I. RESEARCH-BASED RUBRICS FOR ASSESSING UNDERGRADUATE MUSIC
COMPOSITIONS: A VALIDITY STUDY. II. IDENTITY CRISIS, A COMPOSITION
FOR WIND ENSEMBLE, PERCUSSION, ELECTRIC ORGAN, AND
ELECTRIC BASS
By
THOMAS F. NELLY
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2006
Copyright 2006
by
Thomas F. Nelly
This document is dedicated to my children, Hannah, Abe, and Eziah, and to my parents,
Tom and Linda.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is an honor to express my appreciation for all the people who have supported me
and guided me throughout my many years of studies at the University of Florida. The
work would not have been possible without their continuing encouragement and support.
First, I would like to thank my parents, Tom and Linda, who have always supported
me in everything I have done in life. Also, I want to offer my love and gratitude to my
children, Hannah, Abe, and Eziah, who have always loved me and inspired me.
I would like to thank my teachers, Dr. Paul Richards, Dr. James Paul Sain, Dr. Paul
Koonce, Dr. Timothy Brophy, Dr. John Bengston, Dr. Budd Udell, Dr. David Z.
Kushner, Dr. Leslie Odom, Dr. Raymond Chobaz, Mitchell Estrin, and many others, all
of whom continually inspired me, challenged me, forced me to look at music from many
different angles, and helped me develop into a mature musician.
I would like to offer my gratitude to the office and library staff in the School of
Music, especially Robena Cornwell and Michelle Wilbanks-Fox—they are always there
when I need them.
I would like to thank the following composition professors, without whom this
study would not have been possible: Hubert Bird, Andrew Bonacci, Mark Dal Porto,
Gregory Day, Amy Dunker, Michael Eckert, Neil Flory, Dennis Friesen-Carper, Andrew
Houchins, Kari Juusela, Veronika Krausas, Paul Siskind, Jerry Tabor, Robert Scott
Thompson, John D. White, Gregory Youtz, Mark Zanter, and several others who remain
anonymous.
iv
Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues and fellow students (there have been
many) who have walked the path with me, all those who have performed my music, and
every musician who has ever done it authentically and honestly; they have inspired me.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................x
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... xi
PART I: RESEARCH-BASED RUBRICS FOR ASSESSING UNDERGRADUATE
MUSIC COMPOSITIIONS: A VALIDITY STUDY ..................................................1
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................2
Statement of the Purpose ..............................................................................................3
Delimitations.................................................................................................................3
Definitions of Terms.....................................................................................................3
Significance of the Study..............................................................................................4
2
LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................6
Philosophical Foundations............................................................................................6
Theoretical Framework...............................................................................................13
Creativity Models ................................................................................................14
Wallas...........................................................................................................14
Guilford ........................................................................................................15
Amabile ........................................................................................................15
Csikszentmihalyi ..........................................................................................16
Gardner.........................................................................................................17
Gruber...........................................................................................................18
Sternberg ......................................................................................................19
Implications for the present study ................................................................21
Musical Creativity ...............................................................................................22
Greenhoe ......................................................................................................22
Vaughan .......................................................................................................22
Webster.........................................................................................................23
Swanwick and Tillman.................................................................................23
Custodero .....................................................................................................24
Implications for the present study ................................................................24
vi
Research Supporting Rubric Development ................................................................26
Assessment ..........................................................................................................26
Individual function .......................................................................................26
Program function..........................................................................................27
Implications for the present study ................................................................29
Creativity Definitions ..........................................................................................29
General definitions .......................................................................................29
The Tanglewood Symposium.......................................................................30
Intrinsic motivation ......................................................................................31
Problem solving............................................................................................32
Creativity Measurement ......................................................................................33
Guilford ........................................................................................................33
Amabile ........................................................................................................34
Implications for the present study ................................................................35
Musical Creativity Measurement .................................................................35
Vaughan .......................................................................................................35
Gorder...........................................................................................................36
Webster.........................................................................................................36
Sogin.............................................................................................................37
Implications for the present study ................................................................37
Quantitative Assessment of Compositions..........................................................38
Webster.........................................................................................................39
Hassler and Feil............................................................................................39
Moore ...........................................................................................................39
Kratus ...........................................................................................................40
Bangs ............................................................................................................40
Smith ............................................................................................................41
Webster and Hickey .....................................................................................41
Brinkman ......................................................................................................42
Colwell .........................................................................................................42
Implications for the present study ................................................................43
Qualitative Assessment of Compositions............................................................43
Moorhead and Pond .....................................................................................44
Cohen ...........................................................................................................45
Bunting .........................................................................................................46
DeLorenzo....................................................................................................46
Christensen ...................................................................................................47
Implications for the present study ................................................................48
Assessment Rubrics.............................................................................................49
Hickey ..........................................................................................................49
Implications for the present study ................................................................51
3
METHODS .................................................................................................................53
Participants .................................................................................................................53
Materials .....................................................................................................................55
Rubric Design .............................................................................................................55
vii
Craftsmanship......................................................................................................57
Communication of ideas......................................................................................59
Creativity .............................................................................................................62
Musicianship........................................................................................................62
Other rubrics........................................................................................................63
Quantitative and qualitative assessments ............................................................64
Design of the Supporting Materials............................................................................64
Procedures...................................................................................................................65
4
RESULTS ...................................................................................................................67
Question 1: Do the Rubrics Contain the Skills and Factors Necessary for Success
in Undergraduate Composition? In Other Words, Do the Rubrics Contain the
Constructs of Undergraduate Music Composition?...............................................67
Question 2: Would You Use this Type of Rubric for University Music
Composition Education? Why or Why Not? .........................................................68
Question 3: How Effective is the Use of the Likert-Scale (from 7-1) to Quantify
Assessment Results in these Rubrics? ...................................................................68
Question 4: What Would You Change about, Delete from, or Add to the Rubrics?..69
Craftsmanship......................................................................................................69
Communication of Ideas......................................................................................70
Creativity .............................................................................................................70
Musicianship........................................................................................................71
Other rubrics........................................................................................................71
Global additions...................................................................................................72
Question 5: Do You Have any Additional Comments—i.e., Strengths,
Drawbacks?............................................................................................................72
5
CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................74
What Are the Constructs of Undergraduate Music Composition? .............................74
Can these Constructs Be Developed into Assessment Rubrics? ................................75
Can these Rubrics Be Validated by Experts in the Field of Undergraduate
Composition, in this Case, Composition Professors? ............................................76
Final Thoughts and Observations ...............................................................................78
Suggestions for Future Research ................................................................................80
PART II: IDENTITY CRISIS, A COMPOSITION FOR WIND ENSEMBLE,
PERCUSSION, ELECTRIC ORGAN, AND ELECTRIC BASS..............................82
CHAPTER
6
SUPPORTING INFORMATION ON THE COMPOSITION...................................83
Concept .......................................................................................................................83
Compositional Process................................................................................................85
Musical Materials .......................................................................................................85
viii
7
IDENTITY CRISIS, FOR WIND ENSEMBLE, PERCUSSION, ELECTRIC
ORGAN, AND ELECTRIC BASS ............................................................................88
Instrumentation ...........................................................................................................90
Performance Notes......................................................................................................91
APPENDIX
A
EMAIL SOLICITATION.........................................................................................196
B
SUPPORTING MATERIALS FOR THE STUDY..................................................198
Directions for Rubric Evaluation..............................................................................198
Important Explanations, Definitions, and Clarifications ..........................................199
Craftsmanship....................................................................................................200
Communication of Ideas....................................................................................200
Creativity ...........................................................................................................201
Musicianship......................................................................................................201
Other Rubrics: Application of musical materials ..............................................202
Other Considerations .........................................................................................202
C
RESPONSES FROM PARTICIPANTS...................................................................203
Participant 1 ..............................................................................................................203
Participant 2 ..............................................................................................................204
Participant 3 ..............................................................................................................205
Participant 4 ..............................................................................................................208
Participant 5 ..............................................................................................................215
Participant 6 ..............................................................................................................216
Participant 7 ..............................................................................................................218
Participant 8 ..............................................................................................................222
Participant 9 ..............................................................................................................223
Participant 10 ............................................................................................................225
Participant 11 ............................................................................................................226
Participant 12 ............................................................................................................226
D
ASSESSMENT RUBRICS.......................................................................................230
E
REVISED RUBRIC BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY ....................234
LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................238
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...........................................................................................251
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
page
Figure
6-1. Excerpt 1 from Identity Crisis, by Tom Nelly (mm. 6-9)..........................................86
6-2. Excerpt from Identity Crisis, by Tom Nelly (mm. 11-13).........................................86
6-3. Excerpt from Identity Crisis, by Tom Nelly (mm. 15-17).........................................87
x
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
I. RESEARCH-BASED RUBRICS FOR ASSESSING UNDERGRADUATE MUSIC
COMPOSITIONS: A VALIDITY STUDY. II. IDENTITY CRISIS, A COMPOSITION
FOR WIND ENSEMBLE, PERCUSSION, ELECTRIC ORGAN,
AND ELECTRIC BASS
By
Thomas F. Nelly
May 2006
Chairperson: Paul Richards
Cochair: James Sain
Major Department: Music
The purpose of part I of this document was to develop and validate assessment
rubrics for use in assessing undergraduate music compositions. The following questions
guided this study. First, what are the constructs of undergraduate music composition?
Second, can these constructs be developed into assessment rubrics? And third, can these
rubrics be validated by experts in the field of undergraduate composition, in this case,
composition professors?
Research revealed four main constructs of undergraduate music composition:
craftsmanship, musicianship, communication of ideas, and creativity. Each is a main
category in the rubric’s design and each contains its own criteria. The rubrics were
designed based on research in music assessment, creativity assessment, music
composition, creativity models, aesthetics, music education, and psychology.
xi
Twelve professors who are teachers of undergraduate composition students have
examined and commented on the rubrics. They varied by geographic region, school size,
gender, age (34-74), and years of teaching experience (5-50); all hold a doctorate degree
in composition, and all are active composers. The evaluation instrument used consisted of
a questionnaire and instructions that were designed by the researcher. Evaluations
occurred between March and August of 2005.
Results showed that craftsmanship, musicianship, creativity, and communication of
ideas are the main constructs of undergraduate music composition and that the rubrics
designed based on these constructs are valid assessment tools for use in undergraduate
composition (11 of 12 participants agree). However, some suggestions were made for
changes, additions, and deletions to the criteria (categories in the rubrics) used to assess
these constructs. Overall, the participants 1) would use such rubrics because they are
comprehensive and enable teachers to clearly communicate with their students, and 2)
favored formative over summative assessment. Therefore, it was suggested a flexible
rubric be created in which elements can be selected from a comprehensive list and which
can be implemented in a personal, case-by-case manner. Based on the responses of the
participants, the rubric was revised by the researcher.
Part II of this document is an original composition for wind ensemble, percussion,
electric organ, and electric bass. It was inspired by research in creativity and authenticity.
xii
PART I
RESEARCH-BASED RUBRICS FOR ASSESSING UNDERGRADUATE MUSIC
COMPOSITIIONS: A VALIDITY STUDY
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Assessment is becoming one of the most important issues in education in the
twenty-first century. It can be both formative (guiding the student towards a goal) and
summative (quantifying achievement), and be both process- and product-oriented. It is
used to keep high standards, to determine the value of funding for programs and facilities,
and to aid in the process of teaching and learning (Colwell, 2002). Because of the
emphasis on assessment, some educators, including music educators, have tried to
improve their assessment techniques and strategies. This is important, especially in the
area of music composition, because musical behavior is both objective and subjective and
therefore hard to assess. Regardless of this difficulty, research has shown that teachers
can come to a reasonable agreement as to what makes a quality music composition
(Amabile, 1982b; Hickey, 1999). Furthermore, reliable rating scales and rubrics have
been designed to aid both teachers and students in the teaching and learning process
(Webster, 1977; Webster, 1989; Hassler & Feil, 1986; Moore, 1990; Kratus, 1991;
Bangs, 1992; Smith, 1993; Kratus, 1994; Webster & Hickey, 1995; Hickey, 1999). All of
this research, though, has been designed for and has been executed using the
compositions of elementary and high school children, and cannot be applied directly to
the assessment of undergraduate music compositions because the criteria used in
assessing children’s compositions are likely inappropriate for use in assessing
contemporary, undergraduate compositions. Researchers, however, are beginning to
2
3
understand the constructs of music composition. It is essential that valid research-based
rubrics are designed for undergraduate use.
Statement of the Purpose
The purpose of this study was to develop and validate research-based assessment
rubrics for use in undergraduate music composition instruction. The following questions
guided this study.
•
•
•
What are the constructs of undergraduate music composition?
Can these constructs be developed into assessment rubrics?
Can these rubrics be validated by experts in the field of undergraduate composition,
in this case, composition professors?
Delimitations
This study has been limited to the following guidelines.
•
•
•
•
Only teachers of undergraduate composition students have taken part in the study.
The teachers have examined the rubrics keeping in mind that they will be used for
assessing undergraduate compositions.
Only validity had been discussed; reliability was not an issue in the present study.
The rubrics are concerned only with creative products, even though it is understood
that creative processes and the products that result are unavoidably linked.
Definitions of Terms
For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that most of the readers will be music
professors and graduate students in music; therefore, most of the musical terms used have
not been defined. Other terms that may not be familiar to the reader or that may need
explanation will now be defined.
•
•
•
Craftsmanship: the level of technical proficiency.
Aesthetic value: a theoretical reflection on artistic status and meaningful
articulation of ideas (Goehr & Bowie, 2001).
Creativity: the ability to produce work that is novel (original, unexpected, nonconventional), appropriate (useful, adaptive) (Amabile, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi,
1996; Gardner, 1993; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995), correct, valuable, or expressive of
meaning (Amabile & Tighe, 1993). It exists within a domain and is judged by
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
knowledgeable persons to be suitably useful for inclusion in the domain (Amabile,
1982b; Csikszentmihalyi, 1999).
Originality: the degree of non-conventionality and novelty of products or responses
when compared to other members of the domain from which they come.
Fluency: the number of novel and appropriate responses.
Flexibility: the degree to which novel and appropriate ideas are flexible and shift in
character.
Elaboration: the degree to which novel and appropriate ideas are detailed and
complex.
Ill-defined problem: a problem in which the components, the operators, and the
goals are not specified or known.
Intrinsic motivation: a type of motivation that comes from within the individual
and is not influenced by external factors.
Consensual assessment: a type of assessment in which appropriate observers are
used to independently judge creative products.
Construct: a theoretical part of a model.
Criterion: a measure or standard.
Rubric: an assessment tool that contains specific categories to be assessed as well
as the criteria for assessment.
Qualitative research: research that does not quantify its measures. It is concerned
with causes and processes.
Quantitative research: research that quantifies its measures and is product oriented.
Likert scale: a five- or seven-point scale in which 7=high and 1=low. This present
study uses a seven-point scale.
Significance of the Study
This study has both theoretical significance as well as practical educational
applications for the teaching and assessment of contemporary music compositions at the
university level. First, this study fills a need for assessment rubrics in undergraduate
composition—assessment rubrics have not been developed and validated for use in
undergraduate composition. Second, among the research studies on creativity in the arts,
few make connections to practical applications in the classroom. Teachers are expected to
teach composition, but are given no guidance for developing the creative side of students
(Hickey, 2002). Valid assessment rubrics can help teachers with actual assessments in the
classroom. They can aid the teachers in assessment, as well as aiding the students by
giving clear-cut expectations and goals. Third, the constructs of music composition could
5
be applied to course objectives—if a professor desired to nurture creativity, then fluency,
flexibility, elaboration, and originality can be assessed. Additionally, the assessment
rubrics that resulted from this study can be examined for inter-rater reliability.
Furthermore, other factors that affect compositional creativity can be examined, such as
problem-finding abilities, domain-specific knowledge, music aptitude and achievement,
intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivations, and training in the arts. It will also be important to
validate the consensual assessment technique in undergraduate composition. Eventually,
a course design for music composition can be created based on the constructs of music
composition, current trends, and current beliefs about what makes a creative piece of
music.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter begins with the philosophical foundations for why music compositions
should be assessed. The philosophical foundations suggest that by assessing music
compositions students will become better musicians. Next, a theoretical framework for
how to assess music compositions is discussed which includes creativity models and
models of musical creativity. The theoretical framework 1) implies that creative products
should be assessed based on the processes from which they come, and 2) helps identify
the constructs of music composition. Finally, research covering assessment, creativity
definitions, intrinsic motivation, problem-solving, creativity assessment, musical
creativity assessment, quantitative and qualitative assessment of music compositions, and
rubric design will be discussed. This research will support the design of the rubrics and
help further identify the constructs and criteria of music composition.
Philosophical Foundations
In higher education, music educators must make decisions as to how they will best
serve the interests of their students. The most important reason for teachers to assess their
students’ musical behavior is to facilitate student learning within the education process.
“Few will argue with the notion that evaluation is an integral part of the education
process” (Zerull, 1990, p. 19). Although this is true, assessment is a complicated matter
and continues to be debated by educators—especially in the arts. Assessing music is an
extremely complex process because artistic expression and creativity can not be assessed
using traditional assessment techniques. Also, research has shown that assessment itself
6
7
can lower the creativity of the students if done in a threatening manner or for any external
rewards (i.e., high-stakes assessment). However, it has shown that external evaluation can
increase creativity levels when it is informative. Students who were told how to succeed
or “be creative,” and those who received intrinsic motivation training, actually increased
their creativity levels (Collins & Amabile, 1999).
Assessments can give both students and teachers vital information concerning
student learning and understanding. In the field of music composition over the past
century, much advancement has occurred in understanding the process of music
composition through studies of creativity, compositional techniques and materials, and
musical thinking and understanding. The evaluation of compositions from a well
informed point of view can increase student performance as well as improve entire school
programs. Poor decisions, though, can result in many negative consequences. Decisions
must be made wisely based on a strong information base, which consists of both
subjective and objective knowledge. Subjective information is normally based on
informal, non-systematic observations coupled with interpretations of the observer’s
training, experience, knowledge, feelings, intuition, and prejudices, and will naturally
vary from observer to observer. Objective information is unaffected by personal qualities
and does not vary from individual to individual. Both are important in the development of
assessment techniques. Both need to be integrated into assessment strategies and methods
(Boyle & Radocy, 1987). The rubrics in the present study will contain both subjective
and objective assessment strategies.
8
Overall, the philosophical foundations for why music compositions should be
assessed are based on the notion that assessments will help students become better
musicians because
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Music composition completes the music curriculum.
Music composition maximizes musical thinking, musicianship, and the
understanding of compositional techniques and knowledge.
Music composition develops creative thinking and critical thinking skills.
It has been primarily the composers who have moved the field of music forward.
Students need guidance—they need good teachers.
Teaching composition will help develop the next generation of composers.
Strategies for assessing compositions are successfully being developed.
Music composition completes the music curriculum. Bennett Reimer:
We have the capacity, finally, to represent the music of Western culture in its three
essential aspects: listening, performing, and composing. For the first time in
history, music education can become complete (1989, p. 213).
Paul Hindemith believed that composition was an essential part of a well-rounded
music education. He believed that the all-round musicians are
those who are useful players, not of one instrument, but of several; who sing
acceptably, who know how to handle classes, choirs, and orchestra; who have a
decent knowledge of theory, and beyond all, who certainly know how to compose
(1952, p. 185).
He adds:
Composing was not a special branch of knowledge that had to be taught to those
gifted or interested enough. It simply was the logical outgrowth of a healthy and
stable system of education, the ideal of which was not instrumental, vocal, or tonearranging specialist, but a musician with a universal musical knowledge (p. 178).
Music composition maximizes musical thinking, musicianship, and the
understanding of compositional techniques and knowledge. Arnold Schoenberg,
composer and teacher, who often theorized on teaching and learning, stated that:
Composing trains the ear to recognize what should be kept in mind, and thus helps
the understanding of musical ideas. In these circumstances, the purpose of teaching
composition is to help [the students] understand music better, to obtain that
pleasure that is inherent in the art (1950, p. 151-152).
9
Throughout history, there have been many treatises and texts written for the
purpose of teaching students materials and techniques of composition—from Fux’s
Gradus to Cope’s Techniques of the Contemporary Composer. It is imperative that the
techniques of composition are handed down from generation to generation. In learning
these techniques it is essential that students use them actively, and not merely read about
them—students must engage in the process of composition. Performers learn by
performing and composers learn by composing. It takes hard work and guidance.
Johannes Brahms:
There is no real creating without hard work. That which you would call invention,
that is to say, a thought, is simply an inspiration from above, for which I am not
responsible, which is no merit of mine. Yea, it is a present, a gift, which I ought
even to despise until I have made it my own by right of hard work (Henschel, p.
22).
Music composition develops creative thinking and critical thinking skills. A
problem-solving activity is creative if two things are true, 1) it provides a workable
solution to a problem, and 2) most other people would or could not arrive at the same
solution (Halpern, 1994). Music composition fulfills these two criteria. Composition has
often been thought of as a problem-solving activity. There is much research that supports
this notion (presented later in this chapter).
When solving problems and thinking creatively, students must have a certain
degree of freedom to explore different possibilities on their own, having a limited amount
of guidance by the teacher. Charles Stanford, a teacher of Vaughan Williams states:
To tell a student how to write music is an impossible absurdity. The only province
of a teacher is to criticize it when written, or to make suggestions as to its form or
length, or as to instruments or voices for which it should be designed. He can thus
keep impatience within bounds when invention is outpacing experience, develop by
sure, if sometimes necessarily slow, means the experience to equal the invention.
For the rest his functions must be…to give hints as to what to avoid, leaving the
constructive element to the pupils own initiative (1914, p. 219).
10
Additionally, Arnold Schoenberg, who was not happy with the education system in
1929, stated that teachers should be
encouraging young people to look at things for themselves, to observe, compare,
define, describe, weigh, test, draw conclusions, and use them—by training the
mind; by bringing the pupil face-to-face with the difficulties, problems, and
inherent terms of the given material; by helping him to recognize them; by forcing
him to help himself in this respect; which means letting him make his own mistakes
and correcting them afterwards, but also being of assistance to him in finding the
solution (1965, p. 135-136).
Additionally, Bennett Reimer, who takes an aesthetic view to creativity and
believes that sharing the expressive values of music should be first and foremost, states:
Music education should help people share as fully as possible in the created
expressive qualities of pieces of music, so they can experience the explorations and
discoveries of feeling captured in those pieces. Music education should also
involve people in the creation of music to the fullest extent possible, to experience
their own explorations and discoveries of feeling through the act of creation (1989,
p. 69).
It has been primarily the composers who have moved the field of music
forward. When looking through the many books covering the history of western music,
one can see that the most important element in a general music education is the
understanding of composers, their music, and their developments. In history courses we
focus on composers and their music. Perhaps this is because it is the compositions that
survive, not the performances—there is not necessarily a model performance of a specific
piece of music. When speaking of composers, Bennett Reimer states:
Of all people involved in the art of music, the most crucial to the endeavor are
composers, without whom performers and listeners could not exist (1989, p. 208).
Students need guidance—they need good teachers. No composer is an island.
There are always social, historical, and environmental factors that add to their creative
output. The teacher is a big part of the equation. David Elliot states:
11
The musicianship of every musical practice is learned through interactions with
musically significant others: with teachers and, in a more distanced way, with the
community of practitioners who have established, maintained, and advanced the
musical domain the novice wishes to learn (1995, p. 161).
Some agree that creative musical ability is a talent—that we are born with it. Many,
though, disagree with this notion—creative musical ability comes from hard work and
good teaching. Any student can learn to compose, can learn compositional techniques,
and while engaged in the learning process, will use models and examples from the field
in which they compose. Teachers are important in this process. David Elliot:
No one is born musical. Instead, people are born with capacities of attention,
awareness, and memory that enable them to learn how to think musically—to make
music and listen for music competently, if not proficiently. Musicianship is
achieved through music teaching and learning; it is neither a gift nor a talent (1995,
p. 236).
He continues:
Just as intelligence is considered not one-dimensional but multidimensional, so
cognitive scientists no longer speak of individuals as ‘having creativity’ or ‘being
creative’ in any general sense. Intelligence, cognition, knowledge, creativity—all of
these are context-specific, or domain-specific. The key to musical creativity lies in
the education of multidimensional form of working understanding called
musicianship. Indeed, and again, musicianship is educable (1995, p. 228-229).
Concerning teachers, Reimer states:
A competent teacher of composition at the operational phase will exemplify the
same characteristics as teachers of general music and performance—high levels of
craftsmanship, sensitivity, imaginativeness, and authenticity (1989, p. 212).
He adds:
Young people will involve themselves in the new composing technologies because
they will grow up with them as an accepted part of their world. Composition can
become a strong third pillar of school music and therefore benefit far more from a
general curriculum of study, taking them light-years beyond what they are likely to
pick up on their own as a strictly recreational activity (1989, p.213).
Another important factor is that when setting limits or constraints in composition
instruction, the teacher is not limiting the student. Stravinsky believed:
12
My freedom thus consists in my moving about within the narrow frame that I have
designed myself for each one of my undertakings. Whatever diminishes constraint,
diminishes strength. The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees one’s
self of the chains that shackle the spirit (1947, p. 87).
It is essential, through educational constraints, that students learn compositional
techniques from the past. Composers who lack technique and can not solve technical
problems will not be as successful as the well-rounded composer. Abbs (1987) states:
The accent on self-expression left the mastery of technique unaccented, even mute.
For the progressives if the work was somehow expressive of self then, by
definition, it became laudatory, whatever the artist merit…Many children in ‘free’
art lessons may have expressed themselves only too well but produced, for want of
technique and initiation into the symbolic medium, artistic non-entities (p. 44).
Stravinsky even stated that technical problems “developed and exercised his
imagination” (1936, p. 101).
When Gardner (1993a, 1993b) studied the biographies of seven creative individuals
(Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Martha Graham, and Gandhi) he noticed the
importance of a teacher in shaping creative experiences. Of all the individuals studied,
only Gandhi did not have a mentor or teacher. It seems that most creative individuals are
guided through their creative experiences.
Teaching composition will help develop the next generation of composers. As
opposed to teaching composition to develop creativity and self expression is the view that
states that composition should be taught to develop the next generation of composers.
This philosophy is concerned in developing techniques of the art form (Hickey, 2003).
Some argue that this type of approach is too constrained and rule oriented and that it
stifles individual expression and intrinsic motivation (Amabile & Gitomer, 1984).
Strategies for assessing compositions are successfully being developed. The
growing amount of literature on music assessment—from the early tests based on the
13
theories of Guilford, Amabile’s consensual assessment technique, and Hickey’s rubrics—
shows that music can be reliably assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Bennett
Reimer states:
Surely the challenges here are as great as in the other two programs [general music
and performance], but as surely an effective teacher will have to meet them. In one
sense it will be harder for those who will be the pioneers starting this new
specialization, in that the specifics of their teaching craftsmanship, their sensitivity
to compositional learnings and to the cultivation of them, their imagination in
inventing new methodologies, their authentic treatment of music as it exists and as
it newly comes into existence, are all awaiting discovery with little accumulated
expertise to fall back on. Standards and procedures and outcomes and patterns of
programming will all be newly developed, allowing those providing the leadership
to share in the joys of discovery and achievement (1989, p. 212).
The preceding philosophies have implications for the present study. The present
study was concerned with the development and validation of assessment rubrics for
assessing undergraduate music compositions. The philosophical foundations discussed
imply that by assessing music compositions students become better musicians because
music composition maximizes musical thinking, musicianship, and the understanding of
compositional techniques and knowledge, it develops creative thinking and critical
thinking skills, it has been primarily the composers who have moved the field of music
forward, students need guidance—they need good teachers, teaching composition will
help develop the next generation of composers, and strategies for assessing compositions
are successfully being developed.
Theoretical Framework
The following research and models suggest how to assess creative products by
identifying the constructs and criteria involved in their creation. Bennett Reimer states:
To remove the prejudice that judging art is entirely subjective or whimsical,
replacing it with the understanding that criteria can be identified and applied
reasonably, is an important function of music education—a function far too often
neglected. It is a necessary component of the music program, which must be
14
developed as systematically as other essential skills and understandings (1989,
p. 142).
Creativity Models
Since music composition is a creative activity, creativity models have important
implications in the assessment of music compositions. They provide the theoretical
framework on which to develop assessment rubrics. Assessments of music compositions
must be based on the actual process composition (Moore, 1990). Creativity models can
help identify the constructs and criteria of creative activities and show important
environmental, cognitive, creative, and personal factors that affect levels of creativity.
The constructs and criteria can be used as the foundation for assessing compositions, and
the environmental, cognitive, creative, and personal factors can be maximized for best
possible assessment, learning, and performance. Creativity models that will be discussed
include those by Wallas, Guilford, Amabile, Csikszentmihalyi, Gardner, Gruber, and
Sternberg.
Wallas
Wallas (1926) proposed a model of creativity based on problem-solving that
contained four stages: a) preparation, the gathering of information and materials, b)
incubation, the unconscious work going on, c) illumination, the inspired emergence of a
possible solution, and d) verification, the formulation, testing, and elaboration of the
solution. This model was applied to music composition by Hickey (2003). She believes
that music composition is a meaning-making process in which students compose music
under the influence of culture. Her philosophy is based on theories that state that our
mental processes, which include music composition, all develop in a social setting.
Musical behavior, she argues, is a dialogue between the individual and the culture in
15
which the individual is able “to construct knowledge of themselves as well as their
culture.” Music composition, therefore, should be taught and assessed because it provides
students with the opportunity to develop high-level meaning-making processes.
Guilford
Guilford’s Structure of Intellect Model (1967) is probably the most influential
model of creativity. As stated earlier, this three-part model consists of 1) content
categories—the figural, symbolic, semantic, and behavioral information received and
stored, 2) operations categories—the mental processes used to process information
(cognition, memory, divergent and convergent thinking skills, and evaluation), and 3)
products categories—the end result of the processing of information (units, classes,
relations, systems, transformations, implications). His main hypothesis was based on the
belief that creative thinking consists of the following divergent thinking factors: fluency,
flexibility, elaboration, and originality.
Since music composition is believed to be a creative activity, Guilford’s model is
the basis for the inclusion of creativity as a main construct of undergraduate composition,
and the inclusion of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration as sub-categories in
the creativity rubric in the present study.
Amabile
Amabile’s (1982) model of creativity contains three parts: intrinsic motivation,
domain-specific knowledge (knowledge, technical skills, and talent), and cognitive
abilities conducive to creativity (the ability to break rules, use problem-solving strategies,
and avoid mental set—a mental rut or mindless rigidity that blocks problem-solving; the
ability to generate novel ideas; the ability to concentrate). Her model is based on a fivestep process: problem/task presentation, preparation, response generation, response
16
validation, and outcome. Music professors can promote intrinsic motivation by allowing
students to do something they love, give them freedom of choice, establish environments
in which ideas can be freely exchanged, reduce extrinsic constraints and pressures, train
individuals in intrinsic motivation, teach domain-relevant skills and creative processes
(Collins & Amabile, 1992). They can teach students domain-specific knowledge that is
required through objective composition assignments that are designed to develop certain
compositional techniques and thoughts, and can create an environment that promotes the
full potential of cognitive abilities, such as avoiding mental set or encouraging fluency
and flexibility. Also, when using Amabile’s consensual assessment technique, teachers
can perform reasonably reliable assessments (Amabile, 1982b).
Csikszentmihalyi
Csikszentmihalyi’s (1988) three-part model of creativity consisted of the individual
(one who brings change to a domain), the domain (preserves worthy new creations), and
the field (experts that judge products as worthy of inclusion in the domain). Each of the
three elements affects the others in important ways. The passage of time, he believes, is
also important in the creative process.
Csikszentmihalyi also developed a concept called a flow state. Many people seem
to experience the enjoyment of engaging in certain activities in much the same way.
There is a certain state of mind that they get in when they are completely enjoying their
chosen activity. These activities are those which are intrinsically motivated—individuals
are not rewarded with money or fame. The activities are performed due to the quality of
the experience the individuals felt when involved in the activity. Their enjoyment doesn’t
come when they’re relaxing, taking drugs or alcohol, or when they’re experiencing great
expenditures of wealth. In fact, the activity often stretches the mental or physical capacity
17
of the individual and involves a challenge that could contain pain, stress, or risk. The
element of novelty or discovery seems to be the driving force. Individual descriptions of
their experiences reveal that there is not much variance due to culture, age, or gender.
Csikszentmihalyi calls this type of experience as a flow experience, or a flow state, which
consists of nine main elements (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
There are clear goals every step of the way. When in flow, an individual always
knows what needs to be done. They are acting in the moment—everything they
need to do seems very clear.
There is immediate feedback to one’s actions. We know right away how we are
doing.
There is a balance between challenges and skills. When we feel our abilities are
well matched with the opportunities for action, we are more likely to enjoy the
experience. This is perhaps why it becomes intrinsically motivated—because we
can be successful.
Action and awareness are merged. In flow, we concentrate completely on the task
at hand. Our mind is not wandering. We are fully engaged in the activity.
Distractions are excluded from consciousness. In flow, we are aware of only those
things that are relevant here and now. We are not distracted by anything. Our entire
mind and body is focused on something we love to do.
There is no worry of failure. In flow, we are too engaged in the activity to worry
about failure.
Self-consciousness disappears. When in flow, we are too involved in what we are
doing to worry about protecting the ego. Some individuals believe that, when in a
flow state, they step out of the boundaries of the ego and have become part of a
greater entity.
The sense of time becomes distorted. Hours may seem like minutes. Or the opposite
might happen: an individual might experience every detail of what they are doing
in slow motion.
The activity becomes autotelic. It is an end in itself. Individuals perform the activity
only to feel the experience they provide. There are no external rewards. Motivation
for performing the activity is purely intrinsic. The secret to a happy life may be to
try to get flow from as many activities as possible. Activities should be done for the
sake of doing them. Do what you love—love what you do. If our work and family
life become autotelic, then nothing in life is wasted.
Gardner
Howard Gardner (1983, 1993a, 1993b) takes a psycho-historical approach to the
study of creativity. He took biographical information from the lives of seven different
individuals from seven different domains (Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot,
18
Martha Graham, and Gandhi) and applied Csikszentmihalyi’s model of creativity, along
with his own theory of intelligence, to their study. He found, at the individual level, that
creative individuals, or in his words, “exemplary creators,” vary in intelligence; are
confident, alert, non-conventional, and hard working; feel estranged from and had
rebelled against their families; had supportive but “correct” upbringings; were reasonably
materially comfortable in life; had childlike qualities; and shared a similar development.
At the domain level, Gardner found that individuals problem-solve, put forth a
conceptual scheme, create products and stylized performances, and perform for high
stakes. All seemed to follow superstitious, irrational, or compulsive behavior in order to
maintain their gifts. The creative process within a domain, he argues, is due to the symbol
system used, the nature of the particular creative activity, and certain key moments in the
course of a creative breakthrough.
At the field level, Gardner noticed that all of the individuals except for Gandhi had
mentors who influenced them in their respective fields.
His overall conclusion is that individuals are creative due to the ability to enjoy and
to benefit from a misfit or lack of smooth connections in Csikszentmihalyi’s triangle of
creativity (individual, domain, and field).
Gruber
Gruber (1996) found Gardner’s study of the biographies of the seven creative
individuals somewhat inaccurate because it implied that there is a generalized trait for
individual creativity, as opposed to the evolving systems approach, which states that
developmental change is a multi-directional interaction between the creator and the
world, and that the creative person is an evolving system. He did, however, find that
19
creative individuals seem to share two traits: they have a necessary uniqueness and may
use similar strategies in their inquiries.
The evolving systems approach (Gruber & Davis, 1988) is based on three factors:
1) each creative person is unique, 2) creativity researchers must describe and explain each
unique configuration 3) a theory of creativity that looks only at common features of
creative people is irresponsibly missing the main point of each individual life and
evading the main responsibility of research in creativity.
Gruber (Gruber & Davis, 1988) also found that 1) creative work seems to be
distributed over time due to its purpose and difficulty, 2) creative individuals work within
three systems—knowledge, purpose, and affect—systems that lie within the mind of the
individual who is engaged in rich and complex interactions with their external
environment, and 3) creative individuals use a set of heuristics, or non-homeostatic
processes, that recognize, preserve, and elaborate creative ideas.
Sternberg
Sternberg (1988a) developed a three-facet model of creativity based on his triarchic
theory of human intelligence. He studied the inter-correlational relations between
creativity, intelligence, and wisdom and found that their inter-relationships were
positive—meaning that greater amounts of one quality meant greater amounts of the
others. He also found that creative behavior contained six major elements: 1) lack of
conventionality, 2) integration and intellectuality, 3) aesthetic taste and imagination, 4)
flexibility and decision skill, 5) perspicacity or discernment, and 6) drive for
accomplishment and recognition. He also noticed that in order to understand creativity
we must look at three psychological attributes: intelligence, intellectual style, and
motivation/personality.
20
The first part of his triarchic model is based on intelligence, which consists of three
major processes, each of which depends on originality and the quality of the execution of
certain components. The three processes are 1) metacomponents—processes used in
planning or legislating (recognizing the problem, defining the problem, formulating
strategies and mental representations for the problem solution), monitoring, and
evaluating during problem-solving, 2) performance components—execute the instructions
of the metacompnents, and 3) knowledge acquisition components—selective encoding,
selective combination, and selective comparison are used in the process of insight.
The second part of the model is the creator’s intellectual style, or the manner or
style with which he directs his intelligence, which is related to self-government. It
contains five elements: 1) function—legislative, used by those who like to do things their
own way; executive, used by those who like to follow rules; and judicial, used by those
who like to evaluate rules to make judgments, 2) forms of self-government—monarchic,
used by those who prefer only one goal at a time; hierarchic, used by individuals who
understand that there is sometimes a hierarchy of goals that need to be reached with some
goals being more important than others; and oligarthic, used by those who are motivated
to reach multiple, sometimes competing goals, 3) levels of self-government—globalists,
who prefer big, abstract, and conceptual issues; localists, who prefer concrete, detailed
problems, 4) scope—internal, or introversion; external, or extroversion, and 5) leaning—
conservative, those who prefer little change; progressive, those who desire to maximize
change.
The third part of Sternberg’s model is personality. He found that certain personality
attributes are conducive to creativity: 1) a tolerance of ambiguity, 2) a willingness to
21
surmount obstacles, 3) a willingness to grow creatively, 4) intrinsic motivation, 5)
moderate risk-taking, 6) the desire for recognition, and 7) the willingness to work for
recognition.
This model explains creativity from a viewpoint that stresses individual, internal
attributes, and shows that that creativity can be seen as an extremely complex process.
Implications for the present study
The preceding models of creativity demonstrate that creative behavior is an
extremely complex process. Important in the overall process are content or knowledge,
cognitive thinking skills, personality, environment, motivation, creative products, and
appropriate observers, all of which must be conducive to creativity. As creative products
are the end result of the creative process, rubrics that assess creative products must be
developed based on these models. The constructs and criteria in the present study will be
designed as a part of this model.
Besides offering a foundation on which to develop rubrics, these models inform the
present study as to the inclusion of the following as criteria for creativity: fluency,
flexibility, originality, elaboration, domain-specific knowledge, non-conventionality
(originality), aesthetic taste, and the ability to make judgments. These criteria will be
included in the assessment rubrics in the present study. Although the present study is only
concerned with developing and validating rubrics that are used for assessing creative
products, it is understood that a complete assessment of a student will also include an
assessment of the process of composition and will probably include the following:
problem-solving abilities (divergent thinking, reflection, convergent thinking), intrinsic
motivation, level of enjoyment, risk-taking, engagement, lack of worry concerning
22
failure, work ethics, drive for accomplishment, self-monitoring, and the tolerance for
ambiguity.
Musical Creativity
Most of the research concerning musical creativity is based on previous creativity
research and models. This research will put most of the concepts contained in the general
creativity models into a musical context and help define music composition as a creative
activity. Additionally, it will help identify the constructs and criteria of music
composition, and develop the rubrics in the present study. This section will cover
research by Greenhoe, Vaughan, Webster, Swanwick and Tillman, and Custodero.
Greenhoe
Greenhoe (1972) explored psychological concepts of creativity from the literature
and related the concepts to musical experience and music education. She found that
creativity occurs through similar processes and personalities regardless of the medium.
Personality traits that increase creativity include openness, complexity, curiosity,
persistence, autonomy, and flexibility, and freedom to use both conscious and
subconscious thought. She found that individuals must have domain-specific knowledge,
aural perception, imagination with sound, factual and psychomotor discipline, and
formative experience with music. Greenhoe also noted that music education can develop
creativity at the expressive, productive, and inventive levels through composition.
Vaughan
Vaughan (1973) designed a four-part model for musical creativity which consists of
a developmental sequence that is based on the idea of energy levels: 1) acquisition—
assimilation and incubation of musical knowledge (rhythm, melody, notation, etc.), 2)
combinational—the exploratory shuffling and rejuggling of musical knowledge using
23
divergent-thinking skills, 3) developmental—the insight and intuition used for
understanding relationships and expressive possibilities, and 4) synergistic—the creative
works comes together with the requirements of society. This model is based on a spiral in
which each energy level must be revisited.
Webster
Peter Webster (1987a, 1988, and 1991) developed a three-part model for creative
thinking in music. The first part is concerned with product intention, which is defined as
the creator’s goal or intention. The second part of the model consists of enabling skills, or
thinking skills, which consist of musical aptitudes such as the ability to recognize tonal
and rhythmic patterns and musical syntax—convergent skills, as well as flexibility (range
of expression), originality (unusualness of expression), conceptual understanding
(knowledge of facts), craftsmanship (the ability to apply factual knowledge), and
aesthetic sensitivity—divergent skills. The second part of the model also contains
enabling conditions, which consist of motivation, subconscious imagery (non-conscious
mental activity), the environment (working conditions, family conditions, etc.), and
personality (i.e., risk taking, spontaneity, openness). The enabling skills and conditions
are based on Guilford’s divergent and convergent thinking skills (many possibilities are
generated and tested through divergent processes, then the best is converged upon) and
are applied to Wallas’ steps in the creative process. The final part of the model consists of
the final creative product, which can be a composition, performance, or analysis.
Swanwick and Tillman
Swanwick and Tillman (1986) developed a sequential model for the creative
musical development in children based on Piaget’s theory of play development. This
model is designed in four parts: 1) mastery (control of and delight with musical
24
materials), 2) imitation (expressive character, accommodation, spontaneity, and the use of
common musical conventions), 3) imaginative play (no rules or limitations, structure is
developed), and 4) metacognition (communication, expressive composition using original
materials), all combined with interpretations of children’s play based on Piaget’s theory.
The overall model is designed as spiral as to imply that as a new level is reached, the
others are not forgotten.
Custodero
Custodero took Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow and designed a measurement
tool to record observed flow experiences in preschool children’s musical activities
(Custodero, 1997). She found that potency (alert + involved + active), self-concept
(satisfied + successful), behavior (skill + 3 operationalizations of flow—anticipation,
expansion, and extension), and challenge (challenge + adult awareness) significantly
predict flow. The most flow existed in the longest (7 minute) activities, the moderately
familiar activities (2-4 weeks), the one-on-one social context, and the individual student
keyboard location. Activities characterized by multi-sensory involvement, unambiguous
feedback, and perceived opportunities for action facilitated the most flow.
Implications for the present study
The preceding models of musical creativity are based on the models of general
creativity but are placed within a musical context. Within the models of musical
creativity, content or knowledge is defined as musical knowledge and cognitive thinking
skills include aural perception, music aptitudes, imagination with sound, music aesthetics,
craftsmanship, and divergent and convergent abilities. Like the models of general
creativity, personality, environment, motivation, creative products, and appropriate
observers all have similar implications.
25
From these models the main constructs of music composition begin to emerge. The
models show that music composition is a creative activity; therefore creativity is a main
construct—a composer must be creative. Craftsmanship is included as a main construct
because it represents the application of domain-specific knowledge—a composer who has
a grasp of musical knowledge and composition skills will likely compose a piece that is
well crafted. Musicianship is a main construct of music composition as it represents the
application of musical thinking skills, musical decision making, and intuition and insight.
An insightful composer who makes astute musical decisions will likely compose a piece
that is cohesive, well paced, and sensitive. Likewise, communication of ideas is included
as a main construct as it represents the application of aesthetic sensitivity. Additionally,
the following are included as criteria for musical creativity: domain-specific knowledge,
rhythm, harmony, syntax, flexibility, and originality. Each of these will be used in the
assessment rubrics designed by the researcher. Additionally, the notion that creativity can
be nurtured and developed is supported—unambiguous feedback facilitates flow and
therefore creativity. Accurate assessment is essential.
