July 21, 201015 yr After working with Mr. Owens, I wanted to write a new piece using all of the stuff that he taught me. I didn't really want to go back to my old stuff and fix it up any more than it needed to be. So, this is my new piece, still in progress. It's written for a good middle school band, high school second band. accessible, but challenging enough to give the kids and directors something to work on. As for the technical stuff, it mixes modal and major/minor materials a lot. More fun stuff to teach with this piece. The beginning drones after the first solo imitate plainchant. The ending is meant to sound like an organ, but i'm not sure if it will, i need to hear it live. some moments sound really cheesy on finale, so hearing it live is really the best thing to do next Temple
July 21, 201015 yr The beginning sounded like an organ, the ending did not (m84-end) . The transition in measure 68-69 was a bit abrupt imo. Solid writing overall, I enjoyed this and I would love to hear this being performed. Good job!
July 21, 201015 yr Before anyone beats me to it, make certain that when you've created a final score, that it's been truncated to a standard setup. Both Flutes should be on one stave, as should the Bassoons, Alto Saxes, Trumpets, and Trombones. I left out the Horns, since you end up separating them into 4 parts. For staves like that, do what you did for Clarinets 2/3 and state whether you want both parts playing or just one. Also, make certain that when you do add percussion, since you only have Timpani and Chimes at the moment, that you truncate those as well. Many of us can help with that, mainly so you don't have to use what appears to be a Legal sized page layout. If you decide to use measure numbers for every measure, which isn't a standard practice, do not place them on all those lines. Another thing is to find some places to place rehearsal markings. Some suggested locations are [13], [25], [32], [51], [69], and [84]. You could add [92], but I don't think that's needed. Okay, to start with, those G flats (in the Oboe/Flute opening) should be F# as you are in G minor. Watch out for this throughout the piece (the written A flats in the Clarinet part at 51 should be G#). However, keep the run in 67-68 the way it is, as it would look nasty otherwise. The long concert G by the Flutes and Clarinet 2 should be marked "stagger breathing", otherwise you'll never have a note sustained that long by a single player. At [32], it just jumps straight into the melody, and doesn't give any sort of foundation before-hand. It's an abrupt jump, but a quick fix (that you can play around with later) is to add two measure in before the melody come in. Those two measure would contain what the Bassoons and Clarinet 2/3 have in measure 32, so we at least get a sense of not only the tempo but also the feel of this portion. The runs into 51 should start at either mezzo-piano or mezzo-forte and crescendo into forte. You have the Brass doing it, so the woodwinds should match it. I'm a little confused in this section anyways. You have forte, followed by two crescendos, with the second crescendo ending in mezzo-piano at measure 61. Take a good look at that section and try to determine what you were going for there. It's certainly possible to swell up, and then immediately drop down to a lower dynamic, but you look like you are building up to something, and then try to pull a fake-out on the audience. That's a dangerous maneuver to pull off in music, and I'm not certain it has a use here, even though there are certainly good times to use it. I agree with the above point that the transition in 67-68 was abrupt, but I think the reason it's abrupt is that it's confusing to the ear what you are trying to do. It appears that you are using G flat major as a resolution to G minor. I'm not certain that is working as well as you were hoping it would. A suggestion might be to keep the F# in the basses, but change the chord to a D major instead. You run would still have the F# to G resolution at the end. There's not much you'd have to do to the run to accommodate this, actually. You can even leave the Db in (as C#), which would resolve to the C (the seventh of the D major chord), and then you can change a few other things (the Gb becomes F#, and the F becomes E natural as a passing tone between the D and F#). This might solidify the resolution. Also, this needs a ritardando. If you want the ending to sound like an organ, you need to put more emphasis on the brass and lower sections. The upper register of the brass sections, when coupled with saxophones, should make an effective organ sound. By adding enough weight to the basses and lower sections, you'll be able to give a similar weight as the organ gives off. Also, look at some music written specifically for the organ to help you see how parts written for that instrument work, and then you can try and find a way to emulate that with the ending of your piece. We all understand that Finale is horrible at the way it sounds, even with the GPO library in there. It's not meant to be perfect, but just to give you an idea of what it can sound like. I'm looking forward to seeing this evolve.
