# Symphony using VSL (not epic) looking to improve my orchestral sound



## leon chevalier (Mar 22, 2016)

Hi everyone!

I'm working hard on a symphony and I would like to share a mouvement to get help to improve my orchestral sound. I want it to sound like a real orchestra and it's in that way that I'm looking for advise. On the "programming" and audio processing part. (The composition by itself I'm not planning to change it but advise are also welcome)

I'm using VSL SE vol1 bundle and vol2 bundle + VI pro + MirX Teldex



Thanks for your feedback and tips!


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Mar 22, 2016)

Hi,
just brainstorming now a bit what comes in mind while / after the first listening:

1. The overall mix sounds to me a bit hollow and thin.
2. The woodwinds have some undelightful frequencies in the mids
3. Overall I am *missing a change in dynamics on every section*, everything sounds more or less at *the same loudness* and that is surerly a part of your composition *and missing aesthetic to write idiomatic for orchestra* and how an orchestra would perform.
4. VSL Samples - They sound here *overall not good, maybe a mix of the points 1-3.*
5. You want to write a symphony but there is no thematic writing for me, but ok you want only suggestions regarding sound. *I still mention* that because it *helps your work to shine and to improve the overall listening experience* and in such case here not so much for me.
6. Very static velocities and *bad programming*, just for instance *at 4:54* this *oboe Stacc figure*..this is not good Leon..listen to a real oboe when playing such line..this sounds *not only static but wrong in articulation*. The Higher Woodwinds seem to me often also a bit too loud ...

Sorry that I did not leave so many good words here. I could find much more though. :(

Still one thing: I like the overall idea and your statement . Anyways good luck with your symphonic fantasy, lets call it like that!


----------



## Oouzha (Mar 22, 2016)

leon chevalier said:


> Hi everyone!
> 
> I'm working hard on a symphony and I would like to share a mouvement to get help to improve my orchestral sound. I want it to sound like a real orchestra and it's in that way that I'm looking for advise. On the "programming" and audio processing part. (The composition by itself I'm not planning to change it but advise are also welcome)
> 
> ...




Well, while I feel Alexander's reply is perhaps a little harsh, I basically agree with his observations...especially when it comes to the composition. I would worry less about how realistic it sounds and more about making it compelling to listen to for its inherent ideas. 

An amazing composition performed on a $50 Casio keyboard is more fun to listen to than a sub-par composition played by a symphony orchestra.

As the listener, what am I locking on to? What's the melody? Where are the sentences and paragraphs? What's being SAID? There's a persistent motif—that four-note pulse—but the listener tires of it after constant repetition like a one-word rhyme. If this motif were repurposed within a melody, it might shine more. And some overall contrast would help, also, as the piece doesn't seem to tell a story—started here, went somewhere else, came back or ended up somewhere new, etc.

I hesitate to say anything at all, because writing music is hard, really really hard. It'd be like if painters' eyeballs wore out the longer they painted the same painting, and they started seeing red for blue and dark for light—when we spend time with a piece of music it deceives us and we lose objectivity.

But I imagine that's why you posted it—for some other perspectives—and so my advice would be to strip everything away till all you have is the core few ideas. Then tell us a story, a simple one, with those core ideas. I bet your symphony will automatically sound more realistic in that case, but that's less important than making a piece of music that grabs hold.

I'm right with you, for what it's worth, struggling with these principles of better composition. You might enjoy Mike Verta's YouTube video in which he basically tears apart pieces for the same violations, for six hours or more. It's spot on and you'll learn a ton. Look it up!


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Mar 22, 2016)

Regarding the sonic side of things ...

I use quite a lot of VSL instruments (the full versions more so than the SEs, but it shouldn't matter that much because the basic sound is the same) and also often use the MIRx Teldex venue. Most of the time I'm able to recognise samples that I use myself, and I know the sound and character of this particular combination very well. In this case, I was a bit surprised that what I'm hearing in your piece sounds rather unrecognisable. I wouldn't have guessed that those are the same tools I'm used to hearing very often.

