Changes (and added explanations) to Assignment 5

After receiving the feedback from Mr. Standford, I tried to alter a couple of points in the piece.

The first issue appeared in section B, first time (bars 25 and following). My tutor commented that there were bigger contrapuntal possibilities not being used. It really sounded too empty, as compared to the first section. I fully understand that the emptiness of these bars may be uncomfortable to the listener – which was partially the purpose of it. So I wondered whether the same programmatic ideas could be achieved in a different way. However simplistic, my proposal is as follows:

This keeps within the motifs of the piece. Also, from the programmatic side, the flute is approaching – which fits the idea better than before. Maybe the ppp in bar 26 is too low: I would need to listen to real players to make sure.

Regarding the rhythm of this section, with almost the same structure for both instruments in bars 30-36, I wasn’t quite sure how to solve that when I wrote the original piece. The encrypted word phobos is in the rhythm for the bassoon (bars 25-30), copied by the flute (bars 31-36). While writing, I wondered whether to change totally the rhythm of the bassoon, to keep it, or to change it partially (the last one being my final decision in the piece I sent). I was aware of sacrificing the musical interest for the hidden message. Setting the bassoon to p and the flute for mf would take too much importance from the bassoon in its own section – so the final solution was adding more “background” (the piano). For these reasons, I’d rather keep those bars unchanged.

As for the repetition of section B (bars 52-63), I considered what I could add. Because I was playing with two modes, I thought a third tuned voice could be too disruptive, and the bass drum could give too strong a sense of rhythm which I didn’t want here – players may play a bit rubato here and there. I’ve left this second part unchanged for the time being, but I’ll probably come back to it at some point.

There was another issue towards the end. Mr. Standford’s correction for bar 94 was to change the first note, an Ab, into the G# of the key signature:

For reasons of encrypting, I wanted the G# not to be a G# but an Ab instead. On the other hand, I must agree that an Ab is a nonsense here. How could I emphasize I wanted a different note to be read by those “solving” the encryption? In the past, I’ve pointed out a “not-what-you-see” by writing it three times in poems or songs. This means a triple G# here. I tried an acciaccatura. It sounded better with the second note of the acciaccatura being transposed one octave up, but that may be too complicated to play. A repetition of the same G# didn’t sound that well on the computer, but it is what I finally wrote.

So I guess with this I’ve come to the end of my first year at OCA. I’ve learnt a lot, I’ve enjoyed a lot, and I’m very much looking forward to continuing! Thanks to Patric Standford for all his help and support, and also to all those friends that have kept reading and listening!

Exploring Sibelius

Things I’ve spent some time looking up for that might be useful to others, or for me if I needed it. This entrance will probably grow over time (even after the course)

• Adding intervals

To add a note to another one as an interval above: after inputing the first note, press the number for the desired interval (1 to 9 – see later for higher ones). For an interval below, shift must be pressed when pressing the numbers. For bigger intervals, input it as a smaller equivalent (let’s say 3rd instead of 10th), then press the Ctrl key and simultaneously press the arrows, up or down, to jump an octave.

• Crotchet note on number 5 instead of 4

I used to be quite fluent writing on Sibelius 3, years ago. Then stopped for a while, and when I came back to use a computer, I wrote using MuseScore. This one has the crotchet on number 5 of the number pad, instead of on the 4 like the default Sibelius. One can change it by going to File > Preferences > Note Input and in the menu “To enter a quarter note (crotchet) type:” select “5 on Keypad”. I’m not sure whether it will stay long like this now, but it has an added advantage: one can type a hemidemisemiquaver (128th note) as well. Ok, I don’t remember having ever used one, but still, there is that possibility.

• Two (or more) short pieces in one page

It seems so simple now I found it!

1. Open the piece you want to be first on the page
2. Go to File > Append
3. Select the second piece
4. After appending (= adding) the second piece, select the last bar line of the first piece, or the icon next to it showing a faded little page
5. Go to Layout > Breaks > System break

Done!

Sometimes, some tidying of the final score may be needed. The information I found on the manual for that is: go to Home > Plug-ins > Other > Tidy appended Score. This is useful e. g. if one has the author’s name on both pieces, and also to reset the bar numbering. However, if you have different instruments on each piece, remember to uncheck the box “Remove instrument changes”.

Another issue is that all pieces must have the same number of staves! Otherwise, this method won’t work.

Assignment 5

(Extracts from my diary while writing this piece)

I’ve been working with several ideas and listening to some popular songs that used a variety of chords. So what did I start with?

1. I went back to two pieces I’ve always liked. “Bridge over troubled water” by Paul Simon, in which there is a minimum of perfect cadences – and yes, the final one is also a perfect one. Another piece is “Soy Rebelde” (I’m a rebel), sung by the French singer Jeanette, one of my favorites since childhood.

