Winter - For Clarinet And Viola

I listened to the piece several times, also using headphones, and I share many of the impressions already expressed.

First of all, I tell you that even Berg, who was from that period, wrote serious "gentleness". Therefore, it does not represent a problem because you are not Schoenberg; you live today and not a century ago... so take a series and do whatever you want with it. You say that

"Besides, I have understood that when the series is good... half the work is done."

Not only the choice of notes (and intervals, especially. Implicitly) is important but, as Thallo rightly says, also its rhythmic articulation... which at least must arrive in its development. But even here, when is a winter day truly defined and articulated?

To push you further, the first useful suggestion that came to mind has already been spent by Thallo (who always "steals" the best answers from me)... anyway, it is precisely to chew on good Messiaen (Thallo, are we related?) who, at a timbral level, is one of the greatest advocates of the last century, if not the foremost exponent.

Apropos of the performers, I was most struck by the viola... even if by definition everyone takes it out on her. I usually trust good performers and they often give rise to ideas and good desires, so the real question is... why didn't she comply with the fff. And yet, it doesn't seem like a first-rate issue to me.

I confirm that my greatest desire was to truly hear silence when it was written ... a pity about the audio file, but with a good imagination

Anyway, I consider it a good piece, especially based on the response you were able to give to the difficulties you set yourself to overcome.

Making a series current, with an interesting but difficult instrumentation and pushing into timbral research.

Keep in mind that it is harder to make 2 instruments sound than an entire orchestra, so if I were you, I would generally be satisfied.

I like the sound space which I would define as "desolate", a place to which I am very fond and if I were a man from the first half of the 1950s I would abuse it... I mean exactly this indication, although I notice there is a rediscovery of the fashion of using descriptive terms in tempo indications. So, to this, I would write...

My compliments and until the next work.

Frank

PS

Regarding the discussion on rules, I share what has been written by almost everyone; it is also true that we are talking about rules of taste, the taste of a certain period... over time you will build your own dictionary which will in turn be driven by taste, your taste, and you will create a little "rule-abiding" or "regulated" corner where you will feel at home and "reassured""

Did the violist really strike you the most? I must say she is very good, I have heard her in various concerts, but this time here she didn't convince me at all!

Yes, yes, I repeat as well, the rhythmic element here is the great absentee. Let's just say I wasn't very interested, meaning my goal was first and foremost to try my hand at something that wasn't a fugue or a romance; then the rest came as I wrote, with a general outline obviously, and apparently rhythm was sacrificed. A pity indeed, and anyway, before you told me, I hadn't really thought about this missing aspect in my music... I will remedy it soon, I swear!

For informational purposes, the initial tempo indication is "Doloroso", with the quarter note at 45, then obviously there is a whole series of rallentando and accelerando.

To the previous observation about the lovely atmosphere in here, I add that we are finally in a place where spelling and syntax are considered as much as the content of what is being said. It was about time!

suonolatromba wrote:

Did the violist really strike you more?

It could be that there is a possibility, as Thallo was saying, that the clarinetist could have been made to do more or differently, and therefore comes out a bit "sacrificed"... I mean literally as a part. But in my opinion, we are in a subjective sphere: you wrote the piece, you had an expectation (which is what you had in your ear and in your head), whereas I listen to the result of a performer without a score.

In fact, since they exist, send it to me.

"Doloroso"... eh... that emotional chord didn't strike me. Obviously, we are all different and everyone experiences listening in a different way; who knows about the others...

suonolatromba wrote:

something that wasn't a fugue or a romance

Speaking of which, have you had a chance to look at Anton Weber's op. 27? Or Danilo Lorenzini's "Enigmatic Fugue on a subject by Erik Satie"?

Just to branch out a bit and try to "save" a little bit of tradition

The clarinet is in Bb? Right?

Frank wrote:

It could be that there is a possibility, as Thallo was saying, that the clarinetist could have been made to do more or differently, and therefore comes out a bit "sacrificed"... I mean specifically as part of the piece. But in my opinion, we are in a subjective sphere; you wrote the piece, you had an expectation (which is what you had in your ear and in your head), whereas I listen to the result of a performer without a score

In fact, since they exist, send it to me

"Doloroso"... eh ... that emotional chord didn't strike me. Obviously, we are all different and everyone experiences listening in a different way, who knows about the others...

Look, just a little time to search for it, scan it, publish it, and I'll post it!

Destroyed wrote:

Is the clarinet in Bb? Right?

Yes, yes of course, in B-flat.

suonolatromba wrote:

Yes, yes of course, in B-flat.

But it has a beautiful dark timbre, it almost sounded like a clarinet in A...

Anyway, you did a great job in my opinion; I don't connect with the genre, but the instrumentation is excellent.

Eh... the clarinetist is very good...

suonolatromba wrote:

Did the violist really strike you more?

... too bad the violist wasn't seen

Jokes aside, what should I add?... next time I'll be faster, keep going like this and you'll do fine

Talentuoso wrote:

... too bad the violist wasn't seen

Jokes aside, what can I add... next time I'll be quicker, keep going like this because you're doing well

Eheheheh... it wasn't much to look at anyway!

Thanks, thanks!

suonolatromba wrote:

More or less I was satisfied! There were few rehearsals and I only managed to attend three of them.

As for the performers... I liked the clarinetist very much, in my opinion he understood everything there was to understand.

The violist, as much as she is very good and refined, left me perplexed... a bit flat all around and a few missed notes eheheh but I don't think anyone in the hall noticed that!

The only remark I made to them: I would have played everything much louder during the climax moments, I marked the last outburst of clarinet and viola with fff... but it's perfectly fine as it is. And then hearing your piece performed at the Comunale di Bologna... well, it was a wonderful thing!

I understand, but 3 rehearsals are not few to explain the fff... to them. Did he give you an improvisation during the concert? Or were you expecting it at the end?

I found the score again and, oops, it says ff. But I remember telling both of them at rehearsals: go ahead and do three, four f's, just throw them on there, eheh, as long as it is heartbreaking! But they probably didn't correct the part and only two f's remained... every now and then it's also the composer's fault....

So, I scanned the part.

How does it work here? Should I give you an email privately and send it to you because maybe that's better?

In the end, to make things quicker, I decided to post them here... so here they are!

Have a good evening!

suonolatromba wrote:

... every now and then it is also the composer's fault....

I was writing this a few days ago to Talentuoso in the workshop on sonata form: the more precise one is in the score, the fewer rehearsals are necessary, and the closer the result gets to the composer's desiderata... it is clear that yours is a copyist's problem

Frank wrote:

so the real question is... why didn't he go along with the fff. And yet it doesn't seem like a new thing to me.

...old fox

Technical question, what is the difference between the round crowned point and the "triangular" one? And that "biscione" type in measure 11?

The classic crowned dot indicates a longer pause than the "triangular" one.

There is also the crowned "rectangle", which indicates a longer pause than the classic crowned dot.

That "serpentone" (big snake), on the other hand, indicates the "frullato" (trill/flutter).

Never heard of them and never heard of the "smoothie"

I had understood that it was a manuscript, but instead it looks quite printed to me ... either you are also a surveyor or you used a notation program. Which one? Mine only gives me the round ones