Calehay

I think that I can answer your second question. First of all, they are considering the lowest notes that you have to be a bass line, so it's not really possible to double an octave down before that becomes the bass line with their wording. So, what's happening is that, if you double the bass an octave up, the closer the doubled octave gets to the middle voices, it loses the qualities of a bass line and becomes less focused. If it crosses the middle voices, then you're sunk. So, basically, yes, it's just making sure that, when doing doubled bass in octaves, to make sure that the middle voices don't cross in the middle of them. It doesn't mean that you can't ever have something between octaves in the bass, but if you're looking for the reinforced bass doubled in octaves sound, then you'll lose it if a middle voice travels between them.

I'm going to give you comments, even though you don't seem to really want real ones anyway. The reason that people are confused by your score is because the first two notes sound like an anacrusis. Now, that could be a really cool effect, but by the time things get off kilter in m.19, you've already lulled the listener into believing what the downbeat is that it come off as a really nasty surprise. Also, it's a hard thing for a player to keep up with. Yes, after practice it will become second nature, but the point of writing music is not to trick the player. What you want to be done here could easily be done with a meter change, and then it wouldn't be so confusing. Octaves on a piano really make an interesting color, but if you use it all the time, the piece kind of becomes bland. Take a look at some of the most revered piano pieces and you will see that octaves are really used for a sort of effect rather than the norm. I do think there could be much more interesting ways to execute your harmonies. Just because it may be chords, having an interesting background as well as foreground adds a new dimension to your piece. Right now, everything seems to be just sticking in strict block chords under a melody. Perhaps think of ways that you could make just this portion of the composition interesting in itself. Well, there. You've heard pretty much the exact same thing from 7 people. Now it's up to you to decide if you're going to acknowledge that your piece may need a bit more work in these areas. You'll definitely have a working composition if you decide that we all don't know what we're talking about, but we want to help you realize this piece into the best that it could be. You really have to use your better judgment. If this many people have said that something is rather odd, then sit down and really think about it. Perhaps you need to get away from it for a few days, perhaps a year. The point is, you seem to dispell any negative comment with retorts that really don't make much sense. If you really want to get better at composition, then you will take all criticism that you get in earnest and truly consider it.

Tell that to Mahler. :P It's a cool effect if used judiciously. Also, I think bob was saying that he was attempting to play arco on an electric bass. That's ludicrous. An electric bass doesn't have the right type of bridge to support arco techniques. He would have been playing all 4 strings at once, and it would sound like crap. So in short, no, this is not a technique that is normal, nor should it be encouraged. For the bow and the audiences' sake.

Is there a pause in between the sections? I think what didn't seem to work was the fact that it just instantly changed so quickly. I think if it did crescendo and did a kind of subito piano, it would be better. But remember that you've got both of the instruments in their lower registers. The clarinet could get a nice crescendo, but the flute might not get the power that you might be thinking about. By all means, it will work, but it's just not the strongest melody in the world. Perhaps instead of doing something with the notes, you could do something with the rhythms. The problem I see with it is it's practically the same thing each measure, and the 1st beat of each is really the same thing in each measure. Doing this can get a little monotonous. (If you'd want an example of what I would do, on the third measure I would put a sixteenth rest at the beginning, and do an eighth sixteenth on the B and the A and leave the rest of the measure how it is. But even then, that's a trick I rely too much on, and it isn't really the best solution and I'm sure that you can find much better.) Also, does this have a conductor? That might seem a little silly since it's only 4 musicians. I'm sure that a chamber group could perform this without the help of a conductor.