2. I wrote on a paper three times A-D-E and then A-D-E-A for a possibility of something written in A major, in order not to forget that the Cyclic chord progression at least four times (in this shape or other)

3. I I overheard an interesting rhythmical structure in a children’s street concert, I wrote it down and I worked with its components, combining them in different ways. However, they didn’t match anything I’d like to say.

And here came the main problem. What did I want to say? I write music more from feelings than from ideas. So what is there that I need to say?

I wanted to write something somewhat deceiving, joyful and playful. The result was my unfinished work from 15/4/2013 (future post coming, hopefully), which is everything but joyful or playful. It’s sad depressing and, well, it seems I’m not feeling joyful.

The idea:

There came April 29^th. Family day at work. […] Fear from the audience. Social phobia. Let’s go.

Phobos will be hidden in the rhythm. “Asocial” can be encrypted somewhere as Ab-0-B + inverted A chord. As you may recall, in German, Ab is called “As”; in Spanish, B is called Si and A is called La (so the inverted chord would be AL). With a rest for the O, I’d have As-O-Si-Al, which would be read exactly like “asocial” by most native speakers of Spanish. Maybe not the best idea, but I need to pull that out of me.

Instruments:

What instruments can help me reflect this idea? Instruments that are appropriate for “solo” work? Aren’t they pretty much all?

Out of the woodwind, the recorder is sad enough. Without modulations, it could work. I can’t think of the mischievous clarinet or the nasal oboe for this. Saxophone has too much energy. The flute is colder than the recorder (which may be more suitable for this piece, due to that). A bassoon, with its low notes, may offer a different insight to the problem.

The piano seems to be a must. Left hand accompanying, right hand main melody (solo here and there)?

So it seems a combination of piano-flute-bassoon could make it.

In the end, there will be an Almglocke (reminds me of villages in Northern Spain, where I grew up, and can have both a melancholic and party sound) and timpani (at least some should be with pedal, to have a variety of notes)

Structure:

A happy dancing intro may be needed. The 6:8 can be used as a dancing in A maj, and then the “phobos” entrance happens in part B.

section	lasting	bars	character / instrumentation	key sign. / scales	time signature
A	45”	12 (4+8)	festive piano, flute	A min	6·8
B	30”	8	almost solo, with the chords from the party seen in minor and played piano piano, bassoon
A’	30”	8	continuation of A – further development piano, flute		6·8
B’	45”	12	see B flute, bassoon
A’	30”	8	conclusion of A presence of B bass drum – rhythm of Phobos bassoon playing a sad melody that sounds like happy on the whole, everybody is happy (but not really)	Bitonal? A min – A maj	6·8
	3’00”	48

According to this plan, the time signature should be 32 dotted crotchets per minute. That is extremely slow for the dancing part. I tried to slow it down and, almost unbearably slow, I got 50. A time signature far much closer to my idea would be 63, which is doubling the speed!

There were many changes to this original plan, so I stop the summary for structure here.

Key signature: the original A major doesn’t seem very appropriate for such a stressful topic. A minor may be a boring key signature for many, but it seems the easiest option if I want to include the sequence Ab-0-B-A.

Melody: my first attempts have moved mostly quite fast, harmonically. I think the idea of the Assignment, though, is right the opposite, i. e. moving harmony slowly. Also, I observed in the songs I’ve worked with (see above) that, if the cadence is perfect but the melodic voice is moving away from the tonic, the tonic chord sounds transitional instead of final. This may be useful later on.

Working on it:

The Almglocke, in richer harmonies, sounds quite dissonant if it is not in the main note of the chord. This is something important that needs to be taken into account.

At certain points, I’ve found very useful to sing along when I’m writing the slurs for the woodwinds. I tended to do it just to check that it was breathable, but then, at some points, I’ve realized I wanted shorter slurs that I thought at first sight.

There’s an A flat in bar 98. It’s not a mistake. I needed an A flat to encrypt the message, so it came handy that it is enharmonic with the G sharp on the piano.

Some notes on the division of beats: there are some bars in which three crotchets in a row appear (e. g. 19, 24, 27, 33, 35, 39). I could not find in Eric Taylor’s “The AB guide to music theory” a way to solve the division, other than “avoid ties were possible”. It’s true that it could be confused with a 3:4 bar, which is why in other cases I’ve opted for the tie (bars 8, 12, 14, 38, 42-43).

I’m not a fortissimo person, really. At least digitally, I enjoyed the piece much more with milder dynamic changes. However, I take that it would probably sound considerably better on stage by real musicians. And the ideas I wanted to transmit didn’t fit in a mp-mf range.

