Symphony No. 1

Spitfire is industry standard so it's weird you haven't across anyone. They are probably the biggest producer of sample libraries.

Taking a MIDI-file from Sibelius may be the fastest way but not the best way. To be convincing you should learn to play your libraries like an instrument. Get a feel for how they react and what they don't react to. Then play in ALL the parts as if you were that instrument or section in the orchestra. Even if that means practicing a certain passage several times, recording it in a slower tempo or playing a gliss on all the white keys and then transposing the notes that may have an accidental.

I did that for the mock-up here: 

Even if it's only about a minute it took me an hour to do all that.

I don't really have any other advice. My personal preference is to turn the on board reverb off on all libraries from Spitfire, ProjectSAM, CineSamples you name it. Then I can use my own reverb plug-in like the Exponential Audio R4 or Relab LX480. This way all my sample libraries get the same hall.

BTW: are you Icelandic?

23 minutes ago, bryla said:

Spitfire is industry standard so it's weird you haven't across anyone. They are probably the biggest producer of sample libraries.

Taking a MIDI-file from Sibelius may be the fastest way but not the best way. To be convincing you should learn to play your libraries like an instrument. Get a feel for how they react and what they don't react to. Then play in ALL the parts as if you were that instrument or section in the orchestra. Even if that means practicing a certain passage several times, recording it in a slower tempo or playing a gliss on all the white keys and then transposing the notes that may have an accidental.

I did that for the mock-up here: 

Even if it's only about a minute it took me an hour to do all that.

I don't really have any other advice. My personal preference is to turn the on board reverb off on all libraries from Spitfire, ProjectSAM, CineSamples you name it. Then I can use my own reverb plug-in like the Exponential Audio R4 or Relab LX480. This way all my sample libraries get the same hall.

Thank you, Bryla. This is great advice, and not stuff I've ever had the motivation to sit down and figure out. I'm going to work on this today and see what I can turn out!

You're welcome! And don't be discouraged. Take a smalle section of a single movement – maybe one that doesn't feature many instruments and try the techniques.

On 5/5/2020 at 5:23 PM, Tónskáld said:

Thank you for the kind remarks! I also think it's the best work I've put out thus far, but I owe a lot of this to inspiration, and there are parts of it I'm not yet 100% satisfied with. I feel I'm still trying to find my own voice as a composer, and my music (to me) seems reactive to that rather than a perfect outflow of my creative core. In other words, I'm more concerned with it not sounding like another composer than I am with just writing what comes to me. I don't know... maybe I'm closer to my musical "true north" than I realize—or I could be farther away!

It's a tough balance to strike, at least for me. One of my primary aims is to write emotive music: music that plumbs the dark depths of human experience but that also soars to our joys and victories. My other primary aim is to write music that's innovative, new or different—but that still "works" as music. The two goals may be mutually exclusive. I guess we'll see where this composing journey takes me, lol.

In any case, thanks again for taking the time to listen. That means a lot to me!

Hello Jörfi,

I would say: Don´t be worried about and don´t force yourself into “finding your own voice” and having to write “innovative, new or different music”. These things will develop all by itself, and I think that you are doing fine here.  To give in for the (often unspoken) pressure of the musical society of today about the “demands” for originality can be quite counter-productive.  Producing original, innovative and new music does not necessarily mean that this music is good. Often it is not good at all, and tragically, the composers of such music know it themselves. Frequently, this is revealed if they mainly discuss the theoretical aspects of their pieces.   

 I think that the two primary issues are: 1) Write music which you really like, regardless of style, and let your creative flow be your guidance.  What other people think of your pieces is in fact of secondary importance. 2) Be very critical about your work, and improve, review, improve again and make changes wherever you discover this to be effective (I think that this is the laborious and time-consuming part of composing).  Of course, serious suggestions and advice from other people can be extremely valuable, but be critical when judging the usefulness of these suggestions.      

Did some mixing changes at the behest of @bryla. Nothing new added, just broke the symphony out by sections and refined the sounds a bit:

6 hours ago, panta rei said:

Hello Jörfi,

I would say: Don´t be worried about and don´t force yourself into “finding your own voice” and having to write “innovative, new or different music”. These things will develop all by itself, and I think that you are doing fine here.  To give in for the (often unspoken) pressure of the musical society of today about the “demands” for originality can be quite counter-productive.  Producing original, innovative and new music does not necessarily mean that this music is good. Often it is not good at all, and tragically, the composers of such music know it themselves. Frequently, this is revealed if they mainly discuss the theoretical aspects of their pieces.   

