Leaderboard

Written for the 2026 spring Young composer competition this work for percussion quintet features a wide range of natural and man-made percussion instruments to represent the integration of man and nature. Few years back me, and a few of my friends decided that it would be a good idea to cure our boredom by bringing a already busted up child size guitar meant for learning and to "" sacrifice it into the woods.'' the reservoir is a large body of water near where I live so it was a short distance, which then led to an easy walk into a bunch of colonial ruins where we laid the guitar and watch it rot away. Far deep in the reservoir lays a broken destroyed child size guitar that my sister got for her birthday as a child or something like that it’s been ever since sitting around around in the house and had transfer locations from her room to the living room room to the my room to the wilderness it’s final resting place. My sister never had been fond of performing music in her life. In fact she is quite horrible at it so my parents smartly in intelligently got her a low quality guitar anyways fast-forward a few years later, and I am now experimenting with multi instrumelity. However, though I got fond of extended techniques, playing it like a hammered dulcimer and even bowing the thing after me becoming friends with the lead guitarist to my modern day chamber band sort of situation, he starts to play it and at that point it only had two remaining strings. We all anonymously decided that we should bring it to the reservoir maybe hide a secret note in it after all the band was just a bunch of board teens, wanting something interesting to do with our lives, so what ended up happening was we snuck into the Reservoir found a foundation of an old colonial house and threw the guitar in it other than impact damage ever since the guitar has been rotting away however, though quite often me and my friends still visit it’s resting place only to see it in more final pieces I’m pretty sure I got rid of the note since it had some secrets that I do not want people finding and still to this day. It’s been resting there ever since. Percussion five has a lot of handmade instrument specifically for this work . The alcoholics shekere; is just a bucket with crushed up beer, cans, or soda cans is meant to be played in a similar style to a traditional shekere . the facidrum; faci- Latin for bundle, a bundle of resident sticks attached and tied up to a frame . Chopping block; a semi resonant piece of wood meant to be played like a table and a practice pad All of the other instruments should be self-explanatory Keep note that since because this was written in musescore bunch of playback loopholes has been exploited, although that there are more than five staves these are to represent each instrument in the set up rather than the actual part parts of represented by the groups that are bracketed. This is to create custom percussion set ups, and to satisfy an easier workflow with sound fonts. ' Sacrificed to the wilderness.mp3 Sacrificed to the wilderness.pdf

No, they are not allowed since you need a trio Quartet, or a quintet .chamber Orchestra’s or in this case what you may be referring to as a string orchestra at minimum could contain at least up to nine players. Two per part other than double bass since they rarely get Div.

Hallo @interlect , that is a good question. Honestly, I also never heard about „Counter-Melody“ or „Twin Melody“. However, since I’ve always use counterpoint when composing, possibly I can explain something about. First of all, the “reviewers” who have concluded that this piece is not counterpoint may be somewhat surprised, since the piece has a “jazz” or “big band” feel that one doesn’t necessarily expect when looking forward to a piece performed on an organ, a piano, or perhaps by a chamber orchestra. But that kind of „style“ is not the issue. Counterpoint is not a style of music or related only with a certain era, namely the Baroque time. There is, for example, a Russian composer, Nikolai Kapustin, who wrote always in Jazz „style“, including 24 preludes and fugues in Jazz style, which – of cause – apply counterpoint. So, counterpoint is a composing technique, rather than a style: Counterpoint, or polyphonic music is all about voices that form rhythmically and melodically independent (horizontal) musical lines. When two or more such voices occur in a piece of music, they interact with each other, following certain contrapuntal rules and thus creating harmony. Since all voices are equally carriers of the melodic and rhythmic material, there is no specific melody voice and no subordinate accompaniment, for example through (vertical) chords. While singing independently, the voices do not have to be completely unrelated. Often, one voice repeats or imitates what another voice has sung before, as is the case in a canon, for example. Counterpuntal compositional technique fascinates with its efficiency in the use of thematic material. Once started with the (fugue) subject and the „accompaniment“ in the other voices (which is, in fact, no accompaniment but material being developed in interaction with the subject), there is enough material with which to compose without having to stop and reflect. To come back to your example: To me, it’s inherently a typical jazz piece based on a chord progression over which the band begins to improvise. In a chord progression, the vertical approach—that is, the chords themselves with their harmonies—is the fundamental compositional or improvisational technique. The melodic material follows these harmonies and generates the horizontal lines as a result of them, rather than as their original idea. And even though your two brass sections interact with each other in a kind of melodic dialogue, I get the impression that they are engaged in a “playful competition” to see who can deliver the better improvisation over the underlying jazz harmonies, rather than developing a “subject” or thematic material. There’s nothing wrong with that, and I really liked the piece, but it is also for me no counterpoint, and the other classifications like “Twin melody” or “Counter-Melody” (which, as far as I know, aren’t clearly defined terms) seem to be an attempt to express in a single word what I’ve tried to explain in more detail.