The final piece:

As usual, I didn’t fully respect the original plan. In the end, the structure and the story could be presented as follows:

• Intro (bars 1-8): presentation of the village

• Section A (9-24): the party

• Section B (25-36): the sad person

• Section C (37-51): an event at the party, one realizes about the sad one, they make contact

• Section B’ (52-63): the sad one repeats his story, the other one tries to keep happy and bring the sad one to the party

• Section C’ (64-73): the sad one joins the party, though not really enjoying

• Section D (74-82): they have a short dialogue, in which comes out that the sad one is not really comfortable, no matter how much he tries

• Section A’ (83-95): the sad one joins the final fanfare with an encrypted “sol-O” (alone), and it seems that towards the end is better adapted. But maybe (s)he is just learnt to pretending more successfully.

I’m not enclosing the score, because it is 10 pages long. However, it can be listened to by clicking here.

The Cyclic chord progression

In the score, I reflected the chords with Roman numerals to make easier to follow the cadences. Some of them were the chords I was thinking off when I wrote the voice(s) for the woodwind(s) alone. I used the Cyclic chord progression in long passages, but changing chords relatively often. The piano starts with the tonic in bar 9, moves to IV-V, then back to IV-V and ends with the plagal cadence IV-I in bar 17. Another cycle starts in that same bar, moving to IV-V and then closes with a weak perfect cadence in bar 24 (the bass note is the third note of the scale), also changing the tonality into a minor one.

Not counting the I-V-I parts, there is a section of woodwinds (bars 29-37), as mentioned above, where the accompaniment, had there been one, would have been defined by I-tonic, IV-II-IV-III (pre-V group), V-IV-I (again plagal cadence). Out of this, the sequence III-V-IV-I is already accompanied by the piano, with which the harmony is already defined.

In bar 37 starts another cycle with the sequence I-IV-VII-III-V, where IV-VII-III works as pre-V group, and from V moves to an interrupted cadence in II (bar 42).

In the following bars, the cyclic chord progression is less clear. Further on (bars 47-52), the harmony moves from VII to V , where it stays for four bars before moving again to chord I.

This duo is a bit harder to follow harmonically. The bassoon part kept mostly unaltered, using the minor scale of A most of the time. However, the flute stubbornly tries to keep on the major scale. This was an attempt to represent the two different moods of the characters in the party (just a note: I’m aware that a minor scale is not always sad or a major scale always happy and that it depends on many factors).

In bars 61-74, I used the Cyclic chord progression in a quiet inverted order: IV-I-V-IV-I-IV and again I-V-IV-I. It stays for some bars in I. I thought this might be a mistake, since it could produce the impression that the sounding chord was the dominant; however, I think that the modulation in bars 80-82 resolved that tension.

Back into section A, the progression goes now I-IV-V-I and finishes with I-V-I – this time, yes, a strong perfect cadence, with the highest note of the melody moving from the leading note to the tonic, and the bass notes moving from the dominant to the tonic.

My own judgement

There are several occasions in which the Cyclic chord progression has been used (more than the four required). Other aspects to consider are the following:

• Technical presentation

Like in previous Assignments, the software does most of the work, and only minor amendments are needed from my side. The score is at least “well presented”, plus the use of the software is more and more fluid. The grade could be at least a B.

• Compositional skills

I haven’t been cautious in terms of performance. I’m aware that some intervals on the piano are quite demanding, yet still possible (like some tenths – at least, I can play them). The structural design, though modified lately, is at least fairly clear (range of A). It may be that I am missing something, but I reckon it is at least a B.

• Creativity

I felt really confident experimenting with the two modes playing simultaneously (I’ve played with that in the past). There is some more complex thematic structure in this piece than in previous works of mine. Considering I am in the first year, this could be an A.

• Stylistic awareness

I have improved this part since the last time. I have been visiting concerts maybe just as often as before, but I have put more evidence of it into my listening blog (and still more to come), and, mainly, I was trying to recognize the different cadences and cadenzas while listening. Even though I was not always succesful in this recognition,  I reckon the listening itself can be perceived in the cadenza-inspired sections where the woodwinds have a bigger importance. As for the listening itself, this could be therefore a B; as for the evidence in the blog, it is still somewhere at C, maybe (hopefully not less).

Hlavolam 3.v-13

Sometimes I wonder why I don’t write so many songs nowadays. There are quite a few reasons. Lack of time is one. Related to that is the fact I used to write the lyrics & chords and record them straight away, while now I tend to write the score first (this, obviously, takes more time, even being fluent with a given software). There is a reason of quality: I used to record anything that came to my head, independently or how good or bad it could be. And then there is a matter of originality: if a song sounds to me like another among many by me or hundred thousands by others, I don’t have much motivation to finish it. Should I go back to all those one-two recorded phrases in my mobile device to try to do something out of it? When?

Then here and there a reason appears for some strong inner tension that needs to be relieved. I forget about being liked or needing to sleep or finish my Assignment or correcting my own students’ works (it’s Friday anyway) or eating, I forget about being original, I forget about instrumentation or quality and I write a sketch like the following.

