# The Wind and the Lake (symphonic poem)



## lminiero (Feb 12, 2020)

Hi all,

I finally finished working on a late-romantic symphonic poem I started working on at the beginning of the year (even though many ideas I had in my mind for more than 15 years, actually). It is very derivative of Tchaikoivsky and, in part, Rimsky-Korsakov, but hopefully I didn't subconsciously plagiarize anyone or anything...

You can hear a rendering obtained with "Virtual Playing Orchestra" here:

__
https://soundcloud.com/lminiero%2Fthe-wind-and-the-lake

The whole score is available on MuseScore as well, if you want to have a look:
https://musescore.com/lminiero/the-wind-and-the-lake

I'd welcome any feedback on anything you have to share! Of course, I'd love to know if you liked the themes, and/or how I've played with them, but I'd be particularly interested in your opinion on the score as well. I don't have a formal musical training: I'm self-taught, and even though I read both Rimsky-Korsakov's Principles of Orchestration and Adler's "Bible" before approaching this, I have to admit many of their concepts flew way over my head, so I mostly tried to follow their guidelines to the limits of my understanding, which probably means I still made some very obvious and silly mistakes (I haven't sketched all the bows for string sections, for instance).

If you're interested in more details about the technical aspects (I used exclusively open source and free software to work on this), please let me know: I wrote a lengthy post on the LinuxMusicians forum, but I'm not sure if adding a link to that could be considered breaking rules.

Looking forward to your thoughts on this!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I thought it was pretty solid in syntax. Can't comment on orchestration since I never studied up on it. I personally felt the intro was too long without that much happening, and that a waltz coming after a more serious-sounding intro kind of deflating in a way. The quieter ending I felt was too long. The heart of the piece to me is between 8:30 and 10:30. I would personally cut down on some of the stuff before and after, and try to expand on that.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Can't comment on orchestration


It's what one would expect from "no formal training" and "the concepts (of orchestration books) flew way over" his head. And Lorenzo, you also need to learn how to correctly notate basic rhythms.

If you enjoy the process of creating and have no interest in being accepted by the music world, then don't bother with sharing your scores. Just create. But if you do, then you must first learn much more before you present them.

Now you may be thinking, well why doesn't Vasks tell me what's wrong. And the answer is your piece is too long to cover it all. Beginners should start off with baby steps. Short pieces, limited instruments to learn.


----------



## lminiero (Feb 12, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> I thought it was pretty solid in syntax. Can't comment on orchestration since I never studied up on it. I personally felt the intro was too long without that much happening, and that a waltz coming after a more serious-sounding intro kind of deflating in a way. The quieter ending I felt was too long. The heart of the piece to me is between 8:30 and 10:30. I would personally cut down on some of the stuff before and after, and try to expand on that.


Thanks for listening and the feedback!

A friend also commented on the length of the first part: for how I conceived the "story", that was indeed supposed to last a bit longer, to set the scene, but I agree that it may be a bit too long compared to the overall length of the piece. Rachmaninov's "Isle of the Dead", for instance, has an even longer slow/unsettling intro, but in a ~20m long piece, and the same could be said for Tchaikovsky's "Tempest" I guess.

The waltz was also part of the "plan"  The slow intro was supposed to introduce the quiet lake, until harp section first, and then woodwinds, were supposed to introduce the wind coming into the picture: as such, the waltz symbolized a moment of joy after all that (until the storm that comes later). It may indeed be introduced a bit abruptly, though, making the change in tone too sudden: I'll have to improve that when composing my next work.

I agree that the "storm" part (8:30-10:30) is the one is a bit too short, compared to the others, especially considering the whole build-up is there to introduce that moment. While working on the composition, though, it felt enough and self-consistent, so eventually I stopped there and decided to start with the orchestration instead.

Thanks for the useful tips, I'll definitely take them into account for whatever comes next!


----------



## lminiero (Feb 12, 2020)

Vasks said:


> It's what one would expect from "no formal training" and "the concepts (of orchestration books) flew way over" his head. And Lorenzo, you also need to learn how to correctly notate basic rhythms.
> 
> If you enjoy the process of creating and have no interest in being accepted by the music world, then don't bother with sharing your scores. Just create. But if you do, then you must first learn much more before you present them.


