Coming of Age

Here's a piece of mine that was written in 2008. There's a good chance that I can get it performed this semester so I'm looking for any and all critiques before I revise the score and pass out parts. The recording is of a first reading and I think the performers did a great job considering.

Coming of Age

Since you have parts and score to edit, let me be a little more critical than normal. First, I like the piece. I think it has a lot of potential to become part of the repertoire of concert music for band. There are some great ideas here, things that you can definitely count on directors liking about the piece.

Now, a few things that need some consideration (maybe not editing, but certainly things you should give some thought to about the piece).

The beginning has trumpets one and two playing a unison line in a brass chorale. I'd recommend a solo trumpet covering this because you're running into some intonation problems. Consider giving the second trumpet a counter-melodic line or leaving it out for that gentle chorale at the beginning. Be sure, also, that you're phrasing that line accurately. Slurs and phrase markings look identical, so you want your performers to know how the phrase is supposed to sound. This helps with knowing where to breath also. Finally, finish that phrase in the trumpet line. The rest of the brass are playing into beats three and four while the trumpet drops off. To me, as a listener, I hear it like the trumpet ran out of air and didn't finish his idea. Just some things to ponder at the beginning.

Fast forward to four measures before the fanfare at rehearsal letter B. You have a really thin texture trying to sound very thick harmonically with the Horns and Tuba. It's a little mushy and loses its power. There are a couple of things you can try here orchestration-wise to bring that out more. First, your percussion lead into it with a sus. cym. roll... bring in the full ensemble to hit the harmony and fall out. That's one option. Another thing you can try is to unison the horns on the melodic material and give the harmonic progression to the trombones and euphonium. This will help with intonation in the horns and deliver a much clearer statement than what you have now. Also, fill out the sweep in the flutes with some support from clarinets and oboe. Don't have the clarinets or oboe trill, leave that to the flutes. Just give the sweep itself a little more emphasis. Finally, give the trumpets a four sixteenth-note pick-up to the fanfare so they can climb to the pitches, at least in the first trumpet. This will also help with intonation.

The Fanfare. Your orchestration could be so much more effective if you give your horns and low brass something to do there. Bar five of this section should have the French Horns echo the fanfare idea in a lower register. If I were doing this, I would have F. Horns harmonize the whole note in the fourth measure of the fanfare, then they echo the fanfare in the next four bars and the low brass enter on the fourth bar of that. So, you're forming an orchestration chain of entrances where each section can find a referential pitch harmonically (hidden, of course) before entering with a more exposed line. Also, the flourishing flutes, again, need support from Clarinets. It's just not quite complete from an orchestration standpoint. Fill it out more and give some "body" to it.

Everything is looking great up to rehearsal letter F. Just be sure you're putting in more articulation information in the woodwinds in those main melodic lines. Do you want them slurring some of those 16th notes? If not, show some staccato markings or break it down for them. Otherwise, it's going to sound pretty bland and less interesting. Now, I'm looking at the F. Horn entrance after "F". This is way too high an -entrance- for high school players. Even college players will have a problem with this. Here's what I recommend... you have euphoniums finishing a phrase. Use that last eighth note as a pick-up note for Horns to give more body to that whole note in measure 57 (and tie it over to measure 58 if you like, it'll work). Let the horns build with the accelerando into "Faster (quarter=120)". This way they have a referential pitch to rely on and can give more body to the woodwind activity in mm. 57-8. It will be a wonderful sound, too.

I'm at rehearsal letter H now. I suggest some imitation between the Trumpets and Horns. Trumpets make a statement in the first measure and play a whole note. Second measure, have Horns and Trombones imitate that statement in the lower/mid register. It will build the intensity more. That's what I'd suggest, anyway. Again, you need Clarinets to support those Flute sweeps (5 before the pause), and you should really have the clarinets an octave higher to avoid the "break" of the instrument, which really weakens its tone and intonation there (four before the pause). Watch out for having Clarinets in mid-register. Unlike other instruments, that's really not a strong place for them, and you need their color to support the flutes. Besides, the Oboe is already covering the lower octave. This should really help your intonation more in that section. Once again, measure 88 needs clarinets to support the flutes and piccolo. I'd actually harmonize that sweep, because it's a full ensemble at that moment.

