Comment needed

Have your scores reviewed by other users. Comment on old and new published scores and on publishers.
User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1084
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Comment needed

Post by OCTO » 22 Mar 2016, 10:58

Please, give me some suggestions for improvements.
shot.jpg
shot.jpg (275.61 KiB) Viewed 3449 times
...If needed, start a new topic for focus on details!
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 25 • Sibelius 8 • MuseScore 2 • Logic Pro X • Ableton Live 9 • Digital Performer 9 /// OS X El Capitan, (side system: Debian 9, Windows 7)

erelievonen
Posts: 96
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 16:12
Contact:

Re: Comment needed

Post by erelievonen » 22 Mar 2016, 12:25

Is this some kind of test? :) Well, here are a few thoughts:
– Top staff, 1st bar, 2nd beat: the beam is too close to the grace notes. However, I'd rather strive for keeping all the grace notes stems up, which will require the beam to be raised even higher. Maybe, on the 2nd beat, it would be too much, and might look better to keep the grace notes stems down, I'm not sure. But on the 3rd beat, I'd definitely keep the grace notes stems up.
– The 2 first trills on the top staff look like they should be played with A flats, but there could be ambiguity about that. I'd put small flats at the trill signs to remove any ambiguity (as is already done at the 3rd trill).
– In the piano (I assume) part, the 11-tuplet could be spaced better, to make it look more compact and to take less horizontal space. On the first 3 notes, minimize the distances between accidentals and noteheads, as well as between the accidentals themselves. The 3rd note and the 4th note (=the 1st on the upper staff) should be much closer to each other, the accidentals of the upper staff notes being kerned over the notes on the lower staff.
– Piano upper staff, 1st bar, 2nd beat: It'd be good to add a quarter rest here, for clarity.
– Piano upper staff, 2nd bar, 2nd beat: If it's deemed necessary to add a cautionary natural on the D grace note, then by the same logic it is also necessary to add a small natural sign at the trill. This, in turn, will render the natural at the grace note redundant.
– Piano upper staff, 2nd bar, 3rd beat: I personally would not place a natural sign here. At first sight, it looks like "is there a flat missing on the previous B?" By modern rules, accidentals (in this case, the B flat of the lower staff) do not apply to other staves, but others might have a different opinion in this situation.
– Piano upper staff, 2nd bar, 4th beat: I would not repeat the sharp on the tied note after the grace note. Seeing it repeated causes momentary doubt about whether the note is actually to be played twice, especially as the tie between the grace note and the normal note is not horizontal, like ties should be, looking more like a slur now.
– Piano lower staff, 2nd bar, 2nd beat: Wouldn't an arpeggio sign be appropriate also here?

User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1084
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Comment needed

Post by OCTO » 22 Mar 2016, 12:45

Thank you erelievonen, many many useful comments, very helpful!
***
– Piano upper staff, 2nd bar, 2nd beat: If it's deemed necessary to add a cautionary natural on the D grace note, then by the same logic it is also necessary to add a small natural sign at the trill. This, in turn, will render the natural at the grace note redundant.
Actually, here I see the mistake. The grace-note should be parenthesised trill note.
***
– Piano upper staff, 2nd bar, 3rd beat: I personally would not place a natural sign here. At first sight, it looks like "is there a flat missing on the previous B?" By modern rules, accidentals (in this case, the B flat of the lower staff) do not apply to other staves, but others might have a different opinion in this situation.
I think I would keep this here.
***
– Piano lower staff, 2nd bar, 2nd beat: Wouldn't an arpeggio sign be appropriate also here?
What arpeggio symbol do you have in mind, arpeggio?
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 25 • Sibelius 8 • MuseScore 2 • Logic Pro X • Ableton Live 9 • Digital Performer 9 /// OS X El Capitan, (side system: Debian 9, Windows 7)

User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 1281
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Comment needed

Post by John Ruggero » 22 Mar 2016, 13:16

1. I agree with all of that, erelievonen, and I do prefer the natural sign in Piano upper staff, 2nd bar, 3rd beat.

2. Top staff, 1st bar, 3rd beat I prefer keeping the beaming direction the same as that on the 2nd beat to better show the progression of the melodic lines.

3. Top line mF cresc, placed either directly under the first grace note, or under the Bb

4.Piano upper staff beat 4 sF Music notation does not posses a standard symbol to show two intimately connected notes accented as a unit. (Liszt did one up with one, however.) There might be some doubt here whether the sF should be taken literally, is misplaced and should be applied to the big notes, or applied to both. So the notation might be clarified with another sF (not a great solution), or a small dim hairpin after the sF or an sFP, or moving it under the big notes.

5. The arpeggio sign is too long in both directions.

6. The flat over the trill is too close to the tr sign and not centered.

7. the "11" under the piano group looks a little low to me and not quite centered.

