# Fiume Nero (Black river)



## ancore

Please feel free to leave your thoughts here


----------



## Captainnumber36

Is this your piece? Are you one of the performers here?

I'll listen later.


----------



## Phil loves classical

it's nice. I woulda liked to hear more variation or modulations.


----------



## ancore

Yes it's my composition. I wasn't performing, I was the one who recorded this. 
To Phil: I only planned to do one modulation at the middle to the dominant minor, and some subtle modulations meanwhile(which are not technically modulation but I don't know the word for it).
I made some variations to the theme, not that much though, I didn't plan to do more.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^^ no problem. Sounds nice anyway.


----------



## Vasks

Interesting discussion about a key change (no matter how brief). I personally did want one after 2 minutes, or at least some new chords, but a 4-minute piece does not really need one. Beyond 5 minutes, one should most likely be done. 

However, for me the biggest flaw is the flat static nature both color-wise and emotion-wise. Each instrument is locked into doing nearly the exact same thing for the entirety and that means there's also no chance to alter emotion. I think if there had been an intensification of volume and activity after 3 minutes the piece would have had a climax which could then either be the end of the piece or the piece could then recede into its initial emotional state.


----------



## ancore

It's the matter of performance, in my case, as we didn't have more chance to record this piece, the dynamics weren't always played as suggested. Also a 4 minute long piece didn't need any drastical changes in my humble opinion.


----------



## Vasks

I'm not talking big climax.

I'm talking about what Sibelius in this 4 minute piece does from 1:30-2:00 here






or what Grieg does in this 4 minute piece from 2:40-3:20 here


----------



## ancore

Thanks for the music I've listened to them 
I'm a pretty young composer(started it 2 years ago), so I'm still improving my ability to compose. Reading harmonics books, improvising and listening to quality music seem to be a good way, but I'm far away from my goal yet. I understand your criticism and can agree partly. What do you think about my composition in general(structure has been already said, I mean voice leading, chord progression, solutions etc)


----------



## Vasks

You're doing fine so far, ancore.

What you need to consider: (1) This piece is actually a flute solo with 4 people accompanying. Why not let others play the melody here and there? (2) Each part is too repetitive (You did say you varied somethings, but whatever you varied is not obvious enough). For example, the piano plays continuous eighth notes (assuming your time sig is 4/4) throughout. Good musicians will find such writing boring. Surprising them keeps them on their toes; so change up the rhythm for a passage now and then. The easiest way to create more interesting parts (assuming you play an instrument): Read off a part in your head or on your instrument and keep asking yourself is the part interesting or not? (3) Let the bass part have some "first inversions". Do not use so much "root position".

Finally, your players did a nice job. You should be happy with your recording. Their non-observing of some dynamics does not take away from your piece.


----------



## ancore

Thanks for the review, I'll see what I can do with the bass. Actually the cello was supposed to be the 2nd melody, unfortunately the player didn't manage to point it out. I can show you the sheet or computer playback so it sounds more "clear".


----------



## Sekhar

Nice, pleasing melody and performance. I really liked the chromatic notes and your use of the minor key. Like others mentioned, I thought it lacked variation however, like with tonal range, rhythm, dynamics, tempo, etc. as if you stretched out a single theme into four minutes. Also, I thought the opening was rather weak, with nothing much discernible till 0:47, perhaps because the pitches were low (and the flute working below its best range).


----------



## Vasks

First, looking at the score, my first reaction was that I've seen this before. Did you previously post it?

Second, the bass part does a few non-root position spots where you are doing good voice leading with it.

Now as for the cello being a secondary melody. Yeah, it sort of is, but a number of its long tones kills the chance for us to really consider it a countermelody. Of course, when I first suggested giving the melody to the clarinet, cello or piano I meant the flute melody.


----------



## ancore

yes I did post it before, I made some minor changes and it's the latest version.


----------



## Bulldog

The piece is well written, played and certainly gives enjoyment of the sad variety. The only criticism I have it that it sounds to me like it was composed over 100 years ago.


----------



## Vasks

Bulldog said:


> The piece is well written, played and certainly gives enjoyment of the sad variety. The only criticism I have it that it sounds to me like it was composed over 100 years ago.


Yes, and as others here will testify, I argue all the time about composers not imitating the past, but rather searching for their own 21st Century voice. However, I did not do so in this instance because (1) no real imitation has occurred and (2) it is fine for a student (of any age) in learning about traditional harmony to compose some pieces in the common practice style.


----------



## ancore

My goal was to somewhat stay in classical harmonics rules and voice leading, while improving my own style. I don't really like mordern music and harmonics sadly, but I surely don't copy Bach's or other composers' style, at least I never want to.


----------



## ancore

Where else would you suggest not root position, by the was, Vasks?


----------



## Vasks

You did have a few more than what I thought I heard, ancore but here's a few suggestions:

m.16 - the second half have an A
m. 21 - have on beat 3 a B-flat, then on beat 4 pass through A to get to start of m.22’s G
m.29 - 1st beat have a B-flat for dotted half, go to G on last beat
m.36 - 1st half E-flat

Adding a few quarter note passing tones else where like I suggested in m.21 would make the bass part less lethargic and predictable. Look for places where the bass moves by 3rds and experiment.


----------



## ancore

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll have a look at them.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Lovely work, I thoroughly enjoyed it!

Thanks.


----------



## nikola

Vasks said:


> Interesting discussion about a key change (no matter how brief). I personally did want one after 2 minutes, or at least some new chords, but a 4-minute piece does not really need one. Beyond 5 minutes, one should most likely be done.
> 
> However, for me the biggest flaw is the flat static nature both color-wise and emotion-wise. Each instrument is locked into doing nearly the exact same thing for the entirety and that means there's also no chance to alter emotion. I think if there had been an intensification of volume and activity after 3 minutes the piece would have had a climax which could then either be the end of the piece or the piece could then recede into its initial emotional state.


I completely agree with this.
It is nice and inoffensive piece, but kinda flat because it is all the same throughout and that wouldn't be problem if maybe main idea is stronger. But I do think it's still fine.


----------



## ancore

I think this piece needs a really good accent and outlining and it wouldn't sound too flat to you. I intentionally made its harmonics less radical, however I made some unorthodox moves and voice leading like at m. 28, but I didn't want anything to stick out. Maybe it's my taste, I cant listen to modern coeval music, farest I go is Liszt.
To sum up, my goal was to draw up a nice and melodic, but melancholic piece


----------



## nikola

'Flat' is maybe too strong word. It's pretty much dreamy and melancholic piece. As such it is pretty good.

I also think it is piece that should be listened more times to be fully comprehended.


----------



## ancore

Thanks for the correction I purposedly didnt't want to fill this piece with conspicuous melody, thus it lets the audience flow, but with different interpretation it could be much harsh, with faster tempo and stronger outlines of the melody, accenting the flute and the cello at the right place can result in a much more "agressive" piece, that's up to the performers' preference.


----------



## ancore

Don't you think by the way, that it's too short?


----------

