what do you mean by setup? I’d love to show you but I’m not sure what you mean. Thanks!

@@dankim291 like how you set up musescore and the different key shortcuts you use

Thanks!

*Korngold, Copland, Shostakovich, and Prokofiev have entered the conversation*

haha ok but on a more serious note, it's true many "classical" composers dabbled in film in the early 20th century. Plus, lots of contemporary film composers like John Williams or Corgliano have written classical music (mainly concertos). While I do agree that 21st-century film music has been watered down to just background noise, some other places and genres still embody the rich orchestral sound. For example, there are millions of people across generations and nations, young and old, who enjoy Joe Hisaishi and the music of Japanese animation. I'd be wary of dismissing an entire genre of music as being all cheap elevator music just because of how current Hollywood treats it. Plus, it's good to have a broader perspective rather than be a classical "purist" :)

Oooo that sounds fun! Would that be Eb, Bb, bass and contralto/contrabass?

​@@dankim291A clarinet quartet as I know it, has two B flat Cl's, one bass and one E flat!

I just added a few plugins to the master in the Musescore mixer. The reverb and master don't add much, but the main thing was the proEQ. Personally, I think the default Musescore sounds too "middy" (too many mid-range frequencies), so I used the Musescore proEQ to cut the lows/low mids and boost the highs. It technically isn't the "proper" way to do mixing, but it seemed to work alright. Hope this helps! :)

@@dankim291 Could you tell us how to install the plugin? I have an orchestral arrangement and I would like it to sound as beautiful as yours

Of course! You can download a whole bunch of plugins by going to MuseHub and clicking the 'effects' tab. If you click 'get,' it should auto-install, and the next time you open MuseScore and go to the mixer, it'll show up there.

Thanks!

Thank you!

Thanks! Glad you liked it!

@@dankim291 Out of curiosity, do you ever think of making concert band scores or a combined setting? I’m trying out ensembles that are basically concert combined with orchestra (concert band with strings).

I’ve done a couple concert band stuff. There’s a piece called Pathways on my channel that the ISU wind symphony performed if you wanna check that out. (I’d link it here but I heard from people that links maybe don’t work or disappear in the comments section) It’s interesting you define combined as concert band + strings. The way I see concert band is orchestra - strings *+ saxophone*, so a combined group to me would be orchestra + saxophone (which I guess is the same thing as saying concert band + strings, just approached from a different angle). I used to do a lot of that in the past - but only because I didn’t learn proper orchestration and instrument limitations. But ever since I started taking comp lessons I’ve been told that it’s kind of impractical since most orchestras don’t have saxophones on hand. So the chance of such a work getting programmed would be low (since usually new works get programmed alongside the usual stuff: Beethoven Mahler etc which don’t include sax so they’d have to hire saxophonists just for one piece which they might not do unless it’s some famous composer). Obviously this isn’t always the case, but it’s been a big factor for why I’ve lately been staying on the safer side of instrumentation (which is also what most orch competition submissions ask for: 2.2.2.2 4.3.3.1 timp+2, harp, piano/cel, strings) On the other hand, concert bands are more flexible with instrumentation. While they might not be able to get a full string section, I’ve definitely seen things like concert band + string quartet concertos. Or concert band + some other new music ensemble. I’d be interested in hearing what you come up with though, so please let me know!

@@dankim291 i’m just doing short songs from movie scenes for fun. Another way that the special instrumentation could be used is so that either ensemble could play the song individually. If you’re wondering why I didn’t call it an orchestra with saxophones, it’s because concert bands also include euphonium and some lesser known wind instruments like those special clarinets. Just my thoughts. What do you think?

omg! I should be ashamed of myself, euphonium is literally one of my favorite instruments (because of its similar role to the cello)...yet I completely forgot about it haha! You're right though, there's definitely no euph in orch. When you say special clarinets do you mean like the Eb and contraalto? I don't know about contras, but the bass, Eb, and A clarinets are all usually okay to ask for in an orch piece. Same goes for the other woodwind auxiliaries (like picc, contrabassoon, English horn). I think that's a really cool idea though! It kind of reminds of like the flex band pieces that just label parts by their general register (SATB) rather than by instrument. How would that work? Would it be like flipping between the ensembles throughout the piece? Or is it more like you have a piece that's arranged in two different ways?

