1st Orchestra Discovery Session - Composition Diary - Lukas Lindner

When I launched this idea of the Orchestra Discovery Session, one of the things that I wanted to make sure is that not only the participants gain some learning experiences from this but also the Patreon community. So one of the premises was for all the participants to document their process of composition and explain their thoughts so we can see how the pieces came to existance and formed over the course.

Additionally, there were several rounds of feedback between the participants and myself.

Today, we'll have a look at Lukas Lindner's piece Dance of the Goblins.

Above you can watch him explaining his piece and also demonstrating the differences between the midi version and the final recording.

At the bottom of the post, I attached two files (as PDF and Dorico) which show Lukas' first version of the piece, the second version after the feedback I gave him and the final version which we recorded in Prague.

Here's the dialogue we had about that piece:

[after 1st Version]

Robin:

Hi Lukas,

very nice piece! I feel it is very nicely crafted and has some great musical ideas, congratulations! I especially like how consequent you are with your motivic use and how you work with dynamics and contrasts, very well done. Also, I like the structuring in the horizontal space but also in the vertical space, it feels like every voice has a distinct and defined role.

Here are a few things to think about, and while this seems like a lot, be assured that this is critizism on a very high level, nothing of that is catastrophic but I felt that going into the details might be beneficial.

general: I feel it is too much G minor, the piece starts in Gm, ends in Gm and basically remains very close to Gm most of the time, I feel like you are taking away from the possibility of this piece to develop somewhere new and go through a development as while it is quite adventurous on the rhythmic side, it stays very safe on the harmonic/tonal side

b1: please remove the leading empty bars and start in what is currently bar 4, I'm not a great fan of writing out count ins :)

b5: It took me several listens to actually understand the rhythmic structure of your main idea. At first I got really lost in trying to find the rhythmic base, also bar 25 onwards. This disorientation can be a desired effect but in general I would strive to present the idea in the most understandable way at first. I really like the rhythmic displacements that you use and also the odd forms of 5 bars are cool. I'm just worried a bit that you ask too much of the listener at least at the beginning but that is something that you need to answer. Also in that first 15 bars I think you could be a little bit more generous with articulations, I would clarify the intended length of some of the eighth notes a bit more.

b9: I'm a bit torn about this fugal idea for several reasons: In general really nice idea but I feel that it doesn't really know what it wants to be. You follow the strict form of the traditional rules of what the subject and the answer should be from a tonal standpoint (starting in in Gm and answering in Cm in bar 9) which sets up an expectation of following very strict form of counterpoint and fugue but as soon as bar 11 you already have exposed parallel fifths which break this expectation and feel "wrong". From a formal standpoint it feels a bit like "I wanted to do this but failed". Also from a purely "listening" standpoint I felt that it is too much too soon after the beginning, the voice in the flute following bar 10 is super busy and doesn't really create a lot of space for the bassoon voice or chance to memorize your initial statement, so maybe reconsider that?

b16: first occurance here but also happening at bar 101 onwards: I think you're overestimating the agility of the horn in the mid/low register that you use here. It really doesn't project that well in this register as well as is not as really agile there, these two occurances are not massively idiomatic for the horn and it will not match the agility of the other players here. I think bar 16 onwards will work ok with the triplets but I would probably avoid those as well but bar 101 really is no match for the clarinet and I think you should find another solution here.

b36 to 37, b 63 to 64: I don't feel both switches to not be harmonically on point yet. The first one hovers mostly over Gm since bar 25 and the consequence in bar 37 of that entire passage is yet another Gm. I would expect some harmonic development there. Same problem in the second spot where it goes from G major to G major.

b43 onwards: This passage harmonically doesn't feel like it belongs into that piece. Particularly the Dom7 on count two 44 feels like it's from a completely different (classical harmony) world than the rest of the piece

b49 onwards: these triplets against the bassoon are rhythmically a bit messy, I understand the intention of introducing the rhythmical feel for the following passage but maybe there is a more elegant way of doing that so that these two elements don't conflict that much rhythmically, especially things like 2nd triplet vs. 2nd 16th like in 49 and 51 feel a bit awkward and I presume that in the recording it will feel somehow "off".

b58 onwards: really cool idea on its own but again feels slightly like another piece especially harmonically, this chromaticism is nowhwere else in the piece. Might there be a chance to make this idea a bit more consequential in the piece?

b64: besides the harmonic "non development", I really don't get this passage to be honest, all the buildup from before and harmonic complexity cumulates into a passage of rhythmical and harmonic rest and "happy major" chords. Maybe there is a bigger idea behind that that I don't get but currently it doesn't present itself.

b74: flute bit also 80: write out the glisses except for the horn. It is uncommon to write something like this for woodwind players, but you should rather write out a scale.

b107: flute in the relative weak mid low register might struggle to lead that passage, maybe put it into a higher register or take back the other instruments dynamically.

b114: again that passage with the dominant 7 chord

b121: grace notes should at max be 16ths notes, it's not gonna make them shorter to write 32ths notes

Hope that helps, let me know if anything is unclear.

