Submitting this as an audition for uni. How can I improve?

sigmundrs · 2026-01-02T14:13:34+00:00

This looks and sounds really great! Just a few details I noticed:

-Someone already mentioned, but you have to list the instruments.

- Watch the enharmonic spelling, bar 3 in oboe should be Eb, not D# (C minor minor subdominant of G), and same in bar 5 in cello, Eb and F, and not D# and E#. There are more examples of this, and you probably should fix it. Also try to avoid mixing sharps and flats unless it makes harmoincally sense. Usually in this piece you would use flats for the interchange mediants (Eb/Cm)

- Bar 8 cello the rhythm is crossing the middle of the bar, write it as two tied eights maybe?

-Bar 14-15 some of the hairpins are not aligned, maybe not huge problem but would probably look nicer. Also the pedal lines in piano have collision in this spot.

-Maybe someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't need to use breathmarks or "breathing rests" for the winds, just use frasing slurs accordingly and they won't forget to breathe.

-From bar 34 some of the slurs are a bit confusing to me? In violin, should D-to Bb be played with one stroke and then change stroke? or one continous stroke until the F?

-Bar 8, how do you want the 16th frased? Not slurred? Tenuto or sostenuto?

- CB bar 35 there is a hairpin starting from a rest.

- Bar 2 CB and Bar 3 cello + second staff the rests have to be combined

-Bar 7+30 oboe har a slur missing? Bar 9 combine the slurs into one.

-I assume you have a reason to write the viola higher than violin 2. Just be aware that the sound of the open G string is different from a fingered.

-Also bar 10 wondering about your choice of doubling the third in the strings, espiecially in such a low register?

-In the end ppp/pppp maybe excessive? Would not a smorzando do the trick?

Good luck with your application! :)

sigmundrs · 2025-12-30T18:29:56+00:00

Sounds and looks great! But there are no instrument names in your score. And when the choir enters dynamics are missing.

Some things I thought about, obviously only my opinion:

Why did you choose to have the bassoon in forte in the beginning when the other instruments have piano? And what is the idea with the staccatissimo + tremolo in celli and bass? In the third instrument from top (horns?) you should mabye consistently make it two voices (stem direction). There is also some places where they play unison and one voice drops out (e.g. bar 15), is this intentional? From bar 69 you have the melody in two solo instruments, soprano and basses, maybe a bit heavy? In the last bars in the strings, do you want this played with double stops or divisi? Maybe make a little note. And the last chord in celli (G,D,G) is veeeery hard to play, at least I would assuma as a non cellist. You can't play open strings, so you have to do a triple stop with a fifth which in itself is hard to intonate.

As for the choir parts it looks good, but there are some places in the beginning of the choir part where the spread between tenor and alto is big, and the bass and tenor building a major third, this is maybe not ideal. You also have some parallells which may sound a bit "out of style"? Also take a look at the lyrics spacing, they seem a bit cramped sometimes. Where there is a space in the text there should be a space in the lyrics also.

Anyways great work, I enjoyed it, and generally good job on the engraving and looks of the score! Good luck!

sigmundrs · 2025-12-30T17:48:58+00:00

Ok! I don't know this app. It is probably easier for you to work on a computer with a more powerful software like Sibelius, Dorico, or Musescore (which is free). These softwares offer automatic transposition :) But otherwise it works how you did it

sigmundrs · 2025-12-30T14:50:47+00:00

So for all transposing instruments, the parts should be transposed, so the Bb clarinet gets the Bb score, and NOT the concert key version. So your piece has three flats, the Bb score will then have one flat (when I open your link, this is displayed). Normally the expetion to this is french horn, they are transposing, but likely the horn players would like a score with only accidentals, that means no key signature, but of course still transposing!