Which brings up the question what your general approach to programming and mixing is. Are you using any kind of EQ? Do you adjust instrument levels via mixer faders in your DAW? Are you using the "natural volume" and "Pre-EQ" options of MIRx, and what is your Wet level set to?

I almost had this feeling ... some sounds reminded me of very old libraries like Edirol Orchestral or some Garritan stuff. Could it be that all of your instruments are set to key velocity, as opposed to velocity crossfade? Just a wild guess, but it kind of sounds like it, and it also sounds as if your MIDI notes are all set to a uniform, pretty high velocity on top of that.

Take a quick listen to these two tracks:

https://hearthis.at/mariop/weeping-willow-village/
https://hearthis.at/mariop/ruins-of-faith/

These pieces feature VSL instruments and the MIRx Teldex reverb quite prominently. In the first one, there is a fine touch of some Albion shorts layered in further behind the VSL strings, and the choir in the second one is Soundiron Olympus. Other than that, it's all VSL and Teldex. I do some additional processing further down the line, but nothing drastic or out of the ordinary.

These tracks don't sound perfect either, but since I used a lot of the same stuff you're using, one would have to assume that sonically, your piece would sound quite similar to the other two. It's really very different though.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 23, 2016)

leon chevalier said:


> The composition by itself I'm not planning to change it but advise are also welcome



Leon, this is an interesting effort. Let me comment on your composition as such.

You have a first part of about 15 seconds where you combine some interesting strings rhythm (A) with a flute theme (B).
Then there comes an intermediate part of about 10 seconds where you pick up the flute runs of the first theme, play with that material and some modulation for a buildup.
What follows then is a new motif/theme (C) that uses the first interval of the first theme but other than that it is quite different, so essentially it is a completely new theme. This theme is then (together with a melodic 'answering' theme D) declined through lots of permutations and sequencial variants throughout the rest of the composition. As far as I could hear with two listenings you never pick up the rhythm A or theme B any more.

The first thing to notice is that there is a considerable disbalance between the first two elements (A + B, about 25 sec.) and the second pair (C + D, nearly 4 minutes).
Then, the two pairs of themes of motifs are disconnected with each other, they don't intervene, and neither A nor B are picked up ever again.
Then, I don't hear how the second pair (C + D) in themselves are developing, other than that they are repeated in a sequential manner. This makes the second part (from 0:25 on) quite static.
Then, I don't hear where the whole form comes to a conclusion, it is as if it just ends somewhere before coming to a point.

It is good that you discovered the principle of sequential repetition, however now you need to use that to an end, to a purpose. Maybe for a buildup of some sort, but then it has to go somewhere.

You might find it instructive to study the Sonata form (exposition, development, recapitulation) since it is constructed according a natural dramatic principle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonata_form

There is no need to follow that but it can help to have the knowledge. What you probably are trying to achieve is basically a Sonata form with two themes. The classical approach would be to have one theme, then develop it a bit (more than you do), and then introduce the second theme. Then those both would be developed together (struggle with each other if you like) - and there is the proper place for sequences - and finally combine to a synthesis that has the best of both. That is, in a nutshell, the idea.

Other than that, keep the music coming!

Hope that helps, Hannes


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Mar 23, 2016)

Hannes_F said:


> Leon, this is an interesting effort. Let me comment on your composition as such.
> 
> You have a first part of about 15 seconds where you combine some interesting strings rhythm (A) with a flute theme (B).
> Then there comes an intermediate part of about 10 seconds where you pick up the flute runs of the first theme, play with that material and some modulation for a buildup.
> ...


