# Adieu mon frere



## Ian Moore

I wrote this piece a few years ago. It is for Oboe and Piano. I would really like some feedback, please. Especially about the difficulty of the oboe part.


----------



## Ian Moore

Opps! Here is the link to Adieu mon frere


----------



## Ian Moore

I've finally worked out how to embed the video into the post! So here it is:


----------



## Ian Moore

Please feel free to make a comment.


----------



## Ian Moore

Problems getting the video to show


----------



## Ian Moore

Here is a video of the piece of music on youtube:


----------



## violadude

It's probably a pretty good piece but it's hard to make a judgement call based on only 30 seconds of music.


----------



## Ian Moore

Fair point. Obviously, I put a lot of hard work into it and I don't want to reveal the entire composition on the internet. I hope you can appreciate that. Perhaps, I could have shown a bit more but where it stops is a natural break in the music. Thanks for the positive comment.


----------



## Ian Moore

Thanks for making the effort to listen to it, Violadude.


----------



## Crudblud

Ian Moore said:


> Obviously, I put a lot of hard work into it and I don't want to reveal the entire composition on the internet.


Are you worried about people taking it and passing it off as their own?


----------



## Vasks

Ian Moore said:


> I put a lot of hard work into it and I don't want to reveal the entire composition on the internet.


I don't blame you. Without copyrighting or in some lesser legal way of proving you are the composer, someone could use it as their own.


----------



## Ian Moore

I think that all composers should feel that they should expect to be rewarded in some way for all the hard work that they do.


----------



## PetrB

It is more than a little odd, and counter-intuitive, to mark the tempo with an eighth note value and then read a score measured in bars of 32nds and sixteenths -- soooooo -- back to the drafting board, doubling duration values and adjusting your pulse = mm marking accordingly.


----------



## Torkelburger

A lot of the notation is "over-written" and "busy". Why did you place accidentals in front of every note? That is not necessary. Some musicians consider that insulting. Accidentals in front of every note is typically reserved for 12-tone pieces (and even then, not all of them do it), or highly chromatic pieces for multiple players where the conductor needs to be assured copying/editing/transposing errors were not made. I do not see any reason in this music to warrant non-traditional use of accidentals.

The pp dynamics in the lowest register is not idiomatic for the oboe and is not going to be playable by some players. I think you need to make a page at the beginning of the score that explains the notation instead of loading up the score with the explanations. For example, 4th measure writing "(harm.)" when you clearly already have the harmonic symbol present. Same with fluttertongue markings. And the word "legato" needs to be removed each time you have it over the passage. You already have the legato articulation (slur) on the notes. It's overkill.

It's not completely clear with my ears with the recording, but is the oboist fluttertonguing when asked? If not, is there a reason they gave? Also, did you receive feedback from the players? If so, what was it?


----------



## Ian Moore

PetrB, the main pulse is in eight notes. With complex rhythmic notation, it is essential to identify a larger main pulse. There are lots of sixteen and 32nd figures but the driving pulse is in eight notes. Christopher Redgate, the performer of this work and a experienced performer of complex music, commented on how well the piece is written. Have you read Messiaen's treatise on composing? It describes the process of lengthening the pulse with extra beats(e.g 16th and 32nd beats lengthening eight notes).
Thank you for your comment.


----------



## Ian Moore

Torkelburger, contemporary performers receive a large number of conflicting symbols because they play a wide variety of music. I have written music and discovered the symbols that I thought were absolutely clear were in fact misleading. If you want to save on rehearsal time, you want to make everything a clear as possible. The harmonic symbol can be misleading on its own. An oboist that can't play 'pp' in the lower register needs to practise more. It is a challenge that they need to overcome. A 'slur' mark is misleading; it is identical to a phrase mark and a tie mark. In my opinion, you have to indicate 'legato' if that is what you want. The 'slur' mark is there to tell you what you are slurring. The look of 'over-written' and 'busy' is exactly what I am going for. To me, it looks exciting. Thank you for taking the time and effort to comment on my work.


----------



## Torkelburger

> Torkelburger, contemporary performers receive a large number of conflicting symbols because they play a wide variety of music. I have written music and discovered the symbols that I thought were absolutely clear were in fact misleading. If you want to save on rehearsal time, you want to make everything a clear as possible. The harmonic symbol can be misleading on its own.


