Leaderboard

This work started just a few days ago. I hadn't composed a large scale work in quite some time BUT wanted to try my hand at incorporating all the new techniques that I've been developing and focusing on in my chamber/piano works. This work is most likely going to be part of a larger opus of various 'musical' thoughts on several of my interests. This particular 'musical' thought is on the rise and fall of empires. Tell me what you think! Comments and critique are always welcome - as they are the only ways that I will grow as a composer. Echoes: Rise and Fall

Thanks, Christopher. As you know, orchestration is not my strong suit. I'll definitely look at mixing choirs a little bit. Abd: Yeah, the midi rendering is horrid. Glad you liked it though!

I like the material of the piece. It's certainly well developed and well-balanced. I wish you'd done more with orchestration though. The whole piece is very "familial" - winds play with winds, brass plays with brass, strings with strings. While it's certainly my own bias speaking, I would have liked to hear the orchestration at the instrumental level, and not just the sectional level.

hey , nice piece , it looks like you worked hard on it , the harmony work was remarkable . but i think it lacked some melodic elements , and as the piece develops you dont seem to get the listeners full attention to it . im not saying that ur piece isnt good , actually its very good , better than anything i could write now hehe . but your musical skills are very good , and you can do with them something huge , this is good , but with ur skills you should do better. keep up the good work. btw maybe the sound quality is what didnt keep me focused and interested in ur piece as it developed .

Phantom: Thanks so much for listening, glad you enjoyed it! Zach: Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment. I'm surprised you hear modulation in this! This work actually is a kin to the Sonata for Violin in that it also uses the Hurrian Tablets modal system. However, what separates this from that work is that the mode itself I used as the basis for my serial rows. The principal row in fact is: E B D C# G A F# Eb Bb C Ab F. Which, if you look at the melodic material (thematic) here you will see is largely built on the row - with inspiration from the mode itself. The middle section, as you mentioned, floats intentionally. I wanted a sort of klangfarbenmelodie effect there. The ethereal quality of the middle section, in my opinion, contrasted the march like fanfare of the opening section nicely. Again, thanks for your comments.

This is neat, Jason, but I honestly don't know so much to say :dunno: There's a good use of dissonance in the piece that reminds me of a twisted circus: happy, bouncy rhythms with dark undertones. Something Wicked This Way Comes? :lol: At the start, anyways. There's a sense of grandness, true, which is probably what you want for the fanfare and pomp of the empires and what-not, but...I'm getting a completely different vibe from the music, personally. I also think you modulate just fine to B Minor (or D Major, whichever one it is technically) from A Minor/C Major. Nice use of murkiness and muddiness in the textures without overwhelming the listener, at parts. Even though the overall tone is really effective, and keeps the listener thinking and listening, it kind of floats around in the middle of the piece, which is probably what barely keeps it from that 10/10 :P I think it's basically a "9/10" myself, if that means anything. Thanks for sharing, sorry about the delay in commenting :)

This is great, but sadly way out of my league to comment properly. But I like the sound of this serialism music. This sounds like something to go with a squad of roman legionares marching in a city.

To be honest, I hate this method of teaching with passion. If you want to teach someone something specific, tell them. Doing it like this however makes the assumption that your specific method (in this case western music notation) is the "logical and natural" way of doing things and should thus naturally come to your students - when in fact, it's simply a reached consensus that has become somewhat fixed over the centuries. The problem is that teachers imagine such dialogs and imagine the answers of the students at the same time. That's a big no-no for me. Never assume that the students are going to think a particular thing, because usually that means you won't actually be listening to them, but just be grasping for things they say which you can interpret as what "suits your plan". What if the students answer to your questions in a different way and in the process come up with a notation form that is actually much more intuitive and a lot different? Do you then tell them, "well yeah, but you're wrong", or "my attempt failed, so I'll just tell you the real way"? Or do you keep up the game and continue asking questions in the hope to dissuade them from their method and still find your solution? That would, IMHO, defeat the whole point of this method and make yourself no longer appear very credible. The major problem is that many people take certain facts for granted. Most of us take the connection between "high pitches" and a "high position" on a staff line for granted - but by doing that we're ignoring that we're simply equating them because they both contain the word "high", even though it has an entirely different meaning in both cases. "High" in regards to frequencies has extremely little to do with the spatial "high", except that for certain (of course explainable) reasons, the two once were associated with each other and people began calling certain pitches "high" and others "low" (even though they might as well have called some pitches "hot" and the others "cold", for instance). By letting the students make the connection that "high sounds" should "logically" be placed "high up" on the staff, you're giving them the impression that "what sounds alike fits together", which might lead them to justify quite some weird reasoning in other cases… In this particular case, it would also be misleading for the students even if the dialog went exactly as planned and they arrived at your music notation method. It would make them think that all of notation is the logical result of such reasoning, which may confuse them a lot when they are later confronted with conflicting methods and extensions of that system. It would be a lot better to make it immediately clear to them that methods of communication (languages, music notation, whatever) aren't held to because they do things in a particularly logical or intuitive fashion, but because holding to a historical consensus facilitates communication in many cases. This form of teaching only works if you're honestly ready to accept any answer from the students and are able to react to them to come to any conclusion, which may differ from your preconceptions. For these kinds of subjects, the method is fine, but for trying to lead students in a particular, preconceived direction, it simply comes off as presumptious. I've had teachers that did that and I hated them for it.

