Debussy Homage Mov. 1 - FEEDBACK APPRECIATED

The timbre changed for me, but less so the register. I think the guitar samples have some pitch waver and hearing the uniform sound of the piano may have something to do with it.

I re-listened to the two Debussy waltzes (composed 20 years apart if I read that correctly) and your guitar quartet, and I think I know what was throwing me. I think Debussy makes the listener more comfortable in a (temporary) key area, despite a fair amount of chromaticism, before modulating. I also get a sense of return and hear the harmony supporting the form in Debussy. He even has some IV-vi-V/V-V progressions. Another unifying device in the Romantique is the scalar descending bass that ends on the mediant. Later on, he follows the same cadential formula with an unexpected/unprepared modulation to Bb (it modulated to C the first several times through the form). In your quartet, it is harder for me to establish the tonality in some sections and hear how they relate to one another.

In homages, I like the unprepared modulations, and the use of solo scales as a bridge between sections, but maybe the overall form of the waltz is a little lost on first hearing. The more I hear it, the more what you wrote grows on me, but I think some stronger harmony reinforcement would put down the guideposts I'm listening for. The sections are delineated rhythmically and stylistically (tempo, dynamics, etc.), so I think the main sections work. Maybe consider adding some repetition and stronger cadential movement within the internal sections of the waltz? I'm not thinking major revisions to the form, just 2-4 bars of tonicization or shoring up the tonality at the start and end of the internal phrases. I'm rambling/repeating myself now, so I'll sign off.

 

@Bradley Boone you made some really excellent observations. I had to listen to the Debussy again after reading your comments, and I think you made some great points. The occasional use of more traditional harmony serves a number of purposes, and I had not noticed it previously.

@Doug Gibson it was very helpful to hear your piano version. For me, the piano version is much more pleasing to my ear. For me the piano version seems coherent and very obviously Debussy. The piano version flows together, phrases make sense, and it has an emotional arc. All of which add up to a much stronger artistic statement than the quartet version. So what should you do? The piano version is so good that if I were you I would be tempted to pull the waltz out of the quartet and save it to be used in a collection of piano pieces. However, that may not be practical at this point, and like many other composers before us, you can still recycle the piece as a solo piano piece at a later date. I agree with Bradley about adding in some more traditional tonicization, repeating some of the key material and so forth. But I know you are not likely to follow those suggestions. At the very least, you should thin out the harmonies in the lower register. You could do this easily by simply having one or more guitars rest more of the time. Or only let one guitar is play a dense chord, while the others have single notes.

Because of the overtone series and the way our ears work, the exact same chord when transposed down an octave, is going to have a markedly different quality. It's physics, nothing we can do about it. Also the physics of the piano are way different from the physics of the guitar body so even the same pitch is going to produce very different overtones in the two instruments.

 

In my opinion a big improvement. I still prefer the piano version, which just seems to "sing" to my ears, but the new version is much better than the old version. Not that the old version was a "bad" composition. The quality of the actual composition was obvious, and proven by the quality of the piano version. Are your changes enough? They would be for me. I am looking forward to hearing what Bradley thinks, or Aaron. They have younger ears.

If I was going to write for guitar, I would study the compositions of Rodrigo. His Concerto Andaluz is for four guitars. And I fell in love with his Concerto Aranjuez for one guitar when I first heard it in the 1970s. Too late for that with this composition. But I think they will love it. Especially with the changes to the waltz. Assuming they are good enough to play it. It seems like a really tough challenge to play.

 

Yes, I think that it sounds more grounded in E, but it is fleeting because the harmony quickly goes through diminished flavored chords (m.6-7) into Gm to a cadential series (m.10-14) that I hear strongly preparing D (about 22sec into the soundcloud file). That sequence (m.8-14) works for me, and I think is still unchanged from the original, because I get this iv-I64-V-I as a listener with that F mediant in the bass at m.11 to give it real interest.

I might go further to establish the intro through m. 8 with:


Thanks for entertaining my B.S.

 

My comments are more general and I may be repeating some other folks, but to my ears, the temporary harmonic excursions that Debussy is known for work best when they hang in the air a bit, as rendered on a piano with pedal or in his orchestral pieces - four guitars can't l.v. in the same fashion. Therefore, your piano version sounds immediately Debussy-esque, but with the guitar version those elements became more apparent to me only after listening to the piano version. Still, I think the waltz stands on its own ... and perhaps you are not trying to mimic Debussy anyway. Somewhere around [2:30] my brain was asking for a little rubato in the performance. As always, repeated listening brings out more elements to appreciate.

