Sil

Here's one of my usual critiques. 0:00 If you’re going to do a timpani roll lead-in like that, put it with a pedal double bass and a trombone chord to add more color and more definition to the harmony in the bass. 0:13 The upper register’s harmony is too thick and there’s not enough presence in the bass range here either. Make your violin line more prominent by combining it with flutes at the unison (and piccolo up the octave if it sounds good.) Watch the harmonies too, because it sounds like there’s a few wrong notes or some bad voice-leading going on. 0:24 The lower violin part is good, the upper one is not. Consider using winds instead, and instead of pitch bends use grace notes. Also, the rhythm seems disjointed and unpleasant, especially when the piano cuts out. Harp works better than piano in terms of arpeggiated accompaniment too. The two lines going on in the violins are not contrapuntal because the voicing is way too open. If the lower violin could move its way up a third through stepwise motion, it would sound fuller. 0:34 I’m not sure what is going on here in the winds, but if you have an idea, always make it stand out. The bassoon bass line is too simple here and I’m sure could be much more varied. 0:41 Something weird is going on in the violins and bass line. I suggest figuring out what your harmonic progression is in order to make sure each tone of the chord is covered (in case you’re wondering, it sounds like you’re trying to go F#, A7/E, D, C#.) You have tons of instruments in the orchestra to full out these harmonies, the most important of which might be the winds (with horns), which are awesome at 4-voice harmony. 0:56 Again, the timpani roll sounds a bit empty because of lack of bass harmony. 1:07 Whoa, this part is actually a pretty well written crescendo. My only gripe is the lack of brass and the overabundance of violins. If you could double that violin line with trumpets in spots and stick some fat sounding trombones in the bass, it would be even more powerful. 1:14 Again, there’s a significant lack of bass line here. I hear signs of a bouncing I-V bass in spots, but that’s what trombone, tuba, double bass pizzicato are for. The violins doing the ostinato in the mid-range would sound great doubled with staccato horns. If the snare hits are sounding a bit thin, try doubling those with stabs in some other instrument, such as piccolo or trumpets. I can’t stress enough the importance of doubling to bring out orchestral voices! 1:28 Around here the theme is a bit buried under the accompaniment. Either bring the accompaniment down a bit, or bring out the melody using doubling. 1:48 This part is very idiomatic and sounds fine. It could use some pizzicato in the double basses and cellos, which is even more idiomatic, but it’s up to you. Keep at it.