Thanks! It’s been a few years since I wrote this, and there’s definitely a lot of stuff I do differently now. I wanna say that I was definitely micromanaging the tempi, if I were to have done this now, I would’ve just wrote ‘espr’ at the beginning and called it a day haha. I think the way I distinguished ‘a tempo’ vs ‘tempo I’ was that a tempo always referred to the most recent bolded tempo marking and Tempo I referred to the initial tempo of the piece. I think I tried to distinguish the bolded tempi as the official tempo and the italics as suggestions. Regarding the run at 50, it definitely sounds a lot more harsh than it should be and that’s just cause of my bad piano skills haha. But on a more serious note, back then I used to be really into calling things “preludes” “nocturnes” rhapsodies” etc. because it made it sound “sophisticated” even if it didn’t reflect the proper musical form/genre. That’s why nowadays I try to avoid those (kinda archaic) titles in favor of titles that more accurately depict the tone of the music. (Although I’m a hypocrite since I’m working on a piece right now called ‘Musescore symphony’ haha)

@@dankim291 I got you! I sometimes like to use the "archaic" terms to keep my mind focused on the mood I am trying to convey. Any little bit helps. Haha. I note you like to use the harp a lot (it is a beautiful instrument) and working on some Bach-like "inventions". Here's #1. Most composers never admit this but this feels "complete" - softly melodic, almost a lullaby. I love how even at 90 seconds it soothes my nerves and love how it works. I'd be interested to see what you think! <3 kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZjGXpyEgMZmps0

Sorry for the delay! For some reason, I couldn't see the comment on youtube and only found out from my email... I totally agree that using terms like these can help with focus or purpose. In fact, even though I said I've been avoiding using those terms in favor of more novel titles, I also dread having to come up with them because I don't know what to call it. (And that's mainly why I have so many files just called "date + sketch" haha). Another reason I didn't mention for going away from calling things 'preludes' and 'fugues' and such is because I feel like if I don't do it "properly", the music theorists will come after me haha. But seriously, that's one of the reasons why any time I write a "fugue", I call it a "fugato" (fugue-like), because then when someone asks me "oh why is your second subject entry not on the dominant?" I can be like: "because I wasn't actually trying to write a proper fugue". Because there are people out there who will nitpick or even be offended that someone else's "sonata" didn't follow proper the exposition-development-recapitulation format. Personally, I think that we should be able to call things whatever we like. Rules and forms are meant to be broken. People have always been breaking them - from Beethoven to Schoenberg to PDQ Bach. At the same time, for my own works, to avoid controversy/the "theorists", I believe that if what I write doesn't follow the form of what I'm calling it, then I should opt for a different title rather than struggle to justify the title. I loved hearing your piece! I'll be heading over to your channel to comment more on it so that this post doesn't get too long haha!

Of course! Please just send me an email with what file type you need (pdf mscz sib midi or xml) and I can email the file to you :)

@@dankim291 thank you so much!

Sure! If you can send me an email I can email it to you

I will be extremely thankful to you if I receive the score.

Dear Mr David Kim My efforts to add my email fails. It gets deleted automatically.

From what I've heard, if you send a comment here with your email it might not work. If that's the case, you can find my email on my website - it should be listed on the About section of my youtube channel. Hope this helps!

@@dankim291 Dear Mr. Daniel Kim, I have given you an elaborate email. Pl check when free. Regards Omkumar M.

Thanks for the feedback. Do you remember what spot in particular sounded unclear? I’d like to find out if it was poor orchestration, improperly balanced winds, too dense of a texture or maybe the overall French impressionistic style I was going for that made it sound melodically difficult to follow.

@@dankim291 Yep. 7:03. I felt like the woodwinds were not very necessary on top of the strings. It sounded of separate and dissonant melodies that don't have any defined destination or anticipation for resolving. I just find it harder to listen to later on after the 7 mins in the piece because it isn't very comfortable to me. You can listen to Claude Debussy's Saxophone Concerto for some ideas. -There is some discomfort in some areas but he knows when to push and pull back to not overwhelm the listener. - Its very much about being provocative but also respecting the listener's comfort. -It may sound like the saxophone wanders around in its melody for some time but its like a promise that it will return to a certain melody or familiar sound eventually. I hope this sparks some ideas.