As promised, I finally had time to pour over the techniques you listed in this. I must say, you made quite a few errors (probably due to heavy reliance on an orchestration book that didn't go into great detail on string technique - causing you to wing it). First, let me correct your errors: For string players, there is no term called non-legato. There are two types of legato: slurred, obviously, and bowed. Bowed legato is indicated with a tenuto (dash) above the note. This will tell the string player to play long, even bow strokes. Slurred legato, often used in runs (8th, 1/4, and 16th), can be rather long. Most string players can play up to 11 notes under 1 slur. Keep in mind that more than this, and the string player will even switch from down bow to up bow for the remainder of the notes. In slower music, the string player can play MORE notes by drawing the bow slower across the string. Personally, I've played as many as 20 1/4 notes on one really slow down bow. The opposite of legato is NOT Detache. Detache is a separation of the note. For the most definitive notation, use a dash with a dot above it. This will tell the player to leave a slight space between notes. There are two types of Detache bowing: elastic (stopped) and detache traine. Elastic is the basic and can cover off-string strokes (rapid). Detache Traine is one that involves smooth bow changes that leave no gap. This is similar to legato - and, I've not seen much of this one - except in really slow music. Slurring/Ties: Okay, I'm not sure where this information comes from that you using here BUT multiple notes CAN be slurred! String players can play, as mentioned, at different bowing speeds. Bowing speed should NOT be confused for loud and soft. Dynamics are caused by the pressure applied to the string by the bow and NOT the speed at which the bow is played. Therefore: UP bow =/= cresc. AND down bow =/= decresc. If a player does equate bow direction to dynamic increase then they are doing it wrong. There are COUNTLESS etudes and pieces that are meant to correct this very natural beginner mistake. Bowing/technique not covered: Some of the bowing and technique that you missed are: Martele: a type of detached bowing that calls for a strong attack. This gives the note a 'hammered' sound. Colle: This literally means stuck or glued. This begins with a heavily weighted bow resting motionless on the string. Spiccato: a type of staccato (the opposite of legato) that calls for a light bouncing on the bottom 2/3 of the bow. Legato: notated with a tenuto above the note. No silence between notes. This can be done with varying bow strokes (full bow, half bow, 1/3 bow). Sautillie: rapid bowstrokes using the middle of the bow. This is notated with dots or arrowheads (no really clear designation). The sound produced is similar to spiccato. Jete: 'ricochet': This is a spiccato 'special'. To execute the player throws the bow on the string in the upper third. This causes a rapid bouncing of notes in one stroke (from 2 - 6 UP TO 10 - 11). Loure: This is a slow tempo slurred detache. Many notes can be played under this type of bowing. Arpeggiato: bouncing stroke playing, broken chord, notes on each string. Shuffle: This is a repetitive pattern of slurs and accents often used in fiddle music. I hope this helps, Justin. I like how you did this in .PDF - very professional.

