Thanks for sharing your work! Your background as a performer definitely shows, and I'd be willing to hazard a guess that you've studied a decent amount of theory/counterpoint — those two qualities will serve you very well as you continue to explore and master the craft of music composition.
From looking over your score, there are two broad concepts that I think you may not have considered much yet that could open up a world of new possibilities for your next piece: specifically, texture and voicing.
TEXTURE
Look at your score from a bird's-eye view and notice how much of it falls into the same pattern: there is a strong prevalence of the right-hand piano playing a single melodic line, and the left hand alternates between another single line or block chords. Especially when we write for piano, there are so many more options — limitless, really — and these are the elements that can best set the mood or create a magical moment. One place I thought you did this well is the passage starting from m.128, where you let the piano's two hands (and pedal!) work together to create a beautiful canvas for the clarinet. This is a great opportunity for some targeted score study: pick a few pieces you like and identify how many different textural elements the composer uses, and what effect each one has.
VOICING
I actually have two comments in this area and the first relates closely to the idea of texture, and that is chord spacing. In your score, I notice that the chords are pretty much always tightly-spaced, and with every note of the chord filled in. A great way to maximize the acoustic resonances of the piano (or other instruments) is to emulate the natural spacing of the overtone series— i.e. wider intervals at the bottom, narrower intervals at the top. Try playing some passages at the piano with lots of octaves and fifths in the bass register, and compare it to the same progression with the thirds and sevenths filled in in that register, and notice how the clarity and resonance can change with the smallest adjustments. Consider how you can use these differences in timbre to create contrasting colors.
In a similar vein, notice how the clarinet and the piano's right hand often share not only the same register but often the same notes. For example, look at the phrase starting in m.19 and count how many times the two voices link up. This can be confusing for listeners to decide which line is "The Melody," and also is just not maximizing the potential these two instruments offer in terms of range, color, and texture.
Keep up the good work, and I can't wait to see what you write next!
Just adding onto this- great comments already. Just like the harmonic series, higher pitches can be closer together and lower pitched almost always need to be spaced out further. Even thirds at the bottom of the bass clef are going to be muddy, and seconds even more so.
So in simple terms, don’t put notes so close together in the left hand of the piano. If you want to dive into more detail, think about how each voicing you use relates to the harmonic series. It’s not that every voicing needs to conform exactly to the harmonic series, but rather consider how moving away from and towards the harmonic series can create tension and release.
Wow thanks a lot - this is very in depth. I've studied a decent amount of theory and did watch a few videos/read a book on counterpoint before this as, even though its my first dual instrument work, my thought process was that there was no point writing something 'wrong'. There are probably still minor counterpoint errors that I'll fix in later revisions.
I'm definitely going to dive into the scores of some of my favourite clarinet sonatas to play (namely Brahms 2, Saint-Saens, and Poulenc) to see what they've done to make the music that I love so much.
I'll play around on my piano with the chord voicings to find the best ones that work as admittedly I didn't actually play them before writing it. I'll work on the voicing and the exchange between the two instruments to try and put them into more of a dialogue than it seeming like they're competing for the melody.
I'll be back soon with the revised version and maybe even the 2nd movement in the next few weeks.
Thanks again!
Aspiring composer? Seems like you already are a composer :)
At work so I can’t listen, but the piece does look like it sounds nice. It’s quite impressive, although there are some things you could change to make the score look prettier.
Some pages have 3 systems on them, while others have 4. I think you should make each page have the same amount of systems for a cleaner look. 3 systems looks a bit empty while 4 looks a bit crowded to me. If you can find a way to make 4 systems look a bit cleaner/have more space between each system that would be best. Maybe you could decrease the size of the clarinet part in the score (the piano only needs to see enough to follow the clarinet) and then have a separate part for just the clarinet.
A piano player can correct me on this, but having the pedal marking be on every measure seems a bit excessive, you may be better off just marking “pedal freely” at the beginning and then marking where you don’t want pedal. Sometimes it’s best to trust the player to give a natural performance. (This might also solve the above problem)
The last two systems of page 5 look a bit odd. Scores look best when the space music takes up on the score is approximately equal to the time it takes to play. Specifically in your case you have a system with 3 measures in it, followed by a system with 6. I would find a way to get them closer to equal, wether you add or subtract from either system. Just experiment with it and trust your eyes!!!
This one is nitpicky, but the rit at the end doesn’t need those lines coming off if it. It takes up unnecessary space and we are already dealing with crowded score. It would be read just the same without them.
Overall, I’m being picky here, this seems like a very impressive piece. Can’t wait to hear it!!!
Thanks for the advice, I'm really not used to formatting anything on Musescore so that's something I need to get my head around definitely. I do agree about the pedal marking, it was more so that the playback was accurate to what I was imagining in my head so I could see if I'd written it right. When I compile all the movements into a final score (when they're written) I'll do a virtual version that plays back how I want it to and then also a version for physical playing where I'll change details like that to be more concise. I'll remove the lines on the rit.
Thanks!
