Gixander

What I'm also thinking I might do is simplify the part that the Saxophones have in the second iteration of the starting melody. Leave it at a quarter note rhythm, perhaps? Are there any suggestions on additional percussion parts that might work out well?

I want to keep the Oboe in there at least until a rehearsal because I think it'll help give the melody a sharper sound. The Horns...I'm on the fence on that. For now, I'll leave it in and if need be I can certainly make it a cue, because I do like the sound that the Clarinets and Horns make when at the same pitch. I might add a slight countermelody that plays between the lower Brass and the Clarinets/Saxes, maybe a slower version of the melody (rising and falling chords instead of mostly static like the lower brass). That should be a good alternative. Any suggestions on any other parts?

Yes, when I first started focusing on Concert Band as one of my main genres, I was studying Swearingen up and down. At that time, it seemed like everyone had one of Swearingen's pieces in each concert, so to me it was a good idea at the time. I'm trying to break away and get better at building energy, and especially here, I'm hiding snippets of the next section in the previous section. For example, the melody at 36 is similar to that at 74; 92 is almost an exact hint at what's to come at167. I've started listening to other composers that have very lyrical segments to their music, one example being Steven Reineke. One of the two groups I'm in doesn't have Vibes, so I never fully explored their potential, but one day I was listening to Reineke's "Heaven's Light", which I think is one of the most beautiful and endearing pieces out there. He makes amazing use of the Vibes, and I started looking into them more. I certainly had in mind speeding up those into a trill, though I think in the area where the Piccolo/Flute is answered by the Clarinets, only the Piccolo/Flute would do that. The Clarinets I wanted to keep at sixteenths because I'm slowing down not only the tempo, but also the movement of the piece by rhythm. It's something that I'd have to try out in a rehearsal setting. I loved playing the Vibes against the Oboe. I tried to avoid hinting directly at a tonal center for the Vibe parts, choosing to stay in fourths and fifths. It was actually an acccident that I left the Vibes by themselves at 159, becuase I wasn't exactly certain how well they would come off by themselves. I'm happy I kept it that way, because I heard live Vibes tonight in person (I heard them last so many years ago), and I know it'll come out right. The main reason I choose not to do an actual build up into 183 other than the instruments that were already playing is that if I had chosen to do that, it would have signalled something big was coming. Notice the dynamic levels. Everything except melody is at mezzo-piano, melody at mezzo-forte. In a typical setting, the crescendo into 183 is not going to be enough to give away what's about to happen, though some people might figure it out. The keys were built from the two statements of the opening measures, 1 and 183. 183 was written first, and then I started a melody in E minor...but I somehow had to build it into Bb minor...I accidentally hit an F major chord when walking down from the A minor chord, and that allowed me to get to G minor...and then I just did it again (Ab major leading into the Bb minor). You could tell there was something coming, but probably not in enough time to know what it was. I did find it amusing that if you write out the key signatures, it's the same three in a row (Em/G, Gm/Bb, Bbm/Db). Totally by accident, as I usually write without key signatures now and add them in afterwards As far as how I create the melodies you call "luscious", I actually mess around a lot on my flute. You know, just improvise as I go, and eventually stuff works itself out. If I could I would play each part to make certain things like dynamics and articulations work out correctly. The best thing I can say is that something simple is all you need to shoot for, then work your way out of it. Sometimes melodies just come to me, sometimes I'll be sitting there playing the start of something or the end of it over and over and hours later, still nothing. The one thing I wasn't certain on this piece were the two Horn parts doubling the Clarinet/Saxes/Oboe on the opening melody. I've been assured they are indeed playable, but if anybody who plays Horn can tell me "how" playable they are, that would be a good help to me. As far as getting published, I had sent in "Soaring Against the Sky" to Barnhouse in late September, but hadn't heard anything. That was a little worrisome, because they just recently changed from reviewing between August-March to August-January. I sent them the e-mail info to prove I had sent it, and asked what the status was. They never received it; they told me to go ahead and send it anyways, even though it was right near the end of their period (I think, I'm still a little hazy on whether "between August and January" means August and January are included or not). So that was nice of them, and I'm just waiting to hear back on it.

