development period 1-1
comment: I tried, as much as I could to embrace the pluralism of our different voices. The piece starts with a modification of my first proposal (according to some overall noise based patterns that I notices in sketches of other composers). This noisy ‘leitmotiv’ is juxtaposed with unrelated material by other composers, but it keeps reoccuring. The anamorphosis/departing from a common point is present in both the twisted proportions of subsections, as well es in gradual modifications of the initial ‘leitmotivish’ sound. My goal was (but really in this short time we had impossible) to start with presenting at least one material from each composer, then shortening these bits up and slowly starting to fuse elements together. I am sorry to say that I have only managed to finish the ‘exposition’ part of my idea. What I have noticed in our sketches is the overall tendency of either writing very dark or very light sonorities, so I profited from that fact in constructing the overall dramaturgy of this excerpt.
reflection
I believe that the selected snippet, “the beginning”, encapsulates concretely some very idiomatic ideas presented during the incubation phase. It is very clear that the structure of the introduction is summing up those generalized phrasal ideas and juxtaposes them in a linear and transparent manner. However though, in order to produce dramaturgy, flow, and organic evolution it is essential to deconstruct the snippet and focus on its internal and structural characteristics. This gives us ideas for development of the sonic and structural domains for the composition. Considering the structure of the snippet as A(1-4), B(5-6), C(7-9), D(10-13) & A’ (14-19) we get 4 distinct and idiomatic phrasal blocks that we can deconstruct and elaborate. I believe that by doing so we can all contribute to the dramaturgical flow rather than the juxtaposition of heterogeneous material. I believe that this can be artistically more engaging and will challenge all of us in a more organic and thoughtful approach to the concept and the sonic ideas that have been proposed. Either A, B, C, D or A’ can equally serve as a valuable source for COMPOSING.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
development period 1-2
comment: The way I see it is that the previously selected snippet’s first 4 bars are the common point that we are deviating from. As proposed by the selected comment, I tried to go away form the collage-like opening and develop more each individual material as well as tried to merge diverse compositional voices. As a next step, I could see converting the first violin into descending col legno battuto cloud and other strings following (as was proposed in ‘on the continuation of the breathy airy lines’) which would lead to a frenzy of jumping between various elements exposed so far up to a point where they are no more recognizable, and this jumping between extremes becomes a new anamorphic texture on its own (which could also be interpreted as an entry to our new section).
reflection
With regard to the mesostructure (1-2 minutes), I would like to see the composition evolve through the alternation and organic relationship between the high-pitch, percussive pizz. and the and the granular scratches on the strings. But, it would be compositionally and sonically more engaging to focus on the durational exposition of those elements and the esoteric rhythm of their pacing rather than just expose them. For example, let’s try to work on micro-rhythmicities and meticulous articulations of, for example, fast and slow expositions of granular clouds and pay attention to the porosity and the density. In such a way we can focus on the hidden mechanisms that host the sonic material and not just to the material per se. With regard to the macrostructure, I would really like to see some har-core repetitive structures emerge out of nowhere. Like, freezing the dramaturgical time. In addition to that, it will worth exploring the glissando-like textures. that have already been proposed in the incubation phases and have been articulated to the snippets.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
development period 1-3
comment: Trying to respect the reflexion 4, I work extensively with the glissando as col legno battuto or arco, that was only hinted at in the previous sections. I tried to avoid having all the instruments play all the time, thus the violin got (a rather short, but nevertheless) a prologed spot light. Furthermore, I was working to get more unity from the previously exposed materials, that goes beyond simply exposing them. Also, I tried to work with the sentiment of frozen time, when all the descending wood-like sounding knocks keep falling like bits of ashes.
reflection
Meso-structure: Considering the select snippet from outside, as it were — as a general appraisal of any music — I am glad that the selected snippet brought some variety (not contrast) to the texture, as well as some space, allowing for thiner textures and soloistic behavior. In regard to our original concept of devations/morphing, however, I fear we are getting each time more distant. The treatment of the material in this last segment is basically motivic — which could itself be considered a form of divergence and morphing, but then we are only playing with words. I feel we need more gradual, long processes. Perhaps a way forward would be to treat the “thinning” to one line as a morphological aspect. We could now progress to a gradual administration of density of voices — work with two lines, then three, back to two, then suddenly make a metamorphosis back into tutti. All of this without any new material. The next score should somehow look like the ones we have already seen. Only then, I feel, would we be ready for some new contrast, which could very well be the “hardcore repetitive structures emerging out of nowhere”.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
development period 1-4
comment: In this snippet, I developed different materials from previous snippets by connecting them to each other. In this way, a pizzicato becomes the attack of a high undefined pitch, or an undefined high pitch with bow overpressure is connected with the granular bow material though the noisy quality of the bow pressure. At the same time, the pitch material of the violin gets “dirty” through left-hand half pressure and harmonic pressure and bow pressure. In this way, the pitch line gets connected with glissandi and granular bow and its content get undefined. The instrumental density continues the tendency of becoming thinner of the previous snippet. Finally, the glissando is zoomed-in by slowing it down and by playing it together with a glissando of bow position. Possible continuations are 1) continue this development of connecting the different materials and make transformations. 2) go to a less busy texture.
reflection
1. Meso-structure: “zooming…” is clearly an organic continuation of “falling ashes”, which I consider a success in our “togetherness”. In regard to the texture, however, it continues the former snippet’s pattern of “Solo violin, accompanied by ensemble” — although the accompaniment is now clearly anchored to the violin part, transforming (morphing) it, as has been pointed out in the snippet description (That is, relation has changed from mostly parallel to a tighter vertical counterpoint relationship). Considering that the description of “zooming” offers as a possible continuation to “1) continue this development” I suggest that this continuation be done in the following manner: (a) changing which string instruments lead, and the texture of counterpoint (a duo of cello and bass, for example, could be the starting point of next snippet); (b) using as main material the defined pitch-class component that had appeared as an extraneous element (“Falling ashes” Vn:m.49,51; “Zooming…” Vn: m.54, 57, 62). As my old composition teacher used to say, half-joking, “If you make a mistake in your composition, do it again and again — until it becomes the new rule”. It seems to me that transforming this “stranger” into the new main element (that had not appeared in the beginning) may constitute a true “deviation” in the compositional process. 2. Macro-structure: If the whole piece is supposed to have 8-9 minutes, and we already have four snippets of 1-2 minutes, this means we pretty much only have to decide how we want to end. I would strongly recommend we end abandoning completely the initial material, or at least transform it beyond recognition. My own suggestion would be to (a) choose as a goal some material from INCUBATION PHASE that has not yet appeared, and is as different as possible from everything that has appeared unto now: this would be a goal for gradual convergence. And also (b) in another layer, start to include repeated measures, loops, which appeared in the initial fragment only once (“The beginning”, m.16) . The piece ends simultaneously “going away” and “getting stuck”.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
development period 1-5
comment: I have tried to continue the development of the previous snippet in the direction suggested by the selected reflection. I have continued the counterpoint texture now between cello and contrabass. The snippet starts a bar before the end of the previous snippet 66.
________________________________________________________________________________________________