All Activity

@Alex Weidmann @BlackkBeethoven Thank you for listening and commenting. Yes, virtual instruments do what they can, and well, I prefer to focus on the composition rather than on post-production with a DAW and so on. That’s why I use an editor (Dorico) with NotePerformer. There are indeed orchestral versions of Debussy’s preludes. Some are very famous, such as the arrangements by Colin Matthews or Stokowski. I must say I didn’t listen to them when I was working on my modest version. In fact, I didn’t even know they existed until I started exploring this piece. It’s been an interesting challenge because of the nature of the piece – so colourful, yet harmonically free and daring at the same time. It’s been a slow process, taking about two months, as I was working under the supervision (on a weekly basis) of a composer and teacher. I’m in a small group (four people) learning orchestration with him, and it’s fantastic… We usually work on shorter excerpts from pieces, but this one was the full work. In fact, there have been some subsequent modifications and improvements, but never mind. Soon we’ll be moving on to orchestrating pieces we’ve composed ourselves; we’ll see how it goes…

Hi Guyz.... in the "About Me - CONTRACT" Link, we've since been given |Permission-Release|to re-post certain criteria , which im pleased about. SWAN LAKE rendition by v.i.p. exclusive.mid SWAN LAKE rendition.pdf

I'm teaching myself piano and this arpeggio is the only thing stopping me from playing Schala and the Queen at tempo. What fingering would you use for the right hand here? What are the good reference sources for learning the theory behind how to figure this out? I think I probably need to start practicing something a level or two below this. Just a book of arpeggios with good-habit finger notes would be amazing. Does that exist? Schalas_Theme_-_Chrono_Trigger.mid

Wonderful orchestration - lovely, lovely color! I find this orchestration to be incredibly balanced - fresh and innovative, while holding to the character of the original. As @Alex Weidmann said, I also think the flute choir was an excellent idea. Your choices feel very intentional, and I enjoyed listening to your orchestration! I would love to see how you might approach something by Bonds or Price.

Hi @stewartIM and welcome to the forum! I think writing a set of variations on two themes is a really great idea! And writing them so that their order can be reversed is especially ingenious! I listened to both versions and was amazed that there weren't any awkward transitions between variations - perhaps this is because you wrote each variation as a standalone piece of music? If you were tasked with writing them as one smooth and continuous piece of music it would be harder methinks! Also - amazing performance of your own music! Great job playing and recording this piece! My favorite variation was perhaps the Chiasmus: Bleak. Although the Lamentoso variation was especially affecting as well. Now for some critique! I write a lot of variations and I consider it my life's calling to find themes that nobody has written variations on and write variations on them! In my own composition adventures I usually expect there to be an intensification of the awareness of the theme throughout the variations. When I listen to some of my favorite variations pieces my mind is stimulated by how different they get while still being audibly related to the original theme. In other words, the pieces stimulate the listener to recognize the theme in all it's various new and different forms. But, in your variations, I don't perceive that to happen. Perhaps it's because you're using two themes? Or perhaps your variations don't have as tight of a motivic development as I've come to expect from other favorite variations pieces I've heard? But don't take this the wrong way - I've still enjoyed your music immensely and it is very good! The other critique is that the music in both versions seems to just stop and there's no audible drive to a strong conclusion - this is obviously because the piece can be played backwards and forwards and it would be impossible to accomplish because of that - unless you had two conclusions - one at the beginning and one at the end. In any case - I enjoyed your music very much and thank you for sharing!

Hi Luis, This is a great piece to choose for orchestration! I'm sure I've played this on the piano in the past. It uses one of Debussy's favourite tricks with its harmonic planing, and has some lovely impressionist touches. I wonder, are there any other orchestrated versions; or is yours the first? Using a choir of flutes was a neat idea, and I like your harp harmonics (near the start). Also harp with glockenspiel is an effective combination that I probably wouldn't have thought of. My only wish is that you had slightly better instrument libraries to do justice to your score, as the rendition doesn't always sound fully realistic.

Thanks for the feedback. I have thoughts, but I want to get other people's first impressions before adding my own bias.

I wrote this piece back in 2018, when I was still in college. The conceit is that it's a theme and variations with 2 themes, one on each end. The variations are played starting with one theme and ending with the other. To add to the compositional complexity, the piece is reversible: you can start with the other theme, play the variations in reverse order, and end with the first theme. "Variations" should probably be in air quotes - they're really more like microscopic character pieces that use the themes as a jumping off point. I've given this piece a lot of thought over the years - most people I've shared it with enjoy it, although they disagree about which order is better (which I consider a success ). The most common criticism I've heard is that the individual variations are too short. I'm curious - what do you all think? I've grown a lot ear-wise since I wrote this piece, even though I haven't written very much since college, but I'm still very happy with it for the most part. I'm thinking of revising the work and expanding some of the sections (e.g. N2, N3, S3) to give them a bit more symmetry. I might also try to get the work published, although I don't expect major publishing houses to be super interested or to get it to a wide audience. Here is a pair of recordings I made of the piece right after I finished writing most of it, synced with the sheet music. I later added a cadenza to the opening of N1 which is not included in this recording. Chiastic Variations, Op. 6a Chiastic Variations, Op. 6b

