I am pleased to present the fully orchestral version of my Sinfonia Solenne, which I'm now calling my Symphony No. 1 and giving the opus number 2b (the finished strings-only version I posted last week is now my Op. 2a). There are a few new elements here, most notably that the work opens with a soft timpani roll, as does the recurrence of the main fugue; and in 3 passages in the score there is a sparse, very quiet bass line given tentatively to the timpani (I don't know how quickly timpanists can retune - if it's unplayable as written i can rescore the parts where pitch is essential for double basses, pizzicato).
The work is scored for two flutes and a piccolo, two clarinets and a bass clarinet, two oboes, cor anglais, two F horns and two C trumpets (I call for a D6 which I don't think a B-flat trumpet can reach - but I could be wrong), bassoon and contrabasson, trombone, bass trombone, tuba, timpani, a string quartet, and standard strings including double basses. The string ensemble is in some places reduced to 2 or 3 players per section for a purer, more transparent sound, but I do not call for a separate "chamber strings" choir as I did in the strings-only version. The low brass are used VERY sparingly, as is the piccolo. Percussion is limited to the timpani; this is mostly a slightly expanded classical orchestra; I think the size is similar to what Robert Simpson used for several of his symphonies.
The rendering was done with Sibelius + NotePerformer using Concert Hall reverb level. I do not like that much reverb and think the sound in this version is a little on the muddy side, but since that's the only kind of hall this version could be performed in, I felt I had to go with it. There are places where the inner voices are obscured a little by the reverb, but others where the distinctive timbres helps to bring them out, so it might be a wash.
As always, feedback is welcome.
Never say final, I guess. After a disappointing rejection (see new post), I made a few "interpretive" changes to tempo, mostly subtle things. I think this version is a bit more convincing as a whole. I don't think there were any visible changes to the score, mostly "hidden" changes like the lengths of fermatas, things that you can only see in the Sibelius Inspector, but I'll post the latest version anyway.
Audio file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1npm1a6sHwKN8lodDLw1H-u4-ZQ6KICOg/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1npm1a6sHwKN8lodDLw1H-u4-ZQ6KICOg/view?usp=sharing)
Score used for rendering (tabloid format): https://drive.google.com/file/d/101pign5r-f6qB5qWSCjo9aZoYjqezDgC/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/101pign5r-f6qB5qWSCjo9aZoYjqezDgC/view?usp=sharing)
I enjoyed it. It reminded me at times of Mahler and Bruckner but in a modern tonal idiom. Peter Sculthorpe's 'Memento Mori' also came to mind.
Quote from: vandermolen on June 01, 2022, 01:20:18 AM
I enjoyed it. It reminded me at times of Mahler and Bruckner but in a modern tonal idiom. Peter Sculthorpe's 'Memento Mori' also came to mind.
Thanks! Yes, there are a couple of Mahlerian angry snarls on the muted trumpet, a tip of the hat to Gustav as it were. I guess the solemnity does recall Bruckner to some extent. I do not know the Sculthorpe though and will have to check it out.
Quote from: krummholz on June 01, 2022, 02:53:49 AM
Thanks! Yes, there are a couple of Mahlerian angry snarls on the muted trumpet, a tip of the hat to Gustav as it were. I guess the solemnity does recall Bruckner to some extent. I do not know the Sculthorpe though and will have to check it out.
It's here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxKBwtz27fA
It sounded great, congratulations!
Quote from: vandermolen on June 01, 2022, 03:00:22 AM
It's here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxKBwtz27fA
Thank you! A very moving work, and a composer until now unknown to me...
Recently I had my first really bad rejection of my work by a professional, a conductor in a nearby city, a social acquaintance of a friend of mine. He had some nice things to say about this piece to soften the blow, but the gist of his criticism was that it sounded like "undirected musing" and lacked a "compelling trajectory". Said the big moments are "well-voiced but just happen". I shouldn't be too surprised, as more than one composer on another forum took several hearings to get into the piece, so I shouldn't have expected a busy conductor to give it more than a single listen. He might be right about some things too, certainly about the lack of real contrast in the tempi and lack of rhythmic variety, that others have commented on also. Ah well. I made some changes to invisible things in the score like "hidden" (in Sibelius) tempi, ritards and the lengths of fermatas, and I sped up Interludio I and slowed down the beginning of the Evoluzione to increase the contrast in tempi there. I think the result is a bit more convincing (posted at the top of the thread), but no need to listen again unless you've been following my work on this and are curious.
