e

e

Hey Catfish,

OK, another "strong" and "delightful" introduction but followed by a most "lush" and "enticing" string passage that "mirrors heavenly harps".

Such wonderful "cascading" string notation stretching from there "grand heights" downward to a most pleasing and memorable melodic section combining great "sorrow" and "hope".

Or in other words - "WOW" !

Michael

e

Hey, WOW! How did you do that video!?

Again, great work!

Michael

i think , this work quite thick , the harmony is very thick and there are soemthing inside the music whose can be omitted

angela

You should consider using a better scoring programme, however.

Not to sound mean, but that's a really unattractive score.

e

I'm sorry but I don't see anything ugly in my Cakewalk program!

It's simple, I can agree with that. But any musician can see what's there.

well, note spacing is awkward, the staff names are in the wrong place, all the beams are flat, inter-layer rests are misplaced, etc...

I'm sorry you don't agree with standard notation practice. I'm also sorry you saw my comment as an insult.

However, yes, your Cakewalk programme is not giving you a very good score output. It is doing you a disservice by giving you the impression that the result is good. You have gotten used to seeing its output and now think that that is OK for notation. However, it's not.

Another quick notation correction: the pizzicato celli really should be written simply as eighth notes, not as 16th notes. It clutters up the score with too many rests, otherwise. And a lot of the rests should be either consolidated or eliminated outright. I believe most of them could simply be done away with through the judicious use of proper notation and articulations.

A lot of the broken beaming is clumsy as well. If you programe allows you to, you should consolidate all those broken beams.

I think Cakewalk is more of a sequencer than a notation programme, am I right? Then you should also consider putting in all the articulations, dynamics, and phrase markings that should be in the score. Don't be fooled by the fact that the playback is what you want. The score, as it stands, would not be played back that way if it were handed to an orchestra.

e

actually, I see no reason to lie to you and let you think that your output is what it is not.

I will forego commenting on your work from now on as you obviously have no interest in comments other than compliments.

Why waste my time trying to teach you anything if you are unwilling or unable to learn from the comments.

Giving conductors and musicians bad scores and inadequately notated parts only makes you look bad. I've seen many scores returned to the composer unplayed simply because the score was not done in a clear, consistent, or readable format.

Think of it like this: Would you go to a job interview wearing torn jeans, beat up sneakers, and a vomit-stained shirt? No, you'd going in looking your best. (well, if you had any ambition of ever being hired, that is.)

Always step with your best foot forward and remember that the more effort you appear to put into your music, the more likely it is that some will take their time and bother to look at it further. And I'll say this flat out - good luck getting a publisher to publish your music if it's not presented correctly. All respected publishers have rules on how music has to look for publication.

I have heard my music being played by a real orchestra. I even know that it can sound perfect without any dynamics or articulations at all!

And those conductors were professionals who also gave me appreciation for what they heard.

They were humoring you (or momentarily tolerating the lack of professionalism). Or perhaps they were just as ignorant of standard music notation. Which is more likely?

e

e

Well, ok.

I just find the need to comment irrisistable. Sorry.

About scores: It is what you have to communicate with your conductor, and your performers. It's NOT cosmetics by a mile! You may want to talk music, and so on, and it's all ok for you and all of us actually, but since you posted the score somewhere (which I can't find it actually, so link anybody?) then you should expect comments on the score.

Since I deal with music technology a lot, SONAR and all sequencers are not the greatest programs to do notation with. Finale, Sibelius, Notion and the rest are much more suitable for such work, but then again they are not perfect in sequencing (yet, although Finale comes pretty close). Different programs for different things.

The above two paragraphs are simple advices. I've not seen the score, just read your words. You may choose to ignore me (and QCC and Flint), or listen. Nobody will kill you if you do either, nobody will really mind, it's just some advice. What we think is best. Nothing personal. :)

I promise to listen to the music very shortly and comment on the music solidly. Sorry that I'm lacking the time right now.