Hallo @HarryWood ! First of all, a warm welcome here at the YoungComposers Forum! Here are you among numerous music enthusiasts of a huge variety concerning their styles, compositional approaches and skills, so that I think, you’ll get the desired feedback. I was curious about what to expect about the style of your music, since you’ve called you a „new neo classical“ piano composer. The term „classical“ reminds me first to Beethoven or Mozart and „neo“ means for me to integrate more contemporary harmony and tonality. After listening to your pieces, they remind me more of Beethoven’s „Für Elise“, Richard Clayderman’s „Ballade Pour Adeline“ or „Comptine d'un autre ete – l'apres-midi“ from the French movie „Amelie“. Although all that pieces are very popular, that kind of genre is – as mentioned already by @Luis Hernández – somewhat too soft and non-exciting for me, too. Please don’t misunderstand that as a criticism on your person or your achievements in piano playing for about one year. The pieces sound good and have a calm mood, but putting some more ingredients in them would make them more unique: Whenever I think about what a good piece requires, the following things come to my mind: • First, a piece needs an idea how it could sound like, what mood it should have or which other pieces could be used as an inspiration (I think, that „ingredient“ you have already achieved with your pieces). • What a piece makes unique or captivating is a clever idea, creating a „unique selling point“, bringing some surprise to the listener. That is the „spice“ of the unexpected, for example a distinct harmony progression, an unexpected tonality or dissonances or a rhythmic surprise such as an unconventional meter (so I could imagine for your pieces a kind of Jazz harmony or somewhat more dissonant harmonies). • Another important thing is to think about the form of the piece. While this is a more theoretical topic, one sometimes has a good melodic idea (or even a number of), but the question is, how to put them together. So now the reflection comes, what the piece could be structurally, a simple A-B-A form, a rondo, in sonata form, a number of variations about the main theme? • A final question could be: In which context should the piece appear? I could imagine, that it is more satisfying to have an idea or „project“ of multiple pieces to be put together, for example, in a cycle such as „Six preludes“ or something like that. With such a framework in mind, you don’t run the risk of trying to create numerous unrelated pieces and perhaps putting them „unfinished“ away. The incentive „Now have I finished number four of six“ helps yourself to focus and you’ll see, nearly every piece is worth it to be retained. Looking around here at the forum would be a perfect place to get inspiration and don’t hesitate to „review“ other compositions too, even if they are from „more experienced“ composers. Every reply is welcome and receiving the „incentives“ (such as points, badges and finally ranks) does not primarily depend on the quality and quantity of the compositions you shared, but even more from the amount of feedback you’ve given. And, by the way, if you share your scores, too, the reviewers would be able to give more in-depth reply, for example also concerning the „art“ of score engraving. Friendly regards. Wieland

I really enjoyed this! I think you capture the "voice" of Schoenberg that he has in most of his orchestral works. I said this in a previous review, but orchestration is really subjective....so here are my suggestions: First piece I think the oboe is suppose to be piano as well (it's not marked in the score). I also think the pickup Trumpet run can be transferred to the clarinet I don't think the 1st trombone needs to double the cello/horn in the 4th bar. In measure 7, unless the orchestra has 5 timpani drums (or an EXTREMELY good player who can quickly adjust tuning) that is going to be difficult In measure 8, that trumpet part looks questionable...that 32nd note might be messy In bars 13-14, probably could combine the cello/bass part to be played by divided cello....helps with thinning out the sound since it's marked p Generally, it's really hard for brass players to play pp or ppp when there is a moving/active part with leaps. I would give the trombone/tuba part to a bass clarinet and/or bassoon near the end. Second piece I would've used bassoons instead of horn in the 2nd measure. They sound more "dry" staccato and will blend with the pizzicato I'm assuming "ord" means Arco? make that clear in the string parts Trombones don't usually read in treble clef. I would change that to a tenor clef in the last measure. Third piece I would just have the tuba play without doubling from trombone. The passage is already pp and tuba has a more rounder sound for that I think the pppp markings are a bit much Fourth piece Measure 10: that bassoon/trumpet figure is going to be very tricky to play in unison. I would just have trumpet play it (even though it would be a challenge) Fifth piece From how it's written in the score, it looks you only want half of the 2nd violin section play measures 8-11? Sixth piece There is a lot of pp and ppp in here...but a lot of instrument doubling - for example bars 5-6 cello/bass doubling bass trombone/tuba AND all bass instruments the last measure. I would do mutes for all strings and brass in this piece. Maybe even solo strings to reduce the sound. The last two eight notes could easily be just a single bass player doing pizzicato

