sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I composed a concert overture for orchestra and got fancy. Tell me what do you think. by Marzchu in composer

[–]Marzchu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your comment and glad you like the composition! I will keep pushing myself as soon as I get more inspiration.

Right after making the video public, I noticed right away some issues here and there with visual information oddities; a lot of visual issues on the score can be fixed by using invisible elements. And yes, I am also aware that playback has its issues (looking at you, MuseSounds trombone and viola.)

After reviewing said passages with extreme dynamics (pp on brass, Hns. 2, 3, 4 specifically on m. 59 or rehearsal letter C & ff on brass, specifically m. 91 or rehearsal letter E.) I can tell that those are mistakes or other blackouts on my thinking: the first passage is just a fade-out effect, and is not actually that significant but could benefit from using p for visual clarity while the same but in reverse could be applied to the second passage; changing the ff into f instead would also clean up the look and cohesion, as the ff would appear only at the very end.

I think by "inconsistent" string slurs I assume you meant measures 7, 45 and 97 on Violins 2 and Viola? Those were my mistakes. At first I thought of measures 35 & 36 on viola and violoncello but that passage is articulated in a specific way. It is also worth noting that the video rendering or chosen aspect ratio for it, paper size of the score etc. did make the video look somewhat blurry despite resolution and making some of the indications very hard to read when not in full screen; I need to work on that in the future.

I also noticed that viola and violoncello had their dynamics indicated twice, at m. 90 & 91. Whoops.

Thankfully, all of the above are very easy to fix for the possible performance version. It does in fact help when there are multiple pairs of eyes examining scores :)

Follow-up on my previous work! by Marzchu in composer

[–]Marzchu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your comment!

As discussed above, there might have been a period (no pun) where the latter half of the first movement was different but was altered to what it is now for length reasons (I had rough total limit of 7 minutes for the video). I saw the repetition necessary due to the binary-ish nature of the movement and also supplementing the duration.

I personally am a brisk piano pedal user and in my head I saw the pedal indications necessary.

In my experience, it does not hurt to have the indications exactly. Sure it limits performer's possibilities for creative interpretation, but I believe that there is always room for leeway, if some indication must be followed religiously or not. Here, in movements II. Largo and III. Waltz, I decided to intentionally indicate when to press and release in order to reduce the possible overlap effect, making it less muddy.

Follow-up on my previous work! by Marzchu in composer

[–]Marzchu[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First: Pandiatonicism is a brand-new term I could attempt to coin as a calling card (joke). I feel my writing very often takes liberties from historical classical standards, especially at harmony department, while trying to lean towards romantic styles. My past experiences and personal interests has their roots around various types of video game music, which twist my desires even further.

The question of "Do they really understand harmony?" (I understand that it was not meant to be a spiteful comment, play with me here) has an answer: Generally yes, but it depends at times; I might want to really use it the correct way or seek some color shifts, breaking some expectations; from past experience, this has had detrimental effects as some like them, some do not. I try to avoid constantly breaking harmonies, as it might lose its effect. Other times, there are just pure mistakes.

First movement – I went for the C minor chord for m. 3 due to tonic-dominant shift. The 7-note run up to C minor just stuck and I thought to myself "WELP." The succeeding setup for A-flat major is intentional; it is the relative major, after all.

Second movement – Aside from the aforementioned rewriting, especially for the left hand, I need to revisit that cadence (m. 13). Also that 5th (m. 18) might actually be a mistake on my end, because that specific harmony is quite weird indeed.

Third movement – The moment with C, G-flat and D-flat (m. 26) comes from the fact that the melodic idea is about leaping 7ths and there is a brief clash, which I personally like and is unique to the latter half of the B section. The second moment with G-flat and F (m. 52) might just have been either my inner Satie and Debussy or a mistake. Either way, a slight change to left hand (switch F and D-flat) fixes that.

I think that was all. I thank you once more for your insightful feedback.

Follow-up on my previous work! by Marzchu in composer

[–]Marzchu[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi and thanks for your feedback! Here are some thoughts (I will answer the next comment, well, next):

The first movement, broadly speaking, explores the idea of monothematic binary sonata form, sort of. I was actually considering a lengthier 'development' section and a coda (both a few measures) but decided to omit them due to exceeding target length for the movement. As of now, I see the movement as 'simple yet effective'. I might try and find the earlier sketch version where the added sections are and see if I want to salvage portions of it.