As stated earlier, an assessment is not complete if both product and process are not
assessed. This present study is concerned with only the assessment of products. However,
it is understood that the following is also important when assessing student work: is the
student’s personality conducive to creativity? Does the student think divergently? Is the
student involved, challenged, or feel successful? Do they seem to experience flow? Is
feedback unambiguous?
26
Research Supporting Rubric Development
The following research provides a foundation on which to develop assessment
rubrics for assessing music compositions, and provides many of the constructs and
criteria for the assessment.
Assessment
Every good music program needs good assessment techniques. Boyle and Radocy
(1987) discuss techniques that can be used for a number of functions, which provides for
both individual needs (achievement, diagnostic, aptitude, and attitude) and the needs of
the entire music program (accountability, instructional effectiveness, teacher
effectiveness, policy making and management, and research and project evaluation).
Individual function
Music students must be assessed to evaluate their music achievement. Achievement
can be evaluated in relation to others (norm-referenced) or in relation to specific criteria
(criterion-referenced). Criterion-referenced assessment is appropriate for use when
students can progress at their own rate and is concerned with whether or not a student has
met minimum requirements.
Assessment in music also serves diagnostic functions. Diagnostic evaluations are
used to classify students according to strengths and weaknesses, and can serve as an
information base for assigning students to remediation. They can also be used to identify
students who perhaps do not have a future in music.
A student’s aptitude can be tested, which may give teachers information that can
help predict how a student will perform in the future. Aptitude tests, however, are
questioned as to whether or not they are valid predictors of student ability. Also, it is
questionable to deny students opportunities based on aptitude tests.
27
The main reason to assess a student’s attitude is to find out what he or she wants to
do as opposed to what he or she is able to do. Student attitudes have a large impact on
teaching and learning, and can provide information about learning activities and musical
repertoire.
Program function
Music programs are evaluated in relation to educational and monetary objectives.
School budgets, inefficient teachers/instruction, and the future of education are all
concerns. The reliable and valid assessment of music compositions will aid music schools
in improving these issues. Well designed assessments can give administrators specific
information concerning the following: accountability, instructional effectiveness, teacher
effectiveness, policy making and management, and research and project evaluation.
Accountability helps control quality, and states that one individual or group is
responsible to another for something. Both educational products and processes should be
under scrutiny. Whatever the chain of responsibility, it is clear that accountability will be
a continuing issue because so much is at stake (time, money, needs).
The effectiveness of instruction (activities, content, and outcomes), naturally, is a
major concern for every music program. Outcomes can be evaluated by assessing the
achievement of individuals relative to given instructional objectives. The assessment of
activities and content, on the other hand, focuses on the process of instruction rather than
the outcomes. The processes can be evaluated in terms of both instructional objectives
and long term goals of the program and the community.
Teacher effectiveness is an important issue because it is the greatest variable in the
education process, and therefore must be focused upon. A bad teacher can have
detrimental effects on both the students and the program as a whole. Every teacher should
28
be assessed, and each assessment should look at events, verbal and non-verbal behavior,
flexibility and variety of teaching style, and the flow of ideas within the classroom (Boyle
& Radocy, 1987). Accrediting agencies control the quality of teachers to some degree,
but it is still a problem in the university music environment because many teachers are
hired as expert musicians, not expert teachers. Teachers need to make a conscious effort
to improve their instructional abilities. Just like in music, you can improve with practice.
Policy and management decisions probably have the highest degree of effect on the
music program as a whole. The more accurate the information that comes from the many
different assessments that occur in the educational environment, the better the decisions
will be. These decisions are concerned with program planning and development,
determining the value of funding for programs and facilities, assessments of performance
groups and individuals, and attitudes of students, teachers, parents, and the community.
Since funding is such an important issue in higher education, it is important for
administrators to have as much information as possible in order properly allocate funds.
Student and ensemble performance evaluations, as well as results from research and
projects can give administrators the information they need. Most often, the groups that
allocate funds like to see numerical results, but results from research and evaluations in
the field of music usually are not numerical in nature. This is because much music
assessment is formative in nature, that is, its final purpose is to move towards a final goal
or outcome (i.e., a performance or composition). Summative assessment, on the other
hand, indicates a degree of worth of a finished product (Colwell, 2002). When assessing a
finished product with a reliable assessment tool, an evaluator can discover accurate
numerical information about students and performance groups. Therefore, it is important
29
to design valid summative assessments of music compositions. Amabile (1982b)
designed her “consensual assessment” technique based on the assessment of creative
products. Many other researchers have been successful in designing assessment tools for
evaluating creative products.
The results from research and projects need to be assessed if any conclusions
drawn from the studies are to be of any value. This is especially important when
thousands or even millions of dollars are involved. Funding agencies require a system of
accountability be built into projects that they fund. These projects are to be evaluated
based on both the process (Are objectives and instructional goals realistic?) and the
product (Is the project progressing towards the objectives?).
Implications for the present study
The preceding research suggests that assessment fulfills the needs of individual
students (achievement, diagnostic, aptitude, and attitude) and the needs of the entire
music program (accountability, instructional effectiveness, teacher effectiveness, policy
making, management, and research and project evaluation). It is therefore an essential
part of every education program.
Creativity Definitions
The following section will cover definitions of general creativity and musical
creativity, and will discuss intrinsic motivation and problem solving.
General definitions
When defining ‘creativity’, many researchers identify two distinguishing features
of creative endeavor: novelty and usefulness (Amabile, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996;
Gardner, 1993). Sternberg and Lubart (1995) put it this way: “creativity is the ability to
produce work that is both novel (original, unexpected) and appropriate (useful,
30
adaptive)”. Amabile and Tighe (1993) note that it is not enough for a product to merely
be different for the sake of difference, it must appropriate, correct, useful, valuable, or
expressive of meaning.
Csikszentmihalyi (1999) stated that creativity is a novel variation within a domain
that is judged by knowledgeable persons to be suitably useful for inclusion in the domain.
Amabile’s (1982b) consensual definition of creativity is almost identical: “a product or
response is creative to the extent that appropriate observers independently agree that it is
creative. Appropriate observers are those familiar with the domain in which the product is
created or the response articulated.”
The definitions of creativity have several implications for the present study. Music
compositions are products that are novel, adaptive, valuable, and/or expressive of
meaning. Their production requires composition skills and problem-solving skills
common in creative behavior. Therefore, music compositions must be assessed from the
perspective that they are creative products. They must be novel and appropriate, and
experts in the field must assess them. These definitions also support the use of
undergraduate composition teachers as assessors, and also as subjects in the validation
process. Also supported is that creativity is a construct of music composition and
originality is a criterion for creativity. They have been included in the assessment rubrics
in the present study.
The Tanglewood Symposium
The Tanglewood Symposium (1967) included ‘The Nature and Nurture of
Creativity’ as a topic of discussion. They defined creativity from the perspective of that
creative behavior required problem-solving skills (the same of which can be observed in
both children and composers) as well as composition processes and products. They
31
noticed that the creative student has the following personal characteristics: 1) they are
non-conformists and seek their own individual style, 2) have average intelligence, 3) have
divergent-thinking skills, and 4) are independent and may not get along with their peers.
Assessment can help professors detect these qualities and nurture creativity in students.
Intrinsic motivation
It is important for every teacher to understand that the prospect of evaluation and
assessment often lowers a student’s intrinsic motivation and therefore lowers the level of
creativity. The intrinsic motivation hypothesis states that intrinsic motivation is
conducive to creativity and extrinsic motivation is detrimental (Amabile, 1996).
Crutchfield first made the distinction between ego-involved, or extrinsic motivators, and
task-involved, or intrinsic motivators in 1962. He believed, as many others have, that
intrinsic motivators increase levels of creativity, and extrinsic ones lowered them.
Intrinsic motivators raise creativity because individuals become less likely to conform
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990a), and become totally absorbed in their work (Barron, 1963).
Csikszentmihalyi (1990b) also suggested that a highly intrinsically motivated state, also
called a ‘flow state’, is achieved when the challenge of the activity matches the ability of
the performer, when optimal involvement occurs, and when a heightened feeling of
enjoyment and concentration makes the passage of time seem slow.
Further research has shown that extrinsic motivators can lower creativity. This
occurs when performers receive a positive evaluation before a performance (Amabile,
Goldfarb, & Brackfield, 1990), when the task at hand is constrained or controlled
(Amabile & Gitomer, 1984), and during competitions for awards for the ‘best’ work
(Amabile, 1982a). Some research, though, has shown that external evaluation can
increase creativity levels when they are informative. Students who were told how to
32
succeed or ‘be creative’, and those who received intrinsic motivation training, actually
increased their creativity levels (Collins & Amabile, 1992).
Research in intrinsic motivation implies that intrinsic motivators and informational
extrinsic motivators (especially when intrinsic motivation is high) are conductive to
creativity, and controlling extrinsic motivators are detrimental (Amabile, 1996). Creative
potential can be increased in the following ways: allow individuals to do something they
love, give them freedom of choice, establish environments in which ideas can be freely
exchanged, reduce extrinsic constraints and pressures, train individuals in intrinsic
motivation, teach domain-relevant skills and creative processes (Collins & Amabile,
1992). Therefore, the rubrics designed for the present study should not be used as
controlling extrinsic motivators. They should aid the student by maximizing their
intrinsic motivation and, therefore, their creative potential.
Problem solving
Creativity studies since the 1960’s have been associated with the process of
problem solving. A problem is said to exist when an individual wants to reach a goal but
is not permitted because of an obstruction. It contains an initial state, an individual’s
knowledge about the problem and its operators, and a goal state. Problems are said to be
well-defined when the components of the problem, the operators, and the goal is clearly
specified, as in a geometry problem. This type of problem can be solved with algorithms
and is guaranteed a solution. An ill-defined problem is one in which the components, the
operators, and the goal are not specified or known. Voss and Means (1989) proposed a
model of creativity that is centered on ill-structured problem solving in the social
sciences. This model emphasizes the importance of domain-specific knowledge, the use
of internal and external search mechanisms for the finding, evaluating, and contextual
33
application of the knowledge, and our personal value and affect, elements which drive the
creative process.
Research in the general creativity literature has consistently shown that projects
that are ill-defined (open-ended), rather than well-defined (with specific directions), have
been judged as more creative (Amabile, 1996; Getzels, 1964; Sternberg, 1999). Research
in the arts has supported this theory also. Children not only prefer open-ended problems
that are situated in self-directed settings with minimal procedural and time constraints
(Burnard, 1995), they are also consistently rated higher for creativity than children in
non-choice, constrained settings (Amabile & Gitomer, 1984; Baumgarten, 1994).
Creativity Measurement
The following section will discuss general creativity measurement and will include
the Structure of Intellect Model (Guilford, 1967) and the consensual assessment
technique (Amabile, 1982b).
Guilford
Much of the early research concerning the measurement of creativity is based on
Guilford’s Structure of Intellect Model (1967). His main hypothesis was based on the
belief that creative thinking consists of divergent thinking factors. Guilford’s creativity
test (Guilford, Merrifield, & Wilson, 1958) and the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking,
or TTCT (Torrance, 1974, 1981), quantitatively measured the following divergent
thinking factors: fluency (the production of multiple answers from the same information
in a limited amount of time), flexibility (the production of answers that shift in character),
elaboration (the production of answers that are detailed and complex), and originality (the
degree of non-conventionality and novelty of products or responses when compared to
other members of the domain from which they come). The TTCT contained tasks such as
34
the causes and consequences test, in which the subject must respond to different
situations with possible causes and consequences, and the unusual uses test, in which the
subject must suggest unusual uses for certain objects.
The influence of Guilford and Torrance can not be underestimated, especially in
studies in which musical creativity is measured quantitatively using divergent thinking
factors (i.e., MCTM-II, Webster, 1994). The MCTM test measures divergent thinking
skills, as well as convergent thinking skills associated with musical syntax, through
exercises in improvisation. Although milestones in the study of creativity, Guilford’s and
Torrance’s tests have been criticized for not having criterion-validity (Brown, 1989)—in
other words, they do not represent a real-world, external measure of creativity.
Amabile
As a result of the criticism of the divergent thinking tests, alternative measures
have been designed. Amabile proposed that a group of experts should be used to assess
the quality of creative products. This type of assessment is called consensual assessment.
Amabile (1982b), in explaining her consensual definition of creativity, states that “a
product or response is creative to the extent that appropriate observers independently
agree that it is creative. Appropriate observers are those familiar with the domain in
which the product is created or the response articulated.” Several important features of
this definition are 1) that it relies on subjective criteria, and avoids the need to specify
objective criteria for rating products as creative, and 2) that it resembles real-world
judgments (Amabile, 1982b). All in all, the judges should have experience with the
domain in question, should make their assessments independently, should rate the
compositions relative to one another rather than rating them against some absolute
standard, and should rate the compositions in a random order. After the results are
35
collected, inter-judge reliability should be analyzed (Amabile, 1982b). Amabile’s model
supports the theory that creative products can be assessed and rated by appropriate
observers.
Implications for the present study
The previous research suggests that creative products can be assessed by 1)
identifying constructs and rating the criteria by which the constructs are demonstrated,
and 2) expert rating. In other words, the construct of creativity can be assessed by looking
at criteria which includes divergent-thinking skills such as fluency, flexibility, originality
and elaboration (Guilford), and by an overall rating of creativity by appropriate observers
(Amabile).
Musical Creativity Measurement
The measurement of musical creativity (and creativity in general) requires that
researchers develop valid and reliable measures. Most of the measures developed are
based on the work of Guilford (Structure of Intellect Model). Tests that will be discussed
include those by Vaughan, Gorder, Webster, and Sogin.
Vaughan
Vaughan (1971) developed The Musical Creativity Test to measure children’s
musical creativity. The test measured fluency, rhythmic security, and ideation in 4thgraders, and was guided by an opening review of all materials and concepts that were to
be used. The children were asked to perform a steady rhythm, improvise a rhythm using
the claves, perform consequent phrases after the tester performed antecedent phrases,
improvise melodies using bells, and compose a piece reflecting feelings during a
thunderstorm. Vaughan found that scores were correlated with the TTCT factor of
originality. She also found correlations between creativity and musical intelligence.
36
Vaughan and Meyers (1971) designed a version of the test that required divergent
thinking skills in music. An antecedent/consequent performance question was asked
(similar to the previous test) in which the student was required to play a consequent
phrase using only the pentatonic scale (the tester played a diatonic melody). Inter-judge
reliabilities ranged from .76-.90.
Vaughan’s research yielded three major points: 1) musical ability is positively
correlated with musical creativity, 2) musical creativity can be cultivated over time, and
3) the traditional music curriculum may inhibit creativity.
Gorder
Gorder’s test (Measures of Musical Divergent Production, 1976, 1980) was based
on Guilford’s Structure of Intellect Model, which measured divergent thinking skills in
the following musical areas: musical fluency (producing multiple ideas from given
information in a limited amount of time), musical flexibility (producing ideas that shift in
character), musical originality (producing ideas rarely used by the population to which
the ideas belong, novel, or remotely associated with the given information), and musical
elaboration (producing detailed or complex ideas above that called for in a response).
Gorder added a fifth area: musical quality (producing responses that appeal to judge’s
musical sensitivity). The test was administered to high-school instrumentalists.
Reliability for each area was measured at .90 for originality and quality, .88 for fluency,
and .70 for flexibility and elaboration.
Webster
Based on Guilford’s theories that creativity consists of divergent thinking factors,
Webster developed two tests for measuring musical creativity (MCTM, Webster, 1977,
1987; MCTM-II, Webster, 1994). The MCTM tests measure divergent thinking skills, as
37
well as convergent thinking skills associated with musical syntax. The 1977 test was
designed to measure the compositions, improvisations, and analyses of 77 high school
students. Fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration were rated in the test and
reliabilities ranged from .80-.97. The 1987 version of the MCTM was similar to the first,
but was designed for 2nd- and 3rd-graders. Musical extensiveness (time on task),
flexibility (the number of instruments used in combination and the ability to move from
extreme to extreme—low/high, soft/loud, fast/slow), originality (manipulation sound in a
unique way), and syntax (a logical shaping of form) were measured. The MCTM-II is in
three parts: Exploration (musical flexibility), Application, and Synthesis.
Sogin
Sogin (1990) developed Thinking Creatively with Music and Movement to measure
the musical fluency (the number of responses) and originality (judged using a five-point
scale) of 8th- and 9th-grade subjects. The test consists of a warm-up, the use of percussion
instruments to portray a storm, an improvisation on a keyboard or bells, a composition
that is to reflect one or all of five given textures (soft, smooth, spongy, and squishy), and
a movement task.
Implications for the present study
Research in the measurement of musical creativity has several implications for the
present study. First, it supports the measurement of musical creativity—musical creativity
can be reliably measured. Second, the research supports the use of Guilford’s model
(fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration) as criteria when assessing the creativity
of music compositions. Third, it adds an additional element: musical quality (sensitivity).
All these are identified as criteria for composing music and will be included in the
38
assessment rubrics. Additionally, the notion of assessing and cultivating creativity is
supported—creativity can be nurtured.
Quantitative Assessment of Compositions
Quantification is the assignment of a number to represent an amount or degree of
something—numbers are associated with behaviors, objects, or events. In addition,
quantitative assessment must be operationally defined, be reproducible, and be valid. It
must allow comparison with a unit or standard of that same thing, and must be clear and
objective. Quantitative data are usually required by those who make monetary decisions,
and can help report the success or failure of a student in the simplest terms. When a
measure is quantified, it signifies values, but fails to show causes.
Today, music educators commonly use quantitative measures for tasks such as
grading, student evaluation, festival and contest ratings, auditions, and ensemble chair
assignments. This is possible because quantitative assessment need not only use standard
measurement units such as meters, points or hertz. Impressions, judgments, and
sensations can also be quantified (Asmus & Radocy, 1992). Objective composition
assignments, when the criteria are specific and clear, can easily be assessed using
quantitative measures—wrong notes or rhythms, length of piece, or the adherence to a
specific technique can all be quantified (anything that is specified can be quantified).
Even subjective elements in a piece can be quantified. Models of creativity, such as those
by Csikszentmihalyi (1988) and Amabile (1983), suggest that creative products in a
domain can be assessed by a field of experts in that domain. The experts will be judging
the products against established models. Therefore, musical elements that make a piece
successful in the domain of academic music can be specified and quantified.
39
The following research discussed is an overview of studies in the quantitative
assessment of compositions. Studies by Webster, Hassler and Feil, Moore, Kratus, Bangs,
Smith, Webster and Hickey, and Brinkman will be covered, as well as the views of
Colwell.
Webster
Webster (1977) developed rating scales for use in Thinking Creatively with Music
to measure the compositions, improvisations, and analyses of 77 high school students,
and developed Measurement of Creative Thinking in Music-II to assess the musical
flexibility, extensiveness (time on task), syntax, and originality of primary grade
children’s compositions (see above).
Hassler and Feil
A creativity test developed by Hassler and Feil (1986) measured the creative music
ability of 30 high school students. Open-ended rating scales accounting for basic
production abilities and enabling experts to assess musical quality were used. They were
based on divergent factors from Guilford, and on Webster’s and Gorder’s scales. Four
judges measured first impression, originality, imaginativeness (melodic, sound space,
varying and ornamenting, with variations, harmonic, rhythmic, sensitivity and
expression), general impression, and final appraisal of original compositions (notation
and recordings were used).
Moore
The Ability to Compose Music Exercise, designed by Moore (1990), rated the
ability of high school music students to complete a given melody (rational musical
ability) and to compose an original melody based on words and pictures (intuitive
musical ability). A 5-point scale that ranged from no expression to great deal of
40
expression was used. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship
between curriculum and learner based on the individual’s learning style
(concrete/rational, random/sequential) and the cognitive demands of music composition
(intuitive/rational). Moore believed that assessment tools should be based on the actual
process of composition, should contain both rational and intuitive abilities (reworking
and composing), should allow works to be heard by the student, and should result in
variability between students and yield a good range of scores. Results showed that there
were no significant relationships between curriculum and learner.
Kratus
Kratus (1991) developed a rating scale for measuring the craftsmanship of songs
composed by children between the ages of 7 and 11 using a seven-point Likert scale. He
also designed rating scales that measured both process and product of third-grade music
compositions in a 1994 study in order to study the correlation between audiation and
compositional ability. The rating of the compositional process was concerned with
exploration, development, repetition, and silence, and the rating of the products with
tonal and metric cohesiveness, pattern use (repetition and development), and
extensiveness (pitch range and length of songs). Interjudge reliabilities were high.
Overall, he found that students with higher levels of audiation tend to show a greater
amount of development and cohesiveness, and a lesser amount of exploration and pitch
range.
Bangs
Bangs (1992) designed the Dimensions of Judgment tool for assessing the
compositions of third-graders based on Amabile’s consensual assessment techniques. Her
tool consisted of 19 five-point subjective items, none of which contained specific criteria.
41
All students received domain relevant and creativity relevant training. They then
composed a piece of music. The students were then randomly placed in one of three
groups; intrinsic motivation treatment, extrinsic motivation treatment, and control. After
treatment, the students again composed a composition. The compositions were randomly
mixed and assessed using Bang’s assessment tool. Interjudge reliability was adequately
high. Results showed that intrinsic motivators increased creativity ratings and extrinsic
motivators decreased ratings.
Smith
Smith (1993) assessed the compositions of 6- to 12-year old pianists. Items rated
were use of musical materials, structure, originality, and expressiveness. These four
categories reflect the four main constructs of music composition: musicianship,
craftsmanship, creativity, and communication. Each item in the assessment contained
descriptions and specific criteria.
Webster and Hickey
Webster and Hickey (1995) designed rating scales that were both objective and
subjective in nature. The rating scales contained both specific and global criteria. Specific
criteria were designated for musical elements such as rhythm, texture, and timbre, as well
as for expression. Global considerations were designed for originality, aesthetic value,
craftsmanship, syntax, and unusualness. The researchers found that specific/objective
analyses are most predictive for the constructs of craftsmanship and technical quality, and
that global/subjective analyses are most predictive for the constructs of
originality/creativity and aesthetic value.
Objective analyses have been successfully used in assessing tasks that contain
specific descriptions of what was to be rated (Webster & Hickey, 1995). However, the
42
rubrics and rating scales in the literature have been developed for use in objective
analyses of children’s compositions, and are inappropriate for use in assessing
undergraduate compositions. The criteria set forth in the former do not apply to
contemporary composition. The following example illustrates this point.
Example of a Rating Scale used by Webster and Hickey (1995); 7=high, 1=low:
Circle the rating number that you feel is appropriate for the following:
Tonal cohesiveness—the degree to which the pitches in a composition are
constructed around a tonal center or centers. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Composition in the university is not necessarily concerned with the issue of tonal
cohesiveness. Many other compositional techniques are used, most of which are not
concerned with traditional tonality. It is critical that rubrics are designed that are
appropriate for university use.
Brinkman
A three item form was developed by Brinkman (1999) to assess the original
melodies of 32 high school instrumentalists. It was based on Amabile’s consensual
assessment technique. Three expert judges rated 64 randomly ordered melodies. Included
in the form were originality, aesthetic value, and craftsmanship, which were rated using a
7-point Likert-scale. Scores of the judges were totaled to obtain an overall ‘creativity’
score for each subject. Reliability of the ‘creativity’ score was consistently high
(originality, .84; craftsmanship, .77; and aesthetic value, .76).
Colwell
Colwell (2002) states that a rubric can be most useful on a task in which there is a
general consensus as to what comprises excellence. He argues that they are effective in
enhancing extrinsic student motivation, clarifying objectives, and focusing student effort.
43
However, he also argues that rubrics can be damaging to the assessment process if
misused. He believes that their use can lead to standardization and a lowering of
divergent and original thought. When exposed to rubrics, students in the language arts
often focus on the product and “write to the rubric” while overlooking the overall process
of writing.
Implications for the present study
The quantitative research discussed has several implications for the present study.
First, the research implies that many musical elements, which are both objective and
subjective, can be quantified and assessed. Second, many of the criteria for displaying
creativity in music composition are identified, which includes syntax (convergent
thinking), cohesion (pattern use), originality, imagination, first impression, general
impression, expressiveness, sensitivity, pitch, rhythm, structure (musicianship), aesthetic
value, novelty, extensiveness (divergent thinking), and craftsmanship. These can all be
reliably quantified and will be used in the assessment rubric in the present study. Also,
the research supports the use of the Likert scale as well as Amabile’s consensual
assessment technique, in which expert judges are used to assess creative products (music
professors will use rubrics to assess their students work and will be used as subjects in the
present validation study).
Qualitative Assessment of Compositions
Qualitative assessment techniques do not normally quantify their measures.
Therefore, they are rarely used to measure success or failure. Qualitative measures are
best used when assessing causes, and when dealing with instructional issues. They are
process-oriented and offer rich descriptions that can aid the teacher and student in
improving learning and performance. The following is a list of characteristics describing
44
qualitative research techniques, which can be applied to qualitative assessment (taken
from Bresler & Stake, 1992).
•
•
•
•
•
It is holistic. It is case oriented and relatively non-comparative.
It is empirical and descriptive. It takes place in the natural setting of the task.
Language, not numbers, is used for feedback.
It is interpretive. Assessors rely on intuition with many important criteria not
specified.
It is empathic, based on the intentions of the observed.
When done well, all its interpretations are validated.
The following qualitative research studies by Moorehead and Pond, Cohen,
Bunting, DeLorenzo, and Christensen were designed to observe student behavior in
classroom settings over long periods of time. The process involved with these
assessments is similar to the process of teaching and learning in undergraduate
composition environments, therefore, these studies are relevant to the present study.
Moorhead and Pond
Moorhead and Pond (1941-51) set the stage for the design of practically every
qualitative study concerning musical creativity that followed. They tried to understand
children’s musical creativity by observing them in open-ended environments over a
period of four years at the Pillsbury School in Santa Barbara, California. This study
provides a direction for a legitimate use of naturalistic observational methods. They did
not attempt to intervene, but rather to observe and understand each individual child in the
natural setting of the task. They worked towards the classification of the children’s
musical products. Classifications included “insistent and savage” sonic physical activity
(rigid rhythms indifferent to melody and color variety), song (private rhythmically and
melodically complex entities), and chant (public tunes, often sung in groups). They found
that when children were provided with freedom to pursue their own interests and
45
purposes, the children develop musically as naturally as they would with any other type
of endeavor. They also found that children created a wide variety of music which
contained the following: wide intervals in pitch, contrasting tone colors, symmetric
rhythms, flexible/asymmetric rhythms, and free rhythms.
Cohen
Cohen (1980) observed the creative musical behavior of kindergarten children over
a three-year period in a free environment. A second in-depth study, based on the data
from her first study, was designed to understand the spontaneous musical creativity of
two kindergarten students while they were involved in musical play for the possibility of
gaining insight into the creative processes of adults. Cohen did not attempt to perform a
conventional study in which the researcher sets up a plan, follows it, and reports its
success or failure. Instead, she took a naturalistic approach and searched through many
years of observations to try to understand children’s spontaneous music.
Cohen found that information can only be assimilated to schemas (mental
structures) that already exist within a child. Therefore, movement influences children’s
musical gestures. Additionally, she suggested that there were three stages to the musical
creative process: 1) the exploratory stage, which included the exploration of the total
sound producing experience involving all of their senses, 2) the mastery stage, which
consists of repeated predictions and comparisons in order to gain control over sound
production, and 3) the production stage, in which organized or ordered musical gestures
are produced. Ultimately Cohen found that children’s creative musical processes should
be encouraged in free and open settings and should not be based on previously accepted
adult models.
46
Bunting
Bunting (1987) provides another good example of qualitative assessment in music.
He put together a detailed account of three composition assignments by some of his highschool students, which included the final compositions, sketches and fragments that lead
up to the final products, his interactions with the students, as well as the effect of the
compositional processes. He was mainly interested in the student’s musical development.
Besides an obvious approach of judging a student’s achievement by observing technical
features of their work, he suggested that teachers ask the following questions when
assessing:
•
•
•
•
•
•
What resources and skills does the student draw from when composing?
To what extent has the student avoided mechanical responses to find the expressive
meaning of his materials?
What exploratory composition processes has the student learned to use and with
what results?
To what extent has the pupil learned to articulate his own musical style?
To what extent can the student control the process of individual composition
independent of the teacher?
To what extent can the pupil appraise his own work, development, and future
needs? (1987, p. 52).
These questions are certainly asked by composition professors, and will likely be a
part of student assessments.
DeLorenzo
DeLorenzo (1989) observed the compositional processes of 82 sixth-graders from
four different schools over 16 general music classes. To examine decision making in
music, she assumed that exploration and evaluation of sound material, manifested
through production, selection, and organization of sound material, reflected the students’
inner thought processes. These thought processes were assessed based on a) perception of
the problem structure—the openness with which students perceived the creating task, b)
47
search for musical form—the degree to which the students allowed the musical events to
determine the form of the music, c) capacity to sense musical possibilities—the depth to
which students developed and shaped musical events, and d) degree of personal
investment—the level of absorption and intensity with which the students engaged in the
creative process. The study yielded several major characteristics of the creative process:
1) when the students are given choice they explored in greater depth, revised more often,
and developed the overall structure of their work, 2) when the students were given extramusical or structural plans they became less engaged in their work, 3) they tended to
explore throughout the entire composition process, and 4) they were more committed to
the product when they were able to make more musical decisions. Overall, the results
suggest that students benefit from teacher-guided exploration and discussion of musical
context and formal balance.
Christensen
Christensen (1992) did an 8-week descriptive field study of 4th-graders’
collaborative composition projects in order to try to understand creative musical thinking
based on the theory that learning is enhanced by the model using perception, production,
and reflection. Students composed and performed collaboratively, invented notations, and
reflected in writing and orally their thoughts concerning their musicianship, their
products, and their processes. Teacher observation, student self-report, reflections, and
notational sketches gathered throughout the creative process provided the data.
Christensen found that these creative projects aided the students in understanding
musicality, collaboration, and their own compositional processes. She developed a 5-step
model of the composition and notation processes: 1) Choosing a theme (selected from a
list), 2) Exploring sounds—a process which occurred mostly at the beginning of the
48
composition process and consisted of the joyful exploration of timbres and instrumental
possibilities, 3) Attaching meaning to sound—focusing on a specific idea, 4) Organizing
sounds—in this stage the pieces began to become coherent and structured, containing
sequences, beginnings, and endings, and 5) Finalizing the composition—the rehearsal,
refinement, performance, and possible revision of the composition. The results offer
support for an artistry-based approach to music education which includes collaboration,
inventive notation, and reflective self-evaluation.
Implications for the present study
The qualitative research discussed has several implications for the present study.
First, the studies offer a model on which to base naturalistic observational assessments.
The teaching and learning process in undergraduate music composition is often similar to
these studies, in which students are assessed in open or free environments in the natural
setting of the task. Undergraduate students, after completing basic composition skills
courses, have open environments in which to compose. Their work is assessed by their
teacher weekly, occurring over long periods of time. Sketches, fragments, and finalized
compositions are all used in the assessment. This research suggests that a part of these
assessments should be qualitative and should be concerned with causes and be expressed
with language. The assessment rubrics in the present study are designed to give the
teacher enough flexibility to give either quantitative or qualitative feedback, which can be
fit to each student’s needs.
Although the present study is only concerned with developing rubrics for assessing
creative products, these qualitative studies show that assessing the process of composition
is an extremely important matter and should not be overlooked. When assessing their
students’ work, teachers should understand where their students are situated within the
49
creative process. Some students may be in the process of exploration, while others may
be in the finalization stage. Each stage can be assessed according to the need of the
individual student. Other important considerations may include the following: do the
students explore frequently, express themselves, develop their own style, and monitor
themselves so they can make their own judgments?
Assessment Rubrics
This section will discuss how to develop and use assessment rubrics for assessing
music compositions and will include the research of Maud Hickey.
Hickey
The purpose of Hickey’s 1999 study was to help teachers design rubrics for
assessing the music compositions of children. She argued that when assessing student’s
music compositions, teachers need to provide students criteria about what makes a good
and a poor music composition. An assessment rubric can do just that. It is a tool that can
act as a guideline for students as well as an assessment tool for teachers. In a rubric, the
teacher lists the parts or categories of the assignment that they will evaluate. For each part
the teacher lists, the specific criteria according to which they intend to rate the student’s
composition should be included. These criteria should represent qualities that range from
excellent, to mediocre, to poor. Rubrics can be handed to the student and used with each
of the student’s compositions; a practice that gives the student guidelines, enables the
student to self-evaluate, and makes the assessment criteria clear to both the teacher and
the student (Hickey, 1999).
Hickey further developed her ideas on the assessment of compositions (2003). She
proposes that a teacher must design clear objectives if they want to plan worthwhile
experiences and define progress. This is possible, she states, even though some argue that
50
strict guidelines should be avoided because formulaic approaches to teaching
composition encourage conformity over individuality and technical skills over musical
sensitivity (Best, 1985; Thompson, 2000; Colwell, 2002). It is important to understand
that music composition is both subjective and objective.
When designing objectives in the arts, three important elements should be
considered—idea, technique, and structure (Hickey, 2003).
1.
2.
3.
Appropriate and interesting musical ideas should be selected or designed for use by
composers. These shape the quality of the piece and the overall structure.
Technical ability is also extremely important in composition. Students should learn
what can be done and how to go about doing it. Composition is an art and a craft.
Composers structure their works two ways: 1) based on existing forms, and 2)
determined by the needs of the individual piece (organic structure).
Students must be provided with a range of models for their work, not for the
purpose of restricting their original ideas, but in order to free their thinking. Stravinsky
often stated that limits set him free (Stravinsky, 1947). Writing in the style of other
composers, studying counterpoint, copying scores, and studying professional
compositions are all ways in which students can all help to encourage students to develop
their ideas, techniques, and knowledge of structure, as well as developing their own
voice.
Qualitative forms of assessment require a high level of articulation and perception
of the quality of student work. Although this type of assessment is difficult, it is possible
to grade within the context of school or university if qualitatively based categories and
criteria are identified. In assessing musical performance, there is an understanding of
what it means to be a Grade 3 or a Grade 5 pianist. The same model can be applied to
composition—rubrics can be designed that contain categories and criteria for what makes
51
an acceptable undergraduate music composition. Categories in the rubrics will probably
include some of the following (Hickey, 2003):
•
•
•
Communication of ideas, a sense of identity, shape, and style
Musicianship, artistry, and expressive intention
Technical skills and an awareness of practical considerations
Specifics may include:
•
•
•
Presence, involvement, ability to evoke responsive listening (communication)
Feeling for design or structure, musical character, imagination, unity and variety,
tension and release, development, pacing (musicianship)
Tempo, articulation, balance, instrumental/vocal considerations, rhythmic/harmonic
considerations (technique)
Criterion in each of the categories can be simple, such as word descriptors like
excellent, satisfactory, or poor, or can include phrases such as:
•
•
•
Fully involved and committed; the music is brought to life and is communicated
clearly (communication)
Well-conceived artistic work, convincing with a sense of the music’s aesthetic
significance (musicianship)
Some technical inaccuracies, difficulties, or shortcomings, but competent overall
(technical skills)
Although successful qualitative assessment strategies can be developed, teachers
must be careful that they don’t over-prescribe or over-standardize the criteria. Students
should develop their individual voice and compositional process as well as gain
knowledge of technical skills and compositional approaches from past composers.
Students should learn to make good musical choices.
Implications for the present study
Hickey’s research has many implications for the present study. It supports the
theory that rubrics can be developed for assessing music compositions, which can
improve music composition instruction and assessment. It helps identify many of the
constructs and criteria of music composition and informs the overall design of the rubrics,
52
including three of the main categories (craftsmanship, musicianship, and communication
of ideas), and many of the sub-categories (criteria). It also supports the use of both
qualitative and quantitative assessment techniques—it has room for teacher comments
(which should include model works) and contains a Likert scale.
CHAPTER 3
METHODS
This chapter begins with a description of the participants and the materials used in
the study. Following is an explanation of how the rubrics were designed, which includes
the design of the overall model, sections covering each rubric individually, as well as
qualitative and quantitative aspects. Next is a discussion of how the supporting materials
were developed and why certain questions were asked. Finally, the procedures involved
in the study are covered.
Participants
Twelve music professors volunteered to take part in the study. The criterion for
participation is that they have experience with teaching composition to undergraduate
composition students. The participants varied by geographic region, school size, gender,
age, and years of teaching experience. Ages ranged from 34-74 and years of teaching
experience ranged from 5-50. All professors who participated hold a doctorate degree in
composition and all are active composers. They have experience teaching both private
lessons and skills courses. Music professors were asked to volunteer as participants in the
present study because 1) Hickey (2001) suggested that it is the music teachers that are the
most reliable assessors of their students’ compositions; peers and professional composers
are not reliable assessors, and 2) Amabile (1982b), in explaining her consensual
definition of creativity, states that “a product or response is creative to the extent that
appropriate observers independently agree that it is creative. Appropriate observers are
53
54
those familiar with the domain in which the product is created or the response
articulated.”
The following table displays the credentials of the participants that took part in the
study. Each participant was asked to provide the following information: name, job title,
number of years teaching, degree/major, current university, age, race, gender, and
whether or not they are an active composer. Eleven of the twelve participants provided
this information. Their names have been omitted in order to retain anonymity. They have
been listed in random order.
Table 3-1. Participant credentials and personal information.
Job Title
Professional
Writing
Division
Professor of
Theory and
Composition
Assistant
Professor
Assistant
Professor of
Music
Associate
Professor of
Music
Professor
Emeritus
Associate
Professor of
Composition
Associate
Professor
Lecturer
Assistant
Professor
and Chair
Composer
Number of
Years
Teaching
24
Degree/Major
Current
University
Age
Race
Gender
Active
Composer?
DMA
Composition
50
W
M
Yes
10
DMA
Composition
Berklee
College of
Music
Marshall
41
W
M
Yes
6
DMA
Composition
DMA
Composition
Clarke
College
Del Mar
College
40
W
F
Yes
34
W
M
Yes
14
Doctor of
Composition
45
W
M
Yes
35+
DMA
Composition
65
W
M
Yes
15
Doctorate
43
W
M
Yes
28
PhD
Composition
Doctorate in
Composition
Emporia
State
University
University
of New
Hampshire,
Retired
Crane
School of
Music
University
of Iowa
University
of Southern
California
Cameron
University
54
W
M
Yes
42
W
F
Yes
47
W
M
Yes
74
W
M
Yes
5
10
20+
DMA
Composition
50
PhD in
Composition
University
of Vienna,
Retired
55
Materials
The research-based rubrics designed by the researcher (see Appendix C) and the
supporting materials—directions for rubric use, explanations, definitions, and
clarifications, and a questionnaire (see Appendix B)—were the materials used in this
study. Their design is discussed below.
Rubric Design
The rubrics were designed based on research in music assessment, creativity
assessment, music composition, creativity models, aesthetics, music education, and
psychology; research which reveals the constructs and criteria of music composition.
First, the four main constructs of music composition were identified. Next, the criteria for
demonstrating each of these constructs within the context of undergraduate composition
were added. These were organized into assessment rubrics based on the work of Maud
Hickey (1999, 2003). The rubrics contain both quantitative and qualitative aspects—a
seven-point Likert scale and a section for comments.
The models of creativity and musical creativity discussed in the previous chapter
demonstrate that creative behavior is an extremely complex process. Important in the
overall process are content or knowledge, cognitive thinking skills, personality,
environment, motivation, creative products, and appropriate observers, all of which must
be conducive to creativity. As creative products are the end result of the creative process,
rubrics that assess creative products must be developed based on these models.
Hickey (2003) identified three of the four main constructs used in the present
rubrics: craftsmanship, communication of ideas, and musicianship. The creativity and
musical creativity models discussed in the previous chapter support this, as well as the
inclusion of creativity as a main construct. Overall, these models reveal four constructs of
56
music composition: craftsmanship, musicianship, creativity, and communication of ideas.
These constructs are supported by models of creativity and musical creativity based on
the following: 1) music composition is a creative activity (creativity), 2) craftsmanship
represents the application of domain-specific knowledge and technical skills, 3)
musicianship represents the application of musical thinking skills, musical decision
making, and intuition and insight, and 4) communication of ideas represents the
application of aesthetic sensitivity. There is also much support from other literature (see
below).
The criteria within these four main constructs were added by the researcher if used
in previous research and assessment tools, if regarded as important by composers,
educators, and psychologists, if included in composition textbooks, or if included within
the university music education curriculum. The following is a list of these constructs and
criteria, many of which were included in the assessment rubric in this study.
•
•
•
•
Craftsmanship:
• Technical skills and an awareness of practical considerations: compositional
techniques, general musical skills (rhythm, harmony, melody, tempo,
articulation, balance, instrumental/vocal considerations, notation), counterpoint,
orchestration.
Communication of ideas, a sense of identity, shape, and style:
• Presence, involvement, ability to evoke responsive listening, the ability to write
interesting music, expressiveness, first impression, general impression, aesthetic
value.
Creativity:
• Fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, domain-specific knowledge,
novelty and usefulness.
Musicianship:
• Feeling for design or structure, sensitivity, imagination, unity and variety,
tension and release, development, pacing, cohesion, the ability to choose good
musical materials to work with, musical syntax, expression using musical
elements.
57
It is understood that music compositions are holistic creations—craftsmanship,
communication of ideas, creativity, and musicianship are integrated and overlap in many
regards. However, these categories have been created in the present study, not to promote
a separation of skills, but to assist educators and students in the teaching and learning
process—sometimes specific aspects of music compositions must be assessed in order to
encourage students to work on specific skills.
The design of each rubric will now be discussed individually.
Craftsmanship
The inclusion of craftsmanship in the rubric is supported by the fact that technical
skills are necessary for success in music composition; practically every successful
composer throughout history has been technically proficient. These skills are at the core
of every music program and are discussed in the NASM Handbook (2001, pp. 78, 79, 81,
87). Additionally, several creativity models suggest that domain-specific knowledge is
necessary for creativity (Amabile, 1982b; Webster, 1987a, 1988, 1991), some musical
creativity assessment studies contains a category for craftsmanship (Webster & Hickey,
1995; Brinkman, 1999; Hickey, 2003), and several musical creativity assessment studies
and musical creativity models support specific technical skills (Vaughan, 1971; Webster,
1987a, 1988, 1991; Kratus, 1991; Webster & Hickey, 1995; Hickey, 2003).
Many composers and philosophers have discussed the importance of craftsmanship.
Dmitri Shostakovich argues:
The question of quality, of artistic skill, is the question of the life of art. How can
we talk of artistic gains when the composer does not have full command of his
medium? While attaching immense importance to the content of our art, we must
bear in mind that no idea will ever reach the listener nor be grasped by him if it is
expressed crudely or incompetently (Schwartz & Childs, 1978, p. 107-108).
58
Additionally, Bennett Reimer (1989) states:
Craftsmanship is the expertness by which the materials of art are molded into
expressiveness. The materiality of art is the battleground upon which the creative
struggle takes place. The absence of craftsmanship is signaled by shoddiness, by
disrespect for material, by forcing material to do something rather than doing what
it requires, by skill…that manipulates material rather than serving its
expressiveness (p. 135).
Hindemith (1952) adds:
In music, as in all other human pursuits, rational knowledge is not a burden but a
necessity, and it ought to be recognized as such by all (p. 45).
The composer, therefore, must develop their craft so they can create true works of
art. Abbs (1987) argued that when creating, those that are unhampered by technical
constraints “produce, for want of technique and initiation into the symbolic medium,
artistic non-entities” (p. 44). The composer, therefore, must adopt constraints; in other
words, they must constrain themselves by learning techniques of composition. Actually,
there is always some level of constraint that a composer must deal with—the ensemble,
the musical material, the limits of the instruments, the limits of the performers, or the
purpose (i.e., film score or modern dance). These constraints, many believe, actually are
windows to creativity. Stravinsky:
My freedom thus consists in my moving about within the narrow frame that I have
designed myself for each one of my undertakings. Whatever diminishes constraint,
diminishes strength. The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees one’s
self of the chains that shackle the spirit (1947, p. 87).
Therefore, the composer must be creative within the given circumstances or
constraints. The constraints may actually enhance their musical experiences and be a
vehicle to authenticity.
Craftsmanship and technical skills are learned by studying compositional
techniques of the past, and are covered in composition courses and general music
59
courses. These include skills such as the knowledge of the fundamentals of music,
orchestration, compositional techniques, notation, and counterpoint. Schoenberg,
Hindemith (Ludus Tonalis), Bartok (Mikrokosmos), Kodaly, and Stravinsky all stressed
the importance of counterpoint. Stravinsky:
This first contact with the science of counterpoint opened up at once a far vaster
and more fertile field in the domain of musical composition than anything that
harmony could offer me. It was only later that I realized to what an extent those
exercises had helped to develop my judgment and my taste in music. They
stimulated my imagination and my desire to compose; they laid the foundation of
all my future technique, prepared me thoroughly for the study of form and
orchestration (1936, p. 15).