As great as this piece works atmospherically and stylistically, in the end the problem is that your methodology behind is piece is not an orchestral one, despite the use of orchestral samples. The biggest criticism I have of your arrangement is it lacks development in four critical areas: melody, harmony, rhythm, and instrumentation. Melody: The theme at 3:26 is short lived and acts mostly as a cameo appearance of the Sephiroth theme. You should have more or less based the piece on this motif and in order to add some variation you could change the notes, or in terms of rhythm, the duration values. Sometimes it’s great to listen to classical music to learn how to use bits and pieces of a melody to develop it. For example, the simple G F# Ab G motif can be utilized melodically in many different ways if you’re creative enough. Also, you might want to make your melody lines more prominent aside from blasting them out in the lower brass. Instances at 0:50 and 5:14 have lines that resemble melodies, but without more complex rhythms and harmonic change, they aren’t going to stand out as much as the listener would like them to. If the rhythm is more prominent than the melody, you have a problem. Harmony: While many parts of this are similar to Hans Zimmer’s style, you’re missing his knack for shifting harmonies at key moments to cause either unsettling dissonances or sudden key changes (which work well in film scores to add an element of desperation.) The piece is stuck in C minor. What Zimmer does is simply shift the key up a tone to D minor, then again to E minor. Or instead shift by fourths going from C minor to F minor to Bb minor. Zimmer’s methodology is simple, but effective. Even Zimmer’s favorite kind of dissonance is a simple ascending chromatic line in the harmony. Rhythm: Your rhythmic style seems to be the better-planned aspect of the piece. I hear some references to the Zimmer style of syncopated rhythms, but they’re mostly short lived, hence much of your rhythmic progression ends up being boring. I guess in this case you’re going to have to think of rhythm and metre in the same way as harmony in that it can shift to cause a change in mood. In other words, a shift in rhythm can cause an unsettling moment that in a way has to resolve back to the simple march ostinato. Like being stuck in C minor, you’re stuck in 4/4. I don’t see any reason why you can’t go into 5/4 or 3/4 and come up with some neat rhythmic cells/motifs (combined with elements of the G F# Ab G motif) that act as accompaniment to other melodic gestures. Instrumentation: Overall the instrumentation is not too bad, but watch out for overusing certain sounds such as percussion and brass and string staccatos. I’m not hearing enough trumpets or horns in a higher range, and strings can do awesome things with runs. I’m not saying you have to be Tchaikovsky here, but if you still want to continue with the ostinato effect, you could change things up and at least get some new sounds in there that continue the idea in their own way. Your piece is sectioned so that one idea lasts for 4 or 8 measures, and then it shifts to a new idea. The key to effectively using varying kinds of instrumentation is to come up with new combinations from section to section. Of course, much of this is going to depend on a change of melody, harmony, rhythm, and your overall idea for the accompaniment. The section at 3:04 is quite effective because it is different from what preceded it. I think one of the biggest issues is that there aren’t enough of those kinds of moments where the listener is thinking, “Okay, something is happening/going to happen here!” Moments at 1:25 and 3:47 don’t have the same effect because of the stagnant march ostinato that is in the background. If you ask me, the ending beginning at 5:14 is not the best way to go with this piece. While it is a contrasting style, I think a better contrast would be to continue the march but make it melodically denser, cause an unsettling rhythmic offset, change the harmony, add thicker instrumentation, and bring it to a climax. In the end I think it will have a much more fulfilling effect on the listener. Holst and Shostakovich have great examples of this in their music. A fifth criticism I’d add to my list here is that of structure, but before you can really take advantage of that aspect of music you have to come to terms with the other four. Sometimes it’s best to stick to a simple ABA form for a short orchestral piece.

Comments/suggestions as follows: 0:00 The rising figure here sounds like way too much parallel motion. Change the bass so it just stays on the tonic, and put in other harmonic notes in the strings to make the chords thicker. 0:26 The climax here is understated because all this rising motion doesn’t seem to go anywhere. Take, for example, the opening of Fithos Lusec Wecos Vinosec from the FF8 orchestra version and how the rising motion at the beginning leads to a dissonant climax adding contrast to the main idea. If you could put something in here like that, especially using brass and timpani to contrast the strings, it would add another layer of interest. The return to the rising motif here is fine, except the bass line is still paralleling the harmonies when it should be doing its own thing like the clarinet is. Don’t oversaturate the sound with too much going on, especially if your synth can’t handle the polyphony. I think the bass line is taking up too much room, it needs to be more subdued and ostinato-like, similar to the section at 0:39 with the timpani and pedal point. 0:46 Maybe there’s something you can do to make this melody line stand out. I think maybe a piccolo doubling up two octaves might work. The doubling beginning at 0:58 is great. 1:17-1:33 It felt as though we were building to another climax, so this part needs some extra emphasis. 1:34 Finally some new harmonies! This is probably the best section, especially in terms of chromatic voice-leading. My only complaint is that the chords are still blocky when you could have more suspensions and appoggiaturas. 2:24 The bass line here is not strong enough, so I suggest adding cello and double bass staccatos doubling in octaves in a rhythm similar to the timpani. Make sure you know what your progression is here. Don’t make the brass chords too thick, and leave out any notes in the inner voice that are appearing in the melodic line up top. 2:47 I like what you’re doing with the cellos here, but that is negated by the long sustained harmonies in the rest of the strings and brass. Maybe instead use plucked double bass to establish the lowest pitches. The horn is playing whole notes which isn’t such a great countermelody to the violins. It feels as though the horn should be playing a more waltz-like melody. 3:07 By this point the bass line progression is getting anti-climatic and boring, so why not vary things up by using this progression: A- E- F+ (D-7 E+) Put a strong trombone on the root of each of those chords and it should sound great. It’s those large leaps in the bass such as from A to E then resolving to the F that gives a progression a lot of power. 3:15-3:46 Watch the harmonies, since the horn sounds a bit unresolved in spots. The bass line sounds better here 3:46 The harmonies here are really nice. Still, would be better with more suspensions instead of block chords. 4:19 The countermelody seems buried under the string block chords, so try to bring it out more. The harmonies by this point don’t have any climatic momentum anymore because they’re so regular and boring. You have to change things up like you did at 1:34, and somehow turn that into a huge build with brass chords instead of strings, along with timpani rolls. 4:48 This ending is fine, it just needs more building up to it.

