I agree with Dot, the glissandi was the cause of the smudginess. You don't like it, we don't like it, trash it. If you don't like something, don't be afraid to trash it because when you're satisfied with the song, chances are that others are content as well.

In my opinion, the best version of this song was the first time you posted it. What happened to all those beautiful ideas you had going on?

EDIT: *claims post 500* XD

In response to <b>V</b>, oh I see. The only glissandi that really worked were the harp gliss. and the Vln. 1 glissandi at measure 5. My main concern is what you're gonna do after this because you've settled it down after that energetic introduction. Now what? Will you continue with the mellow part or bring it up again? If you bring it up, I suggest you keep that energy level consistent throughout and save this kind of transition in the middle of an A-B-A form with A being the energetic part and B being the mellow part or something like that. It would kinda be out of character if you continue with the mellow part with this being the very beginning. It is a very beautiful part for the strings, and I suggest you hold the second to the last chord for a while longer to lengthen the anticipation and transition into harp or mallet arpeggios or whatever you want for B.

EDIT 2: What is the point of the second "cluster" in the first beat of measure 7 in Vln. I? It'd be easier to play (I think), and the small pause (discounting the resonance) might help to build; maybe even make the strings start playing on beat 3 to make the pause longer.

^I'm fixing it one part at a time. The form didn't flow well in the last version.

EDIT 2: What is the point of the second "cluster" in the first beat of measure 7 in Vln. I? It'd be easier to play (I think), and the small pause (discounting the resonance) might help to build; maybe even make the strings start playing on beat 3 to make the pause longer.

Do you mean the 4-noted eighth note chord at the first beat? It is divided into 2 parts (note the 2 lines next to it). It is to give the crescendo some effect.

An update coming up after this post.. (when I get my braces on x_x)


My main concern is what you're gonna do after this because you've settled it down after that energetic introduction. Now what? Will you continue with the mellow part or bring it up again? If you bring it up, I suggest you keep that energy level consistent throughout and save this kind of transition in the middle of an A-B-A form with A being the energetic part and B being the mellow part or something like that. It would kinda be out of character if you continue with the mellow part with this being the very beginning. It is a very beautiful part for the strings, and I suggest you hold the second to the last chord for a while longer to lengthen the anticipation and transition into harp or mallet arpeggios or whatever you want for B.

I can't treat this as the intro, for some reason... the mood changes way too fast :\. For some reason, this song sounds suitable for being split into movements to me, this being the 3rd/last movement.

Yeah, that's what I meant, you can't treat this as the intro, it has to be a transition.

No I meant the Bb and the F, the one before the tremolo (right under "div."). It might be hard to switch that fast and the added silence would build more tension, so why put it there?

Yeah, that's what I meant, you can't treat this as the intro, it has to be a transition.

No I meant the Bb and the F, the one before the tremolo (right under "div."). It might be hard to switch that fast and the added silence would build more tension, so why put it there?

Most of the time, I usually think of it as awkward to put a silence before tremolos :\, but this time, it can be an exception :heh: .

I just realized something: I am not hearing this piece the same way everyone else is, because I was using headphones, so I didn't hear the glissandi as much. :\

Update....

At the 9/8 part, I plan to come up with a new theme... sometime :unsure:. For some reason, the harp's note at meas. 5 sounds ff when it's supposed to be pp . Finale Playback -_-...

*gets working on band piece*

Themes are getting so hard to make x_x.

EDIT: A theme I made in 5 minutes.... The only thing is, it sounds like a waltz x_x.

It is so beautiful! It almost sound like it could be a Christmas song. I think that the left hand of the piano needs more work and maybe a little faster in some parts :)

PS.
Im talking about the first peice you wrote XD

The smudginess got better, but I think those rolled chords at measure 3 in the harp part also contributes to the smudginess (or it could just be the reverb :P). I'm not sure if I like the staccatos in the Vln. I part, but I think it's just because I grew accustomed to the way it sounded before. The bright piano part at measure 9 sounded out of place after that mysterious string part, and then that bright orchestra hit and then back to those gloomy strings? That didn't make much sense, work on that.

Might as well make it a waltz if it basically is one :P

The bright piano part at measure 9 sounded out of place after that mysterious string part, and then that bright orchestra hit and then back to those gloomy strings? That didn't make much sense, work on that.

It's just the bass notes in there right now :P. More is being added...

Well the jump from measures 8-9 still seems extreme.

Could you please put it in Midi so i can at least download it?

Off orchestration for a while (lack of ideas); working on accidentals. This is the first song where I actually emphasize the use of accidentals, and it actually sounds good :o . Please comment...

I will most likely orchestrate this somehow...

(Sorry for all of the 8va markings :heh: ).

I really like this. :lol: The 8va gives it an eerie, yet peaceful, music box feeling. I agree that you did a good job using accidentals in appropriate places, and they do add a lot to the music. I hope you have some plans to continue it, because I'd certainly like to hear more. :)

Sounds really good :).. The 8va would probably sounds better on depending on what piano you use.

An update on the song on accidentals... not finished yet. + I believe there may be some problems :think:...

I don't know much to think. I'd really have to hear this 'finished' in order to truly comment on this piece. Like, this seems like those 'random' introductions that go nowhere untill just to the point you've stopped. As in, that's when the theme from the 'into' comes in.. usually anyway.

Good luck with it, I enjoyed the ambience.

I semi-enjoyed this piece, i liked the feel of it but some of the dissonances didn't match, it may sound awkward, but i think you need to put even more emphasis on the dissonances. By the way it does sound a bit like a creepy music box

I've had many ideas lately *shock* (and I will post them when I feel like it :P), but for now, I am posting an arrangement/revision/transcription of "Epilogue". I actually found out a way to record stuff from the Finale 2007 demo :0 . I don't think it's a GPO Sample in this one (sounds too fake), though (I found it... somewhere :shifty: ).

All of the tempo expressions are made by me (and I do realize that there is an accelerando that accelerates too much, which I cannot control how much it does :\) and the dynamic markings.

EDIT: About the glissandi; they were in the file I was given, but I wrote 'opt. gliss' anyway.

EDIT2: Listen to the .mp3 :P. It's the best sound quality I can get.

epilogue- this really is a well composed song the chords used make it an enjoyable piece throughout. the ending very little end part sounded a little iffy, but its more i guess a difference of taste. ^_^
Great job.

Clarinetist didn't compose "Epilogue," he arranged it.

....uh oops
sry nice arrangement :sweat:
thanks ajamesu
I feel like such an ass :\

:heh:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I got bored; made an arrangement of "Canon in D" for 3 Clarinets during the 'lesson' I'm supposed to do. And guess who is playing Clarinet I :p; meas. 29 with the high notes in piano is fine for me. Oh, and here's a link I want to share: (Thanks to Elwe).

Comments on Canon In D (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM). <--- Minor warning...

And I know there are some BAD clashes. <_<

I plan to make another arrangement with an easier key -_-.

(And I'm working on the band piece.)

I love that video! We watched that in my theory class.

Haha, Canon in D, it's one of the piece I used to play around with a lot~

I felt that your arrangement lacked coherence here and there (i.e. that second arppegio thing in second bar; it's totally different motion compared to the other stuff). At some part, it seems to be untrue to the real piece (though there are many versions and transcriptions by a lot of other people) but I guess it's not a big deal. Also, slurring the bass notes isn't such a good idea, walking bass parts are best to be tongued. Another criticism is that it sounds more romantic than baroque the way you arranged it (not necessary a bad thing though). One final note: your ending seems rushed.

Haha, Canon in D, it's one of the piece I used to play around with a lot~

I felt that your arrangement lacked coherence here and there (i.e. that second arppegio thing in second bar; it's totally different motion compared to the other stuff). At some part, it seems to be untrue to the real piece (though there are many versions and transcriptions by a lot of other people) but I guess it's not a big deal. Also, slurring the bass notes isn't such a good idea, walking bass parts are best to be tongued. Another criticism is that it sounds more romantic than baroque the way you arranged it (not necessary a bad thing though). One final note: your ending seems rushed.

XD I forgot to add rit. to the ending.

What was the 'original instrumentation' for this piece, anyway? :think: *searches*

If you meld the arpeggios and the bass part into one part, wouldn't it be best to tongue the bass note and the arpeggio separately and not slur them all together? That way they can still be distinguished apart... I dunno, up to you.

XD I forgot to add rit. to the ending.

What was the 'original instrumentation' for this piece, anyway? :think: *searches*

I thought it was for strings, but I could be mistaken.

First of all, I happen to love this song. :P Most of your arrangement was really nice (minus those clashes :P); it's something that I would want to play myself. However, the only negative comment that I'd give is that a lot of it seemed to really drag on - keep in mind, because it's a canon, it's bound to sound similar always, so if you don't add enough variety, they'll sound even more similar, and therefore dull. The middle tended to drag on a bit, and it felt like you were reusing phrases at times.

However, overall, this is very good - maybe if you fix up those few clashes someday, I'll get some friends and try playing it. :lol: Great work!

Now trying to work on band piece~ for now, I'm writing Piano 'sketches' for it. They're obviously not playable (or very hard to play on Piano :heh: ), so don't comment on playability, please -_-. On the last eighth note of measure 8, yes, that's an E flat and E natural in one chord x_x. I've had the habit of writing things down on paper now...

EDITED version of it posted now...

It seemed like you were trying to hard to have strange chords.

It seemed like you were trying to hard to have strange chords.

I agree, it feels that you tried too hard and now it feels a little unnatural for a tonic composition. Like I said before, if you strive for a more classical sound, you should use less accidentals.

*I just want to know about other opinions here:

To (all of) you, what defines a 'band piece'?

Any modulation tips? (Besides switching to the Dominant Key)

Mmm, I agree, use accidentals in moderation for classical pieces. You also kept switching between a natural 7th and a raised 7th, which made it sound a bit strange...

Umm, a piece that uses a concert band? Haha, in my opinion that's it.

You could also raise the chord chromatically and use that as the dominant chord and switch back to the tonic of that key (ex: G=>G#=>A=>D, where G is the dominant), or step the chord down diatonically (ex: C=>Bb), but raising it up is more suitable for energetic climaxes (ex: C=>D or C=>C#). You could also try stepping it down two steps (ex: C=>Ab) or stepping it up three steps (ex: C=>F#). These were learned from experimenting, so it's best if you just experiment and play around with chords until you find a good one =)

Sorry; I'll be more specific.

What elements do you believe should be in every band piece? (Mood of it, form, etc...)

To (all of) you, what defines a 'band piece'?