Composers learn by composing: they learn how musical materials are used
compositionally by putting them into action. There have been several important texts
written on 20th-century music composition (Hindemith, 1942; Palmer, 1947; Persichetti,
1961; Cope, 1977, 1997). They all tend to cover some or most of the following: pitch
material (overtones, intervals, chords, polychords, harmony, key centers, set theory,
microtones, etc.), melody, rhythm, texture, timbre, dynamics, compositional techniques,
extended instrumental techniques, notation, form, phrasing, counterpoint, and styles. The
categories in the craftsmanship rubric in the current study are based on the categories
covered in these texts, in the NASM Handbook (2001), and in undergraduate coursework.
Communication of ideas
Communication of Ideas is included in the rubrics (see Hickey, 2003) because
many philosophers, musicians, and composers believe that it is important for music to
communicate “something.” Copland (1952) states:
Quite apart from my own curiosity, there is always the question of how
successfully one is communicating with an audience…every move toward logic
and coherence in composing is in fact a move toward communication (p. 46).
60
But what does music express? What does music communicate to the listener? To
the performer? Many have believed (especially 18th-century musicians) that music
expresses the emotions and inner feelings of the composer and must arouse these
affections in the audience (Geminiani, 1751), or that it should express human thoughts,
the human spirit, and the world in which we live (Bloch, 1933). Many others believe,
however, that specific emotions or feelings can not be expressed or communicated with
music—it is musical ideas that are communicated, ideas that can not be expressed with
words (Gurney, 1880; Copland, 1952; Vaughan Williams, 1955; Stravinsky & Craft,
1962). “The nature of the beautiful in music is…specifically musical” (Hanslick, 1854, p.
47). Regardless of the difficulty in assessing what music actually communicates, we can
assume that music does communicate something—that it is a medium of expression
(Schwartz & Childs, 1978, p. 196). Expressiveness is included in the communication of
ideas rubric in the present study and is supported by the aforementioned philosophies as
well as the following research: Swanwick and Tillman, 1986; Moore, 1990; Smith, 1993;
Webster and Hickey, 1995; Hickey, 2003.
Initial impression, general impression, interest, and involvement are included in the
Communication of Ideas rubric in the present study and are supported by research by
Hassler and Feil (1986), Csikszentmihalyi (1988), and Custodero (1996), and
philosophies of musicians such as Virgil Thompson. He suggested that when judging a
piece of music one should go through three major operations. The first has three subcomponents: 1) listening or becoming acquainted with the piece as long as it holds one’s
attention (interest), 2) going on listening, and 3) the aftertaste (first impression). The
second operation consists of making fuller acquaintance with the piece, that is, if the first
61
operation was successful (involvement). The third operation consists of reflected
judgment (general impression) (French, 1948).
Aesthetic value is included in the rubric and is supported by research and studies by
Webster (1987a, 1988, 1991), Sternberg (1988a), Webster and Hickey (1995), and
Brinkman (1999), the aesthetically-based philosophy of Bennett Reimer, as well as the
recommendations of NASM (2001, p. 87). Reimer states:
The essential nature and value of music education are determined by the nature and
value of the art of music. The branch of philosophy concerned with the questions of
the nature and value of the arts is called aesthetics. Aesthetics is the study of that
about art which is the essence of art and that about people which has throughout
history caused them to need art as an essential part of their lives (1989, pp. 2-3).
He also argues:
Every good work of art, no matter when it was made and no matter how it was
made, is good because its artistic qualities succeed in capturing a sense of human
feeling…the experience of art is related to the experience of life at the deepest
levels of life’s significance (1989, pp. 51-52).
He continues:
In all teaching-learning interactions with art, aesthetic meaning should be sought
(1989, p. 93).
We as educators, therefore, must assess the aesthetic value of our students’ work in
order to encourage them to write music that expresses their humanity.
In order to communicate ideas to an audience, the composer must communicate
ideas to the performer. Therefore, the writing must be technically proficient, idiomatic,
and must be detailed enough to let the performer know exactly what the composer has in
mind. Steve Reich (b. 1936), the minimalist composer comments:
When I began work on Proverb, I had the text in front of me. My first job was to
look at the words and have some tune begin to suggest itself in my mind, write it
down at the piano, play it and sing it. It’s very important when you’re writing a
vocal piece to sing it, because that will keep you attuned to the idiom of the voice.
That is one of the most important things you can do, because if musicians don’t
62
enjoy performing your piece, then no matter what the music critics say, your piece
will not live. And if the musicians do enjoy playing it, and the audience enjoys
listening, it doesn’t matter what the music critics say, your piece will be played and
enjoyed (McCutchan, 1999, p. 16).
Creativity
Since music composition is considered a creative endeavor and it is included in
NASM’s requirements (NASM, 2001), it is necessary that creativity be a major part of
the present assessment rubric. The models by Guilford (1967) and Amabile (1982)
discussed earlier are the basis for most assessments of creative products. Fluency,
flexibility, originality, and elaboration, plus an overall judgment of the creative quality of
the composition will be included in the rubric. Other research using these models as a
basis includes those by Vaughan (1971), Gorder (1976, 1980), Webster (1977, 1987a,
1988, 1991), Hassler and Feil (1986), Sogin (1990), Smith (1993), Webster and Hickey
(1995), and Brinkman (1999).
Musicianship
Musicianship is a major part of the assessment rubrics because it is believed to be
an integral part of music making and therefore music education (see Hickey, 2003). Elliot
(1995) stated that “music education ought to be centrally concerned with teaching and
learning musicianship.” He defines musicianship as a combination of five forms of
musical knowing: 1) formal knowledge (facts, concepts, descriptions, theories—knowing
that, 2) informal knowledge (the ability to think critically, make judgments, and problem
solve), 3) impressionistic knowledge (intuition), 4) supervisory knowledge (the ability to
manage one’s own musical thinking), and 5) procedural knowledge (knowledge in
action—knowing how). Additionally, the NASM Handbook (2001, p. 81), besides
63
recommending that students acquire domain-specific skills, suggests that the student
should be able to “develop and defend musical judgments.” Copland states:
The composer is no longer simply a craftsman; he has become a musical thinker, a
creator of values—values which are primarily aesthetic, hence psychological, but
hence, as an inevitable consequence, ultimately of the deepest human importance”
(1952, p. 44).
It was stated earlier that it is understood that overall musicianship, technical skills,
creativity, and communication overlap in many regards—music composition is a holistic
experience. However, educators sometimes must separate the categories in order to
analyze specific aspects of a composition. The musicianship rubric in the present study,
therefore, will focus on the ability to make musical judgments, such as the selection of
musical materials (Hickey, 2003), musical sensitivity (Gorder, 1976, 1980), musical
syntax (Webster, 1977, 1987a, 1988, 1991; Webster & Hickey, 1995), and large-scale
structural decisions such as cohesion, pacing, and tension and release (Hickey, 2003).
Sensitivity is believed to be an important part of musicianship and is included in the
assessment rubric. Sensitivity is concerned with “the depth and quality of feeling
captured in the dynamic form of a work. The absence of sensitivity is betrayed by works
in which the obvious overwhelms the subtle, in which the surface of feeling is offered
rather than challenges to feel more deeply” (Reimer, p. 136).
Other rubrics
The rubrics entitled other rubrics were added to enable the teacher to rate how each
element covered by the craftsmanship rubric was used creatively, used musically, and
communicated. Also, an overall rating scale of the piece is added.
The completed rubric can be found in Appendix D.
64
Quantitative and qualitative assessments
The rubrics contain both quantitative and qualitative aspects because both are
important in academic assessments (Hickey, 1999; Hickey, 2003). Quantitative
assessments are used for tasks such as grading, student evaluation, festival and contest
ratings, auditions, and ensemble chair assignments. Research has shown that both
objective and subjective items can be quantified (Asmus & Radocy, 1992). In the present
study, the rubrics are designed using a seven-point Likert scale (see Webster & Hickey,
1995; Hickey, 2001). Most music teachers and educators, however, understand that
students also require a qualitative assessment, one that offers the students comments
about specific aspects of their work. Therefore, the rubrics in the present study contain
areas where the teachers can write comments and refer to model works (Hickey, 1999;
Hickey, 2003).
Design of the Supporting Materials
The supporting materials used in the study include explanations, definitions, and
clarifications concerning the rubrics, directions for evaluating the rubrics, and a short
questionnaire (see Appendix B). In order to make the participants familiar with the study,
a brief description of its purpose and structure were stated first. Next, a series of
questions was asked of the participants in order to attempt to validate the rubrics.
The first question was asked in order to test whether or not the rubrics contain the
constructs and criteria for undergraduate music composition (construct and criterion
validity)—do the rubrics contain the skills and factors necessary for success in
undergraduate composition? In other words, do the rubrics contain the constructs of
undergraduate music composition? The second question was concerned with practicality
and whether or not there is a need for the rubrics in undergraduate education—would you
65
use this type of rubric for university music composition education? Why or why not? The
third question was asked in order to confront the problematic issues of the quantification
of both objective and subjective elements and the giving of grades. The answers to this
question also informed the final rubric design—how effective is the use of the Likert-scale
(from 7-1) to quantify assessment results in these rubrics? The final two questions were
concerned with construct and criterion validity and with the design of the rubric. Answers
to these questions helped further identify the constructs of music composition as well as
aid in the design of the final rubric—what would you change about, delete from, or add
to the rubrics? Do you have any additional comments (i.e. strengths, drawbacks)?
Following the main body of questions, the participants were asked the following in
order to find out about their background and experience, and whether or not they
represent a diverse group: name, job title, number of years teaching, degree/major,
current university, age, race, gender, and whether or not they are an active composer.
These can be found in Table 1.
The final section of the supporting materials contains important explanations,
definitions, and clarifications to ensure that all information in the rubrics is clear and
unambiguous. It covers global issues as well as each individual rubric.
Procedures
An email was sent by the researcher to the Society of Composers Inc. listserv
asking for volunteers to take part in the study (see Appendix A). All participants were
required to be teachers of undergraduate composition students. Eighteen composition
professors responded. The rubrics (see Appendix C) and all supporting materials (see
Appendix B) were sent via US-mail to the eighteen professors. Twelve of the eighteen
66
professors completed the study and sent responses (see Appendix D). The responses of
the professors were then summarized and discussed.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter is a summary of the responses sent by the participants. First I will
discuss the responses to the first three questions set forth in the questionnaire 1) Do the
rubrics contain the skills and factors necessary for success in undergraduate composition?
In other words, do the rubrics contain the constructs of undergraduate music
composition? 2) Would you use this type of rubric for university music composition
education? Why or why not? 3) How effective is the use of the Likert-scale (from 7-1) to
quantify assessment results in these rubrics? In discussing the fourth question in the
questionnaire (What would you change about, delete from, or add to the rubrics?) I will
cover each rubric individually. I will finish the chapter by discussing the responses to
question five (Do you have any additional comments—i.e., strengths, drawbacks?) and
any other global issues.
Question 1: Do the Rubrics Contain the Skills and Factors Necessary for Success
in Undergraduate Composition? In Other Words, Do the Rubrics Contain the
Constructs of Undergraduate Music Composition?
Eleven of the twelve participants agreed, for the most part, that the rubrics contain
the constructs and criteria of undergraduate music composition. The main constructs
include craftsmanship, musicianship, creativity, and communication of ideas. Some
stated that the rubrics contain a comprehensive list that could be used to give specific
feedback to the students. This list is believed to be beneficial if it is used flexibly.
However, several participants believe that the list is too thorough.
67
68
One participant believes that the rubrics do not contain the constructs of music
composition, that “they actually suggest extensive elements that need to be addressed by
the student.” The rubrics, the participant stated, “become too convoluted and may hinder
actual composing” (see Appendix C, Participant 9).
Question 2: Would You Use this Type of Rubric for University Music Composition
Education? Why or Why Not?
Most of the participants stated that they would use a rubric like this one in their
composition instruction—“I would use this type of rubric in college teaching because it is
comprehensive enough and flexible enough to allow an instructor to really communicate
with a student about the strengths and weaknesses of their compositions” (see Appendix
C, Participant 4). Several of the participants stated that they already use such a rubric.
However, several participants stated that they would use the rubrics only in a less formal,
more flexible manner. In this way, the rubric could be tailored to a specific student for a
specific piece.
One of the twelve participants stated that they would not use this type of rubric
because the rubric is too detailed, too advanced for beginners, and would take too much
work. Another said that the rubrics should be used by students to evaluate established
works to see if a high rubric score is truly indicative of a good composition. Additionally,
one participant believes that the rubrics would be best suited for non-majors, not for
serious composers.
Question 3: How Effective is the Use of the Likert-Scale (from 7-1) to Quantify
Assessment Results in these Rubrics?
Many of the participants seemed somewhat indifferent to the use of the Likertscale. A few believe that it is a good measure, and others believe that it is as good as any
other scale (A, B, C, D, F; 0-100%). Of those who would use the scale, several believe
69
that a 7-1 scale is too detailed—that a 5-1 or a 3-1 scale would be better. One professor
suggested adding descriptions to the scale (7=always, 4=often, 1=never). Others state that
they would not use this scale alone—written comments are often the most useful,
especially when dealing with subjective elements.
Question 4: What Would You Change about, Delete from, or Add to the Rubrics?
These responses help answer the following: what are the criteria for displaying
craftsmanship, musicianship, creativity, and communication of ideas? Each rubric will
now be discussed individually.
Craftsmanship
Many of the participants seemed to have a good overall impression of this rubric.
Some stated that craft is the easiest to judge; therefore the rubric is very useful, especially
if the weights of each category are defined. One participant suggested that this rubric be
weighted more heavily than the others because it is the easiest to quantify.
Some of the terminology in this rubric was a concern for several participants. Some
commented that they did not like the use of the term technically proficient. Others did not
like the use of compositional technique, pitch material, and sound production media
because they are vague and undefined.
Many participants suggested making changes to this rubric. First, pitch, rhythm,
and melody are believed by one participant to be hard to quantify, and possibly should be
removed. Compositional Technique, also, should possibly be removed because it is
believed to be determined by the remainder of the list. The following was recommended
to be added to the list: overall quality, phrasing, harmonic rhythm, overall tonal
structure, texture (in place of counterpoint), register, appearance, text setting, shape (in
place of form—form implies pre-existing forms and may be problematic in works with
70
original forms), and compositional technique selected (Is the compositional technique
selected best for the situation?).
Communication of Ideas
The participants had two main concerns with this rubric. The first deals with
terminology. Terms such as expression of ideas, initial impression, and overall
impression should be better defined. For example, does expression of ideas mean
“expressiveness,” and does one get the general impression after many hearings of a
piece? After just one hearing? Additionally, clarity should not be associated with
communication—sometimes composers do not wish to be “clear,” and initial impression
should be weighted lower because sometimes one has a low initial impression of a great
work.
The second issue with this rubric is concerned with its subjectivity and difficulty of
quantification. Many of the participants who commented on this rubric believe that most
of it can be left out—that by including aesthetic value as a single category everything
will be covered. One participant stated that even though we talk about issues such as
involvement, aesthetic value, and communication of ideas, it is awkward to see them
included in a printed scale.
Creativity
Most of the participants did not have any issues with this rubric. However, several
of the participants are hesitant to include elements of creativity in an undergraduate
assessment because of its subjectivity and because it is viewed to be too advanced an
issue for undergraduates. One participant believes that this rubric should be a single
category (see Amabile, 1982). Another, however, believes that the rubric is very useful at
this level. Additionally, several of the participants did not like some of the terminology
71
and vague definitions. “Different, novel, and appropriate,” said one, “seem contradictory”
(see Appendix C, Participant 9).
The following are a list of comments concerning individual categories:
•
•
•
•
•
Novelty: “The issue of novelty is dangerous.” “Is there anything novel?” “Is novelty
valued?” “Novelty should not be valued—depth should.” “What about ‘Post
Modern’ pieces?”
Fluency: “It should be removed.” “It is not useful.” “Sometimes a piece has too
many novel elements.”
Flexibility: “It is not useful and should be removed.” “It should be taken care of in
a new motivic development category in another rubric.”
Elaboration: “It should be taken care of in another rubric—if a work is boring it is
low in elaboration.” “The wording under elaboration should be changed to: The
musical ideas are appropriately presented, liquidated, elaborated, or developed.”
Originality: “It should not be expected of undergraduates.” “It should be removed.”
Musicianship
Many of the participants agreed that this rubric is useful and easy to use. It allows
the teacher to comment on drama and structure. A few participants suggested some
changes, which include the following: syntax and pacing should be combined; a
miscellaneous category should be added; an appropriate length category should be
added; a function category should be added; and tension and release perhaps should be
changed to contrast or consonance and dissonance.
Other rubrics
These rubrics seemed redundant to several of the participants. They recommended
that the rubrics be combined with the Craftsmanship rubric. Also, musical elements are
not expected to be used creatively or musically in most assignments for undergraduates.
However, one participant believes that the creativity and musicality sections of this
rubric, along with the Musicianship rubric are the most user-friendly.
72
Global additions
There were many comments made that did not fit into any specific rubric, most of
which are suggested additions. The following are believed necessary additions to the
rubrics: intent of the piece, the weight of each element, a pre-composition category, a
student level & background category, a miscellaneous category (added to each rubric—
helps tailor rubrics to specific students and pieces), a section for adding points (a
composite score form), and a general comments rubric in which subjective items could be
listed. Additionally, it was recommended that the following categories be taken into
consideration because they all go into end of the semester grades: effort, consistency,
self-discipline, the amount of music written, performances, and the amount of control the
student had.
Question 5: Do You Have any Additional Comments—i.e., Strengths, Drawbacks?
Overall, the participants seem to believe that the rubrics have good potential; that
they offer a way for teachers to clearly communicate with each student and they help
explain the basis for grading. When speaking about rubrics previously used in class, one
participant states, “I find them [rubrics] extremely helpful in getting through the task of
grading and the students seem to use the rubrics when doing their assignments. It takes
the mystery of what I’m looking for in an assignment—let me emphasize at this point
that there should be no mystery because I pass out a sheet listing everything that I expect
and we also do assignments using the exact format, etc., however, even though I am
redundantly clear, it doesn’t really click until they look at the form I use to grade” (see
Appendix C, Participant 6).
Some participants liked the formalization of the elements of composition while
others would like to use the rubrics less formally. Some of the participants believe that
73
the rubrics should be used only with lower-level students who require concrete feedback;
others believe that the rubrics would work well for their undergraduate students.
Additionally, it was suggested that the rubrics be applied in another study to see how well
they can be implemented in an actual assessment. One participant urges caution, though,
and believes that the rubrics may hinder actual composing (it is important to remember
that real creative works don’t always fit into rubrics).
Several of the participants stated that flexibility of the scale is important—“for a
diverse group of teachers/students a cross section of the entire scale for craft,
communication, creativity, and musicianship would probably be useful” (see Appendix
C, Participant 3). This will enable teachers to retain both objectivity (for summative
rubrics—quantification) and subjectivity (for formative rubrics—written comments).
Overall, written comments are valued over quantification—“the Likert scale seems
sufficient to quantify the elements. Again, I might use it informally to rate a composition,
but would prefer to couch my comments in more descriptive language to the student” (see
Appendix C, Participant 2). It also seems that it is of great importance for teachers to
change the rubric, not only from piece to piece and student to student, but also as the field
itself changes. Additionally, the weight of each category needs to be taken into
consideration. It was suggested that objective elements be weighted more heavily than
subjective ones.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to develop and validate assessment rubrics for use in
assessing undergraduate music compositions. The rubrics were developed based on
research in music assessment, creativity assessment, music composition, creativity
models, aesthetics, music education, and psychology. Validity was examined by having
teachers of undergraduate composition students examine and comment on the rubrics.
The following questions guided the study.
•
•
•
What are the constructs of undergraduate music composition?
Can these constructs be developed into assessment rubrics?
Can these rubrics be validated by experts in the field of undergraduate composition,
in this case, composition professors?
This chapter is a discussion of these questions.
Before beginning the discussion, it is very important to understand that the
professors who volunteered to participate in this study may have previously been
interested in the notion of using rubrics for composition assessment and therefore the
results may be biased. The participants may not be a true representation of the population.
What Are the Constructs of Undergraduate Music Composition?
The participants agree, for the most part, that the rubrics designed for this study
contain the constructs of music composition (eleven of the twelve professors agree). They
supported the identification of craftsmanship, musicianship, creativity, and
communication of ideas as the four main constructs of undergraduate music composition.
74
75
Can these Constructs Be Developed into Assessment Rubrics?
Maud Hickey (1999) suggested that teachers design rubrics to assess their students’
creative works because it gives the teacher a way to clearly identify the criteria for what
makes a good music composition. Many of the participants in the present study agree—
assessment rubrics are good for clearly communicating with students and help explain the
basis for grading. Many of them already use such rubrics. Others said they will begin to.
The rubrics seem to have good potential as there seems to be interest in the improvement
of composition assessment. Overall, the participants in this study would use the rubrics
designed by the researcher. Some prefer it as is, and others would use it in a more flexible
and less formal manner. Some like quantification and others feel that written comments
offer the students a more useful critique than a quantified assessment and are therefore
more important. Therefore, there is a need in undergraduate music composition for valid
assessment rubrics.
The participants in the study also identified the criteria (the categories in the
rubrics) by which the four main constructs of undergraduate composition are displayed
by their students. They commented on the rubrics designed by the researcher and made
suggestions for additions, deletions, and changes. These comments imply that a rubric
can be developed based on the four constructs of undergraduate music composition. The
revised rubric in appendix E was designed based on the suggestions. Overall, the present
study shows that rubrics can be developed through a process of informed design
(research) and expert evaluation.
76
Can these Rubrics Be Validated by Experts in the Field of Undergraduate
Composition, in this Case, Composition Professors?
The participants in this study agreed that the constructs of undergraduate music
composition were present in the rubrics and stated that they would use rubrics for
assessing their students’ work. The rubrics designed for this study have construct validity.
The participants could assess their students for the constructs of craftsmanship,
musicianship, creativity, and communication of ideas by observing the criteria within
each. However, they made suggestions for additions, deletions, and other changes to the
criteria within the rubrics. The following is a summary of the participant’s responses.
The Craftsmanship rubric is believed to be fairly clear and easy to use. However, it
was suggested that the weights of each category be defined and for the rubric as a whole
to be weighted higher than the other rubrics because of its objectivity. Also, several
additions were suggested, which will be listed later. Additionally, some of the professors
had issues with terminology and the definition of terms.
Some of the professors who commented on the Creativity and Communication of
Ideas rubrics urged caution and suggested making changes to these rubrics. Because of
the subjective nature of the categories, the difficulty in clearly defining each element, and
the notion that creativity is not always seen in undergraduates, it was suggested to delete
many of the specifics in the rubrics and make creativity and aesthetic value one category
each. This change would be supported by Amabile’s consensual assessment technique
(1982). However, several of the participants would include all the individual categories
related to the creativity and communication of ideas rubrics in their undergraduate
assessments.
77
The Musicianship rubric was believed by most of the professors in this study to be
fairly easy to use. It provides teachers a way to comment on design and structure.
The Other Rubrics were, for the most part, seen as redundant, and don’t offer any
additional insight. Too much detail would cause useless work and would not offer the
students a useful critique. These rubrics should be combined with the craftsmanship
rubric.
The following is a list of additions concerning the Craftsmanship and Musicianship
rubrics, as well as global additions:
•
•
•
Additions to the craftsmanship rubric: Overall quality, phrasing, harmonic rhythm,
overall tonal structure, texture (in place of counterpoint), register, text setting,
appearance, shape (in place of form—form implies pre-existing forms and may be
problematic in works with original forms), and compositional technique selected (Is
the compositional technique selected best for the situation?).
Additions to the Musicianship rubric: a miscellaneous category, an appropriate
length category, and a function category.
Global additions: intent of the piece, the weight of each element, motivic
development (perhaps in the Creativity rubric), a pre-composition category, a
student level & background category, a miscellaneous category (helps tailor rubrics
to specific students and pieces), a section for adding points (a composite score
form), a general comments rubric in which subjective items could be listed, and the
following categories concerning the process of composition: effort, consistency,
self-discipline, the amount of music written, performances, and the amount of
control the student had.
Several important issues are revealed through this study. The craftsmanship and
musicianship rubrics were least criticized, possibly because they are most easily defined,
assessed, and quantified. Professors likely have much more experience with the criteria
within these rubrics due to their inclusion in the music curriculum during their many
years of experience as both student and teacher in the field of music. Therefore, the
rubrics for craftsmanship and musicianship, especially when including all additions and
changes suggested by the participants, have construct and criterion validity.
78
The more subjective items, such as creativity and communication of ideas, had
mixed reviews from the participants. Some of the participants would use the rubrics as is,
others would define the categories more clearly, and others would either make the rubrics
one category each or would not apply the construct to undergraduate assessment. Perhaps
this is due to the individual views and responses of different teachers to these subjective
categories or perhaps because they are not often covered in general music courses.
Creativity is often not even expected of undergraduates. In all my years of music study
(10+) issues related to creativity and communication were rarely brought-up by
professors and were not covered in course materials. However, previous research does
support the notion that creative musical behavior is an important educational objective
and can be nurtured and developed (Vaughan, 1971; Vaughan & Meyers, 1971;
Greenhoe, 1972) and some of the participants in the present study agree that creativity is
an important part of the content of undergraduate composition. Perhaps music educators
could add courses to the curriculum that cover the more subjective categories such as
creative behavior, issues concerned with communicating musical ideas, and aesthetics. In
conclusion, the rubrics for creativity and communication of ideas have construct validity.
Additionally, they have criterion validity especially when taking into account the
responses of the participants and especially if the rubrics can be used flexibly. A flexible
use of the rubrics will enable any teacher to use them in an assessment. This issue will be
discussed below.
Final Thoughts and Observations
After examining the comments of the participants who took part in this study, it is
clear that no two teachers have the same teaching style—there is difference from
instructor to instructor. Suggestions for changes, additions, and deletions varied greatly.
79
Some seem to like the comprehensive form, while others desire a scaled down assessment
tool. In this regard, several participants suggested designing a more flexible rubric,
perhaps a comprehensive list of elements which can be selected from. With a flexible
form, rubrics can be designed by professors to fit their own needs, as well as the needs of
their students. They can be made to fit individual situations, to be used with specific
assignments, and to be used for specific students. They can be formative and/or
summative, with the terminology and the weight of each element selected by the teacher.
Regardless of the detail of the form, it can be implemented in a personal, case-by-case
manner.
Therefore, based on the results of this study, and taking into consideration
flexibility and all additions and changes, the rubric was revised (see Appendix E). Within
the revised rubric, teachers can choose which categories they want to assess during any
given lesson as well as the type of assessment—summative or formative. If a student
needs to work on certain skills related to craft, then only those items can be discussed. If
a teacher wants to make a general comment on aesthetics, then they can. Teachers can
also define each category based on their needs and the needs of their students and can
weigh each category as they see fit.
When designing the revised rubric, the researcher took into account only additions
and changes suggested by the participants. These include all categories added to the
individual rubrics, an overall flexibility by which professors can define terms and weigh
each category, student level and background categories, and summative and formative
forms. Suggestions for deletions were not implemented for two reasons: 1) suggestions
for deletions of any specific category were not unanimous, and 2) the separate categories
80
have been created not to promote a separation of skills, but to assist educators and
students in the teaching and learning process—sometimes specific aspects of music
compositions must be assessed in order to encourage students to work on specific skills.
Although this study was concerned with the assessment of creative products, it was
suggested by one participant to add several categories concerning the process of
composition, which includes the following: effort, consistency, self-discipline, the
amount of music written, performances, and the amount of control the student had. This
is supported by the qualitative research discussed in chapter two as well as the models of
creativity and musical creativity. It is clear that assessments of undergraduate
composition must be concerned with the process of composition as well as the product.
This study has fulfilled a need in undergraduate music composition instruction in
that a valid assessment tool has been developed. It can be used by any teacher of
undergraduate composition and aid them in instruction, that is, if they choose to use it.
Ultimately, it seems like it is up to administrators to include assessment and instruction
techniques in continuing education for professors as well as graduate teaching assistants.
In this way, assessment rubrics can slowly work their way into undergraduate teaching
and learning practices.
Suggestions for Future Research
Although these rubrics have construct and criterion validity, further research is
necessary. A follow-up study is needed in which the revised rubric based on the results of
the present study (see Appendix E) is examined for validity. It should also be examined
for inter-rater reliability by using it in an actual assessment. Also, a rubric should be
designed to include assessments of the process of composition as well as the product.
Additionally, once rating tools are designed that are appropriate for use in undergraduate
81
composition assessment, other factors that affect compositional creativity can be
examined, such as problem-finding abilities, domain-specific knowledge, music aptitude
and achievement, intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivations, personality, environment, divergent
thinking skills, flow experiences, self-monitoring, risk taking, work ethics, and training in
the arts. Reliable and valid rubrics can also inform course design.
The results of this study also raise several questions. First, if professors favor
formative assessment over summative assessment and flexibility over formality, how do
composition professors give grades and is this grading reliable? Second, should creativity
not be expected of undergraduates or is it an educational objective that should be
cultivated and developed? Finally, does the traditional music curriculum inhibit
creativity?
The continual development of assessment tools by teachers should always be
encouraged. It will benefit the field as a whole—students will receive clear, useful
critiques, and teachers will have a formal way of communicating their thoughts to their
students. It should always be remembered, however, that rubrics must be used with
caution. They must not become extrinsic motivators which would lower creativity (see
Amabile, 1982; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) and hinder actual composition.
PART II
IDENTITY CRISIS, A COMPOSITION FOR WIND ENSEMBLE, PERCUSSION,
ELECTRIC ORGAN, AND ELECTRIC BASS
CHAPTER 6
SUPPORTING INFORMATION ON THE COMPOSITION
This chapter covers the concept of, compositional process of, and musical materials
used in Identity Crisis.
Concept
There seems to be a three-part model of musical experience: the composer, the
performer, and the listener. Each has its own essential role in the experience of music and
each must take the other into consideration. Intrinsic to this model are craftsmanship,
sensitivity, imagination (originality & creativity), and authenticity (Reimer, 1989). In
order to experience music in its fullest sense, each member of the model must be
themselves, be honest, act creatively, have understanding of craft (at least in perception),
be sensitive to expression, and be authentic.
The main conceptual force of the present composition is concerned with
authenticity. Theoretical models of authenticity all share one common point: authenticity
begins from within the individual and is not directly influenced by outside factors, but
occurs within a certain set of given circumstances that cannot be avoided. The purpose of
the composition Identity Crisis is for me to compose authentically.
According to Erikson (1968), the identity is "a subjective sense as well as an
observable quality of personal sameness and continuity, paired with some belief in the
sameness and continuity of some shared world image.” Having individual values, group
identities, in addition to satisfying the need for affiliation, help people define themselves
83
84
in the eyes of themselves and others. When individuals feel a conflict between their sense
of self and their sense of how they fit into the world, an identity crisis forms.
Authenticity can be seen in those who experience, confront, and resolve the identity
crisis. They are referred to as identity-achieved. On the other hand, inauthenticity is
exemplified by the identity-foreclosed—those who make commitments without
questioning them or considering alternatives. The commitments are often conventional
ones, identical or similar to those of their parents. Those who are identity-diffused are
also inauthentic. They keep from making definite choices about their futures. They
remain unable to make complete commitments to careers, values, or personal
relationships. Those in the moratorium group are struggling to make such commitments,
but they experience an ongoing crisis as they try to “find themselves.”
In Identity Crisis, a large-scale work for wind ensemble, percussion, electric organ,
and electric bass, I am concerned with resolving my own identity crisis that is a result of
the internal conflict between the music I really love and the expectations and demands of
the academy. My personal musical values, which are concerned with the importance of
sub-consciousness, intuition, expression, emotion, simplicity, and acceptance for all
musical styles, are in conflict with the rather rational, scientific approach in academia.
This type of conflict often has forced me to act in an inauthentic way, giving up my
views, or at least feeling guilty for them, in the academic environment. I attempt to
resolve my identity crisis and act authentically in this composition by acting upon my
own personal beliefs and values within the given set of circumstances (studying in the
academy). In the composition, the use of the wind ensemble is symbolic of the academy
and its traditions, and the use of intuition as the primary compositional process, as well as
85
the use of the electric organ, electric bass, and rhythms and melodies that stem from rock
and jazz is symbolic of my musical values.
Compositional Process
The compositional process for Identity Crisis did not include any pre-compositional
thought except for some of the instrumentation. At the recommendation of my
composition professor, the piece started as a work for traditional wind ensemble. At first I
was discouraged because it felt as if I was merely going through the motions of
composition. Later, I realized that I needed to make a change, so I added the electric
organ, the electric bass, and the extended percussion section in order to make the music
more authentic—more personal. Most of the compositional process was concerned with
finding simple musical ideas (i.e., melodies, rhythms, and motives) and developing them
intuitively. I wrote what I liked and what felt right. Overall, the process was organic.
Musical Materials
The pitch material used in Identity Crisis is modal in nature and primarily includes
the Locrian mode and the Lydian-b7 scale. Both of these scales offer varying degrees of
consonance and dissonance, therefore offering tension and release. The Locrian mode
does not contain a perfect-fifth above the pitch center so resolution can easily be avoided.
However, if desired, resolution can occur between the pitch center and the third. The
Lydian-b7 scale does contain a perfect-fifth above the pitch center and therefore can
easily resolve. However, only four of the seven scale degrees contain a perfect-fifth
above them (as opposed to six of seven in the Gregorian modes), enabling the composer
to create much tension.
86
Rhythm is an important feature of Identity Crisis. Most of the musical material is
rhythmic in nature, even in the winds. Syncopation common in jazz and rock is used
throughout and is enhanced by the extended percussion section.
Identity Crisis contains several large-scale contrasting sections which include a
fragmented, mosaic-like section; a static, non-expressive section; and several sections
containing a minimalist-like, repetitive, rhythmic drive. The overall form was organized
intuitively.
The main motives of the piece were all introduced within the first seventeen
measures. Figure 6-1 illustrates the opening motive in the marimba that provides much of
the material for the piece. It consists of a stepwise, rising and falling, syncopated melody.
Figure 6-1. Excerpt 1 from Identity Crisis, by Tom Nelly (mm. 6-9).
Figure 6-2 shows a second important motive in Identity Crisis. It consists of a
rising and falling arpeggio stated in the marimba and the vibraphone.
Figure 6-2. Excerpt from Identity Crisis, by Tom Nelly (mm. 11-13).
The third important motive in the piece is illustrated in Figure 6-3, which consists
of a rising glissando followed by consecutive stepwise descending gestures.
87
Figure 6-3. Excerpt from Identity Crisis, by Tom Nelly (mm. 15-17).
In composing Identity Crisis, I seem to have conquered my identity crisis in the
academic musical world. I have intuitively written something I like, while at the same
time keeping-up with the standards of the academy.
CHAPTER 7
IDENTITY CRISIS, FOR WIND ENSEMBLE, PERCUSSION, ELECTRIC ORGAN,
AND ELECTRIC BASS
The score for the composition begins on the following page.
88
89
Identity Crisis
wind ensemble, percussion, electric organ, and electric bass
Duration: 15:00
Thomas F. Nelly (b. 1963)
Copyright © 2006 by Thomas F. Nelly
90
Instrumentation
Flute (2)
Oboe (2)
Clarinet in Bb (2)
Bass Clarinet
Alto Saxophone in Eb (2)
Bassoon (2)
Horn in F (4)
Trumpet in Bb (2)
Trombone (2)
Tuba
Marimba
Vibraphone
Percussion 1: Medium Crash, Wind Chimes, Snare, Small Tom, Large Tom; Temple
Blocks
Percussion 2: Crash, Gong, Bass Drum
Percussion 3: Claves, Bell Tree, Suspended Cymbal
Electric Organ
Electric Bass
91
Performance Notes
In Identity Crisis the electric organ should be set to a patch similar to a Hammond
organ with a slight percussive tone and should be amplified with a keyboard amplifier.
Dynamics should be controlled with a volume pedal. All white key glissandi should be
performed with rhythmic accuracy but need not be performed with the exact written
pitches (pitches may be approximate).
The electric bass may also be controlled with a volume pedal. The tone should be
warm. All notes under a slur are to be performed as legatos (the first note under the slur
is struck with the right hand with the remaining notes articulated only with the left).
Although this piece features an electric organ, electric bass, and an extended
percussion section, they should be set-up traditionally on stage.
92
Ú
Identity Crisis
Score is Transposed
With Energy
Flute 1 & 2
4
&4
∑
Oboe 1 & 2
& 44
180
Tom Nelly (b. 1963)
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
4
&4
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
? 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 44
# œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ >œ
> >
>
> >
>
π
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
? 44
# œ ‰ œ ‰ œ> ‰ ‰ œ> Œ
>π >
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Tuba
? 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Marimba
? 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
Vibraphone
4
&4
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
˙Let Ring Ó
p
÷ 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
÷ 44
∑
∑
∑
& 44
∑
∑
∑
Clarinet in Bb
1&2
Bass Clarinet
Alto Saxophone
1&2
Bassoon
1&2
Horn in F
1&3
Horn in F
2&4
Trumpet in Bb
1&2
Trumpet in Bb
3&4
Trombone
1&2
(Group 1)
Med. Crash
Wind Chimes
Snare
Small Tom
Perc.1
Large Tom
or (Group 2)
5 Temple Blocks
Perc. 2
Crash
Gong
Bass Drum
Perc. 3
Claves
Bell Tree
Sus. Cymbal
Electric
Organ
Electric Bass
÷ 44
Group 1
? 44 b w
π
? 44
w
∑
w
∑
Wind Chimes
Ó
∑
Ó
Medium Mallets
Ó
˙Let Ring
>œ œ
J
p
>œ œ
J
p
a2
j
# œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
>
>
# œ ‰ œ ‰ œ> ‰ ‰ œ>
> >
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
st. mute
œ
J
>w
æ
w
æ
w
æ
œ
J
>w
æ
wæ
wæ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
w
∑
∑
Medium Mallets
a2
w
∑
w
∑
Ó
>œ œ
J
p
œ
J
w
w
w
>w
w
w
93
10
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& œ œ #œ
>
œ
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
10
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
&Œ
j
#œ ‰
>
œ œ œ œ #œ œ Œ
>
>
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
‰ œj Œ
>
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>œ
? œ œ œ b œ b œ b œ >˙
bœ æ
b ˙æ
˙
æ
˙
æ
˙
æ
˙
æ
˙
æ
wæ
∑
œ
& œ œ œ bœ bœ ˙
>
bœ bœ >
b˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
w
∑
˙
˙
˙
10
Mrb.
Vib.
#œ œ Œ
>
Perc. 1
÷
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Ó
10
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?
Hard Sticks
w
? œ œ bœ
bœ
S. Tom
˙
π
˙
w
˙
˙
œœ
w
b˙
˙
Ó
Snare L. Tom
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ œ œ
Bass Drum
œ
œ
œ
œ
œœ
Soft Mallets
œ œ
π
w
b˙
˙
œ
b˙
œœœ
a2
œ̆
J ‰ Œ
f
w
w
w
Œ
a2
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
f
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
j‰ Œ
#œ
fl
f
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
f
a2
j‰ Œ
œ
fl
f
a2
r
œ
j
#œ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
r
œ
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
f
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
f
a2
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
f
j‰ Œ
œ
fl
f
&
œ
œ œ œ œ
œ>
f
white key gliss
œœ
œœœœ
œœœœœ
œœœœœ
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
r
œ
r
œ
œ̆
J ‰ Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
>
‰ œœœ
Œ
+
f
Sus. Cymbal
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
f
Crash
˙æ
π
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
b œœ ‰ Œ
fl
f
>
œ
f
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
f
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
f
∑
Soft Mallets
œ̆
J ‰ Œ
œ̆
J ‰ Œ
f
Œ
Ó
∑
>œ œ œ
>
bœ œ œ œ œ
f
j‰ Œ
œ
fl
f
∑
r
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
94
&Œ
>œœ ..
œ̆
J ‰ ‰
ww
ww
ww
ww
&Œ
>œ .
œ̆
J ‰ ‰ œ.
ww
ww
ww
ww
>œœ ..
œœ̆
J ‰ ‰
ww
ww
ww
ww
j‰ ‰
œ
# >œ .
fl
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
j‰ ‰
œ
.
>œ
fl
w
w
w
w
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ .
>.
fl
ww
ww
ww
ww
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ .
>.
fl
ww
ww
ww
ww
17
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&Œ
B.Cl.
&Œ
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
&Œ
?Œ
17
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
&Œ
&Œ
&Œ
>œœ
œœ̆
J ‰ ‰ J Œ
&Œ
>œœ
œœ̆
J ‰ ‰ J Œ
?Œ
>œ .
b ˘œœ
J ‰ ‰ œ.
?Œ
17
Mrb.
Vib.
>
œœ̆ ‰ ‰ # œœ ..
J
&Œ
&Œ
j‰ ‰
œ
œ.
>
fl
j
œ œ
j
œ ˙
œ œ
j
œ œ
j
œ ˙
œ œ
Ó
Ó
Œ
Œ
w
w
w
˙œ œ ˙ .
j
œ œ
j
œ
˙œ œ ˙ .
j
œ œ
j
œ
w˙
œ œ
J
œ
J
w˙
œ œ
J
œ
J
ww
ww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
j
b œœ ‰ ‰
fl
b>œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
j‰ ‰
œ
fl
Perc. 1
>
÷ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œœ Œ
>
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷ Ó
‰ >œ .
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
17
&œ œ
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
>œ œ œ œ̆ .
J
æ̇
F
Sus. Cymbal
Hard Sticks
b wwwww
wwww
w
wwww
w
wwww
w
?Ó
‰ œ.
.
>œ
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
?Œ
j‰ ‰
œ
œ.
>
fl
w
w
w
w
95
>œœ œœ
œ >œ
‰ œ œJ
&
‰
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ>œ œœ ‰ œœ œœ>
J
‰
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
‰
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
‰
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>œ œ
œ œ>
& # œ œ ‰ œ œJ
‰
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
‰
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
‰
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
22
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
&
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
B.Cl.
&
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
>œœ œœ
>
‰ œœ œœJ
j ‰ Œ
# œ>
j ‰ Œ
œ>
j
œ>
j
œ>
Hn. 1 & 3
22
j
& œœ œœ ‰ œœ œœ
>
>
Hn.
2&4
& œ œ ‰ œ œj
œ œ
œ œ
>
>
‰
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
>œœ œœ
>
‰ œœ œœJ
‰
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
# œ>œ œœ ‰ œœ œ>œ
J
>a2 > >œ œ œ >œ
œ œ œ œ
π
‰
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>œ œ
œ >œ
? œ œ ‰ œ œ
J
‰
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
‰
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
‰
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Ó
Ó
∑
∑
∑
Ó
j
œ œ b œJ ˙
>
>
p
∑
∑
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
22
j ‰ Œ
œ
>
j
œ
>
œ> œ ‰ œ œ>
J
Mrb.
&
Vib.
&
b >œœ œœ
œ ˙>
‰ œ ˙
æ
Í
Perc. 1
÷
Ó
Perc. 2
÷
Ó
Perc. 3
÷
+
Ó
f
22
& Ó
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
>˙
wwæ
˙
∑
∑
˙
>
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>˙
f
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ> œ œ œ
œœœœœ
white key gliss
∑
j
œ œ ‰ œ œ
>
>
‰
Œ
œœœœœ
œœ
œœœœœ
œœœŒ
∑
Ó
∑
∑
Wind Chimes
∑
j
œ œ b œJ w
>
>
p
∑
∑
f
Ó
π
st. mute
∑
?
?
wwæ
wwæ
> > >œ
>
œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ ‰ œ
a2
l.r.
∏
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
bw
w
w
w
w
w
Ó
>œ œ b œ >w
J
J
p
∏
∑
∑
∑
∑
96
31
b˙
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
a2
œ
œ.
œ
J
+
+ +
œ> ‰ œ> ‰ œ> ‰ ‰ œ>
π
+
œ
a2
31
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
>
>
>
>
>
&œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
&Œ
>
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
J
>
?
∑
?
∑
31
Mrb.
Vib.
∑
&
>
œ ‰
>
œ ‰
>œ
>
‰ ‰ œ
œ bœ.
J
+
+
j
œ> ‰ ‰ œj Œ
>
∑
w
+
j‰ Œ
b œ>
∑
œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ
>
Ó
+
∑
œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
j ‰ Œ
œ
>
∑
>
œ œ Œ
Ó
∑
>
œ œ Œ
Ó
∑
> > >œ
>
œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ ‰ œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ bœ œ œ bœ
æ
œ bœ œ œ bœ œ œ œ
œ œ œ w
Œ
>
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
J
>
+
j ‰ Œ
b œ>
>
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
J
>
Œ
œ bœ œ œ
æ
œ bœ œ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ
œ œ œ w
&w
Œ
œ
∑
˙
∑
œ
p
∑
b ˙˙
∑
Ob.