I did not say otherwise. I suggested you make a key/legend at the beginning of the score as is the standard practice so as not to overload the score with explanations. I was not aware, though, that your intentions were strictly window-dressing to satisfy your ego and not to serve the music. Now I know.


> An oboist that can't play 'pp' in the lower register needs to practise more. It is a challenge that they need to overcome.


From _The Study of Orchestration_ by Samuel Adler Second Edition page 182, "…the oboe becomes thick and tends to "honk" in the very lowest fifth of its range [Bb to F]. Regardless of subjective description, one should never require a pianissimo dynamic in this register, even from the best players."


> A 'slur' mark is misleading; it is identical to a phrase mark and a tie mark. In my opinion, you have to indicate 'legato' if that is what you want. The 'slur' mark is there to tell you what you are slurring.


I strongly disagree with that opinion. Slurs and ties, especially, are not misleading. And I don't think you are being sincere in saying otherwise either, else you would have indicated "tie" as text in your score as well as the marking. But you left the ties unmarked. The issue is strictly between a phrase mark and legato mark. I have only seen phrase markings in piano music and never seen them in wind, brass, or string parts where they indicated something other than articulation/bowing.


> The look of 'over-written' and 'busy' is exactly what I am going for. To me, it looks exciting.


In my opinion, the notation should serve the music, not the composer's ego.


----------



## BurningDesire

But looking busy can serve the music. The aesthetics of the notation can do alot for how a musician will interpret it. For instance, something looking busy and intense may create some sub-conscious intensity and tension in the performance, just as a score with lots of white notes and space will make the performer who has never heard it think it should be slow and laid-back. Also a score with just notes and not alot going on around them looks boring and lifeless, and is less inspiring to play. There is nothing wrong with being highly specific with what you want as a composer, since it is your work.

Getting back to this piece specifically, I really can't judge the quality of the work from so little material. I will say that I quite like what is there, and really would like to hear what the piano contributes to this.


----------



## Torkelburger

> But looking busy can serve the music. The aesthetics of the notation can do alot for how a musician will interpret it. For instance, something looking busy and intense may create some sub-conscious intensity and tension in the performance, just as a score with lots of white notes and space will make the performer who has never heard it think it should be slow and laid-back. Also a score with just notes and not alot going on around them looks boring and lifeless, and is less inspiring to play. There is nothing wrong with being highly specific with what you want as a composer, since it is your work.


Unless you're also the one playing it, that doesn't follow. And looking busy can also hurt the performance. While a professional tubist in Boston twenty years ago, I was called to play a concert of new large orchestral works by local composers. One piece was removed from the concert after the first rehearsal (out of two scheduled) because of the busy notation. Every note had an accidental in front of it. The piece was fast and already difficult to play. After complaints from the strings, the concertmaster rose after the first break and got in a screaming match with the composer and also spoke angrily at the conductor over the notation and the piece was removed. These were players from conservatories, colleges, and universities in Boston. All of them professional level.

It will come down to knowing your players. If your players don't mind, like the Arditti Quartet, then by all means, make it as busy as possible. But if you are not writing with specific players in mind that you know, my opinion and advice is that it is best to error on the side of caution. Better safe than sorry. You need not agree, however.


----------



## BurningDesire

Torkelburger said:


> Unless you're also the one playing it, that doesn't follow. And looking busy can also hurt the performance. While a professional tubist in Boston twenty years ago, I was called to play a concert of new large orchestral works by local composers. One piece was removed from the concert after the first rehearsal (out of two scheduled) because of the busy notation. Every note had an accidental in front of it. The piece was fast and already difficult to play. After complaints from the strings, the concertmaster rose after the first break and got in a screaming match with the composer and also spoke angrily at the conductor over the notation and the piece was removed. These were players from conservatories, colleges, and universities in Boston. All of them professional level.
> 
> It will come down to knowing your players. If your players don't mind, like the Arditti Quartet, then by all means, make it as busy as possible. But if you are not writing with specific players in mind that you know, my opinion and advice is that it is best to error on the side of caution. Better safe than sorry. You need not agree, however.