Heavy use on brass, loud percussions, shrill woodwinds, and boring marches.

~~~
No. Those characteristics above are not true about band music. Band music is as diverse as orchestral music, it just utilizes a different kind of ensemble. :mellow: So in the end, you can't 'define' a band piece.

I was intending to make this band idea 10 beats slower (at dotted quarter note = 45), but it sounded too slow for a band piece (which is why I asked that previous question) :/ . Harmony needs work, and the counterpoint, too (not to mention percussion x_x).

I agree. The harmony is definitely the weak point of the piece so far. Harmonizing melodies in minor isn't so easy, eh?

Yes. Most definitely the harmony needs work. It sounds quite dissonant to me.

Piano sketch for the band piece. Comments are appreciated :). I'm just trying to make a phrase for the development now, and let me know what you think of the harmony. -_- Measure 7 and up do not have bass lines yet...

The harmony is still, if I may say so, very weak, in my opinion. It doesn't fit with your desired melody or the mood. To improve, a good way would be to use a simpler key (A minor works fine) to sort out your progression first, then put your finished product into your desired key. That G natural somewhere near the end seems unfitting too. Also, remember: originality is good, but you're starting to distort the idea with trying to be original.

To improve, a good way would be to use a simpler key (A minor works fine) to sort out your progression first, then put your finished product into your desired key. That G natural somewhere near the end seems unfitting too. Also, remember: originality is good, but you're starting to distort the idea with trying to be original.

x_x I should have thought of that. Back to the drawing board.... :heh:

What's the point in using the pedal tool if you only use the lift tool like 10% of the time?

I don't use Finale. (Printmusic). If I did, I would at least use that pedal smart shape tool (the red one), but if I use the articulation one, it doesn't get too specific. <_<

I don't even know how to use the other one.

If you want to know how:

Click the Smart Shape Tool. Click the tool that has a question mark with a line under it ( ? ).

On the "bar" on the top (next to "Window"), click "SmartShape", then "Smart Shape Options". Change some stuff on it to make it look like this:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j266/Bbclarinetist/SmartShapeOptions.jpg

Click "OK", then make sure you are still on the tool with the question mark with a line with it. Double-click for the beginning point, and drag it to the ending point.

The only reason why I really dislike using the articulation tool is because it doesn't let you use pedal markings between notes (concerning playback, not notation). For example:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j266/Bbclarinetist/1.jpg

If I want the pedal to be lifted between the F and G, I just use the smart shape one; if I just drag the articulation there, it won't play back. If I use the articulation tool, it will lift it as soon as the F is played, which is not the effect wanted.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j266/Bbclarinetist/2.jpg

Then drag it down.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j266/Bbclarinetist/3.jpg

So, it is mainly for playback reasons.

Sweet! I always wondered if that was possible! That makes it play back right, then?

Sweet! I always wondered if that was possible! That makes it play back right, then?

Yes. :)

Another attempt on harmonies. Still, more work needs to be done... Flutes are in mf for playback purposes.

EDIT: The C in measure 4 (Flutes, excluding pickup measure) is an error...

EDIT2: Note that there isn't a tuba or an oboe.

(I have got to get off dotted quarter notes x_x).

An attempt to orchestrate this (not for band). I hear some problems in the orchestration, but I can't figure out what. :heh: Still doing some studies on counterpoint... it's just simple arpeggios for now.

I think m. 3 sounds terrible, and in m. 4, when it resolves, imo it doesn't stay resolved for long enough. Also, I think you are going about the harp part the wrong way...

When deathraider said that the harp was used wrongly, he's right. Here are some flaws that you made in your excerpt:

1.) the flute is like playing in a range over the moon while all other instruments are crammed into the same register, which is not really good unless it's a special effect (which in this case is not, you just want to present the melody through the flute).
2.) glockenspiel to present the melody?! Nope, won't work.
3.) they're all either piano in dynamic or softer, make up your mind, if you want a melody to be prominent, make it at least mf
4.) unnecessary bass clarinet part; even though they're chord tones, they seem to be there out of no reason.
5.) clarinet playing all the countermelodies while oboe does pedal tones; nope, not working here, the other way around works better, oboe has too much of a melody quality than to provide harmony alone (though it could, with like trumpets or something)
6.) the counterpoint, harmony and melody lacks balance.
7.) harp to present melody?! No, a definite no, unless your accompaniment is lighter than a feather.
8.) because your counterpoint and orchestration are messy, it's really interfering with the feel and the harmony of the piece.

Thanks for the comments (and, no, harp doesn't have the melody; it's glockenspiel + Flute).

I think I should get off composing a bit for now. -_- Theory is getting all over my head.

Back from my "break" (2 days XD ). An idea that has sort of stayed with me for a while, so I just put it into sheet music...

MIDI is very annoying, so after the gong plays, it's blank space. <_< Piano is with the bass instruments, just because I couldn't think of anything to go with bass drum, other than timpani. The intro is pretty bad, but it's just what was in my mind at the time. :sweat:

I don't love the fact that the piano doubles the percussion, and I don't love the fermatas, either. The last chord of your intro seemed really dissonant, and I didn't feel like that furthered the effect you were looking for.

Now that I look at it, the fermatas were pretty bad. <_< *starts revising*

I agree with deathraider, yucky dissonances for your melody. Your opening crescendo wannabe motif was also rather... poorly executed, sorry to say. It wasn't a crescendo at all, it was rather whispery, whispery, whispery, POW, POW POW BAM!!!! Not really a crescendo. Low percussions against low piano is also rather muddled. The timpani was used too loudly in the beginning, too.

Thank you for the criticism. I do realize the crescendo wasn't well executed.

Canon in D- 3 clarinets again...

Some of the clashes are fixed, but note that I only did this in 6 minutes :heh: .

This is all I'm going to reveal for now of my composition contest entry. 7 measures. Note that the strings will not start that loud, so the harp will be heard (somewhat). The ppp in the clarinet part is possible (but I plan to switch it to Bb Clarinet).

What I'm concerned about:

- The "low" doubling at the first 2 measures; will it sound awkward in performance? :think:

EDIT: Ignore the Viola part; I noticed it's in Treble clef :heh: .

Ouch, measure 5, that chord, not good. Also, that A flat for your tubular bells are unplayable. The range for tubular bells is middle C to the G above the staff. I didn't like the idea of tubular bells there too. It's too grotesque for the serious atmosphere you're setting up. And ouch, A flat minor, Mr. Berlioz and Strauss said this key was 'impraticable' for strings, so guess what? The dynamic levels for the woodwinds are too weird, ppp to f? It's too extreme. They don't really blend either, in my opinion. And all those slurs in the last two bars on strings are impossible too.

Ouch, measure 5, that chord, not good. Also, that A flat for your tubular bells are unplayable. The range for tubular bells is middle C to the G above the staff. I didn't like the idea of tubular bells there too. It's too grotesque for the serious atmosphere you're setting up. And ouch, A flat minor, Mr. Berlioz and Strauss said this key was 'impraticable' for strings, so guess what? The dynamic levels for the woodwinds are too weird, ppp to f? It's too extreme. They don't really blend either, in my opinion. And all those slurs in the last two bars on strings are impossible too.

I placed flute in f, mainly concerning the "light" quality; basically, to avoid it from being overpowered (which I guess, isn't much of a concern if it's in mp?). I should probably change it to G# Minor (I thought about it too; strings hate flat keys). @_@

Thanks for the comments :).

EDIT: x_x That chord. The oboe is creating clashes of notes.

That was a pretty solid start, I like it a lot! I won't comment anymore now, I'll save my written reviews to the voting session =)

I know with the woodwinds in this intro I created have some BAD open spaces, between the oboe and the flute (the flute had to go an octave higher to prevent it from being overpowered). And the clarinets and oboes are squished together. Just let me know about everything else; I'm more concerned about harmony. The fragment above will be in this song, but at a later time.

Now... to create a harp part for this short intro.

EDIT: Ignore the weird slur in the viola part; measure 1 to 2.

=o I'd really like to comment, but it's a little too short for me to really do that. Sounds nice so far!

The harmony is fine with this one. Though, you could've added more whispering-like tremoli for all those strings holding dotted whole notes. At bar four, the oboe parts are quite weak, due to its register.

I am really considering taking off the part from measure 6 to the end of this excerpt out. Comments please. :)

(The part where the clarinets come in seems so boring. -_- )

The chord progression in Oboe 2 in bar 4 sounds weird. The transition from bar 6 to 7 is a little too abrupt. Maybe you can add some passing notes in bar 6. I only heard the last excerpt so I don't really know how it fits. :)

I know that transition is bad. ._. (Composer's block)

I tried to put the 2nd Oboe a fifth lower to try to play ear tricks, which I guess didn't work. (*moves it back to a 3rd*)

EDIT: The past excerpt that I posted 2 posts ago revised...

Bar 5 and 6's chords are still... quite horrible. You should really consider not using any accidentals for most times. And oboes are kind of weak in piano in that register.

My main concern now:

-Even though this is a suite (form with a group of pieces), although this is an intro, I feel like the mood just changed too fast. Let me know what you think.

EDIT: The last chord is incomplete as of now.

EDIT2: French horn should be in Treble clef, not bass clef. :heh:

EDIT3: Dynamics are weird, I know. But the low strings will start soft at the fermata, as the percussion is, and crescendo.

Yes, the change is too sudden, and your last chord doesn't really make sense. Also, don't you think the flutes will be too shrill in that register?

Yes, but I can't think of any other ways, other than octave/unison doubling, that will prevent it from being overpowered, and doubling with other instruments wouldn't be great in this case. :\

EDIT: Now that I think about it, the intro implies that the song is in a major key, when that chord was a minor chord.

Then just put the flute an octave below and make the other instruments softer. All the instruments are playing in their comfortable positions, thus their dynamics can be controlled.

I know that the flute at some point is an octave lower than the first oboe, but I don't think there's a better way to handle it.

It's just 17 measures for now. I am, noticeably, bad at introductions and themes. :heh: I just have to 'make' a theme out of the intro somehow, which I plan to soon... -_-

EDIT: I noticed an error; the flute should be written in mf, rather than f.

After the fifth or sixth measure, the harmonization felt rather empty. You can do more on that.

Wait, Clarinetist is chinese? I never knew :O

The orchestration you put out is great as usual, but there were these silent breaks that felt kind of "what happened...?" and then the piece goes on. Perhaps it's hard to create realistic breaks with Finale, but still, it's something to take into consideration.

Wait, Clarinetist is chinese? I never knew :O

The orchestration you put out is great as usual, but there were these silent breaks that felt kind of "what happened...?" and then the piece goes on. Perhaps it's hard to create realistic breaks with Finale, but still, it's something to take into consideration.

I'm not Chinese :heh: . (Hmong)

Yes, I notice that; just a bad case of writers block. -_- After that held chord, my first instinct was to insert some long tones.

This time, I used the long tones as an accompaniment. But I know this piece doesn't seem to go anywhere right now, and there's some messy chords, but all I can say now is that the clash of notes at measure 19 was done on purpose. There's some messy tremoli here and there, and it will be fixed... hopefully. :\ The last measure in this excerpt is where the flute tries to bring the main theme in. -_-

I still think it has some awkward pauses here and there, and they seem to come out of nowhere.

Indeed, some pauses were undoubtedly unnecessary. Also, I just realized, in the beginning, the viola triplets, are also unnecessary. You made the dynamic almost inaudible, and if it's inaudible, what's the point of it? It also came back in bar 3. At bar 7, having oboe holding the pedal tones does not seem like a good idea, as it somewhat corrupts the feel after the pause. At bar 8, the flutes were enclosed by the oboes at the same dynamic, again, not a good move. Furthermore, having second violin shaking (tremolo-ing) at such a low register in the opening without a sordino (or mute) will create a very harsh sound. Again, bar 17, the triplets are just there serving no musical purpose for its unheard. Later on, that glockenspiel and harp doubling feels out of place. Perhaps it was the melody, but either ways, both the melody and the actual orchestration is not working.

After figuring out why I have composer's block, it has made it easier for me to create themes. This theme here has accidentals, which I didn't intentionally plan, but it's what I could think of in a few minutes :heh: .

My current concerns:

- The low strings get tiring after a while.
- The Flute is about 1 to 2 octaves above the clarinets, but if I put it an octave lower, it will be lower than a/the clarinet(s). ._.
- Pizz. was used too early and it sounds so loud.
- "Clashes" of notes, but for some reason, I feel like I did those purposely. :think:

So, I do understand that I used many accidentals, but it's all I can think of now.

It's not the pizzicato that sounds too loud, it's your harp. Putting your flutes close or even below your clarinet is okay as long as your clarinets can control their dynamics in their playing register.

The orchestration of this fragment isn't bad, however, your harmony and melodies are weird, which leads to the fact that it wasn't really effective. The accidentals was as if you were making it play in a certain key, hence the fact that it's not atonal.

Just to confirm what's going on:

Compositional-wise, I am currently making themes and seeing how they can be orchestrated. Unfortunately, I doubt that I will enter the composition contest. ._.

I am starting to notice patterns in themes, for example, some of the best compositions that I have seen have a theme that first implies that it is major, then it ends in minor.

I have studied the atonality style, but I have decided, still, not to compose in that style yet, for I am too used to having a theme end in the key's note. I now notice that it's done logically, but still, complex to me.

Just confirming what's going on with me... due to boredom. >.<

I'm trying to come up with a good intro for a previous idea I had. Themes are made already, harmonies still need to be worked on, and the form on this isn't good at all... for now. x_x I do know that in some part of this sketch, the 2nd Flute, 2nd Oboe, and 1st Clarinet are all on a D (meas. 12). -_- But, the good news is, I'm finally out of my year long writer's block! ^.^ (The thing is, I have posted stuff in the past year, but I am actually receiving ideas, for once... -_-)

Maybe some tremolo in the strings would sound nice because it sounds a little too open in my opinion. You also said that you didn't work all the harmonies out so, yeah. :lol:


Sounds good. ^_^

Indeed, harmony is still... not good. You keep trying to make it sound different from what average audience would appreciate, however, you're twisting it to the point that the audience may turn away from this piece. A suggestion would be to stop using more complex key signatures and start to create simpler progressions with simpler keys.

