr Croche said, they sound very fresh and not academic, a very important thing.

Oh, oh I just remembered.... check Boulez's Notations, the original piano version, which he composed at more or less your age and are pretty similar in character and freshness to these bagatelles you did. Boulez is the master of good taste.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Two new commissions:

One for solo drum kit which has to be a rather hefty 13'30" to 16'30" in duration and another short piece (three to five minutes) for women's choir. I plan on including some indeterminate elements in both, particularly the latter.

Also, I should soon begin working on a piece for guitar and string quartet for a competition due in April 2018. It has to be between 7 and 10 minutes, although I think I will lean towards 7, and I will probably even use some ideas drawn from the Bagatelles and re-contextualise them.

[You did it]

Two new commissions:

One for solo drum kit which has to be a rather hefty 13'30" to 16'30" in duration and another short piece (three to five minutes) for women's choir. I plan on including some indeterminate elements in both, particularly the latter.

Also, I should soon begin working on a piece for guitar and string quartet for a competition due in April 2018. It has to be between 7 and 10 minutes, although I think I will lean towards 7, and I will probably even use some ideas drawn from the Bagatelles and re-contextualise them.

Solo drum kit? 
Is this like a rock/jazz drum kit or a more classical assortment of percussion?
Choir piece too! 
Guitar/String Quartet too?

I'm shocked, really looking forward to hearing these man