Category: Arts

1. Orchestral Study #1 (flowing and hymn-like)
2. Orchestral Study #2 (driving and chaotic)
3. Orchestral Study #3 (adagio with melisma)
4. Orchestral Study #4 (allegro)
5. Orchestral Study #5 (variations)
6. Orchestral Study #6 (space)
7. Orchestral Study #7 (dialogue)
8. Orchestral Study #8 (toccata)
9. Orchestral Study #9 (seven interludes)
10. Orchestral Study #10 (rupture, slowed down and from different angles)
11. Orchestral Study #11 (a crowd, disassembled)
12. Orchestral Study #12 (thesis)

My original intent (which, if all previous intentions are any model, was destined to be diverted) was to open with quiet statements, work to a “tapestry of sound,” then return to a variation on the initial statements. I saw a horizontal shape, expanding and then returning.

I watched Berg’s Wozzek when I was in the middle of the piece (needing the insight but contradictorally worried that it would dilute any originality), and was reminded of its brilliance. I know many of the melodies from college but it’s also notable theatrically. It did end up giving me some ideas to break out from repeated-eighth-note lines and try to be more rhythmically varied.

1. Theme A in eighth notes, varying between 2/8, 3/8, and 4/8, with the melody in flutes, oboes, and violins.
2. Theme B as a chord progression, transitions blurred with exaggerated anticipations and suspensions and non-harmonic tones (of a sort, without a reference key). Melodic decorations in the winds as call and response or a shared melody, ending with repeated note decorations.
3. Theme C as melodic chattering, call/response/shared melody between winds and strings.
4. Theme A repeated, modified with extended phrases injected.
5. Theme B repeated, modified with extended chords at the end. Repeated note melodic decorations.
6. A short canon.
7. Theme C repeated in style, but with a single voice, spaces left for the absence participants.

(ABCABC)

I am starting to be more conscious of when I need to let silences and scarcity fill a statement. It takes close listening to know when and where those silences need placed. I’m better at not letting percussion take over a section. Less/more and all that.

Next up: The last one. I honestly have no idea what direction I’ll go. Although it sounds silly, a new piece every month has been somewhat exhausting. I think about Wozzek (and am now re-watching Berg’s Lulu, produced by William Kentridge, amazing for different reasons) but also feel like I need to go back to tonality. The first days of the month are always a pause to clear the head.

orchestral-study-11

1. Orchestral Study #1 (flowing and hymn-like)
2. Orchestral Study #2 (driving and chaotic)
3. Orchestral Study #3 (adagio with melisma)
4. Orchestral Study #4 (allegro)
5. Orchestral Study #5 (variations)
6. Orchestral Study #6 (space)
7. Orchestral Study #7 (dialogue)
8. Orchestral Study #8 (toccata)
9. Orchestral Study #9 (seven interludes)
10. Orchestral Study #10 (rupture, slowed down and from different angles)
11. Orchestral Study #11 (a crowd, disassembled)
12. Orchestral Study #12 (thesis)

I approached this a little lost after #9 because its abundance of ideas in a way drained my creativity. But then a line in Piston’s Orchestration got me started, from the section “Types of Texture – Type VII, Complex” where he describes how the previous discussed types of texture–unison, melody, counterpoint, chords, etc.–can be combined simultaneously. In detailing examples of the complex type, he described a section of Rite of Spring as a “tapestry of sound.” He then organized the 31 parts in that section (page 9 of the edition he cites) into 11 groups of greater and lesser importance, emphasizing the subjectivity of that grouping and the utility of the exercise for becoming more proficient in orchestration.

I did not go in that direction (and honestly don’t think I’m quite ready).

The intent then became a piece with the structure: complex stacked chords, then melody, then twittering chaos in woodwinds (cf. #2 starting at measure 44). But plans develop as ideas become concrete, and the melody I wrote was completely abandoned, and I adjusted a bit as new ideas developed.

1. Quiet, spare opening statement, percussion
2. A section
   1. Stacked chords, heavy dissonances
   2. Stacked chords, oboe solo with clarinet accompaniment, arrhythmic
3. B section
   1. Stark change, build up from spare silences
   2. The aforementioned “twittering chaos”
4. A section, return
   1. Return to chord progression from #2, quieter, more consonant, and with reduced orchestration
   2. Progressing to white noise and end

I feel like my percussion writing, although using the same timpani/cymbal/triangle (minus snare), has gotten more nuanced since I started using percussion in #8. The twittering chaos is very satisfying to write but takes exhausting focus (“I love having written but hate writing” amirite?). It feels like there are dozens of rules I’ve learned from writing this piece concerning dissonance and instrument combination, but that they are more internalized than they are expressible. It’s also becoming more apparent, from the last couple of pieces, that I’m writing for MIDI orchestra and not orchestra orchestra. That is an issue, without learning the instruments and having actual ears-on sessions, that may be un-fixable.

I’ve thought impressionism and minimalism for next month, but not sure.

orchestral-study-10

1. Orchestral Study #1 (flowing and hymn-like)
2. Orchestral Study #2 (driving and chaotic)
3. Orchestral Study #3 (adagio with melisma)
4. Orchestral Study #4 (allegro)
5. Orchestral Study #5 (variations)
6. Orchestral Study #6 (space)
7. Orchestral Study #7 (dialogue)
8. Orchestral Study #8 (toccata)
9. Orchestral Study #9 (seven interludes)
10. Orchestral Study #10 (rupture, slowed down and from different angles)
11. Orchestral Study #11 (a crowd, disassembled)
12. Orchestral Study #12 (thesis)

I came in with the intent of exploring a more atonal, pointillist style, to move in the direction of Elliott Carter in texture but without the metric modulation. Then after finishing the first statement, I had the idea to use that statement as simply the first of a set of pieces in different styles. Short preludes or interludes. The prime number seven jumped into my head, and the basic ideas for all but #6 were pretty clear from the start.

1. (00:00) Pointillist emphasizing timbre
2. (00:34) Lyric/impressionist, wistful
3. (02:11) Bright percussive
4. (03:53) Driving percussive
5. (05:03) Spare with silences
6. (06:33) Vivace, humoresque
7. (07:41) Descending lines, from plaintive to content

Total time: 11:44

#s 1 and 5 are in an atonal language that I’ve dipped into before and am really loving. Again, I use Carter as the jumping off point.

#2 is where I wish I could write long, romantic melodies. This ends up being a little 70s-movie-music-trite, but still has its moments.

#s 3 and 4 continue with a percussion language I learned in study #8. The percussion parts come very naturally, but I worry that they appear as both a repetition of ideas across the different pieces, and as too chaotic in expression, not complementing the rest of the orchestra.

#6 was a good lesson in sticking with a difficult piece until you find a solution to what’s blocking you. (For study #5 that solution never came, but it was still worth the failure.) In this interlude, I was stuck for a couple of days after the first statement and finally came up with a framework of scales that shift diatonic key every few notes. It gives a nice, non-dissonant atonal hum without being a generic octatonic or whole tone scale.

The concept for #7 was there from the beginning but, as is common, ended up manifesting a wider range of ideas than I expected. The surprise achievement: I approached the noisy beauty of Schnittke that I thought I’d never get to. Really very, very happy with that. (And, surprise! metric modulation made an appearance.)

I ran over time this month just because of the volume of ideas (which really should have been explored more fully on their own), and also because even though I was “finished” about a week ago, several felt jarringly abbreviated so I returned and fleshed them out. I have never regretted revisiting and extending a piece.

Not sure where this goes next. I’m again drawn towards the atonal pointillism of #s 1 and 5 (this is the same intent I had at the end of last month).

orchestral-study-9