~~~

That chord at bar 11 sounds very mushed and unwelcoming, and it's due to your orchestration. Because you're trying to make a rather mysterious sound, you should spread the chord out as much as possible; mushing them all together isn't effective at all. I also realized that when you wrote 'Horn 1/2' in the beginning of the system, it should've been 'Horn 1.2.' or 'Horn 1 and 2' rather than what you wrote. Also, your timpani/harp thing felt too unfitting. It didn't flow from the horns' sustained chord. I was also reminded of my own symphony when you had those harp arppegios playing with the timpani's rhythm... Which isn't quite a big deal, but yeah. Tremolo markings are supposed to be ABOVE the note, not under. If you want arppegiated chords to be rolled the other way with the harps, you need arrow heads, it's easier than typing it out. At bar 23, that rolled chord has some serious harmony issue that distorts the feel of the piece. At bar 24, that crescendo was over exaggerated, instead of forte, it should be just mezzo-piano.

That chord at bar 11 sounds very mushed and unwelcoming, and it's due to your orchestration. Because you're trying to make a rather mysterious sound, you should spread the chord out as much as possible; mushing them all together isn't effective at all. I also realized that when you wrote 'Horn 1/2' in the beginning of the system, it should've been 'Horn 1.2.' or 'Horn 1 and 2' rather than what you wrote. Also, your timpani/harp thing felt too unfitting. It didn't flow from the horns' sustained chord. I was also reminded of my own symphony when you had those harp arppegios playing with the timpani's rhythm... Which isn't quite a big deal, but yeah. Tremolo markings are supposed to be ABOVE the note, not under. If you want arppegiated chords to be rolled the other way with the harps, you need arrow heads, it's easier than typing it out. At bar 23, that rolled chord has some serious harmony issue that distorts the feel of the piece. At bar 24, that crescendo was over exaggerated, instead of forte, it should be just mezzo-piano.

:heh: I didn't know how to notate the reversed rolls. Meas. 23 was an accident that is fixed now.

Thanks for the comments. :)

Apparently, I got an idea for a concerto yesterday. @_@ I wrote it out note-by-note (melody only), but the harmonies still need to be worked on. I know that the intro is bad after 11. x_x It's just strings in the intro for now... woodwinds later...

Too Mozartian. I feel that the progression is pretty much ripped off of Mozart's concerti. Furthermore, instead of having the first violin presenting the melody in the entire introduction, you could've done much much more creative things to it. Some of the double stops on the violin is too fast to be possible. The quarter notes of the lower strings (meaning all but the first violins) at bar 14 and 16 should be eighth notes instead. Triple stop at bar 8 of second violin is impossible. Same with the first violin double stops at bar 12 and 14. You really need to memorize the open strings of the string instruments in order to know which stops are possible. If you want them to play divisi, you must label it on every single double stop, since all the stops are seperated by unison parts. At bar 22, when the cello has the pick-up, the bass should too.

Too Mozartian. I feel that the progression is pretty much ripped off of Mozart's concerti. Furthermore, instead of having the first violin presenting the melody in the entire introduction, you could've done much much more creative things to it. Some of the double stops on the violin is too fast to be possible. The quarter notes of the lower strings (meaning all but the first violins) at bar 14 and 16 should be eighth notes instead. Triple stop at bar 8 of second violin is impossible. Same with the first violin double stops at bar 12 and 14. You really need to memorize the open strings of the string instruments in order to know which stops are possible. If you want them to play divisi, you must label it on every single double stop, since all the stops are seperated by unison parts. At bar 22, when the cello has the pick-up, the bass should too.

Thanks for the comments, and apparently, I haven't heard/studied any other concerti other than Mozart's (a few exceptions, but basically Mozart. :heh:). :think:

When you study for harmony, don't just look at one composer's style. You should play different progressions on a keyboard to figure out what you like.

are you still doing requests clar

I doubt that I will continue with this (basically, due to meas. 8 and up)... until I actually get some good ideas that can complement this excerpt. (Note: This is not the intro)... Dynamics were really exaggerated, I know. xp I'm just working on an orchestral piece (different one) that I will hopefully right out for band later... Comments please. :)

That sounded pretty good.

After seeing a bunch of your works...Do you play clarinet in A or in Bb?

Clarinet in Bb, but clarinet in A is very close; about 85% of the fingerings are the same, and same mouthpiece.

Second bar: why mezzopiano on the flute (and so high) when you can assign the part to the piccolo which can handle the passage in mp with ease?
Oboe on that G at pp isn't a good choice either. At bar 6, I'm quite confused; you asked some of them to do tremolo, and then you asked for triplets and then you asked for sixteenth notes, which texture do you want to show, really? Also, specify your trills in string. It's unclear of what you want.

Musically speaking, I'm confused. What are you striving for? You want to lean on the tonal side but yet you do atonal things that doesn't correspond to the Rimsky-Korsakov-esque motifs.

Second bar: why mezzopiano on the flute (and so high) when you can assign the part to the piccolo which can handle the passage in mp with ease?
Oboe on that G at pp isn't a good choice either. At bar 6, I'm quite confused; you asked some of them to do tremolo, and then you asked for triplets and then you asked for sixteenth notes, which texture do you want to show, really? Also, specify your trills in string. It's unclear of what you want.

Musically speaking, I'm confused. What are you striving for? You want to lean on the tonal side but yet you do atonal things that doesn't correspond to the Rimsky-Korsakov-esque motifs.

@_@ Error on the oboe part. I, to be honest, am also confused after 8; there's not a specific melody, which really set me out, which is a reason that I'm not continuing this...

And, thanks for the comment.

I still think it sounded fine.

Do many orchestras have Clarinets in A? I know the standard is Bb for Concert Band.

The standard, to my knowledge, in an orchestra, is for a clarinetist is to have a Clarinet in A and Bb. ;)

Oh. Well, I've never seen any concert band music with a Clarinet in A. But of course, it may very well be different for an Orchestra.

Just to confirm my status on composing:

Ever since I've heard Ravel's "Alboraza del Grazioso" (or something like that), I have started using dissonances a lot more. Not to the point where everything is dissonated, but logically. o_o In terms of where I am with orchestration study, I am starting to make it more "free", if you get what I mean. Yes, I've started to break some of the "rules" that I used to follow (but of course, there's limits on what you can break), and I've focused more on orchestrating ideas.

In terms of composing, I've never wanted to be too Romantic era-ish, nor did (or do I) want to be too 20th-century-ish. It's really confusing to understand, but that's the only way I can explain it. :think: It's how my style is starting to turn out (at least, to me). In time, I'll figure it out...

-Clarinetist

If you consider yourself searching, don't consider what is thought of to be a base. (Romantic, Classical, 20th Century, Impressionest)

Ok. So I'm about halfway done with what I thought I wouldn't go on with (Orch. 3- file above). And this comes to me (see attachment).

I've already put this somewhere in "Orch. 3", but there's a slight problem. I put the 2nd measure in 8/8, as you notice, and a friend of mine said to "put it in a slow 4/4." What do all of you think?

*NOTE: After the cresc., it will not be "f" marked, it will be "sFz", which will not playback in Printmusic/Notepad/Allegro.

*EDIT: The rolls will also be taken out; I found out today that they're unplayable.

*EDIT2: And everything's supposed to be pizzicato. I don't know why it didn't show up on the Violins. @_@

First of all, why did you put B major for only merely one bar? Use accidentals instead, it's annoying reading an absolute key change. 4/4 is fine, 8/8 isn't necessary. The harmonies are... Rather illogical. Yes, atonal is fine, but do it with form, craft it carefully. Do not use your instinct. Modern music does not equal random. Those pizzicato are also extremely hard to execute, not to mention it will sound poor as well. Modern music takes a lot more thoughts than you think it does.

First of all, why did you put B major for only merely one bar? Use accidentals instead, it's annoying reading an absolute key change. 4/4 is fine, 8/8 isn't necessary. The harmonies are... Rather illogical. Yes, atonal is fine, but do it with form, craft it carefully. Do not use your instinct. Modern music does not equal random. Those pizzicato are also extremely hard to execute, not to mention it will sound poor as well. Modern music takes a lot more thoughts than you think it does.

As I stated above: it is an excerpt. Not the intro. It's like a quarter-ways down the piece. They are not double stops- a "div." apparently won't show up. ._.;

Well, asides from those issues. From what I observed that so far, you haven't really composed a complete piece. I think I would suggest you to write out actual plans of what you want to compose instead of just merely doing it.

EDIT: Ignore this post... :heh:

o_o

For those of you who did not read my post (previous one in this thread) before I edited it:

I am working on a suite. There will be 13 themes in it, 8 of which I have posted here. It will consist of 3-4 movements (looking more toward 3). Some of the themes will be ones that I made 1-2 years ago (in other words, I will be putting in themes I made when I first started this thread, and even when I first started composing). During the suite itself, you will notice that the themes are arranged (somewhat) in chronological order (of the time of being composed), but some of my more recent ones will appear at the beginning. All movements will all have their own title, but it will not be as obvious (I won't be using tempo markings/expression markings for the titles). The title of the suite itself will not be revealed, for my personal reasons (no, it's not because of copyright reasons). :heh:

When the theme is played outside where I want it most prominent, it will not be harmonized the same way you first heard it. Where it is most prominent, it will be harmonized quite the same, but just orchestrated.

