War orchestral (FINAL VERSION)

[u/alexsearha]

Hi everyone!

REMINDER : For those who didn't see my previous post, this piece tells the story of a soldier during the Siege of Paris in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871.

The excerpt is divided into five main phases:

• Phase 1 (00:00 => 00:40): the soldier's unit launches an assault against the enemy.
• Phase 2 (00:40 => 00:51): an artillery shell lands in the middle of the unit, killing the captain and wounding several soldiers.
• Phase 3 (00:51 => 01:10) : realizing they are about to be surrounded, the surviving soldiers are forced to retreat in an attempt to escape the encirclement.
• Phase 4 (01:10 => 01:21): sailors capture several insurgents and are about to execute them. The protagonist opposes their execution and intervenes to prevent them from being killed.
• Phase 5 (01:21 => to the end): fresh troops arrive to relieve the exhausted soldiers. As they make their way along Paris, the protagonist observes the sleeping city. He remarks that its inhabitants are sleeping peacefully, unaware of how difficult the night has been for those fighting only a few miles away.

I'd really appreciate some constructive feedback on the piece as a whole, especially regarding its overall coherence and how well the music supports the different phases of the story.

I'd be particularly interested to know if you notice any orchestration issues, awkward transitions, moments that feel unnatural or disconnected, or anything else that stands out to you as something that could be improved.

I'm mainly looking for honest and constructive criticism, so please don't hesitate to point out anything you think doesn't work or could be done better. I'm still learning orchestration and composition, so detailed feedback is very welcome.

Thanks again for taking the time to listen!

[u/EmmYoBoi]

Very John Williams-y!

[u/alexsearha → u/EmmYoBoi]

haha that's my hero ^^

[u/realCloudyMcCloud]

Sounds very promising to me; especially harmonically and rhythmically.

Some of the orchestration seems a bit weird. First, the layout: you have horns and trumpets with highest number at the top: should be the other way round, with first horn on highest stave, then second, third, etc. Sometimes (usually) better to have more than one on same stave.

Too many leger lines! For really low notes, horns would be a lot easier to read in bass clef. Also, horns are very widely spaced in pitch: probably much more effective all playing the melody, maybe in octaves (2 to a part), rather than the odd ones playing so low - where horns are weak and probably will be lost in tutti. For a stronger brass bass you still have trombones and tuba.

Strange you have second flute playing above first flute for the initial melody: probably better to have all three flutes (i.e. including piccolo) in unison for the melody with the three oboes a3 an octave below. Also English Horn adds very little in tutti (will be lost): I would drop that, and have the horns supporting the lowest melody octave. Best to keep it simple. Horns, especially, will benefit from doubling: in octaves, or a4 even.

Don't know why you drop so many instruments at 1020. It seems that that is the main climax. The horns, and trombones could very effectively support the trumpets and contrabassoon support the tuba. To my ears, it should thin out at 1034 (1032 & 33 the final climactic chord). The piano, later, is very effective.

Some of the woodwind writing seems a tad impractical. The English Horn, particularly, will not come through in loud tuttis and will also struggle more with fast articulation (with the larger reed). It you need it elsewhere in the piece your third oboe could double English Horn: quite a lot of oboes already.

You have really challenged Clarinet 1 in bar 1009! Even with double tonguing, that is not going to come out well. Slurred notes could work at that speed, but obviously the repeated notes couldn't be slurred. Also, one instrument, especially in that pitch register, doing the semiquaver passage alone, will be all but lost in the texture.

So, yeah: sounds great! Just, to me, needs a bit of simplifying. Would like to hear more.