Leaderboard

Yes, but not yet as I intended. To clarify my ideas, I have attached a version of your latest score with some annotations. I see that you have marked the notes where the other hand takes over. But the markings (m.g. and m.d.) aren’t very helpful for sight-readers, since the note is still written in the “wrong” staff. Sight-reading is about reading chords and intervals—not individual notes. Whenever a note of a chord or interval is written in the “wrong” staff, the recognition pattern that a sight-reader normally uses to identify a chord or interval is inherently lost, forcing the player to identify a single note and add it to the chord/interval being played, which slows down the process. Consequently, such situations require practice and/or memorization, which contradicts the approach of sight-reading and playing the piece “without practice.” Therefore, I very appreciate scores where the chords/intervals are notated as a complete pattern in that staff where it is to be played by the respective hand. I must admit, that such a score looks sometimes a bit „cluttered“ because of the „kneed beams“ and sometimes cross-staff note stems (producing sometimes problems for the collision resolving with dynamics, slurs etc), but if the player finally makes the respective annotations by hand in its score, the readability is reduced, too. Please do not take my comments as personal criticism of your score; rather, they are intended as general advice or as basis for discussion, since I often come across scores here in the forum—even from very experienced composers—that, while well-suited for analyzing voice leading, leave me with the uncomfortable feeling: “Has the composer ever played this piece himself, and did he pay sufficient attention to its playability?” AnnotatedScore.pdf

Thank you, Fruit Hunter, yes, I know most of my pieces are rather sparse compared to some of the epic stuff I hear many people making. But I have difficulty dealing with many instruments at the same time, so I tend to use a transparent sound, and then maybe try to use the colours of the various combinations instead. And i like to use harps and celeste to punctuate rhythms and transitions.

I listened to anticipation and it sounds nice. Very floaty and sparse but still feeling full. Keep up the good work.

Hello everyone, I recently updated a little draft of music for string quintet on the incomplete works forum and I just developed it into a full piece. After some thought, the section felt somehow like a developed theme, so I composed a main theme by using some of the musical features found in that draft I composed. The piece is an elegy and has the following sections: [m.1~m.9] Introduction -- The introduction was composed by making use of the most important harmonies of the piece: Cmaj, Cminor, Dbmaj and Gmaj. [m.10 ~ m.25] Main theme -- Main theme in C minor. This theme is in 2/2 (cut time). It works as a period but, in this case, both statements end in a half cadence (the second has a stronger modulation to G). [m.26 ~ m.40] Development section (original draft) -- Developmental section which starts with the main theme in Cmaj. This section is repeated once and it is in 4/4 (common time). [m.41 ~ m.51] Restatement of main theme -- second part of the main theme repeated once, this time ending in a perfect cadence (with picardy third in last chord). I am considering repeating also the first part of the theme in the restatement. Somehow I feel the development lasts for long enough as to justify a complete repeat of the initial theme, but I am still not sur. Any suggestion about the best thing to do is welcome! I think the atmosphere fits that title of "elegy", but it is also too hopeful at times so I am not sure if it is really an elegy. Please, let me know if you have any suggestion for the title! Also, I am not sure about the use of dotted notes for those moments in which they need to cut the phrase a little earlier. Would there be a better way for notating that? Thank you! As always any feedback is more than welcome and hope you enjoy it!