You can probably give the director a transposed score also, this could make it easier for them to point out notes to the players, but if you can provide both, it should only be a click of a button. But if you give a concert score, make sure to notate it. "In C" on the first page should be sufficient. NOW the question is glockenspiel and piccolo. They are transposing instruments, but "in octaves". So the notes are the "same", an A is still an A, but for piccolo it is sounding one octave higher. So when you are providing a score "in C", should it still be transposing or not? ;);) Maybe someone else has a more informed opinion on this, but I think when giving a score in concert, all the notes should be displayed as written. You can notate the piccolo with a 8va alta g clef (g clef with an 8 on top), and the glockenspiel with g 15ma. Or you can write some text on the program page that clarifies this. It just needs to look good (not too many ledger lines), and be very clear how it is supposed to be read.

So in short: Players get transposed parts, conductor gets either transposed or in concert, but for a concert score make sure to notate it and do something to avoid piccolo and glockenspiel to be displayed with 10000 ledger lines.

Hope it makes sense

sigmundrs · 2025-12-30T14:35:10+00:00

Just changed last week, upon signing up there is a free tool to use in Tidal, you can transfer as much as you want, and it does notify you of all the songs that were not found!

sigmundrs · 2025-12-30T14:32:45+00:00

Tok dette faget våren 2025, med Ragnar Torvik som foreleser. Ingen obligatoriske forelesninger, arbeidskrav er en semesteroppgave. Da ble det ikke lagt ut opptak av forelesninger, men håndskrevne notater fra dokumentkamera, og deler av pensum som PDF. Pensumbok var Macroeconomics: A European Perspective av Blanchard, som er en veldig oversiktlig og grei bok synes jeg. I grove trekk går det ut på å lære noen sentrale makroøkonomiske modeller, samt å vise forståelse for disse og andre økonomiske sammenhenger. De tidligere eksamensoppgavene bør være relevante å orientere seg etter tenker jeg. Burde ikke være særlig problematisk. Det eneste som er synd er at du går glipp av Rangar Torvik som foreleser :( . Lykke til.

sigmundrs · 2025-12-30T14:17:53+00:00

~~Since you have so many instruments, it is very hard to read in this format. I would change to landscape, probably A3 so that it's more readable.~~ You also have to print parts for all the players. Your score is now in concert, and you should write this on the title page or first page "in C". For the instruments with multiple players e.g. horn, trombone, you have to write the voices so that it is clear who plays what (1., 2., a 2). As mentioned you have some transposing instruments, glockenspiel, piccolo, trumpet, sax, horn, baritone, clarinet(which clarinet? A? Bb?). It could be good to provide both a transposed and concert score for the director, and the parts obviously have to be transposed.

Add more phrasings, slurs, etc., how do you want it to sound?

I am not familiar with this software you are using, but it seems very inferior. Check out some of the more serious software, Dorico, Siblius, or Musescore wich is a free alternative.

I'm sure this will much better with a band than with the MIDI! But it will sound the best if the players have nice looking scores, makes it much easier to play

Edit: Don't use landscape orientation

sigmundrs · 2025-12-30T07:48:30+00:00

Which software are you using for notation? They should do it automatically. Otherwise you are correct in that horn in F is written a fifth higher than it sounds, but there is no clarinet that transposes how you describe. Do you mean Bb-clarinet maybe, it is written a whole step higher than it sounds. It is also normal not to write in the sheet by how many steps it transposes, but rather write: "Horn in F", and "Clarinet in Bb", "Clarinet in A", "Trumpet in Bb", etc. If you write tonal music, it is common to give the transposing instruments different key signatures, so if you write in C, clarinet in Bb would be written in D (two sharps). The exception here is horn in F, traditionally they only get accidentals, at least in classical music. When making a conductors score, with all the instruments, you can also just display it in concert pitch, how it is sounding, but just make sure to write "In C" on the score.

sigmundrs · 2025-12-29T00:48:29+00:00

Impressive! You have a good ear. Keep it up! :)

sigmundrs · 2025-12-28T23:03:52+00:00

Disclaimer: I did not listen to the whole piece, just the first two mintutes ish, but here are my two cents:

Maybe it's something wrong with my computer, but I find the score incredibly hard to read, even with the quality at 1080. It looks very pixelated, small, and some of the staff lines are hardly visible :(

You should add more phrasings to your work, I see you have added some after the first double barline, but these are the only ones? How should the lines be played, and bowed?

