Sorry I didn’t get back to the scorexchange soon, not only because I have been trapped by the school final exams, but also because I had so much to say after seeing the video of my piece played by Adorno, and I felt writing a few sentences back is not enough, (and I tried to use a camera to do something nice, but I didn’t manage it…) so here is my long words.

First of all, I want to say this loudly: I HAVE BEEN EXCITED!! By this wonderful method of online workshop and Adorno’s excellent play!

Mr. Jarvinen, thank you very much for your comments! And when you decided to count on the video not the score, you are absolutely right, because Adorno did a great job on my piece. This is an old piece, I love the fresh air and some ideas of it, but for some reason I couldn’t know how it actually sounds until I came here to study. I wrote this piece when I didn’t have any confidence, and my notation was horribly not clear! Adorno understood my purpose beyond the score so well and added the confidence for me through their performance. All these were done without my attendance of rehearsal! I don’t know how much time it cost Adorno to rehearse this piece, but I know normally my music is hard to rehearse and get together. I want to throw a lot of “Thanks” across the country to Adorno!

Now I know how to make the rehearsal easier according to Jeff and Loren’s suggestion. It is about the cue! (I didn’t think about this ever before!) I only knew that my music is hard because of my writing, but without cue, I made it even harder, especially for the slow and multi-layer texture music.

I also understand many of my notations are confusing. For example, Rhonda commented me about the bending tone. For the minor third bending tone from B to D on piccolo, I intended to have just a little bend, so I should write a grace note C after the B, so the B bends to C, but the C fingering is not necessary, and then fingers the D. Then it would be clear, right? And it’s true that piccolo and flute are different instruments at all. I know some of the phrases are really long for piccolo, thank you Rhonda for ideally playing them for me!

Mike, Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments! What you mentioned are exactly what I want and you played them perfectly! The slide on harmonics, low pizz sound, and the slide on one note but keep the other one still are all great! I will make these marks clearer in the future!

And I shouldn’t write for 5-octove marimba and never do that unless I am told to do it. I agree that it really doesn’t affect the timbre without the low pitches on marimba. In this piece, I wish to show the lovely wooden color of marimba than any of its aggressive features else and thank you Loren for understanding that and playing both the faraway tremolo and the childlike pure single attack so distinctively beautifully!

I wrote some high notes and flutter tones on the A clarinet for Jeff. And I spelt flutter wrongly as flatter…Sorry about that. Sometimes we composers learn from orchestration books that these and those notes are possible, but we didn’t think about the actual sounds are very different in different ranges until hearing them. Only this way, we really learn. Like Chinese saying: “if you don’t know the snake is cold, touch it, and you will know.” Adorno and Mr. Jarvinen, your comments are my treasure.

Cynthia, when you mentioned the rehearsal letter from E to H, I think I should be more patient with the musical flowing and buildup, but without thinking “I am going to finish this piece”. So the climax, and the clarinet glissando could be stretched to a wider amplitude to let everyone feel comfortable. Like Mr. Jarvinen said, the breathing. To write a deep breathe there before finishing the piece would be better.

Thank Adorno and Mr. Jarvinen!

Please forgive my awkward response due to the first time to experience the online workshop – I really love this way of communication more and more! The feedback I received from you is a good lesson for me! I also listened to the other three composers’ works; good compositions! Good musical personalities! And all show different languages and styles. I felt this project is very helpful for us young composers to learn and improve ourselves. Again, and not the last one (there are still many in my mind): Thank you!

This piece works very well, and has some truly engaging qualities. First of all it’s pretty short, like a pop tune. That’s a good thing, because the material does its thing, but doesn’t belabor the point. This immediately suggested to me that Train Hopping wants to be part of a larger, multi-movement work, and Cynthia obviously feels the same way. So think about what kind of bigger piece this might fit into. Trains, Planes, and Automobiles? More train pieces? As a model railroader myself (HO scale), I especially like when I can get the trains going oh-so-slow. And I can spend too much time watching the cycling and phasing of two trains at just slightly different speeds. It’s how I “train” myself in counterpoint (no pun intended, really!). I just hope you haven’t actually gone train hopping. I always wanted to when I was a kid, but never had the courage. Probably just as well.