Its not the composer's fault if the players just aren't good enough. And two rehearsals? Seriously? Thats not enough to put together a good performance of anything, let alone a totally new or virtuoso work.


----------



## Vasks

BurningDesire said:


> And two rehearsals? Seriously? .


While I'm not an authority on orchestral "concerts" of new music, some times a special concert called "reading performances" occur and then rehearsal time is shared equally among the composers. So it does require that each composer have the score and parts with no or few "problems".

I once was part of a "reading performance" of band pieces where each composer conducted his/her own works. My piece, while hard, went fine, but I recall one composer whose piece fell apart because he had written all 4 horn parts in the bass clef throughout. The hornists did not scream, but they did let the composer know of their displeasure.


----------



## PetrB

BurningDesire said:


> Its not the composer's fault if the players just aren't good enough. And two rehearsals? Seriously? Thats not enough to put together a good performance of anything, let alone a totally new or virtuoso work.


Orchestras as good as the Boston, Chicago, London, Concertgebouw --- you catch the drift, can sight-read difficult newer works, and are quite used to most contemporary notation.

I understand there is a 'gap' between what is on the page and what happens in a players mind which can, if well-calculated, become very much part of the end-sound the composer is looking for, and without explanation, but that too is pretty much well-known among the pros and many current (and competent) contemporary performers.

Along with the bundle of relatively newer notational practices, comes a younger generation of composers confronted with it who actually do, as Torkelburger has said, end up using it because it seems to them to 'make the piece cooler,' i.e. it looks more complex (evidently because they think that is hip, their music is more complex than it is), and that goes along with seeing many more pieces from young composers with cluttered and severe overly-precious and unnecessarily complex notation. It is like "The Emperor Has New Clothes." Sadly, in some academic spots, the teachers don't seem to know any better, or are caught up in the same glamor (false magic,) so advocate and approve of this kind of dressing up of the score.

Here we have a fragment, and to be honest, in the arena of genuinely distinct and original art music, the fear of getting ripped off is exaggerated -- this is not some pop tune where half the graduate students from a conservatory, ear training in place, could in ten minutes after one hearing write down your tune, with its simple chord changes, and get to the publishers before the original author does.

We've had other pieces presented here which have won various prizes and awards. If your work is complete, has been at least been given a reading by pros, one would think you'd gone to the bother and (necessary) business expense of officially putting it under copyright.

Ergo, I find the entire presentation here coy, and vanity laden. Give us just a fragment, ask people what they think, and then come back with all the retorts to those responses clearly indicating there were no questions and the composer has all the answers they think they need, lol. If the work has already been commended by a top contemporary player, and maybe performed someplace, coming to a forum like TC with the falsely humble gesture of hat in hand and an equally false, "gee, whaddya think?" is just a waste of everyone's time to stroke the ego of the author as per his whim.

Next


----------



## Ian Moore

PetrB, I admire your honesty. But I must tell you I am neither very young nor do I have a big ego. I am interested in how people genuinely perceive the complexity of the notation. You are not the first to comment that it is a problem for them. I am a humble man but if I don't believe in my music why should I expect others to. I do thank you for your honesty. For spending the time and making the effort to speak your mind. Best wishes, Ian.


----------



## Torkelburger

BurningDesire said:


> Its not the composer's fault if the players just aren't good enough. And two rehearsals? Seriously? Thats not enough to put together a good performance of anything, let alone a totally new or virtuoso work.


You don't have much experience with professional orchestras, then. Two (or fewer) rehearsals are quite common. It is the composer's fault. The SAME music is easier to play/rehearse when notated differently.


----------



## PetrB

Ian Moore said:


> PetrB, I admire your honesty. But I must tell you I am neither very young nor do I have a big ego. I am interested in how people genuinely perceive the complexity of the notation. You are not the first to comment that it is a problem for them. I am a humble man but if I don't believe in my music why should I expect others to. I do thank you for your honesty. For spending the time and making the effort to speak your mind. Best wishes, Ian.


The piece seems quite listen worthy -- most any performance or comp major who trained after the 1950's (I am one of them) had theory which included the type of notation you used, as well as being more lately up on irrational meter, etc.