I will not state my reasons for doing this, nor will I explain the meaning of the titles of the movements. One can only guess the meanings. :P

I strongly believe, though, that I'm going to make a great composition out of this (not to mention, complete). :P

------------------------

Enough of me explaining :heh:, here's the intro of the first movement: "Sufr."

Note that I do know that:

1. The low register of the flute is used a lot.
2. Accidentals appear a lot.
3. The clarinet is lower than the bassoon at 5.
4. The oboe playing the theme at meas. 4 and 5 is weird.

-- Sorry for the bad quality, it's all I can get right now. :heh:

--------

Not much right now, but I'm working on it. Everything is made, it's just "pasting" them together.

I think you listened to those Rimsky-Korsakov excerpts too much; there are many parts that sound too much and almost identical like those excerpts (i.e. the horn thing in the middle, and the flute thing near the end). When Noir said that too much 'studying' killed some of your creativity, I start to believe it. Don't be another Rimsky, we had one already, and that's enough for another long while!

However, on the technical side:

1.) Ugh, why did you voice the flutes so closely together in such a low register? You should know that if you do that, it's really hard to stay in tune.

2.) Yes, the oboe entrance is very awkward. You know why? You have a minor ninth interval. It's my favourite interval after major seventh, but the way you incorporated it killed it. Third flute can't balance with an oboe in that interval in that register.

3.) Put your breath marks BEFORE the next note, not in the middle of it. It's very misleading.

4.) Bar 6, there's an articulation incoherence. The oboe tongues the staccato while the clarinets slurs into it. What do you want?

5.) Same bar, you have bass clari and flute in octaves, which isn't too bad, but the flute is in its lower register, so it's kind of pointless for bass clari trying to play softer in its effective register.

6.) 6/4 bar, I don't find the piccolo necessary; your glocks can cut through that texture with some medium rubber mallets.

7.) Throughout: Again, why are you placing the horns so closely together? It's just muddled and uneffective, and accopaniments are generally more effective if it's spaced out further apart.

8.) 4/4 bar, clarinet and flute in octave is fine, but why are their dynamics so different?

Okay, my final criticism is that the score you have is not too clear. You didn't tell the performer the style it needs to be performed (you have a metronome mark, but where is your tempo marking?). The 6/4 bar seems more appropriate as a 3/2 since 6/4's accents are on 1st quarter and 4th quarter note but your fourth beat seems to be on the weak side. Therefore, 3/2 is more appropriate. Also, when you notate, don't suddenly go from sharps to flats or flats to sharps. It's annoying to read. Think of it this way: your performers never practise, so your music must be as easy to read as possible. Lastly, you didn't specify your ensemble. You have three flutes, but then how many oboes do you have? You should know how many of each instrument an orchestra has.

Well, I just didn't like the way this sounded. It sounds very dissonant, to a point where it is, well, not very good. But I basically agree with Dot. And I don't think using the brass in that segment was a good Idea at all. The flute thing at the end, it might have been better to make that last note just for the Piccolo, or just for the Flute, not starting with the flute, then to the Picc.

I would work on this intro a bit before moving on

You seem to accept criticism quite maturely, but I'll ask you this, what in this piece makes it great?

You seem to accept criticism quite maturely, but I'll ask you this, what in this piece makes it great?

It'll be my first completed piece, and there's a "linking" of themes in this piece which is usually hard for me to do, I have to admit. There's more; I just can't explain it at the moment. I'm sort of treating this piece as a last step for me to get out of what has been happening to me for the past two years. [/offtopic] :\

@Etaroko: Yes, I'm bad at intros. xp

Wish you the best completing your piece! Do a good job and do the best of you! n_n

If you wish to make a remarkable intro, think of it this way:

When you write an opinion essay, you start with a thesis. In another words you state your point. But so far, what you've done, you're kind of... Being a little too vague about it. By that, it doesn't always have to be tuttis and loud. It needs something strong and something that'll stick in your head. Give your intro more power, make your audience interested, don't make them fall asleep in the first three bars.

Just remember, what makes your piece so great is that it is finished, not that it's going to be. I've said that quite a lot.

Just something to keep in mind. :)

It'll be my first completed piece, and there's a "linking" of themes in this piece which is usually hard for me to do, I have to admit. There's more; I just can't explain it at the moment.
I meant, why will listeners love to listen to this piece upon completion?

I meant, why will listeners love to listen to this piece upon completion?

The climaxes that I have planned...

But I have to admit; musically, I'm not doing so well. :\ Can't deny it.

I guess an advice I could give you is that you shouldn't use too much materials (what you call 'themes'). Sometimes one melody and a lot of variations are much more effective than a lot of melodies that never repeat. Too much stuff for the audience to perceive is tedious and they would eventually turn away.

I guess an advice I could give you is that you shouldn't use too much materials (what you call 'themes'). Sometimes one melody and a lot of variations are much more effective than a lot of melodies that never repeat. Too much stuff for the audience to perceive is tedious and they would eventually turn away.

Of course, I doubt I will be able to fit all 13 of the themes in. But, I do know what is wrong with me, how to fix it, but it's one of those things I cannot do right away, and it has "killed" the way I compose for a very long time now. I won't explain it here; it's not here. It's somewhere else, hidden inside this forum.

Well, a good way to sharpen your compositions skill (something I like doing as well) is taking a step back and try to imitatve your earlier style. Sometimes writing more primitive things are helpful, furthermore, I can almost guarantee you that you'll find something new (it can be as small as just finding a new chord you'd like to something useful like a motif that you love) in your old ways that you never discovered.

Something I've been working on for the past week or so...

----

Just to note a few things:

*I know that the last part of this .mp3 doesn't sound too great... right now, I'm just trying to figure out how to continue this. :heh:
*I have only attached the piano part for now, for concerns of playability (which I doubt it is playable) and notation (I think some of the cross-staffing is not necessary (can't tell where), and I don't know if 3 staves should be used).
*Sometimes the piano is too loud, sometimes the orchestra is too soft, and vice versa. -_-

The opening was quite good actually. However, what distorted the dissonance toward the end of the clip; once you established a tonal centre, don't immediately take it away, or it's just gonna end up sounding like a wrong note.

Well, I guess that leaves it up to me to say that that is, indeed, playable. I don't know why you wouldn't think it is. Also, you do not need three-staves there; the left hand is just doing a simple arpeggio, and you don't need to cross-stave in the first something measures, it's just a scale. You should really look into some piano music before taking the task to write a piece for the piano; let alone a concerto.

Never underestimate a pianist. ;)

Then again, it's a finger twister as the arpeggios interfere with the melody line. :mellow: But this could possibly be fixed with much better and clearer notations. Also, putting those arpeggios down an octave or two would definitely help. Being blunt about what Mazeppa suggested, you gotta know about the instrument you're writing for in order to write for it.

Edit: Oh, and since your melody notes are sometimes the same as the accompaniment... You're gonna have some nota mutas. Well, in another words, your accompaniment is gonna choke and disappear at those points where the accompaniment note and the melody notes are the same.

If you're just going to take the arpeggio pattern down, don't do it more than an octave. If you go too low the piano will make the entire piece change its color to something very heavy and, almost, dragging it--unless you're going for something like that. If you want to consult me on anything related to the piano, your perfectly welcome to ask me. And if you're worried about something being too hard, or too easy, etc. just look/listen to some Rachmaninoff; that'l give you the idea of "how hard" you can write for the piano; also, check out the last two movements of Ravel's Trio--it's been told that it's the hardest piece for the piano (as far as people agree, the hardest of chamber music). Like I said, never underestimate a pianist, that's why I--completely--detest the sounds made on Finale/Sibelious, because the piano is so much more of a virtuostic instrument that any other instrument even thought of. You may also want to chat with Thorn about stuff too, him also being one of the pianists here. =)

Good luck, but remember that the Piano Concerto was "dominated" by Rachmaninoff, especially; check him out sometime.

If you're just going to take the arpeggio pattern down, don't do it more than an octave. If you go too low the piano will make the entire piece change its color to something very heavy and, almost, dragging it--unless you're going for something like that.

Since at certain points the arpeggios went beyond the top of the treble staff, it wouldn't be heavy even if you put it two octaves down.

Well, I guess that leaves it up to me to say that that is, indeed, playable. I don't know why you wouldn't think it is.

Mainly, the concern is the 3-octave arpeggios with the melody line. I thought it wouldn't be possible to hit 3-octave arpeggios on one hand... at this speed, especially, so I thought that I would have to cross-stave it, and as Sir_Dotdotdot mentioned, it's a "finger twister". Same with the scale. :heh:


If you're just going to take the arpeggio pattern down, don't do it more than an octave. If you go too low the piano will make the entire piece change its color to something very heavy and, almost, dragging it--unless you're going for something like that. If you want to consult me on anything related to the piano, your perfectly welcome to ask me. And if you're worried about something being too hard, or too easy, etc. just look/listen to some Rachmaninoff; that'l give you the idea of "how hard" you can write for the piano; also, check out the last two movements of Ravel's Trio--it's been told that it's the hardest piece for the piano (as far as people agree, the hardest of chamber music). Like I said, never underestimate a pianist, that's why I--completely--detest the sounds made on Finale/Sibelious, because the piano is so much more of a virtuostic instrument that any other instrument even thought of. You may also want to chat with Thorn about stuff too, him also being one of the pianists here. =)



Good luck, but remember that the Piano Concerto was "dominated" by Rachmaninoff, especially; check him out sometime.

I haven't heard much of Rachmaninoff's concertos, other than his 3rd Piano Concerto. But yeah, I'll start listening to more of his stuff... and I'll ask for help when needed. ^_^ Thanks for the help!

It might also help to look at the score. Rachmaninoff has a lot more going on in the piece than you always hear, because the pianist knows how to play it. And the arpeggio isn't really anything scarry, it's just the chord. It isn't like your playing a Chopin or Liszt pattern, where it's basically "random" notes. People do what you've written as warm-ups. :\

*UPDATE:

Just letting everyone know that I haven't stopped composing. Right now, I'm just working on a three-movement piece for band (no, it's not that one example that I posted much earlier) and trying to get some theory in; I plan to take a theory class in the near future (or just put one of someone's tunes into a piano reduction and see what I can learn from that). I'm also messing with how dissonance is used and applying my own stylistic elements to anything that I compose (for once). x_x

In the past month or so, I've finally learned something: the songs I posted here were just based on theory; I didn't put the "feeling" in it, nor did I "put myself" in it. As much as I regret this, I couldn't do anything about it (even when I tried to), because I was in a mess that affected me for three years which lowered my ability to do anything, really. A month ago, I got myself out of the mess, and am finally able to find my inner potential in anything I do now, and I feel grateful for who helped me get out of that...

However, I doubt that I will be posting any more compositions in the near future, due to lack of time; basically caused by schoolwork.

I've learned a lot from joining this forum, and will still be around... Thanks everyone! :)

xD Since I'm finally getting some more time, I'm posting an Experiment... (Sorry; recording quality isn't the best, and this is not finished... This is the first version of it.)

EDIT: Actually... as soon as I can, I will post up the updated version first. :heh: Too bad Finale can't make .mp3 files with Garritan sounds. :/

EDIT2: Or I'll stay with it... for now. xp

I like it so far, the sense that Emanated to me.