Thanks for giving such a detailed feedback to that guy though I think he searched more for a sonic feedback and on his orchestral sound mimicing a real orchestral recording. What is your opinion on that? I mean I appreciate that you give him tips regarding his compostion and still:

"I want it to sound like a real orchestra and it's in that way that I'm looking for advise. On the "programming" and audio processing part. (The composition by itself I'm not planning to change it but advise are also welcome)"




/-Alex


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Mar 23, 2016)

Oouzha said:


> Well, while I feel Alexander's reply is perhaps a little harsh, I basically agree with his observations...especially when it comes to the composition.



I didn´t meant to be harsh instead of trying to give him a detailed feedback what flaws I see there. Surely "bad programming" is not a positive feedback but the guy intended to mimic a live recording and for such an approach I feel that the programming isn´t done very well at all. I also gave him some spots to look at. I hope that makes sense.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 23, 2016)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> mimicing a real orchestral recording. What is your opinion on that?


Alexander, my route has always been 'music first'. For me it all starts there, no much sense in 'chasing a sound' because the sound has to spring from the music expression itself.

Not sure whether this makes sense, for me it does.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Mar 23, 2016)

Hannes_F said:


> Alexander, my route has always been 'music first'. For me it all starts there, no much sense in 'chasing a sound' because the sound has to spring from the music expression itself.
> 
> Not sure whether this makes sense, for me it does.


Surerely, Hannes, sound and music are always connected. Though I think both are a part of the result and so I was wondering about your opinion because the guy in particular asked for that. Anyways I hope he does take some information out of the feedback also from you guys here.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 23, 2016)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Surerely, Hannes, sound and music are always connected. Though I think both are a part of the result and so I was wondering about your opinion because the guy in particular asked for that. Anyways I hope he does take some information out of the feedback also from you guys here.



Alexander, I am quite sure Leon is reading this.

As to the sound, I have heard better and worse. But what sense does it make for Leon to try using more dynamics or to do more cc programming if it is not clear why? Dynamics are pointless if I don't know for each individual note how it relates to the note before and to the note after, and for knowing this I must have a purpose, a plan. As long as the purpose is not clear there is no use of trying to shaping cc curves or dynamics automation. That would be 'dynamics as an end to itself', and that is futile.

The use of EQ or reverb is the least of all topics that would be relevant for me. For this project I would use some basic reverb in order to have my libraries placed halfway properly, remove all EQs except perhaps some general rolloffs in the highs and lows, and from then on concentrate on the composition itself.


----------



## leon chevalier (Mar 23, 2016)

Thanks you all for taking the time to listen and comment. I really appreciate it! To be honest I didn't expect so much "bad" (but constructive) comments but I feel kindness in your messages and it's all that matter to me. It's for the best!

Maybe I've lost my objectivity on the way. It's a 6 mouvements symphony and I have spend so much time on it that I may need to step back. 

This mouvement was the one I was less happy with. That why I choose to share it. Now you made me realised that it need more work and that the structure is not good. (It was a sonate form to me!) So I decide to rewrite it and I will share the new version as soon as possible.

I will come back with some questions for you but now I have a few things that come to my mind:
- I've too much doubled and tripled (and more...) lines so that may be the cause of the "unrecognisable sample" I will let each section breath more.
- I'm realy not happy high strings sound (I combine legato and spiccato) but the fast legato and performance trill patch are not availble in VSL SE. Any advice on that point is more than welcome.
- I've not push the reverb much (around 50% on MirX) because it's a quite fast (and full of tutti) mouvement and it sound muddy if I push it more. Anyway I will work that too.
- Yes I constantly change theme and I understand that it's going nowhere, I will work particulary on that point.

At last I would like to share the first mouvement of this symphony. I've used exactly the same template (EQ, reverb, all the same). The pupose for me is to find out if it was only that previous mouvement that sound bad or if I have to rework all my symphony. 



Thanks again all for the time you gave me.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Mar 23, 2016)

After listening to the first movement, I'm even more under the impression that your instruments are all set to key velocity inside VI Pro. Either that, or velocity X-fade is set to a fixed value for all instruments throughout the whole piece.

