Omicronrg9

Nice improv! Are you the saxophonist? Or did you use AI or something like that? Too much cymbal, and it seems a bit odd at times for me, not sure why, but all in all, great! Kind regards, Daniel–Ø.

Hi Burlaw Guy and welcome to the forums! Nice atmosphere you created. Quite simple but it mostly works, soundwise. You don't get into complication, and thus little trouble comes. However, I am not sure of how you recorded this but it's clearly wrong (compared with what the score reads) at many places. It's specially noticeable in the off-rhythm passages that should not be off, and the last section in which you have a piano solo that is everything but equal 8ths! Score-wise and in regards of other aesthetic and musical aspects I believe @TristanTheTristan and @Thatguy v2.0 have given you some advice that is worth checking in my humble opinion. My best advice, if you want to make scores and compose your works yourself for Orchestra, is to first learn how to make them readable, useful for real orchestras or any size, and overall learn about the disposition of these instruments, their characteristics, etc. You won't get to idiomatic writing in the blink of an eye, but you will spot strange stuff in your own scores and maybe in others'! For that purpose I must recommend you a book by Samuel Adler called: "The Study of Orchestration". Examples of strange scoring (for a real orchestra) are: What strings? Violins, violas...? All of them? 4 scores for all strings? This is ambiguous and apart from that you got violas on a separate staff! The order in which you present the instruments in a general score also matters. More to some than to some others but a standard order is always advised. And just to put some more examples of GOOD writing practices for orchestra and details found on a bit more in-depth analysis of the score: • You present female voice and choir parts, but then they turn to Vo. and W. What happened? • The horn can be transposed to F and Bb, normally it's on F as it's the case in your score but knowing things like these and specifying them never hurts! • Specify the type (and if you want, the number) of instrument playin' in every part. "String section" says very little. "String section" with block chords, says a bit more, but not about the piece, but about the approach used to reach it. Normally, you have 2 violin sections, 1 viola section, 1 cello section and 1 double bass section. Get acquainted with the terms divisi and unison, again not 100% needed but an accumulation of good use of conventions and fine details makes a score shine. I know the image I sent you is pixelated but all things I'm saying are in part there. Really, reading a treatise of orchestration such as the one I suggested will greatly help you in this regard! Finally: it is a bit strange that you have almost no brass but the horn. The score overall needs some polishing but it can be read. Beware of overlaps. A bit all over the place for a review, I know, but I just intend to not repeat what my colleagues here said and to give you some more stuff to work on. Hope any of this was of help. Best regards, Daniel–Ømicrón.

Aaah, understood. To be honest, I had never thought much of differences between modern film composers ways of developing motives and themes and the ways of the grand masters of the past. See you around in the forums 😁

Damn man, thanks. I am deeply honored. Thank you (and Peter!) for keeping this forum alive all this years. May we forever see it sprouting posts with new compositions. Now I can see the text thanks to quotting + using Text colour = Automatic! Before... 🥶 I like the "happy-go-lucky but creepy quality much like the way clowns are happy but creepy to many people", did not think about clowns. Actually I have never been into a circus or never assisted any celebrations in which a clown was performing 😰. It's neat to see that the music made you make that connection without extra input. What do you mean by cinematic repetition of themes? Just curious Thank you both for sharing your impressions guys :). Damn, what a contrast between your impression and Peter's! I agree that it's not very spooky, in fact I think I have like 20 pieces way more sinister than this thing. But elves? Gold dust? Wild! I am grateful, not everyday I can read other people's perception of this or any other piece of mine, my public is very limited 😁. Good luck in the polls and once again, many thanks, Mr. Handke!

Hi! Drive links are fine, but you can also just drag your files here and they will be automatically shown. Welcome to the forums! In fact it seems like a work with five movements according to the PDF itself, but the OP submitted 3 here. Multi-movement works are fine, it's a shame you had to split it up. Do not hesitate on publishing the rest anyways! On the engraving plane, I would recommended you to mark the beginning of each movement with its subtitle. Just a detail, but a neat one if you ask me! There are some overlaps here and there but overall the score seems idiomatic for strings. Other users, better acquainted with these instruments may disagree or agree, but I see that you let them "breathe" (except at some spots, e.g: M19-25 on the Scherzando, Violin I, but still probably not too difficult to get) and that you have not written anything incredibly difficult. Articulations are detailed, harmonics are marked, there's a good use of dynamics... First movement starts off decently, but what I liked the most was the groove that it takes sometimes. Wish it had lasted more! This movement alone could have been enough as an entry for the competition, and I find it more or less appealing after a few listens! The second movement also has this groovy feeling that appears and disappears. It takes a bit of time to actually get started and make full use of that swing! This also happened to a degree in the prior movement, you seemed to intentionally try to make the piece not too rooted in that catchy rhythmic pattern. Not sure if it was the best choice or if the way to avoid it was optimal. The third one was the most tense and there were some really GOOD moments in there, but I can't get off the impression that you added unnecessary passages to increase that tension. It may be just me, though. All in all, a great submission. Many thanks for showing it here 🙂 and good luck in the polls! Best regards, Daniel–Ø.

