First Attempt for Flute and Guitar

Well, nice to see that my comments work for you.

Well, maybe it's my crappy english, but we're referring to the same symbol (slurs, ties, whatever). Anyway, whether it's used to extend the duration of a note or be used as phrasing mark is apparent from the note which follows. So, the function it has is what defines its raison d'etre.

Again, m.43-44, why the slurs? You can put half notes and have an easier to read score.

On the guitar phrasing, I'm glad somebody more knowledgeable gave some input. On m. 15, the writing imples a hammer-on for the C#, and I don't feel that's your intention. I don't need to get my guitar out of the time-closet to verify this. You could invert the beam of the c# facing down while all the legato-played notes (and the a) face up. Does this make more sense?

Abra and Nota, this doesn't have to do with guitar music. I was in doubt if guitar-writing was an exception, but it doesn't. In every single-layer music piece, the beams go up and from the middle line upwards they go down (that's not specific to guitar). But, when there are layers involved the upper layer has the beams facing up, while the lower has the beams facing down. I checked my guitar sheet music (I was a veteran guitarist, but I quit ages ago). Guitar is no exception. And I feel it is better that way.

Hope this helps as well. And sorry for my poor english...

My comment on harmony is that I you have stayed in C major, although I know you said you had intended to write in a single key. Although you use a lot of the A minor chord at one point, I would say that you are not really in Am because you haven't sharpened the leading note of A minor (7th of the scale) - G. I feel you are just using chord 6 (in the scale) of C major.

I didn’t think a modulation would be necessary in such a short piece. Do modern listeners expect to hear at least one modulation in the course of any piece? I’m very interested in learning how to properly modulate, but I had no idea that modulation might actually be expected in every piece of music.

I’m aware that I didn’t fully modulate into A minor. And like you say I certainly wasn’t using the A minor scale for the flute. But none-the-less I did feel that jumping into the A minor arpeggio at that point does sound to my untrained ear like a journey into a new harmonic place of sorts. But I’m aware that it wasn’t a full modulation.

I guess what I did would be considered a “toniciation” maybe.

For someone who says they lack theory skills. you've done a great job using your ears.

Yes, I would have to say that I wrote this piece basically by ear (with both instruments at my disposal to play). I wrote it with the restriction of only writing what I can actually play (which isn’t much!).

I have been studying music theory on a web site, and I have video lectures too. However, at this point I can’t really say that I have used must of that theory in this piece, other than sticking pretty much with the major triads of the key of C. I simply don’t understand the theory well enough yet. I need to actually do examples to learn, and I’m only just starting to write music.

Secondly, your chord changes at bars 15-16 and 74-75, I don't think sound right. It looks like you've gone into D major because of the C sharp in the guitar part, but the D key in relation to C major is D MINOR. Chord 2 is always minor in a major key. It may sound better to go to G major instead. One person said you have flirted with G alot - why not modulate to that key at that point? To modulate you need to gradually introduce the sharps or flats of the new key which in this case is F sharp.

Ok, at measures 15-16 and 74-75, I wasn’t using any theory at all. EXCEPT,… according to the video lectures I have the lectures suggests that 2 notes in harmony do not constitute a “chord”. So I wasn’t even thinking in terms of chords at that point. I was just fiddling around on the guitar and those two notes seemed to sound ok to me. So they only came to be from the actual improvisation of the piece as I wrote it. I took no thought whatsoever of how those notes might actually fit into the key of C-major. I thought they sounded ok, and were easy to play (they seemed to be the notes that naturally wanted to be played). So that how I came up with them. No theory applied there at all. Just improv.

I might add also, that because of how I am thinking of this piece in my mind as the guitarist being a child who is just learning about music, I’m thinking it’s kind of alright to have some slight “mistakes” if you will. It kind of gives a feeling of, “Ok that’s not quite right, but not too bad for someone who’s just learning”. And the angel (the flute) immediately brings the child bad to the tonic in the two measures that follow. Perhaps that’s a lot to expect a listener to follow, but I’m thinking in terms of a larger story going on so the listeners will be well aware of what the flute and guitar represent. They will have a program guide that gives an abstract of what’s going on.

As a stand alone piece though, I see your point. So even a two-note harmony should be built from a legitimate chord of the key. So many rules! I’m almost afraid to learn them in the fear that I won’t be able to do anything original anymore.