One of my attempts to challenge my community band's perceptions of music. The piece alternates between Storm and Calm; the Storm being a series of fights I went through with my best friend a week or so ago for a few days, and the Calm being the moments in between the fights and then the fight release of all the tension.Please be honest about your opinions of the music. Storm and Calm

The reason I'm bumping this to some extent is that we've had three rehearsals over the piece, noting various things throughout it. We will be performing it on October 10th at our first concert of the season. I will try to get someone to get a decent/good recording of it, because the audio file certainly doesn't do it justice. Okay, let me give you all who have been watching the earlier conversations on "Soaring Against the Wind" some update as to what's gone on. The opening sounds great, though we noticed a few things as far as the dynamics go. The opening crescendo between p and mf and then back to p in the Clarinets and Saxes comes out unbalanced, but this was mainly because of the different idea in everyone's head of what p and mf should be. Clarinets usually overpower Saxes in most circumstances I've seen, so I'm assuming that they were sticking with the idea they needed to be louder. So, we had our 1st chair Clarinet play the low E as soft as possible, and said that's where it needs to start for the p. It came out perfectly after that. Once they figured out it was only going to be a solo Flute at the beginning, they backed off quickly and it came off perfectly. The Oboe isn't as hard to hear, because it certainly pierces on its own, so I had no worries there. And there was a neat thing that happened that I have to alter in the score. The grace note into the C on the flute in measure 17 is written as a Bb, but it was accidentally played as a B natural last night. And I think that just works wonderfully. The Oboe is going to keep the solo at rehearsal 18, and the muted trumpet is being relegated to a cue for the Oboe. I know that tends to conflict with most people's ideas in the past, where it seems like the Trumpet should be the main instrument being featured at this point, but even as a solo and with the mute, it didn't blend as well as it might have. Certainly not as well as the Oboe did by itself (we went back and forth for a few minutes on this). At [40], it got horribly unbalanced. The woodwinds were trying to keep overtop of the Brass/Lower Winds syncopation, but it was one of those things where I had to tell them just because those are staccato does not mean hit them really hard. There's not any accent there, so it still needs to be light. It's been alright, and it's getting better. The two parts of this section I was thoroughly worried about came out fine. The Trumpets in measure 43 switch to the chordal feature with the D-E-D-E-C movement up top, and thankfully they didn't overpower the Winds, even with the Winds having been moved out of the way with the end of their held over notes from the previous measure in anticipation of overpowering. The Horns, also, surprised me by bringing out the countermelody of sorts they have at this point (it's the same as the previous section, but in this instance only the Horns have it), and it was heard perfectly. Ah, yes, the rips at [63]. In a computer audio...they suck. Even when you set it to chromatic glissandos in Finale, they still...suck. However, in real life, they come out great. I specifically asked what those who have them thought of them, and they've said they aren't hard and actually enhance that section. However, we are still debating on whether to do an instant glissando (at the start of the beat), or a more delayed glissando like most bands do (where it almost feels like a massive chromatic grace note). In 97 and 98, where the low brass and saxes have the chords which drop from F major to F major over Eb major to a Db augmented 7th (the Trumpets are still on F, A, C, and the basses have Db, so...enjoy a Db-F-A-C chord!), we had to make certain no one was rushing, so it got to the point where the conductor is giving those notes at the end of the fourth beat. And it was a perfect handover to the winds, so it all worked out in the end. Before submitting it for publication (which everyone in the band thinks I'm an idiot for not having done already, and also those who know publishers have suggested Barnhouse...so I guess I've done something right), I'm trying to determine what the best instrument to cue the Oboe solo in. I currently have it cued in the 1st Alto, but I'm wondering if our band director might like to try giving it to the Euphonium/Baritone instead (obviously an octave down). It would sit comfortably in the middle of the range, and shouldn't be too much of a problem. More on that to come as we go (since we'll have an Oboe, we probably won't attempt it too much). For the first time in his life, or at least so he says, our band director said he wanted the percussion to play LOUDER at [128]. Interesting. It did work wonderfully, and when we hit [135] I suggested we try something different with the percussion part. It's the same in-time problem, but I managed to find a real life work-around. Take the snares off, and drop to underneath the Trumpets instead of matching them. So that worked out fine, and even better, we've got our own little field drum sound going. Everything that happened in the earlier section is done again here between 148 and 190. At 191-194, we tried to slow down, and I had the distinct pleasure of being able to say "Congratulations! You all just got ran over by the train!" in reference to them blowing through the caesura. There has to be just about a half-second of complete silence after the caesura before hitting that chord at 195. And on the final note on the final note, pun intended, those playing that chord on the third/fourth beat of the final measure was always a worry for everyone, but we had more than enough weight to hear the difference. Plus, our director wants the final chord to build after that, as one of those unwritten crescendos that would start at ff, then when the powerful underneath chord shows up on the third beat, to start building up to almost fff. Granted, it's hard to describe in words, but I'm certain everybody understands what I meant. The band is certainly happy with it, and I'm still getting congrats and compliments on having written it.