Worked like a charm, thanks!

Hi Dima, welcome to the forums! Instead of google drive links, you can also simply drop the mp3 and pdf here and they will be inserted automatically in the post, just in case). It's indeed brutal as @Wieland Handke remarked. However, I disagree with him in the feelings it produced in me. At the very first minute it did feel like I was attending a human massacre in a slaughterhouse or something like that. Nor spookiness, neither scariness, no: pure +18 gore. But since you don't abandon that mood and just limit to test how much the piano can resist being hit with sledgehammers, it gets kind of boring after the 1:30 mark to me. Then, you finally destroy the piano and the fretted strings come to save the day until the Luthier finishes repairing it. I think it makes up to a Halloween story, a very musical one! Well, maybe I am making up this story along the listen but if I am truly making up this story shouldn't there be a disclaimer somewhere that read: "NO PIANOS WERE SIGNIFICANTLY DAMAGED WITHIN THE DURATION OF THIS PERFORMANCE" or "WE TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE PERFORMER'S INSTRUMENT AFTER OR DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS PIECE" Jokes aside, good engraving, but I don't quite get what's your norm with system dividers. They sometimes appear, sometimes not. All in all, a bit too repetitive, but I am not sure if that's bad or if you're even to blame provided that your base was a folk song, and at least where I am from, they are kind of repetitive by default. In any case, thank you for your submission! Hope you stay around 🙂. Kind regards, Daniel–Ø.

Hi Ferrum. When I open the PDF window to check it turns out I just cannot. Something's wrong, but not sure if it's in your side or it's the forums, or... Either way I am very curious about the score, duh. This seems to me like a small medley (well maybe not small actually) that contains a wide range of stuff going on but that seems to be permeated by this motif that you don't cease to state and use to transition to all sorts of places. It's like a spring, moving slightly upward and returning, giving birth to new passages endlessly. I must say though that the general feeling this piece gave me was not as concrete as other clear front-runners as you (front-runners to me, obv.). It was enjoyable, anyways! Maybe my shortest review today, but I cannot really find anything to point out about the piece that be worthy of a line or two more, plus I cannot access the score 😞. In summary, I did like some sections more than others, and I didn't feel it very light to be honest! Maybe when put in comparison, you're right. Many thanks for your submission, Ferrum! Kind regards, Daniel–Ø.

Hi Cosmia. Bear with me a bit, I promise to be short. I have been listening to dissonance after dissonance in the textural, rhythmic, harmonic, melodic, metaphysical and who knows what else tonight. And now I have reached your piece. In all honesty, when I looked at your score first, I knew, or I supposed at least that this was gonna be hard to swallow. But no, you let me breathe. Despite this piece being built on tension, I found calm on it, even peace. Your atmosphere does not choke me, it doesn't overwhelm me with "pandirectionalism", effects because yes, and breaking of every rule because it's breakable. In my humble and honest opinion you very well managed to create a piece that demonstrates that: • You know your craft when it comes to manage elements that are purposefully clashing with each other. • You seem to know when to stop and when to go again, in other words: you don't hesitate to leave the music suspended, you don't abuse of textural overlap but use it wisely. • Dissonant spaces are very interesting to listen to when they are finely crafted. • There's no need to convince me of what you try to convey when the music, in this case your music, is pretty much able to speak for itself. I would agree with Peter, there's little to no "melody". I don't think that's the approach anyway, and I'm not rating that. Your approach, whatever it was, created an atmosphere that I can not only withstand but enjoy. I am thankful. Regarding the score, it has some room for improvement I guess but it's more a matter of tastes than anything else; things like • Alignment between pizz. and arco because why not. • Tempo equivalences in a frame or bigger/better alligned with the barline. • Instruments should be indicated at the beginning of the piece most likely. Stuff like that, very minor for most. Overall the score is readable, you can read it along the music, and the interpretation is really neat. The score states that's not gonna follow any tonality from the very beginning (no key signature). You have made in summary a very convincing piece with a really uncanny atmosphere. Congratulations, and good luck. Best regards, Daniel–Ø.