You asked about learning music theory. I don't know where you are from, but in the UK we have music theory grades. You can buy the workbooks and go through the exercises yourself

I live in Pennsylvania, USA. I’m sure they probably have theory workbooks here too. I’m actually still studying the music theory lessons on the 8 notes site (the link is in my signature), and I’ve been trying to glean over this video course that I bought from The Teaching Company (you can Google them if you’re interested in reading the syllabus for that course). It’s called Understanding the Fundamentals of Music, taught by Dr. Robert Greenberg. A pretty good course I might add. It’s going to take me quite a while to glean over both of these sources. I go through them and back to them periodically, understanding a little bit more each time through. But neither of these courses gives any actual examples of how to compose a piece of music from scratch. That’s what I’d really like to see.

….in some places where there are arpeggios, you have semi-breves (whole notes) at the beginning of bars that end up getting stopped before they have reached their full value. I realize why you have done this - to say they should be sustained as long as possible, but I think what would be more correct is to turn them into quavers (8th notes), and put an accent on the note that used to be a semi-breve. However, I'm not sure about this - your original version maybe be clearer to a performer.

I actually thought about this when I started out and decided on the potentially incorrect layered approach of using semi-breves, over using quavers and ties, or special accentuations. I chose this route because I felt that it would make the score look cleaner and less cluttered. I also felt that, from a practical point of view, the performer would intuitively know what I meant. But I guess that depends on the performer and how they sight-read. I could just write it in all quavers and put a note above the staff to “let all notes ring”.

It seems to me that letting notes ring on a guitar when playing arpeggios is such a common thing that there should be a special symbol for doing that similar to “Ped” for the piano. I think the technicalities of actually writing down the music is harder than actually writing the music itself.

Finally, aurally I thought that your holding onto the notes in bars 17 and 76 did not sound quite right. To me it sounds as though the music has stopped for a bit, when all the rest of if it very flowing. If you want to hold onto the flute part, perhaps do so only for a minim (half note if not English), with an arpeggio in the guitar and this would prevent this effect?

Ok, I see your point. The note being held over in 17 has a diminuendo on it in measure 16 and actually does fade out pretty well in the mp3 (at least I think so). The slight pause before going into measure 18 sounds good in my mind, because once again, I’m thinking of this in the context of the guitar representing a child basically improvising the piece, so a little “thought space” before jumping into the A-minor chords sounds right to me in that context. But I can see where that pause might seem a bit disconnected as stand-alone music. I’m thinking about writing a separate stand-alone version of this duet so this may be something to consider in that case.

The note being held over in 76 should have a diminuendo on it as well. Evidently I missed that one. And I agree the semi-breve should be reduced to a dotted minim in that measure. I’ll have to fix that.

Sorry to have said so much - I really think it is a lovely piece. For me, it

only needs a few minor adjustments to improve it.

I’m glad you did. You have taught me to become aware of several things here. If I expand this piece into a stand-alone duet I’ll need to think about including a genuine modulation (most likely into the key of G major I guess), and I need to pay more attention to even two-note harmonies with respect to how they might sound as chords.

There are quite a few places in the guitar staff where I have two-note harmonies being plucked almost as chords. I gave no thought at all to what “chords” they might be because I was under the impression that two-note harmonies don’t qualify as “chords”. I thought they had to be at least 3 notes before they are considered to be chords.

This music theory stuff is proving to be too complicated for me. Sometimes I think I might be better of going back to studying quantum mechanics which is what I was doing before I became interested in music.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to post comments, and for suffering through my babbling here. Your input is very much appreciated.

Again, m.43-44, why the slurs? You can put half notes and have an easier to read score.

I guess I originally wrote them down that way because that’s what I felt I was actually playing.

In other words, I composed this music with instrument in hand. I would play a phrase and then try to write out what I played in the sheet music. So my tendency was to write what I played. In 43-44 a bar line actually got in my way which is one reason why I had to break the note up with ties. I just broke it up to make it fit in the measures without really thinking about how it might be read by the guitarist.

I can see your point. It’s quite valid. I’m looking at this whole thing from the perspective of just writing down what I’m playing. You’re looking at it from the perspective of being a composer and writing it out as a language for a performer to read (which is precisely what composer are supposed to do!). So you’re looking at it as a composer, and I’m looking at it as a dump klutz who’s trying to get his music down on paper.

