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.

Assignment Four: Dragonfly

Working on this assignment was a lot of fun, and proved to be an exciting combination of creativity and technique. I approached the project in a way where I could explore the use of the traditional techniques of imitation, inversion, augmentation and diminution but apply them very freely, in a piece that isn't reminiscent of a work by J.S. Bach. It was quite clear in my own mind that this wasn't an attempt to imitate or represent a Bach two-part invention or fugue; such an attempt would be futile, and not desirable. (If someone wanted to hear a Bach-like piece, that could just listen to some Bach!).

Excerpt from Dragonfly

Download Audio File       Download Complete Score

Ultimately, I used some of the ideas from my brainstorming session, and shelved others as the compositional process progressed. Key details of the work are as follows:

Title: Dragonfly

Time Signature: 5/8

Key: D Dorian / A Minor / C Major / A Major

Instrumentation: Flute and Dulcimer

The title of the piece was not decided from the outset. Once the initial section was in place, the imagery I was getting from the music was that of a dragonfly flitting around a pond on a quiet, hot, summer's day. This imagery then gave me direction for the rest of the piece.

At the very start of the assignment I was sure I wanted an exotic, maybe Far Eastern flavour to the music, inspired to a large extent by Tan Dun's piano music Eight Memories in Watercolour. The calm, ethereal, pastoral sound to much of that music was something I wanted to capture as the overal feel in my own piece. The subject in my work was my own creation, but partly inspired by that in Bach's Two-Part Invention No.2 in terms of it starting on a rest, giving a more off-beat feel, and giving scope for swapping out the rest for a tied note as a possible later development.

My choice of the D Dorian scale was due to its exotic, slightly vague sound which matched my ideas for the character of the piece, and which also would prove straightforward to move to traditional keys when I wanted to change up the sound.

The overall structure of the piece is that of four contrasting sections, with a type of modified recapitulation of the first section slotted in between the third and fourth sections. I wanted to depict the journey undertaken by the dragonfly, and hence didn't want too much direct repetition of material, instead relying on the use of contrapuntal devices to act as the adhesion which keeps the whole piece together.

Score Analysis

Section One (Tranquillo)

Bars 1-4: The flute states the subject. From bar three the dulcimer imitates the subject but an octave lower.

Bars 5-8: The flute restates the subject, this time a fourth lower. In bar 6 the dulcimer plays an ascending 'octave and fifth' pattern interspersed by rests, then begins the imitation of the subject again, a fourth lower than its original statement.

Bars 9-11: The flute plays a truncated version of the subject in inversion and in an ascending sequence. The dulcimer plays a three note figure derived from the middle part of the subject in a descending sequence.

Bars 12-13: The flute plays the truncated, inverted subject but this time also transformed by augmentation. The dulcimer plays an ascending sequence based on notes 3,4 and 5 of the original subject.

Bars 14-18: The flute takes over the ascending three-note sequence from the dulcimer. The dulcimer takes over the augmented subject fragment, but not inverted. Bar 18 is a completely silent bar, marking the end of the first section.

Section Two

Bars 19-24: A new pastoral melody is introduced by the flute over a tonic pedal played by the dulcimer.

Bars 25-30: The music modulates to A minor. The flute plays a melody loosely based on the five quavers at the end of the original subject. The dulcimer plays the truncated version of the subject first heard in the flute in bar 9, alternating between this original form and a type of retrograde-inversion.

Bars 31-32: The flute plays a version of the first part of the subject twice, the second time a 9th lower. The dulcimer plays a counter-melody, the rhythm of which is based on the middle and end parts of the subject.

Bars 33-36: The flute plays a descending scale-like passage finishing on E, the dominant of the key in force, marking the end of the section but with a restless quality (a type of imperfect cadence is implied). The dulcimer uses the rhythm of the first part of the subject, moving in contrary-motion to the flute. Bar 36 is completely silent.

Section Three (Meno Mosso)

Bars 37-40: The music is back in D Dorian mode. The flute plays the second half of the subject in its original form, imitated by the dulcimer an octave lower.

Bars 41-44: The music brightens somewhat with a move to C major. The flute plays a partially inverted form of its previous passage, which is then imitated at the same pitch by the dulcimer.

