[MarkMcD]

Hi All,

This is another piece I've been working on in the last few months. I'm fairly happy with the music but the score is a mess and the dynamics in particular I could really use some help with, both in getting Sibelius to play it better, and in the actual musicians score. If anyone has any suggestions as to how I should go about getting a better sound, I would really welcome some tips. my music theory is not very good and all tips on glaring mistakes are really welcome too.

As always I welcome suggestions and comments, good or bad on the music too. I have to say I like it as it is, but there is always room for improvement!

Thanks in advance for listening.

Mark

https://www.dropbox.com/s/podfpbm41vqoi5a/Discussions_in_D_minor.mp3?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/io0ndaouobm76v1/Discussions in D minor.pdf?dl=0

 

[KjellPrytz]

Great composition. The discussion between brass and oboe is magnificent. A real pleasure to listen to this. Thank you, Mark.
A simple way to increase dynamics/variation could be to letting the strings take part in the discussion. Right now, it feels they have just an accompanying role, right? But be careful to change anything, it is really nice as it is.

As you might know by now, my skill in notation is limited so no comments on that.

Congrats
Kjell

 

[MarkMcD]

Thanks Kjell,

You're right about the strings, I am right now working to give the strings a new lease of life, I love the texture they have, but they are very 1 dimensional. I wrote this piece back in the early 1990's on an Atari ST and then time passed and I lost all the floppy disks. I found them again last year and decided to see if there was anything I liked on them. This is one of them, and so I transferred the pieces I liked to work on my current setup. In my rush to get them re-mastered, I transferred them more or less as they were and didn't really bring anything new to them I suppose because of nostalgia. I should have just taken the essence and re-written them, so that's what I'm trying to do now.

Thanks for you advice
Mark

 

[MarkMcD]

Hi folks,

I didn't get a lot of response to this one, but I think possibly because it was not very well executed. I've spent a couple of weeks trying to rewrite it and made quite a few changes. I really would appreciate it if you good people could let me know if you can see improvement with the rewrite.

The new links are below. Again, I'm sure there are many mistakes in the score, but a large number of them are due to making Sibelius play the piece as I would like it to sound, the players score should not look like this. But I'm sure there are also obvious mistakes like wrong sharps or flats etc., and if you spot any, then I would also appreciate you letting me know.

Thanks in advance
Mark

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4kbk9qes0613are/Discussions around D minor.wav?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/grv0iq9mtbq34ol/Discussions around D minor.pdf?dl=0

 

[arnerich]

I liked the arrival of f-sharp minor, that's the best moment in my opinion. I'm curious why there are no clarinets, flutes or 2nd violins? With a piece like this that's perpetually in motion changes in timbre would be your friend. Also, the name of the piece is interesting because you move out of d minor and end in e flat major. Perhaps call it a scherzo? Good work!

 

[MarkMcD]

Hi Arnerich,

I'm glad you liked the piece. The thing has evolved quite a bit since I started it and I think the lack of second violins and the rest of the wind section is due to it starting out only for oboe and bassoon. I think a second violin might come in handy as it's still somewhat in the edit stage, I just wanted to get it out there and get opinions on how to improve it.

I think also since it's title was a bit of a rush job too. I liked the conversational aspect of the original oboe and bassoon, but it has changed since then and so probably the title should also, and I do like the idea of a scherzo, and as you say, it doesn't stay in D minor for long, wandering through a few keys so I will probably drop the D minor bit too.

Thanks for you suggestions, gratefully received as always.

Mark

 

[Vasks]

It's not a scherzo, but it's not a "discussion" either. The 4 note motif (regardless of it's pitches or contour) is used way too much. A discussion involves more than all parties saying the same thing back and forth.

As for notation, your piece is not in a compound meter. You let the sixteenth note accompaniment dictate the time signature. The piece should be 4/4 with the accompaniment being eighth note triplets. Does that make sense? If not, just close your eyes and conduct the melody.

 

[Samuel Kristopher]

I love the tonal shifts. I know it's not the best compliment (I always feel a bit deflated when people say it of my own music) but it would make awesome soundtrack music. Anyway, each shift is natural and exciting, some of them even divine. Makes me inspired to continue experimenting with harmonic relativity in my own music!

My own critique is on a similar thread to Vasks - the four note motif was overused in the opening section (but only the opening section). After the motif is altered and you start to develop it, the piece really takes on an incredible life. For that first minute, why don't you try some derivatives of that four-note theme? John Williams is inspirational in that regard - most of his iconic themes are based on one small musical 'cell', expanded and altered to make up the theme as a whole.

And if you go that far, why not return to this motif at the end? The middle part works well as a development section, I think - if you return to the motif in D minor and end with a strong cadence, you've got yourself something of a sonata-form!

Anyway, a lovely piece to listen to!

 

[JAS]

It does sound a little like Rachel Portman, who is a film music composer.

 

[Vasks]

but it would make awesome soundtrack music.

My first reaction to the start was a James Bond movie.

 

[MarkMcD]

Hi Vasks, Samuel and Jas,

You are right Vasks about the 4 note motif being over used in the beginning, and also that it doesn't vary enough to be a conversation. I am currently editing it again and I have taken care of that a little better in the re-write, also the ostinato was a bit boring and so I have mixed that up a bit as well. I have to confess that I wrote the original version in 6/8 to avoid having to write hundreds of triplets constantly in the string ostinato, but I am now using 4/4 in the re-write with semiquaver triplets, (I always knew it should be 4/4 as the melody should really dictate and not as you say, the accompaniment).

As for James Bond, well I'm choosing to take that as at least a semi compliment :lol:

The title, well that's always something that stumps me a little, I'm not sure it fits any of the standard models so I may have to think a bit harder, suggestions always welcome.

Samuel, I'm not too deflated by your compliment lol, even film music has to be competent or it just doesn't work, and it's great to think I am at least competent. The tonal shifts are my favourite aspect of the piece and glad you liked that too and find them natural. The opening minute has been addressed in the re-write too, hopefully I've made it better!

I think also it makes sense to return to D minor (although it's not wrong to end in a different key I think), it would be good to see if can work it round in a sort of sonata form so I may well try for that as I'm sure there is material enough for a recapitulation, and it would solve the title problem too .

Jas, I don't know any Rachel Portman so I might well have to have a listen to some.

Thank you all once again for your help with this piece. I do tend to get so far and then run out of steam with my work and so that's why I post it here before I consider it finished - to rob you good people of your genius ideas and get some inspiration and motivation to take the piece to the finish line, and without this help, it would probably sit untouched for quite some time before I felt I could do anything to improve it.

Kind regards to all, and when I do get it to a more complete state, I will re-post it and see if you feel I listened well to your comments.

Mark