Interesting. Thanks for the elaboration. The woodwinds in that sections were below the string range and functioning as a countermelody - hence why it was ‘separate’. As for dissonance without destination or resolution, this section was intentionally oscillating on a bVII-I with the bVII functioning as a predominant (hence why it could also be interpreted a Dbmaj7/Gb instead of a…Gb#13(?)). But overall it’s meant to imply repeated plagal(ish) cadences before transitioning to the next idea. I wonder, if you didn’t like anything after the 7 minute mark, did you feel the same about everything after the 2 minute mark? (Which is the same chunk of music just generated using a different playback system). I only ask because you mentioned 7:03 but not 1:43. I took a listen to the Debussy rhapsody for saxophone (I couldn’t find a saxophone ‘concerto’ and assumed this was the piece you were referring to). It’s a wonderful piece, but I’m astonished to learn not only was the orchestration done by someone else, he also (apparently) didn’t enjoy writing for saxophone! I absolutely agree with your statement that music should be provocative but respect the listener’s comfort. I also think that it’s a challenging task to try and comfort all listeners as everyone has a different degree of what they consider ‘dissonant’ and what they find consonant (or as you put it - ‘comfortable’). For example, in the Debussy piece there are a lot of whole tone passages (which is typical for Debussy). I don’t consider that dissonance but many other people do. In fact I just met someone who considers anything written after Mozart as being ‘too dissonant’. Even Beethoven and Chopin was too dissonant for this person! I’d be interested to hear what you think about the Rite of Spring vs Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima. Two very different levels of dissonance which these composers (probably) saw/heard as being ‘comfortable’/acceptable to their ears. Again, thanks for your thoughts, Tom!

My pleausre😊 👍

hmm I think I liked the musescore one. I liked how the harp and tremolo and pizz strings sounded

@@dankim291 thank you for the reply! Lovely dynamic writing during transition and yes I loved the Musescore as well. Will be following your journey here on KZbin. Hope to get inspired by your piece.

Thank you for your kind words! If there’s anything I can do to help feel free to reach out anytime!

Thanks!

You can add chord names in Sibelius using Ctrl + K (or Cmnd + K on Mac)

I don't have an official teaching system set up; however, if you'd like to chat about your music, I'm always happy to hop on a phone call, Zoom, or Discord! Just shoot me an email if you're interested!

Thanks! I'll be looking forward to your piece! Will it be on youtube?

haha!

Thanks! I got the idea when we used a wheel for an assignment in my instrumental arranging class and it was so fun I kept doing it haha

Hmm looking back I don’t remember what I was doing haha. (I did this like two years ago I think). There’s definitely some inconsistencies, like in the ‘trio’ I did the cross stave to distinguish LH and RH but in the section right after that I used two voices in one staff instead. I think I did the cross staff in the trio because I thought two voices would break the beam and make it seem like the first note isn’t part of the melody or make it look like it’s the end of the phrase and not the beginning, but I think I prefer the two voice method cause it’s less confusing than seeing the cross stave stuff. Thanks for catching that!

Thanks. The tragedy of losing recordings haha!

It was wonderful chatting with you today, Mr Gleba! :)

@@dankim291: I found it enjoyable, too! You really are a good sport. I meant to ask you which of my works you subjected yourself to.

@@davidgleba3832 I took a listen to the Offertorium: Assumpta est Maria, Sequentia: Dies Irae, Missa in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis: Sanctus et Benedictus, and Agnus Dei.

@@dankim291: Ah, thanks! If you are so inclined, check out the Gloria and the Credo from the same Mass.

I absolutely love this piece! (particularly the 2nd and 4th movements). There’s something about the (as you described) whimsical nature of the writing/orchestration as well as his approach to harmony that really piqued my interest. Others like this that I like are Romeo and Juliet (Masks and Death of Tybalt), 10 piano pieces op 12 (humoresque), Love for Three Oranges, and the Lieutenant Kije suite.

I agree! musescore has great sounds but it doesn’t convey well with proper notation. I’m trying to write an orchestra piece in musescore right now and it’s been a struggle. The more I write the more I realize I’m going to have to do a separate score in Sibelius because the notation required to get the “realistic” sounds in musescore is just unrealistic to a performer/conductor trying to read the score. Like the staccatos are great…only if you use staccatissimo wedges. The legatos are great…but it doesn’t distinguish slurred and tongued or detache. Harp sounds great…but only louder than MF. Half the instruments have to be set no quieter than MP for it to be heard, and violas at FFF sound quieter than cellos at P… crescendoing in brass from a quiet to loud dynamic is difficult since it triggers “brassy” brass once you pass MF. But even though I complain about a lot of issues, I’ve been trying to adapt to them and realizing that i just need to treat musescore more like a DAW than a notation program. Kinda like how a movie composer might make their tracks in a daw then export the midi and create a score version for their studio recording session. Also, I realize that musescore sounds is relatively new compared to Noteperformer (which I prefer) and I’m sure in a couple years it’ll be better! :)

It’s my high quality mic stand lol

these arrangements are pretty fun to do!

Fantastic work to you both! Amazing stuff! I hope you collaborate more well into the future!

@@GaryGP40 Daniel, you know what we must do.

Thank you! I’m glad you enjoyed this arrangement!