Well, that's harsh... but I guess I'll have to take the good with the bad ;-)

That said, I'm not here to be "accepted": I'm here to share, and learn, as that's what I'd expect in a community. Just bashing me won't help me improve, that's for sure.



Vasks said:


> Now you may be thinking, well why doesn't Vasks tell me what's wrong. And the answer is your piece is too long to cover it all. Beginners should start off with baby steps. Short pieces, limited instruments to learn.


I did start with baby steps:
https://musescore.com/my-scores

You already bashed my Elegy, but despite it being much shorter (~3 minutes) and only two instruments (cello and piano) you didn't provide much feedback there either. Again, I'm fine getting negative feedback: that's to be expected, when you share what you create with the world. I'd appreciate some constructive suggestions, though, rather than "don't bother sharing your scores".

Thanks anyway!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

lminiero said:


> Thanks for listening and the feedback!
> 
> A friend also commented on the length of the first part: for how I conceived the "story", that was indeed supposed to last a bit longer, to set the scene, but I agree that it may be a bit too long compared to the overall length of the piece. Rachmaninov's "Isle of the Dead", for instance, has an even longer slow/unsettling intro, but in a ~20m long piece, and the same could be said for Tchaikovsky's "Tempest" I guess.
> 
> ...


Your overall program structure could be just fine, but the tough part is having the actual and enough musical content fit within that program and be interesting the same time. I think your musical ideas themselves are fine, but could use some more development and flow better from one to the next. Try hammering it out, rather than going on to the next piece. My idea is anything can work eventually if you keep reworking it, even if some ideas will naturally be more inspired than others. My feeling is put your program in the back of your mind and concentrate on the musical content first.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Just a few points. First, I went back to your "Elegy" to jog my memory and it was your incorrect use of B-flats for all your F# dominant chords instead of A-sharps that was my only criticism and I see you did change them. BTW. I notice in that piece that you have many measures of piano pedaling, but you also have staccato articulations simultaneously. The staccatos can't physically happen if the pedal is down.

Next, it is a daunting task to go through a ten minute long, 47 page full orchestral score and point out many items to correct. That's what I meant by baby steps is better: Smaller orchestra, shorter piece. That's far easier to do. BTW, your link to "baby steps" takes one to a MuseScore sign in. I don't want to create an account to a website that I have no use for.

However, I'll try to be helpful by pointing out a few things. A) Present a transposed score. You have a C score or what is also referred to as a concert score (i.e. not transposed) B) With few/rare exceptions (and excluding French horns which I'll get to), the concept of a First Flute vs Second Flute (or 1st Trombone vs 2nd, or 1st Clarinet vs 2nd, etc) is that the first part has the higher pitches. The Horns 1-4 are different. In an orchestra, Hns. 1 & 2 share a single staff and 3 & 4 share the staff below. Horn 1 has the highest notes (with few/rare exceptions). Hn. 3 has the notes sounding immediately below Hn 1's. Hn 2 has notes that all immediately sound below Hn. 3's which means Hn. 4 has the lowest notes of the chord. However, in concert band, Hn. 2 is just below Hn. 1, making Hn. 3 just below Hn. 2. (C) Dynamic markings are required at the start of the first note after a few measures of resting (under the very first note; not before) and an ending dynamic marking of a crescendo or diminuendo is under the end of the last note; not in the next resting measure.

That's all I intend to point out, but I urge you to learn lots more about writing for timpani. 

Explaining incorrect rhythms is really time consuming in written language form (A picture is worth a thousand words) and adding to that is the fact that sometimes there can be more than one way under some circumstances. Therefore I won't be dealing with them.


----------



## lminiero (Feb 12, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> Your overall program structure could be just fine, but the tough part is having the actual and enough musical content fit within that program and be interesting the same time. I think your musical ideas themselves are fine, but could use some more development and flow better from one to the next. Try hammering it out, rather than going on to the next piece. My idea is anything can work eventually if you keep reworking it, even if some ideas will naturally be more inspired than others. My feeling is put your program in the back of your mind and concentrate on the musical content first.


I'll definitely get back to it, sooner or later, but not right away. Classical is not the only kind of music I like to write (I actually experimented a lot on other genres to improve my arrangement skills before tackling something as challenging as this), and I like how every new piece is a learning step and opportunity, and that applies to old pieces after I improved my skills too. If I insisted too much on this right now, it would stop being a fun hobby (besides my passion) and feel more like "work" instead (and I do already have a job  ).


