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!

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!

For future fugues, to break up the monotony, maybe you could have more sequences with less voices? For most of Bach's 4-voice fugues, like half the fugue is for less than 4 voices. So having lots of 3 or 2 voice sequences and switching which voice combinations are doing said sequences really helps with monotony. Thank you for the enjoyable fugue 🙂

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.

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 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

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?)

just checked this out and damn the orchestration rocks. Keeps that cute vibe from the original but makes it way bigger and emotional. Solid work!

MP3 Play / pause DDLC Your Reality FINAL 0:00 0:00 volume > next menu DDLC Your Reality FINAL > next PDF Your Reality just checked this out and damn the orchestration rocks. Keeps that cute vibe from the original but makes it way bigger and emotional. Solid work!

This exercise is awesome, so I could not longer resist to break my silence! By the way, all your exercises from Persichetti's "20th Century Harmony" are very interesting and inspiring – and I have already looked on many of them, while not yet thoughtfully. I think I will study them all in the next time and try to give a review whenever I can. Whereas composing a canon is complicated enough (not to mean the funny children’s chants but a perpetual one), having three different scales and tonics is a real challenge. Usually, one would expect that the harmonies of that different keys would constantly clash each other, but the usage of different modes, or – as here - different synthetic scales interestingly mitigates that problem, so that in the end a common harmony is achieved which, however, sounds a bit weird in classical sense, reminding me on Klezmer music. But that probably expresses the mood of the F Ukrainian Dorian Scale. When I attempted to create a fivefold stretto in one of my fugues, I discovered that it is required to alter the subject for harmonic reasons at some notes. But as I studied the result, it was not an „adjustment“ of the subject but rather a transformation to a different mode (for example B minor, G lydian, C sharp locrian, A mixolydian and D major), so that I had finally well crafted and not „twisted“ subject entries. Very enjoyed!

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!

Hi to all my fellow musicians. Here's my latest piece for piano, that I spent the last two days writing. Haven't quite finished the phrasing and dynamics yet. I may possibly extend the work; but I'm not quite sure yet. Hopefully I haven't accidentally stolen ideas from other pieces I've heard? I know the initial chord progression of C#m to Am(maj7) came from a You Tube video; but can't remember which piece they were discussing. (Pretty sure it was from a film score; but can't remember which one.) Anyway, hope you like it. I wrote it for a concert in May. P.S. Can you guess which composer inspired me to write this? (N.B. Revised scores will be posted below.)

My most recent Muzoracle casting has constant accel.'s and rit.'s throughout:

On playing this through myself tonight, I noticed a few further corrections and cautionaries that were required. So here is my latest version of the score.

The fugue subjects are from Marchant's collection 500 Fugue Subjects and Answers, which you can also find online. It was a very long time ago when I studied counterpoint; my teacher recommended Jeppesen’s Counterpoint, which I used. It deals with 16th‑century vocal polyphony, but the fundamental principles remain valid in later centuries as well. From a didactic point of view, I would definitely start with the vocal counterpoint idiom—either Renaissance practice or the tonal counterpoint foundations laid out by Fux. I would only move on to Baroque / Classical instrumental practice (such as the approach in Goetschius’s book) after you’ve mastered the basics of pure voice leading.