Those 2 first chord it left me thinking of something romantic but after the second it take another path.

I like it so far, the sense that Emanated to me.

Those 2 first chord it left me thinking of something romantic but after the second it take another path.

I never intended for it to be like that, but looking at the story I based this off of, it makes sense. :lol:

Too bad Finale can't make .mp3 files with Garritan sounds. :/

It can make a .wav file, which is really easy to convert to .mp3 if you have itunes.

It can make a .wav file, which is really easy to convert to .mp3 if you have itunes.

Thank you; one of my friends has been trying to get me to download that program, and I guess now I have some use for it. :lol:

Audacity is another option.

Audacity is another option.

I actually used Audacity for the previous .mp3 file, but what annoys me is the static noises that are heard in the background (not through the microphone, but the Wave Sound option). :\

Use SUPER converter by eRightSoft. It is open source and probably your best bet. With any converter, make sure that you know what you are doing when converting (like know what bitrate is best for you audience and sampling frequency). For high quality playback I suggest a bitrate of 312kbps and a sampling frequency of 48000KHz, for medium quality 128kbps and 44100KHz, and low quality 64kbps and 44100KHz.

Thanks everyone! I find that the three programs mentioned are best in all of the situations I'm in concerning converting .wma files. :)

Here is the updated version. I don't know if I'll extend the length of this piece or not, though. :heh:

EDIT: I notice the dynamics don't play that well on the .mp3; I'll solve it later.

Hmm, I am associating 'expression #1' with loneliness. Some little things that make me feel is that it transmit a bit of a sorrowful romance or love. Making it more as a story the interpretation of your music, I visualize it like representing the loneliness a guy is feeling. Another visual of the sorrowful romance/love is of a guy suffering of a relation where he is not happy with the woman; and he wander alone suffering. This is the visual that brought to me and the way I am interpreting the moods of the piece.

Here's a composition that I finished a couple of months ago, but I didn't dare to extend the length of it... and the last chords do sound weird. >_< Right after I completed this, I just left it as is, not bothering to change it at all. Basically, right after I finished this piece, I didn't want to have anything to do with it anymore. :\ Sort of weird, but it's true...

Nice. It seemed pretty abstract in presentation with a little bit of a lyrical feel to it. The only thing that made me a little edgy was sometimes the progression in the piano was too unexpected for my tastes. I LOVED the melody that you gave the flute (the lyrical aspect that I mentioned).

Keep it up Clarinetist! ^_^

(P.S. ...XD... When are you comming back to the request thread? :lol:)

Nice. It seemed pretty abstract in presentation with a little bit of a lyrical feel to it. The only thing that made me a little edgy was sometimes the progression in the piano was too unexpected for my tastes. I LOVED the melody that you gave the flute (the lyrical aspect that I mentioned).

Keep it up Clarinetist! ^_^

(P.S. ...XD... When are you comming back to the request thread? :lol:)

Oh, maybe around June 6-15 I will reopen it. Thanks for the comments. :)

An idea I had about a few days ago... (not really refined yet)

Notes about the attached files:

- F.C. is part of a suite that I am close to completing; however, it's more like a modulation experiment. Key changes, for the most part, are after every two measures. :heh: I know it sounds very similar to Satie's Gymnopédie #1, but that was not intended.

- Expression #1 is the same as the one that I posted before in this thread, but the panning is fixed and I fixed some little details on harmonies.... but there's still a lot of dissonance, and unfortunately, I can't think of any other ways to harmonize this piece. :heh:

Expression #1: I like the harmony and dissonance, I don't know neither what you should change of that. It is good like that for me. Just too short. ;)

F.C.: I find it relaxing for me. The harp at 0:35, I think it didn't matched there well doing the arpegio. I like the sense your short pieces bring. xp

On F.C. it some of your key changes could have been smoother if you had worked your voice leading and doubling a little. It's really short, and the melody doesn't really go anywhere. Interesting dissonances and harmonies, though. Work on developing it.

Thanks for the feedback! ^_^


Expression #1: I like the harmony and dissonance, I don't know neither what you should change of that. It is good like that for me. Just too short. ;)

F.C.: I find it relaxing for me. The harp at 0:35, I think it didn't matched there well doing the arpegio. I like the sense your short pieces bring. xp

Concerning Expression #1, I know it's too short... which is why I'm considering developing it somehow. I have the harmonies and melody in, now I just need to expand it. What sort of bothers me about this piece is that it is the first piece that shows how I like to make music: let every single part move on its own, and whatever dissonance is created, let it stay, and don't change it. The thing that is wrong with doing this is that there are sometimes unnecessary dissonances, but it's how it turned out for this piece. What is even more weird are the first 5 chords I used: Gm7(flat-5), Cmin, D, BbSus(Eb root), Fsus(Bb)... I used to never dare to use such chords to begin compositions.

With F.C.: I tried to use the harp at that part in order to give the song some movement, because without it, that string pattern would just keep repeating with nothing else moving the piece, making it a little less interesting.


On F.C. it some of your key changes could have been smoother if you had worked your voice leading and doubling a little. It's really short, and the melody doesn't really go anywhere. Interesting dissonances and harmonies, though. Work on developing it.

Thank you for the suggestion... I'm actually going to develop it at a later movement, actually.

... and I'll extend the lengths of my compositions. xD

So... I'm kind of back where I started. Those last few pieces were composed during a period in which my mind was really able to put my feelings into my music...

... and now, well, I'm stuck. xD I can't really compose that much anymore (for now).

If anyone would suggest any new pieces for me to listen to, please do so.

Here are the composers I've listened to (most of the time):

-Ravel
-Debussy
-Elgar
-Mozart
-Beethoven
-Rimsky-Korsakov (however, avoiding as much as possible, since I used to listen to his music a lot and it really damaged my compositional ability.)
-Stravinsky

Those are all of the composers I've listened to ever since I started composing, and I feel like I really need to listen to more than these. xD

Thank you.

*EDIT: Also, if anyone would be willing to help me in any way on how 20th Century composers organize harmonies, please PM me. xD I've been looking through scores and still haven't understood how it's done.

Where is Fauré, Bartók, chopin, Brahms, Buxtehude, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Messiaen, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, Xenakis, Nikolas, Scarlatti? So many composers to listen!

Why not to try to stop of listen music for a week and see if that help you in your creativity?

Edit: Take a look at the future contest here! (Promoting!).

Where is Fauré, Bartók, chopin, Brahms, Buxtehude, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Messiaen, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, Xenakis, Nikolas, Scarlatti? So many composers to listen!

Why not to try to stop of listen music for a week and see if that help you in your creativity?

Edit: Take a look at the future contest here! (Promoting!).

Hmm...

Bartók... not really much of a fan of his Concerto for Orchestra; haven't really listened to much more than that from Bartók.

Mendelssohn... just the last movement of the Reformation Symphony.

Tchaikovsky... whole Nutcracker Suite (part of the ballet itself, too).

Chopin... nocturnes and etudes + Fantaisie-Impromptu.

I actually stopped listening to anything else for about 2 weeks, didn't help much, and now I'm back listening to the Rite of Spring. :heh: But I'll try that again.

I may or may not enter the contest, depending on what happens...

EDIT: Looking over this, I think I might need to stop listening to orchestral repertoire for a while. O_o

-Rimsky-Korsakov (however, avoiding as much as possible, since I used to listen to his music a lot and it really damaged my compositional ability.)


LOL! You should try reading his book... I learned from it, but some philosophies of his are too restrictive. At one point in the introduction I think he basically said the music of Bach was completely useless to any "modern" musician.

I did... the Principles of Orchestration, right? I know his philosophies very well... but when I first read it (unfortunately, it was my first time learning about orchestration), I was sticking to those rules like glue (not daring to break them)... and composing didn't turn out so well. xP After a couple of months, I decided just to never look at that book again and just analyze scores (other than Rimsky-Korsakov's, of course -_-) and see what I can get out of doing that. I haven't listened to any of RK's music since then.

Yeah, good thinking. It gives some good realistic guides on orchestration, but not composition. I think orchestration should come naturally from experience, though, because the sound of each instrument is something that needs to be experienced rather than read about.

This is a piece I made a very long time ago, and it pretty much (to me, at least) marks the time in which I decided to go toward my dissonant ways. :lol: The melody is more chromatic than those that I used before this piece (it's mainly based off of the melodic scale, but it changes key a few times). Note that this was the first time I used GPO, so the quality isn't too great. :heh:

... and it's short. xP

Love dissonance. Why no one have commented on this! All I have heard of you it brings to me the same sense. And it relax me (I have said it before). And first time I hear something longer than the rest of your pieces/sketches!

Thanks for the comment, Nyu001. :) That excerpt is a movement of another Suite (not the one with F.C.)...

For the moment being, I'm just writing down whatever comes to mind... and I'm trying to make my style even more complex now. I'm about to finish a Suite, F.C. being one of the movements, and then... I'll see what else comes to mind.

I decided to try not listening to any music for a week, and it did help quite a bit... But for now, I'm not going to post anything up until I finish the Suite mentioned. I might post a few things during the school year, but I won't be too active until next summer.

Another movement of the Suite (F.C., a previous attachment, is one of the movements) is attached. Note that this movement, like F.C., is not a piece that is developed; the melody is just stated. The point of this Suite is to put personalities into music (or any events involving the person/people, etc). I know that the ending isn't the best, but it transitions straight into another movement. (I most likely will not be posting all movements of the Suite- there's too many.)

EDIT: Also, note that the dissonance is NOT nice to the ear. (Particularly at the strings/wind descending chromatic scale.)

Oh, this sounds great. Some parts made me think of pirates and of incidental music of old movies. I liked the orchestration and the way you handle the dissonances. It's very pleasant to me. What mean the initials of those pieces? Names of people?

What mean the initials of those pieces? Names of people?

Correct.

I post here excerpts that I usually would dare not post here... mainly because of their extreme dissonance. The last few pieces kind of enclose the dissonance, but these excerpts let the dissonance be heard.

"Dissonance" and "Dissonance1" are excerpts of one movement of the Suite that I have not posted ("Dissonance" is basically the beginning, and "Dissonance1" is about halfway through the whole movement). In "Dissonance," it should be noted that it is in 7/8 (except for maybe 3-4 measures), and the broken phrase is done purposefully.

"Dissonance2" is another excerpt of a different movement... This excerpt tries to illustrate love in its immaturity, noticeably that bass part in the starting of the waltz (the timbre is kind of awkward and off-balance), and that "funny" dissonance (more to illustrate immaturity) in the harp and strings (2nd measure of the waltz). It breaks apart, but the clarinet keeps moving along with the waltz, turning it toward a different direction in a way. The percussion (cymbals) is not random; it was a motif I used in another movement.

"Dissonance3" is the last chord in "Dissonance2" in a piano reduction. Here is that chord:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j266/Bbclarinetist/1-10.png

(Note the bass clef.)

Comments are appreciated; however, I most likely won't be changing these.

Very interesting indeed, but it works for my ears! Very good! You do have a talent for the orchestra. Is this all due to your studies at Northern Sounds (I think that's the last place I remember you reading up on orchestration)?

Very interesting indeed, but it works for my ears! Very good! You do have a talent for the orchestra. Is this all due to your studies at Northern Sounds (I think that's the last place I remember you reading up on orchestration)?