Hi Wieland. Nice video to begin with. The sounds are also very nice. Now, the score itself has even smaller margins than my own, so I'd be careful depending on the format whenever it comes to printing. You also suffer from classic overlaps caused by the notation software default configs such as: That aside, some pianists would argue that they prefer their own fingerings so they may ask you an un-fingered part. Some other will be grateful though 😀. Now, regarding the piece itself, while I do catch some G# minor sections, I would argue that most of it seems detached from that key. I noticed lots of G naturals but few F double sharps, and I would say I heard more E minor and B-flat minor passages than G# minor throughout the piece. Maybe I’m mistaken, but as Henry said, this isn’t really a problem. I can also see how the piece weaves together fragments introduced mostly at the beginning, and in theory it does what you describe in your technical explanation. However, while I appreciate their inherent potential to create a structure, I don’t really think they fully succeed in building one. After a couple of listens, I still don’t perceive it as something “complete” or well-structured, despite the explanation you provided and the fact that the elements you mention are indeed present. To my ear, it feels like patches of cement and bricks placed in the middle of an amalgam of sometimes more, sometimes less convincing waves of music... The motives are definitely there, but I don’t find them more prominent than other material happening simultaneously—such as, for example, in the recapitulation, but imo it happens on the piece overall and if you didn't point them out some of them as different, I think I would have had a harder time distinguishing one another when intertwined with other material. In my opinion, there’s a lack of prioritization among the fragments, and that combined with how dissonant they are on their own creates an “uncanny” atmosphere that permeates large portions of the piece restlessly. While that can be effective, it becomes tiring to me, and I don’t feel this is resolved towards the end. Thus, the final passage is a no-no for me. After a piece plagued with dissonances & chromatisms clashing and not letting you breathe much, a final G#m conclusion comes all in a sudden despite the morendo. Don't get me wrong— It's not a very bad final passage, not at all, but I don't see it, once again, well connected with the piece overall. On the other hand, I would say this piece feels more Halloween-like than others I’ve listened to recently, which also make use of dissonances not only on the melodic plane, but also on the rhythmic and textural planes. All in all, a piece I honestly did not enjoy but that I did not dislike either. Many thanks for submitting your piece to this competition and good luck! Kind regards, Daniel–Ø.

Hi Mr. Gomes. Welcome to the forums! I'll be short tonight: You made quite the orchestration. I am myself not enough well versed on such matter yet to give you proper feedback on it but everything seemed balanced, complete to my ears. I was very convinced with how well you ended the piece. Keeping the distances, of course, you do have a motif that resembles the intermezzo of the Zarzuela "La leyenda del Beso" (2nd mvt.). And I very much liked that, as well as the piece overall in fact. In order to get more feedback here from my colleagues, I would suggest you to not just upload your piece. Most people here are used to spammers &/or people that just submits their pieces but don't interact further, even when they meet some criticism, feedback, praise, or anything in return of their comments, so I encourage you to do so (interact, don't just upload) with others' pieces that are seeking for some valuable feedback, causal praise, raw criticism... Whatever suits you best! All in all, a waltz that I will share among my friends that's for sure, it was very enjoyable to me. Best regards, Daniel–Ø.