Nikolas

Hi Fredrik,

Wow, hand written scores - that's a lost art. ;) Hope all is well. Wanted to pitch you a link of "my" scores to get your opinion and feedback.

Michael Wiktor's Storefront - Lulu.com

Thanks again, and for an expert and experienced eye on my work. :)

Michael

e

"It is what you have to communicate with your conductor, and your performers".

1. You're right about that, when the time comes and it's time for performance for example for my Violinconcerto then...!, I'll talk it over with my conductor and performers.

2. You are also right about the programs, personally I find Finale unnecesserily difficult. I have tried it but did'nt like it at all!

Cakewalk is much easier to use and is a dream as a sequencer which for me is the most important and it allways works without a problem.

And you miss the point. You will not always be around... and unless you invest some serious time into explaining each of your pieces in writing and leaving that info for posterity, you are not always going to be able to "talk it over with the conductor".

You can avoid that if you invest some time into actually notating your scores correctly. You don't have to do it in Finale or Sibelius or

I'll be blunt and say that if your score or parts are crap, most orchestras are not going to bother with playing it.

Proper notation is not optional, nor is it "cosmetic"!!

You can take my advice or leave it, but if you feel that you're above it, that's your perogative.

e

e

Fredrick

First off I love the music.

As to the score. I figured all along that the video score was just enough to get the idea and it does well at that.

I have used both Sib and Finale. And to tell the truth, they both suck. They both will do the dumbest things and can make life hard cleaning up a score. That said, they are probably the best things on the market. But if you are rushing thru scoring a piece and decide to come back later to try to fix the score, count on many many hours of work trying to make things pretty. Whereas if you look at some of Beethoven's or Hayden's scores, you can barely discern what they had in mind. I have a excerpt from Handel's Messiah, that I can barely read.

Just my two cents worth

Ron

Ron,

Just to clear this thing. The manuscripts from Beethoven, Handel etc, were not the ones that went to the conductor. These scores were supposed to be copied by the professional copyists. So little to do with what we're talking about here. If you see my manuscripts you will vomit or something...

I have used both Sib and Finale. And to tell the truth, they both suck. They both will do the dumbest things and can make life hard cleaning up a score. That said, they are probably the best things on the market. But if you are rushing thru scoring a piece and decide to come back later to try to fix the score, count on many many hours of work trying to make things pretty.

We obviously have very different experience with notation software.

I find it incredibly easy to get very presentable results with my first rush of composition. It rarely takes me "hours and hours" of cleaning up. Your experience might be due to, excuse the bad pun, a lack of experience?

I'm not sure what you refer to as "the dumbest things". I have yet to come across anything "dumb" in the way Finale treats the material I give it. So your assertion that they "both suck" is hardly realistic. Generally, the problem is not that of the software but of the end user.

Don't forget Overture 4.0. A very nice program to score with. :) Still takes a few hours to make things pretty; but some nice features to help you through.

Michael

When I refer to the dumb things that these programs do....

For an example

Sibelius will insert dynamics directly on top of other things already there. Then you have to zoom in to grab the one you want to move. I have found the same type of thing in Finale. This is the main problem I have with notattion software. THe code seems to be written by people who don't care where things go.

Another example. Sib will put markings right on the staves that are to be placed either above or below.

I have talked with many people who have thier "years and Years " of experience, that are also pissed that a supposedly great program will do such stupid things.

I know enough about coding that I know how easy it is to fix many of these things that are slowly being fixed in future editions. They know what is wrong and let this stuff go in hopes of us buying the next edition.

QC

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are idiots that don't know what they are doing. People have the right to disagree without being wrong. I disagree that the problems are all in the end user.

Well, you've just demonstrated that the problems ARE on the user's end.

Expressions have very easy to assign positionning options. If you know how to use them, one single click is enough in 95% of cases to place the expression in exactly the right place.

Since you have already made up your mind, then nothing I can say will change that. So I will not belabour the point.