I don't agree with the repeat of section I. That's personal preference. There's more you can do in that section, either through orchestration or actual composition of the passage. That's all I'll say about it, though.

At rehearsal J, why are Clarinets and Saxes not playing there? Surely clarinets could double flutes and saxes could double trumpets. You can also use them to help harmonize the melodic line with some planing. If you need help with that (how to do it), just PM me and I'll explain. I've said enough here.

Like I said at the beginning, this is purely my take on the piece. It's great work! Really. I wouldn't give this in-depth of a review/commentary about it if I didn't like it. I hope my comments help, and good luck with the rehearsal and performance of the work!

-AA :)

Thank you very much for the detailed response. I'll go through what you said...

The beginning has trumpets one and two playing a unison line in a brass chorale. I'd recommend a solo trumpet covering this because you're running into some intonation problems. Consider giving the second trumpet a counter-melodic line or leaving it out for that gentle chorale at the beginning. Be sure, also, that you're phrasing that line accurately. Slurs and phrase markings look identical, so you want your performers to know how the phrase is supposed to sound. This helps with knowing where to breath also. Finally, finish that phrase in the trumpet line. The rest of the brass are playing into beats three and four while the trumpet drops off. To me, as a listener, I hear it like the trumpet ran out of air and didn't finish his idea. Just some things to ponder at the beginning.

For the opening I wanted a sparse texture, fuller sounding than solo instruments but not utilizing whole sections so I wrote two to a part. You are right about the trumpet intonation problem. The issue is that if I simply remove one trumpet it would stick out to me in the score and to my ears, but adding a countermelody would tempt me to change carefully-planned voice leading. I'll figure something out.

In music where I have regular phrases I typically don't use phrase markings lest the brass and wind performers decide not to tongue notes (although I might add a notice that the opening should be more legato). However I didn't notice until now that in measures 5 and 6 in the trombone part I have half notes tied to quarter notes when there should really be dotted half notes...

The trumpet running out of air, yeah, I didn't think of it like that. The trumpet should complete the phrase.

Fast forward to four measures before the fanfare at rehearsal letter B. You have a really thin texture trying to sound very thick harmonically with the Horns and Tuba. It's a little mushy and loses its power. There are a couple of things you can try here orchestration-wise to bring that out more. First, your percussion lead into it with a sus. cym. roll... bring in the full ensemble to hit the harmony and fall out. That's one option. Another thing you can try is to unison the horns on the melodic material and give the harmonic progression to the trombones and euphonium. This will help with intonation in the horns and deliver a much clearer statement than what you have now. Also, fill out the sweep in the flutes with some support from clarinets and oboe. Don't have the clarinets or oboe trill, leave that to the flutes. Just give the sweep itself a little more emphasis. Finally, give the trumpets a four sixteenth-note pick-up to the fanfare so they can climb to the pitches, at least in the first trumpet. This will also help with intonation.

The first option brings in the full ensemble sooner than I intend to do, but your second suggestion would certainly clear up the muddiness. A lead-in for the trumpets is a good idea too.

The Fanfare. Your orchestration could be so much more effective if you give your horns and low brass something to do there. Bar five of this section should have the French Horns echo the fanfare idea in a lower register. If I were doing this, I would have F. Horns harmonize the whole note in the fourth measure of the fanfare, then they echo the fanfare in the next four bars and the low brass enter on the fourth bar of that. So, you're forming an orchestration chain of entrances where each section can find a referential pitch harmonically (hidden, of course) before entering with a more exposed line. Also, the flourishing flutes, again, need support from Clarinets. It's just not quite complete from an orchestration standpoint. Fill it out more and give some "body" to it.