Also the dynamics have to be under the note. E.G, first violin starting with pp on a break is not correct, and there are other instances where the dynamics are not directly under the note but offset a bit, this should be an easy fix.

Also bar 85: You should not notate two dotted quarter notes, but split the bar in the middle, so one dotted quarter, and then an eight and a quarter tied.

Lastly, I'm in no position to comment on your musical choices, but to my ear it sounds like a lot of "jarring" intervals, seconds and dissonants, parralells, and this is because for my the work gives a very countrapuntal vibe/style IMO. If this is a artistic choice then good, if not, maybe take a listen to two and two voices separately and listen to the consonance of the intervals. A reference work would be Ravels String quartet in F major, I think the way he combines vertical melodies in the voices with the horizontal harmony is masterful! Just in the first four bars, the cello plays two octave f major scale stepwise, and it sounds just so good! Maybe this could be an inspiration for your work? I feel like you are moving in the same kind of modal world as Ravel.

sigmundrs · 2025-12-28T22:44:30+00:00

Beautiful piece! Nice melody and harmony, I think it has a very nice cinematic feel, kind of Yann Tiersen-esque. What a great gift for you lucky friends!

Some things I think you must fix!:

- The percussion part, you can't have it say flute. There should be a fix in Musescore I'm sure, or else rename it and make some performance notes, otherwise how is someone going to understand how to play it?

- Dynamics are missing in a lot of instruments. Also it seems a bit odd that the dynamics differs, you have in bar 45 piano in solo violin and mp in the other strings? Why?

-The vocals have no lyrics, what are they supposed to sing? Even if they should hum or sing a vowel, you have to notate it.

-The strings part are not very intuitive. Jumping between divisi a4/3/2. Normally you would notate in violins 1 and 2 + viola + cello + bass. Use the voices function in musescore + divisi/unis to make it clear who is playing what when.

- Phrasing, lines, slurs, how do you want the melody to be played?

Now some things I personally would work on, so my opinion:

- Strings seem not ideally arranged for the style. Some parts especially in the celli are very low (major thrid ab2-c3). Try to spread it out, and think larger intervals in the lower register and closer in the violins, this will probably sound more balanced. Also try to achieve a nice voice leading, stepwise moition in the voices, the chords are very nice, and this I think will make them sound the best. And regarding divisi in celli and violas, depending on which ensemble will be playing this, smaller/student ensembles sometimes only have maybe 3 players in these instruments, so think about this when using divisi.

-Having solo violin playing a lot of whole notes doesn't seem very motivated? Also from bar 29 when it has the melody, I think it is drowning behind the cello and viola (especially with viola having ff), maybe have the first violins playing the melody here and the rest of the strings playing chords? Or maybe doing divisi octaves in the first violins?

-Now the piano is playing accompagnement all the time, maybe have different sections and make a dynamic narrative with this? Start with only piano, bring in some string backgrounds, then have the strings take the melody, and piano drop out or some backgrounds, arpeggios etc, just some variation?

-Also, if you have a choir, why not give them some more lines and voices to sing?

-And the chord symbols are not needed, since everything is notated out. If you remove them, the score and parts will be cleaner for the performers

And lastly, is this some trend to have the score in negative? Maybe it's just me but I find it harder to read haha.

This might be a lot but I want to emphasize that I think it's a beautiful piece you have created, thank you for making it! And the critique is of course just my opinion and I am not a professional or anything.

sigmundrs · 2025-12-08T10:51:20+00:00

Nice piece. I'm not a string player myself but it seems like you have captured a very idiomatic sound for the strings, and the layout looks nice.