Hey! Thanks for the comments. To be honest, I struggled on a name in the first place lol. When I started this in 2024, my goal was to make a sonata and my original second movement was a Courante. So, the idea just stuck with me until now. I thought giving a dedicated name like some of my other works, however, it was a roadblock there. With the melodic voicing, it just comes to MuseScore at that point. I did some hidden notation to voice stuff louder or softer for the playback however. I may go back and update it for the dynamic reasoning, however, my thought process veers towards performance. The conductor of this work would hopefully know when to bring out the melody, or the ensemble would know how to balance regardless of dynamic.

Hey @MK_Piano ! This is a nice piece for chamber orchestra! I listened on headphones. I personally would have called it a Suite for Strings with the first movement being perhaps a Serenade, the middle movement a Bagatelle and the last movement a Scherzo or something. But those are just my personal suggestions and by no means do I intend to impose my interpretation upon your vision. One thing I did notice is that you don't seem to balance the melody above the rest of the voices (or perhaps you do in the mixer? But that wouldn't make sense since you don't always have the melody in the same voice.) I see all the string parts at the same dynamic at the same time. I think it would bring more clarity and balance to the music if you brought the melody out more by setting it at one dynamic level higher then the rest of the voices. One way that you do use to bring the melody out is by sometimes doubling it with multiple instruments together so good job there! I enjoy the sections where the melody is in the bass - I think that's a cool creative decision that brings variety to the music! Overall I really enjoyed it! Great job and thanks for sharing!

Hey Interlect! Weirdly enough, it’s still MuseScore sounds, albeit a different preset within the sample catalogue. Regardless of the sound font, it’s still my writing!

Definitely Different than your usual Compositions,the Instrument sounds are of far superior quality ,than Musescore Of course this must be YOU.............However the overall "NEW" orchestration sounds like someone else ?

"THE NEARNESS OF YOU" 1937 Songwriters Hoagy Carmichael, Ned Washington | Orchestrated Rendition - by V.I.P. EXCLUSIVE Iceland Symphony Orchestra THE NEARNESS OF YOU - Orchestrated Rendition - by V.I.P. EXCLUSIVE.mp3 THE NEARNESS OF YOU - Orchestrated Rendition - by V.I.P. EXCLUSIVE.midTHE NEARNESS OF YOU.pdf

An underrated composer is Ferdinand Hérold

Hello everyone! Today, I am sharing my newest and extensive work for the string orchestra. Set in three movements within the key of G-minor, this work was completed after two years since it's initial creation and has a runtime of 14 minutes. The original first movement was made back in April of 2024, while the rest of the sonata was both created and completed in the summer of 2026. The two years in between these milestones saw an exponential growth in my skill and after a summer of listening to a large sum of chamber music, I felt inspired to finish the set and diversify my collection of works. If you would like to know more about the score, please go to page 2 (or page 4 of the PDF) to view specific information at each movement. Thanks for listening and viewing the score! __________________________ If you have any comments, whether constructive, critical or positive, drop your thoughts on this thread! I will reply when able. G-minString_Sonata_AUDIO.mp3 G-minString_Sonata_SCORE.pdf

Okay!! Nicely done I will do my best to address your points for feedback as best as I can, but I am not the most experienced composer on the site, so I would keep your eyes out for better feedback later. 1. You have a few spots (really a whole section), starting at m.89 until m.96 where your beat 3 is completely unseen. It's a general rule of thumb to keep your 3rd beat clear, for reading purposes. 2. I enjoy the way your build up the piece, but I'm wondering if it would've been more effective had you established the melody a little sooner. Like even right after you state the iconic canon baseline - the melody starting in m.5 rather than the dotted qtr figure would help establish some familiarity (but disregard if this doesn't align with your vision for the piece). In my opinion, I just think it goes on for a little too long without the melody, especially since you mentioned this will be used in a game, I think having the iconic melody present from an earlier point would be nice. 3.This is just another one of those "in my opinion" things. But I would like if the rhythmic escalations were smoother. Like in m.6, if those 32nds were 8th notes or 8th and 16th notes (which would be 3 notes, but you get the gist). Up until that point you've just had qtr notes and 8th notes. Same thing in m.32, I would just prefer a rhythm that is different from what we've seen so far, but not jumping from qtr notes and 8ths and 16ths to 32nd notes. It's just a little jarring. This is part of what makes your inversion section successful to me. The rhythms are lining up and diverging in a way that seems smooth if that makes sense. By that point we've heard all of the rhythms you will use til the end of the piece and the 16th against the 8th makes sense and doesn't feel jarring. (This may speak to your 6th point above) I would say yes, however some of the times where I get a little lost are probably midi playback things and not issues with what's written. This is getting long-winded lol, so I'll end there. But thank you for sharing your work!! Hope my feedback was helpful.