As I am doing Geneaological research, I will be critiquing this in two parts over tonight and tomorrow. So, for the errors found so far: 1. The violin and viola, while sharing some roots with the Lira da Braccio were also influenced by several other 'early' string instruments (among them, first and foremost, is the 3 string and 4 string violetta's that were around in the early 1500s.) The 5 string Lira da Braccio, while clearly resembling a violin, had many different models. Some of these had resonant strings which were not bowed while others did not. This instrument, actually, shares many similarities with the violins including being used contemporaneous with the early violins from the 1540s - this has caused some historians to wonder if the instrument inspired the violin OR evolved with the violin during it's development. 2. Violoncello are a little more harder to state exactly what their predecessor was. While they appear to have the same appearance as the many instruments in the Viol family, the strings are tuned to that of the violin - and the overall shape, as well, is Violin and not Viol. The roots of the instrument, it is generally agreed, owe to both the violetta/Lira da Braccio/and Viol. 3. The Contrabass, on the other hand, is NOT a member of the violin family. This is an old misjudgement of the instrument. The instrument shape is Viol in origin as our almost ALL of the characteristics of the instrument. 4. The 5 string bass is extremely rare. I really wouldn't mention it, actually, because the odds of a composer actually finding a bassist who plays this instrument are rather astronomical. Most of the majority of Bassists use what is called a 'C - Extension'. This extension allows the instrument to reach down to the low C. Generally, you can expect about 1/2 to 3/4 of bassists in MOST professional orchestras to have this. I'll look over the bowings and technical portion tomorrow. If you're curious, I've played viola/violin since I was 10 years old (thats 20 years).

Would it surprise you to learn that you can use the Socratic method to help students "discover" music notation AND explore why it exists as it does? Maybe it's a stretch, but I had in mind to use a Socratic-/Inquiry-based model to teach notation to a General music classroom somewhere between 6th-12th grades. Allow me to demonstrate with a hypothetical dialog... and let me know what you think I could improve on. Thanks! ----------------------------------- [Play a note on a piano or any musical instrument.] Class, think about trying to "write" this note for someone else to play. What could you use? [Confused looks from students...] Well, what do we use to write words? "Letters!" Good! So, someone come to the board and show me how you would write "circle." [student comes up to the board and writes "CIRCLE"] Okay, someone else show us another way to write circle. [Eventually, a student will come up to the board and draw a circle] So, are words the only thing we use to communicate? "No. We can use shapes." Great! So, we can use words or shapes to communicate. What are the simplest shapes we can use? "Circle/Square/Triangle" Good. Which one of these can you draw the fastest without changing the shape? [Confused looks... maybe some guesses] Let's play a game. I need three volunteers. [Hands go up, pick three students to come to the board] Let's time who can draw the most triangles, circles, or squares the fastest without changing the shape in ten seconds. Countdown from 10 to 1, class. Ready? Set. Go! [Circles should be the fastest because there are no angles in a circle] So, if we wanted to use the fastest symbol we can write accurately, which one would we use? "Circles!" Great. So, let's use a circle to represent this pitch. How do we know what pitch it is? [Confused looks] Is this higher or lower than this note? [play a note higher or lower than the original note] "Higher/Lower" So, how could we show the difference between these two pitches? Someone come up to the board and show me. [student will more than likely draw one circle at a lower part of the board and another note at a higher part of the board.] Great, so this pitch is this note, and this pitch is that note. [Play both notes as they relate to "higher" and "lower" pitches.] Let's have another note. [Play a different note] Someone draw that note on the board compared to the other two notes. Here, I'll play them again. [student comes up to the board and draws a third note] Okay, so we have three notes. (Lets assume kids already practice "scales" on an instrument or with their voice) [Play a major scale, probably the most familiar scale to students] How many notes did I play? "Seven/Eight" Which is it, seven or eight? [Make students explain why it's seven or eight.] "It's eight, the top note sounds the same as the bottom note, but it's higher." (Almost correct) "It's seven, the top note restarts the scale." (Actually correct) If we use symbols to locate pitches, what can we use to "label" them? "Letters." Okay, so what letter should we start with? [students may call out any letter of the alphabet] Think about the alphabet. What letter did you learn first? "A." Would it be simpler to begin with a random letter or the first letter of the alphabet? "The first." I agree. So, let's start with A. What's next? "B." Next? "C, D, E, F, G..." How many letters is that? "Seven." Do we have enough letters to locate each pitch of the scale? "Yes." Great! If we can draw circles to represent pitches, and we can label those pitches with letters, is there a way for us to show which circle represents which pitch without using letters? [Confused looks...] Can we use lines and spaces? "Maybe." Let's check. [Draw two or three lines and some circles/ovals, making sure to include the use of at least one line and one space] Is this note in this space higher or lower than the note on this space? "Higher/Lower." Good, so we can use lines AND spaces, right?? "Yes." Dialog to be continued... -------------------------------- And yes, I'm assuming quite a bit here in terms of what students will shout out and what they'll struggle with, but it's piecemeal enough to explore the foundation of notation and give students the opportunity to "think" about the symbols they use. If they're instrumentalists, they might fall back on music they've seen and jump ahead. Keep them on pace with the dialog and follow-up with questions if they're not arriving at the basics they need for understanding notation. This dialog can go on forever, but I absolutely think a basic understanding of notation from this method will lead to inevitable discoveries about "intervals," "scales," "enharmonic spellings," and so on if continued over several class sessions, broken into concepts. It may enhance the experience of practicing as well, as students begin exploring the fundamentals while practicing their music will awaken more cognitive processes... leading to a musical meta-cognition of music theory and performance. But yeah, thought I'd just perform the exercise and see what I could come up with and more or less "simulate" here. What do you think?