Hi Justin. Welcome to the forums! I'll try to be brief here and I will possibly fail terribly. First of all, nice scoring, very standard and professional looking. "The winds enrapture a surreal version with significant variance in color and timbre, demonstrating the depth and nuance that the smoke and candle cannot on their own." (A surreal version of what? Fumages?) "This piece takes that imagery into sound, with wisps of timbre, sudden bursts, and eerie colorations from the woodwinds. It mirrors candlelight, smoke, and the blurred line between reality and apparition—an atmosphere that fits the surreal and haunting spirit of Halloween." This is an informal competition. I am aware that kind of "selling" your piece with words like these is the everyday basis, the norm, specially in more "serious" ($$$) music composition competitions, calls for scores, etc. and in some other places within this vast realm. Let me just state that there's no need to here, and frankly after listening to your work for the fourth time (1st time before reading the speech in the PDF, 2nd-4th after having read both small texts) I still can't see how what you say your piece depicts matches in any way or form with halloween, or even spookish fumages, of course, other than by you yourself fixing these concepts and thus tying them to your music by means of the words that you have put before the very score begins. This is not to say Fumages themselves are not spooky or suggest Halloween-like sensations. To me, they very much are (some): So there are two possibilities, either you composed this piece in 2024 with "an atmosphere that fits the surreal and haunting spirit of Halloween" in mind or you submitted it elsewhere, with another speech more adequate to that moment, and then reused it here. If it's the former, weird that no reference to Halloween is found in your introductory text. If it's the latter, I do not buy it and there is no need to do that here 😉. Let's finally continue to the piece itself. Not sure if the audio is incorrect at the beginning or it's just on my end but I hear M9 like this instead of how it's written. Other measures with this rhytmic fragment happen to sound like that sound-wise. Just a detail. Second, I do think I have listened to this piece before. Maybe it's just a coincidence. Third: I more or less agree with the commentary of @UncleRed99. I myself have pieces with X/16 tempi indications and just for reference I don't feel it Halloweenish but I did enjoy some parts of it. I'm dropping an example just for future reference: These are the first bars of Beethoven's Sonata No. 32, 2nd movement. Why? Sure there must be lots of discussion for why the F did our Ludwig choose 9/16 instead 9/8 and possibly many members here have their own ideas! But I digress. Summarising a lot, and Halloweenish considerations aside, you got in my humble opinion a VERY solid introductory section! The way instruments meet while entering the score feels very natural to me and they begin blending so well, creating a nice texture, but then they get a bit lost into some hmmm... not chaotic but vague and definitely not convincing —to me obviously— passages where the music feels like it wants to go to many places at the same time. This is most likely where the atmospheric approach should overcome the typical melody+harmony approach but it doesn't seem to stick to any particular one for long. It's all moments of calm vs moments of half-intricated lines intertwining each other. The former I liked, the latter not so much. My favourite parts of the score are probably the already mentioned beginning and undoubtedly letters M to O, specially the transition from O to P, very well done. You clearly know your craft Justin. Hats off for that great O->P. All in all, a piece that is more or less enjoyable to me, with its ups and downs sure, and imo a brilliant transition. After many listenings, it ended up almost convincing me, specially towards the end of it. Many thanks for submitting your work here, Justin! Best regards, Daniel–Ø.

SPANISH VERSION Hola Sebastián. Te contesto en español y luego lo traduciré al inglés todo para que la gente lo pueda leer. En general aquí hablamos en inglés pero no te preocupes, no es problema dedicar un par de líneas en el idioma de Cervantes a tu pieza. Es una pieza que no me ha disgustado para nada. De hecho, teniendo en cuenta que has usado los sonidos del general midi no suena tan mal. La idea se entiende. La ejecución de la idea ya es otro cantar. Me he fijado en esto: Imagino que a menos que el gliss. termine arco arriba el pizzicato instantáneo está complicado de hacer. Puede comportar una dificultad innecesaria, pero si a ti te gusta como está no hay más que hablar. La pieza en sí no abandona la disonancia pero tampoco se va tan lejos como para provocarme aversión o disgusto. Generas una atmósfera de suspense que con instrumentos de verdad o con mejores sonidos (soundfonts mejores o usando librerías) estoy seguro de que funcionaría muy bien. El final, sin embargo, no me convence, pero en este caso no sé si atribuirlo a la pieza o al sonido, que no ha permanecido todo el tiempo necesario para dejar la tensión suspensiva que has creado el tiempo suficiente. Viendo la partitura diría que es lo segundo. En referencia a la partitura en sí, menudos márgenes! Yo soy muy de ajustarlos mucho, pero creo que incluso para alguien que no esté de acuerdo conmigo y prefiera márgenes más anchos, diría que te has pasado. Puedes aprovechar mucho mejor el espacio y aún manteniendo márgenes grandes, hacer también más grandes los pentagramas y facilitar la lectura. No sé qué programa de composición usas, ¿quizá una versión antigua de Sibelius?. Si no te importa comentármelo a lo mejor podemos entender qué ha pasado aquí, por ejemplo: Estos son solapamientos extraños que no he visto en versiones modernas de este tipo de software, pero vete tú a saber. Haces un uso extensivo (que no abusivo) de los matices, cosa que es inteligente siempre y cuando se haga correctamente. Lo tienes todo bastante bien marcado y de no ser por los márgenes tan anchos yo creo que la maquetación te habría quedado bastante bien (que no está mal, es mejorable. Hay cada cosa...). La pieza, según el midi, dura 2:59, que en interpretación real yo creo que llega a los 3 minutos fácil, ✅. Lo que te dicen los demás usuarios del foro no va desencaminado en mi opinión. Creo que a tu motivo le quedan kilómetros por recorrer. No me extiendo más! Muchas gracias por participar Sebastián, ojalá sigas componiendo (y pasándote por aquí 😀). Un saludo, Daniel–Ø. Ø ENGLISH VERSION Hi Sebastián. I’m replying in Spanish first and then I’ll translate everything into English so everyone can read it. We generally speak English here, but don’t worry—it’s no problem dedicating a couple of lines in the language of Cervantes to your piece. It’s a piece that I didn’t dislike at all. In fact, considering you’ve used General MIDI sounds, it really doesn’t sound bad. The musical idea comes through clearly. The execution of that idea is another story, though. I noticed this: (First IMG) I imagine that unless the glissando ends with the bow moving upwards, an instant pizzicato is quite tricky to execute. It could create unnecessary difficulty, but if you like it as it is, that’s totally valid. The piece itself doesn’t abandon dissonance, but it doesn’t go so far as to provoke aversion or discomfort. You manage to create an atmosphere of suspense that, with real instruments or better sounds (using improved soundfonts or libraries), I’m sure would work really well! The ending, however, doesn’t quite convince me. But in this case, I’m not sure if it’s the piece itself or just the sound, which didn’t sustain the tension you created for long enough. Looking at the score, I’d say it’s probably the latter. As for the score margins… wow, those are wide! Personally, I like to make margins tight, but even for someone who prefers wider margins, I think you may have overdone it a bit. You could make much better use of space, and even with big margins, you could enlarge the staves and make reading easier. I’m curious...What notation software do you use? Maybe an old version of Sibelius? If you don’t mind sharing, maybe we could figure out what happened (Second image). These are some strange overlaps I haven’t seen in modern versions of this kind of software, but who knows. You make extensive (but not excessive) use of dynamics, which is smart as long as it’s done properly. You’ve marked everything fairly clearly, and if not for the wide margins, I think your layout would have turned out quite well (and it’s not bad as it is, it just could be improved). According to the MIDI, the piece lasts 2:59, which I think would easily reach three minutes in real performance. What the other forum users say is pretty much on point in my opinion. I think your main motif still has a lot of potential for development. I’ll stop here! Thank you very much for sharing, Sebastián—I hope you keep composing (and dropping by here). Best regards, Daniel–Ø.