1&2
∑
˙˙
p
&
Fl.
1&2
œ
œ
œ.
œ
J
œ
œ
œ bœ.
J
œ
œ
œ.
œ
J
œ
œ
œ bœ.
J
œ
œ.
œ
J
Œ
œ
œ œ.
J
w
æ
˙æ
b˙
æ
w
æ
˙æ
b˙
æ
˙
˙
Perc. 1
÷
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& ww
E. Bass
Temple Blocks
œ
p
Group 1
˙
p
L. Tom
˙
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
?w
w
w
>œ œ >œ œ b>œ œ œ >œ b œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ
bw
F
31
Electric
Organ
Hard Mallets
?
bœ œ œ œ
>
œ œ œ
>œ
97
ww
ww
ww
˙˙
42
& w
w
w
42 ˙
38
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
&
b ˘œœ
44 J ‰ Œ
f
44 œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
f
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
42
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
42
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
42
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
42
∑
∑
∑
42
∑
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
38
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
+
& j‰ Œ
b œ>
Ó
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
Œ
b ˘œœ
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
‰ J
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œ
‰ œ̆J
Œ
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
‰ œj
fl
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
˘
# œœ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œ
‰ œ̆
J
44 œ̆J ‰ Œ
f
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
b ˘œ
J ‰ Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
˘
‰ b œJ
44 œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
f
œ ‰ Œ
œ̆
J
œ ‰ Œ
œ̆
J
œ ‰ Œ
œ̆
J
Œ
œ ‰ Œ
œ̆
J
‰ œœ̆
J
44 b œj ‰ Œ
œ
fl
f
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
j
b œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
‰ œœ
fl
Œ
j
44 œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
f
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
œ ‰ Œ
œ̆
J
œ ‰ Œ
œ̆
J
Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
b ˘œ
J ‰ Œ
œ ‰ Œ
œ̆
J
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
‰ œœ̆
J
Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
˘
‰ b œJ
œ
44 œ̆J ‰ Œ
f
44 œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
f
˘œ
44 # œJ ‰ Œ
f
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œ
‰ œ̆J
∑
∑
∑
42
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
42
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
42
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
42
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
42
∑
44 œ̆J ‰ Œ
f
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
b ˘œ
J ‰ Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
˘
‰ b œJ
44 œj ‰ Œ
bœ
flf
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
Œ
j
œ
bœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
‰ œœ
fl
& w
æ
∑
∑
42
∑
Vib.
& w
æ
∑
∑
2
4
∑
38
Perc. 1
÷
˙
œ œ
F
œ œ œ œ œ
Perc. 2
÷
Ó
œ œ œ œ
Perc. 3
÷
œ œ
F
S. Tom
Soft Mallets
∑
& ww
38
E. Bass
b ˘œœ
J ‰ Œ
&
Mrb.
Electric
Organ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
?
w
? bœ œ ˙.
>œ
Bass Drum
Snare
œ œ œ œœœ œ œ œ
ww
w
˙.
42
∑
∑
∑
42 œ
Hard Sticks
42 ˙æ
p
42
w
2
4˙
œœœœœ
white key gliss
œ
œœœœœ
F
b >œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 2 ˙
4
4 œj ‰ Œ
4
fl
f
44 >œ
f
Crash
44 œ
>
f
Sus. Cymbal
œ ‰ Œ
œ̆
J
44 œ̆J ‰ Œ
f
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 œ
f
∑
ww
44 œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
f
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
>
‰ œœœ
Œ
˘
bœ ‰ Œ
J
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
>
œ
>
‰ œœœ
Œ
Œ
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
>
œœœœœ
Œ
Œ
Ó
>œ
Œ
Ó
Œ
>œ
Ó
Œ
Ó
>œ
Œ
Ó
Œ
>œ
Ó
j
‰ œœ
fl
‰ œj
fl
>
œœœ
œ >œ œ œ b œ >œ œ œ œ b >œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ b œ œ >œ
œ œ œ œ 44
4
4
f
44 œ̆J ‰ Œ
f
∑
∑
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
b ˘œ
J ‰ Œ
∑
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
˘
‰ bœ
J
98
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
45
&Œ
b ˘œœ
J ‰ ‰
>œœ ..
ww
ww
ww
ww
&Œ
œ
œ̆ ‰ ‰
J
>œ .
œ.
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
œœ̆
J ‰ ‰
>œ .
œ.
ww
ww
ww
ww
j ‰ ‰
nœ
fl
œ
>.
w
w
w
w
&Œ
œœ̆
# >œœ ..
J ‰ ‰
ww
ww
ww
ww
?Œ
j
nœ ‰ ‰
fl
>œ .
w
w
w
w
&Œ
œ ‰ ‰
œ̆
J
>œ .
œ.
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
&Œ
j
b œœ ‰ ‰
fl
œœ ..
>
ww
ww
ww
ww
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&Œ
B.Cl.
&Œ
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
45
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
&Œ
&Œ
Vib.
Perc. 1
j
œ ‰ ‰
œ
fl
>j
œ œ
j >
œ ˙
>j
#œ œ
Ó
j >
œ ˙
Œ
Ó
>œ .
œ.
Œ
œ œ
>
œ œ
>
˙œ
œ ˙.
>
˙œ
œ ˙.
>
>j
œ œ
>j
#œ œ
j
œ
>w
˙
j
œ # w>
˙
œ œ
J
>
œ
J
˙w
>
œ œ
J
>
œ
J
˙w
>
?Œ
j
nœ ‰ ‰
fl
œ
>.
w
w
w
w
?Œ
j
nœ ‰ ‰
fl
>œ .
w
w
w
w
45
Mrb.
œ ‰ ‰ n >œœ ..
œ̆
J
&Œ
&Œ
b >œ b œ œ œ œ œ
j
œ
bœ ‰ ‰
fl
b >œ œ œ
j
bœ œ œ
œ ‰ ‰
fl
>
÷ ‰ œœœ
œ œ œœ
>
>j
œ œ
j
œ
>j
#œ œ
j
œ
bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
bœ
Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷ Ó
‰
>œ .
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷ Ó
‰
.
>œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
>
œ œ b >œ œ œ œ .
J
?
?Œ
∑
j
nœ ‰ ‰
fl
œ
>.
w
b b wwww
wwwww
wwwww
wwwww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
99
50
b >œœ
& J
ƒ
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
32
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
32 b b ww ..
π
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
32 b w .
b w.
π
j
œ
>
ƒ
# >œœ
& J
ƒ
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
32
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
?
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
32 w .
w.
π
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
œœ
>
ƒ
>
#œ
& œ
>
ƒ
œœ
Œ
Œ
Ó
Ó
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
œœ
Œ
Œ
Ó
Ó
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
?
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44 b œ b œ œ œ
> œ bœ > œ œ
3
2
∑
4 bw
4 w
æ
>œ
& œJ
ƒ
>œ
œ
& J
ƒ
&
j
>œ
ƒ
50 >
œœ
& J
ƒ
j
& b œœ
>
ƒ>
&
?
50
Mrb.
&
Vib.
&
÷
j
œ
>
ƒ
j
>œ
ƒ
b w>
ƒ
b wæ
bw
wæ
w
Í
œ
p
Hard Sticks S. Tom
Perc. 1
÷
>˙
ƒ
Soft Mallets
Perc. 2
Perc. 3
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
>
>
44 b œœ b œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
p
‰
50
Fl.
1&2
œ
œ
œ
œ
Ó
Gong
÷ g >˙ Bell Tree
Ó
‡gg
ƒ
>œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ white key gliss
50
œœœœœ
œœœœœ
&
œœœœ
œœœ
ƒ
?
?
∑
w
>
ƒ
w
p
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
j
j
œ œ bœ ˙
>p
>
>œ œ œ >œ
œ œ œ œ
J
J
Œ
w.
π
32 Ó
44 œœ.
F
Œ
Ó
Œ
Ó
44
Œ
Ó
Œ
Ó
Œ
Ó
44 œ
œ.
F
œ.
F
44 œ
œ.
F
32
w.
π
j
j
bœ ˙
>œ œ
>
p
wæ
w
∑
44
œ.
F
Œ
‰ œœœ œ œ
44
œ
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
4
4
∑
w
p
w
j
j
œ œ bœ ˙
>
>
p
3
2 w.
32
˙
Œ
‰
bœ œ œ œ œ
F
44 b ˙
p
˙
100
& b œœ b œœ
56
Fl.
1&2
b œœ
b œ b œ b œœ
œ œ b œœ b œœ œœ b œ œ
œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ b b œœ b œœ b œ œ
f
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
56
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
& œ bœ
>
bœ
œ
& œ
æ
b b ˙˙ ..
æ
56
Mrb.
Vib.
‰
œ œ
œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
43 Œ
—g ˙
gg
F
∑
∑
∑
∑
43 Œ
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
3
4Œ
œœœœ
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
&
∑
?
∑
b˙.
œ
Œ
‰ œœœ œ œœœ
‰
4
4
44
÷
? œ
œ
3
4 ˙æ.
˙.
∑
Perc. 2
E. Bass
œ
ww
æ
43
÷
Electric
Organ
‰
ww
æ
∑
Perc. 1
56
Œ
b b ww
æ
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ
w
Œ
Ó
w
∑
w
˙.
43
44
Bell Tree
white key gliss
F
œœœœ
œœœœŒ
œ œ œ œ 44
4
4
44
101
& 44
62
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
b >œœ b b œœ œ œ >œœ œœ œ œ b œ b >œœ b b œœ n œ >œœ œœ œ
bœ œ
œ œ b œ b b œœ
bœ
œ
F
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Mrb.
Vib.
∑
∑
j
b œœ 32
F
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
j 32
œ
F
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
>
>
>
‰ œJ 32 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œJ ‰ 44
F
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
b œ 32
J
F
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
j 3
bœ 2
F
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
˙
˙
œ ..
œ
w
π
˙
œ.
Ó
Œ
˙
œ.
j 3
bœ 2
F
& 44 b b ww
π
˙˙
œœ ..
j
b œœ 32
F
& 44 w
w
π
˙˙
œœ ..
˙˙
œœ ..
j 32
b œœ
F
& 44 ww
π
˙˙
œœ ..
˙
œ.
˙
œ.
& 44
& 44
? 44
∑
w
bw
& 44 w
π
? 44 w
π
? 44
w
π
j 3
œœ 2
F
a2
b œœ 3
J 2
F
j
b œœ 32
F
& 44
62
∑
∑
32 Ó
Ó
Œ
4
&4
∑
∑
3 Ó
2
Ó
Œ
÷ 44 œ œ œ œ œ
>p
S. T.
÷ 44
∑
Perc. 3
÷ 44
∑
Snare
Œ
?4
4
? 44
Œ
>
œ
Œ
∑
Œ
∑
œ
fl
Œ
‰ >œJ 32 Ó
F
Œ
œ
fl
>
‰ œœœ œ Œ
p
œ
>p
b Ͼ
œ
>
p
44 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙
>
>
> >
F
4 wæ .
4 w.
>
‰ œ œ œ ‰ 44 Œ
>œ
Ó
æ
b b ww
œ
œ
œ
∑
wwæ
‰ œœœ œ ‰ œ œœ œ
œ œ œ œ
44
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
32 œ œ
j 4
œ b œ >œ œ œ b œ œ b œ >œ ‰ 4
∑
∑
∑
3
2
4
4
∑
∑
∑
44 ˙
˙
Crash
Ó
32
> >
œ œ bœ œ bœ œ œ bœ
>
∑
œ
fl
F
> >
‰ œ ‰ œ 32 Œ
F
Ó
62
>
>
& 44 b œ œ b œ b œ œ œ œ œ
E. Bass
∑
& 44 b b ww
π
Perc. 2
Electric
Organ
44
œ.
œ.
Hard Sticks
L. T.
Perc. 1
∑
˙
˙
& 44 b ww
π
62
Hn. 1 & 3
32
r
‰ œ œ̆J ‰ b œj 32 œ
>
Œ
∑
∑
Œ
bœ œ Œ
Œ
b >œ
p
‰
bœ œ œ œ
‰ œ bœ œ œ b˙
b˙
102
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
& J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
P
a2
68 b œ b œ
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
a2
.
.
.
bœ œ
œœ
œœ
& bœ J ‰ œ J ‰ œ J ‰ Œ
P
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
B.Cl.
&
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Mrb.
Vib.
Perc. 1
43
43
∑
b œ.
P
œ.
œ.
b œ.
P
œ.
œ.
?
>
œœ œœ œœ
>
>
œœ œœ œœ
>
>
œœ œœ œœ
>
43
43
43
œ.
‰ b œj 43
>.
b œ.
P
œ.
œ.
wwæ
œ
œ
÷
>
œœ œœ œœ 43
>
œ.
68
>
>
>.
& bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
&
‰ b œj 43
>.
b œ.
P
a2
Œ
Ó
Med. Crash
L. Tom
bœ bœ
.
œ. œ œ œ.
œœœ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰
F
œ. œ œ œ.
œ.
J ‰ J ‰ œœJ ‰
F
∑
Œ
b œ.
43
68
>
>
>
& b œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ
>
>
>
P
>
>
>
& b œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ
>
>
>
P
>
>
>
& œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ
>
>
>
P
>
>
>
& œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ
>
>
>
P
?
‰ j 43
œ
>.
∑
&
?
43
bœ bœ
∑
Œ
b œ.
œ.
F
œ.
F
>
>
b œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>F
>
>
b œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>F
>
>
b œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
F
>
>
b œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
F
Œ
b œ.
œ.
F
‰ b œj 43
>.
Œ
b œ.
œ.
F
œ 43
J
Œ
3
4
˙˙ ..
æ
43
Œ
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
Ó
Œ
œœ b œœ >œœ b œœ n œœ >œœ œœ œœ
fl
∑
44
∑
Ó
Œ
∑
44
œ œ
fl fl
F
∑
Ó
Œ
44
∑
Ó
Œ
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ bœ bœ œ bœ bœ bœ œ
>
> >
∑
b >œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ 44 b œ
Œ
Ó
4 æ
4 bw
nw
p
œ
4
‰ œœ 4
Œ
Œ
Ó
>
‰ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œ œœ œœ œœ œ
bœ >
œ
J
F
‰
j Œ
bœ
œ
fl
fl
p
>œ œ
‰ œJ œ œœ œœ b œœ
F
‰ œj Œ
flp
Ó
Œ
Ó
Œ
j æ
‰ b œœæ ww
>
F
‰ œj Œ
>p
Perc. 2
÷
∑
43
∑
44
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
&
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
?
∑
3
4
∑
4
4
∑
∑
68
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?
bw
43
œ.
œ œ bœ
J
F
44 w
˙.
œ
fl
>œœ œ œ
œ œ œœ
bœ
fl
œ
fl
>
‰ bœ œ bœ bœ œ
J
œ bœ > œ œ
F
Œ
˙æ.
˙.
Ó
bœ
fl
œ
fl
>
‰ œœœ
‰ >œJ
F
Œ
∑
Crash
œ
fl
∑
˘
bœ
∑
b˘œ
œ̆
œ̆ œ̆
F
wæ
w
Œ
>
>
œ œ œœœ Œ
Ó
Œ
∑
∑
œ
bœ
˙˙
˙
b b ˙˙˙
F
w
bœ
œ œ ‰ œœœ
‰ >œJ
w
bœ
wæ
w
∑
w
j
œ œ
>
p
œ
fl
>œ
>œ
œœ b œœ œ œœ n œœ œ œœ œœ̆
∑
w
p
‰
bœ
fl
˙
bœ
œ
œ >œ
b˙
∑
‰ œœ
103
75
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
&
&
bœ bœ
œ bœ
œ.
J ‰
F
b œ.
J ‰
F
œœ
œ.
J
‰
œœ
œ.
J
‰
œœ
œœ
œ.
J ‰
Œ
∑
45
∑
œ.
J ‰
Œ
∑
45
∑
>œ b œ
>œ œ
b >œ œ b œ b >œœ œœ œœ b œ b œ œ >œœ b œ œ >œœ œ œ
œ b œ bœ
œ bœ
œ œ
44 œ œ b b œœ b œœ œ œ œœ œœ b œ œ œ b b œœ
F
π
44 w
w
∏
ww
œœ
.
œ.
w
œ.
w
w
˙
˙
œ.
œ.
j
œ
œ
F
w
˙
œ.
j
bœ
F
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
45
∑
&
∑
∑
45
∑
>
‰ b œ.
J
∑
45
∑
>
œ œ
œ œ
>
44
w
∏
∑
45
∑
44 w
bw
∏
∑
45
∑
44
∑
45
∑
44 œœ œœ b œ œ œœ œœ œ œ b b >œœ œœ œœ b œ >œœ œœ œœ n œœ
œ bœ >
œ œ
œ
>
π
F
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
>
75
& b œœ
>
F
>
& œ
bœ
>
F
&
œ
œ
œ
œ
>
>
œ œ œœ œœ
œ œ
>
>
>
>
œ œ bœ œ
œ œ bœ œ
>
>
∑
b >œœ œœ œ n œ >œœ œœ œœ n œ
œ œ
œ
F
Œ
>
œœ b œœ >œœ œœ n œœ >œœ œœ n b œœ
Œ
a2
bw
∏
>œ œ œ
œ œ œ n œœ
44 œœ œœ b œ œ œœ œœ œ œ b b >œœ œœ œœ b œ
œ bœ >
œ œ
œ
>
π
>
>
b œœ b œœ œœ œœ n œœ œœ œœ b b œœ
>
>
>
b œœ b œœ œœ œœ n œœ œœ œœ b b œœ
>
45
∑
?
∑
∑
45
∑
?
∑
∑
45
∑
44
w
∏
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
4
4
∑
∑
∑
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ.
>
>
Vib.
&
˙
æ
Perc. 1
÷
œ
œ
Perc. 2
÷
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
b >œ
J
Ó
Œ
‰ œ œœ œ
æ
b b ww
p
5 æ
4 ww
Œ
Ó
45
∑
>œ ‰ Œ
J
Ó
45
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
44
∑
4
4 w
œ
& bb ˙˙˙
Ó
∑
45
? b˙
Ó
∑
5
4
?
‰ œ bœ œ œ
F
75
Ó
44 w
∏
œœæ
bw
w
45
œ
44
w
Bass Drum
π̇
F
w
44 œ œ œ œ Ó
π
Soft Mallets
Œ
œ.
∑
75
Œ
œ.
∑
&
E. Bass
44
&
Mrb.
Electric
Organ
>
œ œ
œ œ
>
Œ
w
45
œ.
œ.
œ
w
∏
>œ
>œ
44 œ œœ œœ b œœ œ œœ œœ œœ
π
∑
œ.
Œ
œœ.
∑
? b œ.
Œ
ww
&
Bsn.
1&2
b œœ.
44 b ww
∏
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
A. Sx.
1&2
Œ
˙
œ.
˙
œ.
œ œ œ œ Ó
>œ
‰ œœœ
˙
Œ
˙
∑
∑
b >œ b œ œ b œ >œ œ œ œ
>
>œ b œ b œ
œ œ œ œ œ
π
44 œ
π
˙
œ
Ó
œ
J
F
j
œ
F
>œ
œœœ ‰ œœ
P
‰ œ.
P
Œ
Hard Sticks
‰ œj
>
F
Sus. Cymbal
œ b œ b >œ b œ œ >œ œ œ
F
w
œ œ ˙
œ
w
œ œ ˙
œ
œ
‰ œ
F
j
œ
104
81
&
∑
&
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
B.Cl.
&
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
œœ œœ. œ. œ. n ˘œ .
œ œ b œ œœ n n œœ. b œ.
nœ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
81
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
&
∑
&
∑
œ . . .
& œ œœ œœ b œœ b n œœ œœ n n œœ b œ
fl . . b œ.
>
bœ
œ
>
p
>
œ
œ
>
p
>
>
œ œ œ œ
bœ œ œ œ
>
>
f
>
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ
>
>
>
f
∑
>
œ œ œ
œ œ œ
>
∑
?
∑
b œ.
p
œ.
œ.
?
∑
b œ.
p
œ.
œ.
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ.
p
81
&
∑
Vib.
&
∑
Perc. 1
÷ œ œ ‰ œœœ
>
Perc. 2
÷
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
81
&
E. Bass
b œ. ‰ œ œ œ. ‰ œ œ œ. ‰ Œ
J
J
J
p
f
a2
bœ œ
œ . . .
& œ œœ œœ b œœ b n œœ œœ n n œœ b œ
fl . . b œ.
Mrb.
Electric
Organ
.
.
œ.
œœœ
œœœ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
p
f
a2
bœ bœ
b ˙˙
Œ
p
‰ œœ
∑
?
∑
?
œ bœ bœ
œ œ bœ bœ nœ
œ
p
Œ
Œ
Ó
Œ
∑
Ó
bw
w
Œ
>
‰ b œJ.
f
>
‰ b œJ.
f
>
bœ
J
f
j
‰ œœ
>
f
>œ
‰ œ
J
f
œ bœ œ bœ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
> >
p >
œ.
œ.
‰ >œJ
f
>œ
‰ b b œœ
J
F
&
j
bœ ˙
œ ˙
p
˙
˙
b >œ
œ
>œ
œ
w>
bœ œ œ
œ bœ bœ œ bœ
œ
> œ bœ >bœ œ >bœ bœ œ
f
b ww>
æ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>œ
b >œ
œœ
œ ‰ ‰ b b œœ Œ b œœJ ‰
b >œ
‰ b œœJ Œ
Ó
>˙
>œ >œ
œœ ‰ œœ ‰ b b ˙˙ ...
f
‰ bœ œ ‰ œ œ ‰ œ
œ ‰ œ œ ‰ bœ ‰ œ
bw
bw
F
w
w
Œ
w
w
f
œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ Œ
J
J
f
∑
gg œ
‡gg f
∑
Bell Tree
œœœœœ
œœœ
∑
white key gliss
?
∑
œ œ b œJ ˙
J
f
105
32
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44 w
p
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
&
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
B.Cl.
&
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
87
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
87
Mrb.
Vib.
90
∑
87
Fl.
1&2
&
w
&w
w
w
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 32 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Ó
> > >
>
>
>
π
a2
st. mute
ww
π
w
w
j
j
œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
>
>
44 œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
>p > >
>
j
j
œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
>
>
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ
> > >
>
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
Ó
j
œœ œœ
p
3 ww
2
j
œœ 44 b b ww
Perc. 1
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
87
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?w
w
w
3 .
2w
bw
π
w
Ø
32
w
44 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
> > >
>
>
>
> > >
>
p
a2
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ 32 Œ
> > >
>
π
w
Hard Sticks
44
L. T.
ṗ
˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
4
4 w
∑
ww
ww
44
w
∑
w
∑
∑
106
&
∑
∑
∑
42
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
42
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
œœ b œœ ..
J
˙
42 ˙
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
42
∑
&
∑
∑
42
∑
œ œ.
J
42 ˙
95
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
?w
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
b œœ
J
b œœ ..
∑
œœ
F
œœ
∑
b˙
˙
œ
F
œ
∑
∑
42
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
42
∑
42
∑
42
∑
&œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
>
>
œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ
> >
>
F >
&Œ
j
j
œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
>
>
?
∑
∑
∑
42
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
42
∑
bœ
œ b œœ ..
J
42 ˙˙
bœ
œ b œœ ..
J
2˙
4˙
œ
œ
∑
&
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ
> > >
>
Œ
bœ
p
œ
œ.
œ
J
œ
bœ
p
œ
œ.
œ
J
œ
F
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
>
>
F
Vib.
& ww
Perc. 1
÷ ˙
˙
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
95
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
œ
?
?
w
S. T.
œ
˙
œ
∑
œ
Snare
42 œ
œ
œœœœ 2
4
42
Œ
œ˘œ ‰ ‰ œ˘œ Œ
J
J
œœ̆
44 J ‰ Œ
f
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
Œ
œœ̆
œœ̆
J ‰ ‰ J Œ
44 j ‰ Œ
#œ
fl
f
j
44 # œœ ‰ Œ
fl
f
r
œ
j
#œ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
fl
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
r
œ
44 j ‰ Œ
œœ
fl
f
44 j ‰ Œ
œœ
fl
f
˘
44 # œœ ‰ Œ
J
f
44 j ‰ Œ
œ
fl
f
∑
œœœœœ
j
j
# œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
# ˘œœ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J
J
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
r
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
fl
fl
r
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
fl
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
44 œœj ‰ Œ
fl
f
44 j ‰ Œ
œ
fl
f
j‰ ‰ jŒ
œ
#œ
fl
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
Œ
Ó
Œ
Œ
Ó
j
j
b œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
j ‰ ‰ œ.
œ
bœ.
fl
fl
>
>
>
>
œ œ œ œ 44 œ œ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
f
42 ˙æ
p
42
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
4 j‰ Œ
4 œ
fl
f
44 œ
>
f
Bass Drum
44 œ
>
f
Sus. Cymbal
Hard Sticks
œœœœ
∑
œ
œ̆
œ̆
J ‰ ‰ J Œ
44 b œj ‰ Œ
œ
fl
f
42
white key gliss
˙.
w
∑
œ
F
Œ
˘
44 œœJ ‰ Œ
f
44 j ‰ Œ
œ
fl
f
∑
95
Mrb.
œœ
&
95
Hn. 1 & 3
b œœ
p
œ̆
J ‰ Œ
a2 œ̆
44 J ‰ Œ
f
œœœœœœœœœ
∑
∑
>œ
Crash
Ó
∑
>
œ œ 44 >œ œ œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ .
J
f
4
4
44 j ‰ Œ
œ
fl
f
∑
r
œ
∑
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
j‰ ‰
œ œ
œ
œ
fl
fl
107
&Œ
œ̆
œ̆
J ‰ ‰ J Œ
Œ
œ̆
‰ J Œ
œ̆
‰ J Œ
œ̆
‰ J Œ
&Œ
œ˘œ ‰ ‰ œ˘œ Œ
J
J
Œ
œ
‰ œ̆J Œ
˘œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
‰ œ̆J Œ
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&Œ
œœ̆
œœ̆
J ‰ ‰ J Œ
Œ
œœ̆
‰ J Œ
œœ̆
‰ J Œ
œœ̆
‰ J Œ
B.Cl.
&Œ
‰ jŒ
œ
fl
‰ j Œ
œ
>
‰ œj Œ
fl
‰ œœ̆ Œ
J
‰ œ̆œ Œ
J
101
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
j‰ ‰ jŒ
œ
#œ
fl
fl
Œ
Œ
j
‰ # œœ Œ
fl
?Œ
j ‰ ‰ œj Œ
œ
fl
fl
Œ
‰ b œj Œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
>
‰ œ̆ Œ
J
&Œ
101
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
Œ
‰ œj Œ
œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
œ
fl
&Œ
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
Œ
‰ œj Œ
œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
œ
fl
&Œ
&Œ
# ˘œœ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J
J
Œ
˘
‰ # œœJ Œ
&Œ
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
Œ
j
‰ œœ Œ
fl
j
‰ œœ Œ
fl
j
‰ œœ Œ
fl
j ‰ ‰ œj Œ
œ
fl
fl
Œ
‰ b œj Œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
>
‰ œ̆ Œ
J
j ‰ ‰ œj Œ
œ
fl
fl
Œ
‰ b œj Œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
>
‰ œ̆ Œ
J
Œ
j
‰ b œœ Œ
fl
j
‰ œœ Œ
fl
j
‰ b œœ Œ
fl
?Œ
?Œ
101
Mrb.
Vib.
j
j
# œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
&Œ
&œ
œ
j
j
b œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
j ‰ ‰ œj Œ
bœ
fl
fl
Œ
>œ
Ó
‰ œj Œ
fl
‰ œœ̆J Œ
j
‰ b œœ Œ
>
˘
‰ # œœJ Œ
‰ œj Œ
fl
>œœ
‰ J
ƒ
ww
ww
ww
>œ
w
‰ œJ w
ƒ
# >œœ
ww
‰ J
ƒ
ww
ww
ww
ww
w
w
w
ww
ww
ww
‰ j
œ
>
ƒ
w
w
w
‰ # œj
>œ
ƒ
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
‰ j
>œ
ƒ
>
‰ # œœ
J
ƒ
‰ # œj
œ
>
ƒ
Œ
Œ
>œ
‰ œJ
ƒ
‰ j
œ
>
ƒ
‰
‰
j
#œ œ
Ó
Ï
j
nœ œ
Ó
Ï
w
w
j
œ ˙
œ œ
j
œ ˙
Œ
#œ œ
Œ
w
˙œ œ ˙ .
j
#œ œ
˙œ # œ ˙ .
j
œ œ
w
w
ƒ
÷ Œ
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
œ
101
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?
∑
∑
‰ >œ
J
ƒ
Gong
æ̇
p
Bass Drum
wwww
w
wwww
w
wwww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
>
‰ œJ
ƒ
w
w
w
?œ œ
‰ ‰ jŒ
œ
œ
fl
fl
∑
Œ
‰ b œj Œ
fl
∑
‰ œj Œ
>
‰ œ̆ Œ
J
œ
J
∑
>
>
>œ œ œ >œ
œ >œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ n œ
œ bœ œ œ
ƒ
∑
#œ œ
J
ƒ
Perc. 2
Œ
œ
J
n >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
∑
Soft Mallets
œ œ
J
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
∑
‰ >œJ Ó
w˙
w
w
Perc. 1
Œ
j
œ
w
w
>œ
>
>
>
>
>
÷ ‰ œœœ œ œœœ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ œ
ƒ
Ó
j
œ # w˙
∑
108
Ob.
1&2
&
&
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
B.Cl.
&
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
œœ> œœ œœ œœ œœ œ œ
œ œ œœ œœ œ œ
œ œ œœ œœ œœ œ œ Œ
œœ
p
∑
∑
Ó
∑
∑
∑
Ó
∑
∑
∑
Ó
œœ œœ
F
ww
œ>œ œœ ‰ œœ œ>œ œœ ‰ œœ Œ
œœ>
œœ
ww
# >œœ œœ ‰ œœ >œœ œœ ‰ œœ
Œ
# œœ>
œœ
Œ
# >œ œ ‰ œ >œ œ ‰ œ
j
œ>
‰
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
w
# œœ œœ ‰ # # œœ œœ œœ ‰ œœ Œ
>
>
>
# œœ
œœ
Ó
∑
∑
?
w
nœ œ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ œ Œ
>
>
j
œ
>
‰
Ó
∑
∑
& w
w
107
# œœ œœ ‰ œœ œœ œœ ‰ œœ Œ
>
>
# œœ
>
œœ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
& w
w
# œœ œœ ‰ œœ œœ œœ ‰ œœ Œ
>
>
# œœ
>
œœ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
œ
>
œ
Ó
œ
>
œ
Ó
œ
œ
Ó
‰
ww
&
&
# >œ œ ‰ œ # >œ œ ‰
œ Œ
# >œ œ ‰ œ # >œ œ ‰
œ Œ
# ww
w
? w
?
Vib.
&
Perc. 1
÷
Perc. 2
÷
Perc. 3
÷
107
&
œ>
œ
a2
n >œ œ ‰ œ >œ œ ‰ œ
Œ
nœ œ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ œ Œ
>
>
j
œ
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ
‰ œ œ œ ‰ œ Œ
>
œ>
w
107
&
E. Bass
Œ
& ww
Mrb.
Electric
Organ
>œœ œœ
œœ >œœ œœ
œœ
‰
‰
ww
107
Fl.
1&2
œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ
∑
æ̇
∑
wwww
w
? w
w
? w
>œ
>
J ‰ ‰ œJ Œ
>œ ‰ >œ >œ ‰ ‰ >œ
‰
∑
∑
∑
Ó
∑
∑
∑
Ó
∑
∑
Ó
∑
Ó
˙
˙
∑
Œ
∑
st. mute
>œ ‰ >œ >œ ‰ ‰ >œ
‰
Œ
F
ww
æ
∑
æ̇
Œ
‡gg
Bell Tree
>œ œ ‰ œ >œ œ ‰ œ
Œ
˙
F
>˙ .
ƒ
œ> œ œ œ
œœœœœ
white key gliss
∑
n >œ œ ‰ œ >œ œ ‰ œ
Œ
L. T.
Ó
œ
>ƒ
œœœœœ
∑
˙>.
œ œ
F
œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
F
˙˙>..
æ
Í
>œ œ
‰ œ œ œ ‰ œ Œ
>
Ó
œœœœ
œœœœœ
œ p
bw
bw
w
p
Hard Sticks
˙
˙
œ œ
F
œ œ
F
œ
S. T.
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
w
w
w
w
∑
∑
œ
109
113
Fl.
1&2
&
b œœ
œœ
b œœ
b œœ
b œœ
b ˙˙ ..
b ˘œœ
44 J ‰ Œ
ƒ
˙
42 ˙
&
∑
∑
42
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
42
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
42
∑
&
∑
∑
42
∑
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
? œ
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
bœ
∑
42
∑
&
∑
∑
42
∑
& œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
& Œ
>œ
>
J ‰ ‰ œJ Œ
œœ œœ
>
>œ ‰
œœ
>
>œ
œœ
Ó
42
∑
‰
Ó
42
∑
?
∑
∑
42
∑
?
∑
∑
42
∑
& œ
œ
œ
Vib.
& bœ
bœ
œ
÷
œ
œ
113
œ
bœ
œ
œœ
œ œ
Snare
bœ
˙æ.
42 ˙æ
œ
b ˙æ.
2
4 ˙æ
œ œ œ œ
œ
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
113
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
? w
w
?
œ
œ
∑
œœœœœ
42 ‰
œ
œ
œœœœ 2
œ nœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
4
∑
∑
42
œœœœ
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
44 œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
ƒ
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œ
44 œ̆J ‰ Œ
ƒ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
44 œ̆J ‰ Œ
ƒ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
b ˘œ
J ‰ Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
44 œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
ƒ
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
44 b œj ‰ Œ
nœ
fl
ƒ
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
˘
44 n œœ ‰ Œ
J
ƒ
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
44 œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
ƒ
Soft Mallets
Sus. Cymbal
42 ˙æ
π
42
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
∑
∑
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
b ˘œ
J ‰ Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
44 œ̆J ‰ Œ
ƒ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
b ˘œ
J ‰ Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
44 œj ‰ Œ
bœ
fl
ƒ
4 œj ‰ Œ
4
fl
ƒ
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
ƒ
44 >œ
ƒ
Gong
44 œ
>
ƒ
œœœœœœœ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
a2
44 œ̆J ‰ Œ
ƒ
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
˘
bœ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
Ó
>œ
Œ
Ó
Œ
Ó
>œ
Œ
Ó
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰
42
Hard Sticks
b ˘œœ
J ‰ Œ
44 œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
ƒ
˘œ
44 n œJ ‰ Œ
ƒ
42 ˙
˙.
∑
Mrb.
Perc. 1
bœ
&
113
Hn. 1 & 3
œ
œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
>
>
œ œ œ œœœ œ œ ‰
Crash
>
>œ œ
>
>
œ
œ bœ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ
œ œ œ œ 44
ƒ
4
4
44 œ̆J ‰ Œ
ƒ
∑
∑
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
b ˘œ
J ‰ Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
110
b ˘œœ
‰
& J Œ
Œ
œœ̆
‰ J Œ
b ˘œœ
œ̆œ
J ‰ ‰ J Œ
Œ
b ˘œœ
œ̆œ
J ‰ ‰ J Œ
b ˘œœ
J ‰ Œ
Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
b ˘œœ
‰ J Œ
œœ̆
‰ J Ó
œ
& ‰ œ̆J Œ
Œ
œ
‰ œ̆J Œ
œ
œ
œ̆ ‰ ‰ œ̆ Œ
J
J
Œ
œ
œ
œ̆ ‰ ‰ œ̆ Œ
J
J
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œ
‰ œ̆J Œ
œ
‰ œ̆J Ó
‰ œ̆ Ó
J
118
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
˘
n œœ
&‰ J Œ
Hn.
2&4
œ
‰ œ̆J Œ
j
&‰ œ Œ
fl
Œ
‰ œj Œ
fl
œœ̆
&‰ J Œ
Œ
œ
‰ œ̆J Œ
? ‰ œ̆ Œ
J
Œ
& ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J
j
& ‰ b œœ Œ
fl
118
Hn. 1 & 3
Œ
Œ
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
Ï
>˙
Ï
>˙
˙
œ
‰ œ̆J Ó
˘
‰ b œJ Œ
j
n œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
fl
Œ
j
j
œ ‰ ‰ nœ Œ
fl
fl
b ˘œ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
‰ œ̆J Œ
‰ œ̆J Ó
b >˙
Œ
‰ œœ̆ Œ
J
œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J
J
Œ
œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J
J
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
‰ œœ̆ Œ
J
‰ œœ̆ Ó
J
Œ
j
‰ œœ Œ
fl
j
j
b œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
Œ
j
j
b œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
j
b œœ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
‰ b œœ Œ
fl
j
‰ œœ Ó
fl
>˙
˙
Ï
Tba.
Mrb.
Œ
œœ̆
œœ̆
J ‰ ‰ J Œ
‰ œœ̆ Œ
J
œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J
J
Œ
Œ
˘
‰ b œJ Œ
j
n œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
fl
? ‰ œ̆ Œ
J
Œ
˘
‰ b œJ Œ
118
j
& ‰ b œœ Œ
fl
Œ
j
‰ œœ Œ
fl
Œ
‰ œj Œ
fl
b n ˙˙
>
Ï
j
b œ˙ œ
÷ Ó
Perc. 3
÷
118
&œ
Œ
‰ >œJ
∑
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J
J
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
‰ œœ̆ Œ
J
Ó
‰ œœ̆
J Ó
Œ
j
j
œ ‰ ‰ nœ Œ
fl
fl
b ˘œ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
‰ œ̆J Œ
‰ œ̆J Ó
j
n œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
fl
Œ
j
j
œ ‰ ‰ nœ Œ
fl
fl
b ˘œ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
‰ œ̆J Œ
‰ œ̆J Ó
b >˙
j
j
œ
œ
bœ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
fl
fl
Œ
j
j
œ
œ
bœ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
fl
fl
j
œ
bœ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
j
‰ b œœ Œ
fl
j
‰ œœ Ó
fl
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
∑
? ‰ œ̆ Œ
J
∑
Œ
Œ
∑
>
>œ œ
>
œ b œ œ œ >œ œ b œ œ œ œ b œ .
J
?
∑
˘
‰ bœ Œ
J
j
œ
Œ
j
‰ ‰ œ Œ
fl
œœ ..
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
fl
œ Ó
‰ œ̆J
Ó
Ï
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
j
œ ‰ ‰ b b œœ ..
fl
>
œ
‰ œ̆J Œ
Ï
>
‰ b œœ Ó
J
>
Ï
j
# œ˙ œ
>
Ï
œ
>œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
>œ
>
œ œ œ bœ œ
>œ
Ï
Ï
Ï
b>œ n œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Ï
Œ
‰ >œJ Ó
∑
>œ
Ï
∑
n >˙
>
œ >œ œ œ œ œ b >œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ
œ œ bœ œ
∑
> œ œ œ œ
j
j
œ ‰ ‰ œ
œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
fl
fl
Ó
∑
˘
bœ ‰ Œ
J
Ï
∑
Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
‰ œ̆J Œ
∑
>
‰ œJ Ó
j
œ
b >˙
>œ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
÷ œœœ œ œ œ ‰ œœœ ‰ œœœ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œœœ ‰ œœœ ‰ œœ œ œ œ œœœ œœœ ‰ œ œ œœœ ‰ œœœœœ ‰ œœœœœœœ
J
J
J
Ï
Perc. 2
E. Bass
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
j
‰ œ Œ
fl
n ˘œ
‰ œJ Ó
œ
‰ œ̆J Œ
? ‰ œ̆ Œ
J
Electric
Organ
œ
‰ œ̆J Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
Œ
Perc. 1
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
Œ
œœ̆
œœ̆
J ‰ ‰ J Œ
j
&‰ œ Œ
fl
Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œ
& ‰ œ̆J Œ
Vib.
j ‰ ‰ n œj Œ
œ
fl
fl
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
œœ̆
J ‰ ‰ J Œ
œ
‰ œ̆J Œ
Tbn.
1&2
Œ
œœ̆
œœ̆
J ‰ ‰ J Œ
>˙
˙
Ï
>
# ˙˙
Œ
Œ
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
j ‰ ‰ j Œ
nœ
œ
fl
Œ
Ï
œœ̆
œœ̆
J ‰ ‰ J Œ
œ
& ‰ œ̆J Œ
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
œœ̆
œœ̆
J ‰ ‰ J Œ
>
n b ˙˙
b>˙
Ï
Œ
Œ
111
ww
ww
ww
127
b >œœ
J
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
w
& w
w
w
w
w
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
ww
ww
ww
>œ
œ
J
>
# œœ
J
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
& w
w
w
>œ
J
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
ww
ww
ww
n >œœ
J
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
? w
w
w
b >œ
J
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
& ww
ww
ww
>œ
œ
J
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
& ww
ww
ww
j
b n œœ
>
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
124
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
&
&
&
124
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
&
&
b w˙
œ œ
J
œ
J
˙w
j
bœ œ
j
œ b ww
b œ>œ
œœ # œœ
œœ
œœ
œœ
w˙
#œ œ
J
œ
J
# ˙w
j
œ œ
j
œ
ww
# œ>œ
œœ
œœ
œœ
b n œœ
b œœ
b œœ œœ
œœ # œœ Œ
>
Ó
œœ # œœ # œœ œœ Œ
>
Ó
? w
w
w
b >œ
J
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
? w
w
w
j
bœ
>
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
Œ
Ó
∑
124
Mrb.
&
Vib.
&
œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ
>œ
b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b ww>
ww
Let Ring
÷
∑
∑
∑
S. T.
Perc. 1
÷
∑
∑
∑
Gong
Perc. 2
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
124
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
b wwww
?
? w
wwww
wwww
œ
Í
>˙
ƒ
Hard Sticks
œ
Soft Mallets
> Bell Tree
g˙
‡gg ƒ
>œ œ œ
œ
œœœœœ
white key gliss
∑
∑
w
∑
w
œ
œœœœœ
‰
Œ
œ
Snare
œ œœœ
Ó
∑
Ó
∑
œœœœ
∑
j
bœ
>
œ
Ó
œœœœœ
œ
Œ
∑
∑
∑
œœœ
112
&
∑
∑
32
&
∑
∑
32 b ww ..
π
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
32
&
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
32 w .
#w.
π
&
∑
∑
32
∑
44
&
∑
∑
32
∑
44
&
∑
∑
32
∑
&
∑
∑
32
∑
44
œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ Œ
>p > >
>
> >
?
∑
∑
32
∑
?
∑
129
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
129
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
129
Mrb.
&
Vib.
&
Perc. 1
j
>œ œ .
F
∑
÷ œ
j
œ œ.
F
œ
œ
32
œ
3 b ww
2
>œ Med.
œ Crash
œ >œ
œ œ œ œ Œ
J
J
32 Ó
Snare
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
32
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
32 Ó
&
∑
∑
32 Ó
?
∑
?Ó
Œ
129
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
p
>œ œ
F
j
œ œ
> .
Œ bœ
32
˙
43
Ó
∑
∑
∑
43
44 œ Œ
œ.
F
Ó
∑
∑
∑
43
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
43
Œ
Ó
∑
44
œ. Œ
F
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ 43
>
> > >
p
∑
∑
∑
œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ 43
>
> > >
p
œ.
F
44
∑
Œ
˘
‰ b œJ Œ
b˘œ
œ̆
44 œ
flp
œ
fl
œ
fl
‰ j Œ
bœ
fl
bœ
fl
œ
fl
44 œ
bœ
>
p
œ
œ
>
b>œ .
œ.
>œ œ
œ œ
J
œ
bœ
>
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ
Œ
œ
‰ œ Œ
J
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
Œ
‰ œœœ œ œ
p
44
Œ
‰ œœœ œ œ
F
44 ˙
œœœ œ œ
4
4
44 ˙
œ
œ
r
#œ
œ.
‰ œœœ
bœ w
J
∑
bœ w
J
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 43
> >
p
a2
3
œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ >œ 4
> >
p
a2
∑
∑
43
Œ
∑
∑
43
Ó
∑
Œ
œ
‰ œœœ œ œœœ
b >œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ 3
4
p
Œ
‰ œœœ œ œœœ
Œ
‰ œœœ œ œœœ
∑
Œ
‰
œœœ œ œœœ
3
4
ww
p
œ œ
π
∑
∑
œ.
