Leaderboard

Hallo @Fermata! Your asking about the issue of „monotony“ in your fugue. Sometimes it is not an issue with the composition itself, but rather a question of the interpretation or recording. Since you are using four string instruments „played“ by your notation software, you „naturally“ encounter the problem that the entire piece sounds somewhat monotonous. Even real string instruments blend the sound very well, in my opinion, but are not as expressive for individual voices. I can imagine, when played on a piano, the impression would be totally different. As currently discussed in another thread @PeterthePapercomPoser suggested to improve the recording by “fine-tuning” the articulation, dynamics, and tempo for each individual hand or even voice. I also had a fugue which I considered to be „boring“ and I was nearly to get around and throw it away. But then I applied such tiny adjustments in the tempo, for example to make the first bar of the subject a little bit „swinging“, which dramatically changed the perception. Since I do so now with all of my piano works, I know that it is a lot of work to literally maintain two scores, one for the printout and one for the recording. But it's really worth the effort to achieve a sound that is much closer to a live performance. Concerning the composition „as is“, I think there are no issues. With a short overview on the score I see that you already applied the necessary counterpuntual techniques (such as tonal answer, a recurring countersubject, inversion, augmentation, stretto). As in 6/2 meter with mostly half and quarternotes (perhaps in an older, more Palestrinian style), it would be not appropriate to add passages (in episodes) or countersubjects with a faster rhythm. Perhaps one could introduce a kind of diminution which doesn’t increase the rhythmic pulse by doubling the speed but is merely a rhythmic variant of the original subject preserving the quarternotes as the fastest ones, finally resulting in a 1.5x diminution (such as in Bach’s D# minor fugue from the WTC1 BWV 853).

Very nice dreamy, yet mysterious and passionate prelude! I like the frequent changes of the time signature. While initially looking complicated, the rhythm of the piece has an intuitive pulse and a continuous flow. I noticed, that your score is without a key signature. But since you often change harmony from keys with sharps to keys with flats, this decision avoids that the score is cluttered with natural signs. And when listening and reading the score I like that the more serene passages correspond with the flats, while the more passionate passages feature more sharps! In some bars, I would like to see more octave brackets to make it easier to read when playing. Personally, I refuse to read more than three or four ledger lines. However, I agree, that too many octave brackets disrupt the visual impression of the runs in the score. I completely agree with @PeterthePapercomPoser's suggestions for improving the recording by “fine-tuning” the articulation, dynamics, and tempo for each individual hand or even voice. Since I do this with my piano works, I know that it is a lot of work to literally maintain two scores, one for the printout and one for the recording. But it's really worth the effort to achieve a sound that is much closer to a live performance. Thank you for sharing!

Hello @Alex Weidmann! Nice mysterious Prelude! I'm surprised that @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu hasn't reviewed it yet since it's in his favorite key! 🤣 I have a few technical nit-picks: I've recently changed the way I write for piano through Musescore Studio 4 which I think might benefit you to hear about. If you favor the Musesounds Piano as I now have come to prefer, then in order to have more control over balance between the most important melody notes and less important background chords/figurations, you could actually load up two (or more) separate pianos and change the way they're displayed in the Layout section of the program (by deleting the bass clef portion of the right hand piano and deleting the treble clef portion of the left hand one). Then, not only will you be able to change the balance between the hands in the mixer, but you'll be able to give separate dynamics to each hand - an amount of control which you would lack with just one grand-staff track. Although you'd have to put in pedal marks for both tracks, and hide them in the top track. As well as hiding dynamics that are redundant. But I think bringing out the most important notes in each chord and passage will greatly improve at least my impression of the work. Another thing is the tempo. I noticed that you're trying to create a sense of novelty through the use of unusual rhythms and meters. I think it could be even more effective if you included an ebb and flow to the tempo by simulating a sort of constant rubato with choice accel.'s and rit.'s here and there. I can refer you to examples in my own catalog if you'd like, where such rubato gives a very satisfying result (at least in my opinion) and cases where the piece would suffer greatly from the mechanicality of the rendition if not for the rubato. Some places to consider including an accel. and rit.: bar 30 accel. into 31 I think would be a nice paired with that crescendo you already have. Other than that, nice job! I also question the interruption of the expected 4/4 flow of the beginning melody with the 9/8 measure - I think that's unnecessary. Thanks for sharing!

