(Part 2) Top products from r/composer

Holy crap, this is great! Thank you so much. :)

I put my questions in bold so that they would be easier to find.

> You have 2 timpani written out; no no no. You have 1 player.

Yeah, figured as much. In Nodame Cantabile, a Japanese anime, there was only one timpanist and I've never seen more than one in all the concerts I've watched. I guess I banked on the possibility of replacing him/her with a more traditional instrument, as was said possible in the succeeding rounds.

> Overall, the score REALLY suffers because you're seeing 1-4 measures per page. Edit the layout so we can see 6-8 measures per page. The count will cut from 125 to a much lower number and it will be easier to navigate.

Hahahaha my voice major friend also pointed this out to me as one of my biggest mistakes. Which paper size do orchestras usually use though?

> This is probably why little feedback came through.

Oops.

> I see quickly three tremolo markings on the tuba and bass trombone. Based on another comment, do you think this is vibrato?

...yeah. For the parts I didn't know I just relied on MuseScore's render. Sorry about that. Really should have studied orchestration beforehand.

> 22 measures of the xylophone playing the same pattern is a little tiring, I would suggest not "verbatim" repeating for such long, long stretches, for any part.

Oh lol I actually got this from Steve Reich's Music for 18 Musicians. The marimba guy played the same thing for like 5 minutes? Hahahaha but I suppose only Steve can get away with it and not have his head bashed in by an irate percussionist.

> In measure 31 we see the first instance of offbeat tuplets. This is a huge no-no.

Oh wow I wasn't aware of this at all. I just thought it sounded neat. Definitely should have read a book first.

Actually, is there a booklet or cheatsheet that collects these hidden gotchas in one place? Might be easier to learn that way.

> At measure 57, is "trill" a vibrato for you? (IE computer playback)

Yes lol. They sound quite similar in MuseScore, though I should have known the difference already from my sax playing.

> Be aware of the need to breathe for ALL instruments.

Should I put breath markings then? My sax teacher told me the saxophonist should be able to figure it out and I just assumed it applied to all wind instruments.

> Your instrumentation allows you ONE tuba. (lol!)

Does this mean one can get away with longer patterns when there are multiple players around? Is it the prevailing convention that one player is expected to substitute for the other, and so on, to play such passages

> At measure 114, watch out for beaming.

...I confess that I usually just relied on MuseScore's automated beaming. But yeah, I have read about this issue somewhere and I should have known better lol.

> Below in the timpani is a confusing triplet. I would convert that (I think this is right, done hastily): quarter rest, half note, quarter note triplet (quarter note, then half note, inside)

I see. I suppose a lot of the notational stuff that's difficult to digest is about counting, especially since one usually has to have the experience of performing in order to see these difficulties (which are theoretically permitted by music notation's grammar).

> 120 Bass Clarinet, again, you should have eighth note tied to the whole note.

Hmm? What do you mean? Isn't it tied already?

> Your Xylo pattern at 150 comes on the 2nd sixteenth note of the downbeat while everything comes in right on 1 for their pattern. No other player is doing this, so it sounds like a huge error. "Is the xylophone player late? Are they drunk?" (seriously) I would reconsider this pattern (rhythmically).

I see. Does this mean that, as a general principle, I should have deliberately offbeat sections accompanied by another? Or lol perhaps I should choose my breaking-off-the-rhythm parts more carefully.

> 166 shows to me some accidental stuff: xylo might best be a D# and the Abs I see in the flute should be G#. Your motion leads to A and E (which are of the key) and point toward tonicization stuff. (Granted, I could be wrong but digesting this score is a lot so we'll let it go.) So you will want leading tones (half step below target, different letter) instead of chromatic notes (different pitch, same letter). Works functionally, easier to read, less sorting of "is it flat or natural?"

I admit, I don't really understand harmony all that well. I just tried what sounded okay but I suppose there's no skipping the whole theory.

> You might benefit from using the "repeat bar" symbol you've used constantly throughout the work in a singular part score for the timpanist, so when the pattern changes it will be very clear

I don't know how to specify which bars to repeat in MuseScore. :(

Am I right in assuming the divide-repeat thing means only to repeat the previous measure, as is the case for MuseScore playback? If so, then I don't really know how to represent the pattern I want so that the player repeats it properly while still showing the delay in the pattern's beginning.

> The lower you go and the closer together notes are, the muddier things sound.

More harmony woes. 😅

The book I'm using for this kind of stuff (and as a general intro to music theory in general is Peter Westergaard's An Introduction to Tonal Theory. Came across it in a library and it reads like a really clear mathematics textbook, which I really like lol. I tried Rameau but it just isn't for me.