The thing about modes is that they're for melodic purposes, not harmonic, hence if two chimes play a semi-tone apart (such as B and C) you will get a somewhat unpleasant dissonance. I think your best bet is to go with a pentatonic scale such as E G A B D and double whichever notes you think might sound nice. I think E G A B D E G would work well, but it would be good to experiment. Another great sounding pentatonic scale (that’s also easy to improvise in) is D F G A C, so check that one out too. If you are really adventurous, try a whole-tone scale.

No more than Holst was listening to Bruckner's 8th, methinks.

The orchestral sound is different on a person to person basis. For instance, there is no definitive string library. There are many libraries that can fool most by having the most realistic sounding pizzicato, staccato, tremolo, or other articulations, but in the end no library I know of has ever come close to imitating that lovely vibrato-sustained, arco/legato sound. The closest I've heard is the string section used for the Tengai Makyo II OST and I have no idea what library was used for that incredible sound. I know it’s sampled, but it’s the most carefully and well-produced sampled sound I’ve heard in terms of strings, and I think that soundtrack was released in 2003. What I’m getting at is that you have to choose carefully the sounds you want, and then it takes a while to actually become good at using them. Sometimes it takes years, and you will always find something new about them in time. A big problem these days is that people want results as soon as possible, so they’re easily swayed into buying the newest and most appealing libraries out there that are packed with so many effects and articulations… traditional styles of composition sadly become a second priority. The result? Downloading sample libraries for free is no more a solution than paying thousands for them, because in the end the best results come from years of experience, and one silly little violin patch that is probably no bigger than 10 megs.

Tenor sax unisons are not so great, but I can see that there's some craziness with all those homophonic rhythms. If you could come up with a second rhythmic line, counterpoint if you will, that contrasts the rhythms here, imitates them, offsets them, and moves in contrary motion, you could put it in the lower second voices (of the saxes and clarinets) and it would sound great. Also lots of unison at C and D. Trombones in octaves for those long whole notes is good for pedal points, but at times you can just move the first trombone down so it plays the third or fifth of the chord, and it would sound better (like it would for bassoons.) I don't full understand the piccolo/flute line since it's going to sound like they're playing in 10ths (piccolos sound an octave higher than written.) Piccolos are great for octave doublings over the flutes, or even bass line instruments. For example, the flute can continue what it's doing at E, but the piccolo would sound more interesting if it was playing 2 octaves above the trumpet line. Speaking of brass, the trumpet and trombone lines starting at D and E aren't too pretty in their doublings and could be spread out over their individual octaves. The trumpet part maybe could be raised by an octave entirely and the lower line could play in 6ths below that instead of 8vas so it doesn't have to go so low. At F I don't know what that will sound like, but I like the contrasting rhythms at 56 and 60. Again at 64 consider using thirds, or more chordal textures instead of unisons. At G, I don't know why you still have the tenor saxes up so high. If you wanted, you could put the seconds doubling the bass line in the trombones, which would sound more spread out. At H the trombones look like they should be playing in octaves here. It might clash with the third trombone voice, so yeah, it will be tough to make it work. This is why writing things like fugues is so hard. The higher wind parts actually look really good with lots of intervals. I just don't know if the piccolo/flute combo are doing what you think they're doing. I'd actually suggest having that line be two flutes, and then you can start a new staff and put a piccolo line to double in octaves the most important melodic content throughout the piece (or play typical Sousa-like trills and runs contrasting various rhythms.)

Wow, what's going on with your tied notes? The slurs are sometimes facing the opposite directions they should be. Also, if two parts are playing the same line, don't write two stems on the one note. Write "a2" instead. This especially makes sense for the 16th notes in the winds at G. You often resort to unison doublings when octave doublings would work just as well.