:heh: Nope; studying Ravel's music, namely Daphnis et Chloé, La Valse, Ma Mere l'oye, Pavane pour une infante défunte, and Le Tombeau de Couperin (I haven't only listened to just these pieces, but they're my greatest influences.) Not really much with Ravel's harmonies, more like how he uses the instruments. However, the harmonies are what really makes my pieces sound nice; they're based off of techniques I learned analyzing (relatively) simpler pieces than those mentioned above (Ravel's harmonies are very precise, and I usually cannot do what he did with harmonies).

- Anyway -

Just as an update, here's what I'm working on at the moment:

1) A symphony... but away from the Classical style. (Apparently there are rules? o_o)
2) For those who have been following through my compositions for a long time, I am taking the "Untitled in Bb Minor" I used contests ago and am applying it to my style.
3) Experimentation with timbre.

I'll post something... in a few days or weeks.

This is an arrangement of "To Zanarkand" I made. It's basically the piano version with rather extreme dissonances. But I can't say that the playback is too great in this case. :\ It's somewhat based off of the Ichigo's version.

No offense or anything, but when you said "extreme dissonances" I thought you were actually going to add or change some notes - not just some extra pedal. It ends up sounding like the normal piece with messed up pedaling, as if the error is unintentional.

No offense or anything, but when you said "extreme dissonances" I thought you were actually going to add or change some notes - not just some extra pedal. It ends up sounding like the normal piece with messed up pedaling, as if the error is unintentional.

I understand. :heh: (Actually, the only things I really changed were the harmonies.)

I am LOVING your dissonance excerpts! Nice orchestration and use of harmonies. ^.^

Finally, here's a new sketch. :heh:

This is meant to be musical satire (toward what, I will not reveal), but I'm having a few problems here and there because of a lack of a melody (around 0:17 and 0:18 and afterward). It's kind of weird that I've sketched the harmonies, but there is no melody. :\ Any suggestions would be helpful.

(The volume may need to be turned up.)

I really don't know what kind of suggestion give. I think the way the piece is orchestrated makes its sounds already rich as it is. Very attractive.

I didn't notice the lack of a melody. I think the sketch works wonderfully as it is. Maybe you could have the opening statement more articulated? And when the horns pass a line to the trumpets, it gets kinda muddy. I loved those clarinet ornaments. :)

Finally, here's a new sketch. :heh:

This is meant to be musical satire (toward what, I will not reveal), but I'm having a few problems here and there because of a lack of a melody (around 0:17 and 0:18 and afterward). It's kind of weird that I've sketched the harmonies, but there is no melody. :\ Any suggestions would be helpful.

(The volume may need to be turned up.)

I would learn to be confident without NEEDING to have a melody in every passage. I've been obsessed with Stravinsky, and the Rite of Spring in VERY particular, and the piece I am conjugating has interesting melodic lines, to the point where they are more harmonic and rhythmic thematic material than melodic. My favorite part is actually when it gets around :17 and whatnot.

I say, quite nice--continue!

Thanks for the comments, everyone. :)


I didn't notice the lack of a melody. I think the sketch works wonderfully as it is. Maybe you could have the opening statement more articulated? And when the horns pass a line to the trumpets, it gets kinda muddy. I loved those clarinet ornaments. :)

:heh: The other clarinetists will be so mad with those ornaments, especially the 1st clarinets. I put those in with the thought that there's not much technical stuff for the clarinets that's really too hard. Here it is:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j266/Bbclarinetist/ornament.png

I think the trumpet line is muddy because it's in the low register; I'll probably put it in the alto sax line when I have time.


I would learn to be confident without NEEDING to have a melody in every passage. I've been obsessed with Stravinsky, and the Rite of Spring in VERY particular, and the piece I am conjugating has interesting melodic lines, to the point where they are more harmonic and rhythmic thematic material than melodic. My favorite part is actually when it gets around :17 and whatnot.

I say, quite nice--continue!

Thanks! Lately, I've been stuck at using harmonies to keep the piece (and others) moving, and I thought that overusing harmonies would be bad. -_-

A continuation of the Satirical Sketch...

- A piano part has been added. I'm writing this for wind band + piano, and will gradually add saxophones, baritone, and euphonium when I finally understand how they work. -_-
- I'm kind of forcing the ideas out purposefully, but I don't know if it's too much. :heh:
- There is a chromatic scale that is constantly playing among instruments.

Thanks for any comments.

First movement of the Satirical Suite (tentative title)... comments appreciated.

Note that I'm not really trying to bring a melody out or an idea yet; this is more like a background to what may come in the later movements. (Although, I think it's too short; what do all of you think?)

Wow! Sounds amazing dude! ^_^

I second Porsche! This is a great piece, a definite opening or intermezzo, in my opinion, but nonetheless-- this is really some great work! :)

It's fantastic! Although you might want to fix the volume a bit, it's very low.

Thanks everyone!


It's fantastic! Although you might want to fix the volume a bit, it's very low.

It's an Audacity problem; I gave up on making Finale make .wmv files because Finale keeps crashing if there's more than 3 instruments, it seems. -_-

Thanks everyone!



It's an Audacity problem; I gave up on making Finale make .wmv files because Finale keeps crashing if there's more than 3 instruments, it seems. -_-

There should be a "Normalize" filter/effect for Audacity if I recall correctly, which should help bring it up to volume somewhat; looks like the music is mono too, make sure you've set the track to stereo before you record it or whatnot or you'll lose your panning settings. Actually, I'll do it for you this time :P - also took out some noise/pops, hope you don't mind that. Neat piece by the way; kind of reminds me of Shostakovitch and Prokofiev mixed with Sakamoto ;).

There should be a "Normalize" filter/effect for Audacity if I recall correctly, which should help bring it up to volume somewhat; looks like the music is mono too, make sure you've set the track to stereo before you record it or whatnot or you'll lose your panning settings. Actually, I'll do it for you this time :P - also took out some noise/pops, hope you don't mind that. Neat piece by the way; kind of reminds me of Shostakovitch and Prokofiev mixed with Sakamoto ;).

Thanks! :) Coincidentally, although I don't listen to much of Shostakovitch, I really like his 5th Symphony (Finale), which I didn't first hear until about a month ago. Thanks for the recording help, too.

Attached is a revised file of the first movement of the Satirical Suite (few wrong notes taken out, etc).

Right now, I'm working on the 2nd movement of it, and I'm kind of frustrated with it at the moment. -_- I kind of feel the need to listen to other composers' music (I've had Ravel and Stravinsky in my head for a long time); any suggestions?

Here's whose music I've heard:

-Ravel
-Debussy
-Elgar
-Mozart
-Beethoven (I, for some reason, really like Beethoven's Eroica Symphony (first and 3rd movements))
-Rimsky-Korsakov (however, avoiding as much as possible now)
-Stravinsky

I don't know if I mention it before but, Prokofiev! Peter and the wolf is amazing! His piano works are cool to play, his Suggestion diabolique, Romeo & Juliet, Visions Fugitives, Toccata in D minor, etc. :>

(have no hear your piece yet).

Edit:

I got my chance to listen to it. Is very enjoyable and marvelous. I liked the material you added to it. :>

I don't know if I mention it before but, Prokofiev! Peter and the wolf is amazing! His piano works are cool to play, his Suggestion diabolique, Romeo & Juliet, Visions Fugitives, Toccata in D minor, etc. :>

Thanks! I just listened to the Suggestion Diabolique and the Toccata in D Minor, and I haven't heard of a style that uses the chromatic scale like in the Toccata (and the dissonances!).

Thanks again. :)

Okay.

So I realize I have not posted here in a while (and whether I will ever post any compositions again in this forum, I don't know). I have not composed anything taken seriously for about... 3 to 4 months now(?) and I plan to get to composing as soon as summer break starts. :) During the summer, I'll be working on some small ensemble / a band "project," one could call it.

So I realize recently that I haven't listened to little, if any, Renaissance / Baroque music. I'm not much into learning counterpoint (esp. fugal/Baroque counterpoint), but I think this could bring up a different musical perspective for me.

I'm very much a fan of Ravel, and I realize that "modern" / Impressionist composers first got ideas for harmonies by studying Baroque scores/counterpoint (from a source I read?).

I'd just like to know where to even start with Renaissance music- concerning Baroque music, where do I start with Bach's music?

Thank you all for your help.

It's been a long time since I last heard you...probably over a year...but geeze your music is incredible compared to what I remember. Well done!

Okay.

I'd just like to know where to even start with Renaissance music- concerning Baroque music, where do I start with Bach's music?

Thank you all for your help.

I'm too too familiar with Renaissance music, but here's a few composers I remember enjoying from my Musicology Course: Machaut, Palestrina, Josquin, Gesualdo. Not sure if spelled the names correctly though lol.

As for Bach, you can't go wrong with the Well-Tempered Clavier (at least, that's what got me really into Bach). There's even this website with interactive analysis of the fugue parts: http://www2.nau.edu/tas3/wtc.html

By the way, if you're interested in the text, it's Norton's History of Western Music 7th edition (and the anthology). It's somewhat skimpy in material for the pre-medieval and post-modern material (though understandably so) parts, but otherwise provess to be quite an interesting and enlightening read.

I'm too too familiar with Renaissance music, but here's a few composers I remember enjoying from my Musicology Course: Machaut, Palestrina, Josquin, Gesualdo. Not sure if spelled the names correctly though lol.


Haha, Josquin is his first name. His last name is Deprez. Good stuff...

Actually, Deprez, or des Pres was sort of a nickname for him (he was born Josqin Lebloitte). I think due to that confusion, he's often just referred to by his first name :P.

Huh, that's one juicy tidbit my choir director didn't mention. Interesting.

Here's a thirty-second sketch of the second part (not movement) of the Satirical Suite. (By the way, the dissonant chord that pops out of nowhere is an Ab Major 9th chord. XD) I don't know if goes well after the first part, but let me know what you think.

I like it! It reminds me to soundtracks from old movies. Hope to hear more of it and longer pieces! I am sure I will enjoy.

XD I can't believe it. I'm finally stuck on what to put after that excerpt for the second movement of the Satirical Suite. If anyone could, I would like some more feedback on what to aim for (after the excerpt) concerning the mood of the piece (I'm trying to go for something more chaotic in the second movement than in the first).

Not sure if you feel the same way, but I've always though of instruments 'talking' to each other with chromatic/atonal melodies somewhat satirically humorous. Certainly it can get quite chaotic if there's enough different lines playing at the same time.

Here's a thirty-second sketch of the second part (not movement) of the Satirical Suite. (By the way, the dissonant chord that pops out of nowhere is an Ab Major 9th chord. XD) I don't know if goes well after the first part, but let me know what you think.

Definitely looking forward to some more of this piece. I didn't even know you finished the first movement =P

It's great to know that you're still composing lots, Clarinetist. As for your concern, I think my advice for you is that you should refer back to the materials of your first movement. Perhaps from there, you can move your ideas around and see how they morph into something else with different colours, textures, tessitura, and etc... Just remember that when you write a multi-movement piece, all the materials you use must be somehow related in a logical manner.

Just remember that when you write a multi-movement piece, all the materials you use must be somehow related in a logical manner.

Well, *must* is a little strong. Furthermore, many composers don't necessarily tie together the themes of the separate movements until the last movement (see the first 3 minutes of Symphony No. 9, the fourth movement by Beethoven) but it's always fun to try to see if you can incorporate parts of the first movement into the other movements or foreshadow later movements in the first movement while disguising them amongst the material at hand.