So you have taught me much more than you realize! You have shown me that I need to start thinking like a composer and I need to start viewing the musical notation itself as a language rather than merely trying to fit my music into neat-looking measures.

So I will be keeping this foremost in my mind from now on. But it is still going to take me quite a while to learn the symbolic written language of musical notation. I’m like still learning my ABC’s here.

On m. 15, the writing imples a hammer-on for the C#, and I don't feel that's your intention. I don't need to get my guitar out of the time-closet to verify this. You could invert the beam of the c# facing down while all the legato-played notes (and the a) face up. Does this make more sense?

Yes, you’re right, I don’t want those notes to be a hammer-on. (and that’s what I felt a “slur” would be used for). However, I was trying to just group those notes into a single “phrase” (which uses the same symbol as a slur).

This is why I’m a bit confused on precisely how to distinguish between a slur, a phrase marker, and a tie. There is no tie in m. 15, nor is there supposed to be a slur. I was just trying to show that I want that whole group to be played as a single continuous “phrase”.

I’m also thinking that phrasing itself may be a bit subjective. What one person considers to be a single phrase, may appear as separate elements to someone else. I think some things just can’t avoid being subjective.

Abra and Nota, this doesn't have to do with guitar music. I was in doubt if guitar-writing was an exception, but it doesn't. In every single-layer music piece, the beams go up and from the middle line upwards they go down (that's not specific to guitar). But, when there are layers involved the upper layer has the beams facing up, while the lower has the beams facing down.

Ok, I understand now. It’s because I’m using layers that the beams and stem direction rules change. That makes perfect sense to me!

So now I have even more to think about. Do I want to stick with the layered approach and go by those rules, or change the semi-breves into quavers, and go back to a single-layered rules?

Hmmm? Decisions, decisions.

This notation stuff is a whole study in it’s own right and seems to be to be something altogether different from music theory. I mean, how I choose to notate the piece doesn’t change the way it actually sounds, it just changes the “readability” of the score, which is also important, but a whole different thing from music theory.

So much to learn!

For the m.15; when you use this symbol for the guitar, it means that the notes herein (apart from the first one) won't be attacked but hammered-on. It's my crappy english, so, I'll try to tell it differently. This arc (:D) is considered a phrase marking not because it notifies a phrase, but because it tells (mainly) musicians to play all these notes within one breath or bowing or string attack, whatever.

To try and clarify even further, (because, apparently my english suck) I refer you to Dolmetsch (search for slur):

Search for 'slur'!

I am very glad you are enjoying the endeavor of learning the whereabouts of music notation. I am still struggling along the same path, friend! I feel it's much worth the time and effort!

To try and clarify even further, (because, apparently my english suck) I refer you to Dolmetsch (search for slur): Search for 'slur'!

Ok, this is basically what I already thought. In other words, I was pretty sure of what a slur is because they are used a lot in the Bach partitas and sonatas which I’m learning on the violin and guitar. I’m sued to playing slurs as harmmer-on, or with a single bow stroke on the violin.

What I was a bit confused about is the difference between a slur and a phrasing mark. And I believe that there is a difference even though the actual symbols are the same.

The following comes from the same dictionary you gave me for “slur”,…

Phrase Mark - a long curved line that connects the notes of a phrase; the term is often applied to slurs although often slurs which are less extensive are to be found under phrase marks but never the other way round.

By their description they say that the term “phrasing mark” is often applied to “slurs” but is actually distinct in its meaning. They also seem to be saying that it’s permissible to have “slurs” underneath “phrasing marks”.

My concern is that there should be some way to differentiate between an actual slur (slurring the notes together) versus a phrasing mark that simply means to group notes together in a coherent phrase.

My sheet music program allows me edit the thickness of the curved lines. I have been thinking about making the phrasing marks just a tad more bold so they can be easily recognized as being different from the slurs.

Or maybe I don’t need any “phrasing marks” at all. Maybe you originally meant that I need to indicate where the slurs are and that what you meant by “phrasing marks”.

I see a difference between the function of a phrasing mark and a slur even though they use the same symbol. I mean, to me these are distinctly different things. And it seems that by the above definition from the dictionary you provided, they also, make a distinction between a phrasing mark and slur even though they are clearing the same symbol. Because they clearly state that it’s permissible to have “slurs” underneath “Phrasing marks”. That implies to me that there must be a difference.