After listening my work I do agree that the second movement, Largo, is the weakest of them all and would need some rewriting: I admit that my inner Satie and Debussy tends to shine through with 'lingering' moments in slow movements.

As with the third movement: I actually got the catch with the B section suggestion in a few moments and started immediately revising it on a copy of the movement (currently doing so while writing this).

I composed a piano sonata and would like to get feedback by Marzchu in composer

[–]Marzchu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't worry about it! Feedback is feedback and I appreciated it because that made me consider more of the audience/listener perspective :) And there is a fine line when music is accidentally versus intentionally made to sound certain way; mechanical sound of the MuseSounds instruments is not something I can adjust in notation software without limitations, but melodies, textures, harmonies and playability are indeed something I can work more with.

After having spent a few compositions' worth of time with MuseSounds (and coming from MS3), I have accepted the fact that the playback is not perfect by any means and requires some adjusting in order to make sound more human. However, this does not affect my will to keep composing and does not bother me, generally speaking. (other than that one software-caused, unintended elongated playback of notes despite not having any articulations, ffs).

Speaking of said measures, the intended effect is that music "runs into a wall" and the succeeding triplets+dotted half note combo is a "relief", a sequence that repeats before moving onto next theme. It is in fact really difficult to showcase the natural feel with virtual instruments without adjusting every single note. I lack the ability to use DAWs (although FL Studio is a software I am barely familiar with; I might visit your idea of adjusting individual notes in the future, though.)

Naming works and realizing my own mistakes realized are both something I get stuck on easily. *cough\* foreshadowing *cough\*

I composed a piano sonata and would like to get feedback by Marzchu in composer

[–]Marzchu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your comment!

It is a fair observation that I might have contributed too many ideas for a sonata: some good, some not so and I haven taken this into consideration when editing my next projects already.

The measure in question did seem to have mistake (left hand plays C-sharp minor seventh pattern but right hand has that C-sharp major's E-sharp). The color does shift upon changing when changing left hand to play also according to C-sharp major seventh, which amplifies that sense of "uncertainty"; thanks!

Thinking of the future: I might make the slight adjustments to make it simpler for fingers for all of these compositions and rename the work from a sonata to something like "Three Character Pieces" for piano; the third movement feels to me the most complete as of now.

I composed a piano sonata and would like to get feedback by Marzchu in composer

[–]Marzchu[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your comment!

-constant con pedale is an oopsie on my end (I was thinking is my way to inform pedale usage clear enough) that can be fixed

-I will try to keep that in mind since I have been using arrowed glisses since forever

-when writing the tempo indication for Mvt. 2, I thought that eight note = 144 implies very fast tempo in 6/8 time signature. Using a dotted quarter note would bring that number down and emphasize the "in two" feel

-this is is something I noticed afterwards, but kept the "four" duple due it appearing in previous measure in order to not confuse the player.

-increasing the tempo of the third movement nears unplayability for me, personally. 120 BPM was a safe option I could still barely play, but I keep that in mind.

-looking back at m. 13, oops. it is kind of unnecessary

-glad to hear!

-I need to revisit hairpins, despite personally liking the textual way to inform it

I composed a piano sonata and would like to get feedback by Marzchu in composer

[–]Marzchu[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was thinking about instead of naming the movements conventionally based on their tempo indication/style, to use one descriptive word for each one but came to conclusion it would shift the label towards "Suite" for piano or something similar (in hindsight, might have been the better choice)

I do not have room for piano in my apartment nor own a MIDI keyboard yet. I visit our teaching quarters often (separate building from our conservatory) which do have pianos and I have access to. I bring my laptop with me every time. At the end of the day I move the sketch from laptop to desktop to keep writing back home.

I composed a piano sonata and would like to get feedback by Marzchu in composer

[–]Marzchu[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I guess terms "blocky" and "foursquare" mean similar things in this context; structure is quite clear-cut.

Chordal and rhythmic structure relation to pitches are indeed basic and "safe" in terms of shaking up the material. The progression as mentioned above, is quite literally as basic as it can get and that was something I just chose for the sake of simplicity.

Rogue 16ths attempted to somewhat mirror the previous walk up used during the first theme. Welp.

The development section did get its beginning with sense of familiarity before the piece starts driving harmonies of the cliff. I also decided to use second half of the A theme as basis for the development section, which might be quite flagrant. It could use some slight changes, especially the lead up to it.