July 21, 201015 yr Author Nice, thanks for all that info. I've gotten the same kinds of comments from some of the band directors I've showed it to, especially about the F# business. Also, clarinet 1 at the end is too high, i need to go back and change some of those octaves. But, from what I've been taught by several people and how most scores in this difficulty are laid out, it's better to keep those staves separate from each other. In fact, I was explicitly told to separate clarinets 2 and 3 into different staves. Same with the saxes and flutes. As for the measure numbers, it's a rule now that every measure has to be numbered, along with rehearsal numbers. For the most part, I agree with what you're saying. I need to hear it performed live before I can really fix any scoring issues, along with tempo markings, dynamics, etc. I'm hoping that any group playing this would slow down the ending, but i did forget to put a ritard in there. There's also no way that woodwinds would outpower an entire brass section playing FF at the end. Once i add percussion in, some of the transitions should work better. They might not, but they might.
July 21, 201015 yr Nice, thanks for all that info. I've gotten the same kinds of comments from some of the band directors I've showed it to, especially about the F# business. Also, clarinet 1 at the end is too high, i need to go back and change some of those octaves. But, from what I've been taught by several people and how most scores in this difficulty are laid out, it's better to keep those staves separate from each other. In fact, I was explicitly told to separate clarinets 2 and 3 into different staves. Same with the saxes and flutes. As for the measure numbers, it's a rule now that every measure has to be numbered, along with rehearsal numbers. For the most part, I agree with what you're saying. I need to hear it performed live before I can really fix any scoring issues, along with tempo markings, dynamics, etc. I'm hoping that any group playing this would slow down the ending, but i did forget to put a ritard in there. There's also no way that woodwinds would outpower an entire brass section playing FF at the end. Once i add percussion in, some of the transitions should work better. They might not, but they might. I've never heard the rule that every measure has to be numbered, but if that's become the case, they don't mean every measure of every line. Where did you get that information? You can make measure numbers that appear centered below each measure at the bottom or top of the score, which are easier to read. I'm not certain who told you to separate the Flute parts, or even the Saxophones. Most of the time, you should keep them to the same stave, except if the parts get really horrendous and the lines are just very difficult to read. In that case, you could always utilize another stave for that system to separate the two parts (though that's a bit more work but looks nicer). Were you given a reason why you should separate 2nd and 3rd Clarinets, and if so, what was that reason? I wouldn't see any problem with them being on the same stave. The problem may be one that is certainly not limited to your work, but happens a lot with other pieces on the forums. Are you writing this with your band in mind? If so, then certainly go with your instructor/director on how he'd want the score to look. If that is the case, let us know, as it will affect how we review to a degree.
July 22, 201015 yr I really enjoyed every section of this. The transitions, though, sounded choppy. Gixander covered this more in depth. The ending also sounded too abrupt to me. I would try to add some percussion or other fire to the end. All in all, this is very nice piece. Just needs a few twinks here and there, and it'll be road ready. Nice job! 9/10.
July 22, 201015 yr Author I currently don't have a director, classes don't start again for a month and i'm not sure what ensembles i'll be in. I have showed this to a good friend of mine who has directed bands at the middle school and college level, and has been a band director for something over 20 years. The other person I've showed this too is a composer at FJH, he's the one that told me about the measure numbering rule. For texas UIL, it ended up being too difficult to go find the nearest rehearsal number and then count backwards/forwards to find the measure they wanted to comment on. So, to simplify the whole thing, all pieces on the PML have to have all measures numbered. It doesn't need to look like it does in this score though, that was just ctrl-a and then easy measure numbers. Both of those guys told me to separate the flute and sax parts, but only the college guy said to split the clarinet parts.
July 22, 201015 yr Author I've been thinking, and I don't think i like this piece very much. it was good practice, fun to write, but i think i'm just gonna let it go quietly
July 22, 201015 yr It's not that far from a decent work. Just like most of the pieces on YC, we've put them up for reviews and help in determining what we can do to make them better. Much of what I write I just push myself to get from start to finish, and then worry about polishing it afterwards. Temple just needs a good polishing. Break it down into pieces, and work through it that way. For example, define what each section should be, and then work through each section separately, to build it into a great piece. I'm certain some of us would be able to help you with that if you want, because it's a good start and there's no reason to throw it away. EDIT: As far as measure numbers go, it's understandable for many groups to want to have them (some pieces have measure numbers at the start of systems to help expedite rehearsal as well). As far as a comment from a publisher, I would hold off on using that as a basis. The problem is that while publishers are about 80% similar in what they want to see in a submission, the other 20% is uncertain and should not be used until you know who you would like to have it published by. Formatting is a big problem and should be worried about after a piece is finished, not in the middle of it. However, that's a cosmetic issue. Let's get this piece looking great.