I am so pleased about the use of glockenspiel and triangle. First of all, the glock has always been one of my favorite percussion instruments to play. When you practice it alone, you get all these difference tones manufactured by your inner ear, and I find that to be really cool. But then, I am easily entertained. But quite seriously, the glock has been used prominently in some of my favorite pieces, such as Morton Feldman’s Why Patterns?, a 30 minute piece for flute, piano, and glockenspiel. And Frederic Rzewski writes extensive passages for glock in his piece Mary’s Dream. I think it’s wonderful to hear the instrument treated as an equal voice, not just an occasional coloristic device. The triangle, too. It can be quite expressive, in fact I have a trio for amplified triangles, one of my earliest works. Evan Ziporyn once played me a piece of his for gamelan and triangle, and made sure I understood that “the triangle is very important”. So even though Loren might have thought the piece didn’t “feature” percussion very much, I still think the choice of instruments alone was a way of emphasizing percussion in a refreshing way, and worked very nicely in this context.

One specific thing about writing and notating for triangle. You can get very precise rhythmic articulation by alternating the open ringing sound and muting it with one hand, back and forth, in various patterns. This is a typical Brazilian thing. I have also found it effective to have exact note values, so for instance, in a passage of eighth notes, in which there are some rests, having the rests be stone-cold silent, meaning the player has to mute the triangle on those rests. So I say “exact note values, mute on rests”.You would think this is pretty obvious, and the intention clear. But in my experience with some truly superb players, I always still have to show them or explain further exactly what I want. Not sure why. But just be aware that if you write that subtly and explicitly for the triangle, you might still have to explain what you want in rehearsal.

A fun piece. Add some more movements!

Well, this is an interesting piece to address. I will say up front that there is much to criticize, but only in the most positive ways, because most of us would like to look back and see that we were writing at this level at age 17. Few people do. So you keep going, girl! But be prepared to take on all the well-meant criticism that this piece will engender, take it to heart, and into your next works.

Most of the problems that I have with the piece have been clearly articulated and addressed in the performers’ comments. The big problem is balance; the cello is lost most of the time. However, what wasn’t thoroughly addressed were some practical solutions, because, after all, it is only a problem. Except for some weird math and certain political situations, almost every problem, in my experience, has a solution. In this case, we will get to some possible solutions momentarily. First I would like to make some specific, positive remarks.

I really like the use of chimes here. This is very effective. Chimes are usually used sparely, for an evocative effect, like we can imagine church bells ringing, or near the end of a piece, to make something suddenly sparkle. Or conversely, some composer thinks the chimes are under-used, so they write for four mallets and all kinds of “licks” that sound awkward. Here you have used them almost obsessively in the beginning, playing simple but engaging material, and it becomes a very strong bonding agent for the whole character of Part One, that brings us back at the end. Very nice.

The timpani writing, on the other hand, is totally out of control. You just can’t do that! Even with mutes and wooden mallets, as you can hear, the sound of those big drums just fills in all the available air space, and no more planes can fly, at least not at that low altitude. I suggest severely editing the timpani part, and I mean A LOT. Well-placed accents, some of the flashy sixteenth note licks emerge here and there, a pedal tone reiterated with some interesting rhythmic syncopation, but not flat-out jamming the whole time. It just doesn’t work.

My first guess, after only a short listen, was that this composer must be a pianist. It’s always nice when you CAN’T tell what a composer’s first instrument is. Try to get beyond writing like a pianist. That’s hard. But if you can get past how much you like the piano part in this piece, and prune it way back, you can almost instantly get closer to the solution to some of the balance problems. For example, find a trouble spot, then just lose the right hand part altogether. Or the left hand, if you insist on so much timpani happening down there. Bring the cello up an octave. Suddenly, the same basic materials, i.e. your harmonic structures, your melodies, and the interaction of the parts, will be a lot more apparent and more clearly defined for the listener. Moving something by an octave or two is often the solution to a problem of clarity, especially with counterpoint.