Quote from: krummholz on September 03, 2022, 12:39:47 PM
Recently I had my first really bad rejection of my work by a professional, a conductor in a nearby city, a social acquaintance of a friend of mine. He had some nice things to say about this piece to soften the blow, but the gist of his criticism was that it sounded like "undirected musing" and lacked a "compelling trajectory". Said the big moments are "well-voiced but just happen". I shouldn't be too surprised, as more than one composer on another forum took several hearings to get into the piece, so I shouldn't have expected a busy conductor to give it more than a single listen. He might be right about some things too, certainly about the lack of real contrast in the tempi and lack of rhythmic variety, that others have commented on also. Ah well. I made some changes to invisible things in the score like "hidden" (in Sibelius) tempi, ritards and the lengths of fermatas, and I sped up Interludio I and slowed down the beginning of the Evoluzione to increase the contrast in tempi there. I think the result is a bit more convincing (posted at the top of the thread), but no need to listen again unless you've been following my work on this and are curious.
I would like to hear the revision. Some words of wisdom a colleague gave me. He was winning all commissions and all awards and since we were classmates, I asked him how does he keep winning? What's the secret? He said - I just keep applying. I win some and lose lots. That was very surprising to me because I saw him as always winning and me always losing. In reality, a big part of the process is to put your stuff out there. You'll get rejected a lot! That's par for the course and happens to the best of us. But the ones who keep winning are probably the ones who put ALOT more out there so they lost so much more too! Take the feedback and incorporate whatever is positive but ignore the negative. This is an industry like the tortoise and the haire but the tortoise persists and incorporates feedback. It's not a bad thing. Keep going!
Quote from: relm1 on September 03, 2022, 04:39:34 PM
I would like to hear the revision. Some words of wisdom a colleague gave me. He was winning all commissions and all awards and since we were classmates, I asked him how does he keep winning? What's the secret? He said - I just keep applying. I win some and lose lots. That was very surprising to me because I saw him as always winning and me always losing. In reality, a big part of the process is to put your stuff out there. You'll get rejected a lot! That's par for the course and happens to the best of us. But the ones who keep winning are probably the ones who put ALOT more out there so they lost so much more too! Take the feedback and incorporate whatever is positive but ignore the negative. This is an industry like the tortoise and the haire but the tortoise persists and incorporates feedback. It's not a bad thing. Keep going!
Thanks @relm1. Those are indeed wise words.
Well, the revised rendering is in the first post of the thread. Best to download and then listen on the player of your choice, as Google Drive usually drops direct playback at random times.
I'm not sure you'll notice any real difference from the version you already heard. I think I did make a couple of changes to the scoring earlier in the summer though, made the horns double the cellos in one place, added a double bass line in another, probably some others I don't remember. So maybe.
'The answer is always to persevere'
Vaughan Williams gave advice to his students as to how to respond to his criticism/comments on their work.
a) accept it blindly (bad)
b) reject it completely (bad, but not so bad)
c) think it through and then come up with their own solution (good)
Thanks, Jeffrey. I don't completely reject this conductor's criticism, I just find one or two of his comments so baffling that I have to wonder if he was really listening. He basically said the piece came across as a set of events without continuity or preparation; compared it to 20th century "moment form" and said that conflicted with the Common Practice idiom the work is rooted in. I don't understand how anyone could listen to it attentively and miss the continuity, even if they felt it was too much slow tempo or not enough rhythmic variety (both fair criticisms perhaps).
I replaced the rendering again, added a very subtle ritard at one point without any change to the printed score (basically a "performance practice" thing), but mainly was dissatisfied with the sloppy ensemble in a couple of places. Arne Wallander prides himself that NotePerformer renderings sound almost human, but that "humanness" includes entries being slightly out of sync sometimes, which I find frustrating and could really do without. Seems to be more noticeable with Sibelius for some reason (compared with Finale), and happens at some point in every single playback. All of my posted renderings have sections from separate playbacks spliced together for that reason.
I keep coming back to this piece, probably to excess, to improve it as much as I can. Especially since it was soundly rejected by a local conductor for reasons of *structure* (which I thought was one of its strongest points), I have been trying to think of ways to make the structure clearer. Yet there is little or nothing that I can think of in the way of changing the notes themselves, so I've focused on the scoring. This version has a number of small tweaks to the voicing and the dynamics, plus, the past few days I've expanded the timpani part substantially. When I first introduced the timpani I wanted to avoid using them dynamically and tried to keep their role mainly limited to a very sparse line in the quieter sections. But I realized that using the timpani *also* in a more dynamic way could help better delineate the high points as well as add to their drama.