Some bars afterwards, I decided to be reasonable and come back to my Assignment. So this is just the first page of it. The only thing I kept in mind was to avoid, if possible, a perfect cadence, in order to keep the music going (see the Roman numbers). Conceived as a song, I will call it now Section A, continues with A’, then there will be a refrain or Section B, a section A” with the motif variated on the left hand, again the refrain and then end.

I considered this beginning as a possibility for Assignment 5. But then, I have already 4 pages for that purpose somewhere else!

I’ll keep you informed.

Project 14

Improvisation on a dominant

This one is strongly based on a motif I’m trying my little parrot to learn (abc-ace… – so far unsuccessfully). It begins with just an insinuation of the chord (a 9th one on the first bar, then just indicating the 7th). In bar 3 it introduces the motif, imitated on the left hand. It gets repeated more frequently until it announces the end (last beat in bar 6). However, instead of the end, there is a move to the grade II of the scale in major (the dominant chord of the dominant, bar 7), to switch quickly back to the original dominant chord (grade V).

I am aware at this point I needed a change or it would become boring (so far, it was not boring for me at least). There’s a small contrast in bars 9-10 (now I realize I should have indicated with words a change of mood, maybe) and then it goes back to the original motif to get to the real end this time.

It is slightly less based on the idea of the left hand as accompaniment and more on counterpoint. I don’t know if this is a mistake or not.

Originally, I was planning to write something much more joyful. However, the effects of the extreme grayness of this Winter seem to be coming up to the surface now. Will I be able to change that for Assignment 5?

So here is my project 14. And just in case anybody wondered, Jorge Otolio (written at the top left of the score) is my pseudonym.

Project 13 – cadences

Project 13-a: F major

For the first cadence, I started with a mere alternation of voices, in a melismatic way, then to aim to the chord of tonic by adding an interval to the chord of dominant in each new bar. It started with the 7th, in bar 3 the 9th is used, the 11th in bar 4, the 13th in bar 5 and then moves to the chord of dominant.

Project 13-b: E minor

I wasn’t going to include this one, because the project was supposed to be done using the keyboard. The instrument used is the guitar, which is also a polyphonic one. I may change this in the end. One of the most natural keys to be used in guitar is E minor – hence the following cadence.

The cadence starts on grade IV (subdominant) this time, moves to grade V, plays some notes based on the chord of 7th of the dominant and then moves to the tonic. The beginning was supposed to start like a micro-polyphony. The same happens in bars 2-3. If this was to be the conclusion of a piece, these pro-motifs should be present in the piece, of course in a more developed way.

In the last bar, the highest note was originally a G, but it didn’t give the same impression of ending, so it was changed by a more appropriate E.

The sound on Sibelius is quite different from the one that can be achieved on a Spanish guitar (I tried at home). It is not an easy piece at my level, but it is playable.

Project 13-c: A major

This is a slower one, conceived more as belonging to a background music piece. The note at the end is one for me – this could be also in the middle of the piece, and then turn in bar 6 to the grade VI of the scale, changing the chord in the right hand, but not the bass note.

Project 13-d: G minor

Something more temperamental at the end. I had to change some notes from the original attempt because they were not playable (or at least, not with my hand width)

There’s a little alternation of hands (bar 3), but the idea here was to move quickly the chord on the keyboard towards the tonic, breaking the rhythm at some point (second beat of bar 2). I just have doubts whether it is a perfect cadence if the last bass is not the dominant note but just one note of its chord, D (the 7th).

Cadenzas – listening

As part of Project 13, I was listening to some cadenzas on the internet. Click on the title to listen the versions I got, and on the word “score” to get to the score I studied.

L. v. Beethoven – Piano Concerto No.3 in Cm,Op.37 – Allegro con brio

The cadenza Beethoven mentions in the score lasts 64 bars of a movement with a total of 507 (in the recording, 12’07”-14’58”). In this cadenza, the melodic and rhythmic motifs of the movement are presented. If we understand cadenza in a broader sense, there are some other moments in the movement in which we have “elaborated cadences”. At the beginning of the moment, several small elaborated cadences are present, in which the piano is often accompanied by the orchestra or alternates it in rather short intervals.

L. v. Beethoven – Violin Concerto in D,Op.61-Allegro ma non troppo

I’ve been loving this one for quite a few years now. My analysis of this one is going to be of the cadenza in the broader sense.

The first cadenza starts in the 3rd minute. Same as in the previous case, it is divided in two by a presentation of the theme by the soloist. There are other longer sections of cadential tension before the entrance of the orchestra in minutes 6, 8, 11, 13, 17 or 19-20. Needless to say, there are other tensions, shorter or longer, cadences or not. Allow me to mention just minutes 13-15. Also, at the end of minute 21, the violin does a long solo variation on the theme, presenting two motifs at once (which is actually the only cadenza as such Beethoven mentions in this tutti score, second last page, bar three, as a fermata with a trill, although for this audio version it was written by Fritz Kreisler).