Another Persichetti prompted piano piece. This time the prompt was "24. Extend the following chromatically ornamented piano passage." The form ended up being ABACBA. Thanks for listening and I hope you enjoy and let me know what you think!

I‘m glad to hear that, and to see that you are not too „disappointed“ or overwhelmed by the discussions. Since I see that you are (again) in „good hands“ with @muchen_ continuing a detailed discussion, I will not go so much in detail, but give only some more general thoughts. I‘ve noticed your new version (v3.mp3 – not yet v3m.mp3). Will say that I put it together with the first one on my playlist and listened them, in a loop, perhaps a dozen times while walking. I do the same with my own compositions (where I use different piano soundfonts producing 10 different recordings of the same piece) and listen to them extensively while I take a long walk. This approach helps me to judge the piece whether it is fluent and I get distracted from my thoughts every time something „rattles“. Will say, a more relaxed review on the work thru listening only – being away from the score – is very useful to find out bars which need overhaul or get new ideas how a piece could be continued. Coming to the two versions of your invention I‘ve listened, I must say they are only slightly different (which is good in the sense that your corrections/modifications had no impact on the overall mood). The longer I listened them, the more I loved the subject with the repeated notes! Yes, in the first version there are the few bars, where the „octaves“ produced a bit „thin“ sound in the counterpoint. They have gone away in the newer version (what is good) except of – in my listening impression - two bars, one at the first subject entry in the lower voice and one bar nearly the end. So, I will now look to the score to see whether I can find out what I thought to have heard. ... The one bar which retains to sound „thin“ is bar 4 and the other one is bar 22. Yes there is an octave on an A on the second of the repeated notes. But I think, it‘s not the octave only - there are other ones on a C in bar 3, last of the repeated notes and on a F# in bar 5, second of the repeated notes – which don‘t need „correction“ in my listening impression. I think the „problem“ in bars 4 and 22 is more harmonic nature, I would replace the three sixteenth notes in the upper voice [G A B] with [E# F# G#] emphasizing the dissonance between B major and the four repeated A naturals. Because this was more detailed than I initially intended to be in this repost, so take it not too seriously. The more general question I have – and you probably have yourself – is what do you intend with, for example, this particular invention. If it is an exercise, you‘ll have learned something, especially about „octaves“ – and can leave it at that, going to the next one. But perhaps this is not the best idea to continue with the 1601st exercise, as you seems to me to be already somewhat „overteached“ and „overpracticed“. If you are about to create a „full fledged“ composition of it, we could further talk about episodes, cadences and a more elaborated ending. However, I suspect that you would prefer for that purpose another piece with a subject of your own, which than will be „complete your baby“. For that case, I would suggest you to put your composition in a more larger „framework“, such as in a cycle of, for example of six or twelve inventions, calling it somewhat like „Mein Notenbüchlein“ 😅. I think, that‘s quite enough for today! Greetings, Wieland.

Hallo @TristanTheTristan! Even your Sonatina has a length of a Sonata, I think it was wise to call it „Sonatina“ only, due to its youthful spirit and its refrain from the drama and heaviness of a „full-fledged“ sonata. So it is a cheerful, enjoying piece at all! However, what refuses me to count it as a piece that I would enjoy to put in my playing list is its hyperactivity expressed by the much to fast and repeating passages with ornamentations (trills, tremolos etc.) which heavily remind me on your signature „TristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristan ….“. I can therefore only emphasize @PeterthePapercomPoser' questions about playability for a human performer and would love to hear the piece as it would be interpreted by a real pianist, whether it's a live recording or a recording from a MIDI file. In the latter case, however, more sensitivity to the technical abilities of a human pianist and their enormous nuances in articulation, dynamics, tempo, etc. would be required.

This time I wrote a piece inspired by an exercise from Chapter 2 of Persichetti's "20th Century Harmony" on Scale Materials for 2 Bb Sopranino Clarinets and Bb Bass Clarinet. The prompt was "14. Construct a canon for three clarinets in which each performer plays a different synthetic scale on a different tonic." Synthetic scales are scales that are "specially constructed, often non-traditional scales created by altering, adding, or omitting notes from standard diatonic (major/minor) scales." I chose to use the written C Acoustic Scale, F Ukrainian Dorian Scale, and B Phrygian/Dorian Scale. I've been told that I should have perhaps tried to choose scales that would sound more harmoniously with each other. But, funny enough, that's exactly what I was trying to do. I didn't choose scales at random but tried to tailor each part of the canon to the previous material by improvising a scale and only later figuring out what scale I was using. But let me know what you think! Thanks for listening! P.S.: I have added a 2nd version of the piece where I have changed the relations of the tonics to each other to be tertian rather than quartal as in the 1st version. In the 2nd version I use written C Acoustic Scale, E Ukrainian Dorian Scale, and G Phrygian/Dorian Scale. Let me know which you prefer!