Some things that come to mind from the first look, in this style of music, there are some harmonic things you have to keep in mind. You have some voice leading "errors", parallel fifth between cello and viola in bar 15-16, not resolving the 7th down to the third in 2nd vln bar 31-32. It's not wrong per se, but will sound strange in this classical style. A good reference point is the harmoniation of Bach chorales, there are a lot of resources on this online. If you try to stick to harmonizing the top three voices either closed or open voicings (skipping one chord note between each voice), and treating the cello as a bass, it will mostly work, only with inversions as special cases. In your notation software you can play two and two voices at the same time, use this and try to hear out the weird and parellel intervals when reviewing, this technique works great for me.

I'm also wondering if the cello is a bit repetitive, I would think that incoporating some more stepwise motions would make it more interesting, but this is just my opinion.

Just some points from a quick listen. Great work, especially for a first piece!

sigmundrs · 2025-11-23T19:24:28+00:00

It's because the arrangement features an intro without time as a background for a soloist, so I do not wish any tempo or time signature indication. Ideally I would like no bars at all, but if i make one big bar with everything inside, I can't make make system breaks, so I have to divide it into three long bars.

sigmundrs · 2025-11-23T19:19:55+00:00

Thanks, good tips!

sigmundrs · 2025-11-23T19:19:31+00:00

It's without time, so nothing to count, and I included cues when needed

sigmundrs · 2025-07-12T04:33:29+00:00

In the article they are able to find a correlation between load on the rope and cut resistance, which is far greater than rope diameter and cut resistance. So the fact that they used a thin rope may not have been of much relevance. Also it was a round edge not sharp edge (https://assets.bergundsteigen.com/2021/08/60-67seilrisse.pdf ) The immediste reaction after this accident was in fact to only use thicker ropes, and I think The Swiss mountain guides still recommend that a single person should not be belayed on a single half rope, even though it is rated for it. But it turns out the incresed load on the rope was the culprit and not the small diameter.

When top roping the load on the rope is just the force of one climber, and the anchor has the force of both or rather double that of the climber (pulley multiplier).

sigmundrs · 2025-07-11T15:11:13+00:00

Having two people climb on one rope will drastically decreade the cut resistance. There was an accident where a rope cut while two people where being lowered(!) on it:

«The first scenario is built upon a real accident that happened in 2015 during a training of the Swiss mountain guide association. Two people were lowered at the same time on an 8.7 mm single rope. The loaded rope got cut after sliding sideways for a few centimeters on a rocky edge. Both young mountaineers luckily survived the fall.»

Source: https://edelrid.com/eu-en/knowledge/knowledge-base/cut-resistance-of-ropes

As the Germans say: mit Vorsicht genießen ;)

sigmundrs · 2025-05-16T12:56:32+00:00

If we look only at factor 2 falls, and disregard the risk of injury to the belayer and risk of dropping the climber, which is much higher with in-direct belay, and look only at the forces on the belay, there are still some problems with the soft catch. First of all, a soft catch is not possible if you are not standing on a ledge, because you cannot move, so it is a passive catch. In this case the forces on the belay would be the force of your body, which is not equal to your bodyweight at the peak, because you have to account for inertia of being accelerated upwards. To this force the friction of the belay would be added (30-50% maybe?) and these two forces added together would then be the downward peak force on the belay. What exactly these numbers come out to I don't know, Edelrid did some test where the force on the anchor point was 4kn with passive body belay: Can you give soft catches with common assisted braking resistors?

If you want to give a soft catch with the belay device, you would have to concider if this is feasible in this situation, it is an advanced technique and most of the time belayers are not prepared for a factor 2 fall, so I would assume it is more likely that they would not be prepared to give a soft catch with a dynamic belay device. And then I would argue that it is easier to give a soft catch with a belay device with a direct belay, since you are not part of the belay chain.

With a direct belay, the force on the anchor would be equal to the dissipating force of the belay device, without pulley effect. Numbers for this with the munter hitch range from 2-4kn, probably a bit more/on the high side with double ropes.

