Joe Stollery

In this piece, I decided to compose something descriptive in an instrumental context. The result is basically a conflict set in music, with the two pairs of instruments (woodwind and strings) making up the two ‘sides’. The piano acts as a kind of mediator, keeping the sides together, and the percussionist plays like a referee.

The differences between the two groups are not only reflected in their type, but also in their tonal realms. While all instruments use natural accidentals, the flute and clarinet lines also use sharps, but no flats, while the violin and cello have flats but no sharps. The piano uses both sharps and flats, and ‘communicates’ with the different groups with their appropriate accidentals. The timbres also differ, with the woodwind being light and mischievous and the strings being heavy and intense.

In a sense, the piece is programmatic, but I have tried to make the narrative of this piece as objective as possible. It is structured thus:

INTRODUCTION (bb. 1-60): The percussionist announces the start of the piece, followed by the piano. The other instruments then enter in their respective groups, first flute and clarinet with a spiky fugato, and then violin and cello in a more sustained character, and finally both groups together. The differences in character between the two build up tension, which continues on into the next section until the percussionist calls for order.

1st DIALOGUE (bb. 61-70): The piano ‘welcomes’ the full ensemble, then the two groups start debating with one another, the woodwinds chattering and taunting, and the strings moaning and sneering. The woodwinds introduce the following episode.

1st DANCE (WOODWIND) (bb. 71-95): The two dances use each group exclusively, accompanied by the piano. The first dance is a light, lyrical pastorale in A major for woodwinds, introduced and finished by crotales.

2nd DIALOGUE (bb. 96-105): The strings interrupt the final chord, causing uproar from the woodwinds. The following arguments show separate instruments against each other: flute & cello and clarinet & violin. The strings then introduce their episode with some vehemence.

2nd DANCE (STRINGS) (bb. 106-130): This dance is a fast, brutal jig in C minor, introduced and finished by suspended cymbals.

GENERAL CONFUSION (bb. 131-159): At the same tempo as the preceding dance, the woodwinds start up a chromatic theme, which is quashed by the strings. What follows is a large fugato episode which builds with ever-increasing hysteria. Throughout the episode, the percussionist attempts to calm them down using different instruments, including a railway whistle at the climax.

3rd DIALOGUE (bb. 160-167): On the last climactic chord, the piano hammers down dissonant chords for order, then goes into dialogue with both groups, demonstrating their characteristics and their accidentals.

FINALE (bb. 168-197): After the percussionist announces the same theme as at the very start, the piano then introduces a theme for the woodwinds to take up, followed by its inversion for the strings. Eventually, common ground settles in, and the music finishes diatonically.

This piece forms the second of three in my fourth year portfolio. It was submitted for the Carlaw-Ogston Composition Award 2015, and was premiered as a finalist by the Spectrum Contemporary Music Ensemble.

PERFORMANCES:

Première: 1 April 2015 - King's College Chapel, University of Aberdeen, Scotland - Spectrum Contemporary Music Ensemble (dir. John Hudson)