All Activity

I agree with @Luis Hernández on the harp writing. That is not possible. The chords are too large for a single hand to play. This is why you need to look at scores that have harp parts in them. I can not emphasize this enough...score study is paramount.

Hi What a fantastic piece. First of all, I’d like to say that the instrumental version works really well on its own. Although the version with Cantai is brilliant. I’m familiar with this virtual instrument and it’s still a bit of a headache, but the idea is brilliant. The sense of horizontality is absolute, and believe me, not many people write like this these days. There are moments that remind me of what I know of Gesualdo, such as the one in bar 39, ‘umbra mortis’ – oh, what biting, coinciding harmonies. Best regards.

Most summery instrumentation. Translate 'the feel' to french.

Hello @MinGry, I really enjoyed your piece, and I love the amount of thought you put into its design! It even gives me some inspiration for my next sonatina! I’ll focus on the first movement right now, since it’s the most important, and I think it also shows the most room for improvement. Score formatting: The movements should be formatted into separate flows. When a hairpin follows a dynamic marking, the two should typically be on the same level. Also it’s easier for performers to read when they are between the two staves. Most of the time these guidelines are followed, but there were a few points that could be slightly cleaner (for example, ms. 22, 32-33, 43). The triple-forte in m.66 is probably excessive in a sonata—fortissimo will suffice! Compositional elements: I must admit, my first general impression of the piece was that I couldn’t tell if I was hearing neoclassicism, or bad counterpoint. I settled on the latter by the end of the movement, and more so by the end of the second movement — though I think you could set the scene earlier so the listener doesn’t have to guess. You could be a little bolder in your dissonances in this part, using a few more sonorities that can’t be reduced to triads or incomplete triads. The main figure for the transition (m.9) gave me a little bit of trouble, for two reasons. First, it contains a lot of internal rhythmic contrast, more than I’d expect in a transitional theme. Second, I didn’t hear how it connected either to the primary or secondary themes — it just sounds a bit out of place. I then observed that it could be derived from the figure in bars 6-7: But I think the link could be made stronger, and more audible, by slightly modifying the figure’s metrical position. One possible solution for m.9: I would also personally omit bar 11, as I don’t think it’s really necessary. My favorite part of the movement was the secondary theme, and I also liked how it was introduced first in the bass! Moving onto the mini-development, I wasn’t initially convinced by the figure in bars 24-25, though I find it creative how it connects to the coda, and to the accompaniment of the secondary theme. To give it more interest, I’d suggest consistently omitting the first eighth note when it occurs in the right hand, as you did in bars 24-25. It also leads more naturally to its target note that way. Overall, really good work! I have much less to say about the other two movements, because I think they’re pretty strong.

bitterbitterapples.mp3 when we set out to make it right we had different things in mind when we set out to make it right we had different things in mind when we set out to make the world I didn’t think there’d be boys and girls when we made time you didn’t say you’d have it make all things waste away when we made the trees I didn’t know what you’d hang from their boughs bitter apples bitter apples when we started to make mankind I didn’t think that they’d all be blind and when there’s no food left to eat we can chew on the poison seeds of bitter apples bitter apples bitter apples bitter apples

Hey guys! A few weeks ago a person in my discord server challenged me to compose a fugue over hot cross buns, so here it is, it's pretty much self-explanatory but i did this as a joke, so the counterpoint might be quite bad, enjoy! LOB 109 Fuga sopra l'aria di Hot Cross Buns.mp3

Thank you! The reason i don't post the scores is that my counterpoint is actually quite bad. So there would be tons and tons of errors people would notice and i prefer not to give it as i'm still working on it. Oh and by the way this piece is not 100% original, the main melody of the 1st part is from a rittornello in Claudio Monteverdi's opera "Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria". Of course i did not use it note by note but i changed it a bit.

Thanks for the feedback! The reason why it's blocky it's because i'm using the galliard rythm very strictly, wich is: quarter note, quarter note, quarter note, dotted quarter note, eight note, quarter note (In my time signature 3/1 i use breves instead of quarternotes). And actually a lot of galliards from that time (Specially Italians!) had a very homophonic approach, but i do agree i could have added a bit more motion. About the cornettos, yes! They can play that fast! In fact, for quite some time, about 100 or 150 years, cornettos were considered the most virtoso of instruments, so much so many famous musicians of that time considered "Virtuosos" were Cornettists, they can play much much faster than what i used here by the way. By the way the cornettos don't have ornaments in the notation, i only added them for exporting, because the diminutions are supposed to be improvised by the player.

