1. Didja accidentally blow through the whole, "We're using our real names" thing on registration? No problem, just send me (Mike) a Conversation message and I'll get you sorted, by which I mean hammered-into-obedient-line because I'm SO about having a lot of individuality-destroying, oppressive shit all over my forum.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. You're only as good as the harshest criticism you're willing to hear.
    Dismiss Notice

Solfeggietto for Chamber Winds

Discussion in 'Critique & Feedback' started by Bradley Boone, Oct 17, 2018.

  1. Here's an arrangement I stumbled across while digging up another tune for a thread by @Doug Gibson
    Quotation and "Structural Development"

    The ensemble was a group of professional winds for the US Army. We used this arrangement as an ensemble technical showpiece for educational outreach performances (college/high school music education scenarios). The playback is NotePerformer/Sibelius, so be kind to the mix.

    The original piece is a well known work for solo piano by C.P.E. Bach. In performance, we tried it live at q=128 to q=144, and q=132 locked in the best for us. I'd be interested to hear what you think of the orchestration choices and random junk I added to fill out the ensemble. There are good typeset scores at imslp.org if you'd like to see the original keyboard work.

    I worked up about an hour of music for this unorthodox ensemble over a two week period, but we only used the strongest 45 minutes and saved the rest of our recital/presentation time for narration and Q&A. If I track down some live audio from a rehearsal or performance, then I'll add that as well.

     

    Attached Files:

    Mattia Chiappa and Doug Gibson like this.
  2. That was awesome !!

    I used to play (butcher) that piece. Great arrangement ! Bravo.

    How good does it sound already as noteperformer playback ?
    If the group playing can keep the same precise drive as the playback at that tempo, it will
    be a smash.
     
  3. Thanks @Doug Gibson for the kind words. It is a fun piece.

    Maybe I wasn't clear in the post above, or in the score, but we played it in performance 2 years ago. We settled on q=132 after trying a range of tempos (I played the euphonium part btw). Many of the players were current or former teachers at the Army School of Music, so they had the technical facility to pull it off. To be fair, the computer playback has incredible rhythm & subdivision... We often commented in rehearsal that the metronome was speeding up at parts (a joke, because we were dragging).

    NotePerformer lacks the nuance of articulation (the staccatos sound staccatissimo) compared with real instruments. It also doesn't do a top job of playing the subtle timbre changes as we shift throughout our registers at differing volumes. But, it sounds good out of the box and does a decent job for a quick audio demo. I tweaked the mixer sliders slightly, but other than that it played what's on the page. We did some staging/choreography elements to assist with the balance (winds in front of the brass for instance) and checked the relative volume levels during sound check rehearsals on-site at the venue.
     
  4. That is what I was referring to. Even NP. will sometimes make the metronome marks feel right at about 5bpm, sometimes even 10, faster than
    things will be performed. I am referring to Presto type music. I think too simply being in a real room and the added resonance are the reason.
    Or more precise - the absence of that.

    Is the piece published ?
     
  5. Ah, that makes sense now. I didn't click off the playback with an external metronome, but the tempos do seem a little "hot".
    It is unpublished. I may rework the piece for a more orthodox ensemble and send it in for publication. As it is, that ensemble was a one off thing. So, a wind or brass consort, or mallet/string ensemble could work for wider acceptance. Feel free to re-imagine it (the arrangement above) if you'd like. Taking those works (solo keyboard) and expanding it is one of my favorite exercises. Again, thanks for your interest Doug.
     
  6. Yeah, I was asking as if you were thinking of publishing it, I can refer you to someone whom I am sure would jump at publishing it.
    Fellow Army muso actually.
     
  7. Sure Doug, feel free to pm me their contact info and I'll reach out. If anyone has other thoughts, complaints, or criticisms, I welcome them 100%.
     

Share This Page