The first thing that I'll say is to get rid of that "vamp until flute player is ready." Unless this is supposed to be performed with some sort of crazy staging or whatever, it really wouldn't make much sense to do that. In m. 36, you don't really need to tell the players to release on beat one. It's implied that you don't want it to carry over onto the next bar because it doesn't tie into it. Also, since it has a fermata on it, whoever is leading the group there is going to cut them all off at once. Musically, I would probably say that the transition into 87 isn't convincing me. From m.105 - 108, I feel that the melody there is too stuck on the same notes. And again, I'm not sure if I'm buying the transition into m.124 In m. 88, I find the left hand's rhythm to be somewhat awkward. I'm not quite sure what you were trying to accomplish there. If what you were going for was to start with longer rhythms and then speed into shorter rhythms, I think you'd have to prepare it a bit more. Right now, it seems like we were just going along with half notes, and then we hit the fall on a rollercoaster or something. And since this part of the movement has been so slow and calm, it doesn't seem like a very good effect. Overall, I thought this was a very nice piece.

You obviously ran into a bunch of old fogeys. There's many professionals that now write with the computer. I believe that there was a topic on this a while back. I personally love the look of hand-drawn scores(and I'm talking professional quality print scores, not scrap "working it out" scores), but my hand writing is really just terrible. I'm also very slow at the process because I just haven't had time to practice it as much as people did 30 years ago. I do think a hand engraving class would be a very beneficial tool, not only so you can learn how people did things in the past, but because it would alert you to the pitfalls of a lot of notational software that people don't notice. As to composing by hand or by computer, it really doesn't matter at all. Both of the processes should be approached in the same manner. If you're just "[not] pay[ing] as much attention to every individual note thanks to cutting and pasting" then you're not using a very good work process in the first place, and that can just as easily be done on paper with measure repeats or other written shorthand. You can go willy-nilly on a piece of paper just as easily as you can on a computer program, just with the computer it's easier to see how much you needed to plan your composition. I think when writing on paper, the idea of knowing your material becomes even more important. After doing extensive sketching, it's possible to write down a piece without having a piano because you've already prepared everything. Listening to playback on a computer could cause someone who's too impulsive to become the editor too quickly, and slow down the process of the composition.

So, if I'm understanding right: A painting is a lesser art form because it doesn't perform? But music is a greater art because through this performing, the listener is allowed to experience this "spiritual energy" as you call it? Why is it that the message of a painter dies after the painting has been completed? The problem with this analogy is that a painter is more like a composer. People don't watch a composer compose music, just as a painter doesn't paint in front of an audience (most of the time. Performance painting might interest a few, but let's leave that pot to boil.) So, what's a more apt conclusion is that a painting is more analogous to performers. Whenever a painting is on display, it is performing the artist's work. Unlike music, which is taken in through the ear, this is taken in through the eye. Unless this mystical "spiritual energy" can't be transmitted through the eyes (and I don't see why not. Your definition of spiritual seems to be that the painting needs to glorify some sort of higher power, and there's definitely a lot of art that does that) then a painting can most definitely display this "spiritual energy" just as well as music can. What about the time spent looking at a painting? Are you saying that since the artist doesn't control that, it's a lesser art? Just because the painting isn't moving, that doesn't mean that it's not "alive." I'm sure your argument here is that every time a painting is shown, it's the same damn painting, but when music is played, it's different players. But what about the fact that what the composer wants is never going to be changed, even though players may change their wishes? With this, art is a higher form of art because the creator's wishes can be expressed fully and will never change (hoping that the painting survives any dangers.) This doesn't make any sense. Music has to be heard before it can be interpreted as spiritual. By this definition, a deaf person would feel spiritual even without being able to hear the music. It doesn't happen. Now, I consider myself religious, and I do believe that music can have a good impact on spiritual development for someone. But this music needs to enter the ear canal because we have to physically hear it. A painting needs to be seen in order to gain spiritual development from it. Also: I'm sure no one here is trying to change your mind. You stated a claim, and we are arguing. Instead of defending your claim, you're bringing up a large amount of logical fallacies and insults. I don't think you're going to have a fun time in English Comp II in college if you haven't had it by now.

If there's one to avoid, it's Paperless Printer. It likes to cut off your pages. I personally use CutePDF, but all of them do the same thing.