Either way, all the performances in the piece are very static. I don't really hear any dynamic expression, and that's something you really have to work at very deliberately and in high detail, especially with the VSL Special Editions, since they only contain the most basic patches without any kind of pre-recorded dynamic performance or variation. If you don't perform dynamic variations, crescendi etc. with the modwheel or draw them in with the pencil in the CC lane, they notes will just toot away until you tell them to stop. 

Same goes for short notes - they shouldn't all be performed with the same velocity. You should try to think about, and mimic the dynamics of a real perfomance by varying the strength and volume of the attack. I would say that the best way to set up VI Pro is to use velocity X-fade for all sustained notes exclusively and set all short articulations (stacc, spicc, pizz, Harp, any mallets, percussion single hits etc.) to key velocity. 

Overall, the lack of expression leads to this certain stiff and unrealistic sound that is somewhat reminescent of 16 Bit game console sound chips, or perhaps how a Mellotron would have sounded if they had digital technology back then.  Try to focus much more on _how_ the instruments are playing, not just _what_ they play.

I also think it really helps to overall sound if you take the time to create some impression of agogics and rubato. I deliberately offset starting points of notes or purposely change note durations freely, and I almost never keep a fixed bmp value throughout a piece, but apply very subtle changes all over the place.

Regarding the strings: are you combining legato with spiccato to perform trills? That probably doesn't sound too good. I think the best way to do trills without a "proper" performance trill patch is to simply use the standard legato patch, set it to monophonic (I always have legatos on mono) and perform the trill with retrigger (for example: for a whole-tone trill from C to D, keep the C key down while "trilling" the D). That works pretty well because the legato patches are generally very agile. And then, again, detailed sculpting of the performance with velocity X-fade. For that kind of thing, I zoom in on the notes in the MIDI editor really really close, disable the grid and draw the subtle dynamic changes in with the pencil tool the best I can.


----------



## leon chevalier (Mar 23, 2016)

Hello Jimmy. Thanks for the feedback. Now I'm at work so cannot take more time to answer but I will answer tonight.


----------



## Oouzha (Mar 23, 2016)

Hey Leon, 

Regarding the composition end of things, I just want to second Hannes' recommendation to study sonata form. But not just the form itself—particularly, how unity and contrast are used to connect and distinguish sections and elements.

As I mentioned, I'm in a similar situation as you are: I'm able to compose larger pieces, and have been doing so for years just based on what "sounds good" to me, but recently I've taken up with a composer who's teaching me the traditional techniques of form and variation. Let me share a little of what I've learned so far, as these concepts have helped me greatly and they may perhaps help you also.

I've learned that good (Western) music is essentially a play between unity and contrast—just enough unity so that the piece feels coherent and full of intent, and just enough contrast so that there's a sense of story and development. Unity keeps the listener grounded and contrast keeps the listener engaged; lack of unity alienates and lack of contrast bores. Solving the problem of how MUCH unity and contrast, of too much or too little—that's where the art of composition comes in.

Each popular form, such as sonata or rondo or whatever, is essentially an answer to the unity/contrast problem. "THIS WORKS"—that's the lesson I hear whenever I study a particular form. It's not so much about fitting a stylistic structure for me anymore, it's about learning the way composers have successfully woven unity and contrast together throughout history. Of course, there are infinite ways of solving the unity/contrast problem beyond traditional forms, but the traditional forms work so damned well that there's often no need to look elsewhere.

Your music here in this thread suffers from far too much unity, IMO, in terms of texture (which is really rhythm), orchestration, dynamics, and structure—but it also suffers from too much contrast in terms of thematic material (melody, phrasing, motivic coherence). The result is that frankly while the music is beautiful the listener has little to grab hold of and loses interest.

There are no rules in music, really, only successful and unsuccessful ways of solving the unity/contrast problem to create a musical narrative that is coherent and engaging. Lately I've been continually asking myself these tough questions, over and over, excruciatingly nonnassumptive in my assault of my music: is this enough unity? enough contrast? do I have my listener locked? and when I do, am I offering enough contrast so I don't lose that "lock"?