Feedback would be appreciated, though I don't really expect any as the piece is long, and the changes I've made are few in number and scattered through the work. Some highlights:
The timpani roll beginning at 05:30 is extended and then some strong timpani strokes punctuate the crescendo that follows.
The timpani now figure strongly in the climax that begins at 12:30.
There is a timpani roll now in the die-away before letter DD (19:04).
The timpani then reenter at letter HH (23:00) and figure prominently in the climax that ensues.
Audio file:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u0LYnHUTuW02_aJ5rsw4qRAXOFUAMSlq/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u0LYnHUTuW02_aJ5rsw4qRAXOFUAMSlq/view?usp=sharing)
Draft score:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kOkfbF1TAiW9LyrTaVuqEkEiz1J7OwTq/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kOkfbF1TAiW9LyrTaVuqEkEiz1J7OwTq/view?usp=sharing)
Thanksgiving break: a welcome interval during which to potter a bit. The Coda has bothered me for a while: the last appearance of DSCH on the horn has a sighing quality, almost a gesture of resignation, yet I swallowed this up with an immediate final crescendo. I decided to extend the Coda by 2 bars to make the gesture explicit: a die-away to pp, except the 1st violins high pedal C sounds ever at p, like a beacon. Two accented quavers, on the double basses and then the low brass, precede the last crescendo. The last 3 bars are also marked Piu largamente. I quite like the way this ends now, though it feels even more Mahlerian than before. Opinions?
Coda only: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iiJRNXESjoWW8MWXz_inp7EJIao87FUy/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iiJRNXESjoWW8MWXz_inp7EJIao87FUy/view?usp=sharing)
Spring break: yet another opportunity to fix some things that had been bothering me. Mostly small things, but I've replaced the MIDI file and score in the OP with the most recent version. There are essentially no changes to the first 19 minutes, up to letter DD, so I also prepared a MIDI realization of the last 07:30 or so (link below). The main changes:
1. The "rise from the ashes" starting at letter DD felt too mundane to me, with a lilting 2-bar refrain repeated once too many times, so I replaced the last one with an even more lilting variation, featuring 8th-note motion anticipating the soaring string polyphony that launches from FF.
2. The brass "fanfare" at GG now has an accompanying timpani roll.
3. The main change: the final crescendo never felt properly prepared, so now it is prefaced with a more extended, and rather Mahlerian, die-away.
There were also small tweaks to tempo throughout, but nothing worth mentioning.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1irL9qiXRcWXlqAJVzCq1f4R3Ax8_ARS-/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1irL9qiXRcWXlqAJVzCq1f4R3Ax8_ARS-/view?usp=sharing)
Just thought I'd mention that one of the last things I did with my summer vacation was to revise the orchestration, mainly in the development, by expanding the role of the timpanist (and it's really the only composing-related thing I did since the beginning of July). The result gives the development a more angular, indeed angrier cast. But I wasn't able to get a satisfactory rendering out of Sibelius (even piece-wise to splice together), and now I don't have the time to keep generating and listening to renderings until I find one I can use. At some point, maybe over Thanksgiving, I'll go back to this and hopefully be able to post something.
My micromanaged courses were required to have an exam this week, so I scheduled both of mine for yesterday. After making up the exams I had no prepping to do for lecture, which gave me a chance to try a couple more renderings. The development section (letters K through W) in one of the renderings proved not perfect, but satisfactory, so I spliced it together with some earlier renderings and have something to post, finally.
In addition to the expanded timpani part in the development, this version also features a "new" ending (written circa June, but never posted here), without the blaze of defiance, but instead a solemn, even haunted epilogue with Mahlerian overtones.
Audio file (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QOZXoLGKz2HzcBZyGMmu61IRdi1iziLm/view?usp=drive_link)
Draft score (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k32tD3UAUpOMDPuDe4fleDsVF5AUYhlc/view?usp=drive_link)
I should add, before someone points it out, that the timpani part in the development involves such frequent retuning that it is likely unplayable. I had in mind that the timpanist would require an assistant to take care of some of the quick retunings.
Reviving this thread as I'm in the process of completely rewriting the ending, which has given me much more difficulty than I ever expected. I originally intended the piece to end in a blaze of defiance; but at the crucial point in the coda, at some point I added a resigned figure in the solo horn (DSCH, resolving on E) that felt totally right, but after which any defiant ending was impossible. I tried three alternate endings: one just letting that last C major chord swell and then die away (too easy); another was serene and refined but also not quite right; and then last year I made it end with a very late Romantic, Mahlerian epilogue, suffused with tragedy yet somehow luminous and hopeful.
