"Metus" Overture

Wow Daniel, what a post! That is a truly professional critique! And no, I don't think you are mean.

Yes, I am quite confident in my orchestra's ability, as I have asked a string player within that orchestra about the difficulty, and they seem ok with it. We do have 4 timpani, yes. The tenuto marks on the semiquavers are a sort of emphasis, saying don't slur it, but keep the bow on the strings. There's probably a better way of saying this, but I don't know. And the difference between mf and mp, well as QC said, the dynamics should be uniform in the score, so I just wrote lightly underneath in order to give an idea of how it should be played.

I agree I have to do more harmony study, but I think some of the places where you pointed out "confusing harmony" weren't so, but I could be wrong (page 43 and 44 only).

I also did not notice the parallel fifths in that one part! My mistake .

I'm fairly confident in the performability, but thanks for your comments!

And millyway: I don't know why an oboe would sound comical, maybe its the midi, but I'm sure that in real life, those parts won't sound "comical". Thanks for the post .

Sorry if I'm derailing this thread (see it as a friendly bump ), but what exactly is the reasoning behind "uniform dynamics"? Is there any objective, technical reason against different dynamics in different instruments? (I would understand it if you used the entire range of dynamics scattered across the orchestra all the time as that would result in a rather "grey" sound, but that's obviously not the question here.)

Of course you shouldn't just rely on dynamic markings to balance your orchestra, that certainly doesn't work. But it still seems logical to me to write every instrument in the dynamic you want for that instrument and not some weird "uniform dynamic". (Well, if you really want to write in a certain traditional "style" I understand it, but otherwise? Any concrete reasoning?)

Apart from seeing much more sense in a detailed, conscious choice of individual dynamics in contrast to uniformity, none of my teachers have ever argued for "uniform dynamics" and I've always only seen positive effects of very specific, individual dynamic markings in my own orchestrations. (The actual dynamics weren't always the best choices in every case of course, but I've never had the impression that the result would have been better with more uniform dynamics.)

(Not even to mention the countless examples of excellently orchestrated music that very carefully indicates individual dynamics for every instrument.)

Originally Posted by QcCowboy

If you have different dynamics in a passage for every part of the orchestra it is a SURE sign that you did not orchestrate properly.

Remember that a forte flute does not sound the same as a piano flute. If the passage is marked piano for everyone but that flute is marked forte, the sound will NOT be "soft with a flute coming out of the mix".. it will sound like a flautist blowing his brains out while everyone else is relaxing.

This could be true (Not a quote of you, Gardener)

I fully agree that notating the dynamics individually is a very clear and direct way of indicating to the player their role in the music. However, I rarely see this being done. I am doing this merely out of convention, after looking at the scores of Beethoven's and Schubert's symphonies.

Also, I think that having uniform dynamics makes players feel part of a specific group (such as having Bassoons, Flutes, and Oboes at piano will make them feel part of a group). From personal experience, playing forte while others play at piano eliminates the "group" feeling, and makes it seem soloistic.

There are some passages within the overture (the trumpet beginning) where I do want a soloistic feel and I think that having the trumpets at mf while the rest of the orchestra is at mp is fine, but due to convention I wrote it uniformly. I am pretty confident in the dynamic orchestration of the piece. Again, please let me know if there are any glaring errors.

So those are my (hopefully logical) reasons.

Well, if you look at scores from the 20th century, you will find individual dynamics a lot. In the early 19th century dynamics just weren't notated in all detail, and even much less in the 17th or even 16th centuries. The composers of these times didn't focus on dynamics as much and concentrated more on notating other aspects of the music.

But look at a score by Varèse for example, say Déserts. I consider Varèse one of the most sensitive composers when it comes to dynamics, and while there -are- passages where every instrument plays ff, during most of the piece there are many different dynamics going on at the same time. And the same applies to many other 20th century composers. But as I said, if your intention is to emulate a certain style, it definitely makes sense to do it like Beethoven and generally go for uniform dynamics.

As for the "solo" versus "group" feeling: That's a fair point and it does make sense. However, the individual musicians do not play from a score, but from individual parts, and therefore, say, the first flutist doesn't know whether the first clarinet has a "mp" in her or his part or a "p" and usually one won't bother to look or ask either, so one judges primarily by how it sounds whether a passage is probably meant to be played as a group or "soloistic".

But I think another problem here is that there are two "schools" of writing dynamics: One (the generally preferred one) which marks dynamics relative to the instrument, meaning that a "mf" results in something entirely different depending on whether a trumpet is playing the part or a flute, and another that tries to go for more "absolute" values, for which a "mf" or a "p" means about the same loudness independant of what instrument it plays and in what register. Most of the times it's a bit of a mixture between the two though, which makes dynamic markings always a bit of an ambiguous question.

To repeat, it's definitely appropriate to go for uniform dynamics in a "Beethoven-style" or "Schubert-style" piece of music. That doesn't mean however that it's an absolute principle of orchestration. (Personally, I highly respect the teachings of experienced orchestrators, like QcCowboy. But I'm skeptical of just following "rules" without understanding the reasoning behind them. If I can't follow the reasoning, I'd rather try something out, possibly fail, and learn.)

You will all be happy to know that I have an mp3 to put up. From now, I will work on the changes that Daniel brought up... I'll notify you again when I finish that.

OK

I did most of the things that you said, Daniel. I didn't change much in your "orchestration" section because, like I said earlier, I am quite confident in its playability by my ensemble (which was what you mainly pointed out). I did not find any sixteenths with tenutos in the fast tempo.

I couldn't really change much with harmony, but I will take note of those things in future pieces.

I changed all of the suggestions that you made chronologically, except for the ones regarding my ensemble and confusing harmony.

I must say this is by far one of the most energetic piece I have heard in quite a while..fancy that you you finally put up an mp3, it sounds excellent, very beethoveny thought..but anyway...great composition

Thanks, Roman

yes, I did put up an mp3, but the dynamics were off. I'd seriously reccomend the midi. Also, I am a little surprised by people saying that this is very Beethoveny. I'm not that skilled yet, and the inspiration for the vast majority of this came from Schubert symphonies.

thanks for the comment

Well, it sounds great! Im no expert on classical music, so i cant give proper feedback, but it sounds pretty well! I like the beginning of the piece

omg.....I love it man...Im so jealous

would your first name happen to be Ludwig?