@therealAJGS I attached it here. Woodwind Quintet No. 1.mp3 I hope you do not mind, @Maxthemusicenthusiast! If this had any bossa feeling, you made sure to change it completely. One can still perceive the rhythm but it's something utterly different. Hi Max, and welcome to the forums! Interesting notation here: I am not too used to it and I myself don't use it, but it's cool and convenient for some and I totally understand why! I agree with @Thatguy v2.0, first part of the piece seemed like a prelude and I liked it despite of the MIDI sound (that doesn't actually bother me because of videogames I played in the past, I believe). I also agree that the fast part ends a bit too soon to my taste, but you created a very nice theme, really I think you found some gold combining the slowed down bossa nova rhythm with these dissonant passages. You take your time and don't go farther away, which I like, as sometimes we are tempted to break rules in all directions due to having broken some on a single one. I am glad you did not do that, consciously or not. You make good use of dynamics, articulations, and your writing contains nothing incredibly difficult. This piece you submitted suggests me you do know your craft, you did not rush the end, and I feel balance when I listen to your piece over and over again. It doesn't sound very Halloween-ish to me, though, but it doesn't really need to. The work is sober, but solid, and it does a good job by portraying some indeed sinister place in my honest opinion. It does transmit uneasiness to me, but at the same time, it doesn't let me go far away and keeps me there, uneasy, but enjoying nonetheless. Shall I repeat again, the ending did convince me. Very good job. Thank you for your submission, I hope you stay around! Kind regards, Daniel–Ø.

Hi Tristan. I'll try to be brief: your material is decent. I'm not puttin' grades in this informal competition but some variations here are not of my taste and would not pass. Others, maybe. I am not sure myself, for 4 hands at least. Passages like these seem very difficult to get right for one hand only: , had it been a B natural I would see it more feasible but with the speed demanded and the time you are required to sustain it, well I agree with MK's point: performers would ask you to change stuff right away or pass it off. If this is what you truly like though, don't hesitate to follow your path but be aware of the shortcomings when it comes to publish. Where is variation 12? Is the one that began at M248 perhaps? The score seems to go from 11 to 13 "Alla de Var. 12" but I don't see the Var. 12 marked. If it's that one, it's among my favourites along Var. 8. Regarding the engraving, the score is pretty much unrevised as likely 90% of scores submitted to musescore so no biggie, just another day in the job. Standard. Since it's not very heavy on content off-staff there are not overlaps (or I didn't detect any in a superficial analysis) and that's definitely a good thing. With this piece, in summary, I did like some things, disliked some others... So it ended up being about even, except for the final. Thank you for your submission, Tristan. Keep composing! Kind regards, Daniel–Ø.