Symphony No. 1 in C Minor, Op. 2b (Sinfonia Solenne)

[lunar22]

in the end, it's what you want to say with the piece that counts and must determine the ending. It's easy enough to justify the use of a certain key or other technical means in retrospect. For instance if the work doesn't end in the tonic, you could simply call it "a new departure" or perhaps even Nielsen's "progressive tonalty" (OK-- that's perhaps a stretch   but with luck you get my drift)

[krummholz]

in the end, it's what you want to say with the piece that counts and must determine the ending. It's easy enough to justify the use of a certain key or other technical means in retrospect. For instance if the work doesn't end in the tonic, you could simply call it "a new departure" or perhaps even Nielsen's "progressive tonalty" (OK-- that's perhaps a stretch   but with luck you get my drift)

Actually, it *isn't* too much. Although it begins and ends in the same key, this piece relies very much on Nielsen's view of a key as provisional, that can be opposed or supplanted by another key. And I was actually thinking of ending it in a different key: F minor, though that would be too easy; or F major, which I realised would seem too "magical". By the middle of the coda, the C minor - C major - F minor axis has been established pretty strongly, and some changes I made earlier strengthen the feeling that the only key that can dislodge C at this point is F. But if not F, then C, and C major doesn't quite work. So I'm left with C minor.

You're right in part that what I want to say in the piece is important. So maybe the new ending doesn't *need* to be so dark and final. But it now seems to me the only way the piece could end, especially after the most ecstatic part, with florid counterpoint in the strings alone, is not allowed to blossom before being cut off by the darker closing passage just before the Coda. There are enough intimations of trombone growlings throughout to justify even that last chord.

[krummholz]

I just realised that I never posted my most recent (and, I believe, last - except perhaps for tempo tweaks) version of this piece here. Also, since then, I've broken up the rendering into three tracks ("movements") to make listening to this monster less of a daunting prospect - this was for a CD that I sent to a friend living in an assisted living facility back in Michigan.

This version completely replaces the very pessimistic postlude I last posted here, with a resigned and perhaps rather enigmatic ending. Everything else is exactly the same.

I'm now unable to make more renderings because of a technical issue (see my next post, in its own thread).

Draft score (raw Sib score, full of collisions and bars with random rests)

"Movement" I
"Movement" II
"Movement" III

[Karl Henning]

I just realised that I never posted my most recent (and, I believe, last - except perhaps for tempo tweaks) version of this piece here. Also, since then, I've broken up the rendering into three tracks ("movements") to make listening to this monster less of a daunting prospect - this was for a CD that I sent to a friend living in an assisted living facility back in Michigan.

This version completely replaces the very pessimistic postlude I last posted here, with a resigned and perhaps rather enigmatic ending. Everything else is exactly the same.

I'm now unable to make more renderings because of a technical issue (see my next post, in its own thread).

Draft score (raw Sib score, full of collisions and bars with random rests)

"Movement" I
"Movement" II
"Movement" III

Let me grab some iced coffee, and I shall listen!

[Karl Henning]

Very nice! I haven't followed the evolution closely, but I was enthusiastic for the Sinfonia in its original version, and it remains solid (in the best sense.) Love the piece!

[krummholz]

Very nice! I haven't followed the evolution closely, but I was enthusiastic for the Sinfonia in its original version, and it remains solid (in the best sense.) Love the piece!

Thanks Karl!

[DavidW]

First listen for me!

[krummholz]

I thought I'd present the results of my porting this piece to Dorico - I gave up on Sibelius as it's clear that the ways it affects the instrumental balance with NotePerformer are subject to change with any update, and it's pretty much impossible to get technical information from Avid - even Wallander Instruments was unaware of any change on Avid's end.

The performance ambience is quite different under Dorico and I am not yet familiar enough with the software to be able to control it well, so I left those settings at the defaults. As a result, you might have to turn down the bass a little - the timpani sounds positively boomy, even in the higher register. The instrumental balance is also different, and I adjusted both the volume level of individual instruments and the dynamics in the score to compensate, but the results are still noticeably different. I'm also experimenting with Dorico's Pitch Contour Emphasis, a "humanisation" algorithm that shapes lines the way a human performer would, increasing velocity at higher pitches. In addition, I tweaked the tempi in the first two tracks, especially pushing the faster development section a little faster and slowing the transition that precedes it a hair to accentuate the contrast. Though the notes are the same, it's essentially another "interpretation" of the piece.

The tracks are broken at the same points as before. No score this time as I have yet to learn how to use Dorico's Engrave function. The previous score should still be okay for following along.

1. Fuga I; Interludio I; Fuga II

2. Interludio II; Evoluzione

3. Interludio III; Fuga III; Coda

[lunar22]

I don't hear a dramatic difference but Dorico does sound a bit more open and involved. The Pitch Contour Emphasis can be very useful but a few libraries are extremely touchy about even small changes to dynamics so it's not universally applicable. I do have it enabled in NotePerfomer Performance Engine libraries although I'm not sure that's the official recommendation.

One of the whole points of Dorico is that you should rarely even need to go into the Engrave mode for producing standard scores. As I so rarely need to, I've yet, even after years of using the software, to learn that much about its features!

[Rons_talking]

Nice work! I enjoyed listening to this...

[krummholz]

Nice work! I enjoyed listening to this...

Thanks Ron!

[krummholz]

I don't hear a dramatic difference but Dorico does sound a bit more open and involved. The Pitch Contour Emphasis can be very useful but a few libraries are extremely touchy about even small changes to dynamics so it's not universally applicable. I do have it enabled in NotePerfomer Performance Engine libraries although I'm not sure that's the official recommendation.

One of the whole points of Dorico is that you should rarely even need to go into the Engrave mode for producing standard scores. As I so rarely need to, I've yet, even after years of using the software, to learn that much about its features!

Yes, looking at Engrave mode it appears it's not for what I was thinking, making a printable (or even shareable) pdf of your score. I can do that with a couple of keystrokes in Sibelius, but I have no idea how to do it in Dorico.

[lunar22]

exporting a .pdf of a Dorico score is somewhat confusingly in the Print module. Click on that, change the destination from Printer to Graphics and you're done.

[krummholz]

exporting a .pdf of a Dorico score is somewhat confusingly in the Print module. Click on that, change the destination from Printer to Graphics and you're done.

Thanks!