Study the ways composers have created unity and contrast motivically to create memorable themes, and study the way composers have varied sections to create a sense of movement (particularly the sonata form, as it's so successful and nearly contains it all). Just having an A section and a B section doesn't mean we've successfully created a form that works: the interplay of unity and contrast between them needs to function such that it's coherent yet engaging. Melodic variation, textural variation, dynamics, bassline, tempo, orchestration, imitation, modulation/tonal centers... these are just a few musical cross-sections that might be worth scrutinizing.

Sorry for the long post, but when I look for feedback on my music this is exactly this sort of pointed response I'm hoping for, so hopefully this perspective is helpful to you as it has been for me of late!

Keep at it, as you've clearly got the vision and diligence to execute something wonderful.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 23, 2016)

Oouzha said:


> a play between unity and contrast



Now _that _is one good description.


----------



## leon chevalier (Mar 23, 2016)

Hello everyone. Now I have more time to answer to each of you.

It has been a strange day for me today. I was constantly thinking about your feedbacks. Not in a bad way. But I was seriously thinking "where do I want go with my music?" I realize that there is still so much for me to learn. I'm 34, got a job, a wife and a kid. I'm a happy man. But I'm really missing time to work on my music. I've got around 4 hours by week. It's hard to see where this musical path is leading me...? I'm always balanced between the joy I have to write music and the frustration to not be able to reach the quality I'm looking for. And now even more. I'm not looking for answer or advice on this. I just felt the need to share my thoughts  (Sorry!)

Let's back to music now!



AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Hi,
> just brainstorming now a bit what comes in mind while / after the first listening:...



Alexander, Thank you for pointing all this. It was an electrical shock that I needed. I hope next time you will not have to do that list!



Oouzha said:


> Well, while I feel Alexander's reply ...



Oouzha, your messages (particularly the second one) was very kind and inspiring. I will keep in mind your words for the rewrite of this symphony.



Jimmy Hellfire said:


> After listening to the first movement...



Jimmy, thank you for the VSL advise. Maybe my love for old video game music fooled me : http://www.leonchevalier.com/videogame.htm 



Hannes_F said:


> Leon, this is an interesting effort. Let me comment on your composition as such...



Hannes, you have been kind enough to have a deep listening of my music and your advise shown me my music structure in way that I never thought.

I've learned a lot on myself by sharing my music with you guys. Even if I was already aware of most of the things you pointed out, I was like blind when it come to my own music.

Now, I'm back to my composition, ready to rock !!! (hum... should I say: ready to classical !)


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Mar 23, 2016)

leon chevalier said:


> Maybe my love for old video game music fooled me : http://www.leonchevalier.com/videogame.htm



I miss those times, man. I used to play those games so much as a kid, and I still remember every single track from the Secret Of Mana soundtrack note for note. My friends always talked about graphics in games, all the time, but to me, the music was always just as important!


----------



## Oouzha (Mar 23, 2016)

leon chevalier said:


> Hello everyone. Now I have more time to answer to each of you.
> 
> It has been a strange day for me today. I was constantly thinking about your feedbacks. Not in a bad way. But I was seriously thinking "where do I want go with my music?" I realize that there is still so much for me to learn. I'm 34, got a job, a wife and a kid. I'm a happy man. But I'm really missing time to work on my music. I've got around 4 hours by week. It's hard to see where this musical path is leading me...? I'm always balanced between the joy I have to write music and the frustration to not be able to reach the quality I'm looking for. And now even more. I'm not looking for answer or advice on this. I just felt the need to share my thoughts  (Sorry!)
> 
> ...



My advice to you is really to myself. I am in a similar place: 37, married with two children, a 50hr/week salaried job and a busy side business (I am a wedding photographer, shooting 20 or so weddings per year). Carving out the time for music is somewhere between delusional and masochist.