I see what you mean with bringing the brass section by section into the fanfare. Supporting the flute line with the clarinets also adds more body and color. I'm going to reconsider my orchestration.

Everything is looking great up to rehearsal letter F. Just be sure you're putting in more articulation information in the woodwinds in those main melodic lines. Do you want them slurring some of those 16th notes? If not, show some staccato markings or break it down for them. Otherwise, it's going to sound pretty bland and less interesting.

Nope, those 16th notes are not meant to be slurred, I meant what I wrote, but more staccato might be a good idea for melodic clarity.

Now, I'm looking at the F. Horn entrance after "F". This is way too high an -entrance- for high school players. Even college players will have a problem with this. Here's what I recommend... you have euphoniums finishing a phrase. Use that last eighth note as a pick-up note for Horns to give more body to that whole note in measure 57 (and tie it over to measure 58 if you like, it'll work). Let the horns build with the accelerando into "Faster (quarter=120)". This way they have a referential pitch to rely on and can give more body to the woodwind activity in mm. 57-8. It will be a wonderful sound, too.

Oh yes, I want my brass section to get a workout :) Luckily for high school brass players, I did not intend the piece for them. But... your suggestion to guide brass into high parts is a good one. I don't know why I didn't hold out those whole notes in 57 through 58, that will work, and giving more body to my lines... yeah these are good points.

I'm at rehearsal letter H now. I suggest some imitation between the Trumpets and Horns. Trumpets make a statement in the first measure and play a whole note. Second measure, have Horns and Trombones imitate that statement in the lower/mid register. It will build the intensity more. That's what I'd suggest, anyway. Again, you need Clarinets to support those Flute sweeps (5 before the pause), and you should really have the clarinets an octave higher to avoid the "break" of the instrument, which really weakens its tone and intonation there (four before the pause). Watch out for having Clarinets in mid-register. Unlike other instruments, that's really not a strong place for them, and you need their color to support the flutes. Besides, the Oboe is already covering the lower octave. This should really help your intonation more in that section. Once again, measure 88 needs clarinets to support the flutes and piccolo. I'd actually harmonize that sweep, because it's a full ensemble at that moment.

I like the imitation suggestion, especially if I did the brass build up back in the beginning. I'm going to have to look more closely at the orchestration here later.

I don't agree with the repeat of section I. That's personal preference. There's more you can do in that section, either through orchestration or actual composition of the passage. That's all I'll say about it, though.

I've been consistently taught that a written repeat in a large-scale score wastes the listener's time (except in pieces where the form requires it, like some sonata principle works) and makes it difficult for the conductor if the page turns aren't just right. I don't always agree, at least with the first part, but I can understand your preference here simply because if you use a written repeat you pass up the chance for variation and a more engaging orchestration. I'm on the fence about my particular instance, but a justification for the repeat is that the chorale is the climax of the piece and an exact repetition drives that home. Then again, how the listener could miss Rehearsal I as the climax where the main motive is blasted out I don't know, so an exact repeat is not necessary...

At rehearsal J, why are Clarinets and Saxes not playing there? Surely clarinets could double flutes and saxes could double trumpets. You can also use them to help harmonize the melodic line with some planing. If you need help with that (how to do it), just PM me and I'll explain. I've said enough here.

You're completely right. The music is still high from the climax and everyone (or nearly everyone) should be playing here. I may need to adjust some dynamics at J as well.

Thank you again for the critique. I'm glad you like the piece; I was really looking forward to what you had to say!

For the opening I wanted a sparse texture, fuller sounding than solo instruments but not utilizing whole sections so I wrote two to a part. You are right about the trumpet intonation problem. The issue is that if I simply remove one trumpet it would stick out to me in the score and to my ears, but adding a countermelody would tempt me to change carefully-planned voice leading. I'll figure something out.