Well, *must* is a little strong. Furthermore, many composers don't necessarily tie together the themes of the separate movements until the last movement (see the first 3 minutes of Symphony No. 9, the fourth movement by Beethoven) but it's always fun to try to see if you can incorporate parts of the first movement into the other movements or foreshadow later movements in the first movement while disguising them amongst the material at hand.

It's true that you don't need the same notes and everything for every movement. However, material doesn't really mean concrete things like melody and harmony. It could be a certain texture from the first movement, inversion/retrograde of the form of the first movement, and etc... Basically, as long as the composer could justify that it has relevance to do with the first movement, then it's all good. Or it might as well be multiple pieces. ;)

101% agreed.

Yeah, that's basically what my point was, too.

Since I don't have much to post concerning the Satirical Suite, I have some other things to post.

For those who may have noticed, I was out of Ichigo's Forums for a few months and not composing too much, either (schoolwork -_- ). Attached are three experiments that I did during that time, which helped me look at music differently and helped me get a start on the Satirical Suite.

"dissonance" is basically an experiment on how to use discords in an orchestral setting.
"Chromatic Experiment" is an experiment on chromatic phrases (for winds).
"Theme - 2 Flutes + cello" is something that I wrote to keep myself in the non-atonal world. xD

Here's another proposed sketch for the second part of the Satirical Suite. Of course, I'll make edits to it if I decide to use this. Finale's GPO sounds are bad, so one can't hear the bottom octave that the Tuba and other instruments have at the sub. forte. :/ Note that in this sketch, I'm playing around with tritones. xD

Finale's GPO sounds are bad, so one can't hear the bottom octave that the Tuba and other instruments have at the sub. forte.

I disagree, but there should be ways to easily fix that, really, shouldn't there?:heh:

I like a lot that sketch. I personally think you are showing very well GPO. I have heard horrible renderings with GPO. Probably is your orchestration that is making it sounds quite good! And I like a lot that bit from 0:37 to 0:40. I remember I heard it in your previous piece, or something alike that.

Here's another proposed sketch for the second part of the Satirical Suite. Of course, I'll make edits to it if I decide to use this. Finale's GPO sounds are bad, so one can't hear the bottom octave that the Tuba and other instruments have at the sub. forte. :/ Note that in this sketch, I'm playing around with tritones. xD

I quite like this one; it's a nice change of texture from the other more frantic sections. It might be helpful on the louder tutti section (or use a tamer version initially) and tease out the soft but tense section more (really like the bass clarinet there :P).

Some of you may remember that not too long ago, I reharmonized To Zanarkand by Nobuo Uematsu, but there was too much pedal. :heh: I tried to get a drier recording out of it, and have it attached here. The sheet music is also posted (for those who are daring to (at least try to) learn how I harmonize). XD As I noted last time, there are many dissonances, but one could probably figure out how I come up with them. :heh: (The left hand part looks evil to me plus I think there are some unplayable chords. XD)

EDIT: *notices notation mistake at meas. 25* xP

Just curious, but why did you decide to do it in 3/2 instead of just 3/4?

Just curious, but why did you decide to do it in 3/2 instead of just 3/4?

The Ichigo's transcription was in 6/4, and I kind of thought the tempo was too fast for 6/4, so I put it in 3/2. Looking at the tempo marking, I see how it would make sense to put it in 3/4 instead. >_<

Hmmm...all the ones I've seen were in 3/4. It's perfectly acceptable to put it in 3/2 I guess, but to me it does make a little more sense to do it in 3/4. I'll comment on the actual harmonization a bit later...

I finished some of the second part of the Satirical Suite and have it posted here. Note that this is still a sketch.

I should probably comment a little on the structure of this piece: basically, the first movement and some of the second movement (until a little before 2:43) are meant to give the impression of what is to come later, hinting parts of the later movements with motifs and moods. At (a little before) 2:43 starts the "storytelling," one could say. The reason why this is called the Satirical Suite is because the purpose of making this music is to satirize something (which I will not reveal :p).

EDIT: I may be posting a revised version of the To Zanarkand up.

EDIT2: A revised version of To Zanarkand is now posted. Most of the harmonies are kept; I just changed a few notes here and there.

The whole satirical music is fantastic. It feels now to me like the music is suppose to go with different scenes from a movie or a theatrical work. I am wonder what is that mysterious thing you are satirizing. :P

I finished some of the second part of the Satirical Suite and have it posted here. Note that this is still a sketch.

I should probably comment a little on the structure of this piece: basically, the first movement and some of the second movement (until a little before 2:43) are meant to give the impression of what is to come later, hinting parts of the later movements with motifs and moods. At (a little before) 2:43 starts the "storytelling," one could say. The reason why this is called the Satirical Suite is because the purpose of making this music is to satirize something (which I will not reveal :p).

EDIT: I may be posting a revised version of the To Zanarkand up.

EDIT2: A revised version of To Zanarkand is now posted. Most of the harmonies are kept; I just changed a few notes here and there.

This is really fantastic. Really, REALLY fun to listen to! I have it on repeat now haha! The only thing I could advise is to give the tuba (is it?) at 2:43 something then the Eb to play for the first few bars? Maybe hit a Bb below? or a B for dissonance? It works well to keep on the Eb though after the clarinet comes in. Please correct me if my perception died just then! haha.

Dang, that last hit got me all excited and then it was over!

Dang, that last hit got me all excited and then it was over!

xD There will be more soon. :heh:

Most of the notational errors are fixed in To Zanarkand; harmonies are still the same- refer to the .mp3 before.

The chord progression of To Zanarkand seems pretty similar to the original. Honestly though, the mp3 sounds too "clashy" for my liking. The original is so smooth and beautiful and essence. For instance, :26 through :28 in the mp3 just sounded harsh on my ears. Maybe it was intentional stylistically, but it was honestly a bit out there for my ears.

On the other hand, I very much enjoyed the Satirical Sweet. The whimsical woodwind runs and big percussive hits were great. The part starting at about 2:42 was one which I liked a lot. The only criticism is that while the piece was inventive, I couldn't remember anything melodically afterward. It wasn't particularly memorable on the first listen or two. But keep it up!

Thank you for all of your comments!


The chord progression of To Zanarkand seems pretty similar to the original. Honestly though, the mp3 sounds too "clashy" for my liking. The original is so smooth and beautiful and essence. For instance, :26 through :28 in the mp3 just sounded harsh on my ears. Maybe it was intentional stylistically, but it was honestly a bit out there for my ears.

On the other hand, I very much enjoyed the Satirical Sweet. The whimsical woodwind runs and big percussive hits were great. The part starting at about 2:42 was one which I liked a lot. The only criticism is that while the piece was inventive, I couldn't remember anything melodically afterward. It wasn't particularly memorable on the first listen or two. But keep it up!

Concerning To Zanarkand (and the context of the game in which it's placed), I can understand that you think that. There are loads of seventh chords (and even a few ninths) and intervals that I just decided to throw straight at the listener. :heh: However, I was kind of aiming for the more "passionate" feel with this arrangement and not so much the "smooth" feeling of the original (although, I'll probably try a "smooth" one sooner or later).

With the Satirical Suite, I'm not really aiming for a memorable melody or motif as of now (although some do repeat); what I'm trying to leave the listener with is an impression, i.e. any feelings associated with the music.

Time to look at your hands and look at the piano. That's the comment someone's yet to say on To Zanarkland.

Now, Satirical Suite. I loved the opening, until the (exact timings) 1:01--1:59. There were things in between that were nice, but the transitions between those little moments were very vague. Your pattern of tremolo mallets and the accents of the flute and glock. is nice, however, it's basically the same throughout the entire section. You will have other instruments come in, which I am happy about, but after the little interlude that pattern starts again. Each time the pattern comes back, it should sound more agitated, because each time that pattern is interrupted it brings a bigger interruption of sound. Just a thought. The bass drum at 1:35 makes me feel like it'll move, and then the musical momentum goes back instead of forward.

I feel the piece needs some reconsideration of the give-and-take of musical agitation and momentum.

Now, Satirical Suite. I loved the opening, until the (exact timings) 1:01--1:59. There were things in between that were nice, but the transitions between those little moments were very vague. Your pattern of tremolo mallets and the accents of the flute and glock. is nice, however, it's basically the same throughout the entire section. You will have other instruments come in, which I am happy about, but after the little interlude that pattern starts again. Each time the pattern comes back, it should sound more agitated, because each time that pattern is interrupted it brings a bigger interruption of sound. Just a thought. The bass drum at 1:35 makes me feel like it'll move, and then the musical momentum goes back instead of forward.

I feel the piece needs some reconsideration of the give-and-take of musical agitation and momentum.

Concerning 1:01, I'm considering changing the whole structure of the piece since it's not going so well at the moment to:

1) Flutes and glockenspiel part first and cut off the loud section (I'll change this section, too); make a new transition.
2) Make a new theme
3) Put tuba/bass cl. part in with sax melody and/or make a new theme here
4) Insert the former intro
5) Make the song "fall" in energy.

The reason for this is that this whole suite is based off a made-up story and putting (what I think) is the climax at the beginning makes absolutely no sense, and the tendency is to want to approach the climatic part; not hit it, drop back to a lower level, and try to get it back up. :\ I think it would be better if I structured it as noted above, because putting in the (former) intro will actually make sense.

Thank you for your suggestions.

A new idea came to me today, so I just sketched it on a piano reduction. Comments appreciated (hint on the name of the file on what this suite is about). :heh: Everything is purposefully exaggerated (unfortunately the piano sounds bad like that, but this is just a reduction).

Note that 0:54 is just a substitute for a loud bass drum hit (sorry about that)...

EDIT: Ugh... I just listened to it today (again) and I really need to consider the musicality in it. >_< Another sketch to come soon...