Hello @Luis Hernández ! I’m not able to write a „review“ today since therefore I would like to explore the six little piano pieces in more depth in its original version to compare them with your orchestration. So for now, all I can say is that I really enjoyed them and consider them good examples of orchestration—especially for someone like me who has no experience yet. The great thing about them is that the pieces are so short yet still expressive—so there should be no excuse not to go even deeper into the details (if the time allows me). Now, somewhat off-topic: Two days ago, I attended a performance of Dvořák’s “Stabat Mater” with a full orchestra and a massive choir (430 singers). This was a real fun, not only because of the bombastic sound, but also because I was able to follow Dvořák’s orchestration live. It is the total contrast to the „six little piano pieces“, since he stays very long on the harmonies and even single tones – letting them „rotate“ through the entire orchestra. At one point, you hear and see the cellos playing a chord while the double basses accompany them with pizzicato. A moment later, you can still hear the chord, but you see that the cellos have stopped playing, and after a moment of surprise, you realize that the horns have taken over and the pizzicato has been reinforced by the timpani. Yet the transition was so seamless that you didn’t even notice the change in instruments, only a slight shift in timbre. And by the way, the first movement of the “Stabat Mater” begins with exactly one note being played for nine measures, passing through all the instruments before the main theme begins. That reminded me of one of your recent posts: “What can I do with two notes?” 🙂

Sir Pickles of Mercury hereby declares his entrance into the Grand Competition.

Wieland, thank you for taking the time to comment on my work. Your interest is much appreciated. Mark

I’m excited to share my new piece: Sonata No. 23 in F-sharp major, written in binary form. It’s a charming and playful work, full of unexpected harmonic twists that give it a unique and stylish character—perhaps the most distinctive sonata I’ve written so far. I composed this piece in just a few hours spread over two days, making the creative process as spontaneous as the music itself. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did writing it—let me know what you think in the comments!

Well, whether or not you wrote specific bowings, you still wrote slur markings for the strings, which to them imply bowing information. Whether or not it's explicit, you can always justify your reasoning as the following; "With the given technicality of the work already demanding high accuracy from the performer, I wanted to take today to test if my orchestration would make the bowing information clear and implicit. For today, I decided to give their bowing instructions based on the slur markings in their parts, and following this session, I will amend and update the bowing instructions on the final copy of the score before its first performance." This essentially covers you in case they ask about it

Hi! I'm Harry Wood. I'm new to this forum and all things music honestly. I'm 30 years old, discovered piano a year ago and fell in love. I have no musical background, I've never played an instrument prior to this and I'm still learning how to read sheet music. I'm going for my grade 1 in piano later this year I hope. Started writing my own music 3 months ago as a way to express myself and my emotions, I'm very into neo classical artists such as Ludovico. I am struggling to know what to actually do with the pieces I have written. I think it sounds okay but I struggle to find people to show to see what others think of it. Below you can find 2 audio clips of my latest piano compositions, neither are finished and I will continue to work on them but I would love some feedback and opinions no matter how harsh it may be. I have fallen in love with writing music and I want to get better and that will only happen through honest feedback so please feel free to express your opinions and I will take it all on board. Kind Regards Harry. Far From Everything Far From Everything.mp3 As I am As I am.mp3

Hallo @luderart as you frequently present compositions in this style—short, aphoristic pieces for solo instruments—your compositional approach differs from that of most other members of the forum, who often attempt to write full-scale symphonic works for a large orchestra. Yet in an orchestra, an instrument is merely a gear in a large clockwork mechanism and is subject to the conductor’s interpretive intent. On the other hand, dedicated solo pieces for monodic instruments seem to be rare, so that I could imagine that they are appreciated by players of the clarinet, bassoon etc. However, when I listen to them and look at the score, I sense a kind of loneliness (which is not a criticism, but merely a statement of fact): The solo instrument „utters“ its sentence, yet no conversation emerges, as there is no accompanying or contrasting voice. And even the score pages look a bit „lonely“, since there is remaining whitespace due to the need of only one staff for notation ... Here is another, similar approach to a piece for a solo instrument, the bassoon. The composer, in that case, decided to put the „sentences“ in a more programmatic context, depicting „a garden“ over the course of a year. https://youtu.be/ok_R4cstdGs Now, some short thoughts to the individual sententiae: No. 1 It serves as an overture, trying to gain the attention of the listener. The meter change from 6/4 to 5/4 in bar two is somewhat surprising, and, together with the two trills, reminds me of the bells ringing in the lobby of a concert hall, urging the audience to take their seats before the playful quintuplet melody begins. No. 2 A short, playful piece - reminding me at children playing around. No. 3 To me, the third sentence has a melancholic and contemplative character, which is only seemingly lightened by the eighth-note runs. The final question remains unanswered. No.4 The fourth one has a quality that even exceeds the character of a „sentence only“. Because it consists of three clearly perceptible motifs, which are used in sequences, it has enough thematic material, so that it could be developed further or used as a sketch for a much larger piece, too. No. 5 Again, a sententia which is a short piece of its own, now in A-B-A form, yielding a small exposition, a development and a recapitulation. (Fun fact for me is bar 11. in 1/4 meter with the sole purpose to place a rest ...) No. 6 Number six for me expresses the idea behind the „sententiae“ as its best: Although it has a simple texture with only staccato semiquavers, the rests at the end of the phrases serve as the period at the end of a sentence, thus structuring the short utterance. No. 7 With number seven – which also bears thematic material which could be developed further -, we come back to a more melancholic mood, somewhat a recapitulation of sententia number 3.