Perhaps out of context of the entire piece being seen, your choice was correct. I would admonish you that since generations have grown up with ken of the added note values, as you call them, that they no longer have the originally intended psychological effect, and do little to in any way alter the ultimate sound or rhythmic feel the performers deliver: ("new and confrontational" and the expected result have a shelf-life, after which, those notational oddities either become commonplace, or get replaced into more traditional framing, because the later generation of players has the feeling of what is needed without the visual clutter on the page

And seriously, if you are at all concerned about someone stealing your ideas or piece (whether it is truly a concern or not, if it is a concern to you it is real) then pony up and pay the man to put it under copyright so you can present them and be comfortable about that concern.

What a number of us saw here was enough -- I think I can speak for a few, anyway -- that it would have been much nicer to hear the complete work, full-length, and both parts, of course.

If you've worked in isolation, picked up composition later, etc. that could explain what looked and sounded very much like sharply self-defensive counter-arguments to the contributor's comments, more expected from a younger composer in their training and formative years. Start at thirty-five, have all the attributes of that phase of adulthood, except in that area where you are more of a beginner, and expect that a part of you will be out of synch with your chronological age until you become aware that one part of you is in a sort of psychological time-warp.

One of the best tests is if a publisher is interested in the piece (which usually only happens after it has a track record of performance in worthwhile venues by worthwhile performers) the editors will either go to town on the way you've notated it, or not 

As pianist who later did a theory and comp major, I've played a fair amount of contemporary, smaller ensemble and chamber work, including works written in temporal notation and other far from traditional and less common notational means, and still think your notation is cluttered and overly-precious.

Best regards.


----------



## PetrB

Addendum:

A lot of what you choose in the way of various options of how to go about notating, and the difficulty of a piece or part, very much has to do with or whom you are writing, including any hope of the piece being somewhat widely performed.

One respondent here is a professional composer who does (and must) take commissions from less than the world's top virtuosi and ensembles. In reality, until a composer has a wide general repute, performers of that higher caliber are not readily or commonly available.

If you are writing 'for yourself,' and happen to have some friends / colleagues at a high advanced level, who out of friendship and some interest in what you've made, will play it for you, then yes, you can expect less than a loud squawk from the Oboe in its lower register, for example.

I recall as a student making a genuine remark, thinking what I was writing was well within the grasp of advanced undergraduate conservatory players. My teacher made that dismissive wave where the back of the hand is fluttered, and said, "You are writing for professionals." Point is, one level or another, if you intend to make a career, the usual in is not with immediate access to those virtuosi performers, and without much compromise, the notation (and the music itself) can be within ready reach of a tier not much under the high-end pros, not suffer, and that gives your work a far better chance of being picked up, disseminated (selling copies, etc.)

If you're working for yourself, do not have ambition or need of a career whereby you hope to at least partially support yourself via the comps, then write what you want how you wish.

An event you might like to know about:
Messiaen performed one of his piano pieces for a select group of all musicians. He gave the score to half this audience. Afterwords, he asked for their reaction. The half of the listeners who had the score exclaimed "how complex the notation seemed." The other half said they thought he was just using a little rubato.

There is a practical moral to that actual fable.


----------



## Vasks

PetrB said:


> I recall as a student making a genuine remark, thinking what I was writing was well within the grasp of advanced undergraduate conservatory players. My teacher made that dismissive wave where the back of the hand is fluttered, and said, "You are writing for professionals."


LOL! My first comp teacher after examining some of my prior pieces, proclaimed "_Your music is too easy! Professionals will not take an interest in such works!_" My next teacher proclaimed " _Your music is too hard! Most players will reject playing it!_"


----------



## arpeggio

Torkelburger said:


> A lot of the notation is "over-written" and "busy". Why did you place accidentals in front of every note? That is not necessary. Some musicians consider that insulting. Accidentals in front of every note is typically reserved for 12-tone pieces (and even then, not all of them do it), or highly chromatic pieces for multiple players where the conductor needs to be assured copying/editing/transposing errors were not made. I do not see any reason in this music to warrant non-traditional use of accidentals.


