Mister Red

...

That's a very imaginative piece. Lots going on. Great job. What did you use for playback? Oh, about your score, it would be better to include instrument designations at the beginning of each system. Just abbreviations. Makes it easier to make sense of.

That's very good. Lots of work. Schemata breakdowns really provide an interesting view. Wish I’d have know about this when I was first starting to study composition.

I didn't get the Sanguinetti. I know it's definitive, but I wanted a more directly practical account for the time being so I got the Ijzerman book. It's also got a nice companion website. To your second question: Not as of yet. By the way, in the piece you posted by Abel, that is one of the best bassoon parts I've ever come across, even regardless of period.

I like Gjerdingen. I have his Galant style book. Interesting to look at these things from the schemata p.o.v.. I have a Partimenti book that is a good companion to it. I liked the piece you posted, too.

You've got the right idea, but I'll go through the basic procedure below anyway. Your main issue is your counterpoint. You need to learn basic two-part counterpoint, including double-counterpoint, if you're going to be writing canons. For a crab canon, start off simple: 8 bars, 4/4, in C major, canon at the octave, one whole note per bar. And use only diatonic notes for your first practice tries. There is no proposta and risposta, since both voices enter at the same time. Yes, that will be boring, but it's better to learn the procedure first. In the treble clef: put a C4 whole note in the first and last bar. In the bass clef: put a C3 while note in the first and last bar. Now you have just the 6 bars to fill in. Overall, the procedure is to write from both ends—in both voices—with every note decision you make. So... Choose (and notate) a note for bar 2 in the treble clef. If you chose, say, an F4, then after notating that, you'd also notate an F3 in bar 7 of the bass clef, since that provides the necessary retrograde movement. Next choose and notate (in bass clef) a consonant to the F4 in bar 2. If you chose contrary motion for an A2, then after notating that, you'd also notate an A3 in bar 7 of the treble clef. You just carry out this procedure from there until everything meets in the middle. You can now elaborate those whole notes—conservatively, in several passes—using adequate voice leading technique. It goes without saying that the rhythms also must occur in retrograde. From this basis you can gradually write more elaborately with each new canon. If later you want to be able to write the canon on a single line, it has to be a canon at the unison, and you still need to composer it on two staves. After that's all squared away, you can write it on a single staff with a backwards treble clef at the end.

Good exercise. Did you loosely base part of your approach on Jupiter? My sense is that the bass accompaniment texture of a quarter on 1 and 3, rest on 2, loses its freshness by the 22 second mark and could be expanded or replaced with something else right about then.

You're welcome. Gave me something relaxing to do for half an hour this afternoon. Can't go anywhere. Have no jobs to work on. Banks are closed today so I can't commit armed robbery. Etc. Best wishes for your piece.

