Henning's Headquarters

[Karl Henning]

I've brought the Scene to the final double-bar (!!) and it is very close;  I do need to improve two of the joints, and the final cadence, which are not quite what they ought to be.  That is work which will be done at some point today.

Last night, and some more this morning.  I do still have two minor (oh so very minor!) adjustments I want to make.  So this is not the last of the Scene, and yet, very near to the last.

Edit :: old version deleted

[Karl Henning]

Per my blog post yesterday, I was 97.7% sure that Scene 10 is done, and I was right.  (I was right, even though the force of Inertia had me thinking, What if I change this here, and get rid of those lines over there?...)

To the attached score, I have two altogether trivial modifications to make (tweaking some dynamics; extending the fourth in the flutes in m.41 by an eighth-note);  an addition I meant to inscribe yesterday (bringing horn 2 in on some of the doubling in m.56);   and (the most work of the final adjustments) a simple swap . . . m.57 to the end is the only duty the trombones see in the number, yet the horns are sitting idle (it makes sense in the number from which the passage is borrowed) . . . so, even as I decided to give the trumpets a rest this number, we'll sit the trombones out, and only use the mellower brass colors of the horn and tuba.

I'll formalize those changes tonight, will make some tweaks to the audio mix, and then we shall have a demo.

[Karl Henning]

So, I've got this PDF of the ancient Finale file (2006) of Intermezzo II for the ballet. And what if it's rubbish? I find I'm asking myself. I mean, I wasn't really planning to work on it tonight, but I went ahead and started setting the score up in Sibelius; and since it begins with a string fugato, I thought I'd go ahead and get started. But I'm not much pleased with it.

Am I just tired? Or do I really need to change or even discard this?

Of course, I leave the question to tomorrow.

I'll watch some Star Trek instead, now.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[kishnevi]

So, I've got this PDF of the ancient Finale file (2006) of Intermezzo II for the ballet. And what if it's rubbish? I find I'm asking myself. I mean, I wasn't really planning to work on it tonight, but I went ahead and started setting the score up in Sibelius; and since it begins with a string fugato, I thought I'd go ahead and get started. But I'm not much pleased with it.

Am I just tired? Or do I really need to change or even discard this?

Of course, I leave the question to tomorrow.

I'll watch some Star Trek instead, now.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

It should be no surprise that Henningsmusic from 11 years ago should have some differences from Henningsmusic of today.

Perhaps a new Intermezzo, and the old one might find life as an independent piece?

[Karl Henning]

It should be no surprise that Henningsmusic from 11 years ago should have some differences from Henningsmusic of today.

Perhaps a new Intermezzo, and the old one might find life as an independent piece?

A good point, and not at all a bad suggestion.

As I was sharing with our Cato offline, I am a bit annoyed with this experience ... for more than 10 years now, in the back of my mind Intermezzo II was "more or less done," a complete composition of 127 measures, needing mostly finishing (dynamics, especially).  And I thought I remembered liking the opening string fugato back then.  Last night, though, looking and listening attentively again at last, I was disappointed.  I think it would overstate it to say "severely disappointed," but there was indeed an element of severity just in the disappointment.

After a night's rest, though, I think the fugato recoverable.  The character which I require of the music found interference in the rhythmic ambiguity of the quintuplets, and I believe that if I simply recast that rhythm, the passage will do exactly what I require of it.

In context, then, it may not be the "age" of the Henningmusick which was the difficulty, but a bit of cabin fever.  At the time, I had a critical mass of the ballet already composed, and the ballet had (what is artistically the good thing) established its own soundworld.  Compositionally at the time, I was eager to explore somewhat wilder pitch worlds and textures (2006 was the year of the Studies in Impermanence, Out in the Sun, and the Evening Service in D with its at-times abstract writing not only for the trombone duo interludes, but in e.g. the Magnificat).

So I think that what I am finding objectionable to this fugato opening the White Nights Intermezzo is, that at the time my writing style wanted to take a contrasting excursion, but that this Intermezzo is not the fit destination for it.  And perhaps it took this year's reimmersion into the ballet for me to see it.

[Karl Henning]

Okay . . . welcome to my world 

This is this year's first take on the fugato, all the notes and the tempo are literal from the Ur-text.

The pitch-world is fine, just as I wanted.

My objections:

   
• As noted above, the rhythmic profile is fuzzy, exactly the opposite of what I was trying to achieve.
• The double-bass does not participate in the imitation.  (That is not the objection...the idea being that it simply gives dept to the texture.)  The objection is, the inverse of Goldilocks:  whether the solution is less of it, or more of it, as it is, it's just wrong.

[Karl Henning]

For the second take, my initial proposal for a solution was:  maybe I got the tempo wrong.  And since what I objected to was the clarity of flow, perhaps the solution was, a faster pace.

Although the result was indeed an improvement in the rhythmic definition...

   
• The ratcheting-up of the passage's energy level is contrary to my conception of the passage, of the opening of the Intermezzo.
• I felt that the more business-like pace aggravated my dissatisfaction with the double-bass line.
• At this tempo, I learned that I was not at all happy with the three successive quintuplet figures in the first violin.