The main problem with the last ending is that it was TOO Mahlerisch. This symphony has late Romantic elements but it is really neo-Classical, with an added Bach influence by way of Nielsen (Commotio, mainly). The lack of polyphony and static tonality in the epilogue were really out of place here.
I think some people who liked my first ending will dislike this one as much as they disliked the last two. It will be very sombre and tragic, the exact opposite of what I originally envisioned. It's becoming clear that what *I* want to express in a piece of music may not be what *the music* wants to express. Finding the right ending for a particular piece if my own intentions are at odds with it can lead to months and even years of struggle.
I hope to have a draft score of the new version done in about a week - though I was fighting an inner ear problem for the first month of summer break, and my ENT can't tell me whether it will come back tomorrow, next week, next year, or never. Crossing my fingers that I'll be able to get this done soon. When it's done, I'll post it.
Quote from: krummholz on June 18, 2024, 09:34:23 AMReviving this thread as I'm in the process of completely rewriting the ending, which has given me much more difficulty than I ever expected. I originally intended the piece to end in a blaze of defiance; but at the crucial point in the coda, at some point I added a resigned figure in the solo horn (DSCH, resolving on E) that felt totally right, but after which any defiant ending was impossible. I tried three alternate endings: one just letting that last C major chord swell and then die away (too easy); another was serene and refined but also not quite right; and then last year I made it end with a very late Romantic, Mahlerian epilogue, suffused with tragedy yet somehow luminous and hopeful.
The main problem with the last ending is that it was TOO Mahlerisch. This symphony has late Romantic elements but it is really neo-Classical, with an added Bach influence by way of Nielsen (Commotio, mainly). The lack of polyphony and static tonality in the epilogue were really out of place here.
I think some people who liked my first ending will dislike this one as much as they disliked the last two. It will be very sombre and tragic, the exact opposite of what I originally envisioned. It's becoming clear that what *I* want to express in a piece of music may not be what *the music* wants to express. Finding the right ending for a particular piece if my own intentions are at odds with it can lead to months and even years of struggle.
I hope to have a draft score of the new version done in about a week - though I was fighting an inner ear problem for the first month of summer break, and my ENT can't tell me whether it will come back tomorrow, next week, next year, or never. Crossing my fingers that I'll be able to get this done soon. When it's done, I'll post it.
Interesting!
It is sometimes easier to start over than to fix something. This sentence "It's becoming clear that what *I* want to express in a piece of music may not be what *the music* wants to express." reminds me of Vaughan Williams' quote: "I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant."
Well, to be accurate it's really the opposite of "what I meant" - in that "what I meant" turns out to NOT be what I was writing all along. I just wish this had been clear to me earlier. It should have been, I think, ever since I first orchestrated it - the orchestral version feels darker than the strings-only version. The original ending was definitely wrong for it, something another occasional poster here pointed out.
I was actually reminded of "Es muss sein? Ja, es muss sein!"
The new epilogue is at least in the correct idiom, and also alludes to ideas from earlier in the piece, placing them in a new context.
look forward to listening. Certainly I knew and was involved in discussions on your original string version but I don't think I was on this forum when you posted the symphony version. Certainly both endings seem to have given you some problems -- I am not immune to such thoughts myself (in my recent 13th quartet, I considerably extended the coda, introducing a new theme which is arguably the most inspired moment in the entire work so it can pay to tinker around)
Quote from: lunar22 on June 19, 2024, 07:00:50 AMlook forward to listening. Certainly I knew and was involved in discussions on your original string version but I don't think I was on this forum when you posted the symphony version. Certainly both endings seem to have given you some problems -- I am not immune to such thoughts myself (in my recent 13th quartet, I considerably extended the coda, introducing a new theme which is arguably the most inspired moment in the entire work so it can pay to tinker around)
I'm not sure - I abandoned the string version after I started orchestrating the work - then called Sinfonia Solenne - in spring 2022. Have we been in contact that long?
I never changed the ending to the string version. What prompted all the changes was the horn's final DSCH that I originally intended to help resolve things into C major. All of the endings that you objected to were of the orchestral version, I think.
perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me then and maybe on the other forum (which died and was resurrected), I did indeed comment on the orchestral version.