Hey there Weiland! Thanks for checking this out, it always means a lot to hear great feedback. ❤️ Thank you, friend. I'm acutely aware of the style of each of these preludes, as I'm constantly thinking about the overall feel with each one, wanting them to possess their own unique character. One of my weaknesses as a composer has been counterpoint, or at least using it in the foreground versus just thinking about it with melody and harmony. I've posted the previous preludes on the forum (check the topics tab in my profile, I'm lucky enough to have @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu give his interpretations), and a style they lack was one that focused on a more contrapuntal foundation. Personal challenge accepted. 😄 I'll also say that it makes me bashful to hear you enjoyed the counterpoint, as your talent with it is drenched in the music I've heard of yours. I wrote the first twelve a few years ago, with the intention of having each one focused on a different tonal center. The scales and approaches used varied a ton, at least that was the intention. There's blues, Chopinesque ones, soliloquys, video game character adaptations, etc. These next twelve started differently. I'm varying the tone centers, but maybe I repeat some here and there. Not sure yet, but the restriction this time is I'm limited to the 61 keys on the keyboard I'm using to brainstorm and workout things. Thanks for listening and sharing your thoughts, it means a lot!

Hi everyone! I'm currently working on a 4 movement Piano Sonata in E minor, and I've already written the first movement, at around a little over 10 minutes in length alone. Im 15 years old, and although I'm a classically trained pianist studying at the peabody preparatory, I'm a self taught composer, so I'd appreciate any feedback on notation, structure, and really anything else that could benefit the piece, which could help me refine further. The piece is in sonata form, with the A and B themes in the exposition both lasting from m.1-163 (A - m.1-82, B - m.83-163), a development section (with a brief 24 measure Fugato on the main theme from m.21-37) lasting from m.164-219, and then the recap from m.220-293. The piece goes through many modulations, occasional complex polyrhythms, chromaticism, complex late-romantic/impressionist harmonies, cross-staff textures, delayed resolutions, distant key relationships, using "deceptive" major keys, and it ends the exposition in B major, the dominant, rather than G major the relative major. The development begins with the fugato in D# minor, and then after going through A# minor, G# minor, Ab major, breaking the fugato, and E major, it begins the recap back in E minor, moving through a few more keys to finally reach E major in the end. For this sonata, I'm very inspired by liszt (both his more virtuosic showpieces and his more introspective late works), especially with how he uses thematic development and combines "mephisto" drama with lyrical spirituality. In the beginning of my piece, you have the main motive of the entire piece, what I call the "B octave motive", since it's just octaves in both hands repeating the note B, but this single motive (both rhythmically and melodically) can be found in almost every section of the piece, from the tempestuous A theme, to the spiritual, watery and flowing B theme. The polar opposite contrast between the A and B themes creates both immense technical and musical demands for the performer, while still being idiomatic. Additionally, many of the ideas in this sonata, come from my own improvisations over the years, which I think helps give me a little bit of a distinct voice, but I'd like to know the perspectives of others. As I already mentioned, all feedback is appreciated! Note: the first link is me playing a slightly cut version of the exposition, and links 2 and 3 show me playing the parts I cut out from the first link. Links: https://youtu.be/MyptBsYMNiw https://youtube.com/shorts/-kIa8oVrUg4 https://youtube.com/shorts/_eLFRSilBzs https://youtube.com/shorts/_lOHz4Nz5qE https://youtu.be/qlEPGqwAq64 Piano Sonata in E Minor - Full Score.pdf