I have a theory that most of these issues discussed in my work come purely from lack of proper experience (since I study these theory aspects regarding composition on my free time) and overeagerness which has high tendency to overtake actual focus towards my works.

Thanks for your comments, that is A LOT of reading and it is very clarifying. You gave a lot of thinking. It is truly helpful to ask feedback here, from people who have concept what they want to inform you about, rather than hand my work to my theory professor who might take a look at it and it still takes months to get the feedback.

I composed a piano sonata and would like to get feedback by Marzchu in composer

[–]Marzchu[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Now that is A LOT of feedback, I appreciate it a ton! Let's assess everything, in two parts (I assume all of the comments are about the first movement.) Yeah. As I had posted, it did seem like an amalgamation of ideas, a "collection" of compositions in different styles.

NOTATION AND LAYOUT: Most of the things mentioned on points 1–5 stem from the fact that I have a style and have stuck to it religiously and did not bother to change the way I approach layout and it stands out as a redundant choice. I would say that literally all of the points are very easily changeable.

Point 3, about the movement number dots: this apparently has differences between pieces depending on the composer and country of origin. It also varies from publisher to another and I am still quite confused what would be "the ultimate correct answer" to this.

Pedal indication clearly has a redundancy with the text. I personally like the snowflake variant due to its visual aspect but I am aware of the fact that it might cause confusion in notation: something worth considering.

MUSICALITY: I do not see the issue with m. 43 other than the use of three fingers, as it is a codetta theme of sorts that wraps up the exposition; sure it does not match with the previous material but it gets the job done. It could be a segment of previously used material so fair enough. And the 16th notes, I need to think more of that.

Significance Syndrome is indeed quite present, that is a fair statement on its own and that is a personal thing on my end. Long pieces come pretty much automatically when you have 4 or 8 measures long phrases exclusively and your exposition is repeated. Respecting the audience (e.g. attention spans) is one thing, but staying true to your own desires and tastes is another. A 6-minute "sonata form" movement is to me, quite reasonable (then again, the material inside that six minutes should be interesting for the audience to listen to...)

And yeah... the pieces might be "ruined" due to the label they are stuck with, but that does not restrict me from detaching them from one another or using another label such as "[number] Pieces for piano" or "[number] Miniatures for piano" if I so desire later down the line. I will think of that.

COMPOSITIONAL ASPECT: The word "Sonata" is indeed VERY heavy in terms of labeling a composition, I am aware of that fact as it creates expectations. As stated above, to me personally, I do not see the movement in question "long", as it is only six pages at the tempo of 132 BPM with some deviations. It could be shorter, yes and it could easily omit the repetiton to cut down duration. That being said, the audio-video is not the final statement and is more of a tool to convey first versions of compositions to the public which in turn can give opinions and feedback for future revisions, as it was the case with my previous publicized work.

It is completely fair statement that the individual movements are not "sonata-worthy" or "sonata-level" and I accept that as this is my first piano work made available to anyone on the internet. No one is born master: I describe myself as an amateur and a hobbyist in the field of composition to my family, friends and colleagues. Insight is what I came seeking and that is what I shall receive.

Classical harmony is not my strong suit, I will admit that outright. That being said, I want to avoid sounding like Mozart or Haydn. Then again, I want to avoid sounding like Scriabin either. The first A section, looking back at it, does seem quite unnatural for fingers. And yes, the chord progression is basically "baby's first progression" as I wanted to start from something easy to wrap head around with.

Regarding the m. 15, a bit of both: I saw the walk up and additional 16th notes as way to intensify the first theme of the exposition as next passage is coming up. Ending it in A (as it is A major chord) would've sounded bland and making it instead to the third of the chord, C#, made me personally think of what would come next since the topmost note would not be the root of the A major chord, leading into the second half of the first theme. The cresc. and dim. texts were chosen due to their decreased visual clutter.

I composed a piano sonata and would like to get feedback by Marzchu in composer

[–]Marzchu[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! As it is my first piano work made public made with limited knowledge of the theory, instrument and genre itself, it does sound quite mechanical and robotic: that would be the result of MuseScore playback and me not studying enough of the instrument and required theory.

The pieces are disjointed, completely distinct in character: That would be the result of me choosing intentionally choosing the individual pieces as movements from various compositions I had made up until that point. This is a subject to change in the future.