Some things I've noticed. The scary thing about this ensemble is that the alto flute has such as weak low range that even a viola could overpower it. Generally this is avoided, though there were some scary moments, I would say that it all worked. I would just make sure that the viola knows that when the flute is in its lower registers that it definitely stays out of the way. When the flute is doing the arppegiations, you have to remember to let them breathe! The recording shows that the phrase had to be broken in awkward places. The ending is a very scary place balance wise. I'm not sure what the score says, but it sounds like the violist is doing a flautando style bowing. If that's not in the score, it needs to be, because that string could definitely cover that last note of the flute up very easily. Overall, I enjoyed listening to your piece.

The phrase "don't feed the troll" comes to mind... Seriously, this is a ridiculous idea for a thread. Saulsmusic obviously has no interest in hearing anyone else's thoughts on the subject. If you truly think that one art is "greater" than another, then you aren't an artist at all.

I'm sorry. I meant m. 26.

I think "beauty" is subjective. One of my favorite quotes ("What the eye arranges is what is beautiful") applies here. You can't judge someone else's perception of beauty, so this argument is not really that sensical. If a composer doesn't write something without meaning it, then it's a wasted effort, artistically at least.

1st movement: From the beginning of this, it's merely a succession of chords with an ostinato rhythm. You're really going to have to break the monotony somehow. Since you've made the choice to not have a distinctive melody here, you're going to have to add interest through other means. In general, your usage of dynamics are baffling. Most alarming is m.17. Why would you mark the viola fff and the violins p? If it's that you want the melody to come out, then understand that a good violist would understand that the melody needs to come out, no matter what the dynamic marking says. Now, don't get me wrong. This could be a cool effect, but the entire piece is littered with it, and it sounds like the norm and not an effect, and just gets annoying to listen to. Are you thinking of the 2nd Violin line to be more legato? If so, I suggest that you slur the eight notes. It seems in general that you haven't thought about ay slurring, so I will guess that you are still planning them. In m.23, I don't think the ear is prepared for the G-sharp. Everything so far has been very consonant, but to just drop a bombshell like that without warning seems like it's misleading the audience and will be more than likely percieved as a mistake. Mvt. 2 From 35-47, the same problem as the first mvt arrives. You're going to have to find a way to add interest to this section. The ending doesn't seem very convincing to me. Even if you want to have a kind of surprise ending, I think the audience needs to have a least a hint that something different is happening. Right now, it's just the same types of textures that were at the beginning, and then it just stops. Mvt. 3 43-52 could be an interesting idea, but you're going to have to make sure that it doesn't sound like the same thing is going on over and over. This could mean changing the rhythms or registers of the different parts, putting it in different instruments at different times, it could be anything you imagine. The ending is another section that I think does this too. You have to make sure that it's also rhythmically interesting as well as interesting pitch-wise. The dynamics comment goes for all of the movements. I'm not sure what instrument you play, but the ensemble should always be thinking about layers. Every now and then, you might have to tell the ensemble the specific layers that you want, but it is more than often instinctive of the player.

You're not supposed to bump posts. I'm surprised no one has said anything since you've already done it once. Looking through the score again, I found a few more things to say. m. 79 - 81 might prove problematic. A flute may not be able to get as loud as you want it there because it's so low. Especially since the piano is doubling it at fff, the flute sound might get lost. In 124, I would suggest making sure that the flute doesn't go too low again. This section might not get the power that you want, but it may in a different register. Same thing in 156. In 163, having the flute marked at mp while the clarinet does the same material at ff might result with the flute being covered up. For the ending, are you planning on having the flute hangover after the other instruments play their note? If so, you could make it clearer by making the flute hold a half note with a fermata, and place fermatas on the last rest of the other parts.

When doing a college portfolio, the only real requirement is that you be yourself. Put the music that you think reflects you the most. You don't have to put massive quantities of music in your portfolio either. 3 - 5 short pieces should be more than enough. Whatever you do, don't try to write music like the music that you've heard get into these schools, because that will only lead you down a bad path. You're misleading the professors because you aren't writing what you want to write, and you're misleading yourself, because you might be getting into a program that you don't enjoy. But yes, Oberlin and Berklee are quite different, and you need to know what fields you want to pursue after college before accepting an offer from either.