Hi everyone! This is my second complete sonatina in three movements: I. Moderato – A simplified sonata form movement that was inspired by an idea from the second movement of Beethoven's Sonata No. 1 in F minor. II. Larghetto – A gentle piece in ternary form that is by far my favorite movement in this sonatina. It is very simple in nature, but I think it fits nicely as a breath of fresh air between the faster movements. III. Andantino – A variant in rondo form that explores both the traditional feel of the first movement and the more lyrical texture of the second.Sonatina No. 2.pdf YouTube link Timestamps: 00:00 I Movement 02:18 II Movement 03:15 III Movement Thank you for giving me your time and valuable feedback like always! Sonatina No. 2.mp3

Prelude This is a nice piece. I like it! It has a surprisingly 'full' feel to it. I like how you have used dotted rhythm in the piece to create a setious yet playful emotion. I really like these 123-123 feels. Great! I am pretty sure that it is 'leggiero' not 'leggero' though. Fugue Interesting. The theme is innovative. I don't understand the tempo marking. This is otherwise a lovely piece, and the Picardy Third ending was so good. Good Job! -TristanTheTristan

Metal-Medal LOL!!!!

I thought you were saying that @latebeethoven_addict had good transitions, hence deserved a metal LoL

Writing a good melody is difficult. Writing a pair, a trio, a quartet of melodies that can be played all at the same time to good effect is astronomically difficult. One has to observe several different rules, many of which are quite restrictive, such as avoiding parallel Perfect Fifths and handling dissonances properly. Yesterday, I sat down to a project that I had long wanted to start. With the help of Google Gemini, I began writing the code for a computer program that turns what is astronomically difficult into a quick and simple matter. The program is now more or less entirely complete. What does the program do? It takes as input a folder full of MIDI files, each containing a melodic passage and, in a matter of seconds, finds potentially dozens of superimpositions of these melodies that follow the rules of good counterpoint. Different combinations of these melodies, along with simple transformations of these melodies (i.e. time-delayed versions, transposed versions, sped-up versions, and slowed-down versions) are quickly tested, one after another, and those that pass are added to a pool for the user to listen to and export for use in larger works. The user can also force the program to try combining melodies with one specific melody (possibly including itself) rather than combining them entirely at random. All of this makes the program ideally suited for writing compositions that involve not only counterpoint but extensive imitation (imitation means the repetition in one voice/instrument of a melodic idea that appears in another voice/instrument), such as appears extensively in that venerable type of music called the fugue. Right now, my task is simply to compose as many different pleasant-sounding melodic passages as possible, so that I can feed these to the program and have it superimpose them in ways that I never would have come up with without its assistance. For those interested, the code makes use of a genetic algorithm and an artificial intelligence that learns how to avoid melodic combinations that are likely to fail, based on prior experience, speeding up the program's workings and improving the quality of its output. Here is a screenshot of a very short and simple passage that this program wove out of three motifs. The harmony in this passage is almost entirely two-voice, but the program can write passages that are arbitrarily dense, up to the point that it would be theoretically impossible to thicken the musical texture without breaking the rules of counterpoint. It can also write much longer passages, although listening through them would become increasingly time consuming as they got lengthened. Much better to write short passages and weave them together within a larger work. (You'll notice that there is one perfect consonance by similar motion. I decided to permit this because it isn't strictly forbidden, and in some cases is unavoidable. The program is coded only to rule out completely those passages which break the hard rules, such as ones that include parallel Octaves and unacceptable handling of dissonance. If the program writes a passage that breaks a suggestion rather than a hard rule, and the user doesn't like this, the passage may simply be discarded. I kept this one because I like how it sounds.)

Hi everyone! :) As i am in my village in southern Greece for vacations, i am away from my music studio in Athens. However i still have Musescore 4 for arranging ideas and i just finished orchestrating my composition "Calling For Inspiration". I am still doing lessons in music harmony so for my orchestration and arrangement ideas i just follow my instict and ear. Of course the final audio quality is not the same as if i would have composed the piece in my sequencer (with many proper audio libraries), but still i think that musescore does a decent job in rendering the sounds. Calling for inspiration...through the Renaissance times, music evolved to soothe the spirit and help the psyche reach the skies, outer and inner... Please i would love to hear remarks, reviews and opinions in the piece and in which ways i could improve the orchestration and arrangement! Kind Regards, Lampros Marantos CALLING FOR INSPIRATION.mp3 CALLING FOR INSPIRATION.pdf

maybe... You can say like the most reactive, but then there are badges for those...