So, I've changed the title to "Soaring Against the Sky", and have made a few alterations, but nothing big for now. I got Finale to do "correct" chromatic glissandos, and redid the recording, and then layered the old version and this new one together (I was attempting to make it sound like more than one person playing so the glissandos weren't exact, and it sort of worked). Everything we've talked about is good to go or has a note to watch out for it during rehearsals, which will take place on the 24th of August. In response to the whole glissando problem we've all had, I knew there was a setting somewhere for it. In Human Playback Preferences, if you go to the selection for glissandos, you'll see it defaults to Automatic. To get this effect, you just set it to Chromatic instead. I fudged Automatic and Chromatic together because I think that's more realistic (as no two people ever play the gliss the same exact way). Gives it a nice effect. I also tried to dumb down how loud the percussion appeared to be during the Taps, and I might have them cross it out. Once we have performed it, I'll be going back to rework it to a more "standardized" instrumentation, so any changes between here and there will certainly show up here.

What do you mean by "open up"? I do agree that the melody is great, but in my opinion the melody is what anchors the piece. If you start expanding the melody to a large degree to make it more "engaging", you can run into the problem of adding to it just to add to it. That is, where it only exists to make the piece longer and has no functional role. The problem I'm seeing on this forum is that everybody demands engaging percussion parts. Yes, it makes sense and it should be taken into consideration. But what we are seeming to forget is that most of the compositions on this site are geared towards what available groups we have. I have a group that only has two, or sometimes three, percussionists. They aren't perfect, and could make it by on a grade 4 percussion part if needed. But should I be ignorant of what they are capable of? No, certainly not. Just like any author (since we are authoring a new work, the word still fits), we write what we know. We all are used to those ensembles, and to continue the example, I'd only write three separate parts of percussion (in this case, I mean only three instruments going at one time). Of course, this creates the problem of determine what instrumentation you want to use for percussion. That has to be decided by the composer as to what instruments lend themselves to the image attempting to be imparted/created. The clarinets are never in C#. The farthest they get is F#, which should probably be simplified for their parts by writing it in Gb, especially since it falls to F. The main problem is that the key signature does not lend itself very well to the piece at hand. Perhaps a transposition is in order, and certainly a more controlled sense of modulation might help the piece flow better. Many of the key signatures do not actually need to be there, and are only there for tonality's sake.

It's not that far from a decent work. Just like most of the pieces on YC, we've put them up for reviews and help in determining what we can do to make them better. Much of what I write I just push myself to get from start to finish, and then worry about polishing it afterwards. Temple just needs a good polishing. Break it down into pieces, and work through it that way. For example, define what each section should be, and then work through each section separately, to build it into a great piece. I'm certain some of us would be able to help you with that if you want, because it's a good start and there's no reason to throw it away. EDIT: As far as measure numbers go, it's understandable for many groups to want to have them (some pieces have measure numbers at the start of systems to help expedite rehearsal as well). As far as a comment from a publisher, I would hold off on using that as a basis. The problem is that while publishers are about 80% similar in what they want to see in a submission, the other 20% is uncertain and should not be used until you know who you would like to have it published by. Formatting is a big problem and should be worried about after a piece is finished, not in the middle of it. However, that's a cosmetic issue. Let's get this piece looking great.

I've never heard the rule that every measure has to be numbered, but if that's become the case, they don't mean every measure of every line. Where did you get that information? You can make measure numbers that appear centered below each measure at the bottom or top of the score, which are easier to read. I'm not certain who told you to separate the Flute parts, or even the Saxophones. Most of the time, you should keep them to the same stave, except if the parts get really horrendous and the lines are just very difficult to read. In that case, you could always utilize another stave for that system to separate the two parts (though that's a bit more work but looks nicer). Were you given a reason why you should separate 2nd and 3rd Clarinets, and if so, what was that reason? I wouldn't see any problem with them being on the same stave. The problem may be one that is certainly not limited to your work, but happens a lot with other pieces on the forums. Are you writing this with your band in mind? If so, then certainly go with your instructor/director on how he'd want the score to look. If that is the case, let us know, as it will affect how we review to a degree.