Bars 45-48: The flute plays a truncated version of the original subject, in the new key and in a descending sequence, while the dulcimer plays a pattern derived from its material in bars 5 and 6 of the piece.

Bars 49-54: A descending stretto begins (overlapping statements of the subject). A poco rit marks the end of the section.

Modified Recapitulation

Bars 55-62: This is a repeat of bars 9-16.

Bars 63-64: The flute plays a rapidly ascending sequence based on notes 3,4 and 5 of the original subject and subsequently heard elsewhere in the piece. The dulcimer plays notes derived from the augmented subject heard in the flute part in bars 12-13 and 58-59.

Bars 65-67: The flute plays a descending A harmonic minor scale, while the dulcimer plays repeated A's interspersed with rests. The music slows to signal the end of the section.

Section Four (Lento)

Bars 68-69: The flute plays the subject, returning to D Dorian mode, but this time in retrograde. Simultaneously the dulcimer plays the original subject, an exact reiteration of it's first appearance in bar 3.

Bars 70-71: The flute repeats the retrograde subject, this time an octave lower and the second bar of the subject coming before the first. The dulcimer plays the same material, but in the original retrograde order first heard in the flute in bars 68-69.

Bars 72-74: The flute plays a slightly modified retrograde subject, The dulcimer first plays an ascending/descending quaver figure based on its first few notes in the meno mosso section, followed by the 'octave and fifth' pattern first heard in bar 6.

Bar 75: The flute plays a descending figure loosely based on the subject notes of bar 2. The dulcimer plays a portion of the retrograde subject.

Bars 76-80: The flute plays a truncated version of the original subject three times, each iteration stepping down a note, and the first two times terminated with a high staccato note, taken from a similar idea in bars 45-48. The dulcimer also plays a truncated version of the subject, each time terminated with an ascending quaver pattern rather than a descending pattern as in the original. The music in these bars has a gentle quality, hinting at what is to come in the closing bars.

Bars 81-84: There is a definite modulation to A major, and the music takes on a blissful quality, the imagery that of the dragonfly finally coming to rest on the hot summer's day, emphasised to the performers with the direction 'molto dolce e niente' - very sweetly, and fading to a whisper. The flute plays an inverted version of the dulcimer's material in bar 72, followed by two long notes which hold back the the final four quicker notes arriving at the tonic A. The dulcimer plays material related to that in bars 24 and 25, then plays the rhythm from the subject in contrary motion to the flute's ascending quavers. The final bar for both instruments is tied from the previous bar, and ends on a pause.

Meeting The Assessment Criteria

Technical Presentation

In my previous assignment my tutor remarked that my progress in the presentation of my scores is excellent, and each assignment (and exercise) I try to take the things I learned previously and apply them going forward. I feel that the presentation of this score is good, with the addition of a title page adding an extra touch. Something my tutor mentioned in an early assignment was that checking each individual part-score was a good way of finding errors and generally checking the accuracy and level of presentation. This is something that I found particularly helpful in this assignment when dealing with two individual melodic lines.

Compositional Skills

For this assignment I decided to experiment with modes, something I've been looking at in the theory textbook 'Contemporary Music Theory Level One' by Mark Harrison, and also the 'Popular Music Theory' series of books that accompany the LCM Exams syllabus in pop theory. Even though the course doesn't strictly deal with traditional Western harmony until the next part of the course, I decided to use my knowledge of music theory to experiment with some basic modulations into major and minor keys which would help to add contrast and colour throughout the music. I feel that this has been successful in bringing the ideas I had in my mind to life.

I enjoy writing for the flute, and decided to pursue this further in assignment four. For the second instrument I felt the dulcimer was my best choice, as its ethereal sound matched my vision for the piece, and it was also allow me to gain some further experience writing for tuned percussion. Judging by my research into modern dulcimers, there doesn't appear to be a standard size or range for the instrument, and they are generally custom-made. An instrument advertised as 'extended range' would be needed to perform this piece.

In this piece I have devised a memorable subject, then manipulated it with many of the contrapuntal devices available including imitation, inversion, augmentation and retrograde. I believe that my use of these devices has allowed me to create a variety of contrasting material with a unifying theme. 

