All Activity

Hi everyone, I recently made a non-commercial orchestral mockup and score-study arrangement of “Fountain of Dreams” from Super Smash Bros. Melee / the Kirby series, and I’d love to get some feedback from a composition/orchestration perspective. This is one of my favorite pieces from Melee, so I wanted to see how close I could get while also learning from the orchestration, arrangement, and overall musical construction of the track. This was mainly an exercise in orchestral transcription, arranging, mockup realism, and trying to understand what makes the original track work so well. I’m not sharing the full score or MIDI because this is a study arrangement of copyrighted game music, but I may be able to post short excerpt screenshots if they would help with specific feedback. I’d especially appreciate thoughts on: Orchestration and instrumental balance Whether the arrangement translates convincingly to orchestra Mockup realism and MIDI programming Articulations, phrasing, and dynamics Any places where the texture feels too thick, too thin, or unclear Mixing/reverb balance Original music and related intellectual property belong to their respective rights holders. This mockup is for non-commercial study and educational discussion only, and is not affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo. Thanks in advance for listening. I’m looking forward to hearing any thoughts, especially from people with experience in orchestration, mockups, or video game music arranging.

Thank you so much! It was a labour of love. Will keep working on the notation, and maybe even get a performance one day!

No problem! Keep composing my friend 😁

Thanks for the feedback! I appreciate the examples and help with notation. For clarity, some of the decisions were done mainly for playback purposes (like writing out the bass) as I do not have the ability to have this performed by colleagues or other professionals; nor do I have access to a good DAW to produce my works. I had one friend help me with a bulk of the writing, however, I am not a jazzer and I'm sure, as you have noticed, how somethings can feel suspect. Again, I will take your advice into consideration and amend the chart. It's wonderful getting more feedback on this. Thanks!

Hello The minimised partition is readable on YouTube. Orchestration is not available. Thank you for your interest and have a nice day.

Charming ... a pleasure to hear. I love the dialogue among the instruments. The rhythms are captivating and the major theme quite inviting! Mark

A lovely, expressive little piece. It reminds me of those solo instrumental phrases that Messiaen would suddenly write into his works. I think it makes excellent use of the oboe’s most effective range, bringing out the expression in some of the high and low notes as well. Thank you for taking the time to listen. I am so pleased you found the work appealing. Mark

My dear friend, thank you so much for your kind words. You can’t imagine how happy they made me. What especially pleases me is hearing comments about the natural flow of my music—that is what gives me the greatest satisfaction as a composer. I would be more than happy to send you the score, but first I need to engrave it properly in Dorico. Once again, thank you for your generous comments and for your appreciation. I truly appreciate it. Take care, and as soon as the score is ready, I’ll be delighted to send it to you.

Good stuff. My only comment: Put your name on score!

Hello @MinGry Below you will find mine critique on your sonatina: Engraving and ect: There are barely any phrase markings through the score. I think in b5 through b12 there should be phrase markings. Also, I feel there should be dynamics markings to create emotion depth. There is engraving error: use a double bar when you change keys! Harmony: (counterpoint) I notice there were counterpoint errors in this piece. In b13, you leaped form tritone leap: F#-C. That is not great. We want to avoid dissonance leaps at all cost. Dissoances are fine if we prepare and resolve them. I feel that F# should move to G in the bass. That way, you have better counterpoint in b14. I am not sure about the suspensions in the bass. Usually, suspensions in counterpoint create dissonance. The half cadence at the end section A weeks weak with. Perhaps, have stronger bass movement on that moment and then before that V/V-V with 5-1 bass line that will create stronger ending. Form: I feel this does this with in form of sonatina. While many are more familiar sonatas, sonatinas are smaller forms. No development section. Two movements! Thus, I would say the closest way to describe them is ABA. Good work!

Partiture?