Hallo @Frederic Gill! I have read the thread about your „2-part invention in counterpoint“ and since there had already been lively discussions I decided to take a look on another piece which has not got a review yet. I like the motif (or „subject“) which is indeed somewhat „stubborn“ because of its repeated notes (but there are many famous fugues with repeated notes in the subject). And so, your decision to vary the motif sometimes to avoid that repeated notes is quite a good idea. The counterpoint is well chosen rhythmically, giving the entire piece a continuous flow and its „funny“ character. As far as I remember from the other thread, there were some dispute about „parallels“ and „octaves“ which was – also in my opinion – somewhat „overteaching“ (I couldn’t follow all arguments or „issues“ without going into detail too deep), so that I can understand that you’ve deleted most of the posts. But to be honest, after listening to your E minor invention, I can understand what the other commenters meant: Not „parallel octaves“ (or „parallel fifth“ as to be avoided in counterpoint generally) are problematic, but only the occurrence of the same note (in an octave) on a strong beat that makes the piece sound something „thin“ at that particular note. This is the case in a two-voice counterpoint only. If you had a third or fourth voice there would be enough harmonic material overall (and that might be the reason that writing a two-part fugue is much more challenging than a three- or four-voice fugue and why there are so few of them). I think, you can solve the problem, for example by varying your counter-motif in that places where it creates the octave. You will then lose the smooth motion at these points and have to insert a leap, but that might emphasize the humorous character of the entire piece!

Well! That quite possibly might be the most interesting thing I've heard in a long time. A very tricky thing to put together. Myself, I've always found canons far more difficult to write effectively than fugues, so therefore I must commend you. This is a very effective little piece. I must say, I don't much care for the sopranino clarinet up top, far too shrill, and I find myself wondering if the whole top part mightn't sound better on a regular B-flat clarinet an octave down. I suppose the texture is more modern for it though as is, and therefore part of your plan. Great work!

Thanks for your detailed thoughts! When I mentioned monotony, I was referring more to the process of working with a long, slow subject - after a while the contrapuntal development itself felt a bit repetitive to write. The fugue was an exercise I worked out on paper with pen, mainly as a kind of contrapuntal puzzle, which I've always enjoyed doing as a hobby. That said, you're absolutely right that the playback could be improved. I didn't add any articulation or dynamics, so the notation software makes everything sound much flatter than it would in a real performance. I'll try revising it along the lines you suggest to make it sound more natural. Thanks again for taking the time to comment!

What about 'better than Peter'? @PeterthePapercomPoser

Thanks for the comment! You’re absolutely right that thinning out the texture can help keep things fresh — that idea crossed my mind as well while writing. I treated it more like a fugue d’école rather than a stylistically Baroque fugue (the subject itself is a 20th‑century textbook theme), so I kept the four‑voice texture going longer than I normally would. I also thought about extending some of the three‑voice spots, but the subject is already pretty long and the tempo is on the slower side, so the whole thing was starting to feel a bit too stretched out. Still, your point is totally valid, and I appreciate you mentioning it. Glad you enjoyed the fugue!

38 years or so, this was 1997!

That sounds fantastic. Perhaps a version without so many annotations would be clearer. Although for educational purposes it's great. And well, you've left me wanting the second part.

I made this very small renaissance motet for 4 voices, Cantus, Altus, Tenor and Bassus. However my stupid brain wrote the text wrong and instead of "Sicut LILIUM" it became "Sicut ILIUM", I only noticed it after finishing the motet! But besides that part everything is in accordance to what it should be. Enjoy! Text: Sicut [l]ilium inter spinas Sic amica mea inter filias

MP3 Play / pause Persichetti Exercise 2 - 57 0:39 1:25 volume > next menu Persichetti Exercise 2 - 57 > next PDF Persichetti Exercise 2 - 57 Nice! You have a nice sense of atonalism. It has an eerie and mysterious feel to me. (ending on a V7? That is one reason.) Also the use of the whole tone scale is nice and surreal. It is not fully used, but definitely has the characteristics of it.