Hio, This is my first composition post here. I would be very grateful for honest feedback on a solo piano piece called Pachelbel’s Keygen — Ascent to Elevation 100. A little context about me: I am a software and game designer, not a trained composer or an accomplished pianist. I have no formal education in harmony, counterpoint, or composition. I made this piece largely by ear and through experimentation with MIDI, then produced the score in MuseScore. It's not obvious to me that I have any musical talent at all, actually. But I need this piece to be good for a project I am working on. Because of that, I suspect there may be errors or missed opportunities that I simply do not have enough musical experience to recognize. I am posting here because I would like criticism from people who know more than I do—not merely reassurance that it sounds pleasant. The piece lasts approximately 5 minutes and 40 seconds. It uses the familiar ground bass from Pachelbel’s Canon and passes through a series of increasingly elaborate eight-bar stages, which I call “Elevations.” The general progression is: the initial signal and subject introduction of the ground bass canon and additional contrapuntal voices inversion and mirrored material increasingly dense recursive treatment an intentionally excessive virtuosic summit destabilization, fragmentation, and eventual reconvergence The idea is that the piece is being progressively “overclocked.” It was composed partly for an open-source piano-practice application I am developing, so the clearly separated stages and steadily increasing technical difficulty are intentional parts of the concept. However, I do not want the concept to serve as an excuse for weak composition. I would like the piece to hold up as music independently of the software. I would especially appreciate feedback on any of the following: Are there problems in the harmony, voice leading, counterpoint, register, rhythm, or notation that seem like mistakes rather than deliberate choices? Do the successive Elevations genuinely develop the material, or do some of them merely add more notes and difficulty? Does the main subject remain perceptible as the texture becomes denser? Are there places where the material presents an obvious opportunity for a stronger variation, reharmonization, transition, or climax that I failed to use? Does the post-summit destabilization feel like a natural consequence of the ascent, or does it feel like a separate ending attached to the piece? Is the piano writing convincingly virtuosic, or are passages simply awkward, impractical, or poorly divided between the hands? Are any sections redundant, overlong, underdeveloped, or insufficiently differentiated from the sections around them? Please feel free to be direct. I am particularly interested in criticisms that distinguish between: definite craft or notation problems important opportunities for improvement legitimate differences in personal taste Measure numbers and concrete alternatives would be extremely helpful. I may need to ask questions when terminology is unfamiliar to me, but I will take the criticism seriously. The attached MP3 is a computer-rendered reference performance rather than a recording by a pianist. I have also attached the PDF score. I understand that the rendering may have limitations, so I would appreciate help distinguishing playback problems from problems actually present in the writing. Thank you very much for listening and for any observations you are willing to share. Pachabel's Keygen Draft 3.mp3 Pachelbel's Keygen - Ascent to Elevation 100.pdf

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my work. Well, it's beyond me why I called it a Trio. I must have had another work in mind when I posted. As for the sparse piano accompaniment is to create a specific mood/feeling. I understand the slurs are not bowing marks .... placed there for interpretive intent only ... will it confuse the violinist? You provided some motivation to do more with the piece ... maybe I'll work on it. I'll see if my muse speaks to me! 🤔 Mark

Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge - Precipice Canyon (Extended):

I think I have a long way to go. My composition is still at it's lowest level, I think (but first in school).

Greetings! 1) Your title says string trio, yet this a duo. 2) if you can, please add more chords in your piano part. 3) A VST violin will always generally play legato. What you wrote is not. The one bow marking you did write is implausible. Remember, phrase markings are not the bow markings. 4) I do like your melody here. With that being said, this piece is too short. This piece could go at least for another 3 minutes. There are never enough string trios or violin pieces. Keep at it!

I see, and thank you for explaining the meaning of each part. Once you finish those parts, feel free to share them! I hope it turns out to be a great piece for you. Best, Lithl.

Hi, Lithl Thanks for the feedback. I am still getting used to both the forum and Musescore so that’s why the storyline wasn’t explicitly there. So far, I have the: Children playing - first part Evil stepmother - second part Banished to the forest - third part Finding the house - fourth part After the huge B chord, at “p subito”, the right hand being eventually joined by the left hand is them seeing the witch. Parts I need to finish: The witch actually trapping them Children fight back The witch gets cooked (literally) and the children escape Finale I’m working on them! Plus, only one school week to go until summer break!!

Hello, L.S Barros! This piece has a medieval musical feel, yet the combination of instruments and sounds gives it a more ethnic atmosphere. This was fun to listen to :) I haven't been with YC for very long, but I'm happy to see you back at YCF! Best, Lithl.

Stylistically the composition reminds of the soft folk rock of the late 1960's. A very pleasant work. Mark