Really? I am all the time playing tonal music were there is no key signature and all of the accidentals are written out. I recently played a concert where we performed two tonal works like this:

_Band Dancing_ by Jack Stamp.

_Symphony in Bb_ by Paul Hindemith. That is right. Even though it loosely in Bb, he did not use a key signature and wrote out all of the accidentals. I have performed several works by Hindemith and I do not recall ever seeing a key signature.

These are just off the top of my head.

Also, I have never met a musician who was insulted (?) by this practice. If you are, you are the first one. I will have to ask around about this.


----------



## Torkelburger

arpeggio said:


> Really? I am all the time playing tonal music were there is no key signature and all of the accidentals are written out. I recently played a concert where we performed two tonal works like this:
> 
> _Band Dancing_ by Jack Stamp.
> 
> _Symphony in Bb_ by Paul Hindemith. That is right. Even though it loosely in Bb, he did not use a key signature and wrote out all of the accidentals. I have performed several works by Hindemith and I do not recall ever seeing a key signature.
> 
> These are just off the top of my head.
> 
> Also, I have never met a musician who was insulted (?) by this practice. If you are, you are the first one. I will have to ask around about this.


You are wrong. Those pieces do not have key signatures, but accidentals are not placed in front of EVERY note. You misunderstand what is going on. Yes, when, say for example, a Bb is needed, a flat sign is placed before the b. But it carries through the whole measure in your examples and every b that needs to be flatted for the rest of the bar is left alone since the accidental lasts the whole measure. Also notice in for example, the Hindemith, that natural notes *DO NOT have naturals in front of them*. All of this is TRADITIONAL.

Now look closely at the score we are discussing in the thread and what I referred to in my original post you are replying to (use Schoenberg's Op.31 for the latter). Notice the difference? There is no key signature, but naturals are STILL placed in front of every natural note, EVEN when they are NOT cancelling another accidental. If the measure begins with an F, it has a natural before it. That does not occur in your examples. Further, when the F is REPEATED WITHIN THE SAME BAR, it STILL has a natural before it. ALL OF THEM. If you wrote 13 C#'s in a row in the same bar, all of them would have a sharp in front of it. That notation does not appear in your examples.

Look again, please. If you still don't get it, I'll create my own example and post it here.


----------



## arpeggio

^^^^

I am not going to get into a silly contest with you about this. All I will say is the following.

I have the score and the bassoon part of the Hindemith in front of me and there is no key signature.

I also have a copy of the bassoon part for _Band Dancing_ and I have verified that there is no key signature here either although there is one section that is obviously in Gb major. Stamp writes out all of the flats.

I am not going to go rummaging through my music library to find more examples.

You want to continue this discussion you will have to do it on your own.

Mr. Moore,

I play a little oboe and it seems to me that although it would be challenging it is playable. Nothing nasty over the break. I will tell you most double reed players can not do flutter tonguing. I had to learn how to do it on the bassoon for a piece and it really did not sound that good. Of course is was probably me.

Other than that I saw nothing wrong with your notation. Sound like an interesting piece. Best of luck.


----------



## PetrB

Vasks said:


> LOL! My first comp teacher after examining some of my prior pieces, proclaimed "_Your music is too easy! Professionals will not take an interest in such works!_" My next teacher proclaimed " _Your music is too hard! Most players will reject playing it!_"


My prof (now deceased) had an appreciative audience in Europe, and mainly wrote chamber works. The performers were pros, and I took his word for it.

Between your first comp teacher and the next, and whatever actual differences there were in the individuals, you could have progressed quite a bit from those first comps which were 'too simple,' lol.

Whatever the teachers say, it is always best to run the work by actual players, and know their level of expertise and their rank in the big picture of echelons of performance


----------



## Vasks

arpeggio said:


> You want to continue this discussion you will have to do it on your own.


OK, continue with me instead, LOL!

Seriously, though, take another look at measure 1 of Mr. Moore's piece. There is NO reason to have the four natural accidentals. The only pitch needing an accidental is the G# and I'm pretty sure Herr Hindemith would agree 

For me, an important rule of notation is "_the fewer symbols a player has, the easier it will be to read_"


----------



## Torkelburger

> I have the score and the bassoon part of the Hindemith in front of me and there is no key signature.