I know, it's crazy how this "unspoken rule" mainly exists in specific circles of composers, so anyone who writes for orchestra as they would any other kind of ensemble wouldn't imagine that there is this tradition that came out of the late-Romantic period/Impressionist period that treats horns differently than every other instrument (Rimsky-Korsakov, Mahler, Ravel, etc.) I certainly didn't notice this in their scores until I was told. I just assumed horns got key signatures as other people would assume apostrophes denote plurals of acronyms or single letters. It makes sense, and isn't entirely wrong.

You can do what you want, I'm just pointing out a common tradition in orchestration that sounds reasonably applicable to even a highschool orchestra or band. It would be a good idea to ask the horn players what they prefer, and then go with that. As a clarinetist I prefer key signatures on pieces where a ton of 16th note runs that would merit a lot of accidentals otherwise. Horn players don’t often get that kind of part, so writing in accidentals isn’t all that painful a process.

Horn parts not having key signatures is a long-standing tradition of scoring since horns used to be adjustable based on what key they were playing in. While it is acceptable to give them key signatures, and any good horn player should know them as any other instrument, you'll find most experienced (or should I say "well-informed") composers/orchestrators know that horn players generally perform better with no key-signature attached, but accidentals written instead. Why? Because most classical repertoire is written that way, even up to this day, so it’s no wonder they’d be used to no key signatures. Yes, this means writing in a ton of accidentals, but the way modern music is written calls for all instruments to no longer have key signatures anyway. Also, it might be a little pretentious to say this, but it makes the score look more "professional." I see a horn part with a key signature, and I immediately think the guy didn’t do his research.

Get rid of the key signature on the horn part. Write out the accidentals instead. Your clarinet part, except for rehearsal G, is too easy. You really should give the first clarinet octave doublings over the second clarinet (assuming what you have now is mainly second clarinet), or unison doublings with the flutes when they're playing low. Consider using divisi to separate staves when parts are being played in unison (such as clarinets 1 and 2.) If you don't want to do that, write divisi when they split, "a2" when they play in usion, "a1" when it is solo. Other markings you still need to add include slurs on pretty much every part (especially those 16th runs), and crescendos wherever they might fit. Since this is a march, I bet you could find lots of places for accented notes.

Variety in the parts is good on occasion, but adding doublings, especially octave doublings, is actually the most effective kind of orchestration there is. Some other things to consider: -flutes play up higher -clarinets playing in octaves (so add a higher part) -a bass line at rehearsal D that is not rhythmically interfering with the rest of the piece, but instead playing something more idiomatic such as 1 5 1 5 as per a usual march

The strings, both ensemble and solo sound pretty bad. The winds sound terrible, except for maybe the bassoon. The best parts have to be the brass and percussion. I guess this seems to be one of the better fuller orchestral libraries for its price range. They just need more orchestral demos. Not full pieces, but existing orchestral excerpts we’re already familiar with that showcase a particular instrument(s) and playing style. For example, I have no idea what their clarinet is capable of from those demos alone. They need to do what VSL does and post a clarinet concerto or something. I hate how they sometimes try to lure people in by demos such as the Perpetual motion demo, in which the doubled bowing sounds pretty decent, but the legato, as heard in other demos, is not nearly as realistic.

This begins with good use of motivic development, lots of harmony, and nice harp accompaniment, especially in the low "Mahler" range. The harmonic choices at from 1:56 to 2:14 work perfectly with the crescendo, and I hope to hear more of this kind of writing in future arrangements. The string accompaniment at 3:00 has a very nice impressionistic texture. The clarinet at 3:38 is just a horrible sample, but the low pedal point from here on out is good, and I like how it echoes the melodic line on occasion. The brass is very well written at around 4:57 (especially with the piccolo doubling), and the overlapping melodic lines make a very nice ending. There are lots of other good things in this arrangement that shows attention to detail and an understanding of various kinds of orchestration. You should be proud.

Very nice - almost Satie-like. It probably could have used a contrasting middle section, but it's fine like this as well. I desire... a second movement.