Thanks for posting @Sebastian Guzman ! It's been a while since I've listened to the Liszt B minor Sonata, but I am definitely getting vibes of it here (most assuredly from your B-octave motif). Your musical language in this work does feel very Lisztian to me, which is inclusive of the harmony and the piano textures, and that I mostly do mean as a compliment. I'm curious to know what other influences/inspirations you may have had while writing this movement though, as some sections do seem to draw from other wells of musical ideas (e.g. the harmonic movements in b. 91-105 felt distinctly modern to me). I confess that I am not really in a position to offer super helpful advice but I hope you'll find this useful anyway. I also don't mean any suggestion as an attack on your writing, of course, but as an exchange of ideas that you could optionally disregard :) Exposition The B-octave motif is very reminiscent of one of the motifs in the B minor Sonata, haha. I see that the majority of the dotted rhythm in this motif is the backbone for the rhythm of the A theme, if I am correct... I noticed in your trimmed-down video you seemed to have cut out b. 54-62 from the A theme and b. 105-118 from the B theme? Admittedly, I prefer the abridged version as I thought the material in question to be a little redundant, given that you do cover well and to great length both themes in the exposition. My thematic economy side of my brain would like to think that one should only state a theme until the listener is familiar enough with it to recognise said theme when it pops up in the development. If you wanted to keep said material for symmetry/form-related reasons/other personal preferences, though, by all means do so. I do love the B theme in all of its mellow sweetness, especially its first half. The second half of the B theme feels a bit static with the repeated notes, but coupled with the rolling left hand accompaniment, it does give a sense of floating/gliding, if that is what you desired. As I said, I quite like the harmony you move through in b. 91-105. A charming change in texture from b. 154 onwards! Development The fugato start of the development seems a bit dry? I can see where you are going with the material but I'm not super convinced by b. 164-187, though I suppose some pedal would help, or varying the articulation and texture a tad more even if a fugato. I didn't quite exactly get fugato vibes from it either, given how long the statement of the theme is. This is completely a suggestion, of course, and it is up to you as to how you'd like your sonata to work, but perhaps using only the first phrase of the theme (b. 164-166) and then building up a series of entries in other voices could be rather effective. I somewhat find this example to also be a bit dry, but I like the energy build-up of this fugato moment in the development of the fourth movement of Scriabin's Third Sonata, if you wanted something similar. Interesting, from b. 178 onwards in the fugato, you introduce another voice that is the B theme, or at least an echo of it, if I'm correct? I am a big fan of juxtaposing thematic material in the development sections of sonatas, if so... The material in b. 196-215 seems a bit overly virtuosic? I'm uncertain whether there might be some significance in the chords/harmonies you use here, but I think it'd be great to insert more of the existing thematic material in here, fragmented or whatnot. Overall, the development feels short to me, not in the least because I feel like you could've pulled out your compositional chops a bit more. Given the length of the exposition, I think this deserves a heftier development with varied treatment and inclusion of all three of the A and B themes and the B-octave motif. Trying to set the tempestuous A theme or the B-octave motif into the suave atmosphere/mood of the B theme, for example, or more chopping and changing, there are a wide variety of things you could do. Liszt can of course be a great source of ideas here! Recap Nice to restate the B-octave theme. Maybe the transition from the end of the development could be made smoother? I'm not sure though. I like the recasting of the textures in the recap of the A theme, but it feels a little airy? I'm not sure if you were going for that feel, and if you were, then I am in no place to complain. I suppose you could add some deep bass notes on the offbeats to give it a bit more body and hold them with your regular pedal, or see if the sostenuto pedal could work (though it could make the right hand arpeggios rather dry). I also appreciate the A theme being a bit shorter here... With b. 236 onwards and B theme, the energy seems to drop somewhat, with almost the exact statement of the original B theme but transposed. It is once again up to you, but you could also recap the B theme in a different texture, as you did with the A theme. I felt like the energy levels ought to have ramped up a bit more moving further and further down to match the energy of b. 282 onwards to the coda, possibly? At the moment, the ending feels mildly content with itself, though I would think the large chords and dynamics would suggest otherwise. With notation and formatting, I also admit I'm not the best person to offer advice, but there does seem to be the occasional odd things, e.g. whatever is stretching out b. 122 (the rest in the upper staff can also be removed there), the clipping of text at the end of the system at b. 248-250, and the slightly overzealous floating slur in b. 288. I've been told that with hairpins, it's best practice to state exactly which dynamic the hairpin starts and ends at, including double hairpins like < so >, but I am open to corrections. Yeah, that's most of what I have to offer with thoughts. Excellent playing, by the way, I almost forgot to mention! This already looks like a difficult sonata so far with this first movement and you interpreted it very pleasingly, at least to my ears, and in a very convincing way (though I suppose it is up to the composer yourself to decide whether it was served justice, lol).

So are chamber orchestras allowed?

It sounds fantastic, very cinematic. The backing vocals are a bit odd, but that’s always the case with virtual ones. The score—I imagine it was created in a DAW because it’s a bit… in that style.

Hi all, Here's a short work for string trio. All comments welcome. Mark New String Trio.mp3 New String Trio.pdf

Hello @MJFOBOE , even if this lovely string trio is only the second of your compositions that I’m going to comment, I think that I can already recognize your personal style: Playful pieces which seem to be „easy“ on the first glance, but are well crafted and have a feeling of people talking and interacting together (the other piece I reviewed was „Mother and son“). I like the independence of the voices – each one being its own personality. And even it isn’t „strict counterpoint“, I can see how the piece is developed from a few recurring motifs making it memorable and varied.