43
∑
Œ
b b ˙˙
∑
‰
∑
œ̆
44 œ
Sus. Cymbal
∑
œ̆
˙
˙
43
a2
‰ œ œ œ œ œ #w
œ
œ
p
F
∑
‰ œœœ œ œ
Hard Sticks
Œ
∑
Œ
44 œ̆
p
4 w
4 w
3
2 w.
w
∑
44 œ.
œ
F
32
w.
œ bœ
∑
44
w.
π
32
w.
π
Œ bœ
∑
∑
44 œœ. Œ
F
32 w .
w.
π
∑
ww
44
∑
œ
∑
43
∑
43
43
w
p
w
p
‰ œj 43
∑
3
4
43
113
>œ b œ
>œ œ
>œ b œ
44 œ œ b œœ œœ œ œ œœ œœ 42 œ œ b œœ œœ 44
F
& 43
136
∑
44
∑
∑
43
∑
& 43
∑
44
∑
∑
43
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
& 43
∑
44
∑
∑
43
∑
B.Cl.
& 43
∑
44
∑
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
43
∑
44
44
∑
∑
43
∑
44
w
π
42 ˙
44
∑
43
∑
44 b ww
π
42 ˙˙
44
∑
43
∑
42 ˙
44
∑
43
44
w
π
∑
˙
42 ˙
44
>
>
& 43 œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 b œ œ œ œ n œ œ œ œ
> >
> >
F
44 ww
π
∑
43
∑
42 ˙˙
44
? 43
∑
44
∑
∑
43
44 ww
π
∑
44 w
π
˙
42
44
? 43
∑
44
∑
∑
43
∑
44
w
π
42 ˙
44
∑
43
∑
44
∑
42
∑
44
4
4
∑
2
4
∑
4
4
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
& 43 ˙ .
? 43
136
>
>
& 43 b œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ 44 b œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
> >
> >
F
>
>
& 43 b œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ 44 b œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
> >
> >
F
> > >
>
& 43 œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
> >
F
& 43
136
Mrb.
Vib.
∑
œ œ b>œ œ >œ œ 4 b >œ œ œ> œ n >œ œ œ >œ
4
F
3
& 4 ˙˙ ..
4 .
4 b b ˙˙ .
Perc. 1
÷ 43 Œ
Perc. 2
÷ 43
∑
44 Ó
÷ 43
∑
44
Perc. 3
œ
œ
& 43 ˙ .
E. Bass
?3
4
? 43 ˙ .
œ
∑
4
4
44 w
œ
‰ œ
J
P
Œ
∑
‰ œj
>
P
Bass Drum
Soft Mallets
œœœœœ
∑
43
∑
∑
43
∑
∑
43
∑
œœœŒ
white key gliss
∑
∑
w
Ó
43 Œ
˙.
43
42 ˙˙
44
w
π
42
˙
44
42
∑
a2
44 >œ œ œ œ
œ
F
Œ
3
œœœœœœœœœ
4 œœœœ
44 w
w
π
44
3
4 ˙˙ ..
œœ œœ ww
>
F
œ
44 w
136
Electric
Organ
44 œ
44 œœ b œ œ œ œœ œ œ œ 42 œœ b œ œ œ 44
> œ bœ œ > œ œ œ
> œ bœ œ
F
œœœ
œœœœœ
Œ
Œ
44
∑
>
42 œ œ œ œ 44
44
∑
42
∑
44
44
∑
42
∑
44
>
>
>
œ œ œ 44 b œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ 42 b œ œ œ b œ 44
F
4
4
44
œ
fl
F
2
4
∑
Œ
œ
fl
Œ
42 œ
fl
4
4
∑
Œ
44
114
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
>
>
142
œ b œ œœ n b œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
& 44 œ b œ
32
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
& 44 b œœ b œœ œœ n œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
32
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
j
œœ 32
>
F
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
44
∑
44
∑
& 44 ˙˙
& 44
œœ .
.
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Mrb.
Vib.
& 44 Ó
Œ
? 44
˙
œ.
j 3
œ 2 œ
>F
& 44 ˙˙
œœ ..
>œ 3
œ 2
J
F
∑
Ó
& 44 ˙
œ.
32
∑
Ó
˙
& 44 ˙
œœ ..
32
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
& 44 ˙˙
j
>œ
F
>œœ
J
F
œœ ..
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
? 44 ˙
œ.
>œ 3
œ 2
J
F
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
? 44
œ.
44
∑
˙
œ.
œ.
>œ 3
J 2
F
j 3
œ 2
>
F
b œ.
œ.
32 Ó
Ó
Œ
4
&4
∑
3 Ó
2
Ó
Œ
>œ
>
‰ œ ‰ œ
32 Œ
>
‰ œœœ
‰ >œJ
32 Ó
Ó
Perc. 2
÷ 44 Ó
Perc. 3
÷ 44
& 44 œ œ
142
Œ
32
∑
b >œ œ œ >œ œ b >œ
?4
4
? 44 Œ
Crash
∑
œ
fl
Œ
œ
>
F
b >œ
œ
F
>œ
b ˙˙
˙˙
˙˙
b˙
p
˙
˙
˙
˙
‰ œœœ
Ó
Soft Mallets
˙
p
œ œ œ
˙
b˙
˙˙
p
Ó
œ
>œ
œ
Œ
˙
œ œ b œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 ˙
w.
w.
Ó
4 b b ww
4
p
‰ œœœ
œ
‰ œœœ
˙
˙
˙
∑
∑
œ
œ
Bass Drum
∑
3
2
˙
w.
w.
j
32 œ œ œ
œ >œ œ œ b œ œ œ >œ ‰ Ó
r
‰ œ œ̆J ‰ b œj 32 œ
>
F
˙˙
œ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
p
>œ
‰ œœœ ‰ œ
p
Œ
˙
ṗ
b˙
p
Ó
∑
>
œ
œ̆ ‰
J
∑
142
÷ 44 Œ
E. Bass
32 œ # œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œJ ‰
& 44
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
32
œ.
142
Hn. 1 & 3
j
œ
F
a2 >
œ
‰ J
F
˙
œ
‰ œœœ
44 ‰ œ œ œ œ ‰
œœœ œ
˙
44
∑
44
∑
∑
˙˙
b b ˙˙
˙˙
˙˙
44 ‰ œ œ œ œ ‰
bœ œ œ œ
b˙
˙
˙
b˙
˙
4
4
b˙
p
˙
˙
b˙
˙
44 ‰
∑
œœœ œ
‰ bœ œ œ œ
115
147
a2
œœ
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
F
&
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
b œ.
F
b ˙˙
∑
∑
∑
∑
œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
F
>
>
œœ œœ œœ œœ
&
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
?
∑
? b˙
˙
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
147
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
& ˙˙
&
b˙
147
Mrb.
Vib.
w
& w
Perc. 1
÷
œ
Perc. 2
÷
˙
Perc. 3
÷
E. Bass
˙
œ
J
œ
œœœœ
>œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ
F
œ.
F
œ.
œ.
43
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
43
>œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ
‰ j bœ
.
>œ.
œ.
∑
œ.
F
œ.
œ.
‰ b œj b œ.
>.
b œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
>
>
b œœ œœ œœ œœ
œ.
43
‰ œj 43
>.
œ.
>
‰ œ. 43
J
>
>
>
> 3
œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ 4
43
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
bw
w
b b ww
F
w
bw
Œ
Ó
œ
œ
F
∑
Œ
Ó
Ó
f
Œ
b œ.
œ.
f
b œ.
œ.
f
44
44
>
>
4
œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ 4
f
44
∑
43
∑
44
∑
43
∑
44
b >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ .
œ
œ
44
44
∑
Œ
44
∑
Œ
Ó
>œ 3
J 4
Œ
b >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 4
4
3
4
˙˙ ..
4
4
43
‰ œœœ
œ
44
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
? b˙
˙
∑
∑
∑
∑
3
4
? b˙
˙
˙
œ œ >œ œ >œ œ
43
b b ˙˙
b˙
44
44
& ˙˙
˙
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰
∑
ww
Œ
44
∑
∑
Sus. Cymbal
F
bœ œ
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰
b œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ 43 b œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
>
>
>
> f
∑
>œ
J
œ bœ
43
∑
b >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ .
œ
bœ œ
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
∑
˙
Hard Sticks
˙
b œ. ‰ œ œ œ. ‰ œ œ œ. ‰ Œ
J
J
J
F
>
>
>
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
œ
‰ œœœœœœœ œœ œ
∑
147
Electric
Organ
˙
∑
&
œ.
˙
p
a2
a2
œœ
œ bœ
˙
bw
F
bw
43
Œ
œ œ bœ
‰ J
f
∑
œ.
œ œ bœ
J
44
4
4
44
116
& 44
153
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
& 44
Œ
‰ >
>
œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ b œ œ
œ bœ œ
œ
Œ
Œ
>
f
>œ ‰ >œ
>œ b >œ .
‰ ‰ J ≈ J
f
Œ
‰ >
>
œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ b œ œ
œ bœ œ
œ
Œ
Œ
>
>œ ‰
>œ
‰
‰
>œ ‰ b >œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œœ œœ œœ n œ œ
œ œ œœ œœ n œ
œ
∑
∑
∑
œœ œœ # œœ n œ œ
œ œ œœ œœ n œœ
∑
>œ
œ
J
F
>œœ
œœ œœ œœ œ œœ œœ œœ œ œ
œ
œ >
œ œ œœ >œ œœ n œœ œœ
>œ
‰ # œJ
F
>œœ
>œ
œœ œœ # œ œ >œœ œœ œ œ
œ œ
œ œ œœ œœ # œ œœ n œœ œœ
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
& 44
B.Cl.
& 44
∑
& 44
∑
? 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 44
153
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 44
∑
Ó
Œ
‰
œœ œœ œœ n œ œ
œ œ œœ œœ n œœ
∑
& 44
∑
Ó
Œ
‰
œœ œœ œœ n œ œ
œ œ œœ œœ n œœ
∑
? 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
? 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
& 44
153
Mrb.
Vib.
Perc. 1
Perc. 2
Perc. 3
f
÷ 44 œ
f
Œ
Ó
Œ
Ó
Ó
Œ
Ó
Œ
>œ
œ
J
F
Crash
Œ
Ó
∑
Claves
÷ 44 œ
F
œ
‰
w
œ ≈ œ.
J
J
œ
œ
‰
∑
?4
4
∑
Œ
∑
Ó
∑
∑
>œœ
œœ œœ œœ œ œœ œœ œœ œ œ
œ
œ >
œ œ œœ >œ œœ n œœ œœ
>œœ
œœ œœ œœ œ œœ œœ œœ œ œ
œ
œ >
œ œ œœ >œ œœ n œœ œœ
>œ œ
œ œ
œ bœ
bœ
J
œ b œ > œ œ œ œ > œ œ >œ
F
b w>
w
F
∑
? 44 œ
f
‰
>œ
œ
J
F
ww
Ó
÷ 44 œ
f
‰
∑
Œ
153
E. Bass
bœ
4
& 4 bw
nw
f
& 44
Electric
Organ
∑
∑
˙.
˙.
>
œ œ ‰ œœœ
P
œ ‰
œ
F
w
œ Œ
>
F
Œ
bœ
œ
‰ œœœ
‰
œ
bœ bœ œ
w
w
‰ œœœ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ
>
Œ
˙
bœ
w
Œ
>œ œ
Œ
b >œ
w
œ œ
œ
>
Œ
Ó
bw
w
p
∑
œ
œ
œ œ ‰ œœœ
p
∑
∑
˙˙
p
b ˙˙
˙
b˙
œ œ Œ
p
b˙
‰ œœ
117
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
& J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
p
a2
bœ œ
159
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
bœ bœ
. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
bœ œ œ
& J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
p
bœ bœ
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
& œ.
p
Tba.
b œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
>œ
œ.
&
? b œ.
p
œ.
œ.
‰ œj
fl
‰ œ̆J
& œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
>p
>
>
>
>
>
& œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ
p
∑
&
∑
∑
‰ œ̆J
f
∑
∑
43
∑
44
b œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
>
>
f
∑
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
43
∑
44
b œ.
œ.
œ.
∑
œ.
œ.
b >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ .
œ
J
b >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ .
˙
÷
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
& ˙˙
Ó
? b˙
Ó
E. Bass
? b˙
Ó
œ
‰ œ̆J
f
Œ
œ
J
‰ œœœ œ
b˙
b˙
œœ
f
b b ww
f
œ
F
Snare
j
œ
œ
>
‰ ‰
œœ
>
≈ b œœ ..
J
œ
œ
>
‰ œœ
>
œ
F
Claves
‰ bœ œ œ bœ
‰ bœ œ œ bœ
˙
F
w
F
‰ ‰
>
>
Œ
b >œ œ
œ
œ
34 œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ n œ 44
Œ
Œ
f
j
œ ≈ b >œœ ..
œ
J
>
œ
white key gliss
>
>
‰ b b œœ ‰ œœ
J
J
‰
44
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
43
∑
44
œœ
œœ
œœ b b œœ ..
œœ
œœ
œœ
œœ œœ b b œœ ..
‰
œ
J
≈ œ.
J
œ
œ
œœœœ
‰
œ ≈ œ.
J
J
≈ œJ .
œœœœœ
œ œœœœ
œ
œ
‰
∑
w
43 œ
œ ≈ œ.
J
J
œœ
˙
3
4
43
œ
œ
œ
white key gliss
44
44
œ
∑
w
44
4
4
∑
43 œ
43
œœ w
∑
b b œœ
43
∑
œ
J
‰
œ
43 œ
3
4 ˙˙ ..
ww
œ
>
43 œœJ
∑
∑
∑
Ó
œ ‰ œ
œ
œ
>
>
F
‰ œ̆J
f
Ó
F
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
st. mute
b œ.
159
‰ œj
fl
f
>
>
>
>
b œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
f
‰ œ̆J
‰ œœœ œ
44
∑
œ.
Œ
‰
44
œ.
œ
>
>
‰ b œJ ‰ œJ
∑
? b œ.
p
Ó
>
43 œJ
43
œ.
œ.
p
>œ b >œ .
J ≈ J
∑
œ.
œ.
˙
‰ ‰
∑
œ.
b œ.
&
>
‰ œ
44
‰ œ̆J
Vib.
>œ
∑
∑
p
>
≈ b œJ .
44
43
œ.
159
>œ
J
‰ ‰
‰
‰
∑
œ.
&
>
‰ œ
Œ
‰ >
Œ
>
>
>
>
j
b >œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
b œ b œ œœ œ œ œ b œ b œ b œ œ b œ b œ œ œ b œ b œ œœ œ œ œ b œ 3 b œ b œ œ b œ b œ œJ
4
Œ
Œ
>
Œ
Œ
∑
? b œ.
p
Mrb.
f
>
∑
œ.
&
Œ
f
∑
∑
a2
Tbn.
1&2
Œ
‰
>
œ bœ bœ œ œ bœ bœ œ œ
∑
&
159
Hn. 1 & 3
b œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
œœœœœ
44
œ œ œ 44
4
4
44
118
>
>
>
>
n n œœ œœ b œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ n b œœ œœ œœ œœ
& 44
164
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
& 44 ww
∏
w
& 44 w
∏
& 44
& 44
? 44
w
∏
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Œ
b œœ.
œ.
œ
Œ
œ.
œ
œ.
∑
Œ
œ
‰ œ̆J
f
bœ
j
œœ
f
∑
˙
œ.
j
œ
f
∑
a2
? 44 w
∏
? 44
w
∏
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
∑
∑
∑
Ó
Œ
∑
œ
œœ ..
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
‰ œj œ
f
˙˙
& 44
∑
œ.
& 44 ww
∏
bw
∏
a2
>œ œ œ >œ œ œ
œ
œ
& 44
f
bœ œ
∑
œ.
& 44
a2
∑
∑
∑
Œ
Œ
‰ œœ̆
J
f
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
‰ j
œ œ œ œ œ
f
>œ œ œ. œ. . ˘
œ œ # œ œ œœ # œ œ. œ. .
œ œ œ n n œœ
‰ J
f
œ.
Ó
∑
w
∏
164
Hn. 1 & 3
œœ.
a2
bœ œ
˙
œ.
˙
œ.
œ
œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
>
>
a2
œœ
∑
œ
J
f
∑
œ.
œ.
œ.
‰ œ̆J
∑
∑
∑
j
œ
f
∑
œ.
œ.
œ.
‰ œ̆J
∑
∑
∑
∑
Ó
Œ
Perc. 2
÷ 44
∑
∑
∑
Ó
Œ
œ >œ ‰ œ
>œ œ ‰ œ >œ
>œ b œ œ >œ œ œ
>
>
œ
œ bœ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ
f
∑
f
œ
J
f
‰ œJ
œ
œ
bœ
>œ
Ó
∑
w
‰ œ
f
w
œ >œ
Œ
Ó
Œ
>œ œ
bœ
bœ
œ œ
œ œ >œ œ œ > œ œ > œ œ > œ > œ
J
>
‰ œœ œœ ..
J
>
œœœ
f
Snare
‰ >œJ
f
Crash
b >œ ˙
œ ˙
J
&
>œ
œ
˙
˙
>œ
œ
bœ
œ
œ
> œ œ > œ œ > œ
b >œ .
œ.
>œ ˙
œ ˙
J
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>œ œ
>œ
b >œœ
b >œœ
‰ œœJ œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ b œJ ‰ ‰ b œJ Œ
>œ
w
∑
∑
œ
w
∑
∑
œ
∑
j mute outj
j
œ. ‰ œ œ œ. ‰ œ œ œ. ‰ Œ
f
÷ 44
œ œ ˙
∑
∑
Perc. 1
? 44 œ
∑
∑
Œ
E. Bass
∑
∑
b ˙˙
?4
4 w
∑
œ. ‰ œ œ œ. ‰ œ œ œ. ‰ Œ
J
J
J
∑
Electric
Organ
∑
∑
∑
164
>œ œ
J
∑
∑
& 44
>œ .
∑
4
&4
‰ œJ >œ
>œ
>
>
>
>
œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
b >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ .
÷ 44 >œ œ œ œ Ó
>œ
∑
∑
Perc. 3
œ >œ .
J
∑
∑
Vib.
>œ
∑
a2
œ bœ
>œ œ
J
w
∑
164
a2
∑
& 44
Mrb.
>
‰ œJ œ .
f
>œ >œ
œœ ‰ œœ ‰
>
>œ
>
œœ ‰ ‰ œœœ Œ b b œœœ ‰
J
‰ bœ œ ‰ œ œ ‰ œ œ ‰ œ œ ‰ œ ‰ œ
‰ bœ œ ‰ œ œ ‰ œ
œ œ œ œ
œ b œ œ b >œ w
w
w
119
171
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
&
∑
&
∑
œ >œ .
&J
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
Perc. 1
∑
>œ
>œ
∑
w>
>œ œ
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?w
œ œ Œ
>
w
Ó
# >œ œ
F
‰
j‰ Œ
œ œ
∑
∑
∑
‰ œ œj ‰ Œ
>œ œ
F
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&œ
bœ
œ œ
> œ œ > œ > œ
>œ
œ
˙
&˙
÷
>œ
œ
œ w>
œ œ bœ œ œ
bœ œ œ œ œ bœ bœ œ œ bœ œ œ œ
œ
œ
b
œ
œ
œ
bœ œ œ
œ œ bœ œ œ
>
w
ww
bw
n ww
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
>
b b œœœ
&‰ J Œ
171
E. Bass
∑
∑
>œ œ
œ œ
J
Med. Crash
Snare
Electric
Organ
∑
∑
171
Mrb.
176
&
171
Hn. 1 & 3
>
œ b >œ œ œ œ
>œ b œ œ œ >œ b œ œ
œ
b
œ
œ
œ
>
f
p
a2
>œ >œ
œœ ‰ œœ ‰ b w
bw
&œ ‰ œ œ ‰ œ ‰ œ
?w
w
w
∑
w
∑
?
w
>œ œ
J
Claves
ww
ww
F
w
æF
˙
˙
˙˙
œ >œ
œ œ Œ
J
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ >œ Œ
J
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>œ œ ‰ b œ >˙
˙
Œ
> œ
œ
F
œ œ ‰ œ œ
>
‰ œ œ œ œ
F
S. T.
œ œ œ ˙.
>
Œ
> œ
œ
120
&
∑
43
∑
44
&
∑
43
∑
44 Ó
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
43
∑
44
B.Cl.
&
∑
43
∑
44
&
∑
43
∑
44
?
∑
43
∑
&
∑
43
&
∑
43
178
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
178
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
& #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
> > >
>
p
st. mute
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
& #œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ
>p > >
>
?
Tba.
? œ̆
p
Mrb.
& ˙æ.
∑
Œ
Œ.
43
43 Œ
>
œ œ œ œ > > >
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
- - ‰ # œœ œœ œœ œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
F
44
44 j
# >œ œ
j j‰ Œ
œ œ
j ‰ Œ
œ œj
∑
43
∑
44 Ó
44
‰ œ œj ‰ Œ
>œ œ
∑
∑
43
∑
44 j
>œ œ
∑
44
∑
∑
> > >
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
∑
44
∑
∑
> > >
>
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ
j
j
4
#œ ‰ œ ‰ 4 #œ œ Œ
>
>
>
F
∑
œ̆
Œ
F
Ó
∑
Ó
∑
a2
p
a2
p
Ó
43 Œ
Ó
a2
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ
> > >
>
p
43 Œ
∑
Œ.
>œ
J
43 Œ
44
>œ œ
Œ
p
∑
∑
œ̆
Œ.
œ̆
J
43 Œ
Ó
4 bw
4 w
a2
p
˙
˙
Œ
∑
44
∑
‰ œ œ œ œ
Perc. 2
÷
∑
43
∑
44
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
43
∑
44
&
∑
43
∑
?
∑
3
4
∑
˙
43 ˙
>œ œ
Œ
F
œ̆
Œ
F
‰ œj 43 ˙ .
œ
˙.
˙.
˙.
˙
b˙
j
j
œ ‰ œ ‰ 44 œ œ Œ
>
>
>
F
Ó
Ó
44
∑
44
∑
‰ j 43 œ œ œ b œ œ œ 44 œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ bœ œ
˙æ.
w
æ
>
>
>
œ ‰ œ ‰ 44 œ œ Œ
J
J
F
43 œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 œ œ Œ
>
>
>
F
∑
Œ
œ œ œœ
‰ œ #œ
F
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
> > >
>
p
a2
∑
>
>
>
43 œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 œ œ Œ
F
44
43
? Ó
∑
∑
∑
Ó
43
∑
j‰ Œ
œ œ
∑
E. Bass
∑
∑
>
>
>
43 b œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 b œ œ Œ
F
43
‰
÷
Electric
Organ
p
44
∑
∑
# >œ œ
Perc. 1
178
43
∑
∑
j
‰ œœ 43 ˙˙ ..
˙.
& ˙.
a2
43 # œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 # œ œ Œ
>
>
>
F
43 Œ
-œ -œ -œ œ
‰ œ œ œ œ̆J ‰ Œ
F
œ ˙
‰ œ œ
F
∑
>
‰ j 43 œ œ œ b œ œ œ 44 œ
œ
œ
œ
b
œ
œ
œ œ
178
Vib.
œ̆
J
∑
Œ
Ó
4 w
4 w
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44 Ó
4
4
∑
∑
∑
3
4
∑
4
4
˙
43 ˙
> œ 4
.
œ
4 œ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ ˙
>
>
Œ
œ œ
>
Ó
> œ 4
œ
4 œj œ
>
‰ œ œ œ
∑
F
j œ œ œ
œ œ
>
121
b -œœ œ-œ -œœ œœ̆
&‰
J
185
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
-œ -œ -œ œ
& ‰ œ œ œ œ̆J
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
‰
Œ
∑
&
&
Œ
∑
&
˙˙
œœ
?
# œœ
œœ
œœ
Vib.
43
∑
44
∑
43
∑
44 Ó
∑
43
∑
44
∑
43
∑
44
# >œœ œœ >œœ œœ >œœ œœ œœ >œœ
p
&
∑
>
>
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
p
&
∑
&
∑
&
∑
?
∑
?
∑
>
>
>
>
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ
p
>œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ
p
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ
>p >
>
>
&w
æ
& ˙˙
b ˙˙
∑
>
43 œ œ œ œ
43 Œ
>
œ œ
>
>
œ ‰ œ ‰
J
J
>
43 œ œ œ œ
>œ œ
43 Œ
j
j
œ ‰ œ ‰
>
>
∑
‰
‰
‰
Œ
œ
œ
œ
-œ œ- -œ œ
‰ # œ œ œ œ̆J
‰
Œ
œœ # œ
# œ
œœ
œ
œ
‰
j
œ
œ œ œ ˙
p
∑
# >œ œ
-œ -œ -œ œ
œ œ œ œ̆
J
‰
j ‰ Œ
œ œ
œ # œ œœ ˙˙
‰ œ# œ
44 # >œœ œœ Œ
F
44
‰ œ œj ‰ Œ
>œF œ
44 >œ œ Œ
F
44 >œ œ Œ
F
44 >œ œ Œ
F
44 œ œ Œ
>
F
∑
Ó
∑
Ó
∑
Ó
∑
Ó
∑
>œ œ
Œ
p
Œ.
>œ
J
43 Œ
>œ œ
F
Œ
44
∑
∑
œ̆
p
Œ.
œ̆
J
43 Œ
œ̆
Œ
44
∑
∑
Œ
j 3
bœ œ œ 4 œ
œ 4 œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ 4
œ
˙æ.
‰
˙˙ ..
j
‰ œœ 43 ˙˙ ..
43 Œ
4 bw
4 w
44 œ
43
∑
44
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44 Ó
3
4
∑
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?Ó
Œ
? ˙.
œœœœ
œœœœ
>
œ
œ
∑
Ó
Œ
bœ
‰ J
˙
43
4
4
> œ
œ
œ œœœ
˙
b˙
∑
Œ
œ œœ
˙
˙
∑
œœœœ
œ
w
æ
÷
œœœœ
‰ œ
J
Ó
Perc. 2
Snare
œ œœœ
Œ
÷ ‰ œ œ œ œ
&˙
œ
F
‰
œ
∑
Perc. 1
185
Œ
œ œ >œ œ >œ œ
43 # œ œ œ œ œ œ
43
∑
185
Mrb.
∑
∑
185
Hn. 1 & 3
‰
‰ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ
J
œ œ œ ˙
œœœœ
œœœœœ
white key gliss
∑
œ œ >œ ˙ .
44
œ œ ‰ œ œ
>
œœœœœ
∑
>
œ
œ
œœ
122
190
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
&
> >
>
>
&œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
F
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
43
∑
&
>œœ œœ >œœ œœ >œœ œœ œœ >œœ
F
?
∑
44
∑
∑
44
∑
43
∑
44
44
∑
43
∑
44
∑
44
∑
43
∑
44
32
∑
44 w
p
Ó
32
∑
44
∑
43
∑
44
Ó
32
∑
44
∑
43
∑
44
Ó
32
∑
Ó
32
44 >œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ 43 œ œ # >œ œ >œ œ 44
>
>
p
∑
Ó
32
∑
Ó
32
Œ
Ó
32
œ
œ.
œœ 3 ww ..
J 2
∑
43
∑
Ó
32
∑
44
43
∑
Ó
32
∑
œœ œœ >œœ œœ >œœ œœ 4 # >œœ œœ
Œ
43
4
f
Ó
32
43
Ó
44 œœ œœ Œ
>
f
44
œ œ Œ
>
f
44 >œ œ Œ
f
∑
Hn.
2&4
> >
>
>
&œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ
F
43 Œ
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
43 Œ
? œ̆
? >œ œ Œ
F
Œ.
>œ
J
43 Œ
Œ
Œ.
œ̆
J
43 Œ
F
& ˙æ.
Vib.
& ˙.
˙.
j
j
œ ‰ œ ‰ 44 œ œ Œ
>
>
>
f
>œ œ
>œ œ
œ
44 œ Œ
Œ
f
œ̆
Œ
‰ œj 43 ˙ .
œ
˙.
Perc. 2
÷
∑
43
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
43
∑
&
∑
43
∑
?
∑
3
4
∑
?Ó
Œ
E. Bass
‰ œ
J
43 Œ
÷ Œ
Electric
Organ
œ œœœ
4 Œ
4
Perc. 1
190
44 >œ œ Œ
f
‰ j 43 œ œ œ b œ œ œ 44 œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ bœ œ
f
190
Mrb.
>
>
œ ‰ œ ‰ 44 œ œ Œ
J
J
>
f
>
>
>
43 œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 œ œ Œ
f
&œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ
> >
>
>
F
‰ œj 43 ˙
œ œ œœ
44
32 Ó
∑
Œ
44 œ œ œ œ œ œ
3
4
œ œ 4 œ œ œ> œ œ> œ 4
>
>
>
>
p
∑
44
∑
44
∑
43
∑
44
∑
44 >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ b œ œ œ 43 >œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ >œ œ ‰ 44
p
L. T. S. T.
44 œœ œœ Œ
œ œ
>
f
4 >œœ œœ Œ
4
Ó
32
∑
Ó
3
2
∑
∑
32 œ œ œ œ
œ.
4 ww
4
p
‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 44
>
p
œ
>
˙
œ œ bœ
44 >œ œ b œ œ
32
J
J
Í
44
43
44 Claves
œ œ
p
œ
Œ
∑
Ó
32
43 ˙
44
44 >œ ‰ Œ
J
f
Crash
>œ œ
Œ
>
34 >œ b œ œ œ œœ b œœ œ œ œ œ ‰ 44
‰ Œ
>œ
>œ
43 J ‰ J ‰ Œ
32
>œ œ
>
>
Œ
43 œ œ œ œ œ œ 44
f
> >
>
>
&œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
F
Œ
>
‰ >
44 œ b œ œ œ >œ b œ œ œ n œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
‰ Œ
p
>
44 >œ ‰ >œ ‰ ‰ >œJ ≈ œJ .
p
Ó
> >
>
>
&œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
F
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
∑
>
>
>
43 œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 œ œ Œ
f
Hn. 1 & 3
190
32
Ó
3 ˙.
4 ˙.
4
4
∑
43
∑
44
44
∑
43
∑
44
44
∑
43
∑
44
b >œ ‰ 3
44 >œœ ‰ ‰ >œœ Œ
œ
4
J
p
œ œ
œ œ ‰ œ
4‰
3
‰
4
4
b >œ œ >œ œ > 4
œ œ bœ 4 w
43
b >œ ‰ >œœ ‰ >œœ ‰ 4
œ
4
J
J
J
‰
bœ
œ
œ
J ‰ J ‰ J 44
∑
44
123
Œ
Œ
>
>
‰ >
‰ 4 >œœ œœ
>œ b œ œ œ b œ œ
œ b œ œ œ >œ b œ œ œ
œ bœ œ œ
4
3
œ
n
œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
œ œœœ
&4
4
4
Œ
‰ Œ
‰ Œ
f
196
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
& 44
>œ .
>œ ‰ >œ
>œ
‰ ‰ J ≈ J
>œ
43 J
>œ
‰ J
‰ Œ
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
& 44
∑
43
∑
B.Cl.
& 44
∑
43
& 44
∑
43
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
? 44 w
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
Ó
∑
Ó
œ.
p
a2
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
a2
œ.
p
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
p
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
∑
Ó
∑
44
∑
∑
Ó
∑
44
∑
∑
Ó
œ.
p
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
∑
Ó
b œ.
p
œ.
b œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
p
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
p
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
Œ
44 j ‰ Œ
>œ
f
Ó
a2
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
Ó
& 44
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
Ó
Ó
∑
Ó
Ó
∑
Ó
œ.
p
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
b œ.
p
œ.
b œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
b œ.
p
œ.
b œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
>
>
& 44 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
43 œ
>
& 44 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
>
43 œ
>
? 44
∑
43
? 44
∑
43
& 44
>
>
>
œ # œ œ œ œ 44 œ œ Œ
f
4
Œ
œ œ> œ œ> œ 4 n œ œ
>
f
44
∑
∑
Ó
∑
44
∑
∑
Ó
∑
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
>œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ b œ œ œ 3 >œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ >œ œ
>
‰ 44 œ œ Œ
4
f
3 ˙.
4 ˙.
4w
&4 w
F
∑
43
∑
Perc. 2
÷ 44
∑
43
Perc. 3
÷ 44
∑
43
196 >
>œ
œ
& 44 œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
?4 ‰
4
? 44
œ œ
b >œ ‰
œ
J
œ œ ‰ œ
‰
∑
b >œ
43 œ
J
3
4 ‰
43 Ó
œ.
p
∑
÷ 44
E. Bass
∑
∑
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
∑
& 44
196
Mrb.
∑
44
43 ˙
196
Hn. 1 & 3
44 >œœ œœ Œ
f
Ó
4 bw
4bw
f
Ó
44
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
44 œ
p
Claves
œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
‰ œœœœœ œ œ œ
π
œ
>œ
‰ œ
J
>œ
>
‰ œ ‰ 44 n b œœ œœ Œ Ó
J
f
bœ
œ
œ
J ‰ J ‰ J 44
∑
œ œ 4 j
j >œ œ œ œ .
4 œ œ bœ œ
>
>
F
Í
L. T. S. T.
œ
Œ
Œ
œ.
œ
˙
œœœœ œ
Œ
bœ
ṗ
œ.
œ.
œ
Œ
∑
∑
∑
Ó
∑
∑
∑
Œ
∑
>œ
œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ.
>
>
˙
p
bœ
œ
˙
∑
œ bœ
J .
œ.
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
p
ww
Snare
œ.
œœœœ
œ
∑
œ.
b œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
124
202
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
& Ó
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
‰ >
‰ >
‰ >
‰ >
‰ >
>
>
>
>
>
a2
>œ
>œ
>œ
>œ
>œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ J œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
f Œ
œ. œ Œ
>
f
& œ.
œ.
œ.
& œ.
œ.
œ.
œ. œ Œ
>
f
œ.
œ.
œ.
.
& œ
œ.
œ.
? bœ
.
œ. # œ
>
f
>
œ. # œ
f
œ.
œ.
œ. œ
>
f
œ.
œ.
œ. œ
>
f
œ.
œ.
œ. >œ
f
&
>œœ
>œœ >œœ ..
J ‰ ‰ J ≈J
>œœ
>œ
>œ >œ .
‰ œ ‰ ‰ œJ ≈ œJ .
# >œ œ >œ œ œ ‰
Œ
202
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
& œ
.
&
œ.
.
& œ
? bœ
.
œ.
œ.
œ. œ
>
f
œ.
œ.
œ. >œ
f
?
b œ.
&
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ .
Perc. 1
÷
œ
F
Œ
Perc. 2
÷
Ó
Perc. 3
÷
œ
Ó
Œ
∑
202
& œ
E. Bass
>
œ. # œ
f
œ.
b˙
Electric
Organ
>
œ. # œ
f
œ.
& œ
Vib.
œ.
.
& œ
202
Mrb.
œ.
b˙
?
? bœ
.
∑
œ.
œ.
Œ
# >œ œ >œ œ œ ‰
>œœ
>œ
>œ >œ .
‰ œ ‰ ‰ œJ ≈ œJ .
Œ
# >œ œ >œ œ œ ‰
>œœ
>œ
>œ >œ .
‰ œ ‰ ‰ œJ ≈ œJ .
Œ
# >œ œ >œ œ œ ‰
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>œ œ œ œ >œ >
>œ œ œ œ >œ >
j
∑
Ó
∑
Ó
∑
œ
œ
œ
>
f
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ
f
œ
œœœœœ
Crash
‰ >œJ
f
œ
f
# >œ œ >œ œ œ ‰
>œœ
>œ
>œ >œ .
‰ œ ‰ ‰ œJ ≈ œJ .
œ. œ w
>
f
œ œ
‰
œ
œœœœœ
Œ
œ
œœœœœ
Œ
œ
œœœœœ
Œ
œ
œœœœœ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>œ
>
œ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
‰
Œ
n >œ ‰
œ
J
œ œ ‰ œ
>
‰ œœ Œ
J
œ ‰ œ œ
w
>œ
>
œœ ‰ œœœ ‰
‰
œ ‰ œ
>œ
>
œ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
‰
œ œ
‰
>œ
œ ‰
J
œ œ ‰ œ
∑
>
‰ œœ Œ
J
œ ‰ œ œ
>œ
>
œœ ‰ œœœ ‰
‰
∑
œ ‰ œ
>œ
>
œ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
‰
œ œ
‰
Œ
>œ
œ ‰
J
œ œ ‰ œ
∑
125
Œ
>
œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ̆j ‰ Œ
œ
&
J ‰ Œ
Œ
fl
>œ
œ œ œ œ œ
43
ƒ
>œ
>
œ œ œ >œ œ 44 b œ
>œ
3 œ
œ œ œ œ 4 > œ œ œ œ œ
ƒ
44 b œ
œ
> œ œ œ >œ œ
>
œ
>
43 œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
ƒ
a2
208
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Mrb.
& Ó
>
& #œ
Œ
œ
>œ
œ
a2
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
∑
>
œ
Ó
∑
Œ
# # >œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ ‰
>
p
œ
44 b >œ
œ
œ
> œ œ œ > œ
>
œ
Ó
∑
& Ó
Œ
>œ
Ó
∑
∑
? Ó
Œ
>
>
>
>
œ # œ œ œ 43 # œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 œ
ƒ
>œ
œ œ œ œ œ
43
ƒ
>œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ 44 b œ
>œ
Ó
∑
∑
& Ó
208
Œ
>
œ œ œ œ 43 œ œ œ œ œ œ
ƒ
>œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ 44 b œ
>œ
Ó
∑
∑
& Ó
Œ
>œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ 44 b œ
>œ
Ó
∑
∑
& Ó
Œ
44 b >œ
œ
œ
> œ œ œ > œ
>
œ
Ó
∑
∑
& Ó
Œ
3
œ # œ œ œ 4 >œ œ œ œ œ œ
ƒ
>
œ
Ó
∑
∑
? Ó
Œ
œ
œ
>œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ 44 b œ
>œ
Ó
∑
∑
? Ó
>œ
œ œ œ œ œ
43
ƒ
44 b >œ
œ
œ
> œ œ œ > œ
Œ
œ
œ
>œ
œ œ œ œ œ
43
ƒ
>œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ 44 b œ
>œ
Ó
∑
∑
43 œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
ƒ
44
œ
> œ œ œ >œ œ
b >œ
Ó
∑
œ
#œ
œ
>
œ œ œ œ 43 œ œ œ œ œ œ
ƒ
3
œ # œ œ œ 4 >œ œ œ œ œ œ
ƒ
208
>
>
j
& œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ
>
Perc. 1
÷
œ
Perc. 2
÷
Perc. 3
÷
œ œ œ œ œ
3
4 œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
ƒ
43
Ó
208
?
œ
? Ó
Soft Mallets
>œ
œ
J
‰
Œ
∑
44 œ
>
ƒ
œ
>
3
œ œ œ 4 >œ œ œ œ œ œ
ƒ
>
3 œ œ œ œ œ œ
4
44 b œ
œ
> œ œ œ >œ œ
>
œ
>
>œ
œ œ œ œ œ
43
ƒ
>œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ 44 b œ
Crash
œ
œ
+
43
f
˙æ
p
Sus. Cymbal
∑
white key gliss
œœœœœ
Ó
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
∑
Ó
œ
>
44 Ó
∑
>
43 œJ ‰ Œ
ƒ
Œ
4 bœ
œ
4
> œ œ œ >œ œ
>
>œ
∑
Œ
∑
& ‰
E. Bass
Ó
Œ
‰ >
>
œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ
œ
œ œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ
Œ
Œ
p
>œœ
>œ
>œ >œ .
‰ œ ‰ ‰ œJ ≈ œJ .
p
Œ
œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ >œJ
‰ Œ
Electric
Organ
44 b >œ
œ
œ
> œ œ œ > œ
∑
& Ó
&
Vib.
43 œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
ƒ
Ó
˙
æp
Snare
>œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ 44 b œ
œ œ
œ œ
J
Sub. p
Med. Crash
Ó
Bass Drum
44
bw
w
p
∑
Œ
Hard Sticks
œ
p
œ œ
œ œ
J
œ œ œ œ >œ
˙
>
p
>œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ
Œ
L. T.
œ
Œ
Snare
∑
Ó
∑
∑
>œ
Ó
∑
>œ
Ó
>œ
>
œ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
p
œ œ
œ œ
‰
‰
j œ œ œ w
œ œ
>
S. T.
œœœœœ
∑
Ó
j
œ œ
>p
∑
>œ
œ ‰
J
‰ œ
126
Œ
>
‰ >
œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œœœ
œ
œœ
‰
Œ
Œ
F
>œœ
>œ
>œ >œ .
∑
‰ œ ‰ ‰ œJ ≈ œJ .
F
214
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
&Ó
&
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
&
?
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
Ó
∑
43
>œœ
>œ
>œ >œ .
‰ œ ‰ ‰ œJ ≈ œJ .
>œ
œ
œ
œ
>œ
œ ‰
Ó
∑
43
# # >œœ œœ >œœ œœ œœ ‰ >œœ œœ
# # >œœ
œœ
œ ‰
>œ
Ó
∑
43
Œ
Œ
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
214
Mrb.
# # >œœ œœ >œœ œœ œœ ‰
F
>œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œœ œ̆
J ‰
∑
214
Hn. 1 & 3
Œ
Œ
>
‰ >
œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œœœœ œœ
Œ
&œ
&
Ó
œ œ œ œ >œ
˙
>
F
w
>œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ
>œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ
>œ
J ‰
Ó
∑
43
œ œ œ œ >œ
J ‰
Ó
∑
3
4
Ó
∑
43
∑
43
œ
>
Perc. 1
œMed. Crash
œ
÷ œ œ
J
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
214
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
œœœœ
œ œ
œ œ œ
J
F
œ œ œ œ >œ
˙
>
white key gliss
œœœœŒ
?
? j
œ
>
œ
œœ œ
F
j
œ
œ œ
Œ
>œ
>
œ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
F
œ œ
œ œ
‰
‰
Ó
∑
œ
œ
œ
œ
>
w
œœœœ
>œ
œ ‰
J
‰ œ
œ
Œ
œ
>œ
>
œ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
‰
w
œ œ
‰
œœœœ
>œ
œ ‰
J
œ œ ‰ œ
œ
Œ
œwhite
œ œ œkeyœ œgliss Œ
œœ
œ.
43
ÓSoft Mallets ˙æ
π
Sus. Cymbal
Ó
Ó
Œ
∑
Ó
œœœœ
>œ
œ œ œ œ œ bœ
>
>
w
œœœœœ
œœœœŒ
œ œ œ 43
3
4
43
127
& 43
219
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
& 43
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
& 43
B.Cl.
& 43
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
>œ
œ
œœ œ œ œ œ œ
> œ œ œ œ œ
Ï
œœ œ œ œ œ œ 4 >œœ
4
> œ œ œ >œ œ
Ï
# >œœ œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ
Ï
œ
> œ œ œ œ œ
Ï
& 43
& 43
& 43
œœ œ œ œ œ œ
> œ œ œ œ œ
Ï
œœ œ œ œ œ œ
> œ œ œ œ œ
Ï
# >œœ œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ
Ï
# >œœ œ œ œ œ œ
3
&4
œ œ œ œ œ
Ï
? 43 >œ œ œ œ œ œ
Ï
œœ œ œ œ œ œ
> œ œ œ œ œ
œœ œ œ œ œ œ 4 b b >œœ
4
> œ œ œ >œ œ
>œ
œ
Ó
>œ
œ
Ó
44 b >œ
œ
œ
> œ œ œ > œ
>
œ
Ó
Ó
# >œ
# >œ œ œ œ >œ œ 4 >œœ
43 # œ # œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
4
>œ
œ
Ó
>œ
Ó
>œ
œ œ œ œ œ
43
>œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ 44 b œ
>œ
Ó
œœ œ œ œ œ œ 4 >œœ
œ
4
> œ œ œ > œ
>œ
œ
Ó
43
œœ œ œ œ œ œ
> œ œ œ œ œ
>œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ 44 b b œœ
>œ
œ
Ó
œœ œ œ œ œ œ 4 >œœ
œ
4
> œ œ œ > œ
>œ
œ
Ó
43
œœ œ œ œ œ œ
> œ œ œ œ œ
>œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ 44 b b œœ
>œ
œ
Ó
# >œœ œ œ œ œ œ 4 # >œœ
œ œ œ >œ œ 4
>œ
œ
Ó
>œ
œ
Ó
>œ
œ
>œ
# >œ
# >œ
43 œ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ 44 b œ
>
Ó
>œ
œ
Ó
>œ
œ
Ó
43
>œ
œ
Ó
>
œ
>œ
# >œ
# >œ
43 œ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ 44 b œ
>
Ó
43
44 # # >œœ
>œ
œ
44 >œ
# >œœ œ œ œ œ œ 4 # >œœ
œ œ œ >œ œ 4
44 >œ
œ
œ
> œ œ œ > œ
# >œœ œ œ œ œ œ 4 # >œœ
œ œ œ >œ œ 4
? 43 >œ œ œ œ œ œ
Ï
>œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ 44 œ
>œ
& 43
44
œ
œ
> œ œ œ >œ œ
>
3
&4
œ
> œ œ œ œ œ
Ï
œ
> œ œ œ œ œ
Ï
Perc. 2
÷ 43 >œ
Ï
œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
Ï
Crash
÷ 43 +
Ï
& 43
219
E. Bass
>œ
œ
43
>œ
÷ 43
Electric
Organ
>œ
b >œ
œ œœ œœ œœ >œœ œœ 4 b œ
4
Ó
>œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ 44 œ
Perc. 1
Perc. 3
>œ
œ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
Ï
219
Mrb.
