Concert Band Composition

This one I wrote a while back. One of these days I'll get the hang of the finer points of finale playback. Like how to really get dynamics to sound in my buggy 2003 version or how to properly play percussion sounds. I removed drums from the midi playback.

I love the euphonium and trumpet solos in the trio, but you can barely hear them in the midi file. Also the midi file doesn't rit. at the end of the break strain and doesn't play the slide whistle...

hope you enjoy.

_Mauricio

March.MID

March.MUS

It really is very well constructed piece suitable for a festival.

good luck with your future works.

thank you cranova.

Anyone else? I wonder if the euphonium/trumpet solos are effective.

I also wonder if this forum is a little ignore as opposed to the orchestral and piano areas...

Well I tried to comment before but I guess it didn't show up for some reason... anyway, I thought this was a very well written piece in traditional concert band format. As a horn player I even appreciate the small section where the horns play something besides offbeats. I also really liked the Euphonium solo... Great classic band sound. keep up the good work!

and yes... I think this forum doesn't get the same consideration sometimes as a serious genre when compared to the orchestral forum.

Hello,

thank you for your march. I like it !

There is a lot of good musicals ideas, and we can feel the joy in your music.

Maximus

PS : I am sorry for my bad english, I am from France.

A few minor comments about this piece. I really enoyed the march style, and it seems that you have a lot of experience writing in this style. The melody and accompaniment feel are very well written, and it works very well as a march (possibly consider shortening it a bit and making it a fightsong).

However, there are just a few problems that I could pick up on the first play through of the piece. The first being that your introduction ends on a tonic chord. A good introduction will be exciting, short, and lead INTO the march. This march sounds like it would do just fine without the introduction, but that doesn't mean you can just write it out. You wrote a play in into the third strain that actually ended on a dominant chord. This is the line you should use to introduce the piece. It will flow so much nicer.

You are the second person I've encountered who has placed a stinger on the 4th beat in a 4/4 pattern. Think of this piece rather in 2/2 or cut-time. You've placed the stinger on the and of 2 in this instance, which is an up beat, and the weakest beat to place a stinger on. If you want a stinger, it should be on a strong beat (typically either 1 or 3 in most marches). I would suggest movingthe stinger from beat 4 to beat 3.

That's pretty much all I heard that could be worked on. I enjoyed this piece, and I hope you enjoyed writing it.

I disagree about the stinger...it being on the 4th beat of the measure is really the only thing that is rhythmically interesting about the piece. And it comes right at the end, so it will be quite a shocker to the audience. I like it.

As for the rest of the piece, it seems you know your Sousa very well. But try experimenting more, like more of your last measure--change things up a bit, add wacky meters and harmonies! Also, you tend to over-orchestrate, and you don't vary the orchestration at all. It's kind of...same old stuff, same march orchestrations that we've seen before. So go wild with your next one! Good job so far, though.

I disagree here. A march is not generally meant to be experimental in nature. It's not to say that such things cannot be done, but I doubt that was the initial intention for this piece. I phrased my comments based on the presumption that he was writing in the standard march style. There's nothing wrong with writing a typical march, and most marches share similar orchestrations as this. Note, however, that in cases such as oboe and bassoon are usually done to double parts. If there are no oboes or bassoons available (as there typically aren't in many concert bands) they will not be abundantly missed from the scoring.

The stinger in general simply must be on a strong beat. This was obviously not meant to be a suprising "Bet you didn't see THAT coming" sort of orchestration. I doubt it was because it didn't happen anywhere else throughout the piece. If a normal concert band were to play this, they would simply play the stinger on beat 3. It's the natural tendencies of a band to play it as such. They would every one of them assume that it was an error in the editing of this piece.

Sorry, I was just trying to instill some further creativity in the piece and his future compositions. But if he was planning it to be simply a march in a traditional style, then so be it! It's a neat little number. :happy:

Wooow!

Fantastic piece! I liked it from the beginning to the end. This is finished good work!