J. Brahms – Violin Concerto in D, Op 77 – 1 Allegro non troppo

In the score, the candenze is just written with one word in bar 525, but then it lasts more than three minutes (from 19’25” till 22’34” in the link above)

W. A. Mozart – Piano Concerto No. 23 in A major, K. 488 – Allegro

The cadenza in this score is in bar 298 (I used another one for reading while listening, but there were no bar numbers on it). In the audio there’s a version of the cadenza supposedly written by Mozart himself, but I could not find the score for it.

Some concerts

Some of the concerts I’m attending at the South Bohemian Chamber Philharmonic.

February 14^th 2013

Conductor: Petr Altrichter

Richard Strauss – Serenade for woodwind Eb major, op. 7

I tend to have problems to understand Strauss’ forms. This piece is no exception. It makes me think of independent blocks of music that are put together. I like the oboe solo part. It is very calmed, like night music.

Joseph Haydn – Concert for cello and orchestra C major

Very classical from the first bar! I can track the structure much more easily and enjoy it. But then, at the beginning of the second movement, I felt the need to cough. It was a very intense one and I kept crying for the rest of the piece – yet not for the music, but for the unsatisfied need to cough!

They played an extra piece before the break. It didn’t appear in the program. They tend to do it quite often. It is a very nice present from them – I just must find a way to get to know what is it that they play!

Franz Schubert – Symphony no. 4 C minor “Tragic”

Adagio molto – Allegro vivace: Sounds like mature Classicism. The motif is easy to follow. The syncopated stressed notes are very catchy.

Andante: The motifs, full or shortened, are heard to the very last bar. Great. The best movement to my ears.

Minuet. Allegro vivace: Maybe it’s its flavour of Viennese dance, there’s something on this that doesn’t match, something unsolved to me. When I tried a second listening at home, it definitely is not my taste.

Finale. Allegro: I like the parts with the short-intervention dialogues. Rhythmically the most interesting for me. Very appropriate for a last movement. The pauses in the middle, the changes in mood are sublime, and so is the further development of the motifs.

March 7^th 2013

Conductor: Koji Kawamoto – Piano: Eugen Indjic

Generally speaking, the pieces were played too loudly to be enjoyable for me. My ears hurt with the string fortissimos in both the Concerto and the Symphony, which didn’t allow me to focus properly on the music (and I was sitting rather on the last rows!)

P. I. Tchaikovsky – Piano Concerto No. 1, op. 23

Mr. Indjic was fantastic. I couldn’t decide whether I liked most his extremely humble approach or his sublime playing! He looked so relaxed, smiling friendly, playing all those quick passages as if he was just cleaning the keys with all the time in the world.

Allegro non troppo e molto maestoso: I liked the beginning, which took me immediately back to my teens and the first times going out with friends (there was a videogame that had that motif as the soundtrack). The nostalgic reason was another one to be looking forward to this concert. Big contrasts in motifs and rhythm. The role of the piano, out of the solo: sometimes sounds like a dialogue, sometimes like a duet. The movement is long and so varied that I feel the whole concert must be being played at once, without pauses.

Andantino simplice: Motif by the flute, cello, oboe. Afterwards is playful, almost jazzy. After the solo I lost the tonality.

Allegro con fuoco: Another well known one. Is the motif Jewish? (that I thought at the concert, but listening to it at home, I can’t understand why I thought it, sounds very Russian). At a certain point, it sounds like if there was a woman talking loud among the string players. It lasted for quite a few bars! I looked around, but nobody seemed to be perturbed by words, so it must have been a sound effect.

A. Dvořák – Symphony No. 7, op. 70

Allegro maestoso: The beginning shows Dvořák’s ability in writing catchy, varied rhythms. That was the most positive of the Symphony. However, I got quickly lost, partly because of the loudness mentioned above. On top of that, I was expecting something like the New World Symphony, with a few motifs, easy to remember and being repeated in further movements. If they were repeated, I didn’t realize about it.

Poco adagio: The beginning is nice & flat at the same time. Hard to follow.

Scherzo. Vivace. Poco meno mosso. Vivace: Reminds me of Czech dances, and sounds more Dvořák than the previous movements, it’s much more interesting.

Finale. Allegro: The best movement, more interesting, easy to follow. On the other hand, there are too many moments in which one thinks it’s the end – and still isn’t! I prefer clear endings.

Despite the general opinion people have that Dvořák is always easy to follow, he can be quite obscure to me sometimes, and this was one of those cases for most of the piece. This may be called by some “the greatest of Dvořák’s symphonies“, or be for an international taste, or have “aligned the author among the greatest musical thinkers of its time” (according to the program for the concert) but this opus doesn’t have a place in my list of favourites.