Creativity

What I have attempted to do with my piece Dragonfly is to create music with a traditional foundation but with a contemporary veneer. The last thing I wanted to do was to try to imitate Bach's work, and instead used the contrapuntal devices to create a contemporary sounding work where the technique is not the obvious focus as it is in say a fugue or invention. The focal point of my piece is its character and pastoral sound, and the devices are simply used to construct the material.

The choice of Dorian mode for my piece was a direct result of what I wanted it to sound like from a creative standpoint. This mode offers a slightly vague, non-commited sound which I think is representative of the flight of the dragonfly.

Dragonfly exhibits a variety of contrasting dynamics representing the creature's varied journey, along with tempo changes marking the different sections within the work. The articulation has many roles in the piece, firstly to make a more interesting subject, but also to mark the irregular time signature.

Stylistic Awareness

An obvious reference point for this assignment was the inventions and fugues of J.S. Bach. Looking at these works, especially the inventions gave me an idea of how Bach was able to manipulate the subject, and gave me ideas for my own piece. As mentioned at the beginning of this post, a big influence on the overall sound of Dragonfly was Tan Dun, most known as the composer of the soundtrack to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, but also composer of Eight Memories in Watercolour for piano. Those pieces have a very pastoral sound which is immediately appealing to me and I wanted to incorporate that soundscape in some way in my own work.   

Assignment Four: Ground Plan

In preparation for assignment four, I decided to do a brief brainstorm to generate ideas and inspiration. I often find thinking of an initial idea quite difficult, but the creative process flows more or less smoothly once that catalyst is established. I don't necessarily expect to use all of the ideas generated, but at least I'll have options on the table to use. The starting points I thought of are as follows:

• Length - About 3 minutes (required).

• Use syncopated motif (start with rest) - can be used for ties later in the piece. See Bach's Two-Part Invention No.2.

• Use non-tonal scale or mode for an exotic flavour.

• Use irregular time signature.

• Borrow motif from famous piece.

• Woodwind and percussion combo. Consider changing percussion during piece. Have alternating woodwind? (perhaps different woodwind for augmented middle section, see below).

• Augmented section in middle with 'simulates' slowing down, before resuming normal note values.

• Include stretto (descending overlapping subject) near end.

• Use a floriatura (an ornamental flourish of notes, often of an irregular value compared to the lower 'voice', i.e. 22 over 6. Frequently used in piano music by Chopin).

With these vague concepts in place, the plan is to open Sibelius 7 and decide on the key (if applicable), instrumentation, time signature, and finally devise a subject which will form the basis of my invention.

Composing Two-Part Inventions

Using contrapuntal techniques such as imitation, inversion, augmentation and diminution allows you to make a lot out of very little. The added benefit I've noticed is that reusing material in these ways keeps it familiar though interesting for the listener. My general strategy when undertaking these exercises is first to think of a short, catchy motif. This is a frequently found in Bach's inventions and fugues, and as well as providing a good tune a memorable melody is easier to pick out in a multiple-voice texture. I then resolved to manipulate this material in the aforementioned ways, keeping a close eye on the musical result, then adding suitable dynamic and expression markings to finish. I've also taken the opportunity in these inventions to try out my knowledge of modulation. This is not required at this stage of the course but I wanted to try it nonetheless.

Download Audio

In my first attempt at composing a two-part invention, I created a simple, catchy, syncopated five-note motif to form the basis of the piece. This is then manipulated as follows:

Key: C Major

Bar 1 - Subject stated in upper voice (flute).
Bar 2 - Subject imitated down an octave in the lower voice (clarinet). A new four-note idea is presented in the upper voice.
Bar 3 - Subject is stated a fifth higher than bar 1 by upper voice. Lower voice plays flute's four-note idea from bar 2.
Bar 4 - Upper voice plays descending sequence based on last four notes of subject. Lower voice plays subject in inversion.
Bar 5 - Upper voice continues sequence, lower voice repeats the inverted subject, but an octave lower than in bar 4.