I concur with Loren that the bells and xylophone work very well. The writing is idiomatic, and those moments are very refreshing. But think about why that is. Those instruments suddenly take us into the under-used high register, and we can hear those lines sing out. Why not use the piano that way some of the time? Lose those damn bass strings already!

I will say that Keisuke did a respectable job of playing the tom-tom, but using non-percussionists to play percussion is a practice that a lot of composers seem to not be able to resist – but you must try to resist! I have seldom seen it come off very well in performance. I suggest only using singers, violinists, pianists, etc. to play percussion parts if it is for specific dramatic reasons, and not because you want another drum and the percussionist is already busy.

So now we have addressed some of the balance issues with the cello, and some possible solutions that exist within the composition itself, the instrumental writing as to density of notes per beat, registral placement, and so on. I must say that Mike’s suggestion as to maybe amplifying the cello I would not find to be very satisfactory. The balance issues within a piece such as this, i.e., one for acoustic instrumental resources, HAVE to be addressed and solved by the composer, within the material itself, NOT by recourse to technological “band-aids”.

If you look at the scores to some of Frank Zappa’s orchestral works, the orchestration can look really weird, actually implausible. You’ll never hear those bass flutes, or that harp part will be completely lost. But Frank was composing, always, with recording in mind, and close-miked all the instruments. Move some faders, and voila! there’s your bass flute. But this is pure acoustic music. In my experience, pure acoustic music can sound very interesting when everything is amplified. When I was playing with the California E.A.R. Unit we often amplified everything, as a matter of course. That was our live sound. But my experience has also shown me that a single instrument amplified to correct balance, because the composer made poor decisions, seldom if ever works. It just sounds odd. So I would disregard Mike’s suggestion (sorry Mike, don’t hate me because I’m beautiful).

Loren commented about the logistics of the percussion part, and I would suggest that one solution to that is to employ two percussionists. Obviously, if you are writing for a specific ensemble that has one percussionist, you have to limit yourself to that reality, and compose appropriately. But if you’re just “composing”, or perhaps have a performance opportunity in which musicians are being hired as needed, such as at a university festival, allowing two players to split up the part can make everyone’s life a lot easier. Some composers resist that type of solution, and some players even more so. That’s too bad, because it is often a practical and honorable one. Especially when considering how much equipment a player has to wrangle together just to learn the part. Do you think many players have that much stuff just set up already in their house?

Cynthia suggested that maybe you were really thinking orchestrally, but I don’t feel that way. It’s pretty clear to me that you wanted THIS ensemble, and I don’t think I would be interested in hearing this blown out to orchestral dimensions. Okay, that’s in part because I hate the orchestra. There, I said it, and I’ll say it again – I hate the orchestra. But even if I thought it was a viable 21st Century medium, I still think you have written chamber music here. Just chamber music with some tricky problems to solve, almost all of them solvable, with a little ingenuity, maybe a bit of compromise, and some creative editing.

It’s a strong piece. Now make it better.

Cynthia Mei did send me the scores for all of these pieces, but I decided to make my comments based only on listening and watching these video performances. Since I’m not really here to give composition lessons per se, I didn’t want to get distracted by notation issues, Finale and Sibelius problems, page layouts and the like. I am trying to just work with what I hear and can tell from the video.

I’m not sure it’s the best approach, but I have also been watching the Adorno players’ comments before making my own. In this case it’s kind of funny in that just about everything I would have to say has already been addressed quite eloquently. But let me have my turn anyway.

The first thing I noticed was that there was no flute on stage – only piccolo. I LOVE that! I pull that trick all the time, and it’s often commented on. What? Only piccolo? What, only bass flute? Are you sure?

Yes, I’m sure, and I thought you made a very strong decision to stay with the one instrument, not as a double for flute. It gives the voice of the piece a certain distinction, clarity. Good move.