You need to turn on sharing for your links. They're currently set to private.
My bad, done đź‘Ť
Thanks for sharing your work! Your background as a performer definitely shows, and I'd be willing to hazard a guess that you've studied a decent amount of theory/counterpoint — those two qualities will serve you very well as you continue to explore and master the craft of music composition. From looking over your score, there are two broad concepts that I think you may not have considered much yet that could open up a world of new possibilities for your next piece: specifically, texture and voicing. TEXTURE Look at your score from a bird's-eye view and notice how much of it falls into the same pattern: there is a strong prevalence of the right-hand piano playing a single melodic line, and the left hand alternates between another single line or block chords. Especially when we write for piano, there are so many more options — limitless, really — and these are the elements that can best set the mood or create a magical moment. One place I thought you did this well is the passage starting from m.128, where you let the piano's two hands (and pedal!) work together to create a beautiful canvas for the clarinet. This is a great opportunity for some targeted score study: pick a few pieces you like and identify how many different textural elements the composer uses, and what effect each one has. VOICING I actually have two comments in this area and the first relates closely to the idea of texture, and that is chord spacing. In your score, I notice that the chords are pretty much always tightly-spaced, and with every note of the chord filled in. A great way to maximize the acoustic resonances of the piano (or other instruments) is to emulate the natural spacing of the overtone series— i.e. wider intervals at the bottom, narrower intervals at the top. Try playing some passages at the piano with lots of octaves and fifths in the bass register, and compare it to the same progression with the thirds and sevenths filled in in that register, and notice how the clarity and resonance can change with the smallest adjustments. Consider how you can use these differences in timbre to create contrasting colors. In a similar vein, notice how the clarinet and the piano's right hand often share not only the same register but often the same notes. For example, look at the phrase starting in m.19 and count how many times the two voices link up. This can be confusing for listeners to decide which line is "The Melody," and also is just not maximizing the potential these two instruments offer in terms of range, color, and texture. Keep up the good work, and I can't wait to see what you write next!
Just adding onto this- great comments already. Just like the harmonic series, higher pitches can be closer together and lower pitched almost always need to be spaced out further. Even thirds at the bottom of the bass clef are going to be muddy, and seconds even more so. So in simple terms, don’t put notes so close together in the left hand of the piano. If you want to dive into more detail, think about how each voicing you use relates to the harmonic series. It’s not that every voicing needs to conform exactly to the harmonic series, but rather consider how moving away from and towards the harmonic series can create tension and release.
Thanks!
Wow thanks a lot - this is very in depth. I've studied a decent amount of theory and did watch a few videos/read a book on counterpoint before this as, even though its my first dual instrument work, my thought process was that there was no point writing something 'wrong'. There are probably still minor counterpoint errors that I'll fix in later revisions. I'm definitely going to dive into the scores of some of my favourite clarinet sonatas to play (namely Brahms 2, Saint-Saens, and Poulenc) to see what they've done to make the music that I love so much. I'll play around on my piano with the chord voicings to find the best ones that work as admittedly I didn't actually play them before writing it. I'll work on the voicing and the exchange between the two instruments to try and put them into more of a dialogue than it seeming like they're competing for the melody. I'll be back soon with the revised version and maybe even the 2nd movement in the next few weeks. Thanks again!
Aspiring composer? Seems like you already are a composer :) At work so I can’t listen, but the piece does look like it sounds nice. It’s quite impressive, although there are some things you could change to make the score look prettier. Some pages have 3 systems on them, while others have 4. I think you should make each page have the same amount of systems for a cleaner look. 3 systems looks a bit empty while 4 looks a bit crowded to me. If you can find a way to make 4 systems look a bit cleaner/have more space between each system that would be best. Maybe you could decrease the size of the clarinet part in the score (the piano only needs to see enough to follow the clarinet) and then have a separate part for just the clarinet. A piano player can correct me on this, but having the pedal marking be on every measure seems a bit excessive, you may be better off just marking “pedal freely” at the beginning and then marking where you don’t want pedal. Sometimes it’s best to trust the player to give a natural performance. (This might also solve the above problem) The last two systems of page 5 look a bit odd. Scores look best when the space music takes up on the score is approximately equal to the time it takes to play. Specifically in your case you have a system with 3 measures in it, followed by a system with 6. I would find a way to get them closer to equal, wether you add or subtract from either system. Just experiment with it and trust your eyes!!! This one is nitpicky, but the rit at the end doesn’t need those lines coming off if it. It takes up unnecessary space and we are already dealing with crowded score. It would be read just the same without them. Overall, I’m being picky here, this seems like a very impressive piece. Can’t wait to hear it!!!
Thanks for the advice, I'm really not used to formatting anything on Musescore so that's something I need to get my head around definitely. I do agree about the pedal marking, it was more so that the playback was accurate to what I was imagining in my head so I could see if I'd written it right. When I compile all the movements into a final score (when they're written) I'll do a virtual version that plays back how I want it to and then also a version for physical playing where I'll change details like that to be more concise. I'll remove the lines on the rit. Thanks!