Tuesday, March 19^th 2013

We were invited by my piano teacher to a concert were several children choirs were performing. When I saw all the parents and the number of works (45), I thought it was going to be something enjoyable just by relatives. I was wrong. It was great. It lasted more than two hours and it seemed just a moment! Most surprising music? Works by Emil Hradecký, whose works have a strong Moravian touch – and he’s not Moravian! Some of the pieces were the following (titles are translated into English):

P. Jeřábek – Natural spring; Fountain; Waterfall: Very watery music indeed. Certain dissonances bring a flavour of forest.

E. Hradecký – Hlavěnka ma bolí (My little head hurts); Janíčku, Janíčku: The first has a Moravian title & sound, but it is by a Bohemian composer. Both pieces seem like modernly adapted folk songs.

P. Eben – Nine fairytales: dramatized, short compositions for little kids. Something really nice and very amusing. Some titles (always suited the piece) were: small story (not short, but small), scary one, confused one, the king’s…

M. Střelák – Silent lullaby: I often dislike lullabies, but I liked this one very much.

The music in general matched very well the titles, which were descriptive themselves and the kids singing seemed to enjoy a lot. Other titles were Elephant (S. Bodorová), Wind (F. Kumpera), Painted fairytale, Ducks (both by P. Jurkovič), Snails (P. Kočí), Car (V. Bláha), Cleanliness, Summer (both by Iron J. Urks), Little violin (V. Rédl), Misery, Spring (both by K. Svozil) and others.

Thursday, April 11^th 2013

Ernő Dohnányi – Serenade for string orchestra (adapted from his Serenade in C major for string trio, Op. 10)

Marcia: I think I know this one. Delicious combination of classic + modern.

Romanza: I especially enjoyed the dialog viola-violin and the entrance of tutti.

Scherzo: Wow! Sudden and frequent mixture of topics. Good and surprising.

Tema con Variazioni: The theme starting and ending in unison results powerful. However, I eventually lost the theme.

Rondo: something in this doesn’t match a last movement. Sounds like something I’ve heard already.

W. A. Mozart – Clarinet concerto A major, K. 622

Much better than on the recordings I found on the net! The player seemed just a kid, but he is great. Everybody said to me before and after the concert how wonderful the Adagio is. However, I had tears of joy just with the first movement, Allegro. It may be because I prefer other periods in Music to Classical.

Richard Strauss – Dance suite after keyboard pieces by Francois Couperin for small orchestra, op. 107

I tend to mix all the Strauss, so I looked in the internet. He had quite an interesting life! As for the sound of his music, I thought he belonged to the same family as the Viennese Strauss. At the beginning of the concert, we were warned that the suite was a shock when it was performed for the first time. Altogether, it sounded to me like a mixture of styles that, in terms of enjoyability, was not very successful.

Pavane: better than what I expected – good so far.

Courante: I understand the shock mentioned above – among others, because of so many lines! Its second half is comparatively “empty”

Carillon: playful and interesting.

Sarabande: too dense, I get lost. Sounds sad and ceremonial at the same time.

Gavotte: it starts in a Baroque mood, but the brass staccato doesn’t match to my ears

Würbeltanz: another movement with too (not two) contrasting sections. Snare drum here sounds discomforting.

Allemande: starts like a Bach’s suite for orchestra, moving into an oratorio-like part with strings and harp, woodwind and brass enter gradually. Too mixed.

Marsch: incoherent to my ears

Wednesday, April 24^th 2013 – A tribute to compatriots

I’m sleepy (very) and I don’t expect much from the first half (when I happen to usually have worse attention). Let’s see.

Jan Šimíček –Rozjímání(= meditation, contemplation)– Study for 22 solo strings

Much more melodic than what I thought it’d be. Sounds very modern, though. And not very juicy until minute 13 or so. In the end, I fell asleep for a minute or two. I woke up and started working on my own music in my head. It wasn’t disruptive nor consciously inspiring.

Milan Křížek – Concerto for violin and orchestra

Not dodecaphonic, but still I’m lost after three notes – atonal? I like the conductor’s work, very lively. Musically, though, I prefer my friend Franfer’s movie-like improvisations. I can’t find any point to catch up. People move in their seats, look at each other, talk, nervously tap with their feet. Too far from the Common Practice, I’m afraid.

Vojtěch Jírovec – Symphony E flat major op. 18

Largo. Allegro: yes, that sounds Classical – and great! Phrases tend to be 2-3 notes longer than expected (nice point!). Something Czech to it, or do I imagine it?

Andante moderato: more Vienna now. Dance-like.

Menuetto: there is generally little exact repetition within the phrases, and it goes quickly to a rephrasing in minor, yet just 1-2 bars, to be soon back at major. Sparky, crispy. With these changes, the phrase is longer and more interesting at the same time. I can imagine, though, enjoying better the dance to it than the listening.

Rondo: more repetition in this one, but further on in this movement it tends to follow the pattern mentioned above (sudden & short move to minor). Woodwind and brass too strong (maybe 11 musicians to 20 string players is too much for this piece?)