No invention themes/fugal subjects begin on the 4th degree of the scale. The theme does recur throughout but it also must be stated at the beginning of your piece, and here, the presence of the 4th degree is detrimental to establishing the home key of your piece. If you wanted to write an invention you would raise this note to the 5th degree instead. The themes of inventions are based on simple and common harmonic gambits (I-V-I, I-IV-V-I, I-VI-II-V and so on). This theme strongly suggests I-IV-I-IV in the first bar which I have never seen before in a theme/subject. It's nonetheless possible to write an invention here, but it'd require a few tricks. A possible solution for the countertheme is: The anacrusis has been raised by a tone, as discussed before. Note the presence of an inner pedal F in the first bar. This serves three purposes: it strongly establishes the tonic key, it introduces the semiquaver rhythm to be used throughout the rest of the piece, and it reimagines the otherwise problematic I-IV-I-IV progression as a simple decoration of the tonic chord I. The second bar uses scalic passages, and is essentially a decorated dominant chord V. Together with the first bar, what would be an otherwise very unwieldly theme (if harmonised at quaver or crotchet speeds) is now a simple I-V gambit. There is a nice phrase ending at the beginning of bar 3 with the bottom F reached by the bass. The counterpoint here is fully invertible. There's much material here that you can take for your episodes: the scalic passages, the lower mordent-like figure found in bar 2 of the main theme, and the bariolage introduced by the inner pedal in bar 1. Bariolage especially is an absolute motivic goldmine that you can and should exploit in the episodes. It's C and B-flat. Also this kind of dissonance, treated this way, is completely allowed. Take a look at BWV 773 (Invention No. 2) for some beautiful examples. There's nothing wrong with the fast passing vii6. No. Note that the imitation enters 2 crotchets earlier compared to the other solution. You can in theory not do this, and write a 2 crotchet-long continuation, but this is unnecessary for imitation at the fifth here, and therefore slightly inelegant.

Unique and very calming. The crescendo and decrescendo throughout gives the piece an interesting sense of grounded emotional instability.

.

only listen to this if you'll listen to it all the way through

Since this book is a fairly comprehensive text in harmony, you should keep what you've learnt from this book in mind - not only for these counterpoint pastiches you're writing, but for everything you write from now. The reason why I'm mentioning this is: 18th-century counterpoint (which is what the Goetschius book deals with) and all of the counterpoint-employing music that comes after, is completely interwoven with harmony. All of the harmonic devices/features you have learnt so far, you should find readily in these inventions. And so with this in mind, you can hopefully see the two major problems: There are no strong cadences (V-I in root position etc.) anywhere in the piece. This is the musical equivalent of writing a paragraph of text with no punctuation whatsoever. Some of what you write is either harmonically ambiguous, or does not follow common harmony rules. Examples: - In bar 6, what are the first two crotchets supposed to be? Is this V-IV? This is a forbidden progression. Is this I-IV? Then why is the root of I missing? Contrast this with the last two crochets of bar 7, which clearly spells out a C major chord and is well-written. - What are the last two crochets of bar 12 trying to spell out? Is this V? vii°? i? - What is bar 16? You start off with a G chord (fine), introduces the C# in the upper voice which strongly suggests a chord that is the dominant seventh in third inversion of D minor (also fine), but then this dominant seventh resolves to a B natural chord (?) Point 1 can be easily fixed. Regarding point 2: if you look at Bach's 15 Inventions, you will find that 14 of them have semiquaver prevailing rhythms, and the remainder uses broken chords extensively. This is completely deliberate in 2-part writing. Writing in semiquavers gives you more notes to work with, and one advantage of that is it allows you to trace out chords easily thereby making your harmony unambiguous. I would recommend a similar approach here. The other problem here is form. The main material in a 2-part invention is a section of invertible counterpoint, which is then repeated but often inverted (in the sense of two voices exchanging the material they play) and/or transposed, often called the theme. You have indeed written this. But you also need material between these sections, called episodes. These have multiple functions: they serve as modulatory material, they provide a break from the theme, they introduce devices not often found in the theme such as sequences, they allow motifs found in the theme to be presented in a new context (e.g. harmonised differently), they facilitate strong cadences mentioned above, and so on. You need to write these episodes in for your invention to adhere to the form.

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!

Hey, guys! I'm an amateur composer who recently attempted Celtic music for the first time. I thought it would be a fun idea to see if anyone would want to make their own version of it. 😄 I'm curious how you'd enhance the orchestration or add your flair. Feel free to experiment and share your versions! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFX2w9EWaGs

Hello, this is my first time writing for choir. I am being commissioned by a local middle school to arrange Umbrella. I have just the bridge and a final chorus to add, but I wanted feedback. My background is percussion so I don't want to accidentally make anything to jumpy or impossible. Please be specific in critiques, I'd appreciate it! Thank you!

@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!

38 years or so, this was 1997!

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

“Good evening, dear friends. Here is the scherzo from my third Sonata. I hope you like it.”

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

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...