Leaderboard

liebestraume-no-3 un orchestra.pdfUploading Attachment... I know it's been done before, but I really wanted to try making an orchestral cover for this btw I'm aware that player and tempo markings are a lil weird here, mainly the lack of div. unsi. and player marks for the winds and brass at times, I just didn't bother writing that, as this isn't going to be preformed. feedback would be appreciated :P (unless you're gonna tell me the climax comes too soon, I KNOW) liebestraume-no-3 audio.mp3

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

@MK_Piano I am a pianist, I've played the intro for this piece, but I haven't gotten around to play the full thing, as I've only been playing for around a year, so it was a bit much for me.

Excellent Rendition............Just like the Real Thing.

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.

It saves on every keystroke while you compose, it's like Google Docs; you can just download your midi file. But if basic composition isn't working for you, it could be a browser bug, so if this is the case, I would need more information about your browser. I've tested Music Jotter with Firefox and Chrome, and it should also work with Safari. Here's another trick...as long as your composition plays back, you know it has been saved, because saving your midi file happens before the playback compiles (behind the scenes).

Hello @Marek , I see, that you have joined the forum recently and now at the first topic you have the fortune – or even the evil – that you’ve received a very detailed review which is not only intended as suggestion on the improvement of your particular piece but useful to all other members in this forum. So I could imagine, that there will be many replies on this topic in the future – perhaps a discussion or even a little dispute about the issues MK_Piano pointed out, especially on engraving. So there is my advice, take that serious, but not personal. I remember on a topic by Frederic Gill where some members had (their own) conversation about details he surely had not in mind and finally was a bit overwhelmed and „overteached“, so that I was a bit afraid he would be too disappointed and would leave the forum at all. Therefore, I now come first to your music, where I only speak from my listening impression: I can really imagine a shore in the morning where the fog is slowly lifting and the sun comes on shining through the clouds. It’s a very calm and serene moment, in which the perception of time seems to be gone away. After you’ve walked an endlessly seeming time at the shore, you turn your head and look back – now discovering the great lighthouse you hadn’t seen before, since it was hidden by the cliffs above, you now have passed. I tell that story to express the sole criticism which I have, and that is the length of the piece in comparison with the things that happen. And in this I can only agree with MK_Piano’s comments on his final pages of the annotated score. Now to the comments concerning engraving: Hello @MK_Piano, thank you for your effort you have put into annotating the score. I think this is helpful not only for Marek, but also to me and many other forum members. There are a few general rules you pointed out which one should follow to achieve a clear score presentation, for example • No dynamics on rests. • Not to prolong notes using ties whenever it is possible to notate otherwise, for example with dotted notes. • No separated rests whenever it is possible to combine them into a larger rest. • No diminuendo to „nothing“ (e.g. unplayable dynamic marks like „pianississimo“). • Some aesthetics (clashing dynamics symbols). And in the examples in that particular score, it is „obvious“ to follow that rules would be a huge improvement. However, as I remember at some of my piano preludes and fugues, there are some situations where I intentionally violated that rules in situations where I find that the score becomes more readable when using tied notes instead of dotted ones or when separating longer rests and put the shorter against the notes of the same length in another voice – to mention some examples. I don’t want to go into detail with this at Marek’s thread here, so I would ask you whether I could discuss that topic with you in the future, for example when I’m about to present that respective pieces here on the forum. One advice I can really emphasize, is to maintain two different scores. One as the „printing“ score to be used for playing from, and one solely for the purpose of recording in your software. I do so with all of my pieces, and the „recording“ score is full of exaggerated articulations, dynamic marks and even micro tempo changes to achieve a satisfying, more realistic recording result wherein I can express my ideas about the interpretation.

Hello again! I just finished my comments and am eager to share. Please find this PDF for your convenience! Go to the end of the score to see the final comments. May anyone else on this thread also consider checking out the comments and share your thoughts! M. Neupauer - The Great Lighthouse (ANNOTATED).Pdf

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!

@chopin haha