Leaderboard

Very philanthropic. Seems to be even quicker than knocking paper up in Sibelius, and I particularly like the option to lighten the staves. It wouldn't cope with large ensemble layouts but to get notepaper is ideal.

Work with your sound off. You cannot guide yourself by what you hear in such programs, both Finale and Sibelius are unreal projections of what you're writing.

Okay, when I mentioned techniques on getting the most out of reverb before there was a very positive reaction, so I thought I would provide some advice on getting a stereo sound using a Reason Rack Extension called ReStereo (which can be used with ReWire up to 192 KHz). Hopefully this is equally useful, especially in situations where people do not want to rely on reverb so much. :) Now, we all know the problem. You have a great live performance but it was close-miked in mono because the space was awful. Or you have a library that only has the sound you wanted in mono and it feels like there is no space around the instrument. You could try to solve it by adding reverb, but eventually you start to have issues with transient smearing (which may not fit well with either the intimacy or precision of your piece). You could try using one of the traditional band-splitting plug-ins that divide up the signal into a small number of bands based on frequency, but the process is imprecise and doesn't feel the same as a stereo recording. And if you start summing to mono, the you can easily end up with phasing issues that cause the frequency balance to be off (with the infamous case of disappearing bass being a prime example). Incidentally, phasing can be an issue with real stereo recordings if there were issues with the mic placement, but that is a topic for another time. So enough about what doesn't work - here is what I find does. Numerical Sound ReStereo. http://shop.propellerheads.se/product/restereo/ Since I've done occasional consulting work for Numerical Sound for a while now, I've been applying the processing in ReStereo to my tracks since long before there was an actual product. The way it works is that you take your mono sound and run it through one of the 25 stereo-fields in the plug-in, all of which give a different sense of mic placement and frequency emphasis. Since you can apply this affect without negatively affecting transient smearing, you would want to apply it before you start using any reverb. This also makes it easier to pick the stereofield that is best suited to the feel you are going for. Then you can add reverb on top of it to blend with the additional sounds (using the suggestions I offered in the previous topic). So what are some things to think about and watch out for if everything is so simple? Well, you can jump in and start applying the sound without thinking too much if you want, but there are some things worth considering. A mono sound is not an accurate representation of the way we hear things. Even a very distant sound in a neutral environment has some width in the stereo field in the real world because of the slight differences in the way our ears process it. So you typically would want at least some stereo spread. But we also know that the closer something is to us, the wider the perceived stereo-field is, so we do not want to expand the field so much that the sound feels closer than we intend. The ReStereo controls include both panning and a list of different stereofields, so first audition a few fields to find the one that most closely matches the sense of distance you intend. Then pan it into position and assign reverb. Using this order will expose issues more quickly and easily than switching the order. In addition, if you do not have a properly configured acoustic environment with monitors (or if you just happen to like headphones) be aware that one of the best ways to check stereo width and placement is with headphones. Anyway, I hope this is useful but feel free to let me know one way or the other. Happy mixing!

Disregarding all that was said, with the exception of what Justin said, a good fugue subject is one that -I believe- can be utilized in every timbre and register within the ensemble written for. For example, if your subject is idiomatic of one particular instrumental range or the instrument itself - then it will be difficult to have the subject be utilized in other instruments (violin to trumpet, as an example). Thus, what Justin said is a good litmus test. If your subject works in the soprano, alto, tenor, or bass then it should be sufficient. I use lots of fugalistic textures in my work - despite being a modern styled composer. What I tend to look for in subjects, outside of usage in other ranges and instruments, is the overall musical possibilities of the subject itself. Most of my subjects are comprised of two - four motivic units tied together into a periodic structure. This enables me to break apart the motives during the fugal episodes - and enables me to also develop the motivic units to some, limited degree. Other than that really, there is no real technique that can insure your subjects will be good or bad formula-wise. Bach's techniques are pretty good to study - hence why they are studied in Conservatory (rightly). I also recommend studying other composers from later periods as well: Beethoven and Mozart especially. It might also be good to look at Canonic writing as well - to give you an idea of basic subject composition. Hope this helps, I'm surprised to see that Justin knocked it into the ball park :D

If a fugue subject is a good bass line, it can be a good subject.

These are all likely to change from day to day but for today anyway: - symphonies Schnittke, Bruckner, Simpson, Beethoven, Lutoslawski, Knussen - operas I detest all opera that I've heard but I'll go with Wagner because of his influence on pretty much everyone. - piano pieces (solo) Beethoven, Debussy, Ligeti, Messiaen, Schnittke, Dallapiccola - piano pieces (concerto) Bartok, Lutoslawski, Mozart, Milhaud, Berkeley - violin pieces Lutoslawski, Bach, Berg, Ades - string quartets/quintets Beethoven, Bartok, Shostakovich, Carter, Simpson, Berg - chamber music Messiaen, Martinu, Brahms, Takemitsu - Vocal music Schubert, Barber, Berg, Schoenberg, Schnittke Overall: Beethoven. I know it's the cliched choice but I honestly could've written Beethoven under every heading (except vocal and opera) and it would have been completely justified. I don't think there has been or ever will be a better composer.