And YES to tinkering! In this new version, right at the final climax in the Coda, I tweaked a bass line, turning it into the inversion of the main fugue subject. But that also *weakens* the C major resolution somehow, preserving the sense of the dominant. I'm not sure why - the two new notes are C and D - but it's exactly what I wanted, as the new epilogue begins by reinforcing the F minor / C major ambiguity.
Unexpectedly, I think this may be done. May be. There are some places in the new epilogue I want to sleep on before committing to a rendering: a couple of descending chromatic modulations that I'm not quite sure are idiomatic, though they're expressive and feel necessary to resolve the argument.
Too soon, I think. The new material still seems to inhabit a slightly different sound world - a late Romantic one at that. It's also more chamber-like, with less of the hymnlike quality that the rest of the piece has. It's actually good stuff - just still not Sinfonia Solenne. :(
Well I'm dead in the water. Opened Sibelius to do some more work, then realized that I didn't have my headphones plugged in, which messes up my audio engine settings in the app. So I quit, plugged the headphones in, and tried to restart. Now the cursor just spins and spins and I have to Force Quit the app. It's not the .sib file - even starting the app cold with no .sib file behaves the same way. I tried rebooting the computer, reinstalling Sibelius, nada. I even purchased a one-time technical support case with Avid, but the promised telephone call appears to be unobtainium since they do NOT give you a phone number to call. Maybe you only get the phone number if you have a support subscription, but I sure couldn't glean that from their disclaimer.
I may be screwed on this computer. The only thing I haven't tried is completely de-installing Sibelius, and that's because I don't know how to do that.
:( :(
Saved by a stroke of luck... I hadn't been informed of a new Sibelius update, but when I went to Avid Link to see if there were any updates to my case, there it was. So I tried installing the update, and it works.
I hadn't deleted anything new that I wasn't already sure wasn't the source of the problem, so this "fix" is as mysterious as the original problem. I really, really, don't trust software like this, and Avid's non-support - even for customers who not only have an active paid subscription but paid extra for a support call - is really substandard in ANY field. The wasted support code cost me only $30, but still... it's the principle of the thing.
(And no, there were no updates to my case. Maybe in a few weeks someone will get back to me.)
sounds like with at sort of experience it's time to finally switch to Dorico. The team support is excellent there and costs nothing. Anyway, I'm glad that after your adventures you're back on track.
Ha! I expected you to say that! And you could be right. I've been thinking about it. Any word on support for glissandi?
BTW I received an email late yesterday from an Avid tech, who gave me a list of steps to try to fix it, some (but not all) of which I had already tried. Well, at least they did get back to me fairly quickly.
Quote from: krummholz on June 21, 2024, 04:35:22 AMHa! I expected you to say that! And you could be right. I've been thinking about it. Any word on support for glissandi?
And you were right ;D
Anyway yes, glissandi (through pitch bend as in Sibelius) have been supported now for several months in Dorico. From Sib. you could get a crossgrade price (as you probably know)
Quote from: lunar22 on June 21, 2024, 07:12:13 AMAnd you were right ;D
Anyway yes, glissandi (through pitch bend as in Sibelius) have been supported now for several months in Dorico. From Sib. you could get a crossgrade price (as you probably know)
I might do that at some point, then. At the moment I don't want to switch notation systems in the middle of working on this piece. And generally, I wonder if Dorico can read and import Sibelius scores?
Quote from: krummholz on June 20, 2024, 11:13:44 AMSaved by a stroke of luck... I hadn't been informed of a new Sibelius update, but when I went to Avid Link to see if there were any updates to my case, there it was. So I tried installing the update, and it works.
I hadn't deleted anything new that I wasn't already sure wasn't the source of the problem, so this "fix" is as mysterious as the original problem. I really, really, don't trust software like this, and Avid's non-support - even for customers who not only have an active paid subscription but paid extra for a support call - is really substandard in ANY field. The wasted support code cost me only $30, but still... it's the principle of the thing.
(And no, there were no updates to my case. Maybe in a few weeks someone will get back to me.)
Well, I'm glad that you're able to work--at least for the short term. :)
PD
Quote from: krummholz on June 21, 2024, 11:34:17 AMI might do that at some point, then. At the moment I don't want to switch notation systems in the middle of working on this piece. And generally, I wonder if Dorico can read and import Sibelius scores?
Dorico cannot read Sibelius scores directly but it can read MusicXML fairly efficiently. After all, I converted dozens of Sibelius scores to Dorico without major headaches. I only still have Sibelius installed at all for the rare occasions I a) need to directly test some functionality in Sib v Dorico such as NotePerformer or b) there is a score in Sibelius to look at.