Comforting thoughts: Hopefully we are not yet halfway through life. Even a commitment of four well-spent hours per week multiplies through age's compound interest and flourishes to deep understanding. I have accepted the possibility that I may not write anything truly sublime until my seventies, and maybe never; but I also comfort myself that composition seems to be one of those rare endeavors (unlike athleticism, say) which blossoms prematurely and then fades. For most composers, sublimity tends to increase the higher the opus number. I take encouragement in that.

Strategies:

Since I sleep less due to my addiction to composing, I feel it's important to eat well and meditate during the day to maximize my mental clarity so my sessions are as productive as possible.

I redeem travel and other blank time by listening to online teachers of all kinds. I am saturated in learning. (Again I recommend Mike Verta's videos, which are entertaining and also erudite).

I show my music-in-progress to as many people as I can. In this I am not seeking validation but honest reaction. For example, recently I've been hard at work on the first two phrases of a main theme. The question I'm grappling with is: is the first phrase sufficiently complex that the second phrase should be a simple repeat? Or, is it okay to vary the second phrase into a question/answer syllogism? I showed the theme to a guy with zero musical training; I doubt he even listens to classical music. All the better. He told me, without my prompting, that he got lost "at the second part." Okay then, there's my answer: a simple repeat is probably necessary in this case to maintain the lock; I'll save the "answer" phrase for later in the piece.

Could you write your piece in your head while driving? If not, it may be too complex. If you can't remember it your listeners surely won't.

Spend more time on the basic building blocks than fine tuning. We tend to burp out an idea and think it's done, and start assembling right away. I'm learning to take the kernel and first generate as many variations and mutations as I can; assembly comes later. It feels like a waste of time, but you'll find jewels in that dirt.

My teacher says: "At every obstacle you encounter in composing a piece, there are a trillion bad solutions, a billion good ones, a few great ones, and, if you look hard enough, there is one sublime one." To find the sublime requires undying patience, especially for us who have limited time at our disposal. So: ask yourself, when you are looking back on your life would you rather have written a hundred "pretty good" pieces, or five sublime ones? I know my answer.

Never judge your own musics. They are your children. Would you judge your own child? Love and nurture but never castigate or shame.

If you listen to your music with real openness, it will tell you what it wants.

Lastly:

Composing is its own reward. When we work on our music we are really working on ourselves. It is a spiritual exercise. The discipline and honesty and self-love required is identical to those needed to become a better person.

These are thoughts I console myself with, as I seek to become a better composer.


----------



## Oouzha (Mar 23, 2016)

...and...I just realized you said you didn't want advice.

Oops. Another thing I'm working on is listening skills...


----------



## novaburst (Mar 23, 2016)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I also think it really helps to overall sound if you take the time to create some impression of agogics and rubato. I deliberately offset starting points of notes or purposely change note durations freely, and I almost never keep a fixed bmp value throughout a piece, but apply very subtle changes all over the place.



Hi Leon So glad you have some time to do your music, hope you will find more time soon, some great advice here, I am a babe to orchestra only started last year but like you I posted a small piece that I am working on and got some amazing help and advice that it change my approach to music for ever. 

What Jimmy quoted in his post will really help bring your music to life like, since doing orchestra I have not used quantize not even one time I just play section by section listen to metronome and thats It never use quantize, I think and I really hope this is not bad advice so any one please pull me up if it is, I think quantize is orchestras worst enemy. and takes away a lot of feel and emotion away from a piece,

But hope you really get back into your music and I wish you well.


----------



## dtcomposer (Mar 23, 2016)

Hey Leon,

Not to harp on compositional things, but I have a few impressions that are slightly different about what is making your piece work/not work after several listens. I tend not to give feedback very often, but I haven't seen anyone else talk about this, and I think it can help you.

Let me first say that I think most of the elements work well. I'm ok with your pacing, basic musical gestures, and overall structure. I think those are all strong points to this movement. There are always little things that you could change or improve there. To me, those issues are not the main problems with this piece.