>œ
>œ
œ œœ œœ œœ >œœ œœ 4 œ
4
# >œ
# >œ
& 43 # œ # œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ # œ # œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
Ï
>œ
>
? 43 >œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ
219
Hn. 1 & 3
>œ
œ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
?3
4
Œ
? 43 b ˙ .
Ï
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 œ
>
>
Ó
∑
>˙ .
Ï
4 œ
œ
4
> œ œ œ >œ œ
>
Ó
>œ
œ œ œ œ œ
43
>œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ 44 b œ
>œ
Ó
>œ
œ œ œ œ œ
43
>œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ 44 b œ
>œ
œ
>
Ó
43
œ
>
Ó
œ
>
Ó
3
4
44
œ
bœ
> œ œ œ >œ œ
>
œ
> œ œ œ œ œ
Ó
43
œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 œ
>
>
œ
>
>
œ
∑
44 œ
>
œ
>
Ó
∑
44
>
œ
œ
> œ œ œ œ œ
44
œ
>
Bass Drum
Ó
>
43 œ
∑
44
Ó
˙æ
p
43
44
˙.
∑
˙.
>œ
# >œ
# >œ
43 œ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ 44 b œ
>
∑
˙.
∑
œ
> œ œ œ œ œ
4
4
44
œ
>
Crash
œœœœœ
F
white key gliss
∑
Œ.
Ó
>œ
œ œœ œ œ
>
F
bœ
>
+
Ï
>
œ œ œ 43 ˙ .
Ï
3
4
43
˙.
Œ
4 bœ
œ
4
> œ œ œ >œ œ
>
Ó
∑
˙.
∑
Ó
∑
44 b ˙ .
∑
˙.
Ó
4
4
44 Π.
œœœœœ
∑
>œ
œ œœœ
œ
>
œ
>
œœœ
128
225
225
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
225
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
225
Mrb.
Vib.
&
p
&œ
p
˙
œ
Perc. 1
÷ Ó
Perc. 2
÷
∑
Perc. 3
÷
E. Bass
˙
œ
œœœœ œœœœœ
Œ
Snare
π
œ
˙
œ
œœœœ œœœœœ
Œ
œ
˙
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
œ
œœœœ œœœœœ
Œ
œ
˙
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
œ
œœœœ œœœœœ
Œ
œ
˙
œœœœ œ
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
225
Electric
Organ
Œ
œ
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
?
w
∑
Ó
Œ
œ œ
p
b >œ œ .
J
œ.
œ
J
œ bœ œ œ bœ
œ œ œ
w
œœœœ
129
231
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
231
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
231
Mrb.
&
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
˙
Perc. 1
÷ œ
Œ
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?Ó
˙
œ
œœœœ œœœœœ
b˙
‰ œœœ œ
Œ
œ
˙
œœœœ œ
Œ
>œ w
‰ œœœ
œ
œ
˙
Œ œœœœ œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
˙
œ
œœœœ œœœœœ
œ bœ œ œ œ œ
œ œœœ w
œ
˙
Œ œœœœ œ
Œ
Ó
œ
ww
&œ
Œ
œ
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ
Œ Ó
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
Vib.
231
œ
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
Œ
‰
œœœœ œ Œ Ó
bœ œ œ œ #w
130
&
∑
43
∑
44
&
∑
43
∑
44 Œ
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
43
∑
44
B.Cl.
&
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
43 œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ 44
b
œ
œ
œ œ
238
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
238
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
238
Mrb.
Vib.
&
3
4 ˙˙ ..
& ww
∑
∑
˙.
p
1.
∑
4 Œ
4
˙
∑
∑
˙.
œ
w
œ œ Œ
>
Œ
Ó
#œ œ œ œ œ
w
Ó
‰ œœœœœ w
1.
p
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
œ
∑
œ
˙
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
œ
œ
˙
‰ bœ w
J
œ
œ
˙
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
œ
œ
bœ
˙
Perc. 1
÷
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
3
4
∑
4
4 w
238
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?
w
43
˙.
44
p
w
∑
w
∑
w
w
∑
∑
∑
131
245
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
∑
&
& ˙.
œ
&˙
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
1.
p
?
Vib.
Ó
≈
‰ œJ ˙ .
œ œ Œ
>
Œ
Ó
œœœœœœœ ˙
∑
œ œ œ #œ œ
&Ó
>œ œ
Œ
1.
p
œ ˙
Ó
‰ bœ ˙.
J
Ó
∑
w
bœ œ œ œ nœ
Ó
Œ
∑
Ó
∑
bœ
˙
œ
j
œ œ
Ó
j j
œ œ œ
∑
∑
Œ
‰
œ œ œ #œ œ
œ nœ
˙
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
&œ
b˙
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
œ
œ
b˙
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
œ
œ
b˙
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
œ
œ
˙
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
œ
œ
˙
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
œ
œ
˙
œ
Perc. 1
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
245
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?
?
w
bw
∑
w
w
∑
∑
w
w
∑
∑
œ
J
∑
∑
245
Mrb.
∑
∑
&
∑
w
Ó
245
Hn. 1 & 3
∑
∑
132
251
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
∑
&
‰ œj
& ˙.
&œ
œ
˙
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
œ
˙.
œ œ
œ
Œ
‰
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
˙.
43
44 b>œ œ œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ b œ œ
f F
a2
∑
∑
43
∑
∑
43
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44 Œ
?
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
w
F
&
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44 œj ‰ Œ
bœ
fl
f
&
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44 Œ
?
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
43
44
w
F
∑
>œ
>
>
b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ b œ b œ œ œ 43
œ
œ
b
œ
œ
œ œ
>˙
>
&œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ
&œ
˙
œ
œ
˙
œ
œ
œ œ œ œ 43 œ
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
E. Bass
?
∑
∑
œ
œ
3 ˙.
4
bw
w
Snare
∑
43
∑
˘œ
˘
b œ ‰ ‰ b œœ Œ
J
J
Œ
œ
œ̆ ‰ ‰
J
# ˙˙ ..
˙˙
Í
œœ œ œ
≈ # œ œ œœ
Í
f
w
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
F
j‰ Œ
œ
œ
fl
F
˙˙ ..
Í
Œ
Œ
˙˙
f
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
œ
bœ
fl
fl
j
œ ‰ ‰
œ
fl
j Œ
œ
œ
fl
≈ œœ œœ œœ œœ
Í
≈ œœ œœ œœ œœ
Í
˙˙
f
w
44 b >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
F
Œ
b>œ
œ
˙
˙
F
œ
44 >œ œ œ œ œ Œ
œ
> L. T.
f F
∑
‰
>œ .
œ
∑
Ó
Crash
44
œœ̆ Œ
J
w
w
44 >˙
F
>œ œ œ
Œ
44
w
F
4 Œ
4
∑
?w
Œ
w
F
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
F
44 j ‰ Œ
œ
œ
fl
f
44 Œ
˙˙ ..
Í
3
4 ˙˙æ..
b ˙æ.
∑
251
44
Œ
÷
&
Ó
Œ
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
F
44 œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
f
∑
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
44 b ˘œœ ‰ Œ
J
f
‰ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 43 ˙ .
∑
251
Mrb.
œ
œœ
‰ J bœ œ œ
&
251
Hn. 1 & 3
Œ
∑
Œ
>œ
F
Claves
‰
44 b>œ œ œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ b œ œ
f F
4
4 w
w
44
w
F
w
>œ Œ
J
>œ œ œ
133
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
b ˘œœ ‰ Œ
J
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
˘œ
˘
b œ ‰ ‰ b œœ Œ
J
J
b ˘œœ ‰ Œ
J
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
˘œ
˘
b œ ‰ ‰ b œœ
J
J
Œ
Œ
œ
œ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J
J
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œ
œ̆ ‰ ‰
J
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œ
œ̆ ‰ ‰
J
Œ
œ
& œ̆J ‰ Œ
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
&
w
# >œœ œœ Œ
f
w
& w
?
w
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
Œ
& œj ‰ Œ
œ
fl
j‰ Œ
œ
œ
fl
Œ
& ww
& ww
?
&
w
j
œ ‰ Œ
bœ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
Œ
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
œ
œ
fl
fl
j ‰ Œ
œ
œ
fl
j‰ Œ
œ
œ
fl
Œ
œœ œœ Œ
>
f
‰ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ ww
Í
‰ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ ww
Í
œœ
f
œœ
f
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
b>œ
b >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
Œ
b>œ
œ
˙
œ
b˙
>
œ œ œ œ œœ
>
Œ
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
bœ
>
œ œ œ œ œœ
>
Œ
∑
∑
‰ >œJ Œ
∑
w
j‰ Œ
œ
œ
fl
b >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
˙
bw
j ‰ Œ
œ
œ
fl
w
œ
>œœ œœ
Œ
f
j
œ ‰ ‰
œ
fl
bw
œ
ww
Œ
w
œ
Í
w
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
w
˙
œœ # œœ œœ œœ œ
œ
w
j
œ ‰ Œ
bœ
fl
w
>
‰ œ.
œœ̆ Œ
J
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
œ
bœ
fl
fl
bw
∑
?
bw
Œ
w
÷
?
œœ
f
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
œ
bœ
fl
fl
œœ œœ Œ
>
f
Perc. 2
257
œ w
‰ œœ œœ œœ œœ œ w
Í
w
& œ
&
w
w
j
& œ ‰ Œ
bœ
fl
?
w
w
÷
E. Bass
˘œ
˘
b œ ‰ ‰ b œœ Œ
J
J
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
Œ
b ˘œ
& œ ‰ Œ
J
257
Mrb.
œ
œ œ
257
Hn. 1 & 3
>œ b œ œ >œ
b>œ œ œ b œ >œ œ œ œ
œ œ
>œ b œ œ >œ œ
> œ œ b>œ œ œ
œ b>œ œ œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
b>œ œ œ b œ >œ œ œ œ
&
257
Fl.
1&2
j Œ
œ
œ
fl
œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
Í
œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
Í
‰
ww
œ
∑
œœ œœ Œ
>
f
bw
w
bw
w
b˙
œ
>
œ œ œ œ œœ
>
Œ
∑
Œ
b>œ
œ
b˙
œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ n œœ
Í
>œ .
‰
œ
∑
∑
∑
>œ
‰ >œJ
Œ
b>œ œ œ b œ >œ œ œ œ
œ œ
>œ b œ œ >œ
b>œ œ œ b œ >œ œ œ œ
œ œ
>œ b œ œ >œ œ
> œ œ b>œ œ œ
œ b>œ œ œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ
w
w
bw
w
bw
w
w
w
bw
w
bw
w
‰
>œ Œ
J
œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ n œœ
Í
Œ
Œ
>œ
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
œ
œ
fl
fl
œœ œœ Œ
>
f
œ
œœ œœ œœ # œœ œœ œœ n œœ
Í
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
œ
bœ
fl
fl
ww
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
>œ .
œœ̆
J
∑
œ
Œ
>œ
œ
134
263
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
&
b>œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
>œ b œ œ
>
œ œ œ œ œ
>œ b œ œ
>
œ œ œ œ œ
˘œ
bœ ‰
J
˘
‰ b œœ Œ
J
b ˘œœ ‰ Œ
J
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
˘œ
˘
b œ ‰ ‰ b œœ Œ
J
J
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œ
& œ̆J ‰ Œ
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œ
œ̆ ‰
J
‰ œœ̆
J
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œ
œ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J
J
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
&
w
˙˙
&
?
≈
œœ œœ n œœ œ œ
œ # œ n œœ
Í
w
œœ
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
& œj ‰ Œ
œ
fl
j‰ Œ
Œ
œ
œ
fl
œœ
≈ œ œ n œœ œœ œœ n œœ œœ
Í
˙
& ˙
&
Í
w
œœ
‰ œj Œ
bœ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
bœ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
Œ
j
œ ‰
œ
fl
‰
j ‰ Œ
œ
œ
fl
j‰ Œ
œ
œ
fl
Œ
‰ œœ œœ n œœ œœ œœ œœ n œ
œ
Í
‰ œœ œœ n œœ œœ œœ œœ n œ
œ
Í
j
œœ œœ
j j
œœ œœ œœ
œœ
J
j
œœ œœ
j j
œœ œœ œœ
œœ
J
œœ
‰ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ n œœ
J
œœ
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
œ
bœ
fl
fl
j
b œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
b œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
œ
œ
fl
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
‰ œœj
F
œœ œœ ˙˙
f
‰ œœj
F
œœ œœ ˙˙
f
œœ
‰ œœj œ œ œ œœ n œœ
œ œ œ
œœ
‰ œœj œ œ œ œœ n œœ
œ œ œ
œœ
‰ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
œœ
‰ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
w
bw
w
w
w
w
w
bw
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
Œ
b>œ
œ
˙
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >˙
˙
œ
Œ
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
b>œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ
Œ
b>œ
œ
˙
>
‰ œ.
œ
∑
˙
œ
>
œ œ œ œ œœ
>
Œ
œ
∑
Œ
œ bœ œ
‰ >œJ Œ
>œ b œ
œ >œ œ œ b>œ œ
œ b œ >œ œ œ œ
∑
>
‰ œ.
>
>
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ bœ bœ œ œ
œ
œ œ œ bœ œ
œ
∑
∑
>œ
œ œ œ œ œ
‰ œ # œœ œ œœ œ œœ œ œœ œ œœ
bw
w
w
j
œ ‰
œ
fl
j Œ
œ
œ
fl
‰ œœ
J
F
w
÷
?
Í
œœ # œœ œœ ˙˙
J
f
œœ œœ # œœ
J J
œœ œœ
J
w
Perc. 2
?
œœ # œœ n œœ œ œ
œ œ œœ n œœ
w
>
œ œ œ œ œœ
>
263
‰
w
w
w
w
& œ
&
Œ
œœ
≈ œ œ n œœ œœ œœ n œœ
˙
& ˙
?
w
w
j
& œ ‰ Œ
bœ
fl
?
Œ
w
÷
E. Bass
>œ b œ œ >œ œ
œ
Œ
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
œ œ
œœ̆ ‰ Œ
J
263
Mrb.
œ >œ œ œ b>œ œ
œ b œ >œ œ œ œ
b ˘œ
& œ ‰ Œ
J
263
Hn. 1 & 3
>
œ bœ œ œ bœ
∑
Soft Mallets
Œ
>œ
‰ >œJ Œ
œ œ
>œ b œ œ >œ œ
œ
œ
˙
œ
œ
b˙.
œœœœœ
Œ
œœ œœ œ
Œ
Œ
œ œœœ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Bass Drum
œ
F
œ
∑
∑
>œ b œ œ
>
œ œ œ œ œ
>œ b œ œ
>
œ œ œ œ œ
w
w
w
w
w
bw
w
w
w
w
w
bw
135
269
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
&
>œ œ b œ
>
œ œ œ œ œ
>œ œ b œ
>
œ œ œ œ œ
œ
& œ̆J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
& J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
œœ̆
J ‰ Œ
& œ
<
œ
<
œ
<
œ
<
œ
<
œ
<
œ
& œ
‰ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ # œœ
J
œœ
œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
‰ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
? b ¯œ
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
œ
<
œ̄
œ̄
œ
<
w
Í
>œ œ
œ œœ œœ œœ œœ 4 œ œ
œœ œœ œœ œ
Œ
4
Ï
32 w
32
ww ..
# ww
Í
ww
32 ww ..
œ̄
w
32 w .
Í
Í
Ó
U
∑
∑
Ó
U
∑
∑
Ó
U
∑
∑
Ó
U
∑
∑
44 >œ œ Œ
Ï
Ó
U
∑
∑
Ó
U
∑
∑
Ó
U
∑
∑
Ó
U
∑
∑
Ó
U
∑
∑
Ó
U
∑
∑
Ó
U
∑
∑
U
∑
∑
U
∑
∑
Ó
U
∑
∑
Ó
U∑
∑
Ó
U∑
∑
44 œ œ Œ
œ œ
>
Ï
32 w .
w
Í
U
∑
44 >œœ œœ Œ
Ï
32 ww ..
ww
Í
Ó
44
œ œ Œ
>
Ï
44 # >œœ œœ Œ
Ï
Hn. 1 & 3
269 j
& # œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
# œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
ww
Í
32 ww ..
44 >œœ œœ Œ
Ï
Hn.
2&4
j
& œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
ww
Í
32 ww ..
ww
Í
32 ww ..
44 œ œ Œ
œ œ
>
Ï
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Mrb.
Vib.
& œœ
‰ œœj œœ œ œœ œœ œœ
œ
& œœ
? b ¯œ
?
bœ
<
œœ
‰ œœ # œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
‰ œœj œœ œ œœ œœ œœ
œ
œœ
‰ œœ # œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
œ
<
œ
<
œ
<
œ
<
œ
<
œ
<
œ
<
269
>
>
bœ œ œ
& œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
& bœ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
Perc. 1
÷
œœœœœ
Œ
œœ œœ œ
Œ
Œ
œœœœ
Perc. 2
÷
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
Perc. 3
÷
269
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
œ
œ
32 ww ..
ww
Í
w
32 w .
w
32 w .
Í
Í
>œ
f
Œ
Ó
œ œœ œœ œœ
Í
œ Œ
f
44 >œ œ Œ
Ï
44 >œ œ Œ
Ï
32
44
∑
Ó
∑
32 œ
œ
Let Ring
œœ
œœ
œœ
œœ
∑
32 æ̇
p
Sus. Cymbal
∑
>œ œ b œ
>
œ œ œ œ œ
>œ œ b œ
>
œ œ œ œ œ
w
32 w
? b ¯œ
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
w
3 w.
2
? b ¯œ
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
œ̄
wæ
æ
32 w .
∑
4 œ œ ˙.
4 œ œ ˙.
>
Ï
32
∑
Í
44 œœ œœ Œ
>
Ï
3 wæ .
2 w.
wwæ
Í
Í
44 œœ œœ Œ
>
Ï
Hard Sticks
white key gliss
œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 œ œ Œ
>
Ï
Crash
44 >œ Œ
Ï
Tree
44 gBell
˙
‡gg
Ï
Ó
œœœœœ
f
œœœœœ
œœœœœ
U
w
44
w
œ
π
4
4
w
44 >œ œ Œ
Ï
w
w
u
Ó
∑
a tempo
w
U
∑
∑
136
280 Static
276
A Little Slower
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
a2
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Bsn.
1&2
276
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
276
Mrb.
&
∑
Vib.
&
∑
Perc. 1
÷
∑
Perc. 2
÷
Perc. 3
÷
bw
w
π
ww
w
45 w
b œœ
44
ww
Ø
ww
ww
45 ww
œœ
44
w
Ø
w
w
45 w
œ
44
w
Ø
w
w
45 w
œ
44
w
Ø
w
w
45 w
œ
44
a2
Separated
bœ œ
∏
E. Bass
?
?
œ
45 œ
œ
œ
44
˙
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
œ bœ œ
œ œ bœ bœ bœ œ œ œ bœ œ
œ œ bœ
π
Static
œ
œ
œ œ bœ œ bœ
bœ bœ œ œ œ
œ œ
œ
œ
∏
b˙
˙
∏
˙
∏
4
4
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
bw
∑
Œ
˙
∑
∑
˙
5
4˙
44
∑
w
˙
˙
∑
Wind Chimes
∏
˙
œ œ œ
45 b œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ 44
œ
bœ bœ œ œ œ œ
45
∑
w
˙
œ
∑
∑
∑
œ
œ
∑
∑
∑
bœ
44
∑
∑
œ
∑
∑
w
œ #œ
45
∑
w
œ
∑
∑
w
œ
∑
276
Electric
Organ
œ
∑
w
Œ
œ.
ww
∑
w
Œ
b n ww
Ø
∑
&w
Œ
∑
b b ww
w
w
Ó
44
∑
A. Sx.
1&2
Œ
Œ
∑
b œ.
Ó
.
45 œ
∑
a2
Œ
œ.
∑
Ob.
1&2
œ. Œ
∏
œ.
&
Fl.
1&2
w
∑
5
4w
w
∑
∑
45
œ
∑
4
4
44
137
& 44
284
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
œ.
Œ
Ó
Ó
Œ
œ.
45
Œ
œ.
Œ
Œ
44
œ.
Œ
Œ
œ.
∑
w
w
w
45 w
œ
œ
44 b n ww
ww
w
& 44 w
ww
ww
w
45 w
œœ
44 ww
ww
& 44 w
w
w
45 w
œ
44 w
w
& 44 w
w
w
45 w
œ
44 w
w
? 44 w
w
w
w
45
œ
44 w
w
& 44
284
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
& 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
& 44 # œ
œ
œ
bœ
œ
œ
œ
œ
#˙.
œ
45 # œ
˙
44
˙
bœ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
#œ
& 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
? 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
? 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
& 44 œ œ œ œ b œ œ b œ
4
&4 w
Perc. 1
÷ 44 Ó
Perc. 2
÷ 44
∑
Perc. 3
÷ 44
& 44
284
E. Bass
œ.
Ó
w
w
Vib.
Electric
Organ
Œ
w
& 44 b w
284
Mrb.
b œ.
˙
˙
bœ
œ bœ œ œ œ
œ
b˙
œ
bœ
œ bœ œ œ œ
˙
˙
˙
5 œ
44 œ
œ œ bœ œ bœ
œ
œ
œ
œ 4
bœ bœ œ œ œ œ
œ bœ
5 ˙.
4
4
4 ˙.
˙
œ
œ
bœ
œ bœ œ œ œ
w
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
?4
4 w
? 44
œ
œ
w
∑
5
4 w
w
∑
∑
45
œ
∑
4
4 w
44
˙
w
∑
bœ
∑
œ
138
290
Fl.
1&2
& b œ.
Œ
œ.
Ó
Œ
b œ.
Œ
œ.
non-static
Œ
œ.
œ
œ œ bœ œ œ
w
f
w
& w
ww
ww
œœ̆
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
& ww
ww
ww
B.Cl.
& w
w
w
& w
w
w
? w
w
w
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
290
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
œ
œœ
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
# # œœ
fl
f
œœ
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
#œ
fl
f
œ
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
# >œ
œ
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
œ̆
œ
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
f
f
f
œ
n n ww
Ø
b b ww
Ø
∑
Separated
∑
∑
# œœ
fl
f
œœ
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
# œœ
fl
f
œœ
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
# # œœ
fl
f
œœ
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
# # œœ
fl
f
œœ
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
œœ̆
f
œœ
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
œ
fl
f
œ
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
œ
>
f
œ
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ
∏
& ˙
œ
œ bœ
œ
œ #œ
w
&
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
& œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ
& bw
÷
Perc. 2
÷
Perc. 3
÷
non-static
œ
œ
˙
˙
290
&
E. Bass
œ #œ
∏
∑
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
Œ
&
290
Mrb.
Static
˙.
w
?
?
œ
bœ bœ œ œ œ œ
b˙
œ œ œ œ bœ
œ œ œ œ bœ bœ
˙
˙
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
w
w
∑
w
∑
œ œ
bœ œ œ
w
w
f
w
w
∑
>œ
f
Œ
Ó
∑
>œ œ white key gliss
œœœœœ
Ó
œœœœœ
œœœœ
f
w
∑
œ
>f
w
w
Œ
Ó
˙
∏
b˙
Static
n˙
π
b˙
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
w
œ
1. stopped
Ó
Œ
key gliss
>œ œwhite
œœœœœ
œ
w
∑
∑
Sub.
∏
bw
bw
∑
∑
∑
139
297
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
&
œ
œ
#˙
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
˙
œ
45
#œ
˙
œ
44 œ
œ
#˙
œ
œ
#œ
œ
œ
#œ
œ
œ
45
ww
w
45 w
œœ
44 b b ww
ww
ww
45
w
& w
ww
w
45 w
œœ
44 b b ww
ww
ww
45
&
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
&
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
?
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
b˙
45 œ
44
˙
b˙
b˙
45
& b˙.
nœ
˙
b˙.
nœ
b˙.
bœ
˙
&
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
&
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
&
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
?
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
?
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
297
Mrb.
œ
w
& w
297
Hn. 1 & 3
#œ
&
œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ
nœ
& b˙.
œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ 5 œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 4 œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ
4
4
˙
b˙
5
4œ
b˙.
nœ
4 ˙
4
b˙
œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ 5
4
b˙.
bœ
˙
b˙
5
4
Perc. 1
÷
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
297
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
? w
w
?
5
4 ww
w
w
∑
∑
45
œ
œ
∑
4 w
4 w
44
w
w
∑
5
4
w
w
∑
∑
45
140
& 45
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
œ
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
œ
œ
œ
w
& 45 w
œœ
44 n n ww
ww
ww
& 45 ww
œœ
44 b b ww
ww
ww
#˙
#œ
#œ
œ
œ
œ
#œ
œ
#œ
œ
non-static
˙
∑
∑
ww
∑
∑
ww
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
Ó
∑
? 45
∑
44
# ˘œ œ
# œ œ Œ
f
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ̆ œ Œ
Ó
∑
o
# œœ œœ Œ
fl
f
Ó
∑
Ó
∑
Ó
∑
Ó
∑
œœ̆ œœ
Œ
Ó
∑
Œ
Ó
∑
œ œ Œ
>
f
Ó
∑
& 45 œ
n˙.
bœ
44
˙
b˙
bœ
n˙.
˙
b˙
.
œ b˙
& 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
? 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
? 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 45
303
Mrb.
œ
44 œ
303
Hn. 1 & 3
œ
œ
303
Fl.
1&2
œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 4 œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ
4
5
&4 œ
n˙.
bœ
4
4 ˙
b˙
œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ
bœ
n˙.
˙
b˙
Ó
œ
j
j
bœ œ nœ
F
non-static
b˙.
Perc. 1
÷ 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷ 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷ 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
303
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?5 w
4w
? 45
œ
œ
∑
4 w
4 w
44
w
w
∑
w
w
∑
w
w
∑
∑
f
# œœ œœ Œ
fl
f
˘
# # œœ œœ Œ
f
˘œ œ
#
# œ œ Œ
f
f
œ œ
fl
f
w
w
f
>œ
f
f
nw
nw
w
w
∑
Œ
∑
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
w
w
n >œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ
f
141
Static
310
&
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
?
∑
&
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
œ
œ
#œ
œ
œ
#œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
45
#œ
œ
œ
œ
44
w
w
w
w
45 ww
œ
œ
44
# # ww
Ø
ww
ww
45 ww
œœ
44
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
&
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
&
& ww
p
ww
1. st. mute
#˙
π
#˙
Separated
Static
œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ
#œ
œ
œ
œ œ
∏
ww
∏
˙
#˙
˙
∏
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
310
&
?w
w
? >œ œ ˙ .
∏
w
w
w
∏
w
w
w
#˙
˙
#œ
w
∏
w
∑
#œ
#˙
˙.
45
44
˙
œ œ #œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ
5 œ #œ œ œ œ
4
#œ œ
#œ
œ 4 œ #œ œ œ œ 4
˙
˙
œ
˙
÷
E. Bass
œ
w
w
Ø
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
œ
∑
310
Mrb.
∏
∑
310
Hn. 1 & 3
#œ
#œ
˙
5 ˙.
4
4
4
˙
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
45
∑
44
w
ww
45 w
œ
44
w
w
5
4w
œ
4
4
∑
∑
45
∑
44
142
& 44
317
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
œ
œ
œ
œ #œ
œ
œ
#œ
œ
œ
œ
œ #œ
45
œ
œ
œ
44 # œ
œ
œ
œ
œ #œ
œ
œ
#œ
& 44 ww
ww
ww
45 ww
œœ
44
w
w
w
w
w
w
& 44 ww
w
w
w
w
45 ww
œ
œ
44 # w
# w
ww
ww
œ
œ
& 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
& 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
? 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
& 44
317
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
& 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
& 44 ˙
#˙
#˙
w
45
& 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
? 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
? 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
& 44
317
Mrb.
#œ
#œ
#œ
œ œ œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ #œ
#˙
#œ
44
œ #œ
œ
œ
˙
#˙
˙
#˙
œ œ #œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ
5 œ #œ œ œ œ
4 #œ œ œ œ
œ œ #œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ
#œ œ
#œ
œ 4 œ #œ œ œ œ 4 #œ œ œ œ
#œ œ
#œ
œ
˙
5 w
4
˙
#˙
˙
Perc. 1
÷ 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
Perc. 2
÷ 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷ 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
E. Bass
œ #œ
˙
œ
œ
˙
#w
w
w
45 w
œ
44
ww
w
w
?4 w
4
w
w
5
4w
œ
4
4
w
w
w
? 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
˙
∑
& 44 w
317
Electric
Organ
œ
œ
œ
#˙
œ
4
4
œ
4
&4 ˙
Vib.
œ
∑
∑
143
324
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
&
œ #œ
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Mrb.
Vib.
œ
>
œ œ œ 42 n œ œ Œ
œ #œ œ œ œ
F
∑
∑
∑
∑
42
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& ww
ww
42
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
42
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
42
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
42 œ̆ œ Œ
F
˘
44 b œ œ Œ
f
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
44 b œ œ Œ
bœ œ
fl
f
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
42 œœ œœ Œ
fl
F
œœ Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œœ Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& œ
#œ
œ #œ
#œ
œ
œ
&
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
324
#œ œ
& œ œ #œ œ œ œ
& œ
œ #œ
œ
œ
42 œœ œœ Œ
fl
F
mute out
42 œœ̆ œœ Œ
F
42 œœ̆ œœ Œ
F
œ œ
42 œ̆ œ Œ
F
>
œ œ œ 2 nœ œ Œ
œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 4
F
œ #œ œ
44 >œ œ Œ
f
œ
œ
œ
œ
2
4 ˙˙
F
∑
42
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
>
42 œ
F
Crash
42
ww
42
? w
w
2
4 ˙
∑
42
Œ
∑
4 b b ww
4
f
∑
∑
44 >œ
f
44
44
˙
p
ww
Let Ring
44
∑
324
#w
& w
∑
˘
44 b œœ œœ Œ
f
b˘œœ œœ
b
44
Œ
f
44
Œ
œ œ
fl
f
∑
?
44 b œ
bœ
fl
f
˘œ
44 b œ
f
42 œ œ Œ
fl
F
÷
E. Bass
∑
w
w
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
327 With Energy
Tempo 1
44 b>œ œ Œ Ó
∑
f
& ww
324
Hn. 1 & 3
œ
Œ
Ó
∑
ww
ww
˙˙
œ œ bœ w
J
J
p
w
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
4
4 w
w
w
w
w
w
w
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
144
334
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
Ó
∑
# >œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ
&
∑
Ó
∑
# >œ ‰ >œ ‰ >œ ‰ ‰ >œ
?
∑
?
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
334
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
334
Mrb.
&
Vib.
&
˙
# >œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ # >œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b>œ œ œ >œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ
> >
>
>
>
p
a2
# >œ ‰ ‰ >œ Œ
J
J
>
>
œ ‰ œ ‰ bœ ‰ ‰ œ
> >
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ œ
J
# >œ ‰ >œ ‰ >œ ‰ ‰ >œ Œ
p
a2
œ
J
st. mute
>
w
ww
w
Œ
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
>
>
ww
œ œ Œ
>
ww
œ
p
œ
œ.
ww
ww
Perc. 1
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
334
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?
?
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Ó
œ œ
J
P
œ
J
>œ œ
Œ
Ó
j
œ
145
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
342
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
342
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
>
>
& œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ
Vib.
>
>
œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 45
> >
>
>
# >œ ‰ ‰ >œ Œ
J
J
>
>
œ ‰ œ ‰ bœ ‰ ‰ œ
> >
&Œ
# >œ ‰ ‰ >œ Œ
J
J
>
>
œ ‰ œ ‰ bœ ‰ ‰ œ
> >
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
342
Mrb.
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ
> >
>
>
&Œ
œ
‰ œj Œ
w
&w
œ
œ
œ.
ww
Œ
j
œ Œ
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
>
>
‰ œj Œ
œ
# >œ ‰ >œ ‰ >œ ‰ ‰ >œ Œ
œ
œ
œ.
ww
ww
j
œ Œ
œ
‰ œj Œ
ww
œ
œ
œ.
ww
Œ
j
œ Œ
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
>
>
‰ œj Œ
œ
45
45
5
4
ww
Perc. 1
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
342
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?
?
w
w
∑
w
w
bw
w
>
bœ œ Œ
Ó
∑
w
w
w
w
>œ œ
Œ
Ó
∑
w
w
45
bw
w
5
4
>
bœ œ Œ
Ó
∑
45
146
349
& 45
349
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 45
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
& 45
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
& 45
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 45
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
? 45
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
349 >
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
> >
>
> > >
>
>
> > >
>
> > >
∑
Œ
& 45 b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
> Œ Œ Œ
> Œ Œ Œ
∑
∑
> > >
>
> > >
>
p
>j ‰
& 45 b œ œ
>p
>j ‰
œ
Œ
>j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
œ
œ
Œ Œ Œ
>j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
œ
œ
Œ Œ Œ
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 45
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
? 45
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
? 45
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 45
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
5 bw
&4 w
F
Perc. 2
÷ 45 >œ Œ
F
Crash
E. Bass
>j ‰
œ
Œ
∑
÷ 45
Electric
Organ
>j ‰
bœ œ
>
∑
Perc. 1
Perc. 3
∑
Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
> > >
>
∑
œ
œ
Let Ring
Vib.
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
bœ œ œ œ
œ
J J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
> ‰ > >
>
& 45
349
Mrb.
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
Œ
∑
Claves
÷ 45 œ œ
p
349 >
œ œ
& 45 b œ œ Œ
F
? 5 >œ œ Œ
4
? 45 >œ œ Œ
F
w
w
œ
œ
∑
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
w
w
œ
œ
∑
b ww
p
œœ
ww
œœ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
147
355
&
∑
&
∑
Œ
Œ
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
Œ
Œ
B.Cl.
&
∑
&
?
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Œ
∑
Œ
a2
œ œ
>p
Œ
œa2
p
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ œ
>p
∑
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
& b œJ œ œJ ‰ œJ ‰ ‰ œJ Œ
> ‰ > >
>
∑
Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
> > >
>
>j ‰
bœ œ
>
>j ‰
œ
Œ
>j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
œ
œ
Œ Œ Œ
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
Œ
∑
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
bœ œ œ œ
œ
J J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
> ‰ > >
>
∑
Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
> > >
>
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
& ww
bw
w
œœ
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
w
w
œ
p
œ œ œ
œ
œ
w
w
œ
œ
∑
b ww
œœ
Perc. 1
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
œ
œ
œ
355
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
‰ jŒ
bœ
355
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
>
> > >
>
> > >
∑
Œ
∑
Œ
& bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
Œ
> Œ Œ Œ
∑
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
355
Mrb.
∑
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
? Œ
Œ
Œ
bœ œ
J
p
œ
J
w
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
bœ œ
J
œ
J
w
œ
148
361
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
∑
&
&
œ
p
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
&
∑
?
∑
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
Œ
œ œ
>p
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
‰ jœ œ
bœ >
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
∑
Œ
œ œ
>
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
‰ jœ œ
bœ >
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>j ‰
& bœ œ
>
>j ‰
œ
Œ
>j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
œ
œ
Œ Œ Œ
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
Œ
∑
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
bœ œ œ œ
œ
J J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
> ‰ > >
>
∑
Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
> > >
>
>j ‰
bœ œ
>
>j ‰
œ
Œ
>j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
œ
œ
Œ Œ Œ
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
Œ
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& Œ
Œ
œ
& ww
œ œ œ
œ
œœ
ww
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œœ
bw
w
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
œ
w
w
œ
œ
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
œ
361
E. Bass
Œ
∑
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
∑
361 >
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
> >
>
> > >
>
>
> > >
>
> > >
∑
Œ
& bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
> Œ Œ Œ
> Œ Œ Œ
∑
∑
> > >
>
> > >
>
361
Mrb.
Œ
∑
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
j b>œ
œ œ ‰ bœ œ
>
p
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
Œ
Œ
Œ
bœ œ
J
œ
J
w
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
bœ œ
J
œ
J
149
367
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
∑
&
&
œ
& Œ
Œ
Œ
œ
∑
Œ
œ œ
>
œ
Œ
œ
∑
&
& Œ
Œ
?
œ
Œ
‰ jœ œ
bœ >
>œ
>
b œ œ ‰ œJ œ
p
a2
∑
∑
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ œ
>
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
‰ jœ œ
bœ >
Œ
Œ
F
œ œ œ œ œ
F
44 # >œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ
F
44
˙
44
˙
F
˙
Ḟ
>œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ
#
44
F
∑
∑
œ œ œ œ œ
∑
∑
44
∑
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
& b œJ œ œJ ‰ œJ ‰ ‰ œJ Œ
> ‰ > >
>
∑
Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
> > >
>
>j ‰
bœ œ
>
>j ‰
œ
Œ
>j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
œ
œ
Œ Œ Œ
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
Œ
∑
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
bœ œ œ œ
œ
J J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
> ‰ > >
>
44 # >œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ
F
a2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
& œ
367
œ
œ
Vib.
& Œ
Œ
j b>œ
œ œ ‰ bœ œ
>
œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
∑
∑
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
Œ
Œ
j b>œ
œ œ ‰ bœ œ
>
œ
œ
œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
a2
œ
œ
œ
a2
Ḟ
Ḟ
44
œ œ
F
4 ww
4
F
∑
÷
œ
44 # >œ ‰ >œ ‰ >œ ‰ ‰ >œ
F
œ œ œ
Perc. 1
Hard Mallets
‰ œJ Œ
44 œ œ
F
Temple Blocks
44 >œ Œ
F
∑
∑
44
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
4
4 w
∑
∑
∑
Œ
Œ
Œ
bœ œ
J
j
œ
œ
œ
‰ J
Ó
∑
œ
œ.
44 œ Œ
F
∑
w
˙
Ó
∑
?
˙
Crash
&
367
E. Bass
44 Œ
∑
>œ
>
b œ œ ‰ œJ œ
a2
367
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
>
> > >
>
> > >
∑
Œ
& b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 44
Œ
Œ
> Œ Œ Œ
∑
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
Mrb.
Electric
Organ
œ
∑
∑
Œ
44 Œ
∑
w
F
>
œ 44 œ œ Œ
J
F
Ó
150
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
373
œ œ
&J
œ œ œ ‰ œ
J
Œ
œ
œ œ œ ‰ œ
J
Œ
& œJ
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
œ œ œ ‰ œ
J
Œ
œ bœ œ œ œ
œ bœ
J
œ œ œ ‰ bœ
J
Œ
œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ
J
œ œ œ ‰ œ
J
Œ
œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ
J
œ œ œ ‰ œ
J
Œ
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ
> >
>
>
&Œ
b˙
&
œ
j
œ #œ.
œ œ # >œ œ œ # >œ œ œ
?Œ
œ
j
œ œ.
Ó
∑
>œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ
b˙
˙
˙
Œ
œ
j
œ #œ.
œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ # >œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ # >œ œ œ # >œ œ œ
Ó
∑
˙
˙
Œ
œ
j
œ œ.
œ bœ œ œ œ
œ bœ
J
œ œ œ ‰ œ 5
J
4
œ bœ œ œ œ
œ bœ
J
œ œ œ ‰ b œ 45
J
>
>
œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 45
> >
>
>
Ó
b˙
>œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ
b˙
45
∑
œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ 5
4
Ó
∑
45
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
>
>
& œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ
&Œ
# >œ ‰ ‰ >œ Œ
J
J
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ
> >
>
>
>
>
œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 45
> >
>
>
>
>
œ ‰ œ ‰ bœ ‰ ‰ œ
> >
>
>
œ ‰ œ ‰ bœ ‰ ‰ œ
> >
Œ
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
>
>
?Œ
œ
j
œ œ.
b˙
Ó
∑
?Œ
œ
j
œ œ.
b˙
Ó
∑
œ
‰ œj Œ
œ
373
Mrb.
œ bœ
J
>
>
& œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ
373
Hn. 1 & 3
œ bœ œ œ œ
&Œ
w
&w
œ
œ.
j
œ Œ
ww
œ
‰ œ Œ
J
˙
˙
‰ œj Œ
œ
‰ œj Œ
œ
45
Œ
œ
j
œ œ.
b˙
Ó
∑
45
˙
Œ
œ
j
œ œ.
b˙
Ó
∑
45
œ.
j
œ Œ
œ
‰ œj Œ
œ
ww
œ
œ
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
>
>
œ
‰ J Œ
œ
œ.
j
œ Œ
ww
œ
5
4
ww
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
373
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?
?
w
w
∑
w
w
bw
w
>
bœ œ Œ
Ó
∑
w
w
w
w
>œ œ
Œ
Ó
∑
Œ
45
∑
œ
‰ œ
J
‰ œj Œ
÷
œ
œ
45
Perc. 2
œ
‰ œ Œ
J
‰ œj Œ
œ
÷ Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Perc. 1
œ
‰ œ
J
œ
# >œ ‰ ‰ >œ Œ
J
J
˙
ww
ww
œ
# >œ ‰ >œ ‰ >œ ‰ ‰ >œ Œ
œ
w
w
45
bw
w
5
4
>
bœ œ Œ
Ó
∑
45
151
380
& 45
380
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
& 45
∑
œ
F
& 45 Œ
Vib.
Œ
& 45
œ
Œ
œ œ
>
F
œ
Œ
œ
‰ jœ œ
bœ
>
& 45 Œ
Œ
? 45
∑
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
∑
Œ
Œ
Œ
∑
>œ
>
b œ œ ‰ œJ œ
F
>
>
380 >
& 45 b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
>
F
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰
œ
& 45 b œ œ œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
>
F
œ
∑
Œ
œ œ
>
œ
Œ
œ
‰ jœ œ
bœ
>
Œ
Œ
>œ
>
b œ œ ‰ œJ œ
∑
∑
∑
œ
Œ
∑
∑
∑
Œ
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
bœ
œ
œ
œ
Œ
∑
>
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
>
>
>
>
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>
>
>
>
>
>
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
∑
Œ
œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
Œ
∑
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>j Œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
Œ
bœ
œ
œ
œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
>
>
>
>
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
>
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 45
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
? 45
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
? 45
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 45 œ
F
œ
œ
5 bw
&4 w
F
œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
w
w
œ
œ
œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
b ww
œ
œ
œ œ œ
œ
œœ
ww
œ
œ
œ œ œ
œ
œœ
b b ww
œ
œ
œ œ œ
œœ
Perc. 1
÷ 45
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷ 45
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷ 45 œ
F
Claves
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
& 45
380
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?5
4
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
? 45
∑
Œ
Œ
Œ
bœ œ
J
œ
J
w
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
b˙
œ
>
>
>
>
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
>
& 45
380
Mrb.
Œ
∑
œ
w
152
385
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
∑
&
& Œ
œ
œ
Œ
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
&
∑
?
∑
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ œ
>F
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ
‰ jœ œ
bœ >
∑
œ
Œ
Œ
∑
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
∑
>œ
>
b œ œ ‰ œJ œ
F
œ
œ œ
>
∑
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
∑
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
∑
Œ
>œ
>
b œ œ ‰ œJ œ
∑
∑
œ
Œ
‰ jœ œ
bœ >
∑
∑
∑
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
œ
& bœ œ œ
Œ
∑
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
bœ œ œ œ
œ
J J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
> ‰ > >
>
œ Œ
F
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
Œ
œ
F
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
œ
Œ
Œ
∑
œ
∑
Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
> > >
>
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
> > >
>
F
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
b œœ œ œ œ
œ
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
œ
Œ
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
Œ
∑
Œ
œ
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œœ
Œ
Œ
b œ b>œ
b>œ b œ ‰ œJ
w
& w
œ œ œ
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
œ
œ
œ
385
∑
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
∑
œ
œ
Temple Blocks
F
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œ Œ
J
Hard Mallets
œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
>œ b œ b œ œ b>œ
‰ J
œ
œ
œ
∑
œ
œ
œ œ œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
>
œ œ
Œ
>j
œ ‰
Œ
>
œ œ
Œ
>j
œ ‰
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ œ bœ œ
F
Œ
Œ
œ œ bœ œ
F
œ
œ
œ
∑
œ
œ
œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
bœ œ œ œ
œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
> > >
>
>
> > >
>
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
>
>
> > >
>
>j ‰
mute out
œ œ
∑
∑
>F
&
÷
E. Bass
œ
∑
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
∑
385 >
>
>
> >
>
> > >
> > >
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
∑
Œ
& b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œœ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
∑
∑
> > >
>
> > >
>
> Œ Œ Œ
> > >
>
385
Mrb.