It’s not my intent to argue semantics here, but rather I’m simply concerned about how to properly convey the difference between a phrase, and a slur when writing sheet music. I would actually like to use both phrase markings and slurs. But I’d like to have a better way to clarify which is which without ambiguity.

I am very glad you are enjoying the endeavor of learning the whereabouts of music notation. I am still struggling along the same path, friend! I feel it's much worth the time and effort!

Yes, I love to learn. And I agree it is well worth the time and effort to learn it correctly.

So it seems that the difference between “phrasing marks” and “slurs” is quite subtle but real. It’s not merely a misunderstanding between us. They can easily be confused, and your dictionary even states that the term “phrasing mark” is often applied to “slurs” yet they clearly state that there is a difference in their meaning and function.

This is what I believed at the onset. My only concern is how to make the distinction between them more obvious? I personally feel that phrasing marks should have a distinctly different look to them, like maybe having a little curl at each end of the curved line or something. But evidently the musical community never felt a need to make the symbols distinctly differently.

This could end up being a study on its own!

If I remove all of my “phrasing marks” and leave only the actual “slurs” there would only be a few and they would all be for the flute. The guitar has no “slurs” in this piece at all. But there are places that I would like to “phrase together" as being what I see as a continous phrase.

It's actually very simple. You use the slur when you mean that something uses one bowing, one breath, one string attack and so on. That's what is meant by 'phrasing'.

If there are no slurs in the guitar in this piece, you needn't use them.

You don't need to distinguish certain motivic chunks ('phrases') by lines or whatever, except when you want to analyze a specific work.

Does that make sense?

Yes, this could well develop in a lesson.

Does that make sense?

Yes what you say make sense.

However I have already started a topic asking for other perspectives on this issue here:

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/phrasing-marks-versus-slurs-10924.html#post176717

I hope that's alright. It's not that I don't trust your input, it's just that I like to get a variety of comments on a topic when I'm uncertain of how to proceed.

After all, people even ask for second opinions of doctors and laywers too. So I hope that you don't take offense that I am seeking a larger pool of views from which to draw my own conclusions.

I really do appreciate everything you've done for me thus far, and like I have said, you have significantly changed my view about looking at score as a language. That, in and of itself, is a very valuable lesson, and I thank you for that.

You are certainly welcome. Producing a score (and looking at a score) should be an art in and of itself and not a chore. It certainly is for me and I still struggle towards that end.

And I am also very eager to read what other people have to say on this topic. Perhaps I may expand my own horizons through other people's viewpoints. A win-win situation, actually.

Ok, I’ve cleaned up the score once again.

I decided to keep the layers on the guitar staff, so I turned all the stems up on one layer and all the stems down on the other. Although the only notes on the second layer with stems are the half notes in m. 56-57. All the rest of the notes on that layer are semi-breves.

I also turned off the beaming to the rests in the tuplets, I felt that those beams were more confusing than beneficial. I left all of the tuplet rests in place and made them visible again. Except in m. 56-57 I moved the rests above the staff because with the stems from the half-notes they didn’t look good on the staff.

I reduced the number of tempo markers to only one per change in tempo, and only placed them above one staff when they occur.

I removed all the phrasing marks from the guitar. There are no slurs for the guitar at all.

I removed all the larger phrasing marks for the flute and only indicated the small groups of two or three notes that are to be played together as slurs.

I’m pretty happy with the score now. It looks cleaner and I think its pretty readable. Qccowboy suggested a minimalistic approach to phrasing marks and that does seem to be the wisest choice, it make for cleaner less-cluttered score.

I thought about what you said about changing the values of notes that are included in slurs to match the value of the other notes in the slur and then tying the final note over to expand it’s duration. But that seemed like unnecessary clutter to me. I’ve looked through some music books here and they seem to be slurring notes together of differnet duration values without any problem. I think there’s something to be said for the simplicity of that. Otherwise I’d just be creating more notes and more ties that don’t really need to be there.

So I’m pretty happy with it the way it is now.

I uploaded the latest and greatest version of the PDF. The actual music hasn’t changed though so the sound files are the same as before. This was all just to clean up the score. I spent two days of hard labor just cleaning this score up. (ha ha)

Well most of that was learning about the software too.

