For organ (and organists)

For the moment I have listened but I have not seen the score.

In my opinion (which is not that of an organist or a composer/organist and not a practitioner of writing for this instrument) the pedal part is feasible; you do not use parts that are excessively fast and "distant" from each other, there are compositions for organ that involve much faster and more complex pedal use.

You speak of changing the registration using the pedalboard; at least I have never heard of an organ that allows this. Logically, you must take into account that if you need to change the "sound" while performing (you or a performer), you must have the time to do so and you should also consider a possible hand change during the sound change; this is because (I am hypothesizing, but Frank could be of help here) there might be organs with similar stops (which sound differently from each other based on the construction of the organ) that are located in "uncomfortable" positions while performing, and this is a "dilemma," more of a doubt that particularly affects those who write without having the instrument in front of them (but I imagine you know this well by already asking yourself certain questions).

The piece has some short passages that are less "incisive" than others; at certain points it flows quite well, while at others you seem to want to emphasize a continuous "progression."

The ending "disappointed" me; I was expecting a dominant 37a since you often use dissonant connections.

Overall, after a first listen, I feel I can say (it is my opinion, not an absolute one, so this is the minimum) that it can be improved and would gain greater flow, something it already possesses.

Anyway, the parts are quite evident even without seeing the score (I have returned to the old ways by now, a regression in practice) and you seem slightly more mature compared to other compositions.

Piccinesco wrote:

For the moment I have listened but I have not seen the score.

In my opinion (which is not that of an organist or a composer/organist and not a practitioner of writing for this instrument) the pedal part is feasible; you do not use parts that are excessively fast and "distant" from each other; there are compositions for organ that involve much faster and more complex pedal use.

You are talking about changing registers using the pedalboard; at least I have never heard of an organ that allows this. Logically, you must take into account that if you need to change the "sound" while performing (you or a performer), you must have the time to do so and you should also consider a possible hand change during the sound change. This is because (I am hypothesizing, but Frank could be of help here) there might be organs with similar registers (which sound differently from each other based on the construction of the organ) that are located in "uncomfortable" positions while performing, and this is a "dilemma," more an issue that particularly affects those who write without having the instrument in front of them (but I imagine you know this well by already asking yourself certain questions).

The piece has some short passages that are less "incisive" than others; at certain points it flows quite well, while at others you seem to want to emphasize a continuous "progression."

The ending "disappointed" me; I was expecting a dominant 37a since you often use dissonant connections.

Overall, after a first listen, I feel I can say (it is my opinion, not an absolute one, so this is the minimum) that it can be improved and would gain greater fluidity, something it already possesses.

Anyway, the parts are quite evident even without seeing the score (I have returned to the old ways by now, a regression in practice) and it seems slightly more mature to me compared to other compositions.

Actually, I did not mean changing registers via the pedalboard, but changing dynamics (the crescendo pedal, to be understood, which not all organs even have). For manual register changes, I also assume the use of a "register changer" next to the organist. What worries me is the mechanical response to the command, which if it is not rapid risks being ineffective.

However, in this regard, I would also like to hear from someone in the profession, but for now they are missing....

As far as the piece itself is concerned, of the two central progressions one could even result in being "redundant," but I do not believe that "redundancy" should be avoided absolutely. I also have different solutions, less "conventional" I would say, but what I put there was more functional to the technique.

As for the coda.... well, you can't always end on a precipice; sometimes it is also nice to return to the refuge, and besides, even like this, I surprised you"

You are right, I got confused (one of the side effects of living everything without having patience, it is a flaw that is very difficult to smooth out even if it is not an excuse), you meant the dynamics in the first point.

Redundancy can indeed be functional; one might also want a repetitive part specifically to stimulate sensations (depending on how the part is perceived from person to person) of pleasure or nausea, perhaps all linked to a real-life event that one wants to reproduce (I am not talking about descriptive music, but about trying to reproduce a personal sensation/emotion, something that I think almost every composer attempts to do anyway).

Oh yes, that ending blew me away

First of all, I have a question: is the score written in real notes?

In the notes, do you write for example 16' = octave below?