 

Assignment 4

Introduction

As opposed to my project 12, this one will (hopefully) be less demanding to the listener. This was one of the goals I wanted to achieve. The device I used most is the imitation, with a smaller presence of inversions and a couple of augmentations. From the beginning I kept in mind I’d like to show some contrary motion and parallel motion at some point.

Planning

Three minutes is longer than what I am used to write. I prepared a table to draft the structure, planning three sections for it, as seen before in the course. It originally looked more or less as follows:

section	lasting	bars	character	key signature / scale(s)	time signature	counterpoint devices
A	32”	8	intimate, but lively as well	F	4q	imitation
B	24”	6		Dm	4q	inversion
C	32”	8	contrast			augmentation
C’	32”	8	fugued?	transposed Bb? Am?		as before
A’	32”	8		transposed C?	4q	as before
B’	24”	6		transposed + back to first Cm – C7	4q	as before
total	2′ 56”	44

Most of these things were going to change in the end, but some were kept quite exactly, as we will see.

The final work is based on three sections, A, B, and C, each with its own rhythmical pattern and melody line. A and B are repeated in a shorter way and undergo a series of variations. All three combine in a final section.

As mentioned in the introduction, imitation is the device most used in this piece, with some presence of inversion and augmentation-diminution.

A detailed analysis of the piece will follow after the score, which can be played here.

• Section A (bars 1-8)

As planned, it is a rather intimate section, slow, with a rhythm based on a number of notes different in each beat (3, 2, 1, then 4 and again 3, 2, etc.). The motif is built mainly on this rhythmical base, with the melody played alternatively by the clarinet or the vibraphone, imitating one each other and with some inversions (exact or at different intervals). From the original plan of 8 bars in F major, I turned to a change in C major in bar 5.

• Section B (bars 9-17)

This part starts on D minor. The main motif for this section starts on the vibraphone. Not supposed to create too big a contrast, both the rhythm and the shape of the melodic line are very similar to those from section A. The clarinet plays an inversion in bars 11-12. The rest of the section is mainly composed by imitations of the first bar of the B motif (clarinet in bars 13, 15, this one transposed to G; vibraphone in bars 13, 14, 16). The alternation in bars 14-16, with the transposition in the second entry, was just a short attempt of fugato (not fugue!) at three voices.

There is a very short second motif in section B, that originally appeared first by the clarinet in bar 10, although I afterwards added it in bar 9, diminished and transposed. It appears three more times, by the vibraphone in bar 12 (with the notes doubled to the octave), by the clarinet in bar 14 (with the first note shortened) and again by the vibraphone in bar 49, 2nd beat, diminished.

• Section A’ (18-21)

Back in F major, it helps reminding the first motif, to give the listener a feeling of comfort (“ok, I recognize what I’m listening”). It is also a rest between two sections with three voices. For that reason, the non-leading voice has a very simple rhythm with longer notes (crotchets). The clarinet starts its turn by moving in parallel motion with the vibraphone for some notes in bar 19.

• Section B’ (22-24)

The first two bars are a stretto of the main motif of part B, in three voices, of which the second entry is a transposed imitation, and the third entry is an inversion.

The third bar of this short section is a transition to section C.

• Section C (25-43)

This is supposed to offer a contrast with the previous sections, but being a part of the same piece. To start with, it moves to the dominant (C major), and to a time signature half as long. The rhythm of the accompaniment is based on fast, mainly regular notes. The main motif is played by the clarinet in bars 25-27, and then it will appear several times as a series of alternations and modulations (low voice of vibraphone in bars 28-29; clarinet moves to C minor, bars 31-32; vibraphone imitates again in b. 32-33; clarinet modulates in bar 36 and continues in bar 37 in A minor, imitated by the high voice of vibraphone in bars 40-41).

Though not respecting all the intervals, and transposed, there is an augmentation by the clarinet in bars 40-43. The original notes go from bar 26 (2^nd beat) to the F note in bar 27.

Bar 43 is also a transition one, in which the rhythmical pattern from bar 1 shows again, to get us ready for section A again.

• Section A” (44-47)

Still in C major, but back at the original time signature of 4 crotchets per bar, the main motif is played by the higher vibraphone voice. In beats 4-7 of the motif, the clarinet accompanies in contrary motion. The lower voice accompanies in some beats in a parallel-motion based mood. In bar 46, vibraphone and clarinet move mostly in parallel motion, modulating already to F major.

Bar 47 is another transition one, this time to introduce the final section. The rhythm of the accompaniment is that of section C, while the clarinet rhythm is an augmentation of the first two bars of the piece, which allows the first staccato note of the clarinet, bar 48, to take the listener by surprise…

• Final section (48-54)

We are back in F major. In this part, the main elements from all three sections are combined to bring us to the end of the piece. The vibraphone plays, in alternating bars, slight variations on the motifs from sections A and B. In between, the clarinet plays variations on the motif from section C (in the end, I decided to put the extra beat of the motif, which lead to the division of bars 48-49 in the way they are now). The motifs get shortened and the pitch gets higher, both to announce the end – the rhythm stops and then the clarinet goes to the highest peak of the piece (bar 53).