That is not what the discussion is about.


> I also have a copy of the bassoon part for Band Dancing and I have verified that there is no key signature here either although there is one section that is obviously in Gb major. Stamp writes out all of the flats.


You obviously have no idea what this discussion is about. I've already explained the difference.


----------



## Torkelburger

Since some people are having difficulty understanding the notation we are talking about, I've improvised an example (attached). The top line is the busy, unnecessary, self-indulgent notation, and the second line is in traditional notation.


----------



## aleazk

Being both a mathematician and an amateur musician, I work with symbols all day. Symbols were invented in order to communicate more easily and in a more precise way things that otherwise would be difficult to communicate through other mediums. Both in mathematics and music my approach to symbols is to balance simplicity of writing with precision. I have found that, sometimes, symbolic redundancy can be useful in order to reinforce a complicated and new concept; but when applied to already known things, it's tedious and often makes all the communication messier and more complicated (I remember a lecture in which the lecturer chose a quite non-standard and dense notation and, because of that, I was having trouble in identifying things that I already knew!)

I think the example in this thread corresponds to the second case I described. As was already pointed out by Torkelburger, unless you are writing very strict and dense 12-tone music, the usual practice for the notation in music that is freely atonal is without those superfluous accidentals, as well as other overkill indications (slur plus the word legato).

And your explanation of "artistic effect" doesn't work either. Check Ferneyhough's scores; there, each notational complication also adds complications to the music, they are not superfluous or overkill indications for something already notated using another symbol.


----------



## Vasks

aleazk said:


> my approach to symbols is to balance simplicity of writing with precision. I have found that, sometimes, symbolic redundancy can be useful in order to reinforce a complicated and new concept; but when applied to already known things, it's tedious and often makes all the communication messier and more complicated


Sounds good to me


----------



## PetrB

_Thirteen_ completely unnecessary natural signs within just the first four bars. There is no valid reason for them to be there, no excuse for them being there other than a beginner's misconception about notation.

*Thirteen completely unnecessary natural signs within just the first short four bars **= 
Red pencil bloodbath on that comp from the profs.*


----------



## Ian Moore

The kind of response I was looking for was something that compared the complexity of the notation to the way the music sounds. I suppose I really should have made it clear. Is there anyone out there that would like to make that comparison?


----------



## PetrB

Ian Moore said:


> The kind of response I was looking for was something that compared the complexity of the notation to the way the music sounds. I suppose I really should have made it clear. Is there anyone out there that would like to make that comparison?


I've already given that example of Messiaen's hand picked audience of musicians, half with score, the other half without... I think the result is similar here -- apart from the slew of completely in the way and unnecessary accidentals, and the I think far too short pulse denominators, it doesn't sound 'complex' at all, really.

You want a notation where the reader will know you want the rhythm crisp enough vs. rather romantic, or to avoid its sounding a little or more like a free cadenza, but I think you've made a veritable visual wall at cross purposes to what you want from the player _who will be looking at your score without you there to explain it._

The notation is waaaaaay overly cluttered, the denominator of your meters and the eighth note grave are at odds. _It is o.k. to simply put a directive in English at the beginning of your score which is about the emotional tenor, or flavor, you intend_ -- it can be abstract, or "Grave" is still good, while it is usually then associated with a slower work with a pulse usually greater than an eighth.

What you've written, the tiny little bit you've shown here (which is weirdly stingy if you want a real opinion, and a favor asked of strangers on a forum to give an opinion) is good sounding, and far more straightforward and less complex _than it seems you would like to think of it._

You see this done often enough, i.e. newer techniques and notations admired, and usually it is the tyro or even newer to it composer casting their score in that mold, where it really has no justification for it. It is like wearing the hide of the wolf believing it will give the wearer the animal's attributes


----------



## violadude

Ian Moore said:


> The kind of response I was looking for was something that compared the complexity of the notation to the way the music sounds. I suppose I really should have made it clear. Is there anyone out there that would like to make that comparison?


Well, the rhythm is the only truly complex thing about the piece. But because the rhythm is so complex and there are no other rhythms to contrast it against, to the average listener it won't really sound like a complex rhythm but rather more like a rhapsodic "free rhythm" passage.