∑
œ
œ
œ
‰ œ Œ
J
œ
œ œ œ
∑
œ
œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
‰ œJ Œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
? Œ
Œ
Œ
bœ œ
J
œ
J
˙
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
b˙
œ
w
Œ
Œ
Œ
>
œ œ œ œ
Œ Œ
>
‰ œj Œ
Œ Œ
bœ œ
J
œ
J
˙
Œ
Œ
Œ
153
391
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
∑
&
& Œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
∑
&
& Œ
œ
Œ
? Œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ œ
>
Œ
F
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Hn.
2&4
∑
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
> Œ
& œ œ œ œ
> >
> Œ
œ œ œ
& J ‰ J ‰
> >
Vib.
>j >
>
œ ‰ b œj ‰ ‰ œj Œ
Œ Œ Œ Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
œ œ œ
œ
Œ
∑
> Œ
œ œ œ œ
> >
> Œ
œ œ œ
J J
> ‰ > ‰
Œ
Œ
? œ b˙
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
bœ œ
J
œ b˙
J >
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
œ
œ œ œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
b œ b>œ
œ b œ ‰ b œJ
>
œ
œ
œ
Perc. 2
÷
Perc. 3
÷
œ
‰ J Œ
∑
œ
œ
œ
391
‰ œj Œ
œ
œ
∑
œ
œ
œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
bœ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
œ
Œ
∑
Œ
Œ
>œ
>
b œ œ ‰ œJ œ
∑
œ
Œ
œ
œ œ
>
œ
œ
‰ J Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
>j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
œ
œ
Œ Œ Œ
> >
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ Œ Œ Œ
œ b˙
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
bœ œ
J
œ
J
œ bœ œ
œ b˙
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
bœ œ
J
œ
J
œ œ œ
œ
œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
Œ
Œ
œ
j b>œ
œ œ ‰ bœ œ
>
œ
œ
œ
œ
∑
œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ J Œ
>j >
>
œ ‰ b œj ‰ ‰ œj Œ
Œ Œ Œ Œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œj Œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
˙
Œ
Œ
œ
>
Œ
œ œ œ œ
>
>j ‰
Œ
œ œ
Œ
>
Œ Œ
œ œ œ œ
> >
Œ Œ
œ œ
J J
> ‰ > ‰
∑
‰ œJ Œ
>j ‰
œ
Œ
∑
œ
œ
Œ
œ œ
>
Œ
œ
J
‰ >
‰ œj Œ
œ
>j ‰
bœ œ
>
∑
b˙
Œ
Œ
∑
Œ
‰ jœ œ
bœ >
Œ
∑
Œ
œ
Œ
&
? Œ
Œ
∑
∑
Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
> > >
>
∑
∑
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
œ bœ œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
œ b˙
J >
∑
Œ
œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ Œ
>
>
>
‰ œj Œ
œ œ
J
Œ Œ
> ‰
bœ œ
J
&
Œ
> > >
Œ Œ Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ
> Œ Œ
>
>
>j ‰ >j >j
Œ Œ Œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ ‰ bœ ‰
J
J
> ‰ ‰ > Œ
> Œ Œ
Œ
œ
œ
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
œ œ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
J ‰ J J
J
> > >
>
Œ
œ
Œ
bœ
>
> > >
>
∑
Œ
> > >
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
> > >
>
∑
> > >
>
Œ
& œ
œ
Œ
∑
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
Œ
÷
E. Bass
> >
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ Œ Œ Œ
œ
Œ
bœ
Œ
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
>
œ œ
>
>j ‰
œ œ
>
Œ
? œ b˙
391
Mrb.
Œ Œ Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
Œ Œ Œ
œ
œ
J
J
> ‰ ‰ > Œ
œ
œ
∑
Œ
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
b œœ œ œ œ
œ
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
Œ
Œ
>œ
>
b œ œ ‰ œJ œ
>
> > >
∑
Œ
& b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œœ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ
> > >
>
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
∑
Œ
& b œJ ‰ œJ ‰ œJ ‰ ‰ œJ Œ
> > >
>
œ
œ
∑
Œ
391
Hn. 1 & 3
Œ
‰ jœ œ
bœ >
∑
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
&
bœ
∑
Œ
Œ
Œ
bœ œ
J
œ
J
w
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
˙
œ
bw
154
397
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
&
bœ
& Œ
Vib.
œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
bœ
Œ
? Œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
bœ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
∑
œ
Œ
397
>
> > >
& œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
∑
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
& œ œ œ
œ
Œ
∑
Œ
œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
44 Œ
œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ
J
œ œ œ ‰ œ
J
Œ
œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ
J
œ œ œ ‰ œ
J
Œ
44
∑
Œ
Œ
œ
∑
44
˙
œ bœ œ œ œ
œ bœ œ œ œ
∑
˙
˙
44
∑
Œ
44 Œ
44
∑
∑
œ
Œ
Œ
∑
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
&
j
œ #œ.
∑
Ó
b˙
∑
˙
Œ
œ
j
œ œ.
∑
b˙
Ó
Œ Œ
∑
Œ
> Œ Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 44
> > >
>
> > >
>
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
Œ Œ
> Œ Œ
œ œ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
J ‰ J J
J
> > >
>
∑
Œ
bœ œ œ
œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
> > >
>
> Œ
& œ œ œ œ
> >
> Œ
œ œ œ
& J ‰ J ‰
> >
> > >
Œ Œ Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
> Œ
>
>
>j ‰ >j >j
Œ Œ
Œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ ‰ bœ ‰
J
J
Œ
> ‰ ‰ > Œ
> Œ
>
œ œ œ œ
Œ Œ
>
‰ œj Œ
Œ Œ
> Œ
œ œ œ œ
> >
> Œ
œ œ œ
J J
> ‰ > ‰
?
b˙
>
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ bœ œ
œ
b˙
Œ
Œ
44
∑
∑
∑
b>˙
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ bœ œ
œ
b˙
Œ
Œ
44
∑
∑
∑
œ
œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
œ
œ
?
& œ
œ
∑
&
÷
Perc. 2
÷
Perc. 3
÷
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ J Œ
œ
Œ Œ Œ
> > >
>
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 # œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
a2
Œ Œ
Œ
œ
œ
44 # >œ ‰ >œ ‰ >œ ‰ ‰ >œ Œ # >œ ‰ ‰ >œ Œ
J
J
J
J
> ‰ ‰ > Œ
a2
œ
∑
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
44
œ
‰ œJ Œ
44 >œ
Œ
Ó
44 œ
œ
œ
∑
∑
44
?
∑
∑
∑
4
4 w
Œ
bœ œ
J
œ
J
w
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
˙
j
œ Œ
œ
‰ œj Œ
w
F
44 >œ œ Œ
‰ œJ Œ
>
>
œ ‰ œ ‰ bœ ‰ ‰ œ
> >
œ.
j
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ
>
bœ œ Œ
Ó
œ
œ
œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
‰ œJ Œ
œ
w
w
bw
w
Ó
>
>
œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ
> >
ww
∑
∑
Œ
œ.
ww
44
&
? Œ
œ
4 ww
4
‰ œj Œ
œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
œ œ œ
∑
‰ œj Œ
œ
∑
397
E. Bass
œ
œ
∑
& Œ
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
Œ
Œ
&
397
Mrb.
Œ
∑
155
œ bœ
& J
œ œ œ ‰ œ
J
Œ
& œJ b œ
œ œ œ ‰ bœ
J
Œ
403
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
&
∑
?
∑
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
œ œ œ ‰ œ
J
Œ
œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ
J
œ œ œ ‰ œ
J
Œ
∑
Œ
œ
∑
œ œ œ ‰ œ
J
Ó
œ bœ œ œ œ
32 œ b œ
J
œ œ œ ‰ bœ Ó
J
j
œ #œ.
∑
Ó
b˙
∑
˙
˙
32 œJ b œ
∑
˙
˙
œ bœ œ œ œ
Œ
œ
j
œ œ.
∑
b˙
Ó
b œ.
44 ww
Ø
32
∑
32
∑
44 w
Ø
32
∑
44 w
Ø
44 w
Ø
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
>
>
œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ 32 b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Ó
> >
>
>
44
∑
>
>
œ ‰ œ ‰ b œ ‰ ‰ œ 32 Œ
> >
44
∑
> > >
>
>
>
& bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
& Œ
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
>
>
# >œ ‰ >œ ‰ >œ ‰ ‰ >œ Œ
# >œ ‰ ‰ >œ Œ
J
J
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
>
>
Ó
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
44
∑
& Œ
‰ œj Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ.
ww
& ww
j
œ Œ
œ
‰ œj Œ
ww
œ
œ
œ.
j 3
œ 2 Œ
œ
‰ œj Œ
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
Perc. 3
÷
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
403
& w
w
? w
?
w
w
∑
>œ œ
Œ
w
Ó
∑
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ 32 Œ
w
32
w
bw
3 w
2
>
bœ œ Œ
Ó
32 ∑
Static
44 œ b œ œ b œ œ œ œ
œ
∏
4
4
∑
Œ
Ó
3 w
2 w
ww
œ
‰ œJ Œ
Œ
44 b n ww
Ø
∑
÷
E. Bass
44
Œ
œ.
∏
32
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
408 Static
∑
403
Mrb.
œ œ
J
&
403
Hn. 1 & 3
œ œ œ œ œ
π̇
b˙
44 ˙
∏
Wind Chimes
44
∑
Ó
44
∑
Ó
44
∑
∏
p
œ bœ bœ œ 4
4 bw
b˙.
b œ b œ œ œ 44 b œ
π
p
156
409
Fl.
1&2
&Ó
œ.
Œ
b œ.
Ó
Œ
.
45 œ
Œ
Œ
œ.
Œ
44 œ.
Œ
Ó
œ.
Œ
b œ.
Œ
Ó
œ.
Œ
45
w
&w
ww
w
45 w
œœ
44 b ww
w
w
w
w
45
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
& ww
ww
45 ww
œœ
44 ww
ww
ww
45
B.Cl.
&w
w
45 w
œ
44 w
w
w
45
&w
w
45 w
œ
44 w
w
w
45
?w
w
45 w
œ
44 w
w
w
45
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
&
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
&
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
&
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
&
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
?
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
?
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
409
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
409
Mrb.
Vib.
Perc. 1
& œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ
&˙
˙
œ
œ
˙
bœ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
4 œ
5
œ
œ œ bœ œ bœ
bœ bœ œ œ œ
45 b œ b œ
œ
œ bœ œ œ œ
œ bœ œ œ œ
œ
œ 4
œ
œ 4
œ
b
œ
œ
œ
÷ ˙
b˙
5
4˙
4
4 w
∑
45
∑
44
∑
˙.
b˙
˙
˙
˙
∏
Wind Chimes
5
4
˙
∑
45
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
45
409
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?
w
? ˙.
w
œ
bœ
bœ
œ
œ
5
4w
œ
w
œ
45
4
4 w
44
œ
w
œ
œ
bœ
œ
5
4
w
bœ
˙
˙.
œ
45
157
& 45
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
œ.
œ.
44 b œ
.
w
& 45 w
œ
œ
44 b n ww
ww
ww
ww
w
& 45 w
œœ
44 ww
ww
ww
& 45 w
œ
44 w
w
& 45 w
œ
44 w
? 45 w
œ
44 w
Œ
Œ
Vib.
Œ
œ.
Œ
œ.
.
45 œ
œ.
Œ
44
w
45 w
œœ
44
ww
45 ww
œœ
44
w
w
45 w
œ
44
w
w
w
45 w
œ
44
w
w
w
45 w
œ
44
Œ
œ.
Ó
Œ
b œ.
Ó
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
& 45
415
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
& 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
& 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
& 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
? 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
? 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
& 45 œ œ œ œ b œ œ b œ
415
Mrb.
œ.
Œ
415
Fl.
1&2
5 ˙
&4
œ
4
œ bœ 4 œ
bœ
œ bœ œ œ œ
œ
4 b˙
4
˙.
˙
œ
bœ
œ bœ œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ bœ œ bœ
bw
w
œ
œ
˙
bœ
œ œ œ
45 œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 44
œ bœ œ œ œ
b
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
˙
5
4˙
˙.
4
4
Perc. 1
÷ 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
Perc. 2
÷ 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
Perc. 3
÷ 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
& 45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
415
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?5
4w
? 45
œ
œ
˙
˙
4
4 w
44 œ
w
bœ
b˙
œ
w
b˙.
˙
w
œ
bœ
bœ
œ
œ
œ
5
4w
œ
w
œ
45
4
4
44
158
& 44
#œ
& 44
w
w
w
w
w
w
& 44 # # ww
ww
ww
421
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
∏
œ
& 44
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
& 44 # ˙
π
Vib.
œ
œ
#œ
œ
∑
Ó
œ
œ
∑
#˙
∑
Ó
œ
44 # œ
45 ww
œ
œ
44 w
w
ww
45 ww
œœ
44 w
w
w
w
œ
45
#œ
œ
œ
45
∑
44
45
∑
44 # ˙
œ
œ
œ
œ
#œ
∑
Ó
45
∑
44
∑
∑
& 44
421
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
& 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
44 ˙
#˙
#˙
Separated
#˙
œ
œ
œ
#œ
#œ
œ
˙
45
˙.
œ
œ
& 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
? 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
? 44
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
& 44
#œ
#œ
œ œ œ œ œ
œ
4
& 4 #˙
Perc. 2
÷ 44
Perc. 3
÷ 44
˙
œ
œ
œ œ #œ
œ œ #œ
œ œ œ œ œ
5 œ #œ
œ œ œ œ 44 # œ
œ œ œ œ œ
#œ
œ
#œ
œ 4 œ #œ
œ
#œ
œ
˙
˙
π
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
5 ˙
4
4
4 ˙
˙.
#˙
œ
∑
44 ˙
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
w
ww
45 w
œ
44 w
#w
w
?4
4
w
w
w
5
4w
œ
4 w
4
w
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
44
∑
#œ
œ
45
w
? 44
œ
∑
& 44
421
œ
œ
œ œ #œ
œ œ
#œ
œ
∑
Wind Chimes
œ
∑
∑
& 44 # ˙
π
œ
∑
∑
÷ 44
E. Bass
#œ
∑
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
œ
? 44
421
Mrb.
œ
∑
st. mute
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
œ
∑
#œ
159
#œ
œ
427
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
&
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
œ
45
#œ
œ
œ
œ
44 # œ
œ
œ
#œ
œ
œ
#œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
44
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
& ww
45 ww
œ
œ
44 # w
# w
ww
ww
ww
#œ
œ
œ
#œ
#œ
45
∑
44
45
∑
44 # ˙
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
& #˙
Ó
?
& #˙
˙
#˙.
45
44
#˙
∑
œ
∑
Ó
œ
#œ
∑
œ
#˙
#˙
∑
#˙
∑
Ó
˙
˙
∑
œ
œ
&
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
45
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
#œ
#œ
œ
œ œ œ œ œ
5 œ œ #œ
œ œ œ œ 44 # œ
œ œ œ œ œ
œ 4
#œ
œ
#œ
œ
& ˙
˙
5 #˙.
4
4
4
˙
œ
œ
œ
÷
∑
45
∑
44
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
45
∑
44
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
45
∑
44
∑
E. Bass
œ
œœ
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
œ
45 ww
427
Mrb.
œ
& ww
427
Hn. 1 & 3
œ
œ
œ
œ œ #œ
œ œ #œ
œ œ œ œ œ
#œ
œ
#œ
œ
˙
#˙
˙
˙
˙
œ
œ œ #œ
œ œ
#œ
œ
œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
427
45 w
œ
44
ww
w
w
#w
w
? w
5
4 w
œ
4
4
w
w
w
w
∑
45
∑
44
∑
#œ
∑
& w
?
œ
∑
∑
∑
œ
160
#˙
433
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
&
Ó
>
42 b b œœ œœ Œ
F
& ww
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Mrb.
Vib.
42 œœ œœ Œ
>
F
& ww
42 œ œ Œ
>
F
∑
&
& #˙
42
Ó
?
n >œ œ
45 n œ œ Œ
f
∑
∑
45 # œœ œœ Œ
>
f
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
45 b œ œ Œ
>
f
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
45
∑
∑
∑
∑
b>œ œ Œ
45
f
Œ
∑
∑
∑
> > >
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
∑
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
> > >
>
∑
Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
> > >
>
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Ó
&
∑
42
45
#œ
œ
&
∑
?
∑
?
∑
œ
b>œ œ
42 b œ œ Œ
F
mute out
42
∑
>
42 b œ œ Œ
F
>
42 b œ œ Œ
F
433
œ
b>œ œ Œ
& œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 42
œ
œ
F
œ #œ œ
& œ
#œ
œ
œ
2 b>œ œ Œ
4
F
42 œ œ Œ
F
∑
Group 1
÷
∑
Crash
Perc. 2
Perc. 3
÷
∑
Snare
>
42 œ
F
Œ
∑
∑
>
> > >
45 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
> Œ
Œ Œ
Œ
p
& œ
∑
Ó
42 b œœ œœ Œ
>
F
∑
∑
Œ
∑
÷
E. Bass
435 With Energy
b>œ œ
45 b œ œ Œ Œ Ó
f
&
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
∑
>
42 b œ œ Œ
F
∑
433
Hn. 1 & 3
b>œ œ
42 b œ œ Œ
F
∑
# >œ œ
45 n œ œ
f
>
j‰
45 # œ œ
>p
Œ
Œ
Ó
>j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
œ œ
œ
Œ Œ Œ Œ
b>œ œ Œ
45
f
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
#œ œ œ
œ
Œ
∑
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
#œ œ œ œ
œ
J J J
J
> ‰ > ‰ > ‰ ‰ > Œ
∑
œ Œ
# œ œ œJ
J ‰ J ‰ > ‰ ‰ >J Œ
> >
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
Œ
Ó
∑
Œ
Ó
∑
45 œ œ Œ
f
Œ
Ó
∑
Œ
Œ
Ó
∑
45 œ
p
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
b>œ œ Œ
45
f
With Energy
>
45 b œ œ Œ
f
>
5 bœ œ Œ
4
f
Hard Sticks
>
45 œ
f
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
œ Œ
π
œ
œ
œ
L. T.
œ
œ
Œ
∑
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
œ
Œ
∑
433
42
∑
45
∑
∑
∑
∑
? w
2
4
∑
5
4
∑
∑
∑
∑
b>œ œ Œ
45
f
Œ
∑
∑
∑
Ó
‰ œJ Œ
œ
& ww
>
42 b œ œ Œ
F
œ
Œ
œ
∑
∑
œ
Œ
42
?
œ
nœ
p
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
161
439
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
> > >
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
∑
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
> > >
>
∑
Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
> > >
>
>
> > >
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
> Œ Œ Œ
Œ
> > >
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
∑
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
>
> > >
& œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
> Œ Œ Œ
Œ
439
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
> > >
>
j‰ j‰ j‰ ‰ jŒ
œ
& #œ œ œ œ
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
∑
œ Œ
# œ œ œJ
J ‰ J ‰ > ‰ ‰ >J Œ
> >
> > >
>
j‰ j‰ j‰ ‰ jŒ
#œ œ œ œ
œ
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
#œ œ œ
œ
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
439
&
Vib.
&
Perc. 1
÷
Perc. 2
÷
Perc. 3
÷
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
∑
?
∑
?
∑
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
F
j
œ ‰ Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
∑
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
∑
Œ
œ
∑
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
‰ œ
œ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
Œ
œ
J ‰
Œ
Œ
œ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
œ ‰ Œ
J
∑
Œ
œ
∑
œ
∑
Œ
œ
∑
∑
∑
Œ
œ
∑
Œ
œ
∑
∑
Œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
Œ
œ
∑
œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
&
œ
∑
∑
439
E. Bass
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
#œ œ œ œ
œ
J J J
J
> ‰ > ‰ > ‰ ‰ > Œ
?
Mrb.
Electric
Organ
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
#œ œ œ
œ
Œ
∑
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
Œ
j
œ ‰ Œ
∑
Œ
Œ
Œ
162
445
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
> > >
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
∑
>
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
>
>
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
445 >
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
& œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
>
>
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
& # œJ œ‰ œJ ‰ œJ ‰ ‰ œJ Œ
>
>
>
>
>j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
#œ
œ
œ
œ
Œ
∑
>
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
#œ œ œ
œ
œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
>
>
>
>
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
445
&
Vib.
&
Perc. 1
÷
Perc. 2
÷
Perc. 3
÷
E. Bass
>
>
j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ j Œ
#œ œ œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
>
?
Mrb.
Electric
Organ
∑
œ
œ Œ
#œ
œ
J ‰ J ‰ >J ‰ ‰ >J Œ
> >
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
Œ
‰ œJ œ
Œ
Œ
‰ œj œ
‰ œJ œ
? j ‰ Œ
œ
j
œ ‰ Œ
Œ
œ ‰ œJ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
Œ
œ
J ‰ Œ
œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
J
J
∑
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
∑
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
∑
Œ
∑
Œ
∑
‰ œj œ
∑
œ
∑
445
œ œ
& ‰ J
?
Œ
∑
∑
‰ œJ Œ
Œ
œ
∑
Œ
œ
œ
œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
‰ œJ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
‰ œ
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
œ
j
J Œ
n œ ‰ œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰
j‰ Œ
œ
∑
Œ
j œ
œ œ
œ
∑
œ
œ
163
450
&
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
>
>
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
>
>
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
∑
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
∑
Œ
& œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
>
>
450
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
> Œ
> œ œ œ #œ œ
œ
∑
# >œ # œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ
# œ œ >œ œ Œ
p
a2
œ
œ
j
n œ ‰ œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
p
>
Œ
œ œ
∑
F
Œ
Œ
∑
Œ
Œ
Œ
∑
Œ
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>
>
j ‰ >j ‰ >j ‰ ‰ j Œ
#œ œ œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
>
∑
œ
œ Œ
& # œJ ‰ œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
>
>
>
>
?
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
& Œ
œ
Œ
÷
Perc. 3
÷
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
œ
? œJ ‰ œ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
œ
J
œ
œ
œ
jœ
œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
>œ
F
Crash
∑
‰ œJ Œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
j
J Œ
n œ ‰ œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰
∑
œ
Œ
∑
∑
‰ œJ Œ
∑
Œ
œ
∑
œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
450
jœ
& œ
?
œ
∑
&
Perc. 2
œ
>
œ œ Œ
∑
F
>j ‰ > ‰ >j ‰ ‰ >j Œ
j
œ
#œ
œ
œ
Œ
∑
œ
œ
jœ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ ‰ œ ‰ j ‰ ‰ jŒ
J
œ
J
œ
∑
œ
jœ
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Œ
Œ
Œ
∑
∑
j œ
œ œ
œ
∑
œ
p
œ
œ
j
J Œ
n œ ‰ œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰
∑
Œ
œ ‰ œ ‰ j‰ ‰ jŒ
J
œ
J
œ
∑
÷
E. Bass
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>Œ
>Œ
>
>
Œ > Œ
>
∑
p
a2
> #œ œ œ
∑
œ
p
∑
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
∑
&
450
Mrb.
∑
œ
jœ
œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ ‰ œ ‰ j‰ ‰ jŒ
J
œ
J
œ
∑
œ
164
455
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
&
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
∑
>
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
& œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
>
>
>œ œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
&
&
∑
&
# >œ # œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ
#œ œ
œ
œ
bœ œ
J
p
œ
œ
œ
œ
J
œ
œ
bœ œ
J
œ
œ
‰
œ
œ
bœ œ
J
∑
∑
∑
Œ
∑
∑
∑
œ ‰ œ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J
œ
J
œ
∑
∑
∑
>œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ
>œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ
>œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ
j‰ j‰ j‰ ‰ jŒ
>œ
>œ
>œ
>œ
p
j‰ j‰ j‰ ‰ jŒ
>œ
>œ
>œ
>œ
j‰ j‰ j‰ ‰ jŒ
>œ
>œ
>œ
>œ
Œ
>œ œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
a2
∑
&
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Vib.
&
∑
∑
Perc. 1
÷
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
j
œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ
? j ‰ œ ‰ œJ ‰ ‰ J Œ
nœ
J
?
∑
œ
œ
∑
Œ
∑
455
j œ
& œ
œ
∑
>œ œ
&
455
œ
∑
> #œ œ œ > œ œ œ #œ œ
œ
œ
∑
œ
∑
&
E. Bass
a2
∑
Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
>
>
Mrb.
Electric
Organ
‰
∑
œ
? n œj ‰ œ ‰ œJ ‰ ‰ J Œ
J
455
Hn. 1 & 3
∑
j œ
œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
p
a2
bœ
p
œ
p
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
bœ
Œ
∑
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
p
Claves
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
Œ
bœ
Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
bœ
bœ
j
J Œ
b œ ‰ b œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
∑
bœ ‰ bœ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J
J bœ
œ
∑
œ
∑
œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
∑
œ
∑
∑
œ ‰ œ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J
œ
J
œ
∑
Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
∑
bœ
bœ
j
J Œ
b œ ‰ b œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰
∑
165
œ
& J
460
Fl.
1&2
œ
œ
bœ œ
J
&
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
&
∑
?
∑
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
œ
œ
461
œ
bœ bœ
F
œ
œ bœ
F
œ
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
b˙.
∑
b˘œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J J J
J
F
∑
bœ
w
F
œ
œ
œ
w
œ
b˙.
œ
∑
∑
bw
œ
F
∑
w
œ
bœ
bœ
œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ
bœ
œ
∑
bw
œ
∑
& œj ‰ œj ‰ œj ‰ ‰ œj Œ
> > >
>
∑
∑
j j j
j
bœ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
>F > >
>
j j j
j
bœ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
> > >
>
∑
&
∑
?
∑
?
∑
& Œ
bœ
Œ
÷
Perc. 3
÷
a2
œ bœ
F
œ
Œ
∑
&
Perc. 2
a2
œ bœ
F
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
œ
œ
œ
460
‰ œJ Œ
? b œJ ‰ b œ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J bœ
œ
? Œ
Œ
Œ
bœ œ
J
F
Œ
bœ bœ
F
œ Œ
F
>œ Œ
F
Crash
∑
&
œ
F
œ
bœ
œ
œ
œ
b˙.
∑
∑
œ
bœ
œ
œ
œ
b˙.
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
bœ
œ
œ
bœ
b˙.
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
∑
œ
Œ
Œ
∑
∑
œ
F
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
∑
>œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ
∑
bœ
œ
n >œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ
F
&
œ
bw
> > >
>
> > >
>
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
F
∑
bœ
∑
∑
÷
E. Bass
bœ
∑
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
œ
> > >
>
& œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
460
Mrb.
œ
∑
460
Hn. 1 & 3
bœ
œ
bœ
œ
bœ
œ
œ
bœ
œ
bœ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
bœ
bœ
œ
bœ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
∑
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
F
bœ
bœ
bœ ‰ bœ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
j
J
∑
∑
∑
J J bœ
b œ ‰ b œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰ Œ
œ
œ
J b˙
Œ
Œ
Œ
∑
bœ
bœ
j
b œ ‰ b œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
bœ ‰ bœ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J J bœ
œ
∑
166
466
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
&
œ
B.Cl.
& w
œ
œ
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
? w
œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ
bœ
b˙.
∑
œ
bœ
b˘œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J J J
J
∑
bœ
œ
∑
bw
œ
œ
œ
w
œ
∑
b˙.
œ
∑
∑
bw
œ
w
œ
∑
> >
>
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
∑
>œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ
∑
∑
œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ
>
&
∑
j j j
j
bœ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
> > >
>
j j j
j
bœ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
> > >
>
∑
∑
j j j
j
bœ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
> > >
>
& œ
œ
b˙.
∑
∑
& œ
œ
b˙.
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& Œ
œ
Œ
œ
b˙.
Perc. 1
÷
œ
Œ
Perc. 2
÷
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
E. Bass
∑
œ
œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ
>
bœ
Electric
Organ
∑
∑
bœ
œ
∑
& œ
Vib.
bœ
&
466
Mrb.
bœ
> >
>
> > >
>
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
∑
&
∑
b˘œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J J J
J
b˙.
466
Hn. 1 & 3
∑
∑
& œ
Bsn.
1&2
b˙.
&
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
A. Sx.
1&2
bœ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
bœ
œ
bœ
œ
œ
œ
b˙.
∑
œ
bœ
œ
bœ
œ
œ
œ
b˙.
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
bœ
bœ
œ
bœ
œ
œ
bœ
b˙.
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
∑
∑
∑
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
œ
∑
Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
466
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
& bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ
?
∑
bœ
bœ
j
J
b œ ‰ b œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰ Œ
bœ ‰ bœ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J J bœ
œ
?
∑
bœ
bœ
j
b œ ‰ b œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
bœ ‰ bœ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J J bœ
œ
∑
œ
Œ
œ
∑
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
167
472
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
> > >
>
& bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
472
> > >
>
& œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
j
j
j
j
& bœ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
> > >
>
∑
∑
∑
∑
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
b˙.
˙
F
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
˙
b˙.
∑
∑
∑
∑
˙
b˙.
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
?
472
Mrb.
b˙.
˙
F
& Œ
œ
Œ
÷
Perc. 2
÷
Perc. 3
÷
Œ
∑
&
Perc. 1
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
>œ
Crash
∑
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
472
œ
>
>
œ bœ
& bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?
? Œ
∑
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
F
‰ œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
∑
j œ
œ œ
œ
œ
p
œ
œ
j
J Œ
n œ ‰ œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰
∑
œ
j œ
œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ ‰ œ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J
œ
J
œ
∑
œ
j œ
œ
j œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
j
J Œ
n œ ‰ œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰
∑
œ
j œ
œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ ‰ œ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J
œ
J
œ
∑
œ
168
477
Fl.
1&2
∑
&
∑
1.
Ob.
1&2
∑
∑
& œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
>
>
π
œ œ œ œ Œ
>
>
∑
Œ
∑
j
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ
>
>
>
p
Œ
œ œ œ œ Œ
>
>
Œ
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
477
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
j
j
j
j
& œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
>π >
>
>
477
Mrb.
Œ
# >œ # œ œ œ
#œ œ
p
1.
Œ
∑
Œ
Œ
1.
>œ
J ‰ Œ
p
stopped
j
j
œ ‰ œ ‰ Œ
>
>
∑
Œ
&
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 1
÷
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
Vib.
477
jœ
& œ
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
j
œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ
? j ‰ œ ‰ œJ ‰ ‰ J Œ
nœ
J
?
∑
jœ
œ œ
Œ
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
# >œ # œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ
#œ œ
∑
∑
>œ
J ‰ Œ
∑
j
j
j
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ Œ
>
>
>
p
>œ
J ‰ Œ
j
j
œ ‰ œ ‰ Œ
>
>
Œ
Œ
j œ
œ œ
œ
œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ
œ ‰ œ ‰ j‰ ‰ jŒ
J
œ
J
œ
∑
œ
jœ
œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
j
J Œ
n œ ‰ œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰
∑
j œ
œ œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ ‰ œ ‰ j ‰ ‰ jŒ
J
œ
J
œ
∑
œ
jœ
œ
Œ
Œ
∑
j
œ
œ œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
j
J Œ
n œ ‰ œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰
∑
œ
169
482
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
&
∑
∑
j
&œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ
>
>
>
œ œ œ œ Œ
>
>
∑
Œ
j
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ
>
>
>
Œ
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
# >œ # œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ
#œ œ
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
482
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
>œ
J ‰ Œ
œ œ œ œ Œ
>
>
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
>œ œ
Œ
j
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ
>
>
>
> #œ œ œ > œ œ œ #œ œ
œ
œ
∑
∑
# >œ # œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ
# œ œ >œ œ Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
j
j
j
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ Œ
>
>
>
Œ
∑
>œ
J ‰ Œ
>œ
J ‰ Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
j
j
œ ‰ œ ‰ Œ
>
>
Œ
Œ
j
j
j
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ Œ
>
>
>
j
j
œ ‰ œ ‰ Œ
>
>
Œ
Œ
Œ
>
œ ‰ Œ
J
&
Œ
∑
∑
∑
j
j
j
&œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ Œ
>
>
>
Œ
∑
&
482
Mrb.
>œ
J ‰ Œ
Œ
1.
&
Bsn.
1&2
Œ
> #œ œ œ #œ œ
œ
p
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
A. Sx.
1&2
∑
Œ
Œ
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 1
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Vib.
482
j œ
&œ
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
j
œ
œ œ
œ
œ
? œJ ‰ œ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
œ
J
œ
?
∑
œ
j œ
œ
j œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
j
J Œ
n œ ‰ œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰
∑
j œ
œ œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ ‰ œ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J
œ
J
œ
∑
œ
j œ
œ
j œ
œ œ
œ
œ
j œ
œ œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ
œ
170
487
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
& œ œ œ œ Œ
>
>
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
B.Cl.
&
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
∑
&
&
>œ œ
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
?
>
& œJ ‰ Œ
> #œ œ œ > œ œ œ #œ œ
œ
œ
Œ
∑
Œ
Œ
>
œ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
Œ
F
œ
Œ
jœ
œ œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ
jœ
œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
>œ œ # œ
# œ >œ œ œ œ # œ œ
# >œ # œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ
# œ œ >œ œ Œ
F
Œ
œ
œ
j
n œ ‰ œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
F
œ ‰ œ ‰ j‰ ‰ j Œ
J
œ
J
œ
œ
œ
j
n œ ‰ œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
>œ
J ‰ Œ
F
>
œ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
>œ
J ‰ Œ
>œ
J ‰ Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
>œ
J ‰ Œ
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Œ
Œ
j
j
j
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ Œ
>
>
>
Perc. 1
÷
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
487
jœ
& œ
j œ
œ œ
œ
œ
jœ
œ œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
?
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
j
j
j
j
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
>
>
>
>
F
Œ
j
œ
j ‰ œj ‰ œ ‰ ‰ J Œ
nœ
F
Hard Mallets
œ
F
œ
œ
œ
‰ J Œ
Crash
Œ
Œ
Œ
Temple Blocks
>œ
F
œ
œ
œ
j ‰ j ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œJ Œ
J
#œ #œ
œ ‰ # œj ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J
#œ
œ
∑
j
j
& œ ‰ œ ‰ Œ
>
>
œ
>
>
>
>
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
>
∑
œœ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œœ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œŒ œ
Œ
Œ
>F Œ
>
>
>
>
>œ œ
>œ œ # œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ # >œ œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
F
∑
∑
E. Bass
j
œ
œ œ
œ
1.
&
∑
Electric
Organ
Œ
∑
>œ
J ‰ Œ
œ
j ‰ j ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œJ Œ
J
#œ #œ
F
∑
&
Vib.
‰
j
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ
>
>
>
# >œ # œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ
# œ œ >œ œ Œ
487
Mrb.
Œ
∑
487
Hn. 1 & 3
Œ
∑
‰ œ
F
j
œ ‰ œj ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
œ
œ
Œ
∑
j
œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
j
J Œ
n œ ‰ œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰
∑
j
j
j
j
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
>
>
>
>
∑
œ
jœ
œ œ
œ
j
œ
j ‰ œj ‰ œ ‰ ‰ J Œ
nœ
‰ œj Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ J Œ
œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
j
œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ ‰ œ ‰ j‰ ‰ j Œ
J
œ
J
œ
∑
Œ
œ
jœ
œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
j
J Œ
n œ ‰ œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰
∑
œ
171
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
492
j œ
&œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
Perc. 1
œ
j œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ
j œ
œ
j œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ
>
>
>
>
∑
œœ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œŒ œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
>
> # œ œ œ > œ œ œ # œ œ >œ œ
> #œ œ œ > œ œ œ #œ œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
&
& œJ ‰ # œj ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
#œ
œ
∑
∑
>
&œ œ Œ
Œ
∑
∑
? œJ ‰ œ ‰ œj ‰ ‰ j Œ
J
œ
∑
∑
>
& œJ ‰ Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
>œ
J ‰ Œ
Œ
>œ
J ‰ Œ
Œ
>
œ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
j œ
œ
j œ
œ œ
œ
œ
œ
j œ
œ
j œ
œ œ
œ
∑
# >œ # œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ
# œ œ >œ œ Œ
Œ
∑
Œ
>œ
J ‰ Œ
>œ
J ‰ Œ
Œ
>
œ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
> #œ œ œ > œ œ œ #œ œ
œ
œ
F
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
j
& œ ‰ œj ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
œ
œ
÷ œ
œ
‰ œj Œ
œ
a2
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
? œJ ‰ œ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
œ
J
œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
492
j œ
&œ
E. Bass
Œ
∑
Perc. 2
Electric
Organ
œ
>
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
œœ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
∑
>
>
>
>
a2
>œ œ
> #œ œ œ > œ œ œ #œ œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
F
∑
Œ
œ
&
492
Mrb.
œ ‰
∑
&
492
Hn. 1 & 3
œ
j
œ
œ œ
œ
∑
œ
œ
172
497
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
& ‰
œ
a2
>
& œœ œœ
>
>œ œ
&
œ
œ œ
J
œ
œ
œ
> >
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
Œ Œ Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
#œ
j
& # œj ‰ # œ ‰ # œJ ‰ ‰ J Œ
F
# >œ # œ # œ œ >œ œ œ œ
#œ #œ
F
a2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
&
œ
? # œj ‰ # œ ‰ œJ ‰ ‰ J Œ
J
F
497
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
a2 open
j
& j ‰ œj ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œJ Œ
œ
F
a2
j
& j ‰ œj ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œJ Œ
œ
F
>œ œ
&
Œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
>
>
& #œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ #œ
F
a2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
œ
œ
œ
‰ J Œ
Perc. 2
÷ >œ Œ
F
Œ
Œ
œ
F
Crash
E. Bass
>œ œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
÷
Hard Mallets
?
œ
œ œ
J
œ
œ
>œ œ
œ 44
Œ
ƒ
Œ
44
501
54 b b œœ b œœ
F
Ó
45
Ó
45 b œœ b œœ
F
Ó
45
Œ
Ó
# >œ # œ # œ œ >œ œ œ œ
# œ # œ 44 >œ œ Œ
ƒ
Ó
45
44
Œ
>œ œ
ƒ
Ó
bw
45
F
œ
œ
j
# œ ‰ # œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
œ œ
>
ƒ
b œœ
b œœ
œ
∑
j
œ ‰ œj ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
œ
#œ
j ‰ j ‰ # œj ‰ ‰ œJ Œ
#œ #œ
44
œ œ Œ
>
ƒ
>œ œ
44
Œ
ƒ
Ó
45
∑
Ó
45 b œœ b œœ
F
œ œ Œ
>
Œ
Œ
œ
J
œ
j ‰ j ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œJ Œ
#œ #œ J
‰ œj Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ J Œ
œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ
œ
œ
œ #œ
J ‰ J ‰ # œj ‰ ‰ œj Œ
∑
œ
œ
J
œ
œ
œ
œ
j
# œ ‰ # œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
∑
b œœ
œœ
b œœ
b œœ
œœ
45
∑
Ó
45
∑
44 œ œ Œ
>
ƒ
Ó
45 œ Œ
F
œ
Œ
œ
œ
bœ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
4 œ œ Œ
4
ƒ>
Snare Hard Mallets
44 >œ œ Œ
ƒ
Œ
œ 44 Ó
Ó
Hard Sticks
œœœœ
œœœœœ
Ó
Group 1 L. T.
45 œ Œ
F
45
∑
white key gliss
bœ bœ
F
>
45 œ Œ
F
Ó
ƒ
p
4
œœœÓ
4 œ œ œœœœœ
44
œ œ Œ
>
ƒ
5
4
Ó
44
œ
b œœ
44
Œ
>œ œ
ƒ
44 >œ
ƒ
œ
œ œ
J
Ó
a2
j ‰ j ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œJ Œ
#œ #œ J
45 b œœ b œœ
F
Ó
44
œ œ Œ
>
ƒ
∑
œ
œ œ
J
Œ
∑
œ ‰ œj ‰ j ‰ ‰ Œ
j
J
œ
œ
œ
Œ
# >œ # œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ # œ
4
# œ 4 >œ œ Œ
ƒ
Œ
œ ‰ # œj ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J
#œ
œ
œ
Œ
œœ
∑
45
Œ
œœ
œ
Ó
>œ œ
b œœ
w
F
44
Œ
>œ œ
ƒ
œ
# >œ # œ œ # œ >œ œ œ œ # œ
b œœ
∑
j ‰ j ‰ # œj ‰ ‰ œJ Œ
#œ #œ
∑
∑
œ
j
œ ‰ œj ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
œ
#œ
Œ
497
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
œ
& ‰
J
F
œ
? # œj ‰ # œ ‰ œJ ‰ ‰ J Œ
J
œ
J
#œ
j ‰ j ‰ #œ ‰ ‰ J Œ
#œ #œ J
œ #œ
J ‰ J ‰ # œj ‰ ‰ œj Œ
∑
Temple Blocks
œ
# œ ‰ # œj ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J
#œ
œ
∑
œ
j œ
& œj ‰ œ ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
F
œ
> Œ Œ Œ Œ
# œœ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 44 # >œœ œœ Œ
> > >
>
ƒ
>œ œ
>œ œ
œ
#
œ
>
>
#
œ
œ
44
#œ #œ œ œ œ œ
Œ Œ Œ Œ
Œ
ƒ
?
œ
& # œj ‰ # œj ‰ œJ ‰ ‰ J Œ
F
œ
∑
∑
÷
Electric
Organ
œ
œ œ
J
∑
Perc. 1
Perc. 3
œ
?
497
Mrb.
œ
J
œœœœœ
œœ
45
5
4
45
∑
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
œ
F
∑
∑
173
b œœ
502
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
&
b œœ
b ˙˙ ..
& œœ
&
œœ
w
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
? w
œ
a2
œ
bœ
∑
∑
&
∑
>œ >œ >œ
>œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
F
>œ >œ >œ
>œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
∑
œœ
b ˙˙ ..
∑
∑
& œœ
œœ
b ˙˙ ..
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
& œ
bœ
b˙.
Perc. 1
÷
œ
Œ
Perc. 2
÷
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ œ
F
œ
bœ
œ
œ
b˙.
∑
∑
∑
œ
œ
bœ
bœ
œ
bœ
bœ
œ
œ
œ
b˘œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J J J
J
> > >
>
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
∑
œ
j‰ j‰ j‰ j‰ j‰
>œ >œ >œ >œ >œ
a2
∑
bœ
œ
œ
bœ
œ
>œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ
bœ
œ
œ
bœ
œ
>œ >œ >œ
>œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
œ
œ
b˙.
∑
j‰ j‰ j‰ Œ
>œ >œ >œ
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
˙
F
b˙.
∑
∑
∑
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
œ
b˙.
∑
Claves
a2
œ
∑
Œ
œ
bœ
∑
˙
F
∑
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
bœ
bœ
œ
bœ
œ
œ
bœ
b˙.
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
∑
∑
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
œ
∑
Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
502
&
Œ
b˙.
∑
b˙.
& œœ
œ
∑
>œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ
F
bœ
∑
˙.
˙
œ
a2
bœ
œ
>œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ
Œ
E. Bass
F
œ
∑
∑
˙
bœ
œ
∑
œ
Electric
Organ
bœ
&
502
Vib.
a2
> > >
>
> > >
>
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
∑
& Œ
Mrb.
∑
œ
bœ
∑
∑
b ˙˙ ..
&
∑
b˘œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J J J
J
F
∑
&
502
Hn. 1 & 3
∑
?
? Œ
∑
Œ
Œ
bœ œ
J
F
bœ
bœ
j
J
b œ ‰ b œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰ Œ
bœ ‰ bœ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J J bœ
œ
∑
bœ
œ j
J b œ ‰ b œ ‰ b œJ ‰ ‰ J Œ
J
bœ ‰ bœ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J J bœ
œ
∑
bœ
bœ
j
J
b œ ‰ b œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰ Œ
∑
Œ
Œ
Œ
bœ œ
J
bœ
œ j
J b œ ‰ b œ ‰ b œJ ‰ ‰ J Œ
J
174
508
&
∑
&
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
B.Cl.
&
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
b œœ
b œœ
b œœ
∑
b˙.
508
> > >
>
& œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
∑
> > >
>
& œJ ‰ œJ ‰ œJ ‰ ‰ œJ Œ
∑
&
∑
&
∑
?