It'll take some time though.

Oh yes, please do. I'm convinced it will sound different - and better.

Here is an extended and revised version of the piece. I’m still experimenting with having a wider variety of instruments, for now they are the same. I’m in over my head with making arrangements like this so all feedback is appreciated

“It’s a huge…comment!” Lol. Thanks for the supportive and constructive feedback. I have inserted my comments inside brackets: “It's a huge improvement from the previous piece. The countersubject you've written is very melodious, and you've exploited its scalar nature and its rhythm very well for the rest of the piece.” [The original motive is longer than you thought. There is an important stretto in this #10 (see pic) and I cannot take full credit for the scalar line and the rhythm]. “ The harmony in your counterpoint is very apparent and well-constructed too: the first bar outlines descending thirds, and the second bar is a dominant chord. The issues regarding accented 8ves are also no longer there. You can refine your countersubject slightly though. All of the semiquavers in bar 4 should be raised by 1 pitch. This will both highlight the underlying dominant harmony, and also lead to the E in the following bar more smoothly. “ [yes it sounds better! I made this change to bar 4, 10 & 22. I have also changed some registers because it became too high or separated. Then I made a few adjustments in bar 10.17 and 12.83 (see v3m.mp3) ] “With this change, your solution will be perfectly acceptable, but a slightly more musically "interesting" solution will be to turn the beginning of bars 3 and 4 into 4-3 suspensions.” [The motive ‘forbids’ that change, I suppose. It could be possible at bar 3. For bar 4, on the other hand, I cannot have there a 4-3 suspension because the 3 doesn’t belong to the V chord. In fact there was a 4|7 at bar 4 in the original motive, but I cheated and replaced it with a 8|7 because I wanted a VI, not a iv or a ii° chord. Am I wrong? Should I bring back the 4 of aiv or ii°? ] [And for the 3 other points, I’ll look at it closely and rework my piece. Thanks a lot for this precious advice ;)]

It's a huge improvement from the previous piece. The countersubject you've written is very melodious, and you've exploited its scalar nature and its rhythm very well for the rest of the piece. The harmony in your counterpoint is very apparent and well-constructed too: the first bar outlines descending thirds, and the second bar is a dominant chord. The issues regarding accented 8ves are also no longer there. You can refine your countersubject slightly though. All of the semiquavers in bar 4 should be raised by 1 pitch. This will both highlight the underlying dominant harmony, and also lead to the E in the following bar more smoothly. With this change, your solution will be perfectly acceptable, but a slightly more musically "interesting" solution will be to turn the beginning of bars 3 and 4 into 4-3 suspensions. Then I'd raise the following points about the rest of your piece: As mentioned before, your piece needs strong cadences to serve as musical punctuations. You need a V - i (or I) in the tonic key at the end. You also preferably need another in a different key somewhere else. The tonal scheme of your work is perfectly sensible: tonic - dominant - relative - tonic, and so a second V - i at the end of either the dominant or relative section is desirable. A third or fourth strong cadence may also be added at your discretion. Your subject + countersubject together is invertible (in the sense of exchanging bass with soprano and so on) and so you should invert it! Every opportunity you've had (bars 7, 13, 19) you've presented us with a modified version of the subject and countersubject instead. You are allowed to do these pitch modifications (and I indeed like them), but given you have presented the theme consistently throughout the work as soprano -> bass pairs, you should also present these modified themes as pairs. Utilising these modified pitches as new motifs in your episodes would also be desirable. Whilst you will find episodes like these (i.e. repetition of one passage, with slight modifications) in the oeuvre, far more commonly you will see different episodes being constructed completely differently. They have different lengths, and are based on different harmonic progressions. Melodically they generally still play from the pool of the motivic material in the theme, but the exact details vary from episode to episode. The reason why is not because repetition is bad - repetition is good if done sensibly! But the journey you take to get from the tonic to the dominant must clearly be different from the journey from the dominant to the relative, so a different approach is needed each time. Writing different episodes will also allow you to place the much-needed cadences at will. When you can employ this repetition technique however, is when your starting and ending keys are separated by the same interval. In your case, this means you can reuse your episode between the dominant - relative (v to III) as an episode between the relative - tonic (III - i). If the subdominant was part of your tonal scheme as well then it means you can reuse a tonic - dominant (i - v) episode as a subdominant - tonic (iv - i) episode.

