Відео

Hey that's a pretty good solution, thanks for the advice!

Thank you for the kind words! Don't I wish I was performing this soon, but no I'm just an enthusiast killing some free time.

Oh for sure. I've got the tuba parts for the whole symphony written up and I might do something like this for the rest of it if I have time. Thanks!

Yes, euphoniums on the top two parts. Thank you for your kind words!

Thank you for the kind words, this is my personal favorite project for sure. I'd love to make it last for a good long while; it's a special joy to play it live. With this group, we played it a few times, some pretty short and some a bit longer. This was just the last, and most developed, performance we did.

Well, it sounds fab! Hope it gets many more outings! (Kudos to the sound person as well.)

I did not make the score on the left, it's the original 1916 published score from Schirmer that I'm scrolling through in a PDF viewer.

Having extensively used both programs, my advice is to use whichever you are more familiar with if you are comfortable with both. If you already own Dorico, then please use it. It has a much more developed system for notation input than MS. If you don't already own Dorico, then use MS. Either way, MusicXML allows for limited transmission between the two platforms, so if you have it available in one program, it isn't an ordeal to move it to the other. Dorico has, in my experience, worse issues than MS with handling very large scores. This is not to say that MS handles large scores well. The back half of this project required me to write out the parts individually, then copy-paste them into the full score. Dorico, with a 40-part score, took several seconds to respond to individual note inputs, however, so it's whichever works better for you. The communities for either are really less important than available documentation support for these programs. I use three programs for my music notation, depending on the project: Musescore and Dorico for faster turn-around and lower quality requirements, Lilypond for longer projects or anytime published quality is a chief concern. In my experience learning these, nothing matters more than their published support documentation. I hope this sufficiently answers your question, and best luck with your work!

@Marshall Rogers What a great answer. I have not bought any y program yet, just researching carefully. the last thing I need are regets of having a program not doing its job. Mobey is not an issue. doing the job right is. any thoughts.

Thank you, I appreciate the kind words. The local polymeter technique works for instances where the barlines will line up (like 12/8 and 4/4), but doesn't work for scenarios where two parts of the score will have mismatched barlines. As a matter of fact, the same technique of using CTRL (CMD) for local items works for barline styles and key signatures, both of which are used in this score. It is technically possible to fake the complex polymeter by using many invisible barlines and a bunch of horizontal displacement. I've done a recreation of the score for "The Unanswered Question" before using that method. Native support is still not possible with Musescore, and I've only ever gotten good results with Lilypond, but it's a rare enough use case to be a non-priority.

@@marshalltrogers ah, thank you for the clarification! I appreciate it.

I input both this and the Pastoral score myself, copying from a PDF of a published score accessed found on IMSLP. Thank you for the kind words

This score is a faithful recreation of an existing published score. Timpani notation at the time that this was written used trills, not tremolos, for rolls. Notation takes priority over playback.

@@marshalltrogers True, except in this case the whole purpose of this video is to demonstrate the MS4 sound fonts, not upload a transcription

Yes the euph-specific sounds are a necessity for the next iteration of MuseSounds. Thank you for your comment!

Euphonium is coming soon, along with Baritone horn, Tenor horn, Flugelhorn, Cornet, Soprano Cornet.

@@danielray5628 oh man

Yes, I can only assume it's a bug in the implementation. I cannot imagine someone deciding that fortzando should be quieter than the other music in its context. I see it getting fixed in the near future.

All the instruments sound like their respective instrument at least most of the time now

Must have a lot of RAM. I try to run a bigger score on my 8GB RAM computer, and it's lagging like crazy. I have to export the audio to listen to it. I'll be getting a 32GB RAM computer in the next week or so. That way it can run more easily.

Did you make sure the buffer under preferences I/o is turned up to max setting? That worked for my pc.

The scooping is pretty egregious, and not only in the woodwinds. All the winds and strings have had this exact problem, and it does sound oddly amateur. It's definitely intentional, these things have programmed in to do that, but it's a very odd design choice and one I hope they move away from. I spend way too much time trying to get a clear sound on large intervals in my practice to hear it in playback meant to approximate live professionals.

Orchestras play what is written in score pretty exactly; that's how scores work, we play what is written. Musescore isn't producing playback on the fortzandi correctly, sounding more like the staccato sound you mention. I have to disagree about following Musescore playback for how to write dynamics. Musesounds should aim to more accurately recreate dynamic scoring as has existed for literal centuries, we should not be rethinking how we write dynamics to appease the sound bank.

@@marshalltrogers "that's how scores work" No, you are wrong, you are so so wrong. The composers don't often understand how the instruments work and write hard or even impossible passages; it is the job of the conductor and musicians to make those notes playable. This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of Hector Berlioz, who wrote the famous book about orchestration. As far as I remember, Richard Strauss did not disagree with these claims. Also there is these things called "interpretation" and "style" and "tradition", which is why we in the first place play music with orchestras instead of computers every time. About Sibelius and Finlandia, this is the first time I, for example, heard those last notes of the trumpet fanfare without staccato, and I have heard this piece a lot since I was a 8-or-something years old fan of Sibelius. Compare, for example ua-cam.com/video/qOSaT6U4e-8/v-deo.html where the piece is performed by the most prestigious Finnish orchestras and the choir of Sibelius Academy in the opening ceremony of the new main concert hall of Helsinki. I believe their version is more correct than yours. I mean, this is one of the most played and known tune by Sibelius, he certainly heard it performed dozens of times during his lifetime, and the tradition of how this piece is supposed to be played is based on that. We can also listen to recordings from the time when Sibelius was still alive, and they played the fanfare with staccato back then also. Here's an over 100 years old recording: ua-cam.com/video/kR7skK_1Pjw/v-deo.html You have to accept that the staccato, not present in the score, is the correct way to play the fanfares and your Musescore rendition is wrong. How could anyone argue that a mechanical interpretation by a computer is more accurate than the version we the real humans know and recognize and love?

@@kctier9183 agreed 👏

Its MuseSounds

@@heiligeskreuz06 r/whoosh

Nice

I love the hymn arrangement towards the end.

I think it sounds very chaotic from measure 99. And the Bassoon the four measures before is in my opinion too quiet.

That is the kindest comment I could get. Much love and please do look into tuba quartets, there is so much untapped potential in the ensemble.

I've not published this arrangement anywhere yet but if I do I'll update you!

These only really work when multitracked like this but I can clean up the score I used and send it to you.