Before anyone beats me to it, make certain that when you've created a final score, that it's been truncated to a standard setup. Both Flutes should be on one stave, as should the Bassoons, Alto Saxes, Trumpets, and Trombones. I left out the Horns, since you end up separating them into 4 parts. For staves like that, do what you did for Clarinets 2/3 and state whether you want both parts playing or just one. Also, make certain that when you do add percussion, since you only have Timpani and Chimes at the moment, that you truncate those as well. Many of us can help with that, mainly so you don't have to use what appears to be a Legal sized page layout. If you decide to use measure numbers for every measure, which isn't a standard practice, do not place them on all those lines. Another thing is to find some places to place rehearsal markings. Some suggested locations are [13], [25], [32], [51], [69], and [84]. You could add [92], but I don't think that's needed. Okay, to start with, those G flats (in the Oboe/Flute opening) should be F# as you are in G minor. Watch out for this throughout the piece (the written A flats in the Clarinet part at 51 should be G#). However, keep the run in 67-68 the way it is, as it would look nasty otherwise. The long concert G by the Flutes and Clarinet 2 should be marked "stagger breathing", otherwise you'll never have a note sustained that long by a single player. At [32], it just jumps straight into the melody, and doesn't give any sort of foundation before-hand. It's an abrupt jump, but a quick fix (that you can play around with later) is to add two measure in before the melody come in. Those two measure would contain what the Bassoons and Clarinet 2/3 have in measure 32, so we at least get a sense of not only the tempo but also the feel of this portion. The runs into 51 should start at either mezzo-piano or mezzo-forte and crescendo into forte. You have the Brass doing it, so the woodwinds should match it. I'm a little confused in this section anyways. You have forte, followed by two crescendos, with the second crescendo ending in mezzo-piano at measure 61. Take a good look at that section and try to determine what you were going for there. It's certainly possible to swell up, and then immediately drop down to a lower dynamic, but you look like you are building up to something, and then try to pull a fake-out on the audience. That's a dangerous maneuver to pull off in music, and I'm not certain it has a use here, even though there are certainly good times to use it. I agree with the above point that the transition in 67-68 was abrupt, but I think the reason it's abrupt is that it's confusing to the ear what you are trying to do. It appears that you are using G flat major as a resolution to G minor. I'm not certain that is working as well as you were hoping it would. A suggestion might be to keep the F# in the basses, but change the chord to a D major instead. You run would still have the F# to G resolution at the end. There's not much you'd have to do to the run to accommodate this, actually. You can even leave the Db in (as C#), which would resolve to the C (the seventh of the D major chord), and then you can change a few other things (the Gb becomes F#, and the F becomes E natural as a passing tone between the D and F#). This might solidify the resolution. Also, this needs a ritardando. If you want the ending to sound like an organ, you need to put more emphasis on the brass and lower sections. The upper register of the brass sections, when coupled with saxophones, should make an effective organ sound. By adding enough weight to the basses and lower sections, you'll be able to give a similar weight as the organ gives off. Also, look at some music written specifically for the organ to help you see how parts written for that instrument work, and then you can try and find a way to emulate that with the ending of your piece. We all understand that Finale is horrible at the way it sounds, even with the GPO library in there. It's not meant to be perfect, but just to give you an idea of what it can sound like. I'm looking forward to seeing this evolve.

Yeah, it's not perfect, and there's a lot of bugs in using it. Of course, we aren't writing music in the program for playback by the program anyways. That's just a bonus we get for using it. Oh well.

Okay, here's what I did to make it work. And I just tried it, and this was the result. Let me know if this sounds decent enough. The first time is without the choke expression, the second time is with. Here's the "Score" I used to test: Cymbal Choke Test Audio Create a new dynamic expression. Make it blank or whatever you want. When you go to the next tab, "Playback", the Type menu should be set to "Controller", not "Key Velocity". When that's set to "Controller", set the value box immediately to the right of that to 11, which is "Expression". Down below, where you'd normally set the value for a dynamic level, set the value to 0. It should look like this: Afterwards, place it like a normal dynamic (obviously you can move it wherever you want afterwards, if you used text for it). Right click on the box, and hit the first selection, which is "Edit Expression Assignment". Make certain that out of the bottom three selections, it says "Alignment Point". Finale should default to that, and that's okay since we made the expression a dynamic (and therefore, the alignment point is going to be whatever we have it attached to). You could do "position in measure" also, but why add extra work? (Though, keep it in mind if something goes wrong.) And that's all you have to do. You just have to apply it at the point you want it to choke, as I did (see the "score"). However, remember to create another expression and set it to whatever you have the volume for the line set at. So you have one setting the value to "0", as above, and then another setting it to whatever the line's volume control in the mixer is at. I don't know if this is just me, but percussion is always ANNOYINGLY soft (so much so I built a template to have percussion dynamics that are louder to compensate). But I still end up leaving everything at 100, where the mixer starts everything. So, unless you changed the mixer settings, you should be able to duplicate the one you just made for "0", and make one for "100". Remember you have to put this expression in when you want it to start playing again. While you could put the "100" expression immediately after the choke one, the problem is that the cymbal will start sounding again. All the choke expression does is basically hit the mute button, so if it's not done ringing out, hitting the mute button a second time will let you hear what's left. That's why I highly suggest that you wait until the note when the percussion/cymbals start playing again to put the "100". Makes life easier.