Hi @TristanTheTristan! It's a vigorous sonatina brimming with your youthful energy! The only thing I didn't care for was the meaningless shows of impossible virtuosity. I think you are not composing for a human being but rather for the computer program which is a shame. Making music possible to be played does not make it worse which is something I don't think that you understand. But even with that - I enjoyed many parts of the piece - the adventurousness of the 3rd movement especially. But the 2nd movement was horribly boring and the melodies in the 1st movement were meaningless scalar passages. There are so many parts of your piece that are mechanical and robotic that I won't go through mentioning them by measure number as it would be too herculean a task. I don't know - don't you want to write music that could someday be performed? Or do you want to be known as a midi or Musescore composer for the rest of your life? Thanks for sharing.

Symphony-Concerto In A Major For Electric Guitar And Orchestra-1 Free Sheet Music by Robert C. Fox for Various Instruments | Noteflight Symphony-Concerto In A Major For Electric Guitar And Orchestra-2 Free Sheet Music by Robert C. Fox for Various Instruments | Noteflight Symphony-Concerto In A Major For Electric Guitar And Orchestra-3 Free Sheet Music by Robert C. Fox for Various Instruments | Noteflight Symphony-Concerto In A Major For Electric Guitar And Orchestra-4 Free Sheet Music by Robert C. Fox for Various Instruments | Noteflight

I would be more along the lines of giving a good classical guitarist an electric to play around with for a couple of months.

Greetings @Wieland Handke! The F-natural in bars 3 and 4 of the 1st and 2nd entry is very much intentional, even though it does generate a certain degree of instability not present in the original, fully tonal rendition of Mozart's own canon. In fact, I should thank you for highlighting the matter of accidentals, as the previous version did not, in fact, feature completely real transpositions of the theme. There were a handful of mistakes every 3rd bar, not contrapuntal, but harmonic and thematic, as the continuity and integrity of the transpositions was broken with leading tone and its minor 3rd/5th of a dominant chord being raised a semitone higher. All of that has now been corrected, so unless any more oversights of mine were to resurface, every single entry should now be a real transposition to the lower major 2nd of the main 18-bar-long subject. I'm glad to learn that the current length of this canon would prevent it from seeming far too repetitive to the eyes of an educated listener. Indeed, I was worried it might end up sounding excessively mechanical despite the flowing timbre of legato strings, as monotony may distort even the most sophisticated of musical devices into pure pure noise after far too many identical, tiresome reiterations. It's a relief to know that to you it did not appear to be the case here, and I must thank you for your acute observations, for otherwise I might not have come to realize that the transpositions were not 100% exact. I should also probably check @PeterthePapercomPoser's take on the Persichetti exercises, especially considering this canon on different scales you just mentioned. I'm anticipating a gold mine of modal/post-tonal contrapuntal solutions! Thank you for this recommendation as well.

Oh that's a difficult question about the differences and preferences between the two versions! For the first impression, they sound similar. And that is not meant as superficial impression, but rather I'm all the more amazed at how these three different scales retain their personality while now acting together (or against each other) in a different distance and relation. Maybe the tertian variant is more melancholic and serene, while the quartal one has a more excited character. This impression might be emphasized by the fact that the three voices are now narrower together in the tertian version and the sopranino clarinet does not play in such a high register and is less shrill. (By the way, I like that you’ve used three instruments with different registers, so that the voices are clearly separated, despite the somewhat annoying sound.)

Hallo @Fugax Contrapunctus! I’m astonished how it works to create such a harmonically balanced piece while stepping down a whole note for each subsequent voice entry! Since @PeterthePapercomPoser also presented a canon based on different scales in one of his recent Persichetti exercises, I would like to know if you transposed some of the canon imitations into other modes or scales to achieve this harmonic consistency? I didn't check it out thoroughly, as I initially thought you had changed from minor to major to minor in the first three entries, without noticing that there is no F# in violin 2 in bar 4. No, the three entries are identical. But now, I think I’ve probably figured out the trick: The theme starts on the lydian fourth, F# in the theme being in C major – at least for the first four bars. However, a few bars later the melody starts to descend to the flats handing over the harmonic center to the next voice. So the descent is inherent in the melody which might be a bit difficult to learn due to its harmonic instability. While being heavily repetitive by its nature, the entire canon is not boring – at least not at this length. If being part of a larger work, such as an oratorio, I could imagine that it would be contrasted by a more declarative and stable section.