That's what I meant. In other words, I was remarking that you are very far from being lazy. Sorry if I was not clear there. I meant it as a compliment. Anyway, regarding the balance between having enough notation but without overdoing it, it can definitely be tricky. And it can be made worse by the fact that all the things professional musicians know to do, the software that plays your samples back doesn't know to do, so when you're writing at a computer, you tend to put in more notation to give you more what you're after. There are so many performance nuances that accomplished musicians put into a performance that notation doesn't even exist for, and they're accomplished at understanding what the music needs as long as the context is clear and you've made them understand what you're after. And be careful looking at modern scores. Some are well balanced in their approach, and some are not. Moreover, one composer's preference or one publisher's house style is not necessarily the only way or the best way to write something, so comparing an array of sources is necessary. The best guide for some things, many things, is the players themselves, whenever you are around them. I have yet to meet one that doesn't tell me even more than I asked about. As an example of what you can learn from musicians for example, some timpanists (not all) prefer to be told what the composer wants rather than how to do it, unless it is a particular effect. So, they might rather see terms of technique or expression such as "pointed," "dark," "dry," etc., rather than "hard mallets," "soft mallets," etc. There are things timpanists can do without even changing mallets to affect the tone, articulation and decay. Placing the strike points closer together or farther apart, playing a couple of inches nearer the edge or nearer the center, legato stroke vs. staccato stroke, plus which there is more to mallet design than just the hardness of the head. But that also does NOT mean that mallet indications should be avoided. Just trying to provide examples of ways musicians think about things. Or, with harpists, they don't really need some of the phrase marks that composers add. Many will tell you that SOME of the phrase marks are superfluous and just clutter up the score. I'll give a couple of examples of superfluous articulation marks in your score. In bar 17, low brass, those molto marcato marks. The low brass are already going to do that, so just writing marc. next to the dynamic is sufficient. In bar 19, trumpets, the marcato accent is unnecessary on account of the context, tempo, dynamic, the nature of trumpet articulation, and since it is a standalone note. Musicians will tell you that the symbols become less meaningful once they reach a certain saturation. But I should say, so you don't misunderstand me, you didn't overdo it everywhere or in every instance. And the desire to communicate your intentions to the musicians is a good one. Bar 52, trumpets don't need the a2, as it was already clarified a couple bars prior. In that same bar, low brass staccatissimo mark is contrary to the duration. The duration should just mirror what the trumpets have there, an 8th. And if you want it short, a staccato dot is all you're gonna need for those instruments there. And if you do put a staccato dot, you should probably put on in the trumpets on that same metric location to unify the effect. To a couple of your questions: A dangling tie looks like the note was meant to be tied into another note, but that the note was never entered. An open tie should only be as long as few spaces. The cellos col legno beginning at bar 24, at pp that effect is barely going to be there anyway. You're mostly just making it thinner, and col legno is a very transparent effect in and of itself. You've just come off of a loud part, and you always need to guard against something sounding anemic in a context like the one you've got going. But like I say, if you want them divisi, then you're better off using the lower divisi to play just the notes you want accented, in which case you're orchestrating the effect in addition to notating it. Irrespective of that decision, the notation will be less cluttered if you toss the unnecessary phrase marks, and the staccato dots too, since a col legno tap is already as short as it gets. So, just a regular marcato (not molto marcato*) accent on the desired notes is all you need. (*You're overusing molto marcato accents throughout the part of the score I saw, which means that when you really need a molto marcato you probably won't get one.) Further... A lot of your triplets are not notated as such. It looks like you have a buzz roll or Penderecki tremolo sign on the 8th-note of your cymbals part in bar 52. Red alert on the Contrabassoon from 59 to 62: No can do. The pp at that range isn't possible, much less the extended diminuendo to niente. Even for the bassoon right before that, the pp is questionable. Tchaikovsky just barely gets by with pp down there in the opening to his 6th symphony.