Key: A Minor (relative minor)

Bars 6-7 - Lower voice begins an upwards sequence like that played by the upper voice in bars 3-4. Upper voice plays the subject but this time augmented.
Bar 8 - The Lower voice plays a slightly modified version of the augmented subject. The upper voice plays the original subject but in the tonic of the new key.
Bar 9 - Both voices play a modified subject, in contrary motion.
Bar 10 - Both voices end on the tonic of the new key.

The modulation was to the relative minor key, using a pivot chord VI/I, then a perfect cadence V-I in the new key.

Download Audio

In this second invention I tried to convey a contrasting character, this time also utilising tuned percussion in the form of timpani. Again I created a short motif, in this case a descending six-note idea followed by a one-beat rest.

Key: C-Sharp Minor

Bar 1 - Upper voice (alto saxophone) plays the subject.
Bar 2 - Lower voice (timpani) imitates the subject, an octave lower. Upper voice introduces new material, an ascending articulated arpeggio.
Bar 3 - Lower voice imitates the arpeggio idea, two octaves lower. The staccatos become accents due to the timpani not being articulate enough to mirror the same idea from the saxophone. Upper voice plays the subject a fifth higher than the original.
Bar 4 - Upper voice plays an ascending sequence (descending at end of bar) based on the same rhythmic idea in the subject. Lower voice plays an augmented version of the middle two beats of the subject.
Bar 5 - Upper voice plays the subject in inversion. Lower voice plays the arpeggio material in diminution and inversion.

Key: E Major (relative major)

Bar 6 - Upper voice plays arpeggio idea. Lower voice imitates the inverted subject.
Bar 7 - Upper voice plays inverted subject. Lower voice plays the subject in diminution and inversion.

Key: C-Sharp Minor (original key, relative minor)

Bar 8 - Upper voice repeats inverted subject. Lower voice plays the subject in retrograde (backwards).
Bar 9 - Lower voice plays ascending arpeggio idea in diminution. Upper voice plays a short descending sequence based on first four notes of subject.
Bar 10 - Upper voice first plays ascending arpeggio idea in diminution, Then a slightly modified subject in diminution. Lower voice plays subject in diminution and inversion, then an extract of the subject in retrograde.
Bar 11 - Upper voice ends with a crotchet on the tonic. Lower voice also ends on a crotchet on the tonic, but a half-beat later than the upper voice for effect.

Reflection

This was a very interesting first foray into writing an invention. Using the array of contrapuntal techniques available you are able to create interesting swathes of music with very little starting material. I think this fits well with my own creative process - I find thinking of an interesting motif quite difficult, but once I have one I am quite comfortable with manipulating it to create further material, my techniques for which have been expanded in this exercise.

In hindsight one area that I think I could have explored more of is the use of syncopation, suspensions etc.; techniques to allow one voice to continue across a bar line while the other doesn't. Some of Bach's inventions feature them intensely, and others not at all. This is something I can consider and develop in the forthcoming assignment.

Inventing Free Counterpoint

In these exercises I was keen to take on board my tutor's feedback from the last assignment. With assignment three I was very happy when I handed it in, but with hindsight I can see that creativity overwhelmed the technical aim of the work, and that my melodic lines weren't independent enough. In these short pieces of free counterpoint, I had two aims in mind:

1. To create rhythmically independent melodic lines, utilizing syncopation in particular to stagger progression across bar lines.
2. To create melodic lines that were interesting in their own right, and could be listened to independently.

Although difficult, I feel that I have succeeded with both of the above points. The second point was particularly tricky as it was far too easy to fall into the trap of making one instrument subordinate to the other, especially if it was percussion.

Download Audio

In the first of my two contrasting short pieces, I decided to choose the flute and timpani as my instruments. The timpani I thought would be particularly challenging, as I don't recall hearing any music where the timpani plays a prolonged melody. This piece, ceremonial dance. is very dynamically contrasting, in order to add drama. The melodic lines are rhythmically independent, and I use syncopation in the form of ties and rests to enhance the separation.

Download Audio

This piece is decidedly more cheerful, reflected in my choice of vibraphone with motor off, which gives a fairly sparkling quality to the music. In this piece I created a triplet motif which is exchanged between the two instruments during the course of the piece. In the second half I make much use of syncopation using ties in the clarinet part, ensuring that the instruments aren't always moving together across bar lines. This has the added effect of making it quite difficult for the listener to keep track of the pulse during this section, but the final bar feels satisfying as the parts come together again.

