Sos I’m going to enter my Vivaldi tranz into zum cuntest on noteflight. I’ve been proofin this mofo for what seems like agez and I’d like zum prof eyez on it just for legibility and playability issues. Only so much i can do with that sheeyat site, but I think I got it good enough. Anyhowz, if any of you badazz mofoz could lay thy holy eyes upon my monstrosity and offer brutal, anal rapin input, I’d much appreciate it…
lemme know if any of those don’t work. My tech is pretty sheeyat right now, so I don’t trust my opinion of what’s difficult or just impossible, and I dont see myself getting it under the fingerz let alone up to speed. not askin anyone to learn it, tho it’s cool if you want to and tour the world spreading this shred of a transcript
Hard to give a definitive critique of someone else’s score, so a few general points.
I’d listen very carefully to the midi or mp3, looking for clashes. For example, not all the accidentals are correct around 0.58.
I assume you are happy to have the overall texture something like Alkan or Brahms? It’s quite dense in places. Liszt often writes this sort of thing out really well in that he consistently delineates dominant voices through normal note v grace note sizing. It makes for better clarity when reading.
Minor point - I’d write the chordal trill in bar 72 out as quasi trillo and with an invisible rest in the bass and an up stem for the rh chords and downward stem for the lh chords. I know how to do this in Sibelius but not in Noteflight.
Is your notated metronome tempo a bit fast? Sacrilege to say that here
HEY! Thanks for the perusal, I think I fixed the link to the pdf, thanks for the heads up.
Yea, love me some B-rahms n Alkan, but I feel my goal was not their idiom but rather an attempt to bring all auditory aspects of this concerto into the piano’s realm from the chamber realm. For me, the resonance of each instrument off the others creates a fascinating harmonic texture, almost another line of music on top of what’s written. In looking at the score for certain pieces, I was amazed at how simple everything looked just at face value. I’m attempting to bring all these illusions from the aether into physical form, and hopefully the affect is even further compounded.
Noteflight however, is a difficult mistress in that it’s rather limited. So while there are some things I can do, like make some notes smaller and larger (like I’ve done in certain spots) it really is limited in it’s typesetting options. I tried to do the thing you recommended in mm 72, but I couldn’t get anything that looked “better” lol
and yea, it’s a “little” fast to me, it sounds optimal about 10% slower, but I think ±20% is acceptable in so far as speed. For editing purposes though, I went with the faster speed as it lets me get through the material quicker so I can get back to editing… I may have ADD
Also, a few big concerns of mine are the feasibility of the following:
mm 90-92 “cadenza”
mm 244-246 typical
90-92 ok, but the notation is very difficult to read because the breaks in the stems in the rh don’t correlate to beats (I assume this is a notation software issue, sometimes these things don’t work very well). Using the bar to indicate the groupings is a plus, but I’d split the stems at ends of groups if possible.
157-160 the lh looks difficult to execute at speed, specifically the jump in combination with the first triplet set. 161-164 is fine.
232-234 my inclination would be to redistribute this as alternate rh / lh note pairs (rh above lh).
244-246 playable but not trivial and I might consider taking all the Ds in the lh in 244 and all the Ds in the rh in 245 and indeed possibly 246.
312-322 we all have to deal with cross-rhythms at some time the alternating double notes in 319 and 320 are fine. 321 and 322 strike me as a bit uncomfortable, probably depends what the tempo is at this point.