And yes, I agree it’s important. But at the same time I’d rather be composing new music!

This piece very much reminds me of an old school Final Fantasy song for some reason. Not quite sure why, but it does. Not knowing much about music theory either, I can't really give you much advice from a technical perspective. But from a general listener perspective, I can tell you that everything I did hear was pleasing to the ears. I would have liked to hear the guitar maybe play a solo passage but as it is, it's a perfectly enjoyable piece. I will be honest and say it's not very original. But as someone once said "Creativity is a muscle, not a resource. It only grows stronger the more you use it" (forgive me if I misquoted). Anyway, I think this was a very solid piece. Nothing stood out as particularly good, but nothing stood out as appalingly bad. This is espically good if you are relatively new to composing.

I have been listening to this off and on since you posted it, but wanted to wait until you were happy with the score. It is an enjoyable little piece. I have to agree with a lot of what Nirvana69 said.

You are certainly welcome. Producing a score (and looking at a score) should be an art in and of itself and not a chore. It certainly is for me and I still struggle towards that end.

And I am also very eager to read what other people have to say on this topic. Perhaps I may expand my own horizons through other people's viewpoints. A win-win situation, actually.

Manos,

You have seen my horrible renditions of scores, half of that is just because I do view it as a chore. I would rather hum a few bars to the players and say there it is. :w00t: But I am working on improving my skill, but I kinda doubt anyone will ever look at one of my scores as a piece of art,:happy:.

Okay, this piece is much improved, now!

I thought about what you said about changing the values of notes that are included in slurs to match the value of the other notes in the slur and then tying the final note over to expand it’s duration. But that seemed like unnecessary clutter to me. I’ve looked through some music books here and they seem to be slurring notes together of differnet duration values without any problem. I think there’s something to be said for the simplicity of that. Otherwise I’d just be creating more notes and more ties that don’t really need to be there.

Pardon? You are referring to m.43-44? The way you wrote it before meant one attack, same notes lasting for 2 beats. Now you mean 2 attacks. It's very different and there is no clutter.

Some more comments;

1) The flute phrasing is still a bit awkward, although much improved. Look at m.6, for example-the flutist has to take 3 breaths in one measure! No flutist will play it that way (unless you note it VERY explicitly)! :happy:

2) The rests would look even better above the whole notes.

3) m. 60, the tempo marking had better go above the flute staff.

4) m. 81-82. What kind of diminuendos are these? They should go below the staff to which they refer. Also, a guitar diminuendo for sustained notes?? Also, diminuendo to what dynamic level?

5) m. 28. You bemed together the quarter notes...

Good job! The score starts to take a more professional look with each attempt.

I agree that composing is better, but think of the time you save if you can apply these to your next compositions!

Manos,

You have seen my horrible renditions of scores, half of that is just because I do view it as a chore. I would rather hum a few bars to the players and say there it is. :D But I am working on improving my skill, but I kinda doubt anyone will ever look at one of my scores as a piece of art,:w00t:.

It's in your hand to transform these 'horrble renditions' into functional, professional-looking, performer-friendly scores. :happy:

1) The flute phrasing is still a bit awkward, although much improved. Look at m.6, for example-the flutist has to take 3 breaths in one measure! No flutist will play it that way (unless you note it VERY explicitly)!

M. 6? I’m a bit of a loss here. I don’t have any phrasing marks in measure 6. Perhaps you meant some other measure?

One thing you need to understand it that I have never been educated in music in any way shape or form. I ‘play’ about a dozen instruments, but they were all self-learned. I learned how to read music just from basically deciphering it until I finally got to the point where I could start to sight-read in my own way. So I’m not going to be looking at the score the same way you do. You’re reading it like a language that you’re familiar with. I’m looking at it as just a way to record what I’ve done so I don’t forget. So from my point of view it’s more of just a memory jogger than a precise dictation of exactly how the piece should be played.

I mean, I want to learn to write it as properly as possible, but there may be a line that I’ll come to and say, “This is close enough”.

2) The rests would look even better above the whole notes.

I think they’d look better if they were tossed into outer space. I thought it looked good when they were invisible. I think they’re kind of redundant in a way. I mean, like I say, I haven’t been properly trained in sight-reading, but it seems to me that it’s common sense what needs to be done whether the actual rests are shown or not.