This is a simple expression of hope. Spring - Spring.mp3 Spring.pdf

Hello @Some Guy That writes Music , I enjoyed the piece, considering that a nine-voice string arrangement has the potential for an enormous richness in texture, like that of a motet. Thus, it would be great to listen it played by a large string orchestra or by a small ensemble consisting of only one instrument per voice. I like the dissonances and somewhat unexpected harmony progressions, giving the piece its unique, modern character. But I would agree with @danishali903 's comments that there are some aspects which could be improved: I think, there is potential to further enrich the texture. Even if you’ve already developed the voices independently, there are often pairs or groups of instruments with the same rhythmic pattern and the same direction in voice leading. Contrary motion in voice leading makes the dialogue between the melodic lines more interesting and, on the other hand, helps to avoid parallels (which I have not checked and I do not expect that you to have produced ones). I would also appreciate to have more suspensions. This would give you more variation in the rhythmic pattern and allows you to create smoother harmonic transitions, which would soften the dissonances somewhat (and you could then introduce even more of them…) At some points, I also preferred more rhythmic variety in the bass. Why not contrast the long, tied notes with pizzicato sections?

I've heard those before; even after writing music for 38 years, it sounds impossible to a non-pianist! Easy trick to it, I suppose.

Oh! Really easy scale down.

Hi ....................Whats the difference between "Counter-point vs TwinMelody" ? The Track below was submitted for a Counterpoint Evaluation, and came back as Negative, stating: not counterpoint. A Double brass Section 1: panned left 2: panned right If its not counterpoint is it classed as a Counter-Melody ? COUNTERPOINT vs TWIN MELODY.mp3

WOW Wieland Handke ..............Are you Intelligent ! what a wonderful post, i shall be referring back to this regularly thank you. when a woman has a double pregnancy, its called TWINS....... so a "Twin-Melody" is a Double-Melody, know as "Polyphony". when you think of a Cave man & woman................we've come along way from Hitting a Drum with an Animal Bone......he he thanx again x https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-melody https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphony

Measure 36.

It would be really cool to hear a large string orchestra play this piece. A couple of comments: It's a bit static and on the short side. I think more development of the melodic material, or even an another theme (that's a little more "active") can help with that. There is a lot of unconvincing, but slightly interesting voice leading and harmonic clashes going on. Some of the transitional chords really random and don't set up the next phrase like they should (most prominent example is bars 39-40 going into 41). It would it make more interesting to have the lower strings have a more active part than just holding on to half notes. The violins don't always have to play the melody, share it with the others! Try to be more creative in writing for parts that are accompanying the melody.

Hello This piece is fantastic. It sounds very modern in many ways: dissonances, harmonies, dense textures, etc. But it retains a Baroque spirit. Bravo.

I like this, Tristan! As good as anything I can do for piano. You have followed me for long enough to know that I can't even play piano, but are those rapid chromatic glissandos possible? Maybe they are, some special technique; never really looked into it. I write very conservatively for piano.

Never heard of Twinmelody! Henry

Hello, About six years ago, I orchestrated Schönberg’s Six Little Pieces for Piano. I only uploaded one of them to the “Writer’s Block and Suggestions…” section, since I wasn’t quite sure what I was doing. Now I know a little more about orchestration and how to approach different styles. So I’d like to share the orchestrated version of all six pieces. Thank you. Best regards. Schoenberg.mp3 Schoenberg.pdf

We studied this piece in Orchestration, it was wonderful. Our textbook had different voicings/arrangements of chords w/ audio recordings so it was really helpful. I love this description...it's really a combination of instrument capability & range knowledge, compositional/arranging chops, and creativity. Imagining what you want the final to sound like and using your tool kit to make it happen.

This is my "Seven Sententiae for Clarinet, Op. 395". It is one of my most ambitious set of sententiae both in overall length and individual sententiae. It is also one of my greatest compositions for a monodic instrument. I hope that you enjoy listening to it and would welcome your feedback. Seven Sententiae for Clarinet, Op. 395.mp3 Seven Sententiae for Clarinet, Op. 395.pdf

Thanks Wieland Handke for your review of my piece and your impressions about each sententia often amounting to a detailed review of it. Indeed I also consider the sixth one to be the best realization of the “sententia” form as well as perhaps the best of this set. Regarding the link of the composer Thomas Handke that you mention, I wonder whether he is related to you as he has the same surname. I listened to his “Partita für Fagott solo, op. 33” and enjoyed it. It is also performed well by the performer. Thanks for the link! I have only composed one solo piece for fagott which is the bassoon in English, and consider it an instrument with a voice full of feeling. Regarding the 11th measure of Sententia No. 5 in ¼ and with only a rest, it was done for practicality since otherwise the repeat sign would have to be made in the middle of the bar (in case I changed it to 5/4), a practice which I have the impression is not desirable if not incorrect. Or I would have had to write out a new bar as a separate continuation of the repeat.