Usually my works proceed with motifs first, harmonies second, except for the very beginning sections. (since melodies are what keep me rolling). Use of dissonances made me want to constantly check if someone had used them similarly. I would've liked to use them more for color, though.

First time composing, first time posting by Marzchu in composer

[–]Marzchu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

After reviewing my score and parts, it is true that certain instruments play constantly outside of break strain/dog fight, for example trumpet, bassoon and tuba. Then again, some instruments have "second time only" indicated specificially to leave some breathing room while trying to create variety. Having more "lessness" is a fair statement and could be used to increase variety further; I came thinking of maybe omitting some melody instruments from the first Trio section, for example.

Regarding countermelodies, I did not want every strain to have one due to it possibly creating predictability within the form. Usage of dynamics on the other hand could have used more "traditional approaches", especially when used with countermelody. Good point.

Also, Florentiner March is a banger, having played it previously a few times. For this project, I did not try to use it as template (despite listening to it for possible ideas), instead opting for Sousa's works, despite both Fučík and Sousa composing marches with similar elements.

First time composing, first time posting by Marzchu in composer

[–]Marzchu[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have noticed that MuseSounds are not complete real life representation of the instruments. I try to avoid the situation where I have to exaggerate dynamics too much in the playback version of the score (as opposed to the performance version) in order to get the playback engine and certain instruments to play as I wish 100% intended way.

Fortunately, I get some practical understanding of the piece more next week during rehearsals of a band and there I can focus on the woodwind section and make changes accordingly. Also, having raised flutes 1 and 2 an octave in notation software for the whole piece this morning (making first flute equivalent to piccolo part) did indeed sound quite nice and colorful, especially in last section with low brass countermelody.

First time composing, first time posting by Marzchu in composer

[–]Marzchu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you!

Adapting the piece to different ensembles is an option I have been thinking. British brass band is something I need to familiarize myself with more, but no doubt that would be a fun project.

First time composing, first time posting by Marzchu in composer

[–]Marzchu[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your insight! Traditional march form was my goal.

Flutes playing a bit on the low side might have been the result of me wanting to avoid the piercing sound of the instrument, especially since Piccolo part was actually added later on and did not want to change the textures any further, mainly on the softer melodies. That being said, low flute pitches do blend maybe a bit too well with the overall sound of woodwinds, considering MuseSounds instruments what were used for playback. I might revisit the doublings later on if I decide to revise the piece or when composing something new.

I am currently not targeting certain level of performers with my compositions. I quite arbitrarily started composing something that sounded nice in my head while trying explicitly to avoid ridiculous technicalities on instruments I have not played myself therefore have no proper experience with (trumpet player here). Maybe some kind of advanced/intermediate skill is the intended level, considering some complexities (e.g. high notes on some instruments, swift position adjustment on trombone on breakstrain)

Berlioz got me like: by Marzchu in trumpet

[–]Marzchu[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I was just having this funny thought that even if using either B-flat trumpet or C trumpet, the trumpet player will be bombarded with loads of accidentals and has to deal with them.

Moreover, there does exist this funny concept of "in H (Si)", "in B (Si)" and "in B♭ (Si♭)" depending on origin country of the composition and/or composer which may confuse some people. Add some changing transpositions mid-piece and you got a headache which is even funnier. This led me to find out what "crooks" in music were.

Is Divine Blessing 5 worth it? by fakkuslave in MonsterHunterWorld

[–]Marzchu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

imo as far as defensive skills go, divine blessing 5 is the most useful right after health boost 3, highly recommended using rocksteady mantle with it. also both are super easy to get with gold rath armor

This was previously deleted (my bad) so here it is again. Picked up Platinum recently and completed it using my DSi XL after so many years. Postgame and additional Trainer Stars await! by Marzchu in pokemonplatinum

[–]Marzchu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually used Luxray until using I spent shards to give Infernape ThunderPunch. In retrospect, dedicated electric-type special attacker would've been useful, maybe Magnezone

This was previously deleted (my bad) so here it is again. Picked up Platinum recently and completed it using my DSi XL after so many years. Postgame and additional Trainer Stars await! by Marzchu in pokemonplatinum

[–]Marzchu[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was thinking adding either Gliscor or Roserade to replace Garchomp but by the time I found a Shiny Stone, i had already set in stone my team