I hate the Socratic Method in general. But as I read this, I laughed heartily. or I mean really!

Neat work, Shaun. The Socratic method seems like it's for people who either talk to themselves or have no friends :P

LOL Gardner ftw as always. I also don't like this method one single bit.

As far as I could tell the slurs in La Mer where all bowing markings with maybe a few phrases here and there. There were no excessively long slurs that would be impossible in one bow as far as I could tell but I didn't look that hard. An exception would be at Rehearsal 56 where he uses bows AND phrase markings. The Beethoven I saw a similar situation. The long slurs in the first movement are probably bow markings because the tempo is very fast (h = 108 ish). THUS, I'll probably have to clarify that section. The reason I made a hard and fast rule is because almost every orchestration text I've read uses that rule. What do you think? This section I was certainly wary about because slurs are incredibly confusing when it comes to string parts because there's no real "rules" to slurs. It really is the equivalent in difficulty to transposition in the winds.

Again, i have nothing i can say about success or richness of content of this post, but why something that involves asking asking questions and getting answers is by default Socratic Method? Maybe i'm too sensitive, but i feel there's hardly anything Socratic about it. But maybe i'm wrong, so, please, show me from which Plato's dialogue you get the idea that Socrates was a knowing teacher asking some group of people to form rather empirically obvious statements without irony, without reductions of their initial beliefs and logics, without the famous underlying Socratic position "i know, that i don't know"? As for now i see nothing Socratic in there. You could name this as well "Method of a caring, but rather overtly assuming, parent of all ages". Sincerely, the title is dead and an insult to Socrates. Even though you might not be the first one to come with such a pornographic name having only one parameter adequate, that of a dialogue (but what do i know, here's 21 Century, maybe dialogue is not natural in teaching). Rant over. On a side note, when i was bored from studying Plato, i would draw lines, circles, squares and use various thickness to represent music at lectures. So, maybe you're right, there's Socrates somewhere there in his dialogues. Oh, and just an anecdote, Plato, who wrote all Socrates' dialogues, had very strange relation to arts, and in his "Republic" he suggested we better exile all poets, and censor all music and painting, since music, badly used, may cause harm on one's soul.

On the contrary, I believe the socratic method has its place and can be extremely useful in such situations. In philosphy for example, or for subjects, as noted by Drake, where there are shades of gray. But for something as concrete as basic notation, which has been standardized over several hundred years, there's no real debate about it. Sure, I would ask them questions about certain parts of it, but I would do it more like this: Teacher: Here's a staff and some dots on it. These dots are called notes. You'll notice that they're ovals. Why do you think they're ovals? Students: [Myriad responses.] Somethign like why they're ovals isn't set in stone. Does anyone actually know? Because I don't think speed of writing was the only reason. Indeed, the first notes were other shapes too, squares and triangles and what not. But the simple fact that they are ovals in standard notation (disregarding shape-note notation which is a whole other ball game), is not in dispute. For all the kids know, the notes could have been squares and it would have been perfectly fine. Just something to think about.

Attached is a PDF of an incomplete draft of the Introduction to Strings section. Note that there's many many holes right now (often filled with the placeholder "blargmonster" ) that will be filled in eventually. This is just to give a taste of what's to come. Also attached are some of the audio files for the excerpts. Do play them back when you read though the excerpts. Feedback is welcome as well as technical corrections that may have slipped in. PDF: YC Orchestration Strings.pdf Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 2: Tchaik 2 bowing.mp3 Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 6: Tchaik 6 bowing.mp3 Brahms Symphony No. 1: Brahms 1 bowing.mp3 Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 4: Tchaik 4 pizz.mp3