I think they are ugly where they are, and just as ugly above the whole notes. The little suckers are just ugly period. I mean, because I deem them as being unnecessary. I don’t mean to imply that all eight rests are ugly. They can be beautiful when playing a wind instrument and you are in need of some air.

3) m. 60, the tempo marking had better go above the flute staff.

Done. I meant to move that up and forgot. Yes, I agree with the consistency of keeping all the tempo makings on the top staff in a small piece like this.

4) m. 81-82. What kind of diminuendos are these? They should go below the staff to which they refer. Also, a guitar diminuendo for sustained notes?? Also, diminuendo to what dynamic level?

The only reason I put them above the staff was because the melody flows along the top of the staff, I thought it would make more sense to put the articulations as close to the notes they refer to. I’ve never actually seen these in sheet music before. I don’t actually ‘play’ the flute. I bought one a couple months ago and I just blow over it’s hole and it makes sounds. I can play this piece because I made it up by playing it on the flute first, and then I had to write down what I did. So I’m working backwards in a way.

I never even saw a diminuendo marking before. At least not these little short ones that just apply to one note. I have seen the longer ones that apply to a whole measure or so (like I use at the very end of this piece).

So how do you tell the dynamic level? Is there usually a little comment or note included with diminuendo? I’d like all of the diminuendos in this piece to fade from the current volume-level where they occur, down to complete silence over the duration of the notes. In other words, I want them to fade the note out completely over it’s duration (including any ties it may be associated with).

How do I notate that? I was thinking of writing in a whole comment at the very beginning of the staff saying to fade all diminuendos to zero over the duration of the notes. I have seen sheet music that comes with an entire page of comments. I’m learning a Debussy piece on the piano that has an entire first page of nothing but comments to explain how to deal with all the articulations, etc.

5) m. 28. You bemed together the quarter notes...

I have no clue how that happen. I certainly didn’t do that on purpose. This software is quite complex, I totally stand in awe of it’s capabilities.

I’m using Melody Assistant from Myriad. A $20 program for Windows or Mac. Thus far I haven’t found anything that this program won’t do. It’s doesn’t have the greatest printing formatting. But other than that this program is phenomenal. They actually sell a more powerful version for $70 called Harmony Assistant. I can’t imagine what more it can do! So far this one seems to do it all. Even the layering is automatic. I mean you don’t even need to tell it that you want to layer. It just automatically knows where you are laying! AMAZING!

Good job! The score starts to take a more professional look with each attempt.

Thank you. I did clean up the few things you said, except for moving all those rests above the semi-breves. I’d have to move them each individually, and I’m not sure if I want to spend the time going that right now. But I have learned a lot here about writing better score for the future.

By the way, since the topic of layering has come up I have started to look more closely at professional score that I have here. I’m learning the Bach partitas and sonatas on the violin and guitar. The violin score doesn’t use layering because it’s not necessary for a violin (i.e. you can’t let notes ring on a violin). But the guitar arrangements for these piece are all layered. Even though I’m playing them I never really even noticed that the music was “layered”. Well, I guess I did notice it but I just didn’t think about it.

You’re right about how they face the stems of the two differnet layers in opposite directions. HOWEVER! And I find this interesting. This practice only seems to apply to one measure at a time. In other words, in one measure they might have notes of long duration on one layer and notes of short duration on another layer, in the very next measure they may do just the opposite! So they seem to be consistent with this idea within every measure, but not necessarily over the whole staff.

That’s an interesting subtly that may come in useful in the future since I may be writing a lot of guitar music . I guess it has to be this way, otherwise stems and beams could ultimately end up crossing over one another. In fact, I noticed that in some measures they had no choice but to break the rules to avoid over-lapping stems. In other words, in some places they have long duration notes above and below each other with stems facing in opposite direction, with a short duration note in between them. I also notice that they have made many rests invisible to avoid clutter when layering. It hasn’t posed any problem for me when I read the score. I never even noticed that the rests were missing until just now. But they are redundant in layered music I think. I might go back and just make those rests invisible altogether. I can do that in one fell swoop with an easy block edit.

Well, I’m glad that we’ve had this discussion. This was like a lesson thread. :P

Anyway, I think this was a very solid piece. Nothing stood out as particularly good, but nothing stood out as appalingly bad. This is espically good if you are relatively new to composing.

Thank you for the comments Nirvana,

This is all good to hear, because I am very new to composing. In fact, this is the first piece I've written that actually sounds like it might be "music".