Lots of good ideas in this, and clearly you have a definite vision of what you want. I will add some observations that may provide a little help. I’m only metioning things that jumped out at me the most, up to bar 52. 1) Your orchestra is so big. I wonder if it is really warranted for this piece. I know that using lots of instruments is fun, but you could also strive for an economy of means with a regular size orchestra to hone your craft. 2) One overriding goal of notation is to minimize clutter while still conveying your musical intention. It’s a constant challenge to balance what is enough and what is too much. An imbalance in either direction is detrimental. Either your intentions will seem vague, or else you’re overnotating the part, in which case each symbol means less to the musician. With that in mind: You have an abundance of articulation marks and hairpins. You might want to be more judicious about that. When you reach a saturation point, symbols and signs start to mean less to the musicians. Micromanaging every performance nuance is an easy thing to fall into, and all composers struggle with it unless they're lazy. You’re notating stems in opposite directions quite a bit when it’s unnecessary. If all the voices have the same rhythm, dynamic, articulation, effect, and there is no voice crossing, just use one stem for all the notes; In several places you put “1 only” where just “1.” will suffice. You have some entrances here and there that do not have a dynamic. Upper strings, bar 14, the subito effect will come off better if you do not tie into it from bar 13. And the dotted quarter in bar 14 should be a quarter tied to an 8th, with a terminal dynamic on the 8th. Bar 16 in the upper strings, the rhythmic notation needs to be fixed. Tam-tam, bars 20 – 22, the player might be confused as to whether you wanted a roll or a hit. Plus which you have a dangling tie, which I think you meant to be an open tie. If you want a hit in 20, you can just notate a quarter and attach an open tie. And it’d be better to let the percussionist choose the mallet here, it being an abrupt forte hit, and a tam-tam is somewhat resistant to this. In bar 22, you have floating dynamic markings, i.e., not clearly associated with any metric unit. The bassoon notation in 23 is confusing. It looks like you could just get rid of “1 only” and allow bassoon 2 hold onto that G, unless I’m misunderstanding your intention. Bar 24, Notation: those phrase marks on the cellos col legno should be deleted. And instead of the molto marcato symbols, you could have the resting divisi play just those notes that you now have marked as accented, but… Bar 24, Orchestration: I don’t know why you want only half on the col legno anyway, as it is such a slight effect in any case. The timp part is going to obscure it, plus which, the timp and harp part here is contradictory to the col legno. You’d be better off having all the cellos play the col legno,and have the timp play with wood mallets. The harp at the very low range has a very long decay, so it’d be better to mark the harp notes staccato and include the technique text “dampen.” Again, otherwise you’ll have an ill-defined texture between that and the other stuff you’ve got going on down there. When an instrument is not playing for an entire bar, you don’t need to provide rests if another instrument assigned to the same stave (e.g., Bns., bars 25–28) Any non ordinary manner of playing that is only indicated by technique text should be repeated on each new stave in parentheses (e.g., pizz., col legno, sord., etc.) Harp, bar 28, the Gb pedal indication needs to be vertically aligned with the note to which it applies. Bass Drum, bar 47, secco is contradictary to tieing the note into the following downbeat. Violins, bar 48, the phrase marks are way too long. At most you’d only put eigtht of those notes under one bow, but four would would be better. Timps, bars 51 & 52, the dynamic markings are an example of notation that is way too fussy, plus which the two seccos. You can mark the timps staccato for that.

But someday you may have musicians playing your music, so as you go along, just increase your ability to notate so you're ready when the time comes. Of course I liked the piece. Has a good waltz charm to it. Make sure all of your musicians have something interesting to do, and also make sure they don't have to sit out for too large a proportion of the piece. Regarding the harp arps: Harpists are supposed to be able to reach a 10th between finger 1 and 4, so that's your limit for block chords. If the chord is going to be rolled, you can ask for up to a 12th on the occasional big chord, but a 10th is still a good regular limit. Your first 4-note group spans two octaves. The only way to play that at this speed is with both hands, which could be done here in isolation. But since it's quickly followed by another four-note group, the note pacing is too fast for the left hand to then reach over the right hand to play the second four-note group. This type of written-out arp for both hands is idiomatic for harp, but at this note pacing each four-note group needs to be played by one hand, with the hands alternating for each group, which is the usual routine anyway. The problem is easily fixed by putting a 16th rest in place of the D1. BTW, the phrase mark is unnecessary.

Yes, I understand about the title now. I thought people were putting the title of the piece as the thread title. My mistake. Your questions: The first four-note grouping of the harp arpeggios. I only said that if this this work is eventually intended for musicians, the notation will need an overhaul.

"Grande Valse for orchestra" = partly french, partly english, but never mind, I guess that's not the title. I was wondering why not "pour Orchestre." I thought the forum standard was that the title of the piece is the title of the thread. Anyway, a little bit of the harp part is not playable, and it is underused in any event.I scanned the rest of the score and no other mistakes popped out at me. The notation will need a major overhaul if this intended for musicians.

His account page doesn't enter into it and I don't go around clicking on such things anyway. I'll try again. I hope third time's the charm: Why is the title partly in english and partly in french?

That's common knowledge. You didn't understand my question, so I'll rephrase it: Why are you using the french word for waltz?