Assignment Four: Tutor Feedback

My main concern with assignment four was correcting the mistakes made in assignment three, namely that I hadn't fully realised the concepts of polyphony. I felt that I had been successful in that aspect in Dragonfly and that was confirmed with some great comments at the beginning of my tutor report:

"You have clearly used the two-part invention model effectively, and there is a definite sense of two independent but interlinking lines here. This is one of the most difficult aspects of the assignment, so well done!"

The problems with assignment four then, came in different forms, thankfully all fixable relatively easily, and mostly actually to do with my instrument choice. I'll look at each point in turn:

The hammered dulcimer is technically a string instrument. - Although it uses strings, I had genuinely thought it would be considered a percussive instrument, in the same way a piano has strings but is not considered a string instrument. This is something I should probably check more thoroughly for future assignments. However, with the following points dealt with and done to a high standard, I'd imagine the assessors would take a liberal view of this grey area.

Type, tuning and range of dulcimer. - Hammered dulcimers don't have a specific range, so I should have included a page indicating the type of dulcimer required, and its range and tuning specifications. Done properly, I think this could actually be a big bonus at assessment time, rather than using a more standard instrument without this level of research.

A large range used for only one clef. - I absolutely agree with this, and it is something I'd already thought about. Once the piece had taken shape and I saw the overall range used, I looked into how to convert the single clef into treble and bass clefs automatically within Sibelius 7, but couldn't find a convincing answer. With time getting on I decided to leave it as it was. For the corrected version I'll look again for a definitive solution to the problem.

Octave transpositions used inconsistently. - Something I hadn't noticed, but is easily and quickly fixed. I was advised against using these at all unless absolutely necessary.

'm' signs in the score. - In Sibelius 7 I used a plugin that adds ornament signs which are playable by the Sibelius 7 sound engine. On my tutor's Sibelius 6 software, it appears the plugin doesn't work, and instead puts a random character in place of the ornament. In future versions I'll have to replace it with the Sibelius built in ornament symbols, which unfortunately can't be heard during playback.

More care needed with flute phrasing. - My tutor remarked that a flute player can't slur two notes of the same pitch, else they become a tie, and should be notated as such. Having reviewed the score I can't seem to find an example where I have slurred a repeated note that doesn't already have a tie, so perhaps I have misinterpreted the comment.

Misuse of Italian term. - This surprised me, as I'm usually very good with my Italian terminology, however the score reads 'molto dolce et niente' - 'very sweet and nothing' with clearly doesn't make sense. I should have used al niente instead, or the symbol of a diminuendo ending in a small circle which means the dynamic fades to nothing.

High A at end would be difficult for most players at the dynamics specified. - I knew this already, and took a gamble to be honest as I liked how it sounded, and knowing that it was technically possible. I'll consider changing the octave to something a little more manageable.

The piece would require a B extension for flute. - Again, I knew this to be the case, and wrote with that in mind, however I thought my tutor's advise to include an ossia for players without the extension to be a great idea, and something I'll implement.

The abrupt stops at the ends of each section are a little disruptive. - This is definitely something I need to work on, it is an idea I used in the previous assignment also. I think I do this because I like the idea of big contrasts within the work, but struggle to think of how to successfully join them together. I agree that for a contrapuntal work a straight-through approach would have been better. I'll be looking to modify the score to somehow blend the individual sections.

Although this seems like a lot of corrections, most of them are quick fixes, with a couple which will take more substantial work. I am very pleased that my main objective of creating effective counterpoint was accomplished.