Hi everyone! This is my sonata for piano and alto saxophone, which I composed over this summer as a birthday gift for my mom (born on Halloween!) Below you'll find my own formal analysis of the work to help parse a piece that even I find a little bit dense. The analysis will focus on the most complex movement, the third, so if a more thorough explanation of the first two movements is wanted I'll edit this post to include theme here. Please bear in mind that there are passages in this piece which are meant to be played completely freely from a rhythmic standpoint, and MIDI simply can't simulate that. Thank you for listening and providing your thoughts on this piece, it's something I spent a lot of time and energy on. Analysis: My Sonata for Piano and Saxophone in Eb major is cast in three movements. The last two are played without a break. The first movement is in a free form based on tempo transformation. (It’s essentially the form of the third movement of Brahms’ second symphony). The second movement, Romanza, is a simple, ternary form in Bb with an F minor middle section. It’s very beautiful but harmonically slightly troubled, somewhat unstable. The movement plays without a break into the third. The third movement is in a freely reworked version of sonata form. There is a slow, dramatic introduction for the piano alone which moves through various keys from F# minor to Eb major. Then follows “Cavatina I” a ternary form subsection. The A section of this is a pastoral tune in Ab minor over a pedal Ab. This then gives way to the B section, a modally ambiguous march. Then the A section returns. This gives way to “Fuga I” which is a fugue in Gb major over a Db pedal point (lasting almost the entire three and a half minute long fugue). This fugue is more dramatic than rhetorical, climaxing with an episode in Gb minor which is subverted into “Cavatina II”. This is the same music as Cavatina I, but formally inverted (the A section becomes the B section and vice versa). The march is heard in a more ornamental form for the piano alone. Then the pastoral tune, this time in Gb major over a pedal fifth in the bass of the piano. The march returns and leads directly into “Fuga II” This fugue uses as its subject a transformed version of the subject of Fuga I, itself a transformation and combination of the first movement’s “seed motive” (Eb - C - G - Bb - F - Eb) and the pastoral tune. This fugue is highly metrically complex, representing a transition and conflict between the considerable amount of 6/8 music, and the common time of the section that follows. The final passage of the finale is a chorale. The chorale introduces new melodic material (actually built from intervalic material from the introduction, which is a transformation of the first movement seed motive), but the harmony under it was carefully constructed: the entire finale is an elaboration on the harmonic progression (F# minor - D# diminished - Ab minor - Eb minor - Gb major - Bb minor - Eb major) heard in the introduction of the movement. The chorale is just another restatement of that harmonic progression, reaffirming the journey back to Eb major for the third time in the movement. The chorale-coda also gradually introduces a new rhythmic cell which crystallizes over the course of the passage, resulting in the final Eb major chords of the movement being sounded in the following rhythm: eighth note - dotted quarter - half note - dotted quarter - eighth note (- half note). This is a rhythmic palindrome, mirroring the harmonic palindrome which comprises the structure of the sonata as a whole.

Hey, thanks! Thanks for your insight! I especially appreciate that you picked up on the rhythmic aspect of the whole piece, one of the things I really wanted to explore while writing it was finding ways to embed rhythmic construction in the form, and I think I found some interesting ways to do that here.

Not sure how I missed this, I like it, and nice to hear an alto sax sonata!

I kinda prefer the new version :) Orchestration is pretty subjective so thank you for experimenting with my suggestions! I think you can remove the pizzicato in the bass in bars 15-17 (just have celli play).

Had a go at implementing some of these ideas below. Not sure about the pizz. in the celli and basses. It's an interesting effect; just maybe feels too aggressive for the material? Decided to keep the trombones and tuba for now, because I'd prefer to use the full brass section. (The score attached is for midi rendition only: so hasn't been tidied.) Menuet in C sharp minor (Ravel orchestration) #20 (midi).mp3 Menuet in C sharp minor (Ravel orchestration) #20 (midi).pdf

Thanks for checking, but everything looks normal on my end. If anyone else is experiencing issues with this forum though, let me know.

Hallo @Thatguy v2.0, this prelude is a piece I very loved and I wish I had composed it! 😀 It opens with a subject that – at the first glance – seems to be Baroque-like but introduces strong chromaticism in its second half, so that in mm. 5, when the second voice enters, it reminds me of Bach’s B minor fugue from the WTC I (BWV 869b). But now, in mm. 9, comes the surprise. The mood changes to a more „romantic“ feeling with the arpeggios. And that unexpected change now reminds me at numerous preludes (or fugues) from Shostakovich’s op. 87. I didn’t make an in-depth analysis, but I can see how you have constantly took benefit from using the initial thematic material, which for me emphasizes the effectiveness of counterpuntal technique. Even if I did not recognize more complete entries of the initial subject, I have the feeling that motifs from it recur, even sometimes in augmentation. I enjoyed your effort on articulation, including the pedalling and the rubato, and also the key signature change to Bb minor (or is it Db major?). All in all, a piece very much to my taste. Full of counterpoint, but not in the “Neo-Baroque” style, rather with contemporary harmonies and dissonances and a slight touch of Romanticism! By the way, I’m very curious to know how you’re organizing your preludes (since this is No. 16). Is it a complete cycle based on 16 of the 24 keys? I’m really looking forward to hearing more of them—and have I perhaps already missed one?