----------



## Ian Moore

Thank you, both. I hoped you might find the contrast between complex notation and the "improvised","free" sound interesting.


----------



## PetrB

Ian Moore said:


> Thank you, both. I hoped you might find the contrast between complex notation and the "improvised","free" sound interesting.


It is actually neither interesting or necessary. Since Messiaen, the same intent is entirely possible to obtain from your players, with those earlier notational solutions -- now a titch dated -- later streamlined by the likes of Elliott Carter, et alia.

Since the piece is a duo, and the pianist should, tradition again, have the oboe part in smaller print above the piano's grand staff (_the_ template layout for piano + voice or one other instrument, trios too, often enough), your rhythm could be notated with the same values, with far fewer bar-lines spaced over a much longer length of the activity (one break where you have four or five as it now sits) and you could leave out any time signatures whatsoever, with the bars, notes, rests and beaming being more than enough for your players to instantly get what is going on, count it readily, and play it with the feel you intend -- all with that many less markings cluttering the page.

(If a piece is beyond the number of only a few players, whether a conductor is required or not, you would want then to mark time signatures.)
Best regards.


----------



## Ian Moore

Well, as I said before. If I don't like what I have done, how can I expect other people to enjoy it. Thank you for all your comments.


----------



## BurningDesire

Torkelburger said:


> Since some people are having difficulty understanding the notation we are talking about, I've improvised an example (attached). The top line is the busy, unnecessary, self-indulgent notation, and the second line is in traditional notation.


Okay, I can see what you mean, and if that composer literally did that, I'd call it more a decision made out of idiocy than self-indulgence. It makes it unnecessarily difficult to read.


----------



## BurningDesire

violadude said:


> Well, the rhythm is the only truly complex thing about the piece. But because the rhythm is so complex and there are no other rhythms to contrast it against, to the average listener it won't really sound like a complex rhythm but rather more like a rhapsodic "free rhythm" passage.


I am sort of two minds on this issue. When I write, I tend to be a little vague and poetic; rather I prefer to use tempo text and expressive and interpretive markings as opposed to metronomic marks. However I do respect the composers who want to be extremely precise in what they want to occur rhythmically, getting a similar effect to a rubato, but a very precise one that isn't really up for negotiation by the performers. That isn't to say I don't have any precision, I do know what I want, but I don't feel that precise timing marks are the best means to achieve what I want. I feel like Adagio means something more than Quarter Note = 85.


----------



## aleazk

Ian Moore said:


> Thank you, both. I hoped you might find the contrast between complex notation and the "improvised","free" sound interesting.


Well, no, I only found interesting the music and its "improvised","free" sound; and this because I was paying attention only to the music. The notation is, for me, just an utilitarian thing, an internal thing that only matters to the composers and interpreters, and as a mean of communication, not as an artistic object by itself.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I think it could use a little more continuity. Other that that, fantastic!


----------



## Ian Moore

Aleazk and Moonlightsonata, thank you for your comments. I agreed that notation is no way as important as the sound of the music. Moonlightsonata, you say it could use a little more continuity. I would be interested to know what do you mean. Please explain.


----------



## PetrB

Ian Moore said:


> Aleazk and Moonlightsonata, thank you for your comments. I agreed that notation is no way as important as the sound of the music. Moonlightsonata, you say it could use a little more continuity. I would be interested to know what do you mean. Please explain.


Me, I would pay no attention to that simply based on the fact you were so extremely parsimonious in how much of a duo you were willing to present, a handful of measures from the oboe only, that there is no way to know if the full piece has "continuity issues," lol.


----------



## PetrB

Ian Moore said:


> Well, as I said before. If I don't like what I have done, how can I expect other people to enjoy it. Thank you for all your comments.


A number of us, clearly, like _the sound you have made._

A number of us, too, have serious issues with the over-glamorized and cluttered notation of it, with real concerns for the players (including well-advanced professionals) and the desired ready understanding and interpretation of the piece (which is what a score is for) because of that over-glamorized and cluttered notation.


----------



## Ian Moore

If you think this music is showy("over-glamourised and cluttered notation"), wait until you see the rest of my pieces! You'd absolutely hate "Damballah". But thank you for commenting on liking the sound of the music.