So....wow....I like this...a lot. A lot to dissect. Okay, here's the thing. As much as it pains me to say this: This instrumentation isn't realistic. With that being said, this can be something special. I would say: go ahead and have the full string section. That would further give this a chance to get played. It would also give your bottom more depth. With that also being said..this is. astart: you have the making of either a tone poem or a flute concerto of some sort. I know you said you wanted to write short simple pieces. Problem is, what you wrote wants us to hear more. The reality is, no one is going to program this while paying a full orchestra, especially the strings. Sorry, you wrote such a great piece thinking this was it? Nope, you got to write more...you have at least seven more minutes with this....maybe 10. FLute: M13: get rid of the slur. breath should be before Eb5. M14: Phrase marking on Ab4 should go to M15 and end on the Bb5. The next phrase marking starts on Db6 and end on the F5 of M16. Meas 20, the phrase should end after the Eb5. Also, get rid of Flute 1. It would be just Flute. HARP: Unfortunately, your beaming is off some. When you write octaves, the harpist would automatically switch hands. The lowest note would be played with ring finger and the octave would be played with thumb (we don't use pinky in harp). Therefore, the right hand would automatically have to play the next note. I know you were for the automatic three in each hand, but ergonomically, what you wrote wouldn't lay like that in some spots. M10: Perfect example. You could do 2 in the left hand and do 4 in the right. The other beats however do work. HARP PART 2: You stay in the throat register the whole time. You could expand the "breath of the music by having harp continue the run by repeating in the higher octave and maybe at times another octave. The harp's rang is VAST. Harp part 3: Give the harp a final not on the down beat in the end. MAYBE have the harp repeat the previous measure but play it up an octave? Put in your notation program just to see. Special note: Maybe add a clarinet also so you could keep the strings as your lush padding and you could play with harmonies with it...or countermelodies. Ravel LOVED doing that. Extra Special Note: Speaking of Ravel. I wonder how this would be for Alto flute? Maybe have it optional for Alto Flute. My $0.02

Nice: I have listen a lot of pointers since this is a big-band piece. I am a self-proclaimed Basieologist and I love this stuff. This is all to help. Take my critiques with a grain of salt: Plunger is written with o and + , o = open), and + = closed. Think about doubling them with the trombone (makes it tighter). Also, we don't use "normal." You actually don't need to write anything, but if you must, you use "open." Also in Jazz, the "&" beat are played long. You'll be hard pressed to find a jazz band that will play the & of 4 short. It's just not jazz and it doesn't swing. Same thing for measure 24. It would be played as short long instead of long short. it's like saying "apartment."" We don't pronounce it "AYpartment" or "apartMENT." M56: It's better to write it as 8th Quarter 8th. That's the aforementioned of the standard swing feel. It is always played, ba-dum-BOW! M61: No need to write duples. Write "straight 8ths" Some of the piano part won't swing having those blocks go for so long. 6ths would work. But once again, You should probably have a chord chart OR write a guitar part so there is some chordal comp. You already have it in the saxes. No need to double. Let the piano swing and do its own obligatos. For the rhythm section, write the chord changes. NEVER write a specified note part for a jazz bassist, unless it's for transitions, setups, or melodies. M29 is a great example. Also, no need to double piano with the bass. here's an example of how laconic Basie's comping is but the saxes are still playing lines! I also attached some of the parts so you can see how the best ever did it. My $0.02 Basie Straight Ahead Alto 01.pdf Basie Straight Ahead Bass.pdf Basie Straight Ahead Drums.pdf

Once again. Fine critique. I will also add, you can create counterpoint/melodies from within. Diminution would build this piece a lot!

Oh this is fantastic!! I don't have any critiques really, your dynamic contrast and harmony throughout the piece is very nice. And it moves very smoothly and logically. I would love a copy of the score if you do decide to share it - this is the kind of piece you start air-playing when you listen to it (you'll get it since you're a pianist).

Nicely done...I would do some research into the form of sonatinas and their form/structure. Other than that, I think this is a great first attempt - I sat down and sight-read through it and it's very easy to read, which makes it more approachable if you were wanting to distribute the piece for educational purposes (sorry, piano teacher brain taking over lol!). If you add a second movement, please post it so we can hear both together.

The name is very fitting!! Your piece has a playfulness to it that is refreshing and fun. It's easy to listen to. I wonder what would happen if you gave the tuba the melody at times and used the other instruments to harmonize above it, could be especially nice with the Flute, Clarinet, and Oboe. I will also echo what @maestrowick said - the tuba can do so much more! Use it's different registers and play with the rhythm some more. Tuba, Bass clarinet, Bassoon etc are used to the one note, barely moving bass lines in pieces, but you have a chance to let the tuba shine, so let it shine. Please update us if you make any edits to the piece - good work

@maestrowick Thank you for the specific feedback. I'm not surprised with your comment on the C-section; I thought the same thing, and I added or subtracted a quarter-note here or there to help it along, but I do understand that's fairly subtle at the listed tempo, and its repetitive structure does lead it towards sounding like those variations are inadequate when it comes to keeping it interesting. I haven't thought about the rest of the content of your comment prior to my posting, but I feel like there's some really helpful information in there. I am relatively new to writing orchestration after all. I'll keep posting and implement whatever I can!