[Karl Henning]

My solution:

   
• Lose the quintuplets; make the rhythm more (one of my evergreen takeaways from studies with Judith Shatin) specific.  I was therefore not content with just one "replacement rhythm," but gave my whimsy leave.
• Give the double-bass more to play, giving the passage a consistent "bottom." Have the cello (before its own participation in the imitation) partly double that bottom (at the traditional octave).
• Further enrich the texture with new gestures by the second violin and viola.

In all ways, an improvement, and also a spiritual "restoration":  the character of the passage now, is as I had always wished/envisioned it.

[Karl Henning]

So now, yes, the question is:  am I going to need to "clean up" the rest of the Intermezzo, in like manner?

About to find out.  And we'll do whatever is necessary 

[Karl Henning]

My solution:

   
• Lose the quintuplets; make the rhythm more (one of my evergreen takeaways from studies with Judith Shatin) specific.  I was therefore not content with just one "replacement rhythm," but gave my whimsy leave.

Interestingly, when the woodwinds have an "answering fugato" later, I feel that the quintuplets are just right.

I am making very slight local adjustments here and there;  I am at roughly the 33% mark, and finding it satisfactory withal.

[Karl Henning]

While I am alive to how odd this may sound, in light of the "tortured reclamation" of the opening string fugato, all the same, I've got to say it:

Damn, but this is good.

Edit :: old version deleted

[Rons_talking]

While I am alive to how odd this may sound, in light of the "tortured reclamation" of the opening strong fugato, all the same, I've got to say it:

Damn, but this is good.

I think you're right about the quintuplets; they're more effective once the first subject has been well-established. I like the rhythmic contrast when the w.winds make their first appearance with all of those anticipations. Do you have an audio file on this? I need to hear the composite. Also, how do you fit so many pages on your attachment? I'm new to this process and am on finale but a few pages is all I can post.

[Karl Henning]

I'm going to putter a bit yet before committing myself to an audio file;  but I'll have one to share tomorrow evening, thanks!

As to number of pages, I could not really answer . . . I export the PDF file from Sibelius, and why the file is the size it is, is outside my expertise!

Although the end is in sight, I am going to down tools for the day.  So, yes, I may tinker a bit with the last few pages....

Edit :: old version deleted

[Karl Henning]

Although the end is in sight, I am going to down tools for the day.  So, yes, I may tinker a bit with the last few pages....

Here are my notes:

   
• mm.15-18 are exactly what the original showed.  I feel strongly that I need to do something here.
• mm.19-27 – Apart from the suspended cymbal stroke (m.21), this is literal from 2006.  I rather think something is needed here, too.
• mm.28-34 are a slight elaboration upon the original.  I think it works fine.
• mm.35-45 – Some minor additions (the piccolo & flute 2 lines, most notably).  I really like this.
• [ D ] I feel that the seam requires some touch-up;  otherwise, I am 80% sure I pretty much like it as is.
• [ E ] through [ G ] the picc is a new addition (so, yes: previously this was all straight timpani cadenza).
• [ G ] through [ H ] is literal from 2006, and I like it just fine.
• [ H ] through [ J ] – The only new touch is the English horn; I think all this good.
• [ J ] – Once this gets going, it's just what I wish. mm. 114-115 are a recent modification; but I feel that the seam needs some further work

[Karl Henning]

I took Monday off, which meant that last night's work was simply bringing the present Sibelius file up to the final double-bar of the Ur-text.  C'est-à-dire, I have not seen to most of the remedial work detailed here.  It won't be until Friday (if I have steam then) that I set to – going to a concert on the Esplanade this evening (the conductor who was the first recipient of a copy of the then-spanking-new Henning First), and tomorrow evening is a Triad Repertory Committee meeting.

Edit :: old version deleted

[Karl Henning]

I took Monday off, which meant that last night's work was simply bringing the present Sibelius file up to the final double-bar of the Ur-text.

I think now, that I have "over-engineered" the transition at [ J ].

Although I have not posted the latest version, I think I have made all the other remedial adjustments.

So, this morning, I will (a) restore [ J ] to the Ur-text, and (b) modify the joint by overlap rather than by expansion.

[Karl Henning]

Intermezzo II is officially done!

[Karl Henning]

Intermezzo II is officially done!

And the not-really-inevitable MIDI demo:

http://www.youtube.com/v/fpMSH7c7c9U

[Karl Henning]

Well, since I am at a recuperative pause in ballet production anyway:

http://www.youtube.com/v/UmR1AU1fXIA

http://www.youtube.com/v/00Zqx0uiNdM

[Karl Henning]

Made excellent progress on the wind quartet "glosses" upon that remix &c. I made of my handbell piece, Memories of Packanack Lake.  The "combined" work will be called Kurosawa's Scarecrow (Memories of Packanack Lake).  I've composed two of the four phrases, which will come in at spontaneous intervals.  Probably I shall compose a final cadence, as well.