Sparse texture actually has less to do with the instrumentation/orchestration and more to do with the composition of the passage itself.

Consider, for a moment, that you can have a majority of the ensemble at "pp" play a three-part harmonic texture. You can deliver an even more supported passage of material without sacrificing the sparsity of the texture using more instruments, delivering a better quality of sound for the ensemble overall. Blending the timbres is also a point I can hit on more with you in PM if you want.

In music where I have regular phrases I typically don't use phrase markings lest the brass and wind performers decide not to tongue notes (although I might add a notice that the opening should be more legato). However I didn't notice until now that in measures 5 and 6 in the trombone part I have half notes tied to quarter notes when there should really be dotted half notes...

The trumpet running out of air, yeah, I didn't think of it like that. The trumpet should complete the phrase.

I'd definitely re-emphasize phrase markings, ESPECIALLY in more legato passages. Why? Legato passages imply expressive elements, things that -need- to be predetermined by you as the composer. If you let performers decide not to tongue notes in a legato passage, you can bet they will decide not to do it. Do you play a brass instrument? If so, you're assuming too much about how -other- brass players will perform that passage. If you don't play a brass instrument, you definitely should be aware that tonguing is something that brass players (well, any wind player, but brass especially) need to be precise about. Just think of it. You have a -section- of trumpets... if each are tonguing at different times you'll have intonation issues all over the place. Same with Horns and Trombones. Performance precision is pretty important, and if it's not clearly marked there will be at least half a dozen interpretations going on at the same time. That's a performance nightmare.

The first option brings in the full ensemble sooner than I intend to do, but your second suggestion would certainly clear up the muddiness. A lead-in for the trumpets is a good idea too.

Yeah, the second suggestion should work. Your Horns and Euphoniums could cover the melodic line while your Trombones and Tuba carry those second and third voices. The only thing I would suggest is to lower the Horns an octave -or- have Horns play in octaves so the lower octave of the Horns will blend with the Trombones. From about F to C in the upper half of the bass clef, Tbones and Horns sound almost identical. So, the combination of timbres should sound seem-less.

I see what you mean with bringing the brass section by section into the fanfare. Supporting the flute line with the clarinets also adds more body and color. I'm going to reconsider my orchestration.

I think you'll like how that comes together. Let me know.

Nope, those 16th notes are not meant to be slurred, I meant what I wrote, but more staccato might be a good idea for melodic clarity.

Again, it will become an intonation issue if the tonguing isn't precise. Some of your wind players will tongue the notes shorter, others longer. This will create intonation problems galore. Trust me. Been there. Done that. It's better to indicate articulations for wind players than to let 60-80 players decide on their own how they'll tongue their notes.

Oh yes, I want my brass section to get a workout :) Luckily for high school brass players, I did not intend the piece for them. But... your suggestion to guide brass into high parts is a good one. I don't know why I didn't hold out those whole notes in 57 through 58, that will work, and giving more body to my lines... yeah these are good points.

Referential pitch is another intonation consideration. Horn players, especially, don't just press on a valve and produce a note. There is a -lot- of fine motor skill in the muscles of the mouth that are involved in producing those higher pitches. It's simply a matter of giving the Horns a chance to center their intonation so when they reach that note, they have a pitch to refer to.

I like the imitation suggestion, especially if I did the brass build up back in the beginning. I'm going to have to look more closely at the orchestration here later.

Yeah, I think you'll like the result. :)

I've been consistently taught that a written repeat in a large-scale score wastes the listener's time (except in pieces where the form requires it, like some sonata principle works) and makes it difficult for the conductor if the page turns aren't just right. I don't always agree, at least with the first part, but I can understand your preference here simply because if you use a written repeat you pass up the chance for variation and a more engaging orchestration. I'm on the fence about my particular instance, but a justification for the repeat is that the chorale is the climax of the piece and an exact repetition drives that home. Then again, how the listener could miss Rehearsal I as the climax where the main motive is blasted out I don't know, so an exact repeat is not necessary...