Obviously, all organists know what it means to use a 16' stop; I "don't understand" the notes in relation to the score. In pieces where nothing is indicated, obviously everything is written in real notes, so it is up to the organist during the concertation (or rather orchestration at the organ) that if they use a 16', they will know they must play an octave higher because the stop will automatically bring the notes down by one octave. Alternatively, the organist can decide to reinforce a bass line by adding the 16' to the 8' because they are looking for that specific sound.

Therefore, one thing that must be clear is, in the case where you are the one choosing the orchestration, what needs to be done and what needs to be "invented".

The organ is an instrument also used in contemporary music... this topic comes to mind:

www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/3440-filidei-fiori-di-fiori

Do you want there to be nothing impossible written in the score? Marking the stops I think is the least of the problems. The fact is that the orchestration must be clear.

I noticed very few dynamic markings (only 2?) which on the organ are feasible, but only if it is equipped with an expressive swell box (see romantic organ), through which it is actually possible to truly change the dynamics (excluding Rossini-style crescendos and variations in sound volume by adding or subtracting stops).

You can easily take works by César Franck; you will see that there, the markings are not so few... he even goes as far as performing a crescendo and diminuendo on a single note (the organ: the only keyboard instrument that can afford to do so).

Obviously, ancient music lacks markings in the score since performance practice existed; I am not an expert in contemporary music, but you could contact some composers to get some tips.

Lately I haven't had much time Bianca, if I can be of help just ask. The fundamental principle is that today there is no standard performance practice, so one must be very precise and detailed in the score; it is also advisable to provide a brief description of the attitude the performer should have towards your work. It even happens that desired sounds are sampled to ensure a certain fidelity to one's own idea.

There are many things that can be done, one should reason seriously near an instrument. And which instrument? Filidei is mentioned; the piece is not for organ in general but for "that organ". (U)nfortunately, organ building is very diverse, so one must have very clear ideas. Besides, the same applies to the harpsichord; every school has merits and defects that a composer should know in order to create pieces that leverage the qualities of the instrument....otherwise, the compositional project will not hold up.

I probably haven't answered specific questions, but in general, these are some points for reflection on some themes that could concern this instrument.

I find the piece pleasant; the fact that it was inspired by a fugue probably leads you to look at scores from the early repertoire... which is perhaps why you find them sparse in indications.

I have never written anything serious using the organ; I think that for the language you have used, the indications you included are sufficient. I wouldn't underestimate Silbermann's suggestion, and I doubt whether there might not be enough time to change the stops, which takes time and, even if very little, can break musical phrases that you perhaps intended to be connected.... in effect, it is all a bit legato/sustained.

thanks to everyone first of all

Organista94 wrote:

First of all, I have a question: is the score written in real notes?

In the notes, you write for example 16' = octave below

Obviously, all organists know what it means to use a 16' stop; I "don't understand" the notes in relation to the score. In pieces where nothing is indicated, obviously everything is written in real notes, so it is up to the organist during the concertation (or rather orchestration at the organ) that if they use a 16', they will know they must play an octave higher because the stop will automatically bring the notes down by one octave. Or the organist can decide to reinforce a bass line by adding the 16' to the 8' because they are looking for that specific sonority.

Therefore, the first thing that must be clear is, in the event that you are the one choosing the orchestration, what needs to be done and what needs to be "invented".

The organ is an instrument also used in contemporary music... this topic comes to mind:

www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/3440-filidei-fiori-di-fiori

You want to avoid having the impossible written in the score? Marking the stops I think is the least of the problems. The fact is that the orchestration must be clear.

The score is written in real notes, meaning, if you intend that notations like 16' = octave below etc. lead to confusion for an organist, being pleonastic, these should absolutely be removed. What I am wondering is whether, throughout the score, these can be maintained to indicate that at those points 16-foot or 4-foot stops, etc., should be used.

As for the orchestration, I have indicated mine (but indeed I don't know if it is understandable and in what terms), then obviously there is interpretation and, as you say, the organist's own invention, which moreover has to do with a specific instrument.