Sometimes, less is more. What was needed was not a second coda, but a laconic postscript to clinch the key of C (minor). I will probably still tweak and polish this some, but this is the general idea.
I'm posting only the full score and audio file because over the last six months or so I made multiple small changes of detail throughout the score. If anyone only wants to hear the Coda, that begins at about 25:37, letter JJ in the score.
The draft score is raw Sibelius and may well be unreadable in places due to lousy auto-formatting. I need to clean it up.
Audio file (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GaApgzZp9MnjU3KAi2nF1IQu_VCKwKBl/view?usp=drive_link)
Draft score (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E-KQF-9fHdz2ibfho1i0dttqfWlH28T9/view?usp=drive_link)
Every time you come up with a new ending, I become more and more convinced that the major established a minute before the end should form the basis of the coda -- in fact something already sprang to mind (something Swedish -- I think it was Alfven's 2nd) as to how I would continue it. Perhaps I'm scared of gloomy endings although for several works in a row the ending was ambiguous at best after some pretty bleak stuff and of course it's your piece!
But eventually you'll have to move onto something else -- there's nothing to stop you coming back to it!
Quote from: lunar22 on June 23, 2024, 04:53:25 AMEvery time you come up with a new ending, I become more and more convinced that the major established a minute before the end should form the basis of the coda -- in fact something already sprang to mind (something Swedish -- I think it was Alfven's 2nd) as to how I would continue it. Perhaps I'm scared of gloomy endings although for several works in a row the ending was ambiguous at best after some pretty bleak stuff and of course it's your piece!
But eventually you'll have to move onto something else -- there's nothing to stop you coming back to it!
Well, I've been *trying* to end the Coda in C major since I first drafted the work back in 2020. The strings-only version is not as dark, and ends defiantly - that sort-of works. But I couldn't make the defiant ending quite work in the orchestral version (you yourself agreed), so I tried three different major-key endings, all resigned in mood. The problem is that C major isn't really established at the die away after the big climax. It still feels like the dominant of F minor. Without extending the coda too much (and I've come to believe anything beyond a brief postscript is too much), the only modulation that works is to C minor. I wish I could come up with a very short passage, starting maybe strings only, that resolves into C major and feels convincing, but so far I cannot.
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 ;D but with luck you get my drift)
Quote from: lunar22 on June 23, 2024, 07:06:10 AMin 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 ;D 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.
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 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J9DM-pCVqBmIbgDuQoxY7sDP72Y-zvWH/view?usp=sharing) (raw Sib score, full of collisions and bars with random rests)
"Movement" I (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qNNRYnhPKjGN3e_zg4HTY1USgBoOUKOn/view?usp=sharing)
"Movement" II (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MqGp_PmXEMzTRO7oIE_wXM1Pes0SpOQ-/view?usp=sharing)
"Movement" III (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N2buYqvKvOXQQvqwrfuQ0TNB7CCMxmwT/view?usp=sharing)
Quote from: krummholz on July 14, 2024, 07:53:42 AMI 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 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J9DM-pCVqBmIbgDuQoxY7sDP72Y-zvWH/view?usp=sharing) (raw Sib score, full of collisions and bars with random rests)
"Movement" I (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qNNRYnhPKjGN3e_zg4HTY1USgBoOUKOn/view?usp=sharing)
"Movement" II (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MqGp_PmXEMzTRO7oIE_wXM1Pes0SpOQ-/view?usp=sharing)
"Movement" III (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N2buYqvKvOXQQvqwrfuQ0TNB7CCMxmwT/view?usp=sharing)
Let me grab some iced coffee, and I shall listen!
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!
Quote from: Karl Henning on July 14, 2024, 08:48:46 AMVery 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! :)
First listen for me!
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 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MNF0WgIUYVJuWe12xDGGplOTIsE52YXX/view?usp=drive_link)
2. Interludio II; Evoluzione (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DIrPI1lMcKR-fBAb2XvQfLonbK-ek3Z7/view?usp=drive_link)
3. Interludio III; Fuga III; Coda (https://drive.google.com/file/d/18LhGzAJ6CrmYsZEUySxaIhzbL5Fjv_Ne/view?usp=drive_link)
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!
Nice work! I enjoyed listening to this...
Quote from: lunar22 on August 07, 2024, 08:31:00 AMI 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.
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.
Quote from: lunar22 on August 08, 2024, 09:46:44 AMexporting 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!
I cannot say no to Large Orchestras playing Grosse Counterpoint.