Form never really -requires- exact repetition. In the olden days, the reason to repeat would have been due to balancing the length of the sections of the work to match the Golden number, or the Golden Mean (the mathematical calculation of a work or movement's climactic moment). This was pre-audio technology, though. There's no need for it now, as we can actually listen to our whole work electronically before it's read/performed. So, there's no need to worry about repeating for the sake of a form now.

You're completely right. The music is still high from the climax and everyone (or nearly everyone) should be playing here. I may need to adjust some dynamics at J as well.

Thank you again for the critique. I'm glad you like the piece; I was really looking forward to what you had to say!

I'm glad it helps. Hope you'll post a recording of the dress rehearsal/performance of the work. Good luck! :)

-AA

Sparse texture actually has less to do with the instrumentation/orchestration and more to do with the composition of the passage itself.

Whoops, I meant density rather than texture.

I'd definitely re-emphasize phrase markings, ESPECIALLY in more legato passages. Why? Legato passages imply expressive elements, things that -need- to be predetermined by you as the composer. If you let performers decide not to tongue notes in a legato passage, you can bet they will decide not to do it. Do you play a brass instrument? If so, you're assuming too much about how -other- brass players will perform that passage. If you don't play a brass instrument, you definitely should be aware that tonguing is something that brass players (well, any wind player, but brass especially) need to be precise about. Just think of it. You have a -section- of trumpets... if each are tonguing at different times you'll have intonation issues all over the place. Same with Horns and Trombones. Performance precision is pretty important, and if it's not clearly marked there will be at least half a dozen interpretations going on at the same time. That's a performance nightmare.

Sorry, this confused me. I'm a wind player and I typically only use slurs/phrase markings for when I do not want the brass/woodwinds to tongue. I dislike the use of phrase marks in brass and winds because it is uncertain as to whether or not the composer wants the performer to tongue or to slur. I leave it up to the performers where to breathe in this piece since my melodies are periodic and it's fairly obvious where a breath can safely be taken. Since slurs, phrase markings, and breath marks can all look the same but mean different things I only use slurs in brass and winds. But I need more of other articulations; it's probably better for everyone to play short staccato notes in many of my passages than for some people to hold a note fully and others to hold it half way. Sadly the length of a regular note is not standardized.

Form never really -requires- exact repetition. In the olden days, the reason to repeat would have been due to balancing the length of the sections of the work to match the Golden number, or the Golden Mean (the mathematical calculation of a work or movement's climactic moment). This was pre-audio technology, though. There's no need for it now, as we can actually listen to our whole work electronically before it's read/performed. So, there's no need to worry about repeating for the sake of a form now.

For the balancing reason you stated above, it would be awkward to leave out an expositional repeat of a sonata principle work. In that sense the form requires repetition. The first half of the binary form had to be doubled for aesthetic reasons, in most cases, since the second half would usually include nearly all of the first half. It may not have been necessary for the composer to write an exact repetition, but it was pragmatic and beat taking the precious time to reorchestrate an altered repetition. Needless to say my argument does not hold up so well for my own composition. What did you mean exactly with recording technology?

I'm glad it helps. Hope you'll post a recording of the dress rehearsal/performance of the work. Good luck! :)

Thanks, and will do.

Sorry, this confused me. I'm a wind player and I typically only use slurs/phrase markings for when I do not want the brass/woodwinds to tongue. I dislike the use of phrase marks in brass and winds because it is uncertain as to whether or not the composer wants the performer to tongue or to slur. I leave it up to the performers where to breathe in this piece since my melodies are periodic and it's fairly obvious where a breath can safely be taken. Since slurs, phrase markings, and breath marks can all look the same but mean different things I only use slurs in brass and winds. But I need more of other articulations; it's probably better for everyone to play short staccato notes in many of my passages than for some people to hold a note fully and others to hold it half way. Sadly the length of a regular note is not standardized.