> long tones (chords), more thoughtful use of dynamics (volume), and thoughts about instrumentation. Do you really need the bassoon or bass clarinet? Do you?

Would you mind expanding on that last point? Do you mean one is superfluous in the presence of the other? Or is it because they're pretty hard to come by? (I heard a bassoonist in the music department who spent $9500+ on his!)

Anyway, thank you so much for these comments! I don't know how to express my gratitude. This kind of feedback is the stuff of dreams for beginners like me and I really, really appreciate the time you spent writing it. I promise to keep every single one of them in mind when I write my next set of pieces and beyond.

The part of theory that made composition most accessible to me was studying form. By that I mean the high-level organizational structure. For example, Sonata form, verse-chorus form, 12-bar blues form, etc. It's not just about those specific templates, but rather why they actually work. For example, what is it about verse-chorus form that makes it so universal for most of pop music. Once you feel comfortable analyzing form, it's easier to start composing with that sort of road-map ahead of you. For example, with a song, if you know you'll want to use verse-chorus form, it's a lot easier to proceed with writing music with those pieces in mind (the chorus should be catchy, the verse should properly showcase the lyrics, maybe I want a really unexpected bridge to build up tension before the final chorus, etc). Without having form in mind, writing music ends up being sort of free-form and doesn't have a sense of direction or "journey" (which of course can be intentional).

If you're ok with learning from a very classical point of view, I highly recommend "Classical Form" by William E Caplin. (There's also a workbook version). This book has nothing to do with teaching composition directly, but it really opened my eyes in terms of understanding how a piece of music is structured so that it "makes sense." Simple things we might take for granted but actually make a big difference in keeping music sound coherent, like how do you introduce a melody but highlight its importance? How do you develop a melodic idea so that the listener can follow along with your thought process? etc.

It does require a decent amount of theory background though. There is a classroom workbook version that goes over a some of it, but you'll need to feel comfortable at least with reading sheet music and analyzing chords. I would say at the very least, you want to be familiar with everything past a college Music Theory 1 course.

textbook:

https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Form-Functions-Instrumental-Beethoven/dp/019514399X

workbook version:

https://www.amazon.com/Analyzing-Classical-Form-Approach-Classroom/dp/0199987297

Nice composition. I listened to the whole thing. It's a bit shaky on a technical level in some places (lines sometimes step on each other, though you comment that you like that kind of thing; some notes sound a bit like filler too, which is a streamlining thing), but the ideas and pacing are solid. It sounds like you've taught yourself well, and you're evidently familiar with the literature. You might want to read up on some contemporary music theory just to feel like you're in the loop. For a long time, I harbored anxieties about my own writing just because I was unaware of what was going on in the world. It was a purely psychological thing, and my writing was fine, but that kind of thing affects creativity. (If you don't feel this to be the case, don't worry. I'm describing my experience more than I am trying to analyze yours.) The two big books in classical form right now are William Caplin - Classical Form and James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy - Sonata Theory. Both are hefty tomes, but the main points are quite digestible and compact.

If I were the one teaching you (which we could arrange, if you'd like), I'd hit counterpoint hard. You don't have poor counterpoint or anything like that; I bring this up because it seems your style is strongly modeled on 18th and 19th century music and a close examination of counterpoint in those styles would strengthen your own writing.

University professors might be able to teach you (and if you show them this trio, I think they would be happy to work with you), but you might also seek out a grad student as they tend to be cheaper. Are you involved in the classical music scene in your area? There might be a composer (or a performer with experience in composition and teaching) whom you might want to work with.

Just 2 main comments:

1. Pay much more attention to your orchestration. It was too blurry to see the finer details, but there are many things that can be done better. For starters: there is no need for there to be 6 key changes in the first 30 or so measures. Aurally it works, but just add in accidentals for sections that modulate successively, otherwise it looks sloppy. In a similar vein, never show people a non-transposing score. It's great for a composer's purposes, but it actually makes reading it more difficult for others (especially conductors). Little mistakes like random dynamics in resting instruments and unnecessary subdivided rests can add up; and there are places where you obviously want it slurred, so be sure to add them. Also, I don't know if you are a singer, but generally in instrumental scores crescendos are notated below the single-staff instruments and in-between instruments on a grand staff. These are a just a few of the problems I saw, but just know to always go through your piece with a fine tooth comb. I very much recommend this book and looking at other scores as much as possible. It pretty much will answer any orchestrational and notational question you may have (that is, aside from many contemporary techniques)
   
   
   
   
2. Aurally, the piece is interesting, and although I understand that you meant to not repeat any of the themes, I disagree with the final outcome because of it. It needs to have some sort of form or unifying factor for the listener, especially in a piece this filmscore-like. The piece is so harmonically and melodically standard that the lack of form just seems odd and causes the ending to be abrupt. Hell, the unifying factor could be something as simple as a single triangle attack or snare drum role, just something that makes if feel less like a random assortment of themes that for some reason ends in the middle.
   