Hey! You can just write "Tuba." Tuba transpositions don't work the as other instruments. Bb, F, C, Eb tubas all read the same part. This instrumentation is different. Perhaps consider adding the French horn so you would have standard instrumentation with a tuba. Also, the tuba can do way more. Since you have it here, think about adding more rhythmic variety with the tuba (especially in the counterpoint section)/ You could give the tuba part to the clarinet, and then write a virtuosic part there. My 0.02/

In general, you have some great ideas. I wonder at the end, perhaps the trumpet should play the opening theme in major to connect the end. Same with French horns. It would connect the ending with the beginning more.

Amazing notes! Any I thought saying , you already posted!

Yes, the choir goes DIRECTLY above the orchestra and below everything else. That is just standard practice. Also, it s true, I critique the score. As for the phrase markings, assume nothing. In classical music, they initially won't play it legato. Also remember, they probably won't have but only one rehearsal to rehearse this. Finally, yes, I am big on score markings/notation. It's how the performers internalize what the composer truly wanted. I've learned the hard way to take nothing for granted when typesetting!

Not sure what you're referring to, the choir is evidently above the orchestra both in the score I first provided and the one I last uploaded before you made your comment. Perhaps you meant the choir parts should be placed between the string orchestra and the woodwinds? Again, not sure where you're getting this from. It doesn't take a full woodwind section of geniuses to figure out the general character of the piece based on the articulation of the string entries preceding them and play their own expected articulations in accordance. Which enharmonic notation ends up in the final part scores will be completely dependent on the contours and intervals of the main theme according to the requirements of the resulting key per each entry/transposition so as to avoid said cognitive dissonance allegedly present in the current version of the score. The latter, as the main score including all parts, is not meant to serve as a dedicated particella for each individual performer, but merely as a general visualization of the flow of counterpoint across all entries and transpositions. I could, but the mezzosopranos can reach that B natural just fine. Despite the voice crossing, which is to be expected in settings with this many voices, swapping their melodies in that specific spot, or any other for that matter, would most likely completely sacrifice the melodic contour in either case, not to mention putting the whole structural integrity of the coda into jeopardy. In my view, the detriments of changing it far outweigh the benefits, so it will stay as it currently is. Thank you for clarifying. It would have been exceedingly hard to tell otherwise unless you had included any technical commentary of note about the music itself instead of focusing exclusively on notation nitpicks pertaining to the scoring alone. Have a wonderful day.

This is wonderful (and I'm not just saying that because I love the piece 😆). I think you've retained the character of the original piece, without making it sound muddy or too heavy. Your doublings and overall orchestration choices seem calculated and well thought out. I think the few notation issues are an easy fix, and would make the score more readable. Good job 👏🏾

Greetings all! I present here my latest orchestration of Rachmaninoff's beautiful and haunting Prelude in B minor. It's a rough score (as usual), with lots of slurs yet to be added, and flute division that needs sorting. Some of the notational issues come from the original piano midi I used as my source. E.g. The places where I have two crotchet triplets followed by a minim sextuplet. (Obviously four triplets would be preferable.) Also the strange tempo change to 80 bpm, and time signature change to 5/4. I will fix these; though it's going to take a lot of work, as I don't think there's an easy way to do batch conversion of tuplets in MuseScore. (Unless someone knows different?) The big bombastic chords in the piano original were quite awkward to deal with; but I realised I didn't need to match the piano rhythms exactly. All I really needed were pulsing chords of some kind: so that's what I've tried to create. I haven't been able to find any other orchestrations of this piece: so mine may be the first? Anyway hope you enjoy. rachmaninoff-prelude-in-b-minor-op-32-no-10 (orchestration) #47.mp3 rachmaninoff-prelude-in-b-minor-op-32-no-10 (orchestration) #47.pdf