Part of writing music that sounds like a real orchestra, in my opinion, is writing music that is fundamentally solid and balanced harmonically. In this piece I'm not sure that I hear enough attention to/consideration of voice leading (avoiding unwanted parallels , doubling weaker chord members or even leaving out chord members etc comes to mind immediately in this style) and harmonic motion from chord to chord. One really good example of this is the little cadential moment from about 2:45 - 2:50 where you move from triad to triad to triad. It sounds like you didn't use music theory much in composing this, which can be great and is probably even essential, but also can show some big weaknesses in the harmonic content if you aren't very careful. 

Even if the piece is full of counter melodies, or contrapuntal writing you really need to have an idea what harmonic movements they are outlining, or at least what intervals the various lines are creating. Making sure to control whether they are consonant or dissonant when you want them to be is essential.Sometimes I am hearing clashes where it seems that you would not want them.

I would go back through it and try to eliminate some of the obvious harmonic faux-pas that are getting in the way of music that has a really nice shape, some good pacing, and a nice structure. I would look at any parts where multiple lines are moving in the same direction at the same time. Maybe breaking some of that up with contrary motion? Also, see if you can analyze what chords areas you are cycling through, and where it might make sense to change to stronger relationships, double specific notes instead of others etc.

I guess my main point is that you should know what kind of harmonic language you are trying to use, and then learn to master it. A huge part of any kind of standard form (Sonata-Allegro form included) is successfully navigating your way through harmonies in some kind of logical way. In the case of a very strict adherence to the form you would move to specific key relationships. But even with a loose interpretation of a form in a tonal context the choice of tonal centers, or key areas is probably the main differentiation between sections.


*TL/DR Suggestions:*
-If you have studied theory then use it! Fix the parallels, check that the notes you double strengthen the chords you want to sound, and create more controlled and effective movements between whatever harmonies are the most important. Review counterpoint rules.

-If you have not studied these things or need to review them take the time to learn them! It seems like you have a good sense for lots of musical elements, so it would be a shame for this one area to trip you up. Any basic music theory textbook would be a great starting place, or there are multiple online sources. My favorite option if you have a university/conservatory close to you is to finda Graduate composition student who could help structure a study plan, and give targeted feedback.


----------



## leon chevalier (Mar 24, 2016)

Oouzha said:


> ...and...I just realized you said you didn't want advice.
> Oops. Another thing I'm working on is listening skills



Just said that because I didn't want people to think that I was depressed and need to be cheered up... But talking to someone how is walking the same life path is a pleasure 



dtcomposer said:


> Hey Leon,
> Not to harp on compositional things, but I have a few impressions that are slightly different about what is making your piece work/not work after several listens. I tend not to give feedback very often, but I haven't seen anyone else talk about this, and I think it can help you...



Thank you for taking the time to listen and advise. Actually I never studied music at all. I'm a self taught guy. I've done that all my life, for my job (IT), sport, music... and I even did a cartoon without any experience in drawing or animation ... But your message and Oouzha's ones made me decide to take a composition teacher. I feel that I'm reaching my limit alone with my computer. A new beginning !


----------



## Oouzha (Mar 24, 2016)

leon chevalier said:


> But your message and Oouzha's ones made me decide to take a composition teacher.


EXCELLENT!

Find someone who can teach the techniques: Motivic variation, especially, I've found crucial. But also: Advanced harmony. Modulation. Form & structure.

What I'm learning is that inspiration works with what it's got, whatever tools you've already gathered. 

I, too, am mostly self-taught. I composed for ten years before I ever opened a theory book. I discovered tricks on my own, and my inspiration filled them like hot air in a balloon.

But learn more techniques, add more tools...inspiration expands into them also. You won't lose anything, since you already have the base in place. You'll just gain more options.

Good luck finding a great teacher & I can't wait to hear what you write when you start implementing what you learn!


----------