 

Thanks a lot @Doug Gibson, I just spent an hour of my life researching an explanation of the "Haydn" theme's letter-note assignment! I know the German pitch-alphabet relationship, and I thought I knew the French system, but it turns out [to my surprise] it was neither. Then I listened to like 6 other Haydn elegies based on the theme. Way down the rabbit hole, but a fun trip.

 

Doug

I listened to this only once to get the feel as I would if I was sitting in the audience.
First, and no surprise, I like it. The opening was the only part I didn't lock on to immediately, but the rest I listened and 'forgot to analyze' and just enjoyed it. As I was listening I can't help but think 'Erik Satie' over and over. Erik took more risks imo and your mood felt like something he would write. And that's probably is fine considering the two were close. I'd love to hear the end result of this when performed live.

 

Awesome!

 

I too preferred the piano version. First it seems more idiomatic and the notes are better enunciated than on guitar (particularly grace notes,fast chromatic passages, and the very high melodic notes). The beginning section seems a bit more like Satie than Debussy with its quirky Elfmanesque attitude. As for the guitar version, hmm.... the samples don't exactly enhance it, I assume it will sound very different (better) with real guitars. Some passages such as the rapid chormatic notes don't sound idiomatic on guitar and the very high melodic notes sound weak (I think they may not work terribly well even with real guitar). I would think that at this stage it might make sense to get some players together to do a read through with you and get feedback directly from the players and then make adjustment according to that. Thanks for sharing. I wish I had more feedback to give but I don't want to share wrong advice either so these are just my opinion (as an ex-flamenco/classical guitarist).

 

I enjoyed the piece. I really like the intro, it grabbed my attention straight away. So I will say "Hit".

Will they be recording your piece for an upcoming album as well?

 

Man - completely missed this thread. I'll blame it on the 30 pages I was writing on Brahms' Piano Sonatas for the first half of May.

First of all - Thanks for the shout-out, Bradley! I wish I could have participated in the discussion, because listening to it now I was wondering a few things - but the time has passed!

Speaking of which - the read-through was yesterday, right? How'd it go?

 

Ha..."dad duty" pulling someone away from their work? I can relate...WAY too much.

One thing I was wondering about your score is also kind of a confession: I hate grace notes in ensemble guitar music - for reasons which give me pause about some of those 'ornaments' in the first full movement. Here's the gist: in solo playing, the mechanics of playing the multiple parts which incorporate grace notes basically 'work themselves out' - probably the most famous being that big portamento in the first Villa-Lobos prelude. It's notated just as a slur onto the beat, but I don't know anyone who plays it who doesn't delay the lower bass note that comes in (theoretically anyway) on the same beat. The effect is clearly to have the lower note 'fold in' to the upper one, and everyone just kind of does it - because a solo player can!

Measure 14 on is kind of an example of a problematic phrase. The top voice there has grace notes (slurred) with accents. The playback plays a behind-the-note grace note, but the notation definitely suggests that you want one on-the-beat? Now - if you wanted it behind-the-beat, then you're going to have that kind of stutter thing of the attack of the grace note being very clearly articulated, with the left-hand hammer-on articulation of the destination note being necessarily softer (particularly because the grace note is accented!) while if it falls on the beat, then that softer attack will be heard much more readily because the rest of the ensemble will have already articulated. Ultimately - safest thing to do would be to notate it exactly. Otherwise, odds are you're going to need to explain what you want there!

I'd worry a little bit about those pizzicato notes - the only 'conventional' RH fingering under pizzicato is 'p' - and those notes in the third full movement go by fast enough that the thumb won't have time to rebound and re-articulate, especially with the accent lying on the second note. You might finger those two note pizz phrases as 'i'-'p' - so they'll know not to try it all under 'p' !

It's a little late to do any structural changes - but the biggest thought I have on that is that you make great use of the extended range of those instruments - but for me it gets a bit stale after a while. The 'geographical' roles are really fixed in this piece, with the top player always on top, the bottom player always on the bottom, etc.. Just as a thought - something like the beginning of the third movement, where the range of what the first player is doing would fit on any of the conventional guitars - why not give that Treble player a break and let him relax in the ensemble a bit?

Please post the rehearsal results when they do get together - I'm intrigued to hear the final result!