Some final comments

The first structural idea was not that much respected. It is more curious then that the planned time was exact to the second to the one I’d planned.

The speed should not be a problem for the vibraphone, according to some pieces I’ve seen on youtube. However, there is no use of chords with three or four notes, as I found the sound rich enough with two voices.

For the clarinet, there is a passage in bar 30 that may be especially difficult to play, not only for its speed but also because those notes seem to be more difficult to play in terms of fingering, according to Gordon Jacob. Also, there is not so much room for breathing, which means that either the final notes on the slurs have to be shortened (that was my idea when writing it), or many more comas should be added.

Another of the original ideas, namely having a piece friendly to an average listener, not necessarily educated in music, was kept in mind

My own judgement

• Technical presentation

Like in the previous Assignment, all the presentation is done by the program. Some little amendments were needed, e. g. one flat was written on the previous note, some slurs were crossing dynamics and similar ones. The changes improved the clarity and readability of the score. In my opinion, this is at least a B, probably an A.

• Compositional skills

In relation to the use of counterpoint devices, I am conscious I was far more cautious with the Assignment than I was in Project 12. On the other hand, in terms of modulations and contrast of motifs, there is a certain risk and exploration, at least comparing to my previous works. There is at least “some skill with structural design”. The A is probably out of consideration, because I haven’t tried playing vibraphone or clarinet and I’m not fully aware of how practicable the piece is, among other reasons. For all these, the grade here would probably be a B.

• Creativity

There is at least some “useful attempts to explore original approaches”, like the frequent modulation, the big contrast between the motifs or the combination of motifs at the end. When contrasting with the previous work, e. g. with the “Mummy” (see project 11), and even by itself, I don’t feel this piece is “highly imaginative”, and for the cautiousness mentioned above, I reckon I remain on a C for this category.

• Stylistic awareness

I have listened to many pieces from many composers. However, either I wrote no comments or these aren’t in my blog yet, being still on papers at home instead. Most, but not all my study on Bach’s fugues is on my blog. With the evidence there is today in my blog, the grade would be a C. Once I put all the work there, it may go as up as a B.

Project 12 – two inventions

Invention 1

For the first attempt, I wanted to put some “tropical air” to a technique some consider heavier. To get that tropical breeze, I chose the flute and the marimba (a friend of mine from Guatemala loves it, so this goes for him).

It starts with a flute solo presenting the main motif. In the middle of the third bar, the marimba imitates the motif at the dominant. In bar six, the main motif appears again as a second voice in the marimba, this time transposed one octave lower than the original; at the same time, the flute presents the motif in augmentation, inversion and transposition. The last entry of the motif takes place in bar 9, and it is a repetition of the second marimba voice (one octave lower than the original), this time in diminution.

I originally placed this one as part of Project 11, because I was working with several pieces at once and I mixed them up. But then I realized that this was out of the range of “an accompanied melody” – hence the re-placing.

Invention 2

(extract from my notes on it)

Originally I started it as a G major, but I found it too little inspiring. I just tried changing the key – and that fitted me much better!

There are two motifs. I considered writing a mini-fugue, or a fugato section at least – but it would be too long in the end.

The sound I liked most for this piece was that of the pan pipes. However, I know how tiring it can be (maybe I just don’t know the technique for it, but in my experience, the amount of air needed to blow a note in a recorder, a clarinet, a Turkish zurna, or a harmonica, is quite different than that needed to make a sound on a pan pipe) and the dynamics are very hard to work with.

Alternation of woodwind: while I was listening to it, it became clear to me that an alternation of two instruments would make the piece more interesting, even if one of them was there just to complement here and there. On the other hand, it is supposed to be a two-part invention… With an unpitched percussion instrument, it’s already a fourth-part one.

After listening to it several time, I thought I was probably falling into the same mistake of charging too much the music since the very beginning. I took a couple of bars out, and probably will have to take some others. Considering both motifs, there’s more than 25 entries in 20 bars. Mr. Standford uses the expression “contrapuntal indigestion” in the course notes, in a different context, yes, but – am I not falling into that?

There are two motives. The one in red is the main one, including its imitations, inversions, augmentations, diminutions and reflexions (played backwards). The second one is in green, again with all the variations. Orange and blue are false entries (or shorter ones)

Both motifs are subject to imitation (exact and transposed), inversion, diminution,  and retrograde (mirror) writing. Motif A is also subject to augmentation.

The character of both variations is different to my eyes. However, when I look at the rhythmical figures and the sequences of intervals, I find quite a few common points. I think I’ll repeat this part of the project further on.

(If anybody wants to listen to Invention 2, you can do so by clicking here)