That's fine. In my opinion, it really depends on the sound you are trying to achieve (and I'm one of those who grew up with the understanding that any cymbal is suspended, so whether it be ride, crash, or splash, they could all be right). To me, a Crash Roll pierces more than the Splash, but it's whatever you think sounds best for that part. You can remap the percussion in Finale so they all show up the same, and only use the different pitch mappings for the audio (so in a way, a little bit more elbow grease and you can kill two birds with one stone, i.e., make the audio sound good and also make it visually look correct). Now, I know that due to the lack of a standard suspended cymbal being added into Finale's basic information, there's been a good number of samples created to fill that void. I, for one, don't feel the need to go out of my way to get a perfect audio creation. Yes, it's nice and all, but you can't truly see whether a piece works or not until a performance. What I've got has worked well enough to give me an idea of whether the orchestration is working right, so I'm not in a hurry to change it. And yeah, I know the feeling, I'm still trying to find a good way to choke the cymbal. One possible way I just thought of is a bit of work, but might actually pull it off. If you create an expression that sets the volume of the part to 0, and then set it to start at the position in the measure (i.e., where you placed it), then it should choke it off. Of course, you'll have to turn the volume back to some other number afterwards, and follow it with a new dynamic to re-establish the volume level. We can look into that as being an option. Of course, it'll be a blank expression so it doesn't show.

Okay, everyone, let's calm down. Everyone's making a mountain of a molehill. It's escalated from a simple "which cymbal are you meaning here" question to a "hey everybody, I know this person and here's who they are" scenario. The forum is to be used for the critiquing of the music, not the people who create it. Let's leave any possible judgment on a piece or a statement made by someone based on what we may know of the person at the door. Let's make it simple. If people are that worried about audio, try my approach. I create a piece, focusing on the audio first, and then tidy it up before making a final/draft copy of the score. I keep the files separate, which does create more work in a way. I even keep separate files for scores and parts (though that's mostly because I start with a parts file that has every part separate in the score, and then truncate it like I should for a normal score reading). I'm sorry; I noted earlier that the general midi mapping for percussion has a suspended cymbal. However, I think when they programmed the original midi map, they were under the impression that "suspended cymbal" was any cymbal that is freely suspended (that is, nothing touching the actual cymbal portion). However, the modern approach is that there is an actual type of cymbal called "suspended", though I'm not certain if it's a different type of cymbal, or one of the other ones that has been renamed. The one that I use to get a nice effect on the cymbal roll is the Splash Cymbal, which in C major is notated at the G just below middle C. Since your piece is in Db major, the Splash Cymbal would be notated at the Ab just below middle C. What I would suggest doing is what I've become accustomed to using. Create a blank stave, and input the "percussion" part there. For example, you'd put a half-note on the Ab below middle C in measure 12, add the roll, then copy-paste or drag-copy the measure onto the percussion line. It should playback right, and also be correct in the way it appears. Since you don't change keys, you won't have to worry about doing anything more.

Please do not start an argument which has the inherent flaws of Finale's programming as its basis. Finale 2009 has a very steep learning curve to get it to do any sort of fine-tuning, and the Percussion set-up is the most evident. Percussion isn't as easy to input into Finale to both playback correctly and look correctly. It takes a lot of time to learn how to get what you want out of it, so let's take a breather before this gets out of hand. Yes, a score/parts should always notate what type of Cymbals you are using, whether it be on the part itself, or if you intend to use multiple cymbals, at every change in cymbal usage throughout the part. However, it should be remembered that most people who upload their scores for critique can forget that while they've managed to write Percussion so it plays back correctly, they still need to provide this information. It's not uncommon, and there's no reason to fight about it. You make a mistake, somebody lets you know, and you fix it for next time. Live and learn. Now, Finale does have a suspended cymbal, it's just buried in the midi mapping. The problem with Finale's percussion set up is that it treats the midi mapping of percussion as a normal instrument, which it should. So, most people know that a D2 is a snare drum, if you are familiar with midi mapping. However, here's the catch: the D2 is a snare drum only in C major. There's most of the problem. Say the key signature changes to F major. Non-pitched percussion does not utilize key signatures, but Finale stores the data just like it would for any other instrument. So the D2 for C major now becomes a G2 in F major. So you can't just hit a note anymore and have it input correctly. If you want, I'll look up the suspended cymbal and let you know what note it would be.