 

 I think that the two primary issues are: 1) Write music which you really like, regardless of style, and let your creative flow be your guidance.  What other people think of your pieces is in fact of secondary importance. 2) Be very critical about your work, and improve, review, improve again and make changes wherever you discover this to be effective (I think that this is the laborious and time-consuming part of composing).  Of course, serious suggestions and advice from other people can be extremely valuable, but be critical when judging the usefulness of these suggestions.   

Thanks for the advice and well-wishing! I agree with you 100%.

Much better balance! This might cause you to rethink orchestration since the balance now has changed but it would only cause you to do it in more the samme way as if you had handed the parts to an orchestra.

The story behind the symphony remainds me to "The Lord of the Flies" that basically is more or less is a simillar concept to yours (children stuck alone in an island with no adults). It is funny how when I started to listen to the symphony it just reminded me the setting of "The Lord of the Flies". I think you have accomplished a very well job in the sense of "story telling" or the in other words the concept begind the piece.

4 hours ago, bryla said:

Much better balance! This might cause you to rethink orchestration since the balance now has changed but it would only cause you to do it in more the samme way as if you had handed the parts to an orchestra.

 

Exactly! I've already found a couple of trouble spots that I'm going to tweak in the score. Plus, it sounds like my clarinet and horns had the hiccups in some parts... I'll have to re-record those. Other than that, I'm very pleased with the way it sounds.

Thanks again for your help, friend!

2 hours ago, Hendrik Meniere said:

The story behind the symphony remainds me to "The Lord of the Flies" that basically is more or less is a simillar concept to yours (children stuck alone in an island with no adults). It is funny how when I started to listen to the symphony it just reminded me the setting of "The Lord of the Flies". I think you have accomplished a very well job in the sense of "story telling" or the in other words the concept begind the piece.

Hey, I like that a lot! To me, the story of this symphony speaks to perseverence through despair. The piece opens and closes with a diminished fifth statement from the brass, symbolizing the emergence and eventual facing of our fears. The tritone motif, which is also constructed around the dim5/aug4, threads its way throughout the entirety of the symphony, appearing as a theme in each section. This represents how pervasive our fears can be, even if we don't realize it.

I own that it's a dark-sounding symphony, with little reprieve from the dissonance. However, I think that it speaks to the human experience—and that was my goal. I wanted this to be achingly beautiful, full of yearning amid the chaos. The best way I know to do that is to make the beauty as covert and subtle as possible, and surround it with un-beauty. Maybe I succeeded and maybe I didn't, but it was definitely and enjoyable and worthwhile effort!

Thanks again for your kind comments, Hendrik!

Here, finally, is the score. Let me know if you see anything that needs addressed.

I feel really bad for the harpist; s/he doesn't get much action outside of the middle section. Any advice there?

Thanks in advance!

Notationwise first page:

- group piccolos and flutes with sub-brackets (the same goes for cor anglais and oboes and so on). You need to label which of the three flutes belong to which of the two staves – again, goes for all winds. Label each entrance whether it's all three 'a3', just 1&2 or only 2 for example. Use those designations and write more single stemmed to avoid clutter. Piccolos bar 4 and clarinets bar 5 could both clearly be written in a single stem. Bottom line is: be clear on your distribution. 

- horns first entrance just write 'a2' for example and don't write those notes in bass clef. Which leads me to: is this concert or transposed? If you don't use key signatures, it should be clearly stated.

- remember to put a dynamic at the beginning or end of a hairpin. You don't need one in the end if the hairpin has a modifier like 'molto' or 'poco' for example.

- You have a lot of white space in the margins. Decrease that and increase staff size. Make room between the staves so no text or notes get squashed.

- fewer bars per page!

- place a bar number on every system. with fewer bars per page and rehearsal mark, that is enough and clear. Also loose the circle enclosure.

- Timpanis bracket together (in this rare instance where they actually bracket). And don't write their pitches. Don't tie tremolo notes.

- bracket ALL other percussion and remember that barlines run through every bracket.

- don't use symbols for mallets and don't write 'wood'. Write soft, medium or hard mallets or sticks. (soft wood made me giggle! - on zooming in I realized it said soft wool and only THEN noticed that you had piattis as well - label them! don't use symbols.). Same goes for the cymbal symbol. Write 'Susp. Cym.'