It's your call. I'm meticulous about being as precise as possible about my phrase and articulation markings. I hope performers can intuitively follow what it is I've written, but not every performer will. That's why I find phrase markings useful for just reminding performers that, yes, it's a phrase. I want you to play it like a phrase, not like a bunch of ink on staff paper. :)

For the balancing reason you stated above, it would be awkward to leave out an expositional repeat of a sonata principle work. In that sense the form requires repetition. The first half of the binary form had to be doubled for aesthetic reasons, in most cases, since the second half would usually include nearly all of the first half. It may not have been necessary for the composer to write an exact repetition, but it was pragmatic and beat taking the precious time to reorchestrate an altered repetition. Needless to say my argument does not hold up so well for my own composition. What did you mean exactly with recording technology?

The form doesn't require -literal- repetition, though. That's all I'm saying. Repetition is fine, for me, when there's something to hear the second time that I didn't hear the first.

And recording technology refers to, well, anything from notation programs to audio gear and software that makes it possible to hear a recording of your work as a virtual representation of a live performance. Composers didn't have this technology 100-500 years ago. Balancing form in pre-technological composition was more formulaic than intuitive. There were forms of music developed as temporal "templates" if you will because they worked in meeting audience expectations and establishing, for the composer, a sense of time they may have otherwise struggled to experience without such a form to work from... at least that's my take on it.

Because we have the technology available now to write, listen to, edit, and record our work, we don't have to rely on form as a formula for the temporal flow of music. We can very easily experience the temporal level of our music today by hitting the playback button on our computer, right? How do I tie this in to repetition? Well, the general formula of the sonata form is an exposition that is repeated, followed by a development and a recap. The climactic moment occurs, in many sonatas, at the end of the development or in the transition into the recap, depending on how it's written. The repetition simply balances the temporal level of the form so that the climax doesn't occur too early, off-setting the experience of the piece.

We can intuitively guage where we want our climactic moment to be in works today because of the technology we use. Why worry about a formula of growth for our work when we can hear it, tweak it, and record it from our desktop? Heck, the copy/paste feature is taboo even. I say it's fine to repeat as long as there's something else to hear during the repetition that wasn't there before. But that, like I said at the beginning, is entirely personal preference. Sorry for the long diatribe here. I was just offering an explanation for my view on repeats. That's all. :)

Sorry for the long diatribe here. I was just offering an explanation for my view on repeats. That's all. :)

No problem, I was just curious. Repeats might as well be different. In some cases. :P

Hey this is fantastic! The melodies are fun and strong, the harmonies well written, and everything comes together amazingly! Can't wait to hear what the newer piece will sound like after you edit it. I won't go in depth like AntiA, but can I just ask why at H the whole orchestra is playing except the oboe? It seems really odd that it would be left out.

Hey this is fantastic! The melodies are fun and strong, the harmonies well written, and everything comes together amazingly! Can't wait to hear what the newer piece will sound like after you edit it. I won't go in depth like AntiA, but can I just ask why at H the whole orchestra is playing except the oboe? It seems really odd that it would be left out.

Thanks! Good point at H, I can't remember why I did that. I'll address it in the revision.

This is quite good, Black Orpheus. My favourite part is m. 34 onwards. It had a Zelda village theme kinda feel to it in a sophisticated manner.

One question I have is, does the score completely reflect what I hear? At m. 28, I didn't hear the trumpets play that fanfare. I heard them a bar or two later. Perhaps I'm crazy.

I have a gripe with the opening. The style says reverently and the different voices are arranged into a species counterpoint that makes it all sound like a sacred choir. What's lacking is a little more strength from the harmonies. Specifically, 0:13-0:19. It's not a matter of dynamics, just some chords sound weaker than others. I don't know what chords to suggest. I will recommend checking out 17th century chorales. Carissimi's

Peace on Earth,

-John

One question I have is, does the score completely reflect what I hear? At m. 28, I didn't hear the trumpets play that fanfare. I heard them a bar or two later. Perhaps I'm crazy.