   
   
   That all being said, the themes are very intriguing and I would love to hear them expanded and varied a bit. You plant many seeds for a large scale work, but it ultimately ends before it come to fruition. Of course, you can disagree and disregard any or all of these comments if you want, that's your right as the composer. However, I do think you should take my first comment to heart. I reiterate this mainly because you are using this as an audition piece, and the very first thing they will do is read through the score without the music (so you want your first impression to be a good one). People really do appreciate a clean score, though it is the most tedious and time consuming part of the compositional process (and the part I personally hate the most). Good luck in your endeavors and never stop composing.

I recommend you start by picking up a good book on the analysis of musical form, something like Green's Form in Tonal Music (but from the library as it's obscenely expensive). I believe it's very important to comprehend the overall structure of a piece of music so that you can break it down into its logical constituents. Deep formal constructs often dictate the more surface level structures that we perceive as harmonic progressions and rhythmic motives. These kinds of choices do not happen in a vacuum; they are very much tied to the long range form of a piece of music, even when these structures are the germinating idea for the rest of the work (see the sketchbooks of Beethoven for examples).

To this purpose it's usually easier to start off with small pieces from the Baroque era as they're formally straightforward. For example, the structural simplicity of the binary form makes the harmonic and rhythmic choices of a composer much more clear. Once you have this as a foundation, the music of Haydn and Mozart will be much more readily digestable. I do not recommend starting with music written after about 1750 if you're new to analysis.

Once you feel comfortable with this, studying sonata form is perhaps one of the most enjoyable analytic endeavors one can undertake. The work of the Classical masters is overflowing with good examples of this, and the obvious oeuvre to start with is Haydn's piano sonatas. This alone could keep you busy for years to come, and the revelations you gain will be both numerous and surprising.

In no particular order, here are some things that come to mind:



Modes of Rhythm

Anthony Wellington teaches slap bass and rhythm using the "Modes of Rhythm" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asYfvMzjk7M

This is an interesting approach to working with rhythm.


Arranging for Large Jazz Ensemble by Dick Lowell

https://www.amazon.com/Arranging-Large-Jazz-Ensemble-Pullig/dp/0634036564/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=dick+lowell&qid=1554352576&s=gateway&sr=8-4

Good resource for jazz arranging



The Study of Orchestration by Samuel Adler

https://www.amazon.com/Study-Orchestration-Third-Samuel-Adler/dp/039397572X/ref=sr_1_2?crid=270ZIQBMLZL3O&keywords=study+of+orchestration&qid=1554354116&s=gateway&sprefix=study+of+orc%2Caps%2C203&sr=8-2

I have the 3rd edition. Get it used rather than new. This is a popular choice when studying instrumentation and orchestration for orchestral/chamber music.


Other good orchestration online resources:

http://resources.music.indiana.edu/isfee/

https://www.vsl.co.at/en/Academy/Instrumentology/


The Secrets of Dance Music Production

https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Dance-Music-Production/dp/0956446035/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=attack+magazine&qid=1554356008&s=gateway&sr=8-1

I haven't checked this one out completely, but it's an interesting resource for electronic music with great visual analysis


And if you're looking for things to improve your composing skills, definitely study counterpoint. Start with Species counterpoint then move to other styles/eras. Learning this completely changed my perspective of theory and why we learn it.


Hope that helps.

"Composing Music: A New Approach" by William Russo is pretty good. I've been working through it for a few months now as I get time. It's aimed more at people with moderate musical experience than experienced composers but it deals with minimalism, cells, rows, a freer approach to harmony (than Classical harmony), picture music and so on. It approaches each topic mainly by setting you composition exercises - short pieces mainly - with a little bit of explanation, so if you're after something that's heavy on theory this won't be for you.

The study of orchestration by Samuel Adler is a great book, but it is pricey. This book Acoustic and MIDI Orchestration for the Contemporary Composer: A Practical Guide to Writing and Sequencing for the Studio Orchestra https://www.amazon.com/dp/0240520211/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_rlAlub14XQMD5. Looks promising, but would need to look at in depth to give the thumbs up.

This book lays set theory out in an easy to understand way:

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Post-Tonal-Theory-3rd-Edition/dp/0131898906

Of course, most books are only going to describe the theory, composing is a whole other story.

you might try a chord diagram book

i use that book and quite like it.

Hines' Choral Composition book is invaluable.
https://www.amazon.com/Choral-Composition-Composers-Arrangers-Conductors/dp/0313315884