Completing these two short pieces have enabled me to further reflect on mistakes made during assignment three, which I've hopefully corrected here. I am currently awaiting feedback from my tutor on my work in this exercise that I can then take forward into assignment four.

Analysis of Bach's Two-Part Invention No.1

A little earlier in the course I researched Bach's Fugue No.16 in G minor, but that research focused more on the relationship between the subject, answer, countersubject etc than contrapuntal devices such as inversion, augmentation etc. With that in mind, I decided to research Bach's Two-Part Invention No.1, partly because it is a piece I already play on the piano, and partly because it is absolutely full of the type of compositional techniques I am trying to study. A single website gave very clear and succinct information on exactly what I needed to know, and that is where I found the following information. The link for that webpage can be found at the end of this blog entry.

Analysis

Bars 1-2 - The subject is stated in upper voice, then immediately imitated by lower voice and octave lower. The upper voice then repeats its material in the first bar, but played a fifth higher.

Bars 3-4 - The upper voice plays a sequence based on the first four notes of the subject, but which are transformed by inversion. The first four notes of the subject are also transformed by augmentation and used by the lower voice during the sequence.

Bars 5-6 - The lower voice presents the subject in its original form, after which the upper voice plays it in inversion. During this time the quavers in the lower voice are reminiscent of the augmentation treatment in the previous bars.

Bars 7-8 - A repeat of bars 1 + 2, but with 'inverted counterpoint' - the upper and lower voices have swapped material.

Bars 9-10 - The subject appears in both voices transformed by inversion while undertaking an ascending sequence.

Bars 11-12 - The sequence in bars 3-4 is now repeated, but in inverted counterpoint.

Bars 13-14 - The subject is presented in its original form in the upper voice, and in inversion in the lower voice.

Bars 15-18 - A series of imitations presents the subject transformed by inversion (15+17), and in its original form (16+18).

Bars 19-20 - A sequence similar to that found in bars 3-4 and 11-12, however the subject featured in the upper voice is in its original form rather than inverted, and the four note augmentation in the lower voice is also inverted.

This analysis was not my own work, I simply studied the information and presented it in (mostly) my own words. The excellent article that I studied can be found at:

http://www.teoria.com/articulos/analysis/BWV772/index.htm

Assignment Three: Tutor Feedback

Overall I was fairly happy with my tutor's feedback, but more importantly I have learnt some things! Having a professional look at your work and tell you where you have hit or missed the mark is invaluable, as it gives you great scope to improve on future efforts. Although I am (understandably) always apprehensive of receiving my assignment feedback, I also always feel energised after absorbing the feedback and being able to fix problem areas for the next assignment.

My tutor praised the 'well-conceived use of character' in the piece, which was a large part of my thinking for this (and all) assignments; I want my pieces to sound good, and be interesting, not just merely technical exercises. The balance between the instruments and the general presentation of the score was also lauded, with comments that my progress in presenting the score is excellent. I was pleased that my tutor found I did a good job of implementing compositional techniques such as imitation, diminution etc, as well as a strong overall structure.

Unfortunately my piece inadvertently didn't quite tally up with the criteria set down in the assignment brief. At the time I was sure I was working to what the brief required, but after reading my tutor's feedback and looking again at my piece I can see that too often my melodic lines are in rhythmic unison, which loses the polyphonic feel of the music. This quote from the feedback sums up the problem nicely while giving pointers for improvement:

'If you look at polyphonic composers, such as Bach or Palestrina, you will notice a sense of rhythmic freedom which goes across barlines and even across the main beats of the bar; syncopation is often a feature of polyphonic music, and it allows the parts to weave around each other without becoming rhythmically fixed. Try experimenting with the positioning of the entries to see if you can bring them closer together, or if you can offset by half a beat here and there. With the slow section it might create some wonderful tensions in the harmony, which may add extra character to the writing'.

The good news is that I can work with the material I have already composed, which has many good traits such as character, balance, and presentation and modify it to more closely resemble a piece of polyphonic music. When I've had a chance to experiment with the work I'll post the (hopefully) improved version to this blog.