Leaderboard

You should be our ambassador for gif badges haha.

I'll be the 1st to Accept this Badge.

aight im in

It’s a meticulous piece of work and it sounds good; however, I feel that while the arpeggios work well on the harp and even the vibraphone, they don't seem very idiomatic when played repeatedly by the woodwinds (clarinets and bassoons) or even the cello. I think you’ve tried to be very faithful to the score, but the orchestra doesn't behave like a piano...

Funnily enough, it's very telling of commenters who don't have much of substance to say about the overall quality of my work when they start pointing out the most banale, trivial nitpicks. Not your case by any means, but it's a relatively common occourrence in the comment sections of some my videos. Things like "this is supposed to be 3/4, not 6/8 meter" or "the panning of the background choir doesn't match that of the Cantāmus one". I wouldn't say it's a matter of reputation. I also wouldn't write such replies unless I have any observations or criticsm of substance to offer, as I believe it's a waste both of my time and that of the composer whose work I'm reviewing. Besides, this composition is technically a revised version of and older work: a repost, if you will, so I wouldn't blame more seasoned members who frequently comment on my posts for merely withholding what has already been said before. I had never tried this double-scoring method before, and I must admit it sounds as effective in rendering more human-like expression as much as it seems to pose a whole lot of work. The closest thing to this I usually do is manually inputting the exact tempo gradation values for the ritardandi at the end of each piece, since before MuseScore 4 came out there was no way to insert working rallentandi automatically into the score, or at the very least, not that I knew of. So in order to cover my tracks while still keeping those tempo markings functional, I manually alter the text format to make them invisible, even inside the program itself. That alone often turns out to be an absurdly tedious process and I hate it. At the moment I doubt I could even imagine myself inputting all those rubatos and expression markings and then subjecting those to the same formatting process without cleaving my head open in half out of exasperation. Even if the improvements were marginally or even substantially noticeable, I have much more valuable things to do with my time than attempt to "humanize" the recording manually. The mere thought of engaging in such a tiresome toil for a result that could far more accurately and naturally be replicated through MIDI input or a simple performance recording sends me quite aback. I've heard of this software before. A Discord user by the name of @grpnr1345 applied the software's protocol's to one of my earlier fugues under the same guise, and the results were mixed for me, because the sampling and reverb values were just deplorable, turning the overall timbral quality of the piece essentially into a downgrade, but the altered recording itself, as well as the intricacies of its transformation, felt rather convincing. For context, the audio file in question has been attached to this post. Lastly, thank you kindly for your detailed review. As for the software you mentioned, you're free to apply the Lilypond protocol to my score whenever you feel like it or have time for it. It will most definitely be interesting to see how different users of the same software modify music in the same style, so you have my full permission and encouragement to "humanize" the recording as you see fit. Fugue in G-sharp minor No. 17 Pablo Marinero Cueto 2023 - Zell 1737.mp3 Fugue in G-sharp minor #17.pdf

You have to be EPIC... before you can be an Ambassador.