So I'm fully aware that it's not going to stun anyone with originality or creativity. I'm just glad to have written something that is coherent and pleasing to the ear.

I'll be writing a lot of simple basic pieces like this for quite a while as I learn.

This piece very much reminds me of an old school Final Fantasy song for some reason. Not quite sure why, but it does.

This is one thing that concerns me about composing. Even though I made this piece up from scratch as I went along I can never be sure where the ideas are coming from. Am I making them up from nothing? Or am I ultimately drawing on subconcious memory of melodies and harmonies that I've heard before?

One can never know, and I think it's pretty hard not to be influenced by life's experiences. This is one scary thing about composing.

You raise an interesting point Abra. Is music really original anymore? Or is everything we hear nowadays just the bi-product of some composer trying to rip off another composer? I know personally, I have yet to write one piece of original music. Every idea I have ever had for a song has come from somewhere else. So in that regards, I have never really written a piece of music that is reall original. It seems the best most of us can do, is just to try and not make it so obvious that we did just "borrow" someone elses musical idea.

About m.6 and all subsequent measures; can you tell me when you inhale during this measure?

About the rests. I agree they're ugly, but you HAVE to have them. Especially in layered music. They are by no means redundant! Clutter is avoided by placing the rests well above or well below.

Diminuendo to silence? That could be tricky for the flute (but not for the clarinet...gotta love those dynamics control)! So you had better place a pianississimo mark at the end.

;)

About m.6 and all subsequent measures; can you tell me when you inhale during this measure?

I just played measures 6 through 9 on my flute with a single breath with no problem so I don’t see any need to inhale during those measure.

I’ve only been playing the flute for about 2 months and I don’t even practice everyday. I also have respiratory problems and my lung capacity is known to be abnormally low. Plus I haven’t done any specialized breathing exercises that flutists probably do. I would imagine that for a professional flutist this phrase would be a snap in a single breath. Either that or I missed my calling as a flutist.

This is one reason I like to compose with instruments in hand. If I can play it in a single breath as an amateur surely a “real” flutist can play it in a single breath with no sweat.

About the rests. I agree they're ugly, but you HAVE to have them. Especially in layered music. They are by no means redundant! Clutter is avoided by placing the rests well above or well below.

I’ve been getting used to seeing them where they are now. I’m not convinced that moving them all above the staff would look any better. I have some layered guitar music here and they have rests buried in the staff between notes very similar to mine. As long as their there I guess the precise positioning is a matter of taste. I think it would probably be preferable to have them inside the staff if possible, and there’s clearly room for them where they currently are.

Diminuendo to silence? That could be tricky for the flute (but not for the clarinet...gotta love those dynamics control)! So you had better place a pianississimo mark at the end.

I’m not concerned about totally dictating precisely how the music should be played. I don’t view music score in that way. When I play other people’s music I might even ignore some of their dynamic markings in favor of my own interpretation of how the music should be played. As a composer I would actually encourage musicians to apply their own artistic interpretations to my music.

I’m just not into being that rigid. I think the presence of diminuendo marks should be plenty of information. It indicates that I would like the notes to fade out. Precisely how the artist fades the notes out is his or her own business as a performer. I surrender to their artistic interpretation.

I’m just not that worried about dictating how things should be played to that level of precision. That’s just not a school of thought I’m prepared to enroll in. I’m a liberal. :o

It seems the best most of us can do, is just to try and not make it so obvious that we did just "borrow" someone elses musical idea.

“Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal.” - Igor Stravinsky

If you play all these notes with one breath, you had better slur them together. As simple as that! Notate the phrasing that seems more natural to you. Try to sing these notes...how do the phrases feel? That's how you should use the slurs!

according to the video lectures I have the lectures suggests that 2 notes in harmony do not constitute a

If you play all these notes with one breath, you had better slur them together. As simple as that! Notate the phrasing that seems more natural to you. Try to sing these notes...how do the phrases feel? That's how you should use the slurs!

This is why I started that other thread asking about the difference between phrasing marks and slurs.

Qccowboy suggested a minimalistic approach of only using slurs as needed to facilitate instrumentation, and not to get carried away with unnecessary phrasing marks, that tend to become redundant.

