Eternal

Oh well. :P

Norby: Actually, in orchestral literature, it's even conventional to notate horns without a key signature in pieces that do have a key signature and transpose chromatically. There are some scores where it's handled differently, notably in contemporary band and some film music, but the traditional way is still without key signatures. It might be a good idea to take a hint of ones own advice: "I suggest you to see more partituras..."

And obviously you don't write any key signature in any instrument if your piece doesn't make use of keys in the first place.

Thirdly, writing "transposed score" is a nice idea, but not strictly required. If you write the instrument names as "Horn in F", "Clarinet in Bb" etc. and don't write "Score in C"/"Score in concert pitch", then it's always assumed that the score is a transposed score.

As for all other things: Antiatonality already pointed out why he wrote them like that. And there's nothing wrong with the way he wrote them. If you have never seen a score where "violin 3" or "violin 4" exist, where two piccolos are used, and so on, then it's you again who should "see more partituras".

"then it's you again who should "see more partituras"."

Gardener you are childish :) but nevermind

I just pointed out how it works USUALLY...These things are that I've said little errors, and as I said I liked the work.

Anyway my only problem is not that he uses two piccolos and write divisi to horns...you can actually use 600.000 piccolos if you want...my problem is that attitude, that atonality dont cares about conventional,traditional things as he said...of course you could use your own sings for notes, use 30 trombone and write divisi to alredy divided parts (While the book that I've read (Piston Walter: Books on orchestration) clearly says that only use divisi instruction in string parts...),

So when I says I cant take him seriously I only say for this not the little errors...

But at least I know that he knows how it should be the "traditional" scores working...

For a moment, I thought I had lost my mind. Thanks, Gardener. :P

Things I like:

The overall dramatic arch is excellent - the degrees of dissonance are nuanced and lead nicely to the chord before the recap of the intro material.

Like the wind and horn writing too - will be quite luxuriant

Liked some of the harp parts - the opening especially

What I didn't like or could be improved:

The string writing was a bit too safe - reminiscent in fact of Faure's Requiem but less interesting. Why? Mostly your ranges when not with the harp or a few tutti passages stayed close to the mid registers - the voicings were good but again a bit more variable texture would have been welcome and greater variance in note values. For example you have those 16ths running around in the percussion - why not have given them to the violins?

Rhythmically this has greater fliow than your earlier works but I'd like hear music of greater rhythmic interest.

Otherwise, sounds fine. Hard for me to give it an entirely fair review as the style is very reminiscent of film/tv music - in fact I was reminded slightly of the very few notes of the opening of the old Star Trek - which is not my cup of tea.

But aside from that, it sounds like a great opening movement of a larger work. Are you planning for that?

The string writing was a bit too safe - reminiscent in fact of Faure's Requiem but less interesting. Why? Mostly your ranges when not with the harp or a few tutti passages stayed close to the mid registers - the voicings were good but again a bit more variable texture would have been welcome and greater variance in note values. For example you have those 16ths running around in the percussion - why not have given them to the violins?

Good suggestion.

Rhythmically this has greater flow than your earlier works but I'd like hear music of greater rhythmic interest.

I didn't want the 'meditative' quality I was going for to be disrupted with rhythmic variance and pattern manipulation... I sort of went for this fluidity instead of trying to disrupt it.

Otherwise, sounds fine. Hard for me to give it an entirely fair review as the style is very reminiscent of film/tv music - in fact I was reminded slightly of the very few notes of the opening of the old Star Trek - which is not my cup of tea.

Aww, don't hate on Goldsmith now :P

But aside from that, it sounds like a great opening movement of a larger work. Are you planning for that?

Not what I had in mind... it's a stand alone work. I may use ideas from it in larger works (like Mahler did with the Wunderhorn, etc.). If someone asks me, "Do you have a piece for my orchestra to read/perform?" I have something I can hand them right away. It's not too long, it's not too short. It's manageable.

Very beautiful and haunting in a number of ways. A great work to produce after a writers block.

Thanks JW!

Norby, you REALLY need to re-learn your orchestration. While, on the whole, it is correct, there are some MAJOR details that are flawed in your knowledge. When I saw that you demanded to put a key signature in the horns where there is no key signature, I laughed a little inside.

Strings can be divided ad libitum.

Orchestras can have 2 Piccolos (Mahler used as many as 4).