Silbermann wrote:

I have noticed very few dynamic markings (only 2?) which on the organ are feasible but only if it is equipped with an expression box (see Romantic organ), according to which it is actually possible to truly change the dynamics (excluding Rossinian crescendos and variations in sound volume by adding or subtracting stops).

You can easily take works by César Franck; you will see that there, the markings are not so few... they even go as far as doing a crescendo and diminuendo on a single note (The organ: the only keyboard instrument that can afford to do so)

Obviously, early music lacks markings in the score because performance practice existed; I am not an expert in contemporary music, but you could contact some composers to get some tips.

I have only indicated f (bar 1) p (23) i f (39) p (48) f (57) and ff (75), and no crescendo or diminuendo: but precisely, as you say, not all organs have this possibility. From my point of view, however, the use of certain stops rather than others also influences the dynamics. What would you advise: should I include the markings anyway even if the organ cannot afford them, or leave it to interpretation?

As for tips, right now I wouldn't know who else to turn to if not this forum.

I will look into César Franck.

Frank wrote:

Lately I haven't had much time, Bianca; if I can be of help, just ask. The fundamental principle is that today there is no performance practice, so in the score one must be very precise and detailed; it is also advisable to provide a brief description of the attitude the performer should have towards your work. It happens that sounds are even sampled to ensure a certain fidelity to one's idea.

The things that can be done are many; one should reason seriously near an instrument. And which instrument? Filidei is mentioned; the piece is not for organ in general but for "that organ". (U)nfortunately, organ building is very varied, so one must have very clear ideas. Besides, the same applies to the harpsichord; every school has pros and cons that a composer should know in order to create pieces that leverage the qualities of the instrument... otherwise, the compositional project won't hold up.

I probably haven't answered specific questions, but in general these are some points for reflection on some themes that could concern this instrument.

thanks for your availability; the issue of the lack of performance practice is something I would like to address with more calm and time. I would be very interested, however, in having a practical example of what you are saying: do you happen to have any score where these things are marked just so I can get an idea? It would be really useful to me.

What you say about the specificity of the instrument is absolutely correct, and I realized it even without having a real one at hand, but simply by looking online at the"}

characteristics of the various instruments scattered across the world... if only I had the possibility of something concrete!! )

As far as sound sampling is concerned... you probably mean talking about the sound of each instrument to be attached to the score, but I wonder if it couldn't also contribute, not just for the sound, but for the interpretation as a whole, the creation of a true virtual playback, to let the organist listen to.

Oracolo wrote:

I find the piece pleasant; the fact that you were inspired by the fugue probably leads you to look at scores from the ancient repertoire ... that is perhaps why you find them sparse in indications.

I have never written anything serious using the organ; I think that for the language you have used, the indications you have included are sufficient. I wouldn't underestimate Silbermann's suggestion, and I doubt that perhaps there isn't enough time to change the stops, which takes time and, even if very little, can break musical phrases that you might have intended to be legato.... in effect, it is all a bit portato.

I have that same doubt as well, and certainly the organist alone cannot do it (I believe) unless they invent something... but I don't know with the help of a second...

As far as portato is concerned... this is a discussion that goes beyond technique, in the sense that right now, as things stand (as far as the organ is concerned, not for other instruments in general obviously), I am not very inclined toward an execution that emphasizes the legato too much, even though I understand that excessive portato might perhaps give the impression of a certain "mechanicalness". For this piece, I also have a score where slurs are not indicated, but square brackets are marked to highlight the beginning and end of different phrases. At the beginning, I indicated a generic legato which anyway has no effect on the playback...

...and thank you for the appreciation

@Bianca, I don't mean this:

> As far as sound sampling is concerned... you probably mean

> talking about the sound of each instrument to be attached to the score, but I wonder

> if it couldn't also contribute, not just for the sound, but for the

> interpretation as a whole, the creation of an actual virtual playback,

> to be played for the organist.

I mean that you could use effects that might be more immediate to the performer if sampled (let's say at least recorded) and attached to the score. But this is just one example.

When I have reassembled my library... I will send you something (I should warn you it won't be a matter of hours). I have material to make you understand what I mean; I owe you a favor and in due time.... I won't fail you.