Thanks for the review, and you've been asking if I know these harmony/counterpoint/form. I know like 1:1 counterpoint and am learning 2:1 on YouTube, so I think I know a little.

Make a badge for him at this point man he deserves it

Lithl, I think about this all the time. In some ways, I think that pure music has been mostly "solved". As an avid chess player, it's like seeing Magnus Carsen play chess. He often just doesn't even bother with the best opening theory (which is once again...pretty much solved) but rather uses his innate abilities to play slightly weaker lines and grind the advantage out. But yeah, in pure musical terms...even if something is solved, I think there is plenty of room for innovation and individual expression. I think perhaps it was Schoenberg that said something like, "plenty of good music in C major remains to be written?" But yeah, I hear you man. Personally, I feel like it's hard to tell apart really scrafty music and music that sounds like scraggy if that makes sense. I sometimes feel I like need a PhD in music or some formal training to appreciate some of the music that sounds like scraggy. On the other hand, as you have stated, I sometimes feel because of the low barrier to entry to write and share music, there is a lot of really scrafty music out there that people should probably just keep to themselves. To your point about pushing buttons and getting novel sounds, I disagree about how you view this somewhat. Obviously as musicians, our greatest asset is our ears. And even if we are not directly making the sounds and even able to perhaps replicate the sounds on our own...music will always be music. At least that's what gives me hope as a composer. If it sounds cool and good, then it was worth it all along. Just my 2 cents, thanks for articulating some feelings about composition and starting a discussion.

Will you be requesting these transition metals into the list of manually awardable badges thread? 🤣😂🤣

Analysis!!! Title+Bars 1-15 So, firstly, the title is just 'Fugue but you lost'. Where is the composer name? Also, I recommend (personal preference) saying something like Fugue on the theme of 'Insert something'. Writing 'Fugue but You Lost' kind of makes it seem unprofessional. (You have told us the reason behind it.) I like how you wrote Allegro (♩= 120). It gives an approximation of practice tempo (♩= 96) if this were to be performed. You never know. The beginning phrase (Eb Ab G Ab) makes it feel like Ab major a bit. I like how it is disguised. The whole opening phrase (bars 1-4) is is completely playable and musically intresting. Good job. Trouble starts at Bar 5, where you expect the performer to be Rachmaninov. Or Liszt. Or an alien. one of these three. Please do keep in mind that normal humans cannot reach such like the compound minor 6th in the first beat of the 6th bar. If instead you meant to split up in the two hands, however, then please delete or hide the rests. Do mind the parallel movements in the section. In Bar 11, a third voice is introduced effectively. We have heard the theme in two voices before. but now, it is also in the third. I would like point that the rests on Bar 11 Beat 2 feel completely unnecessary, and should just be a minim. (starting on the first beat). Bars 16-25 Bar 16, we have this nice ending to the ascension of a single hand. I do not believe that a rest is important here, as the notation should best kept simple and human-legible. By Bar 20, we already have semiquavers. Nice use of rhythm to add texture, although I don't really like Bar 23, with all of those staccato notes in the bass, although I love how you reused the main theme in the bassline of Bar 24. Bars 26-44 (Page 2) In Bar 26, you continue the development beginning at Bar 24. I really like this bar, and also the two bars right after. I don't really like the triplet in the bass of Bar 28. It feels unneccasary, and perhaps, a single G would do better. The following might sound better on a real instrument, so I will leave it as it is. It is a unique idea. Bar 31, that upper mordent could change to a lower mordent and the lower mordent in Bar 32 can change to an upper mordent. It feels more 'optmistic'... I don't know... Something tells me that is better. I also love how you came back to the theme in Bar 32. *passage from bar 33 to bar 36. Not too interesting.* Bar 37 introduces one of my favourite matierials in the whole fugue. You have used repeated notes to it's best extent at the best time you can in this fugue. Tremendous. This continues until Bar 41. Bar 41 feels too chunky. Bars 45-54 The passage from Bar 42 to Bar 46 is not bad, but Bar 47 is GOLD. That hesitation at the end of the bar feels like you are hanging on the side of a cliff. You reannounce the main material (I lost the game) in Bar 49-50 explicitly, but notice your great use of it in other places too, such as the bottom voice in 51, the top voice in 52, the second half of 53's top voice and the full bar of 53's middle voice. You also sneaked in even more in Bar 54, with that inverted material in the voice, and at the end of the bar you top voice, if you take out the bottom voice, only quarter note values found, you get Ab, F, Eb, F, which is also the inverted material! Absolutely ingenious section! Bars 55-67 (Page 3) Ok. Transition metals are Scandium Yttrium Lutetium Lawrencium Titanium Zirconium Hafnium Rutherfordium Vanadium Niobium Tantalum Dubnium Chromium Molybdenum Tungsten Seaborgium Manganese Technetium Rhenium Bohrium Iron Ruthenium Osmium Hassium Cobalt Rhodium Iridium Meitnerium Nickel Palladium Platinum Darmstadtium Copper Silver Gold Zinc Cadmium Mercury ... I did all of that as a joke... So anyways, you transition into a lot of different keys, I won't keep up. This goes from bar 59. I don't know what happened in bar 60. I guess I missed Sheet Music War 1 (SMWI). Seriously. Why are there 2 treble clefs? do you require such notation? Can't you just use a Tenor Treble Clef thingy? Also, there is something weird happening from Bar 61-63, but it sound good and seem playable to me so ok then. Bars 68-72 The rest is just a coda, which is good, but you could improve it by extending the note length of the final chord. Overall, it is a nice, cool, piece that has some potential! Congrats! -TristanTheTristan