Korobeiniki theme I can't remember if I ever heard those grace notes used elsewhere, because they give it a very Chassidic sound as opposed to Russian, especially when the clarinets play them. But yeah, this arrangement is entirely my own, especially considering the syncopation in bar 5 in the file above, which occurs throughout the entire piece in one form or another. Thanks for the comments, guys.

I’m a huge fan of your piano arrangements, Christian, especially the June Mermaid one, and now this one. The textures and harmonies always remind me of Debussy or Prokofiev, but the piece is definitely your style.

Very nicely done. Many of the samples were used effectively, and the overall feel was definitely cinematic. It’s highly rhythmically driven, rather than harmonically, but it works perfectly in this context (man, that’s a lot of adverbs.) I wouldn’t say the library you used creates the most pleasant legato string passages, but I can appreciate how you’ve taken advantage of what useful sounds you did have in order to emulate an orchestra to as close as what is possible these days. Good job.

I don't think you've studied Schoenberg either if you live here in the 21st century and still consider his work "modern". Next time go for a more carefully researched criticism, not some ridiculous random jumble of name throwing pasted together.

There are lots of parts that are very nice, but even more parts that could have used some careful attention. For example, there's inconsistency in the harmonic flow of the piece where at times the harmony is chromatic and full of surprises, but at other times very stagnant, usually around the transitions from section to section. There are also numerous occasions where I thought I heard several "wrong notes" or things that did not fit the tonal makeup of the piece. It could have stranded to be longer to draw out the ideas more, however, it shows potential more than anything, as well as a developing sense of style.

You show me a better example of string or percussion sampling, and I’ll tell you why it lacks “real oomph”. I’m using several samples from the 20th century, here. If you think there’s something wrong with my orchestrations, however, that’s an entirely different issue. Again with the samples… believe me if I had the money I’d get better ones especially for you. I landed on a pedal D major, but it wasn’t a dominant pedal since I was mostly in C major, so I moved up block chords to the dominant G major as a simple, yet effective retransition. If you think it seemed to jump back in to the faster pacing too suddenly like that, I suggest you don’t listen to any Mahler symphonies. That’s called a variation. Yes, there seems to be this reoccurring idea of “sudden movement” in an orchestral dance piece for some reason. Ever listen to Brahms much? You’re right, it did. Is that my fault, or Dan Dean’s? Or how about Elliot Goldenthal’s? It's a bass trombone. It enhances the regular trombones because without it you wouldn't hear them, and they have some important parts. There’s more arrangement here than in most of my arrangements. First, notice the subtle counterpoint during every single phrase! If that’s not enough, there are several variations on the themes, harmonic modulations, and most importantly: motivic fragmentation. I spent a long time putting these things in. The least you could do is drop your biases and acknowledge that this is more than just an "instrument upgrade". Do you need the MIDI file or something, because I'm afraid you're just not getting it. Most of the samples are far from "phat". Very far. The ones that stand out like the Harp and Horns are the good ones. And if it sounds like a High School band piece, that’s great. My High School band played Slavonic Dances, which is where I first heard the piece. Sure it does. It did right here. Don’t be so quick to pass off this piece as an "instrument upgrade" because there are a few things you didn’t like. You didn’t even mention some of the issues I was mostly concerned with, which makes me all the more the happier, as well as all the more skeptical of your criticisms. To everyone else: Thank you for your comments and well-informed criticisms.

Yes, that is the point of impressionism in music. The piece is supposed to be isolated from the artist's emotions, and instead "paint colors". This is always tricky, though, and sometimes a work can end up sounding sentimental, and maybe even sad at times, but that should never be the final goal. There’s definitely no story, because this isn’t programmatic music. It is “pure” music, and rightly so. I am very impressed with this piece. Shnabubula has nailed the style perfectly, and that’s all there is too it. The accompaniment, harmonies, dissonances, and dynamics all seem to come together to make something enjoyable, especially considering the melodies consist of variations on music from SoE. The part at 3:00 leading into the next section was also quite delightful.

You're right; this piece isn't as innovative as it could have been. Difficulties arise when the source music is fast. I sincerely believe that Part 2 makes up for this. Thanks for the heads up.

I really like this arrangement. It sounds very well realized for the ensemble used (some nice emphasis on the winds) and has a concise structure with lots of neat rhythms. Good stuff!