Search the Community

I just finished up my Christmas composition project. Here's a two minute piece on the topic of "you need to define a thing to be able to think about a thing, so that you have a word to attach your thoughts to." Apparently blue is the last color to gain a word in any language. There are still languages that haven't evolved a word for the concept of "blueness" yet. One theory is that color words appear as we need to be able to distinguish between things that we want to buy, sell, or trade: "Yeah, I can make you a new deer skinning knife. What color do you want the handle to be?" "Blue." Because blue paints and dyes are relatively difficult to produce, compared with other colors, cultures don't develop a word for "blue" until they are pretty advanced. The cultures that don't have a word for it, interestingly have a hard time seeing and thinking about it as well. Scientists have done experiments where they have say, three green squares and one blue one, and ask these language users to pick out the square that is not like the others, and people have a very difficult time with the task. It seems that our brains need a word to attach a concept to in order to think about the concept. We need to think using our interior monologue. Actual language has to be running inside or outside of our heads in order for us to think in any meaningful way. It's an explanation for why you can't do basic math and listen to someone having a conversation involving numbers at the same time. So get out there and learn the names of things, any kinds of things, and your basic thought processes will deepen. I'd suggest that you open the score while you listen so you can see how the text fits the notes, or click the youtube link below. It has the score scrolling along behind the music. And I used a harp sound instead of piano, because all the piano sound fonts that come with my composition software are pretty clunky, but I do intend this to be piano accompaniment. Thanks for listening and I'd love to hear any thoughts about this piece! Furtak-Semantic.mid

I'm sure that most of you know that writing out music is very time consuming, whether you're spending 20 minutes on drawing your staff neatly for your notes to sit on, or constantly erasing notes on Finale because your mouse slipped by a centimeter and placed a Snare Drum buzz roll instead of a rim shot. Over the years of composing marching percussion music, I've developed another method of composing music that may prove useful to composers with limited time. Because this is so different in comparison to the notation that has always been used throughout the history of music, this probably won't gain any popularity at all among percussion composers. But I guess this is worth a shot, since it works for me, and might work for you. So let me begin presenting to you what I call the "Alphabet Notation" for rhythm or percussion. This is what one measure of rest looks like: / [ . . . . ] [ . . . . ] [ . . . . ] [ . . . . ] / / = measure bar [] = one count . = 16th subdivision of a measure A note's value is determined by the number of "." subdivisions that follow it (A 1/16th note having no following subdivisions, an 1/8th note having one following subdivision, and a 1/4 note having 3). Keep in mind that one count can fit four 16th notes in it. The classic "Eights" warm-up would look like this: TD (4/4) / [ 1 . 1 . ] [ 1 . 1 . ] [ 1 . 1 . ] [ 1 . 1 . ] / [ 2 . 2 . ] [ 2 . 2 . ] [ 2 . 2 . ] [ 2 . 2 . ] / And so on... BD (4/4) / [ 1 . 1 . ] [ 1 . 1 . ] [ 1 . 1 . ] [ 1 . 1 . ] / [ 2 . 2 . ] [ 2 . 2 . ] [ 2 . 2 . ] [ 2 . 2 . ] / And so on... SD (4/4) / [ R . R . ] [ R . R . ] [ R . R . ] [ R . R . ] / [ L . L . ] [ L . L . ] [ L . L . ] [ L . L . ] / And so on... For tenor and bassline, notes are represented by numbers corresponding to drum size. s = Spock Drum 1 S = Spock Drum 2 5 = Bass 5 X = rimshot x = stick click r = on the rim For snareline: R/L = right or left hand for each note Rr/Ll = flam notes Rz/Lz = buzzed notes X = rimshot x = stick click r = on the rim Tremolo is tricky, but hear me out. As most of you know, a tremolo line divides the notes value by two and fills the original value with notes of the new value. (A 1/4 note with a tremolo sounds like two eight notes; an 1/8th note with a tremolo sounds like two 16th notes.) In alphabet notation, consider this and maintain the count's value of four 16th subdivisions. When adding tremolo lines in this notation, you need to cancel out the subdivisions that the sound of the tremolo note goes over in that count. For example: (4/4) / [ R . L . ] [ R . L . ] [ R, L, ] [ R, L, ] // The first two counts are normal. But on counts three and four, you can see that I didn't include the second and fourth subdivisions on that count. That's because with the "," tremolo line, the eight note's value doubles into the next subdivision. Applying this concept may become increasingly difficult with drags on 16th notes, thus creating 32nd notes. To put it somewhat simple, you eliminate the "." subdivision that is played over with the preceding tremolo note. Two tremolo lines indicate a double stroke roll, which is basically 32nd notes filling the value of the original note. When placing two tremolo lines on a "[ R . . . ]" quarter note, you would write [ R,, ] since the entire count is played through, leaving no room for "." subdivisions. When placing two tremolo lines on "[ R . R .]" one of two 1/8th notes, you would write [R,, R . ] since the roll fills the 1/8th note value, leaving no room for the subdivision after the "R." Moving on, triplet figures indicated by underlining. For example, (4/4) / [ R L R L R L ] [ R . R L L ] [[ R Rl Rl ]] / [ R L R ] [ L R L ] [ R . . . ] [ R L L ] / [ R . . . ] [ . . . . ] [ . . . . ] [ . . . . ] // **Envision the bracket topped with a "3" that indicates a triplet figure in traditional notation.** The first count in the first measure presents a sextuplet figure, while the second count presents an regular 1/8th note followed by a triplet figure of 1/8th notes. For figures that last more than one count, you can combine the count brackets like I did in the first measure. It presents a triplet figure of quarter notes in the third and fourth counts. And in the second measure, the first, second and fourth counts present 1/8th note triplet figures, with a regular quarter note on the third count. Time signature in boldface preceding the first measure. Dynamics can be placed before the count in which it should be expressed in italics or cursive. Crescendos/Decrescendos between counts. For example: TD (4/4) / f [ 1 . 2 2 ] [ 3 . 4 . ] [ 3, 2, ] [ 1, S . ] / [ 1 1 1, ] > [ 2 2 2, ] > [ 3 3 3, ] > [ 4 4 4, ] > / p [ 4 . 4 4 ] [ . 4 4 . ] [ 4 . . . ] [ . . . . ] // >/< = crescendo or decrescendo And Accents indicated by bold faced notes. I'm sure most of you understand that one count consists of 4 16th subdivisions. That's basically what this notation is based on. There are no rests, you're pretty much looking at the subdivisions for each count and plugging in the notes from there. I believe this can make music translatable through keyboard without needing a special program. And when writing music by hand, this can safe the time-consuming preparations, like drawing the 5-line staff. And this is new, so of course, there's tons of room for evolution if Alphabet Notation turns out useful to anyone else.

When I'm composing for full orchestra, I often find that I have trouble writing parts for the Woodwind section. These are some of my favorite instruments as far as their sound goes, but I just can't seem to write very "elaborate" or "high quality" sounding parts for them. Any tips or tricks would be appreciated. Thanks!

Hey, So I am using Finale 2012 to write sheet music, and I recently came across a small presentational dilemma concerning accidentals. This is the choice I have to make: do I use a double flat, or do I use multiple flats and naturals? I know that when I read music, I hate trying to negotiate with double flats, but I think that the music would look very cluttered otherwise. I hope that makes sense.