Orchestral Study #7 (dialogue)

  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)

This started late in the month because of an extended stay in Curacao, but the structure came to me almost immediately. I’ve been wanting to try to bring solo instruments in more prominently. The last study at various points gave the melody to solo violin and viola; here I’ve used the violin throughout as a proper soloist. The intent was to have the contrasting sections be a dialog between soloist and orchestra (like so many concertos), but to think of them not as separate entities but the same. An internal dialogue. It’s more conceptual than actually achieved.

  • Melancholy statement (soloist)
  • Chorale (orchestra)
  • Minimalist perpetuum mobile (soloist)
  • Prelude and fugue book-ended with reference to chorale (orchestra)
  • Closing lyric statement (soloist)

For the soloist sections, I would create a general sketch of the melody then insert measures as I orchestrated to either extend a phrase or add a new idea for variety. It’s very much like painting, where rough ideas become more precise as you progress. The orchestration, at least for the soloist sections, has much more color that the previous studies. I’m getting confident with a wider range of instrument combinations. That being said, for the soloist I did not verify that the double- and triple-stops were actually playable or at least comfortably playable. That skill is definitely a work in progress.

I’m continuing to run against limitations in playback, mostly crescendos and decrescendos, so I end up adding over-detailed dynamic markings. And I heard pizzicato and harmonics in certain areas but those are almost completely unavailable with Musescore. I had to settle for staccato and ppp respectively.

(Realization: I remember at the beginning of the year, I was concerned that I would over-rely on explicit repeats and not be able to create sections that are written variations as repeats. I happily have not fallen into that type of laziness.)

Next up is a toccata with percussion added.

orchestral-study-7

Orchestral Study #6 (space)

  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)

Six months. It feels like a milestone.

I wanted to work through a sonorist piece that emphasized texture over melody. Threnody is the canonical example, but there are many directions you can go by subverting the concept of harmony or rhythm. I couldn’t get close to there and probably never would but the ideal gives you creativity to find your route.

The idea of the opening bright harmonic declaration was there from the start. I don’t think I had an overall structure in mind but rather some germinal ideas, many of which didn’t make it into the final score. Honestly, I’m not sure the final structure holds together because I walked around through so many different themes so inconsistently, but it still feels like a whole. There’s an inconstant consistency.

This is the first time I ran against limitations of the scoring software’s playback not matching the intent of the score. I need to get high quality samples and maybe move on to mixing each part. This is a long way from Study #1.

Much of this grew very naturally and I feel like I could be more expressive in this style. There were several ideas that just-did-not-work, but the immersiveness felt natural. I didn’t go far enough.

The fact that felt more acute this month: with a fixed time frame, it’s difficult to know when you are done, when the piece is done. It makes an artificial constraint on the arc of emotion you’re trying to achieve and may rush any interesting sequences that could be elaborated on. Obvious. But each instance of compromise is different.

Six months?

Next up is uncertain; the other months were not. Previous months I had a task queued up (variations or vivace or lyric) but not now. I’m out of the country for a week, so maybe it’s good to turn off and wait for the next impulse.

orchestral-study-6

Orchestral Study #5 (variations)

  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 say this every time, but this one felt like a failure early in and, except for the last section, still does. It’s because the muddy harmonies and overfull orchestration that I could never get right. It reminds me of a watercolor when you layer too many colors: a grayish, uncertain mess. This one also took the longest to complete because of my unhappiness throughout. Lesson learned?

The goal was a passacaglia-type work, but I think of it now as four variations without a theme. My intent always drifts as the ideas start to reveal themselves. The first section doesn’t have the clarity to come across as a thematic jumping off point, but it does set the harmonic structure for the three sections that follow. Second section: a chatty variation with runs swapped across the instruments. Third: long held notes in the horns while oboe, bassoon, and violas jump around noisily as background radiation. Fourth: the longest and the one that flowed out very naturally. A brash, more harmonically clear and confident statement split in the middle and the ending with a more uncertain theme using solo violin, viola, and cello.