----------



## lminiero (Feb 12, 2020)

Vasks said:


> Just a few points. First, I went back to your "Elegy" to jog my memory and it was your incorrect use of B-flats for all your F# dominant chords instead of A-sharps that was my only criticism and I see you did change them. BTW. I notice in that piece that you have many measures of piano pedaling, but you also have staccato articulations simultaneously. The staccatos can't physically happen if the pedal is down.


Ah that's a good point I hadn't really thought of, thanks! At the time I chose to enable the pedal to give more "air" to the piano, but I guess I was wrongly influenced by the notation software quirks. I'll make sure never to make that mustake again, thanks!



Vasks said:


> Next, it is a daunting task to go through a ten minute long, 47 page full orchestral score and point out many items to correct. That's what I meant by baby steps is better: Smaller orchestra, shorter piece. That's far easier to do. BTW, your link to "baby steps" takes one to a MuseScore sign in. I don't want to create an account to a website that I have no use for.


Oh I thought that page was publicly reachable: I should have checked the link before sharing it, apologies for that!



Vasks said:


> However, I'll try to be helpful by pointing out a few things. A) Present a transposed score. You have a C score or what is also referred to as a concert score (i.e. not transposed) B) With few/rare exceptions (and excluding French horns which I'll get to), the concept of a First Flute vs Second Flute (or 1st Trombone vs 2nd, or 1st Clarinet vs 2nd, etc) is that the first part has the higher pitches. The Horns 1-4 are different. In an orchestra, Hns. 1 & 2 share a single staff and 3 & 4 share the staff below. Horn 1 has the highest notes (with few/rare exceptions). Hn. 3 has the notes sounding immediately below Hn 1's. Hn 2 has notes that all immediately sound below Hn. 3's which means Hn. 4 has the lowest notes of the chord. However, in concert band, Hn. 2 is just below Hn. 1, making Hn. 3 just below Hn. 2. (C) Dynamic markings are required at the start of the first note after a few measures of resting (under the very first note; not before) and an ending dynamic marking of a crescendo or diminuendo is under the end of the last note; not in the next resting measure.


A) This was my silly mistake indeed... MuseScore has a button that allows you to switch to "Concert pitch" and back, that I used to make it easier to insert the notes. I then forgot to switch it back before uploading the score. This is an easy fix, and I'll take care of it shortly, thanks!

B) Thanks for the clarification! I recently watched a video tutorial that provided some info on how to orchestrate for 4 and 3 horns, and e.g., how to adapt a score that was written for 4 horns to 3 horns (because maybe tat's all the orchestra you'll work for has). I watched that after writing all the horn parts already, so I kinda knew I had distributed chords the wrong way for them. You make a good point on woodwinds too: now that you mention it, I may not always have respected the "1st instrument takes the higher pitch" rule, so that's something to take into account for the future as well. Thanks for the precious insight!

C) That's a very useful tip, thanks! I did indeed wonder what the proper way to do that was, especially for instruments that had been quiet for so long. Thinking about it, it is indeed silly to assume a clarinet player should remember the dynamic from 3 minutes ago, and so it makes a lot of sense to make all dynamics as clear as possible for new sections. About putting dynamics on rests, that's a fair point, and apologies for the mistake: this is another case of "software will honor this dynamic if I put it here" syndrome, but working on a score I should have known better. This is very useful knowledge, thanks!



Vasks said:


> That's all I intend to point out, but I urge you to learn lots more about writing for timpani.
> 
> Explaining incorrect rhythms is really time consuming in written language form (A picture is worth a thousand words) and adding to that is the fact that sometimes there can be more than one way under some circumstances. Therefore I won't be dealing with them.


That's a fair point, I'll do my homework on that! To be honest, I was pretty sure already timpanis and cymbals would have been one of the parts I messed up, especially since I think I knowledgedly "ignored" one of Rimsky-Korsakov key suggestions for beginners, where he explains how people starting with scores tend to abuse percussions and neglect how loud and overwhelming they can be when played (at the risk of covering most, if not all, the other instruments). This is one of the areas I'll definitely have to revisit in Adler's book.

I really appreciate you taking the time to have a look at the score and provide suggestions, thanks again!


----------