Well, I thank you all for your great comments. Just to clear a couple of things up, this was meant to be a pretty traditional march, and yet I did experiment quit a bit. For example, the second strain begins in the relative minor and then modulates to the original major key. Also the trio melody is played by the french horns, which is very unusual. In addition, there are the 2 solos during the first statement of the trio, Euphonium and trumpet. These are pretty difficult solos. The break strain leading to the last 32 bars mirrors the introduction, but in this case it does end with a half cadence. The stinger is quite purposely put on beat four. The extra beat of hesitation creates variety. Also note that the percussion hits on 3, and the winds on 4.

As far as orchestration, I believe it's pretty varied as far as "traditional" marches go. First of all note that all sections begin at different dynamic volumes. Also, the second strain is repeated, but with different instrumentation. The first time it's thinner, second time full. Note the "2nd x only" in many parts. The trio offers a 32 measure delicate texture. It's meant to sound chamber-like. Then the finale is grandious and full.

thanks again for the comments.

I suppose I am a traditionalist when it comes to things like this, but only in two types of music: Barbershop and Marches. Both are designed to be traditional and "unfooled-around-with" "no-nonsense" styles. There are styles that have branched off of these that give you a lot more leniency. For instance, Doo-Wop quartets broke out inspired by barbershop, but not specifically in the barbershop style. The concert march lends far more leniency in regards to typical marching practices. It is here that you'll more entiriquet, less sight-readable material, and a break from traditional style.

I would say, if you're going to do something experimental. Make sure it's big enough for everyone to notice it was MEANT to be different. By placing the stinger on beat 4 rather than beat 3, it will simply sound like it was played on the wrong beat. Even to the untrained ear who knows nothing about technique and style will say "That just sounds like they played a wrong note in the wrong place". Play around with it, but make it obvious that it's not going to be a traditional march (because that's what it sounds like to me). Subtlety is not going to work too well for you in this matter. You might as well call it a French march and then layer in a German Augmented 6th chord... do you think anyone will notice? Of course not. It's just too subtle!

I still think your introduction should end on a half cadence, or atleast throw a dominant pick-up in before the first strain. It's what the ear wants to hear that's important. Don't get too hung up trying to change it because "it's been done before" or "EVERYONE writes it like that, and I want to be different." It works for some, not so well for others. The ones who make it work are the ones who can make it pleasing to the ear so that even a non-skilled musician will think that it is enjoyable. We often times breakaway from standard tonality at the cost of making beautiful music.

Sorry. The soapbox is free if anyone else wishes to shout for awhile!

I really liked this piece. Although I never had any experience in marches, it is very straight forward and easy to underestand and enjoy it. And that is probably the purpose of it, to have a happy, joyfull tune and have it orchastrated in a way that will sound complete, and not distracted by variety and other compositional techniques.

I need to listen it again for further comments. But I liked it, it really is a complete work.

Although I felt that it is a bit over orchastrated. As all the instruments play at the same time(exept the solo part). I cannot quite predict at this time if it will sound a bit blury/noisy due to this.

But thats a minor issue, you'll only get to know that if this will get performed. Othervise I enjoyed it. Keep up the good work.

Well, I also don't know much about the whole deal with march structure and all, but I did enjoy this piece of band literature. I really want to get into writing music for concert band someday, as I feel like there are more opportunities in that and it's just so darned fun to be in a band and play some good new music!

I can imagine having played this in my past - it's upbeat, fun, accessible to listeners and has some fun parts for the individual players - the solos are cool! Euphonium, especially.

Okay, I'm starting to feel silly now...there's all this talk here about cadences and stingers or whatever, but I just really thought it was a fun march that would be a likable choice for a band festival requirement.

Erm...what is a stinger, anyway?

A stinger is the very last note of a march. You know, the one that seems like a "." or "!". SOmetimes it isn't even there. Normally it goes on beat 3, but theis time I put it on beat 4, with a "false" stinger on beat 3 in the percussion section.