Next up may be a sonorist piece. I’m using a classical orchestra just for simplicity (it’s enough of an effort to learn with just this limited palette) so I’m not sure how well that style will communicate.

orchestral-study-5

Orchestral Study #4 (allegro)

  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)

This was the first one that I felt failure from the start and yet I’m very happy with the outcome. Composing has always been a process starting with impulsive excitement, going to studied focus, then emotional anguish throughout as sections flow or don’t or feel just-not-right, then the polish at then end (the last few day in this instance) and finally almost satisfying achievement. And then–what always happens but has not yet for this piece–a realization that I can never accomplish again what I did then/now. It’s not at all arrogance, just insecurity. Since the rock operas, I had forgotten what a trial these things are. But then I get to the impulse to start again.

Anyway.

I have come up with a few rules: no listening to the previous works and no planning for the next until almost complete. I don’t want to muddy the “whatever” with the impulses of what came before and what will come next. There is a slight overlap though: in the first days of the current I can’t escape the impressions of the last, and at the end of the current I can’t will away the desire for the next. Rules.

I had come into this study wanting to write a rushing vivace. I think I avoided very very fast music for my piano writing because I just could not play that fast, so it was nice to escape the limitations of technical skill. However, there were still mental limitation for this piece based on the rapidity of the ideas that I could hear… if that makes sense? And so for the most part I stuck with a more tonal palette just to sidestep the insecurity around dissonance in compressed time.

The opening melody came out and immediately felt like it needed a canon-like development. I worked from there and I’m not sure how but then decided the piece should be a rondo: A B’ B A B’ C A. The added B’ bridge came just as a halted start of the B theme that I hated to abandon because of the syncopation that ended up getting added, in a way, to the C. That weird and toneless C was intended to be a minimalist perpetuum mobile but that mood/texture started to feel bland as a prelude to the closing A, so I switched gears and went with a mash of syncopated noise.

I was surprise how much music I got out of this. For the first week or so I expected–because fast music equals many notes equals less time–it to be just 2 minutes or so. Right now I feel like this was the most exhausting to compose, but of course that’s until the next one is started.

And so my goals for the next one: a passacaglia, get more comfortable with brass, maybe add sections with the first violin and first cello, and (this is less specific) but have more instrument “swapping.” I heard in Brahms’ 1st how he would throw the melody from one instrument to another or add it to a single measure as harmonic color. I need to think about that.

orchestral-study-4

Orchestral Study #3 (adagio with melisma)

  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)

This got away from me.

My intent going in was to write an adagio in simple ABA with more tonal harmonies. Maybe like a Brahms slow movement or more one from a Walter Piston symphony. I’ve been brushing up on Piston symphonies during commutes and am enjoying getting reacquainted. My goals (chosen after I finished the last study) were tone color and dynamics. With this study, I feel like I’m writing better across the orchestra but am still floundering with combining instruments.

I wanted the first section to be tonal and melodic, but I worry that it has too much of a “pops” orchestral feel. That’s the risk I had worried about starting these studies: moving from tonality in rock music to orchestral risks sounding unchallenging.

As I was working through that languid opening, I switched gears to the second section: a major key chant/melisma interrupted with expansive declarations.

While fitting the first two sections together, I made notes on what became the third section, which was intended as a perversion of the themes that came before. This was written more fully on the piano during improvisation and though the polytonality worked very well on the keyboard it was a crazy mess trying to get it to work with orchestra. At one point I was going to leave it out because the tone felt wrong. I went through two earlier attempts before coming up with the final arrangement. The first had a very strict rhythm and mostly for winds, but it didn’t have the “edge” that I felt at the keyboard. The next attempt used written rubato and exaggerated cross rhythms (with almost no meter), but it just created too much chaos along with the polytonal dissonances. The final product ended up with a balance of chaos and structure, edging towards chaos. I think most of my time was spent just on this section.

The piece has an ABCBA structure. Languid and melodic, melisma, perversion of themes, abbreviated melisma, triste languid coda.

I still need to attempt an actual, beautiful adagio. Next goals: vivace and maybe try for a more organic structure without abrupt changes.

orchestral-study-3