Lukas:

Hello Robin, 

thank you for your kind words and feedback!

A lot of your points where really useful and helpful to me, so with this email I send you the updated version of my piece.

As you mentioned, your „critizism [is] on a very high level, nothing of that is catastrophic“. Also a few of your points are - as you said - simply a matter of taste, so forgive me that I ignored a few points as well. (I think I should have told you more about my initial ideas and what I wanted to do with the piece in general. But I will mention that in my documentation later. :) ) 

Here is a list of some changes I made:

- Decided that the title should be „Dance of the Goblins“.

- I changed the key in a few spots so that the piece as a whole does not stick to G minor all the way trough. That was something that bothered me, too.

I changed the key for the reprise entrance at (now) bar 94 so that it opens up and feels a little bit fresher and different in the end. Also the piece starts now in a different key (Am). This is also better for: 

- The fugal idea (that I honestly like) at the beginning. In version 1 it was not a classical I-V but I-IV - but it sounded a little bit too classical anyway. So with the different key at the beginning of it it does work a little bit differently. I basically put another I-IV in front of the fugal idea, so that the progression of the thematic entrances moves now in a row of 4ths: Am -> Dm -> Gm

- I removed the parallel 5ths :) 

- Removed the empty count in bars.

- A tiny little rhythmic change in the first presentation of the theme so that the downbeats are a little bit clearer. Disorientation (or rather that little "chaotic feeling") was and is desired, but you are right: Better present the first theme entrance a little bit clearer. (Therefore I also simplified the countervoices a little bit.)

- Added a few more articulations.

- I put the problematic horn phrases that you’ve mentioned in the bassoon instead. 

- I cleared up the harmonical change by simply removing one eight note :D Haha! It works, but I mainly decided to do this because:

- I added a few more opportunities to take a breath. A few sections of the piece were indeed a little bit too long to play them relaxed in one breath. As a trumpet player I think they were all somehow possible, but why take a risk when you can write it better?

- Cleared up the bars with the triplets a little bit. I think they would be absolutely no problem with jazz players or if we could practice the piece a little bit longer, but as I don't know the players in Prague and I’m not that experienced in recording sessions like that I definitively  trust your expertise on that. Therefore I also edited the other voices in bars 14+15 and 17+18, where (in the first version the French Horn, but now) the bassoon plays the triplet arpeggios.

- Exchanged the glissandos in the Flute, Oboe, Clarinet and Bassoon with notated runs.

- The flute should not be the definitive leader of (now) bar 105-116, it should only add a little „sprinkle“. But I made it „f“ instead of „mf“ for it to stand out a little bit more anyway.

- Used 16th notes as grace notes. 

- a few more minor changes…

[2nd Version attached]

Robin:

Hi Lukas,

thanks for the update, good job on the edits. There are a few minor things to consider:

in general I think you can still give it a bit more articulation, especially on unarticulated quarter notes to clear up their length, also see ppoint below

b2 onwards: I can predict that there will probably be a question on how long the not articulated eighth notes in that melody should be. I feel that we're somewhere in the middleground between staccato and tenuto with these notes but if you see a chance to clarify note lengths further, please do so, otherwise we will need to address this with the players.

b7 Flute: better mp

b14: Bassoon: triplets with staccato dots?

b22: Bassoon: mf? - I wouldn't write out so drastic dynamic differences unless there is a really specific effect that you want, also Flute 27 mf?

b77 Horn: I think that should remain a "gliss". This run as written is not really executable. To clarify on my last remark on that: Woodwind glisses should be written out, brass are usually more idiomatic as gliss/rips. Same in 88. If you want to keep it that way, please stick to one type of accidental per bar per instrument, at least in such a run.

Thank you Lukas for contributing to this session and for your music!

In the following weeks and months, I will post a similar documentation for each of the pieces. If you want to listen to all the results of the session in one place, make sure to check out the playlist on soundcloud.