Thanks for listening! The score very nearly reflects what you hear. The percussionists missed a few moments, but the brass didn't miss out on one of the fanfare sections (although the strongest first trumpet player may have briefly dropped out of a really high part).

I have a gripe with the opening. The style says reverently and the different voices are arranged into a species counterpoint that makes it all sound like a sacred choir. What's lacking is a little more strength from the harmonies. Specifically, 0:13-0:19. It's not a matter of dynamics, just some chords sound weaker than others. I don't know what chords to suggest. I will recommend checking out 17th century chorales. Carissimi's

strikes me as very powerful. I think his harmonies are too serious and tragic for the reverent style your going for, but the strength of his chords is worth emulating.

Thanks for the suggestions. I've heard parts of Jepthe in passing but I might have to sit down with a score one of these days. The reverent section is based on 16th-century counterpoint (I break from the usual rules at a couple of spots to throw in a motive I want remembered) and is intended to sound sacred, but I can understand if some of the harmonies aren't what you might expect. I agree there's something a bit off between maybe :13 and :16, and I think this is because I start measure 6 with the same chord that starts measure 5. I might have to change that.

I'm actually glad the harmonies came across as serious in the beginning because that's what I was going for. It helps me when I compose to have a little story with images in my head to refer to. In this case I imagined a young prince about to become king. The piece begins with the prince solemnly reflecting on what he is to become. Next he moves out into the court where a playful celebration begins and the music takes us (or at least me) through to the coronation itself. Perhaps now the beginning makes more sense?

Perhaps now the beginning makes more sense?

Totally! The scene fits nicely with the title too.

Give yourself some time to think about that harmony. Maybe nothing needs changing. Maybe only a little needs it. Do you think your opening is doing its best to represent that scene while remaining musically interesting?

Peace on Earth,

-John

Wow, seems like there's been a lot of discussion to this song. I really like it. the melodic lines are beautiful and noble. only the trumpet doesn't sound quite right at times, but the percussive elements to the piece really add to it. only real gripe i have with it is that it wasn't long enough ;) keep going at it!1

Wow I really liked this! I actually see this as publication material it's just fantastic! I think you've executed the epitome of what being a composer is all about. Normally on this site I see nice efforts, but no actual musical result. This piece however doesn't apply, you've made great effort to make this a wonderful piece and the result is just that. Great job!

I really liked this piece. The melodies were very nice, I loved the fanfares, and the percussion was nicely done as well. Very nice piece!

I like ! I'm in the Middle Ages !

bravo

bravo

Thank you :)

Can't give much in the way of critique, but I liked this. This sounds like it would be fun to play in a concert band setting. The part around 1:44 was exceptionally fun to listen to.

Very cool. I can't offer much in the way of critique, none that you've probably heard at least. The only thing I can think of in way of critique is that you could probably add to the piece after J, just cause it seemed to end a little abruptly. Also, as a horn player, I was a little curious (not critique, just wondering) why the horn solo at G is on horn 2? I can see a few reasons why, I was just wondering what your reasoning was.

Other than that, great piece! Enjoyed it very much.

It is a great piece. I cannot add any suggestions, because others have articulated themselves so well. Keep up the good work.

Not having the schooling that others here have, and only recently beginning to write for more than six instruments at a time. I sometimes like to break up a chord between the different players. say a C chord for 4 measures. Instead of having one instrument play C consequitively, another E etc. I break it up, So that one group is playing

C C C E C C E C C and another instrument plays the complement, so the end result is the same instruments hitting the same # of notes, amount and coverage of notes is the same, it's just that different instruments are 'swapping' notes. I know this is a device to be used sometime.

Since I work with synths mostly, I miss the chorus, flanging, effect of live instruments cause no player hits notes exactly the same as others.

Keep up the good work