----------



## PetrB

Ian Moore said:


> If you think this music is showy("over-glamourised and cluttered notation"), wait until you see the rest of my pieces! You'd absolutely hate "Damballah". But thank you for commenting on liking the sound of the music.


As a composer, it is stunning you seem to not care one whit what a number of well-versed musicians say about the appearance of your score -- not the music, but the score.

There seems to be a consensus this score (fragment) appears as if its composer is enamored with making the score look complex, clinging to something extremely pedant, regardless of anything to do with the actual music. I did not find the actual sounding of the oboe part 'complex,' for example, and I'm quite immersed and familiar with music of Messiaen and beyond.

Frankly, that the oboist who performed this did not comment on the slew of unnecessary natural signs makes me wonder if they were truly the advanced professional you thought them to be, or, as it sometimes happens, when a consulting pro assesses there is an undo obdurate attitude on the part of the composer in accepting sage recommendations about the notation, the pro consultant decides it is a waste of time, so instead they say nothing and the consulting composer walks away thinking there is nothing to be revised or corrected. There are just some students like this: one cannot convince them they are in their own way, and the teacher just lets them go -- perhaps to another to whom the student will actually listen.

My feeling is there was no genuine intent re: the request for feedback on the notation. If that is the case, next time, post the piece with or without score, for people to hear. That is anyway the ultimate end-game, in the listening and not much else.


----------



## Ian Moore

Christopher Redgate is a top professional. He's literally one of the best.


----------



## PetrB

Ian Moore said:


> Christopher Redgate is a top professional. He's literally one of the best.


Then look again at what I said re: when pros sometimes stop bothering to point out errors


----------



## Bored

Need the whole song to really judge. Everything else seems fine... but if you want to look professional and have yourself respected as one you should use proper notation especially over the "legato" part. Musicians and especially professional musicians will read that and should understand it. Even students have to.


----------



## Ian Moore

> I wrote this piece a few years ago. It is for Oboe and Piano. I would really like some feedback, please. Especially about the difficulty of the oboe part.


I suppose I'm never going to get feedback about my original concern. Never mind...


----------



## Ian Moore

The pianist has given me permission to put the performance on Youtube. Hopefully, I can get a full recording up in the next few days.


----------



## BurningDesire

Cool, look forward to hearing it.


----------



## Ian Moore

Here is a complete performance of Adieu. It has all of the music and virtually all of the score. It is a live recording. Please enjoy:


----------



## Torkelburger

Other than the notational problems which I won't go into again, this is a fine piece. The music is alluring, original, and played well (I think I only saw just one spot where there were only two notes that weren't in sync, which is quite incredible). I wish the fluttertonguing could have been stronger but it could have just been the recording. Again, good and tough piece and well played. How many rehearsals did this take to put together?

I liked how you kept the effects, compositional resources, and instrumental parlances very limited. It kept the piece short, but it kept the material unified and held together in a complete whole; and kept the music distinctly stylized. Shows maturity.

I first thought that it may have ended too abruptly and may have needed a bigger climax and longer denouement, but on repeated hearings, I don't think that was entirely necessary.


----------



## Ian Moore

Are you talking about the notation of tuplets?


----------



## Torkelburger

The notation of tuplets looked fine to me. I was talking about post #14. And the dynamics seemed to work better for me in this composition than the others (other than just a couple spots mentioned in post #14 about the oboe). I probably like this one the best so far out of the three. They are all very good.


----------



## Ian Moore

Thanks very much. It's probably more immediate although completely unintentionally.


----------



## hreichgott

Hi, enjoyed the piece, and felt that the whole had a surprisingly pleading quality that didn't jump out at me from the earlier snippet.

Just curious, was there a rationale behind the oboist observing almost none of your dynamic markings while the pianist observed almost all of them? You'd think with notation this complex that liberties should not be taken. Or had you spoken about it?


----------



## Ian Moore

I think it has a lot to do with the recording. When I listened to it at the time, the balance was completely different.


----------



## Ian Moore

However, it could have been my perception of the performance at the time.


----------



## Ian Moore

You can hear this recording on Spotify

adieu


----------