In general I liked the wind writing especially, and I thought the small pitch bends were evocative without sounding like “here’s another person trying to blend Asian music with Western music”. We hear enough of that. This was gracefully handled, not made a big point of. But apropos Rhonda’s comments about the piccolo, I agree that it is of utmost importance that composers know the difference between the piccolo and the flute in terms of how they work and what they can actually do. A skilled flutist can manipulate both embouchure and the open holes to produce wonderful glissando shapes over an impressive range. A piccolo can’t – period. So that’s just something to be aware of, if you weren’t already.

I’m very pleased to hear Loren say what he did about the 5 octave marimba. What a supremely overrated instrument. As a marimbist myself, I never had a use for one. Unfortunately there is a younger generation of players who seem to lust for just that thing, and composers are becoming convinced that it is somehow the standard. It simply is not. My advice is to only write for five octaves if you are commissioned to write for a specific player who owns one and wants you to use it. Otherwise, 4 1/3 (low A) is what I would stay with. In my opinion, the lowest octave on the five just doesn’t sound very good anyway – but hey, what do I know?

In terms of the music, the piece itself, what I came away with after one listening was an impression of how easily the music flows. I didn’t have much sense of a structure or big strategy, no process, just being in the piece and moving along with the various ideas, moods, textures. I enjoyed that very much. The pacing felt natural, intuitive, like breathing. I didn’t feel like I needed to think, and didn’t feel like thinking, just being in the piece and listening. I can only assume that was your intention. In any case, I think you have a nice feel for this style of work, and encourage further development of what sounds to me like a natural, easy way of speaking your musical thoughts.

I like this one quite a bit. The material is engaging, the proportions and overall structure satisfying, and the interaction of the instruments very effective. I especially like the quartet itself, a very natural sounding combination that one has to wonder why we haven’t heard used before (at least I haven’t).

Mainly what I have to say about this regards the marimba writing, and is not by way of criticism, just some thoughts. First of all, I would take to heart what Loren said regarding those extremely wide reaches. They are certainly possible, and some really macho players would insist on going for it because they know it “can” be done, even if it means a less secure performance. I believe composers need to evaluate the “tensile strength” of their music, and be sure when a revision or modification is an acceptable compromise – perhaps even an improvement (what a concept!) – and when it truly is counter to the best interests of the music itself. In this case, Loren’s slight modification of the written part, I believe, was a wise choice, in no way compromising the integrity of the work. Especially on short rehearsal time, a simple change like that can mean a much more secure performance, with the whole group feeling more comfortable and playing more confidently.

As for the marimba itself as an instrument. It is used very effectively here, as far as the basic materials, but not many composers (or too many marimbists either, apparently) seem to be aware of some of the expressive techniques the instrument is capable of. For example, “dead strokes”. This is when you play into the bar, holding the mallet against the bar with each stroke, rather than lifting it. This effectively mutes the note as you play it instead of allowing its natural resonance. I think this technique could be very effective in conjunction with the strings pizzicato. Notation for dead strokes is usually a + over the note.

One can also produce a “glassier” tone by playing directly over the nodes. This is exactly what players are taught NOT to do, which might be why it is seldom done. The nodal point of the bar is where the strings that hold it on the frame go through. The strings are put there because that is the point of the least vibration, so it doesn’t mess up the basic tone and fundamental pitch. So by playing there, you minimize the fundamental, akin to a violin playing ponticello.

Another string comparison would be col legno, in which the wood of the bow strikes the string. A marimbist can play the edges of the bars with the wooden shaft of the mallet. It is a light clacking sound, with the pitch still apparent, quite pleasing. Don’t ever let anyone tell you it might mar or damage the bar; I’ve been doing that on my own instrument since the ‘70s. This technique is naturally pretty quiet, so using it could be an effective way of producing some dynamic contrast that is a natural by-product of the music itself, not superimposed on it. Groove music such as this seldom uses much in the way of dynamics because that is simply not often very relevant to the style. So this could produce some natural dynamic shaping that simply happens because that’s how the music comes out when you use that technique.

So I would just suggest getting a demonstration of some more marimba techniques, to get familiar with the sounds and notation. Next time you write for marimba, keep in mind its expressive potential. Perhaps if possible, even experiment with passages of this work next time it’s done.