Satirical Suite - The Argument - Pno. Sketch

First Impressions

I like the first 10 seconds, it's jarring enough to get my attention. Though, the rhythm still feels too square. You might want some dotted rhythms here and there. After the first 10 seconds, the piece lost its direction: it stopped. Keep it going, especially after you started something exciting. If you abruptly stop the flow, that just ruined what you've set up. I've also noticed that your piece was very linear. Furthermore, don't have so much silence that the audience lose track of the pulse. If you do that, the piece is over really quickly: no one's going to pay attention anymore. I mean you can tease your audience, but don't overdo it. It's like making fun of someone; if you do it once, sure, they'll laugh it over, but if you do it too many times or too over the edge, they won't be very happy.

~~~

General Comments

1) Where is the direction of this piece? I mean, there's some interesting parts here and there. But where's the logic behind it? To me, your piece so far, sounds like like a pocketful of colours. In other words, it's not substantial enough. I'm not saying that you need to have languorous melodies that repeat over and over again, but at least give something for the audience to cling on to. Don't just give us colour, or it's going to end up like the composer we dislike from our Facebook conversation. ;)

2) Reductions don't always mean planning. Having been the one who told you to do piano reductions first, I really meant for you to plan ahead. Plan your music, especially when you want to do something complicated and modern like that. If you don't plan well, it's just random. Despite the fact that untrained ears call a lot of contemporary classical stuff random anyway, at least don't let the trained ears call it random.

I'd like to second Dot. Well said, brother.

And might I take a guess at the composer? If it's who I think it is, leave my sweet Ligeti alone; I love my micropolyphony :)

I'd like to second Dot. Well said, brother.

And might I take a guess at the composer? If it's who I think it is, leave my sweet Ligeti alone; I love my micropolyphony :)

xD Nope, it's not. At the time I wrote that sketch, I was obsessed about how Poulenc used close-spacing chords in the tenor/bass lines (for the piano) so I decided to experiment with those and ended up making this (which obviously didn't turn out well).

I'm working on what seems to me to be a better sketch. :heh: I'll post it here when finished.

Since the last time I posted, I have been sketching a new first movement of the Satirical Suite. Three files are attached in the order in which I want them but there are currently no transitions between them, on which I am stuck. :heh: Any comments/suggestions are appreciated.

This is an attempt to try to link the three ideas listed above. Personally, I think there are a bunch of structural problems (notably, 0:17 (somewhat awkward key change), 0:26, 0:34, 0:44-49, 0:50, and especially 1:08).

I think I'm thinking about this too much. -_- I'm going to try taking the first four chords of this idea I have and play the notes on my clarinet to see what I can get out of it (and rewrite the whole thing if I have to), since I've been using Finale for this whole piece so far. x_x (... and/or take a few days break to see what I can get out of it later.)

Comments/Suggestions appreciated.

I don't feel the key changes are particularly awkward in context. The whole piece seems fairly deliberately awkward, so it kind of fits. Am I wrong?

I don't feel the key changes are particularly awkward in context. The whole piece seems fairly deliberately awkward, so it kind of fits. Am I wrong?

You are very correct; I am trying to create a feeling of awkwardness in this sketch. But the thing is, I think I've crossed the borderline between "deliberately awkward" and "musically/structurally intact." I don't really know right now. :heh:

Well, you should probably trust your instincts, but I think it's too short at this point to really be judged as having poor structure, in my opinion.

I am stuck.

Attached is a two-piano reduction of an excerpt from this sketch.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j266/Bbclarinetist/1-14.png

If you note the two chords on meas. 8, you would be able to see the effect that I am trying to create consists of tritones. However, I'm very much lost on the organization (if any) of the later measures, as I'm just writing notes in as I see them. Am I suggesting a bitonality/polytonality? That I do not know.

I'm not asking for help on composing this; rather, I'm asking for help on understanding what I've written here (as it is a problem when the composer does not understand what he/she is writing) so that I may be able to extend this excerpt. >_<

Thanks for any help.

I have this problem all the time. However, I am not totally experienced in determining whether something is polytonal or not. This definitely appears as if it could be, but I'm not really sure on that. You probably ought to talk to a theory teacher/professor.

- Ignore this post. -

Sorry for double posting, but I've figured out, at least, the chords that make this, and I'm quite shocked at what I've made.

I think that meas. 11 is just playing with passing tones, which then resolves to the first chord on meas. 12, a F11 with the 7th omitted. The other three chords of that measure are an Ab(b7) chord (I don't know if I titled this one right), an E chord, and a C7 chord with the edition of the tritone F# (I don't know if this one is titled right either). Am I correct? >_<

You know, I don't know if anyone but you is going to want to think about it for that long. Maybe when I have a Masters degree I'll be able to figure it out just by looking at it. lol

Are you sure it's not polytonal, though? Those are pretty complicated chords and it seems like there should be a simpler explanation. Maybe not, though...

If I had to say:

If you invert that first chord back to its first position, you get a Bb Maj 9th chord (Bb-D-F-A-C). As for the second chord, it's an 11th chord (F#-A#-D-(F)-(A)-C) without F and A.

You should write things you understand, Clarinetist. A composer need to justify their own work with confidence, if you can't even tell others how and why you wrote it, then is it truly yours?

I see your point, but I don't think that justifying what you write is necessarily for it to be "yours". It's good to understand why what you are writing works, but a composer shouldn't necessarily be required to know exactly what makes it work *before* he/she writes it as long as they can hear it in their head and know what they want. Nevertheless, it is quite a fine line between simply not knowing what you are writing and writing something completely random.

It's good to understand why what you are writing works, but a composer shouldn't necessarily be required to know exactly what makes it work *before* he/she writes it as long as they can hear it in their head and know what they want.

I have always been educated that preparation/planning is the key to writing a successful and logical piece. It cannot be denied that ideas do come from the mind, but these ideas could be organized in a way where it would maximize its effectiveness. That's why, in my opinion, just 'writing down what you hear' isn't the best way to compose. The best way is to get the ideas down, explore all of its potentials and meanings, *then* write. That way, the piece of music will be much more intimate to the composer.


Nevertheless, it is quite a fine line between simply not knowing what you are writing and writing something completely random.

This is partially true; the product might not sound random to the audience or even the composer him/herself. However, the process that created it was merely by chance/experiments without method/etc...

If I had to say:

If you invert that first chord back to its first position, you get a Bb Maj 9th chord (Bb-D-F-A-C). As for the second chord, it's an 11th chord (F#-A#-D-(F)-(A)-C) without F and A.

You should write things you understand, Clarinetist. A composer need to justify their own work with confidence, if you can't even tell others how and why you wrote it, then is it truly yours?


I see your point, but I don't think that justifying what you write is necessarily for it to be "yours". It's good to understand why what you are writing works, but a composer shouldn't necessarily be required to know exactly what makes it work *before* he/she writes it as long as they can hear it in their head and know what they want. Nevertheless, it is quite a fine line between simply not knowing what you are writing and writing something completely random.

I see both of your points, and I'm wondering if my approach to composing (more like harmonizing) is becoming a bad habit. Typically when I use dissonances, they come "naturally" and they just somehow end up being 7th, 9th, etc. chords themselves. Most of my harmonies are made as a result of voice leading/passing tones, I've noticed.

However, the process that created it was merely by chance/experiments without method/etc...

That brings up an interesting point: how exactly DO you experiment *with* method in the case of music? We can't exactly follow scientific method...

Just an interesting thought I had from reading what you said.

Edit: oh, and I wasn't necessarily saying you were wrong Sir_Dotdotdot, but rather that your way isn't the only one.

That brings up an interesting point: how exactly DO you experiment *with* method in the case of music? We can't exactly follow scientific method...

Just an interesting thought I had from reading what you said.



Experiment with method could be something like 12-tone serialism. Once you get your 12 intervals, you won't merely repeat them over and over again, right? The composer might play around with inversion, retrograde, and retrograde-inversion of the tone row to find musical materials. As well, other than following rules, experimenting with method can also mean breaking the rules and conventions. Just because the composer used a tone row doesn't mean he/she is obligated to do everything Schoenberg said. I think this basically sums up my point about experimenting with method.

I realize that. That wasn't exactly what I meant by "experimenting".

Oh well, I don't think I can explain it any better than I did.

If you think of 'experiment' as inventing something entirely new, then I suppose there's also developing your own system, like how Hindemith did with his harmonies.

Or if you mean mathematical experiments, there's the using set theory in music, which seem to be the popular thing to do in the academia scene of music.

Or, there's also a Canadian composer who wrote an orchestral piece utilizing the contour/shape of the Rocky mountains as a timeline. That could be considered experimental with method.

The list goes on, I'm sure I understood your meaning of 'experiments' correctly.

Well, sort of. I can't say I know much about Hindemith yet, but that would be interesting. What I meant to question more than what kinds of experiments are possible is how to go about performing those experiments so that they can be justified? For example, in a lab, you would follow scientific method for your experiment. What would be the equivalent for art or music? Is there one? Anyway, we should probably continue this discussion privately.

Thank you for your comments.

Here's how I'm seeing this at the moment:

1) I experimented with this using a number sequence that started in the first few measures of this sketch that I noticed concerning the intervals. However, after a while, the sequence kind of got out of hand with the music (I'm not too much for how twelve-tone music sounds), so that option is out.

2) I'm experimenting with using chord progressions for this piece, which I think I may end up doing.

After working on this for a while, I noticed that making the brass sound obnoxiously at the beginning is going to be ineffective for the plot line on which this piece is based. So here goes another structural change ...

This will probably be a bit of a shocker, but I tried doing everything process by process; meaning, I just simply started with a melody (:06 - :33) and added all of the harmonies later on. I ended up with an oboe + piano solo in 3/4 time, reminding me of the first composition I posted on this thread (except it doesn't have a flute). :heh: This ended up to be more like "background" music, or music used to give an impression (kind of like the Emit in G# Minor I wrote), so I didn't really bother extending this much further.

I'm not going to bother any longer with this piece, but comments are appreciated. (Note that at the end of this piece I just put "Repeat as Desired.")

This will probably be a bit of a shocker, but I tried doing everything process by process; meaning, I just simply started with a melody (:06 - :33) and added all of the harmonies later on. I ended up with an oboe + piano solo in 3/4 time, reminding me of the first composition I posted on this thread (except it doesn't have a flute). :heh: This ended up to be more like "background" music, or music used to give an impression (kind of like the Emit in G# Minor I wrote), so I didn't really bother extending this much further (and I just placed at the end of this piece: Repeat as Desired).

I'm not going to bother any longer with this piece, but comments are appreciated. (Note that at the end of this piece I just put "Repeat as Desired.")

It sounds good! I like the rhythm and the notes. They work well together! I recording quality sort of died though haha. What are you using? Isn't there an export audio option? It would be nice to have this played with players, so you can really make the piece shine. IF you do decided to get this recorded one day/in the near future then I would say make more, but yes haha. Commented :)

I'd use the .wav export in Finale, but I think it only uses Mono input (or maybe it's just me?), so I just use Audacity to record what Finale plays. Thanks for your comment. :)

I like that melody you used, has like a romantic flavour to me. It feels like wanting to go to somewhere but cannot, it keep trying, and hard, but never get to go somewhere. The harmonies are nice also, and I like the piece at 0:31.

I agree with Nyu above, the melody doesn't go anywhere. There's no sense of direction at all. It felt like as if you started writing something nice, but suddenly want it to sound 20th century and thus you forced it into some strange intervals that don't really add to the piece. If keeping it romantic sounds nice, keep it romantic. Don't be ambiguous with what you want. Don't be complex for the sake of complexity. That's not music. Complexity comes naturally when you're ready.

The harmonies also felt... forced. The chords are nice, but it just doesn't work with the piece at all. A sequence of nice sounding chords isn't music unless you actually work with it logically. What relation does it have with the melody? What's the logic horizontally speaking? Vertically speaking? Try to develop your chords from your melody or your melody from your harmony. Don't figure out the melody and just add any chords that 'fit' under it, or vice versa. They have to work together.

Oh, and the pedaling sounds terribly muddled.

I'd use the .wav export in Finale, but I think it only uses Mono input (or maybe it's just me?), so I just use Audacity to record what Finale plays. Thanks for your comment. :)

I don't think the .wav export uses mono input. I've been using that a lot and it saves as stereo for me. Of course, then I just use a converter to make an mp3 with 320kbps and stereo channeling anyway lol.

Me too.

This is my first attempt to try to write the intro. of the Satirical Suite with at least some sort of structure. Crescendi are not playing back on this file very well for some reason (e.g. the crescendo to the sfz), the (so-called) "pedal" isn't working too well, and I'm hoping to improve the transition to the idea at :42. Comments are appreciated.

I plan to now make this 1/4 of the first movement. Comments are appreciated. (To understand the significance of the ending chord, listen to the beginning of this file.)