- place the ff's in percussion carefully.

- break those string slurs up.

- what does spp mean in strings? If you mean subito then write 'pp sub.' And don't write the sub. in cello/bass since they didn't play anything before. Also don't tie tremolos there.

- Strings go p<sp? Doesn't make sense. Also they crescendo over an eight note rest? Careful here.....

- don't use 'sim.' for anything. Copy it out. That was only valid for handwritten scores.

So that was only the first page and glancing through the next couple of pages I can see these points are valid throughout. Remember also to number players on staves on subsequent pages and remember to use octave lines for harp when necessary.

@bryla Ok, now I have thousands of questions... let me sort through some of these (amazing!) pointers and I'll post some of my follow-ups.

Please do 🙂 See how I label staves here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lvhwqm86v79s1b7/OTL - CONCERT SCORE.pdf?dl=0

10 minutes ago, bryla said:

Please do 🙂 See how I label staves here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lvhwqm86v79s1b7/OTL - CONCERT SCORE.pdf?dl=0

Ah, yes. That looks very clean! I like how the bars bar numbers are put in boxes at the bottom of the score.

Here come some questions:

17 minutes ago, bryla said:

Which leads me to: is this concert or transposed? If you don't use key signatures, it should be clearly stated.

Transposed. Where does one generally indicate this on the score?

17 minutes ago, bryla said:

- don't use symbols for mallets and don't write 'wood'. Write soft, medium or hard mallets or sticks. (soft wood made me giggle! - on zooming in I realized it said soft wool and only THEN noticed that you had piattis as well - label them! don't use symbols.). Same goes for the cymbal symbol. Write 'Susp. Cym.'

I thought those symbols looked silly. I was copying the notation style of some online orchestra library. Either way, I like the written words better.

Would it be better to put the Piatti and Suspended cymbals on separate lines?

17 minutes ago, bryla said:

- what does spp mean in strings? If you mean subito then write 'pp sub.'

Ugh, I was hoping that was accepted shorthand. I have to create two separate text boxes in Sibelius to write pp sub. Takes forever...

17 minutes ago, bryla said:

Also they crescendo over an eight note rest? Careful here.....

I don't see where you're talking about here...

17 minutes ago, bryla said:

- don't use 'sim.' for anything. Copy it out. That was only valid for handwritten scores.

Imma die. Or Imma hire someone to do all this for me. 😫

Jk. I appreciate the pointers. I love how your score looked. Now I'm going to work on making mine look clean like that, too.

See where I wrote CONCERT SCORE top left - that's where you put transposed score.

Symbols for percussion have never been accepted by orchestras. Write them per player.

pp sub. can be written in a single command. Just hold down ctrl (cmd on mac) only when writing pp. Release ctrl/cmd press space and type sub.

Bar 14 strings has the cresc. over a rest. (You made me count 14 bars!! takes too long in rehearsal 😉

There are ways to copy articulations only.

Just now, bryla said:

pp sub. can be written in a single command. Just hold down ctrl (cmd on mac) only when writing pp. Release ctrl/cmd press space and type sub.

You jest. That's a gamechanger.

2 minutes ago, bryla said:

Bar 14 strings has the cresc. over a rest. (You made me count 14 bars!! takes too long in rehearsal 😉

Oh, I see. Will address that.

wow... insanely good! Very thrilling. I imagine you saying "you wouldn't like me when I'm Tonskald" to this lol.

1 hour ago, Left Unexplained said:

wow... insanely good! Very thrilling. I imagine you saying "you wouldn't like me when I'm Tonskald" to this lol.

Now, @Left Unexplained... you wouldn't like me when I'm Tónskáld.

New and improved score. This is much easier to read. Thanks to @bryla for the awesome pointers!

Score looks good. I would definitely implement the per section/bigger time signatures, though.

10 minutes ago, Monarcheon said:

Score looks good. I would definitely implement the per section/bigger time signatures, though.

Ah, I know what you're talking about. I will see what I can do with Sibelius.

Yeah, it's just becoming orchestral standard, most likely for good reason, but it does admittedly have issues when you need polymetric rhythms.

Better looking score by far - but don't miss my other pointers. I would advise you to study string slurring and player labelling/indication. It's still a mess some places. And don't call it Piatti a2 unless you're writing for Hollywood... they are weird some times.

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.