When I look at measures 6 though 9 I don’t see any rests at all. To me, that indicates that it’s a contiguous melody. Seems to me that information alone should be sufficient to convey that it should all be played as one continuous melody. My temptation would be to put a single phrasing mark over all four measures.

Barring that, my next thought would be to “slur” the quarter notes together simply because they are quarter notes. I mean, the mere fact that they have a lesser duration than the half notes forces them to be played closer together.

I have to say that from a minimalistic approach as Qccowboy had suggested, I just can’t see the need for any actual “slurs” in measures 6 – 9.

This is why I started the other thread. So far, Qccowboy was the only one to respond to it. He’s a music teacher and suggests that only actual “slurs” should be used where needed for proper instrumentation. And that putting unnecessary phrasing marks should be avoided.

It seems to me that to put phrasing marks in m 6 – 9 would be overkill. Where does it stop? I’d end up with phrasing marks above every measure like I had before if I go that route.

I mean, obviously this is somewhat subjective. I have music here by Burgm

I've just started reading a really highly thought of book called The Fundamentals of Composition by Arnold Schoenberg.

Thanks for the tip on the book. I’ll look into it.

The video course I have actually does go into the use of motifs (or motives as he calls them). He explains this in some detail giving examples from pieces by Beethoven and others. He explains the ideas of sequencing and transformation, etc. I find that quite interesting and intriguing.

He uses Beethoven 5th symphony as the ultimate example of how a very simple 4-note motif can be used to create an entire symphony! It’s amazing what can be done with four simple notes if you think about it.

So I am familiar with the general idea behind motif manipulation.

I’ll check the college library for the book you’ve suggested. If they don’t have it they can order it for me through interlibrary loan.

Thanks for sharing the information about the book. It sounds like the kind of book I’m looking for.

I see that I tried to help but I ended up confusing you!! I am not talking about musical phrases here, nor Qc, we're talking about phrasing.

Anyway, to get things straight. What I'm saying (by phrasing) is that with one breath, you play several notes, right? It's the same thing on the guitar, where with one attack you play several notes or the violin several notes in one bowing. It's simple, really.

I see that I tried to help but I ended up confusing you!! I am not talking about musical phrases here, nor Qc, we're talking about phrasing.

Well, I must confess that I'm confused.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I just don't understand what you are trying to say.

You say, "I am not talking about musical phrases here, we're talking about phrasing"

Evidently you must being using the terms "musical phrases" and "phrasing" to mean differnet things and I simply don't understand the distinctions that you are trying to make.

Maybe you could mark up measures 6 through 9 the way you think they should be marked and then I can better understand what you are trying to say?

I just don't understand what you are trying to tell me. Perhaps it's because I'm new to all of this.

There seems to be a distinction between the meaning of a "slur" and a "phrase". And apparently it's common practice to refer to slurs as 'phrasing'.

I think I can understand that so far. I have an idea in my mind what I think of as a slur, and what I think of as a phrase, and I can see where the distinction between the two can be subjective and not carved in stone.

However, now you seem to be suggesting that there is even a further distinction between, "musical phrases" and "phrasing". Or perhaps you simply mean between slurs and phrases? I don't know?

I'm losing my ability to comprehend precisely what you are trying to say.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I just plain don't understand what it is that you are trying to tell me.

You have been a great help in many other ways. You've already brought to my attention things about the proper placement of dynamic markers, tempo markers, and accepted conventions of how notes should be beamed and in what direction they should be facing in layered music.

So you've taught me a lot, and this is cool.

I'm just failing to understand these subtle distinctions concerning phrase markings and how to properly use them.

I'm further confused by the "single-breath" that you keep talking about. As I’ve said, I personally play measures 6 through 9 using a single breath. So from that point of view I would just draw one huge arc over all four measures.

Otherwise, I'm not sure how to break it up into smaller pieces. I personally don't consider anything in those measures to be actual "slurs", but this may be quite subjective. Perhaps someone else would consider them to be slurs. I just don't know.

So in short, I just don't know what to do with measures 6 through 9 other than to cover them all with one huge arc. In my mind it's just one big phrase with no slurs.

However, if I cover that phrase with an arc, then we're back to covering all phrases with arcs for consistency and that takes us right back to where we were when we started. I had done that once and you didn't seem to be happy with that either.

So I just don't understand.

Perhaps I'm flunking out here?

Maybe I should take up basket weaving instead???