Yeah. It is also tremendously difficult... Let's say two guitarists somehow managed to premiere it by playing the main part together.

The really! How? Is how someone would actually perform this...😦

Firstly, You combine the symphony and the concerto, and the you add an electrical guitar. wow. i am IMPRESSED. (really! How?)

I think I got the idea for n.2!

Noticed a few hand clashes and enharmonic spelling errors today: so here's a revised draft. Also made a tiny change in Bar 8 (left hand). Hopefully better? It's still a bit of a beast, with awkward hand-crossings; but I wrote it for someone with great technical skills!

@Frederic Gill inspired this one. He wrote an invention as an exercise from one of his Counterpoint books on the same motive that you can hear here: I was inspired by his attempt so I decided to give it a try myself. Thanks for listening and I hope you enjoy and let me know what you think!

I've used an 8-bit soundfont here because I have not found any orchestral soundfonts that I liked. Everything has just too much vibrato and too heavy a texture from a HIP (historically-informed performance) point of view. I think Bach works well realised as 8-bit music so this is the approach I took. If you prefer audio which is faithful to the original instrumentation then I've attached a version of it here.

Oh sorry 😔

This sounds really nice. How long have you been composing scores (just curious)?

Hello I've recently decided to take orchestration seriously. Just as I did with counterpoint back in the day... Yes, although I study on my own, I have always been self-taught, at some point you need guidance from an expert. So I am taking a course in orchestration. It is really for a very small group (only four people), which means the feedback is very powerful, as each person's work is reviewed in depth. I've learned a lot about the classical style (paradigm: Mozart). Why and for what purpose each thing is used. And here I share my version (reviewed by my teacher) of the orchestration of the first movement of Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 5. Now I'm working on Mendelssohn.

You call the first theme folk melody...that's a compliment; I thought of it as a fugue subject in disguise! There are romantic-era nods as well. In the first movement, the slow intro sounds a bit like Tchaikovsky, and the final cadence is a direct rip-off (well, tribute to?) of the final cadence to C.M.V. Weber's Der Freischütz first act! Different key. It has always been my favorite opera!😉 It is not postmodern, but could that be true in a way? Basically a Nineteenth Century symphony, but has Baroque elements, even some Classical ones. We LIVING composers have the luxury, especially today with everything on the Internet, to be eclectic.

I saw the viola in the bass clef thing; just a Noteflight glitch, it likes to change things! It was on a measure rest so didn't make a difference in the sound, but of course I corrected it!

A lot of voice leading things that are weird. Very postmodern sounding to. I somewhat appreciate the dissonance. OK, I like the change to pace. I appreciate the different folk aspects of this piece. And I definitely like that electric guitar cadenza. A mixing issue with the winds burying the main theme. We are back at measure 59 with the folk melody There may be some difficulty at 83 and before that with the double tongue in the brass. I also like how some of the other instruments double the guitar with the runs. Why is the viola in the bass clef. I like the rhythmic interpretation and variation around 111. I enjoy the guitar solo and also the irregular variation with the rhythm although that the playback may not support this make sure you write some slurring around. At 179 a previous theme returns. Along with the folk melody running after that. Some of the guitar material had returned. And I like the end. Good job and I appreciate the amazing structure and the cool material that you have given throughout the first Movement

Sad, I'm too old for it!

I just had a really dumb idea, that's all. https://www.veed.io/view/1666613d-b7f2-40da-8444-d9c0ecb3484b?panel=share

scraggy!!!🤣

One more thing orchestral I can post, an opera overture from 1995. If I enter any of the opera, probably extract a suite or something if I don't feel like working myself to death! Overture to the Opera Hypochondria Free Sheet Music by Robert C. Fox for Various Instruments | Noteflight

Comment retracted...

No; two weeks ago: how time flies!

Chew on this, until I get an actual reply: Waltz in A Major Free Sheet Music by Robert C. Fox for Piano/Keyboard | Noteflight I simply LOVE A Major! And this was written a week ago or so, not in 1997-1998 like the symphony.

At least this site seems to be at least alive; a moderator seems to have removed my clumsy double-post, and I have a follower after 20 minutes! Glad you like my one and only symphony; too much work, I prefer chamber music, songs, piano pieces, etc...

Well, I'm 56 and not a young composer now, but I was 28-29 when I wrote this beast...