8. The first beat Piano doesn't add add up. An 11:6 marking?
Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2,
Finale 2014d with GPO 4, JW Plug-ins, SmartScore X Pro, Adobe InDesign CS4,
Inkscape .48.5 and .91, FontForge 20150526
http://www.cantilenapress.com

User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 1281
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Comment needed

Post by John Ruggero » 22 Mar 2016, 13:28

First beat of the piano. Lengthening and angling the hairpins up and down into the staff in the direction of the notes grabs the eye a little more.
Last edited by John Ruggero on 23 Mar 2016, 14:44, edited 1 time in total.
Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2,
Finale 2014d with GPO 4, JW Plug-ins, SmartScore X Pro, Adobe InDesign CS4,
Inkscape .48.5 and .91, FontForge 20150526
http://www.cantilenapress.com

erelievonen
Posts: 96
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 16:12
Contact:

Re: Comment needed

Post by erelievonen » 22 Mar 2016, 16:09

erelievonen wrote:– Piano upper staff, 2nd bar, 3rd beat: I personally would not place a natural sign here. At first sight, it looks like "is there a flat missing on the previous B?" By modern rules, accidentals (in this case, the B flat of the lower staff) do not apply to other staves, but others might have a different opinion in this situation.
Thinking again, and having second thoughts about this now. I would also keep the cautionary natural, but put in between parentheses.
Elsewhere, I've loudly expressed my opinion against ever using parentheses for cautionary accidentals; but this would be the only, the ONLY situation that I can imagine where I would prefer a parenthesized cautionary accidental. That is, when a cautionary must be placed between two consecutive notes of the same pitch.
OCTO wrote:
– Piano lower staff, 2nd bar, 2nd beat: Wouldn't an arpeggio sign be appropriate also here?
What arpeggio symbol do you have in mind, arpeggio?
The same as on the 3rd beat.
Or, if the chord on the 2nd beat should be played non arpeggio instead (i.e. with the help of the right hand), maybe it's wise to indicate that explicitly. The 2nd beat chord, as it stands now, could easily (and unpredictably) be interpreted either as arpeggio or non arpeggio. But maybe it is the composer's intention here to leave that decision open to the performer?
John Ruggero wrote:2. Top staff, 1st bar, 3rd beat I prefer keeping the beaming direction the same as that on the 2nd beat to better show the progression of the melodic lines.
I'm not sure I understand. So you would keep the grace note stem directions the same as in OCTO's original example? There, the grace notes on the 1st beat have a different stem direction from the rest. That's also not consistent with the melodic line.
I would first try stems up for all the grace notes.
John Ruggero wrote:8. The first beat Piano doesn't add add up. An 11:6 marking?
It's indeed 11:6 (32nds). In this case, 11:12 (64ths) might be a better way of notating it. In either case, it would help to show the ratio.

User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1084
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Comment needed

Post by OCTO » 22 Mar 2016, 20:22

Many thanks to both of you!
Very useful comments.
It is actually my own music, a 37' long violin sonata, composed during my studies. It is engraved by another person, and now I am in a double seat: both to check the engraving result, and to proofread + fix composing mistakes.
To check both at the same time is not a good way.

I will be back with more questions about this in the future, but your comments open my eye a bit more!
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 25 • Sibelius 8 • MuseScore 2 • Logic Pro X • Ableton Live 9 • Digital Performer 9 /// OS X El Capitan, (side system: Debian 9, Windows 7)

User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 1281
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Comment needed

Post by John Ruggero » 23 Mar 2016, 16:46

John Ruggero wrote:
2. Top staff, 1st bar, 3rd beat I prefer keeping the beaming direction the same as that on the 2nd beat to better show the progression of the melodic lines.
erelievonen wrote:
I'm not sure I understand. So you would keep the grace note stem directions the same as in OCTO's original example? There, the grace notes on the 1st beat have a different stem direction from the rest. That's also not consistent with the melodic line. I would first try stems up for all the grace notes.
Yes, I meant that the grace notes might keep their original stem directions. However, if it would work with all up stems that is even better. I was not sure that the grace notes on beat two would work with up stems without actually trying it to see how it all looked with the beams on the real notes high enough for the grace note beams to clear.
Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2,
Finale 2014d with GPO 4, JW Plug-ins, SmartScore X Pro, Adobe InDesign CS4,
Inkscape .48.5 and .91, FontForge 20150526
http://www.cantilenapress.com

harpsi
Posts: 28
Joined: 08 Oct 2015, 10:30

Re: Comment needed

Post by harpsi » 23 Mar 2016, 20:59

I prefer that the slur tips do not touch the staff lines (last two slurs in the violin). Maybe this is just an obsession if mine...

User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1084
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Comment needed

Post by OCTO » 23 Mar 2016, 22:00

harpsi, I think it is a good advice!
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 25 • Sibelius 8 • MuseScore 2 • Logic Pro X • Ableton Live 9 • Digital Performer 9 /// OS X El Capitan, (side system: Debian 9, Windows 7)

Post Reply