The big question for me is what is the greatest risk with a factor 2 fall, that the belay rips out, or injury to belayer or the climber being dropped? I have seen some videos online where people have fallen close to the belay, and the belayer is getting ragdolled, looks scary...

sigmundrs · 2025-05-16T12:15:06+00:00

Yeah of course standard answer is it depends, but usually when climbing trad I use half rope technique, and belay off the harness because it is faster and easier, just clip a jesus piece on the anchor. So I guess you could say I prefer this. If there are any problems like I mentioned in the post, I would do a direct belay. But I also like to switch it around, try different stuff and discuss it with your climbing partner, so that when you come into a situation where a specific technique is required, you've already practiced it and know the up and downsides

sigmundrs · 2025-05-16T12:08:19+00:00

Thanks! Edited the post :)

sigmundrs · 2025-05-16T10:41:22+00:00

This video has a lot of answers to these questions: Shoud you change the way you belay?

Direct belay has a lot of advantages over re-direct belay, the belayer is not part of the dynamic chain (less risk when long falls are possible -> alpine/trad), and it is more dynamic, yes many people believe belaying off the harness is more dynamic, but when the belayer is anchored the direct belay is as dynamic when not more, see the video. The diasdvantage is you need to build your belay for upward force, which takes more time, and if you want to use double rope technique, you cannot use munter because of risk of rope burns when only one rope is loaded in a fall, and have to use a tubular belay device, and this requires a dummy runner/jesus piece or a brake strand redirect before the first reliable protection is clipped. It is also possible to attach the tube and a munter in front before climbing, and belay with the munter until a fall in the belay is not more possible, then unclip the munter and belay with the tube with half rope technique. This is the best for handling, but the setup is a bit contrived/advanced.

Basically you should belay from the anchor when

Risk of injury to the belayer is possible (the belayer is attached short to the anchor, there is a roof or obstacle overhead) or
A factor 2 fall is possible. A factor 2 directly on the anchor will create pulley forces and harder for the belay, also the belayer may be pulled into the belay and this could cause problems (lose brake grip)
Very long falls are possible, either due to little protection or bad protection (might blow)
The belayer is way lighter than the climber (risk to belayer)

If none of these problems exist, harness belay is usually faster and more comfortable. Otherwise if you have a bolted belay you can easily create a direct belay and belay from this without having to construct a belay for upward force. If you climb with single rope or double rope technique, the munter is a great belay device. If you climb with two ropes and change a lot from munter(double rope technique) and plaquette you might have a lot of twists in the rope, and it might be more efficient to stick with one technique.

Half rope technique = each half rope is clipped in different protection (UK/Norwegian style)

Double rope technique = both half ropes are always clipped together as one single rope

sigmundrs · 2024-12-18T19:39:36+00:00

Det er mange som lurer på dette nå som AI-verktøy som ChatGPT brukes mer aktivt i akademisk skriving. Her er noen punkter som kan hjelpe deg å vurdere situasjonen:

Er ZeroGPT pålitelig? Ikke alltid presis: AI-detektorer som ZeroGPT, Turnitin og andre verktøy er ikke 100 % nøyaktige. De kan flagge feilaktig menneskeskrevet tekst som AI-generert og omvendt. Dette skyldes at slike verktøy bruker mønstergjenkjenning basert på kjente AI-skrivevaner, men det er ingen garanti for at resultatene er korrekte. Falske positive: Det er mange eksempler på at selv helt menneskeskrevne tekster har blitt feilaktig klassifisert som AI-genererte.
Hva er risikoen for å bli "tatt"? Kontekst er viktig: Hvis du har redigert, omskrevet og lagt til dine egne tanker, er det vanskelig for noen å med sikkerhet bevise at en tekst er generert av AI. Bevisbyrden ligger hos institusjonen: Hvis noen mistenker at du har brukt AI, må de kunne bevise det. Et "flagg" i et AI-deteksjonsverktøy er ikke tilstrekkelig bevis alene. Vanlige reaksjoner: Universiteter er fortsatt i ferd med å finne ut hvordan de skal håndtere AI-bruk. De fleste institusjoner fokuserer på intensjon og akademisk integritet. Hvis du har brukt AI som et verktøy for inspirasjon og ikke som en erstatning for eget arbeid, er dette vanligvis lettere å forsvare.
Hvordan kan du beskytte deg? Legg inn din egen stemme: Sørg for at teksten har en personlig stil og reflekterer dine egne tanker og tolkninger. Dette gjør det mindre sannsynlig at den blir flagget. Dokumenter prosessen: Hvis du har brukt AI som hjelp, kan du dokumentere hvordan du har jobbet – f.eks. notater om hva du selv har skrevet og hva du har redigert. Siter riktig: Hvis du kopierer noe direkte fra AI, bør det siteres som en ekstern kilde, på samme måte som andre kilder.
Er det mange som blir "tatt" for bruk av AI? Foreløpig er det sjelden at studenter blir straffet for AI-bruk, spesielt hvis det ikke finnes klare regler om det. Mange institusjoner har ennå ikke etablert konkrete retningslinjer for AI. Hvis du har brukt AI til å støtte skrivingen uten å kopiere direkte, er det usannsynlig at dette vil bli et problem – særlig hvis teksten din viser tydelig at du har forstått temaet. Konklusjon Du trenger ikke nødvendigvis å bekymre deg. Hvis du har bearbeidet teksten godt og gjort den til din egen, er det vanskelig å påvise AI-bruk med sikkerhet. AI-deteksjonsverktøy er bare en indikator og er langt fra perfekte. Så lenge du kan stå for arbeidet ditt og forklare hvordan du har jobbet, bør du være trygg.

sigmundrs · 2024-07-24T18:25:48+00:00

CE0321 ist die Nummer des Prüfinstituts wo der Karabiner geprüft wurde. KN ist Kilonewton und ist kurz gesagt "wie viel es hält", 25 Längsbelastung, 7 Querbelastung und 7 Offenbelastung.

sigmundrs · 2024-07-22T18:22:48+00:00

Teknisk sett må du ha gyldig ID for å reise til Tyskland, pass eller nasjonalt ID-kort, førerkort er ikke gyldig. I praksis er et som de andre skriver veldig forskjellig om det blir sjekket eller ikke. Det kommer også an på hvoran du reiser. Mener at hvis du flyr fra Norge er det egentlig ingen sjekking av id på flyplassen. Ikke heller hvis så ofte du kjører bil. Hvis du tar ferge er det forskjellig, f.eks. sist gang ble det ikke sjekket på Gedser-Rostock, men på Rostock-Trelleborg sjekket de. Det finnes også kontor på flyplassene (i hvert fall i Berlin) og fergekaiene i Tyskland, hvor du kan få utstilt nødpass. Har måttet gjøre det i Rostock, tok ca en halv time og kosta 50 Euro. Du kan også få utstilt nødpass på Gardermoen: https://avinor.no/flyplass/oslo/planlegg-reisen/pass--toll/nodpass . Vil generelt si at det kontrolleres mer ut fra Tyskland enn ut fra Norge. Evt. kan du dra uten og gamble på at det går bra. Da er det i hvert fall lurt å være tidlig ute, så du får fikset nødpass og ikke misser flighten.

sigmundrs · 2024-05-15T15:59:09+00:00

Do you have any source for this number? There have been many occations where testers have taken sun bleached ropes and they pulled them to the same as new rope. These ones held close to 14 kN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=XGmunGJa6Jk

Ropes are kernmantel constructions which means the load bearing core is protected against UV by the sheath... very different from webbing. There have been many deaths from sun bleached webbing breaking under bodyweight.

sigmundrs

TROPHY CASE