Ottevanger's Omphaloskeptic Outpost

[lukeottevanger]

Ah well, that's different! That's a request, so it will be honoured!

I'd like your honest opinion, Karl (and anyone else) - I've long ago (well, immediately you told me, really) sorted out the trill issue (I think), but I can't get over niggly feelings about the first movement, particularly its central portion. But I've had trouble getting my mind into the same gear it was in when I was writing the piece, which would be necessary to make any reworking function, I think. An outside view on the matter would be appreciated - and might spur me on, too.

[Guido]

Is your keyboard/clarinet and piano recording still online? - I couldn't find it on the first page of the thread...

[lukeottevanger]

No, it's further into the thread, here. Let me know if you can't get it to work.

[lukeottevanger]

Listening to it myself, as it happens. I've just started the last movement. I'm really not sure about the first movement, though the outer sections are mostly fine and effective to my mind, but movements 2 and, as I recall, 3, seem good to me.

[Guido]

Excellent - I will download it again. I don't knw where I put the original download!

P.S. reply no.53 onwards is hilarious... Its time to rekindle the flame war.

[Guido]

Which bars are you referring to when you say middle section?

[lukeottevanger]

Well, I find it hard to tell where it starts to go wrong, if it does, but it all occurs sometime between bar 56 and bar 121. That's not to say that everything within these limits is suspect.

[lukeottevanger]

...of course I've got in mind Brahms's precept, something along the lines of 'if you have the slightest doubt about it, scrap it'. Probably the right thing to do, but as there's a kernel of nutritious goodness in there somewhere, I need to root it out before I throw the rest away.

[Guido]

I really like 83 onwards but I agree that 56-83 is weaker than what comes before or afterwards (though there is a lovely moment from 67-69). My own feeling is that music looses its direction a bit here - the improvisatory figures just sound a tiny bit too improvisatory! (that is to say slightly aimless )... But I'll leave it to Karl and the proper composers on this forum to suggest what you should correct and suggest how you might go about it...

It really is a very good piece though - I can't wait to hear it with a real clarinet (and at a non-ear-damaging bit rate!)

[karlhenning]

...of course I've got in mind Brahms's precept, something along the lines of 'if you have the slightest doubt about it, scrap it'.

I have doubts about Brahms's precept, so I've scrapped it 

I will take another, and fresh, look, Luke;  point us to the sound-file (I'm sure I know where to find the score at the office).

[lukeottevanger]

Karl, there's a link-to-a-link a few posts up. I'll post a score with the revisions I made to the trills later today if I can, although of course they only affect a few bars.

Guido - thanks for those comments. As I see it, bar 56-86 are a necessary bit of freewheeling, with the texture thinning out and slowly thickening again. Modally speaking they represent a transition to a point when both modes are present (bar 79); motivically its phrases are paraphrases of the opening phrases of the piece. However, I agree that the lines themselves may need to be re-conceived.

But I'm not really happy with the music after 86 either; it reverses the process, but it seems to take too long, and to become a bit stodgy. But it's one of those things where if you pull at it only slightly, the whole thing starts to become unravelled. I might have another look at it today....

[karlhenning]

Karl, there's a link-to-a-link a few posts up. I'll post a score with the revisions I made to the trills later today if I can, although of course they only affect a few bars.

Yes, please, and, good! 

[lukeottevanger]

I managed to spare an hour or two on the piece last night, but, as I feared, I may have made it worse (good job I still have the original!). I'll plough on tonight, hopefully, or at least at the weekend.

[BachQ]

I have doubts about Brahms's precept, so I've scrapped it 

[johnQpublic]

as I feared, I may have made it worse (good job I still have the original!). 

Been there many a time. Usually it means I fear to throw (forget) the original even though I know it's not quite right. And it also means many future re-writes ahead....sigh

[Maciek]

Where the heck have I been when this thread was moving along?

Well, anyway, I'm back... 0:)

beautiful!

My reaction exactly! I mean that was exactly the word that crossed my mind - in English, no less!

I especially like the second one. But both really are beautiful looking scores!

[lukeottevanger]

As long as they look good, who cares what they sound like, eh? 

BTW, I have been working on the clarinet/piano Canticle Sonata and have made some changes, but the problem remains, if to a lesser extent. So more work is still required. I've also made some tiny changes to the Sonata (piano) which I will post as some point, for form's sake. Though the changes are hardly noticeable, for the most part.

[Maciek]

Hey, with my score reading skills it would be presumptuous to say anything about what it sounds like. All I can say is that I really like what it looks like (where "look" is in fact an approximation of "I imagine it sounds", BTW ).

[lukeottevanger]

As the composer, I can hardly claim to be in a much more advanced situation! Never having heard it, I can only hope that it sounds like I imagine it does, too.

[Maciek]

As the composer, I can hardly claim to be in a much more advanced situation!

LOL! Now that's what I call ironic!