From the eyes of a pianist: One thing I feel you have not considered in your orchestration is the fact pianos have a sustain pedal. One thing clearly lacking is the sense of prolonged chords over an active line. In the video you linked, it has the pedal markings in place, so you can reference where Price does that. This is another key reason why your orchestration sounds empty. How to orchestrate this? As one example, I am going to link this video by Alex Heppelmann: https://youtu.be/sTZCFa7B6BA?si=vI-hAEGclgkSde-V Disclaimer, it is 27 minutes long, however, it's very thorough describing how to take a piano melody and use the orchestra to create some ideas of a piano sustain pedal. In my personal style, I will use the horns to sustain the harmony on long tones, while the strings pulse the harmony similar to what a piano score would do. If not this, I would swap the roles. The melody in this case, would be featured in woodwinds, another instrument family, or lead/solo instrument. Good luck to you and if you want to see some sample notation, let us know! This Fantasie is a very wonderful piece and I find it is so conversational. It really feels like an orchestra notated in the piano and in my opinion is an excellent piece to showcase the capabilities of the piano and a performer.

Hi @BlackkBeethoven The first PDF file that you've uploaded doesn't seem to be working, so I have to pause the YT video to compare your score to the original piece. I think you've chosen a very difficult piano piece to orchestrate. I am assuming it was your choice to orchestrate whatever piano piece you wanted since you say you like Florence Price so much. I could say more about your choice given that you knew you only had 4 minutes to work with and the piece is over 7 minutes long - but it's too late to bother about that now. This piece is difficult to orchestrate because of the many florid fioraturas/roulades that it contains. But there are things you could do to facilitate them throughout the orchestra. First, since the fioraturas in the beginning go all the way from the very high range to the moderately low, I would have made sure to give those to the strings since they have a more homogeneous sound throughout their range. So I'm surprised to see that you have just the Flutes/Piccolo on that part - that part is very thinly scored and isn't utilizing the full body of the orchestra. If I had my way with that part I would have given it to the woodwinds and the strings doubling each other + harp. I'm guessing you don't have harp. You've retained the piano staff in this score even though the piano doesn't play anything. I don't think you should have the piano play anything in this orchestration because it would most likely serve as a crutch to fill in holes that your orchestration should fill. Speaking of holes - in measure 6 you have the trombone start the low melody but then it's not continued for some reason. You score the melody more fully without fragmentation in measures 8 - 9. Throughout this whole introduction you really underuse the strings and I think for that reason the piece doesn't sound fully scored. Those are just my first impressions of the introduction of the piece. Good luck in your final and thanks for sharing!

An emotional piece with a meticulously crafted score. The multi-divisional arrangement of the string section is particularly interesting.

Just looking for general feedback on a less adventurous work before I dive into a more involved work. I feel like advice on the use of harmony and motifs would improve most of my work, and I could develop those skills by learning to improve some of my existing work. Waltz in Eb.mp3

No, it was MuseScore's built in theorbo, in their MS Basic sound font.

Right, so we can safely write off the idea that you "composed" this piece.

What I said is that there is no way AI generated "just a recording" of his piece. When I googled, even when I asked ChatGPT, there is no AI presently that can generate an accurate — "1:1" as OP says — mockup recording. If there was, Spitfire would be closing their doors right now. He also says he prompted it. Okay well, do you actually believe he sat there and typed out an entire note-for-note description and it rendered it? If you believe that, then prompt the AI (he doesn't say which he used) and if you don't get the exact same result, then you know he's lying. I can't get Suno to generate a solo drone, never mind a precise multi-voice harmony for choir that is 1:1 what I'd write. What has most likely happened here, is he is passing off an AI generated track as "his" work because it fit the "vision" he had or something and is providing you with a transcription. Until someone provides evidence and can replicate this piece with the same prompts or software, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

Hi @Fugax Contrapunctus! Very cool idea! I actually do something like this harmonically speaking in my Variations on "Deck the Halls" for Piano and Orchestra. I cycle through the whole circle of 5ths twice over before returning back to the home key, although it's not a canon. Very effective orchestration here, starting with just strings, adding woodwinds and then introducing the choir - very multi-dimensional approach to a simple repeating canonic structure. Thanks for sharing!