Nice relaxing piece: reminds me of Vaughan Williams. I could definitely hear the ebb and flow of the ocean waves. I just have one small notational point: from Bar 28, I don't think it's correct to have those full bar rests in the harp. I would replace them with dotted crotchet rests. Would also insert dotted crotchet rests into the upper staff for the same reason (rather than having blank spaces). I'd also be inclined to use cross-staff phrasing slurs across each full bar.

A fantastic piece that I really liked. And a very detailed score.

Just bumping this, because it's received no comments yet. I guess nobody has heard of Koechlin! Though I think he's a very interesting and underrated composer.

Hello @Martynas123, I enjoyed your scherzo—it shows good compositional instincts and creativity! Here are my comments: Score legibility: The first thing I noticed is that your piece is not in G major at all (as implied by the key signature), but D major. Bars 25-39 should have the G major key signature, on the other hand. Additionally, the Ab in bars 34-38 should be changed to G#, is its the third of an E major chord. This is a bit more far-reaching—but I’m convinced that your piece is in 4/4 rather than 3/4, excluding the middle section from m. 25-39. I took the liberty of re-notating the first few bars in that way: The left hand in bars 40-49 should be notated in treble clef for consistency. I would have you consider revising the pedal markings, as some of them conflict with chord changes as well as staccato articulations. I would actually omit them entirely — they’re not really necessary in this piece. I liked your use of staccato markings! You might consider adding slurs as well on some of the figures you’ve left unmarked. Hairpins are also good to bridge some of the abrupt dynamic changes and lead to climax points. Some of your minims had staccato markings, which shouldn’t be the case. I don’t think the middle section needs to be marked “Minuet”. Since this is a scherzo, you could mark it as “Trio” instead. Compositional decisions: The form itself is well thought through! I see an A section (m. 1-24), a contrasting B section with transition (25-39), and a recap of the A section with short coda (40-62). The contrast of different tonalities is good too. I would omit the one-bar moderato introduction—it doesn’t really connect to the rest of the piece, and the dotted crotchets are unnecessarily complex to read. Since the A and A’ sections have a lot of repetition inside them, I would the omit the repeat bars in those parts. Otherwise the repetition gets a bit tiring. I would suggest revisiting the middle section—the harmony feels a bit incomplete, starting on a second inversion tonic triad and ending on an unaccompanied tonic note. That’s my main feedback on the piece. Great work overall! I’m curious—what’s been your compositional training so far? Have you studied any harmony/counterpoint/form, or are you mostly self-taught?

Oh ok. To show a third voice, perhaps change the clef in the bass, and don't get it to the upper stave. Then you can have two voices down there. I believe all parallel voicings are not ideal in a fugue, but it is good if it's with intention. Thank you! Ok. Oh then that's fine.