?
Perc. 3
÷
b œœ
b œœ b b œœ
œœ
œœ
b ˙˙ ..
b œœ
b œœ
b œœ
œœ
∑
b œœ
b œœ
b˘œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J J J
J
b ˙˙ ..
∑
∑
∑
b œœ
œœ n b œœ
œœ
œœ
>œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ
∑
b œœ
œœ n b œœ
b œœ
b œœ
>œ >œ >œ
>œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
>œ >œ >œ
>œ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
∑
œœ
œœ
a2
b ˙˙ ..
Œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
˙
b˙.
∑
˙
b˙.
∑
∑
œ
Œ
∑
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
œ
508
? b œJ ‰ b œ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J bœ
œ
? b œJ ‰ b œ ‰ b œj ‰ ‰ j Œ
J
œ
∑
b œœ
∑
Œ
∑
b˙.
˙
a2
∑
œ
∑
>œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ
b˙.
∑
∑
b œœ
˙
Œ
∑
b œœ
j j j j j
j j j
bœ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ bœ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ Œ
> > > > >
> > >
œ
∑
œœ n b œœ
∑
Œ
∑
˙.
˙
∑
∑
œ
∑
a2
∑
b œœ
∑
> > >
>
> > >
>
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
∑
Œ
&
œœ
b œœ
b˙.
&
÷
b œœ
b œœ
˙
& Œ
Perc. 2
b œœ
∑
?
˙
b œœ
∑
∑
÷
E. Bass
b œœ
> > >
>
& bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
b œœ
˙.
˙
508
Mrb.
b b œœ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
bœ
bœ
œ
bœ
œ
œ
bœ
b˙.
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
∑
∑
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
œ
∑
Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
∑
œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
p
Œ
œ
∑
Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
œ
Œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
Œ
œ Œ
p
œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
∑
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ b>œ œ b œ >œ œ œ
bœ
œ œ œ
p
bœ
bœ
bœ ‰ bœ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
j
J
∑
∑
∑
J J bœ
b œ ‰ b œJ ‰ J ‰ ‰ Œ
œ
∑
Œ
Œ
Œ
bœ œ
J
bœ
œ j
J b œ ‰ b œ ‰ b œJ ‰ ‰ J Œ
J
bœ ‰ bœ ‰ j ‰ ‰ j Œ
J J bœ
œ
b˙
p
˙
œ
175
514
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
&
∑
&
∑
&
∑
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Vib.
Perc. 1
b˘œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J J J
J
p
∑
cresc.
&
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
?
∑
&
∑
b˘œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J J J
J
∑
∑
j
œœ ‰
fl
p
j
œœ ‰
fl
cresc.
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
∑
b˘œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J J J
J
j
œœ ‰
fl
j
œœ ‰
fl
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
b˘œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J J J
J
j
œœ ‰
fl
j
œœ ‰
fl
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
514
Mrb.
∑
∑
514
Hn. 1 & 3
∑
& Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
∑
&
÷
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
b >œ
œ
p
>œ
œ
>œ
œ
œ >œ ..
œ œ
J
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
w
w
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
Œ
œ
Œ
cresc.
Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
b˘œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
œ œ̆ œ̆
œ̆
J J J
J
Œ
œ
cresc.
Œ
cresc.
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
p
œ
œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
b˘œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
œ œ̆ œ̆
œ̆
J J J
J
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
cresc.
Œ
b˘œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
œ œ̆ œ̆
œ̆
J J J
J
∑
Claves
œ
œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
& bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ
514
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
cresc.
?
? œ
∑
b˙
∑
˙
b˙
˙
∑
œ
œ
b˙
∑
˙
b˙
cresc.
˙
∑
œ
œ
b˙
∑
˙
b˙
˙
œ
176
520
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
∑
&
˘
& b œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J J J
J
j
& œœ ‰
fl
j
œœ ‰
fl
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
&
j
œœ ‰
fl
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
∑
j
œœ ‰
fl
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
∑
∑
œ
j
œœ ‰
fl
j
œœ ‰
fl
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
œ̆ œ̆ œ̆
œ̆
J J J
J
bw
P
w
cresc.
œ
j
œœ ‰
fl
j
œœ ‰
fl
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
œ̆ œ̆ œ̆
œ̆
J J J
J
œ
∑
j
œœ ‰
fl
j
œœ ‰
fl
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
∑
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
œ̆ œ̆ œ̆
œ̆
J J J
J
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
œ̆ œ̆ œ̆
œ̆
J J J
J
∑
w
∑
b˘œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J J J
J
∑
∑
œ
∑
b˘œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J J J
J
∑
∑
∑
Œ
w
bw
F
œ
bw
œ
w
œ
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
b˘œ œ œ
œ
& œ ‰ œ̆ ‰ œ̆ ‰ ‰ œ̆ Œ
J J J
J
b˘œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
œ œ̆ œ̆
œ̆
J J J
J
Perc. 1
÷
œ
Perc. 2
÷
Perc. 3
÷
Vib.
j
œœ ‰
fl
∑
b˘œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J J J
J
∑
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
œ̆ œ̆ œ̆
œ̆
J J J
J
∑
& w
P
520
Mrb.
j
œœ ‰
fl
∑
b˘œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J J J
J
∑
œ œ œ
œ
& œ̆J ‰ œ̆J ‰ œ̆J ‰ ‰ œ̆J Œ
P cresc.
?
∑
b˘œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J J J
J
∑
&
520
Hn. 1 & 3
∑
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
∑
œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
b˘œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
œ œ̆ œ̆
œ̆
J J J
J
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
Œ
œ
b˘œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
œ œ̆ œ̆
œ̆
J J J
J
∑
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
œ
F
∑
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
œ
œ
b˘œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
œ œ̆ œ̆
œ̆
J J J
J
Œ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
∑
‰ œJ Œ
œ
b˘œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
œ œ̆ œ̆
œ̆
J J J
J
∑
‰ œJ Œ
nw
œ
œ
œ
Œ
Soft Mallets
‰ œJ Œ
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ Œ
F
œ
Œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
Bass Drum
œ
œ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
& bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ
520
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?
? œ
∑
b˙
∑
˙
b˙
˙
∑
œ
œ
b˙
∑
˙
b˙
˙
∑
œ
œ
b˙
∑
˙
b˙
˙
œ
177
˘
œœ̆
œœ̆
œœ̆
b b œœ
& J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
F
526
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
˘
& b œœ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆ ‰ ‰ œœ̆ Œ
J
J
J
J
j
j
j
j
& œœ ‰ œœ ‰ œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
fl
fl
&
œœ
œœ
œœ
b b œœ
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ ‰ J Œ
b œœ ‰ œœ ‰ œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
J
J
J
J
j
j
j
j
œœ ‰ œœ ‰ œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
w
F
œ
bw
F
œ
w
œ
w
œ
w
œ
& w
Œ
bw
a2
œ
w
œ
œ
œ
œ
& œ̆J ‰ œ̆J ‰ œ̆J ‰ ‰ œ̆J Œ
?
w
œ
œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
J
J
J
J
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
&
& bw
F
∑
&
?
?
Vib.
Perc. 1
œ
œ
J Œ
œœ Œ
J
bœ
bœ Œ
J
œ
œ Œ
J
bœ
bœ Œ
J
œ
œ Œ
J
68 b b œœ Œ
J
f
œœ Œ
J
b œœ Œ
J
œœ Œ
J
b œœ Œ
J
œœ Œ
J
68 b b œœ Œ
J
f
68
b˙.
˙.
f
68 b œœ Œ
J
f
œ
œ Œ
J
68
˙.
f
bœ
œ Œ
J
œ
œ Œ
J
bœ
œ Œ
J
œ
œ Œ
J
bw
F
& Œ
œ
Œ
œ
œ
w
Œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
œ
Œ.
45
œ
68 ˙ .
f
n˙.
n˙.
Œ.
45
b˙.
b˙.
Œ.
b˙.
b˙.
>œ
J Œ
ƒ
b >œ
J Œ
ƒ
45
Œ.
45
b˙.
b˙.
j
nœ Œ
>
ƒ
Œ.
45
b >œ Œ
J
ƒ
n >œ
bœ Œ
J
ƒ
45
œ #œ #œ
#
œ
#
œ
œ
p
68
ḟ
68 b ˙ .
f
˙.
68
b >œ Œ
J
ƒ
>
bœ Œ
J
ƒ
œ
68
˙.
f
œ
68 b œ .
f
œ.
bœ
œœ Œ
J
bœ
bœ Œ
J
68
œ.
f
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ ..
œ
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
œ.
ƒ
œ
œ
Œ
œ
Œ
Perc. 3
÷
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
6 b b œœ Œ
8 J
f
68 œ .
f
68 œ .
f
b>œ œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ
6 b >œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ
œ 8
f
6
8
∑
˙
b˙
˙
45
b˙.
Œ
b˙
Œ.
b˙.
œ
? œ
45
68 ˙ .
f
Œ
∑
Œ.
œ
œ
?
j Œ
bœ
>
ƒ
b >œ
bœ Œ
J
ƒ
45
Œ
526
>
>
& bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ
45
Œ.
œ
œ
Œ.
>
b œœ Œ
J
ƒ
j Œ
nœ
>
ƒ
÷
Œ
45
b˙.
bœ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
J
J
J
J
œ
Œ.
n >œ
bœ Œ
J
ƒ
b˙.
b˘œ
œ
œ
œ
& œ ‰ œ̆ ‰ œ̆ ‰ ‰ œ̆ Œ
J
J
J
J
Œ
45
.
œ
Œ
Œ.
45
a2
w
b˙.
b >œ
bœ
J Œ
ƒ
Œ.
÷
E. Bass
bœ
bœ
J Œ
j
nœ Œ
>
ƒ
Perc. 2
Electric
Organ
œ
œ
J Œ
f
526
Mrb.
œ
bœ
bœ
J Œ
b˙.
∑
w
œœ
J Œ
b˙.
526
Hn. 1 & 3
bœ
68 œJ Œ
f
œ
68 b œ .
f
œ
œ
œ Œ
J
bœ
Œ
œ
bœ
bœ Œ
J
œ
œ Œ
J
b >œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ
∑
∑
b˙
œ
b˙
œ
5
#œ œ œ
4
nœ œ
#
œ
p
Œ.
45
Œ.
45
œ.
ƒ
Œ.
45
>œ
J Œ
ƒ
Œ.
45
∑
5
4
>œ
J Œ
ƒ
Œ.
45
ƒ
b >œ b œ b œ >œ œ œ
∑
œ.
Œ
178
#˙.
˙.
w
w
œ
œ
w
w
œ
œ
w
w
œ
œ
#˙
# ˙ ..
w
w
œ
œ
w
w
œ
œ
w
w
œ
œ
ww
œœ
ww
œœ
ww
œœ
#˙.
Î
# # ˙˙ ..
w
œ
w
œ
w
œ
ww
œœ
ww
œœ
ww
œœ
Œ
n˙.
Î
w
œ
w
œ
w
œ
& 45 Œ
Œ
# # ˙˙ ..
Î
ww
œœ
ww
œœ
ww
œœ
& 45 Œ
Œ
ww
œœ
ww
œœ
ww
œœ
& 45 Œ
# # ˙˙ ..
Î
Œ
œ œ
J
˙
œ œ
J
˙
& 45 Œ
Œ
& 45 Œ
Œ
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
& 45 Œ
Œ
B.Cl.
& 45 Œ
Œ
& 45 Œ
Œ
? 45 Œ
532
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
532
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
& 45
Î
Î
nn ˙˙ .
.
Î
Î
#˙.
Î
∑
Vib.
#œ œ
J
Î
#œ
J
œ
œ ˙.
J
#œ
J
#œ œ
J
œ
œ œ
J
œ ˙.
J
w
œ
w
œ
w
œ
? 45 Œ
n˙.
Î
Œ
n˙.
Î
w
œ
w
œ
w
œ
& 45 # œ
œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ
#œ œ œ #œ
Î
5 #œ œ œ #œ #œ œ œ œ
& 4 #œ œ œ #œ
Î
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
÷ 45
∑
Ó
Perc. 2
÷ 45
∑
Ó
Perc. 3
÷ 45
∑
& 45 Œ
532
E. Bass
œ ˙.
J
#œ œ
J
Œ
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
#œ œ
J
? 45 Œ
532
Mrb.
˙
Œ
?5
4
? 45 Œ
n n n n ˙˙˙˙ ....
Î
n ˙æ.
Î
˙æ.
Î
Bass Drum
æ̇
œ
æ
æ̇
œ
æ
æ̇
Ͼ
æ̇
Ͼ
∑
w
www
∑
Œ
˙.
æ
Î
Snare
∑
œ
œœœ
w
www
∑
w
æ
∑
œ
œœœ
w
www
∑
Ͼ
w
æ
œ
œœœ
∑
Ͼ
w
æ
Ͼ
179
w
w
œ
œ
w
& w
œ
œ
ww
œœ
w
œ
ww
œœ
? w
œ
& ww
536
& ww
536
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
&
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
B.Cl.
&
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
&
˙
&
& # œJ œ
#œ œ
J
538
˙
˙
˙
˙
œœ̆
œœ̆
J ‰ J
‰
Œ
Œ
Œ
44
j
j
b b œœ ‰ œœ
fl
fl
‰
Œ
Œ
Œ
44 ˙
π
‰
Œ
Œ
Œ
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
‰
Œ
Œ
Œ
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
‰
Œ
Œ
Œ
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
j
j
nœ ‰ œ
fl
fl
‰
Œ
Œ
Œ
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œœ
œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆
J
J
‰
Œ
Œ
Œ
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œœ
œœ̆ ‰ œœ̆
J
J
‰
Œ
Œ
Œ
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ œ
J
œœ̆
œœ̆
J ‰ J
‰
Œ
Œ
Œ
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
j
j
# # œœ ‰ œœ
fl
fl
‰
Œ
Œ
Œ
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ ˙.
J
j
j
b œœ ‰ œœ
fl
fl
j ‰ j
#œ
œ
fl
fl
œœ̆
œœ̆
J ‰ J
a2
π
a2
Ó
Ó
Ó
Ó
∑
˙
∑
˙
Ó
Ó
Ó
Ó
˙
? w
œ
j
j
nœ ‰ œ
fl
fl
‰
Œ
Œ
Œ
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
? w
œ
j
j
nœ ‰ œ
fl
fl
‰
Œ
Œ
Œ
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
536
j
j
& œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b b œœ ‰ œœ
fl
fl
‰
Œ
Œ
Œ
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
#œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
#œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ̆ ‰ œ̆
J
J
‰
Œ
Œ
Œ
4
4
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 1
÷
æ̇
œ
æ
>œ
œ
>œ
œ
Œ
Œ
Œ
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
æ̇
Ͼ
œ
>
œ
>
Œ
Œ
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
44 >˙
Î
44 g ˙Bell Tree Ó
‡gg
Î
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Mrb.
Vib.
∑
w
www
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?
? w
æ
∑
œ
œœœ
536
Gong
˘œ
˘œ œ white key gliss
œœœ
œœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
J ‰
œœœœœ œœœœœœ
œ
œ
∑
œœœœœ
∑
Ͼ
j
j
nœ ‰ œ
fl
fl
‰
Œ
Œ
Œ
œœœœ
∑
4
4 bw
p
44
w
∑
w
∑
w
∑
Ó
˙
p
Wind Chimes
w
∑
∑
180
543
˙
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
# œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ # œ
> >
>
> >
>
>
π
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
# œ ‰ œ ‰ >œ ‰ ‰ >œ Œ
> >
π
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Bsn.
1&2
543
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
543
Ó
˙
Mrb.
&
∑
∑
∑
Ó
Vib.
&
∑
∑
∑
Ó
Ó
∑
˙
˙
˙
Perc. 1
÷ Ó
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
543
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?
?
w
j
œ œ
>
p
>œ œ
J
p
Ó
Ó
Ó
∑
˙
Ó
˙
∑
Ó
a2
a2 st. mute
j
œ w
>
œ
J
>w
j
# œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
>
>
# œ ‰ œ ‰ >œ ‰ ‰ >œ Œ
> >
w
w
w
w
œ
j
#œ ‰
>
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
w
∑
Claves
Ó
>œ œ
J
p
œ
‰ œJ Œ
∑
w
∑
œ
œ
J
œ
‰ œJ Œ
œ
∑
‰ œj Œ
>
œ œ bœ bœ
œ œ bœ bœ ˙
∑
œ
π
œ œ œ œ
>
œ œ bœ bœ ˙
œ œ bœ bœ
Ó
w
∑
˙
∑
Ó
˙
∑
A. Sx.
1&2
Ó
∑
˙
&
˙
Ó
˙
∑
Ob.
1&2
Ó
˙
&
Fl.
1&2
œ
œ
‰ œJ Œ
∑
œ
‰ œJ Œ
∑
w
w
w
w
>w
w
w
œ œ bœ bœ
˙
181
˙
551
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
& Ó
∑
˙
& Ó
∑
˙
˙
Ó
Ó
Ó
Ó
˙
˙
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
551
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
b >œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ b >œ œ œ >œ
œ
Œ
f
∑
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ Œ
œ >
>f
>
>
a2
# >œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ # >œ œ œ >œ Œ
œ
f
j‰ Œ
#œ
flf
r
œ
j
#œ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
fl
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
a2
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
f
j‰ Œ
œ
fl
f
r
œ
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
f
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
f
j‰ ‰ jŒ
œ
#œ
fl
fl
j
j
œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
fl
fl
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
& #œ œ Œ
>
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
# œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ >œ Œ
>
>
œ >
f
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
& #œ œ Œ
>
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
# œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ >œ Œ
>
>
œ >
f
j‰ Œ
œ
fl
f
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
551
Mrb.
&
Vib.
&
Perc. 1
÷
Perc. 2
÷
Perc. 3
÷
b˙
˙
b˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
L. T.
˙
π
∑
œ
551
E. Bass
?
?
Œ
Ó
∑
&
Electric
Organ
˙
˙
w
Ḟ
˙
˙
w
˙
˙
w
˙
S. T.
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ œ œ
Snare
∑
∑
∑
∑
Ó
∑
∑
∑
Ó
b˙
˙
b˙
œ œ œ
œ
œ œ œ œ
w
w
w
Œ
Œ
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
fl
fl
r
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
j
œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
fl
fl
j
œœ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
Sus. Cymbal
œœœ
œœœœœ
f
>œ
f
œœœœœ
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
Œ
Ó
Œ
Œ
Ó
j
b œœ ‰ ‰
œ
fl
œ œ
fl
j ‰ ‰ bœ œ
œ
bœ
fl
fl
>
>
>
>
œ œ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ œ ‰ œœœ œ œœœ Œ
Crash
˙æ
π
œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
f
>œ
f
∑
Hard Sticks
r
œ
j
b œœ ‰ Œ
fl
f
∑
∑
w
j‰ Œ
œ
fl
f
∑
∑
w
b˙
˙
a2
>œ
Ó
∑
>
œ œ >œ œ œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ Œ
f
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
∑
j‰ Œ
œ
fl
f
r
œ
∑
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
j‰ ‰
œ
œ
œ œ
fl
fl
182
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
558
>
œ
b >œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ b œ >œ œ œ œ >œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>œ œ b œ
œ >œ œ œ b œ
>œ b œ œ
>
œ >œ œ œ b œ œ b >œ œ œ b œ œ œ >œ œ b œ b >œ œ œ œ
& Œ
>
>
œ
bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
>
>œ œ b œ
œ >œ œ œ b œ
>œ b œ œ
>
œ >œ œ œ b œ œ b >œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ b œ b >œ œ œ œ Œ
>
& Œ
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
& Œ
B.Cl.
& Œ
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Mrb.
Vib.
>
# >œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ # œ >œ œ œ œ >œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ
Œ
‰ jŒ
œ
fl
‰ j Œ
œ
>
‰ œj Ó
fl
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
‰ œj Œ
fl
Œ
‰ œj Œ
fl
j
j
œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
fl
fl
Œ
‰ œj Œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
‰ œj Œ
fl
Œ
‰ œj Œ
fl
? Œ
j ‰ ‰ œj Œ
œ
fl
fl
Œ
‰ b œj Œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
>
‰ œj Ó
fl
‰ œ̆J Œ
Œ
& Œ
558
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
Œ
‰ œj Œ
œ
fl
& Œ
j
j
œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ
fl
fl
Œ
‰ œj Œ
œ
fl
& Œ
# œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ >œ œ œ œ >œ # œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ # œ
>
>
>œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ
œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ > Œ
>
>
& Œ
# œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ >œ œ œ œ >œ # œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ # œ
>
>
>œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ
œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ > Œ
>
>
? Œ
j ‰ ‰ œj Œ
œ
fl
fl
Œ
‰ b œj Œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
>
‰ œ̆ Ó
J
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
b ˘œ
J ‰ Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
‰ œ̆J Œ
Œ
˘
‰ b œJ Œ
j ‰ ‰ œj Œ
œ
fl
fl
Œ
‰ b œj Œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
>
‰ œ̆ Ó
J
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
b ˘œ
J ‰ Œ
j
n œ ‰ ‰ b œj Œ
fl
fl
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
‰ œ̆J Œ
Œ
˘
‰ b œJ Œ
j
n œ ‰ ‰ b œj Œ
fl
fl
Œ
j
‰ b œœ Œ
fl
j
‰ œœ Œ
fl
j
‰ b œœ Ó
fl
j
œ
bœ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
j
‰ b œœ Œ
fl
Œ
j
‰ œœ Œ
fl
j
œ
bœ ‰ ‰ bœ bœ œ
fl
>
& Œ
? Œ
558
j
‰ ‰ b œœ Œ
& œ
œ flœ
fl
& b œ œ œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
fl
fl
Œ
‰ œj Œ
fl
j
‰ b œœ Œ
>
÷
558
& Œ
?
‰ >œJ
Œ
‰ b œj Œ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
fl
a2
˘
‰ b œJ Œ
j
n œ ‰ ‰ b œj Œ
fl
fl
Œ
‰ œj Œ
fl
j
j
œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
fl
fl
Œ
‰ œj Œ
fl
j
j
œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
fl
fl
>
>
œ œ œ œœœ œ œ ‰
>
>
>
>
>
>
œ œ œ œœœ œ œ ‰ œœœ œ œ œ ‰ œœœ ‰ œœœ œ ‰ œ Œ
J
J
>œ
Ó
>œ
‰ >œJ Ó
‰ œ̆ Ó
J
j
j
œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
fl
fl
˘
bœ ‰ Œ
J
Œ
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
Œ
∑
Ó
‰ œj Œ
fl
Œ
Ó
Œ
∑
‰ œj Œ
fl
‰ >œJ
∑
j ‰ ‰ œ œ bœ
œ
>
fl
∑
∑
>œ b œ œ
>œ œ b œ >œ œ œ b >œ
œ >œ œ œ b œ b >œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ b œ œ >œ œ œ b œ œ
œ
Œ
∑
‰ œj Œ
>
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
j‰ ‰ jŒ
nœ
œ
fl
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
∑
Œ
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
∑
>œ œ œ >œ
œ >œ œ œ œ >œ
œ bœ œ œ
? œ œ
‰ ‰ jŒ
œ
œ
fl
fl
‰ œj Œ
fl
a2
‰ œj Ó
fl
>
œ œ ‰ œ Ó
∑
∑
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
‰ œj Ó
œ
fl
Perc. 3
∑
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
œ
fl
Œ
Œ
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
‰ œj Ó
œ
fl
÷
Ó
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
œ
fl
Perc. 2
Ó
b ˘œ
J ‰ Œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
>
>
>
>
‰ œœœ œ œœœ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ œ
>œ
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
‰ œ̆ Ó
J
÷
E. Bass
>œ œ œ
>
œ >œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ
Œ
j‰ ‰ jŒ
œ
#œ
fl
fl
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
>œ œ œ
œ >œ œ œ œ
Œ
∑
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
∑
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
b ˘œ
J ‰ Œ
∑
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
‰ œ̆J Œ
Œ
∑
˘
‰ bœ Œ
J
> bœ
j
œ ‰ ‰ bœ œ
fl
183
565
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
& Œ
& Œ
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
& Œ
B.Cl.
& Œ
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Mrb.
Vib.
& Œ
b >œ œ œ >œ b œ œ
b >œ œ œ >œ b œ œ
>œ œ œ >œ œ
œ
j‰ ‰ jŒ
nœ
œ
fl
fl
j
j
œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
fl
fl
>
>œ
b >œ œ œ œ b œ >œ œ œ œ >œ b œ œ œ œ b ˙
œ œ bœ œ œ
j
œ ‰ Ó
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
j
‰ œ Œ
fl
‰ œ̆
J
j
œ ‰ Ó
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
fl
‰ œj Ó
fl
w
w
w
w
w
>˙
˙
ww
ww
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
‰ œ̆J Œ
‰ œ̆J
Ó
b >˙
w
w
>˙
Ï
Ó
Ï
j
j
bœ ‰ ‰ nœ Œ
fl
fl
b ˘œ ‰ Ó
J
& Œ
565
j
j
œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
fl
fl
j
œ ‰ Ó
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
fl
‰ œj Ó
fl
b n >˙˙
Ï
ww
ww
& Œ
j
j
œ ‰ ‰ œ Œ
fl
fl
j
œ ‰ Ó
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
fl
‰ œj Ó
fl
ww
ww
& Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
>
œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
> œ œ œ
>
>
b n ˙˙
>
Ï
& Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
>
œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
> œ œ œ
>
>
? Œ
j
j
bœ ‰ ‰ nœ Œ
fl
fl
b ˘œ ‰ Ó
J
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
‰ œ̆J Œ
‰ œ̆J
? Œ
j
j
bœ ‰ ‰ nœ Œ
fl
fl
b ˘œ ‰ Ó
J
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
‰ œ̆J Œ
‰ œ̆J
565
j
& b œ œ œ ‰ ‰ b œœ Œ
>
fl
j
œ
bœ ‰ Ó
fl
j
œ ‰ Œ
œ
fl
j
‰ b œœ Œ
fl
j
‰ œœ Ó
fl
jŒ
œ
fl
j
œ ‰ Ó
fl
&
œ b œ >œ ‰ ‰
j
œ ‰ Œ
fl
‰ œj Œ
fl
>
‰ b œœ
J
Perc. 2
÷
Œ
Perc. 3
÷
>œ
Ó
∑
∑
565
& Œ
E. Bass
w
? Œ
>
>
>
>
>
>
œ œœœ ‰ œœœ ‰ œœ œ œ œ œœœ œœœ ‰ œ œ œœœ ‰ œœœœœ
J
J
Electric
Organ
w
Ï
>
>
œ b˙
œ œ œ b œ œ œ b >œ œ œ œ b œ >œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ
>
Ï
# >˙
>
œ
>
œ
œ
>
œ
œ
œ
>œ
œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ
œ œ œ œ
Ï
÷
Perc. 1
w
?
>œ œ >œ
œ
bœ œ
∑
>œ
Œ
‰ >œJ
∑
˘
bœ ‰ Ó
J
>
œ œ œ œ #˙
Ï
>
œ œ œ œ #˙
Ï
Ó
‰ œ̆J Œ
œ
J
# ˙w
j
œ œ
j
œ
w˙
œ œ
J
œ
J
˙w
j
œ œ
j
œ
w
b >˙
w
w
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ
Ï
b>œ n œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Ï
>
‰ œœœœœœœ
Ï
Gong
Œ
∑
>œ Soft Mallets
Œ
Ï
n >˙
œ bœ œ œ
∑
>
‰ œJ
Ó
∑
b wwww
Ï
b>˙
Ï
∑
æ̇
p
Bass Drum
∑
∑
∑
œ̆ ‰ Œ
J
œ œ
J
w
Ï
Ó
Ó
# w˙
b >˙
Ï
Ó
∑
>
œ >œ œ œ œ œ b >œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ bœ œ
∑
? b œ œ b œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
fl
Ó
Ï
Sus. Cymbal
æ̇
p
wwww
∑
w
∑
w
184
w
b >œ b œ œ œ œ
œ œ bœ bœ œ
œ œ
Œ
∑
∑
∑
w
b >œ
J
w
# >œ
J
& w
j
>œ
571
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
&
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
>œ
œ
J
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
j
bœ
>
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
& ww
j
b n >œœ
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
& ww
j
b n œœ
>
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
&
ww
&
? w
ww
>
# b œœ
J
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
ww
>œœ
J
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
? w
j
bœ
>
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
∑
32
? w
j
bœ
>
‰
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
&
&
571
&
Vib.
&
œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ
>œ
b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b ww>
ww
Let Ring
Perc. 1
÷
Perc. 2
÷
æ̇
Perc. 3
÷
æ̇
571
&
E. Bass
32
Œ
Mrb.
Electric
Organ
∑
‰
&
571
Hn. 1 & 3
576
∑
? w
œ
œ
œ
>
Ï
Œ
Ó
Œ
Œ
>œ
Ï
wwww
?
œ
p
>œ œ œ
œ
œœœœœ
white key gliss
∑
œœœœœ
œœœœ
∑
j
bœ
>
‰
Œ
Ó
œ
œœœœœ
œ
œ
ww
œ
œ
œ
œ
j
j
bœ ˙
>œ œ
>
F
œœœ œ
j
œ œ b œJ ˙
F
œ
œ
32
∑
ww
œ œœœ
32
œ
>œ œ
œ œ
J
F
œ >œ
œ œ
J
3
2
Œ
32
∑
32
∑
∑
32
∑
∑
∑
32
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Œ
∑
∑
Œ
∑
Ó
Œ
π
>œ œ
F
w
3
2
j
j
œ œ bœ ˙
>
>
32
185
& 32
577
Fl.
1&2
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
∑
43
∑
44
Ob.
1&2
bw.
& 32 w .
π
44 œœ.
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
& 32 ww ..
π
44 œ
œ.
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
w.
π
44
œ.
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
44 œ.
œ
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
44
œ.
Œ
Ó
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
44
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
& 32
a2
w.
& 32 # w .
π
? 32
w.
π
& 32
577
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
& 32
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
& 32
∑
∑
& 32
∑
44 >œœ œœ >œœ œœ >œœ œœ œœ >œœ œœ œœ >œœ œœ >œœ œœ Œ
p
? 32
∑
? 32
& 32
577
Mrb.
Vib.
÷ 32 Ó
Perc. 2
÷ 32
Perc. 3
÷ 32
& 32 Ó
577
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
Œ
?3
2 w.
? 32
˙
Œ
∑
43
∑
44
∑
43
∑
44
44 œ̆
p
œ̆
œ̆
˘
‰ b œJ Œ
b˘œ
œ̆
Œ
∑
∑
43
∑
44
∑
44 œ
flp
œ
fl
œ
fl
‰ j Œ
bœ
fl
bœ
fl
œ
fl
Œ
∑
∑
43
∑
44
∑
44 œ
bœ
>
p
œ
œ
>
b>œ .
œ.
>œ œ
œ œ
J
œ
bœ
>
>œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ
Œ
F
˙
˙
44
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
44 œ
p
‰ œœœ œ œ
Claves
‰ œœœ œ œ
F
‰
3
4
œ œ œ œ œœ œœ œœ œœ 4 œœ œœ œ œ œ œ 4
œ œ œ œ >
œ
œ
œ
œ
>
> >
> >
p
∑
4 w
4 w
Œ
œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ 43 b œœ œœ œ œ œ œ 44
b œ> œ œ> œ >œ œ œ >œ
b>œ œ >œ œ
p
44
œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ Œ
>p >
>
>
>
>
3 bw
&2 w
Perc. 1
>œ œ œ
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ 3 œ œ œ œ œ œ 4
4
4
p
œœœ œ œ
44 ˙
4
4
44 ˙
œ
Œ
œ
r
#œ
œ.
‰ œJ
b b ˙˙
‰ œœœ
Œ
‰ œœœ œ œœœ
∑
∑
∑
Œ
‰ œœœ œ œœœ
∑
œ.
bœ w
J
∑
∑
bœ w
J
∑
Œ
Ó
∑
Œ
‰
œœœ œ œœœ
b >œ œ >œ œ >œ œ œ >œ 3 œ œ b>œ œ >œ œ 4
4
4
p
3
4 ˙˙ ..
ww
œ
Œ
Ó
∑
œ
p
œ
w
Sub.
p
w
Let Ring
œ
4
4
43
∑
44
43
∑
44
‰ œJ 43 Œ
œ
œ
43 ˙ .
∑
3
4
˙.
43
44
44
∑
4
4
44
186
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
& 44
583
∑
∑
43
∑
& 44
∑
∑
∑
>œ œ b œ >œ n œ
bœ
œ œ
43
∑
43
∑
∑
43
>œ b œ
>œ œ
>œ b œ
>œ b œ
>œ œ
44 œ œ b œœ œœ œ œ œœ œœ 42 œ œ b œœ œœ 44 œœ b b œœ œ n œ b œœ œ œ œœ
F
44 œœ b œ œ œ œœ œ œ œ 42 œœ b œ œ œ 44 œ b œ œœ œ œ œœ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
bœ œ > nœ œ > œ œ
> bœ œ
> bœ œ > œ œ
F
32
∑
44
32
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
& 44
B.Cl.
& 44
∑
& 44
∑
∑
43
∑
44
? 44
∑
∑
43
∑
44
w
π
& 44 b b œœ œœ œœ œœ bn œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
> > >
F
∑
43
∑
& 44 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ b>œ œ œ >œ
> >
F
∑
43
& 44
∑
∑
& 44
∑
? 44
? 44
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
F
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
& 44
583
Mrb.
Vib.
Perc. 1
÷ 44
Perc. 2
÷ 44 Ó
Perc. 3
÷ 44 œ
E. Bass
? 44 w
w
π
42
˙
44
œœ .
.
j
œœ 32
F
j
œ
F
>
a2 œ
‰ J
F
Œ
42 ˙
44
˙
œ.
j 3
œ 2
F
44
ww
π
42 ˙˙
44
˙˙
œœ ..
j
œœ 32
F
∑
44
42
44
œœ ..
43
∑
j 32
œœ
F
∑
43
∑
44 œœ œœ œ œ œœ œœ œ œ 42 œœ œœ œ œ 44 œ œœ œœ n œœ œ œœ œœ œ
œ œ > œ œ
œ
œ >
œ
> œ œ
>
>
F
∑
∑
43
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
43
F
Œ
œ
œ
‰ >œJ
F
œœœœœ
∑
F
w
44
w
π
42 ˙
44
˙
œ.
∑
44
∑
42
∑
44
∑
32
4
4
∑
2
4
∑
4
4
∑
3
2
∑
43
∑
∑
43 Œ
44 œ œ œ œ
œ
>
F
Œ
3
œœœœœœœœœ
4 œœœœ
˙.
43
32
∑
43
Ó
32
œ.
∑
œœœŒ
˙˙
44 ˙
∑
white key gliss
˙˙
32
˙
42
43
g˙
‡gg
b ww
π
∑
44 w
π
∑
‰ œJ Ó
42
∑
44 œœ œœ œ œ œœ œœ œ œ 42 œœ œœ œ œ 44 œ œœ œœ n œœ œ œœ œœ œ
œ œ > œ œ
œ
œ >
œ
> œ œ
>
>
F
3
4 ˙˙ ..
œœ œœ ww
>
F
∑
583
?4
4
44 ˙
˙
44 Ó
& 44 w
Electric
Organ
42 ˙˙
œ.
b >œ œ œ> œ n >œ œ œ >œ
4
& 4 b b ˙˙ ..
p
44 w
w
π
˙
583
Hn. 1 & 3
32
œœœ
œœœœœ
Œ
Œ
42 œ œ œ œ 44 Œ
>
44
∑
42
∑
44 Ó
44
∑
42
∑
44
œ 32
J
F
j 3
œ 2
F
>
>
‰ œ ‰ œ
œ
>
Œ
∑
‰ >œJ 32
F
Crash
32
>
>
>
>
>
>
œ œ œ 44 b œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ 42 b œ œ œ b œ 44 œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ b œ
F
4
4
44
œ
fl
2
4
∑
Œ
œ
fl
Œ
42 œ
fl
4
4
∑
Œ
44 Œ
∑
œ
fl
32
32
3
2
r
‰ œ œ̆J ‰ b œj 32
>
187
& 32
589
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
& 32
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
& 32
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
B.Cl.
& 32
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
& 32
œ # œ œ œ >œ œ œ
œ œ œ >œJ ‰
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
? 32
œ
œ̆ ‰
J
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
œ.
œ. b œ.
œ.
& 32
589
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
& 32
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
& 32
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
& 32
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
? 32
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
? 32
∑
Ó
& 32 Ó
Ó
Œ
3
&2 Ó
Ó
Œ
Perc. 1
÷ 32 Œ
‰ œœœ œ Œ
>
Perc. 2
÷ 32 Ó
Perc. 3
÷ 32
589
Mrb.
Vib.
Ó
œ
>
p
b >œ
œ
p
‰ œœœ
>
Œ
b˙
p
E. Bass
œ
œ œ œ
Œ
‰ œœœ
p
>œ
b˙
˙
˙
˙
44
œ
Œ
œ
‰ œœœ
œ
w.
w.
‰ œœœ
œ
‰ œœœ
œ
w.
w.
‰ œœœ
œ
‰ œœœ
œ
4
4
‰ œœœ
œ
‰ œœœ
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
44
˙˙
˙
˙
b ˙˙
˙˙
b ˙˙
˙˙
˙˙
˙˙
˙˙
˙˙
˙˙
44
b˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
b˙
˙
˙
˙
4
4
b˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
b˙
˙
˙
˙
44
p
Ó
œ
˙
w.
w.
j
& 32 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ ‰ Ó
œ >
>
? 32 œ
˙
w.
w.
>œ
∑
˙
˙
œ œ b œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 44
∑
?3
2
˙
œ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
589
Electric
Organ
˙
p
188
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
43
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
43
∑
∑
43
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
∑
∑
œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
>
>
f
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
>
f
& 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
? 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
b œ.
f
œ.
œ.
‰ b œj b œ.
>.
œ.
œ.
>
‰ œ. 43
J
? 44
∑
˙
∑
∑
b œ.
f
œ.
œ.
‰ b œj b œ.
>.
œ.
œ.
>
‰ œ. 43
J
b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ .
>œ 3
J 4
594
& 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
& 44
∑
∑
B.Cl.
& 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 44
∑
∑
∑
? 44
∑
∑
& 44
594
∑
& 44
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
& 44 ˙
594
Mrb.
b˙
Ó
∑
œ.
œ.
˙˙
p
œ
œ
J
œ
œ
a2
œœ
œœ
˙˙
œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
>
>
>
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
p
w
bw
F
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
f
œ bœ
a2
b œ. ‰ œ œ œ. ‰ œ œ œ. ‰ Œ
J
J
J
f
>œ
>œ
>œ
>
œ ‰ œœ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ
f
>œ
>œ
>œ
œ ‰ ‰ œ
œ
‰ ‰ J ‰
43
b œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ 43
>
>
>
>
œ œ œ œ b œœ œœ œœ œœ 43
>
>œ œ >œ œ >
∑
∑
43
∑
∑
43
b >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ .
f
>œ
J
4 bw
&4 b w
ww
Perc. 1
÷ 44 ‰ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ
bw
w
p
œ
‰ œœœœœœœ œœ œ
Perc. 2
÷ 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
Perc. 3
÷ 44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
Vib.
E. Bass
Ó
∑
œ
f
ww
Œ
Ó
œ
3
4
Œ
Ó
43
& 44 ‰ œ œ œ œ ‰ b œ œ œ œ
˙˙
b b ˙˙
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
?4
4
∑
b˙
˙
∑
∑
∑
∑
3
4
œœœ œ
‰ bœ œ œ œ b˙
˙
594
Electric
Organ
Œ
b b ww
f
bœ œ
? 44 ‰
˙
p
b˙
˙
˙
bw
f
bw
43
189
& 43
600
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
& 43
œ bœ
bœ œ
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰
>œ
>œ
œ
œ
J ‰ J ‰
Œ
Œ
‰ >
‰ >
>
>
>œ œ œ
>œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
b
œ
b
œ
b
œ
b
œ
bœ œ œ œ nœ nœ bœ œ œ
44
œœ
œœ
Œ
‰ Œ
Œ
‰ Œ
f
p
44
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>œ
œ
J
F
>œœ
œœ œœ œœ œ œœ œœ œœ œ œ
œ
œ >
œ œ œœ >œ œœ n œœ œœ
>œ
‰ # œJ
F
>œœ
>œ
œœ œœ # œ œ >œœ œœ œ œ
œ œ
œ œ œœ œœ # œ œœ n œœ œœ
œœ œœ œœ n œ œ
œ œ œœ œœ n œ
œ
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
& 43
B.Cl.
& 43
∑
44
∑
& 43
∑
44
∑
? 43
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 43
œœ œœ b œ œ œ œ
>œ œ >œ œ
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 43 b œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
44
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
& 43
∑
44
œ ‰
p
∑
∑
∑
& 43
∑
44
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
600
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Œ
a2
? 43
Œ
b œ.
œ.
44
? 43
Œ
b œ.
œ.
44
& 43
Œ
b >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 4 b œ
4
3
&4
˙˙ ..
Perc. 1
÷ 43
‰ œœœ
Perc. 2
÷ 43
∑
Perc. 3
÷ 43
∑
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
600
Mrb.
Vib.
& 43
600
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
Œ
?3
4
? 43
œ œ bœ
‰ J
∑
œœ œœ # œœ n œ œ
œ œ œœ œœ n œœ
j ≈ œj ≈ œ ‰
œ
œ ‰
>
‰ œj ≈ œ ≈
J
f
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œ
‰ ‰
Œ
Ó
Ó
Œ
‰
>œ
J
F
ww
∑
44 œ
p
Œ
Ó
∑
44 w
Í
>
≈ œJ ≈
f
∑
‰ œJ
Ó
44 w
Í
∑
œ ‰
Œ
4
4
œ œ bœ
J
Œ
44
œ
44
∑
œ.
Ó
Let Ring
Crash
‰
∑
4
4 bw
nw
œ
Œ
j
œ ‰ ‰ œ ≈ œJ ≈ œ ‰
a2
œ ‰
p
Ó
∑
b w>
w
F
œ
bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ
œ
> œ
> œ œ >
˙.
˙.
œ œ ‰ œ œ >œ
F
∑
Ó
∑
œ
Œ
∑
∑
>
‰ b œJ
F
Œ
bœ
œ
‰ œœœ
‰
œ
bœ bœ œ
œ
œ œ
w
w
‰ œœœ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>
œ œ œ b œ b >œ œ œ œ
b >œ œ œ b œ œ
œ œ
œ œ œ bœ œ
œ bœ œ
w
œ
>
F
Œ
œ
>
Œ
œ
˙
bœ
w
Œ
>œ œ
Œ
b >œ
w
190
606
bœ œ
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
p
&
∑
&
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
&
?
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
p
Œ
f
b œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
f
bœ
>
œ bœ bœ bœ œ
bœ
‰
Œ
Œ
‰ >
>
œ b œ b œ b œ >œ b œ b œ b œ œ œ b œ b œ b œ œ
bœ
bœ 3
4
Œ
‰ Œ
43
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
43
&
∑
œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
>
>
p
b œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
>
>
f
∑
∑
43
&
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
œ œ œ œ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>œ œ >œ œ >
f
&
œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
>
p
&
∑
?
∑
b œ.
p
œ.
œ.
‰ œ̆J
b œ.
œ.
œ.
?
∑
b œ.
p
œ.
œ.
‰ œ̆J
b œ.
œ.
œ.
b >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ .
œ
J
606
& œ
>
Vib.
bw
& w
p
Œ
bœ œ
∑
Ó
p
˙
œ œ ‰ œœœ
p
‰ œœ
Ó
÷
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
œ
Œ
‰ œœœ œ
& ˙˙
p
b ˙˙
˙˙
Ó
? ˙
b˙
b˙
Ó
? œ œ Œ
p
b˙
b˙
Ó
606
bœ bœ
∑
Perc. 1
E. Bass
Œ
‰
>
œ b œ b œ b œ >œ b œ b œ b œ œ
b œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
∑
Mrb.
Electric
Organ
bœ bœ
∑
606
Hn. 1 & 3
a2
∑
bœ
p
‰ bœ
‰
‰
œ
J
≈ œJ
≈ bœ
‰
œ
‰
‰
œ
J
bœ
≈ J ≈ 43
∑
œ ‰ bœ
p
‰
‰
j
œ
≈ œj
≈ bœ
‰ bœ
‰
‰
œ
J
≈ œJ ≈ 43
b >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ .
˙
œ
∑
∑
43
‰ œ̆J
f
∑
∑
43
œ
J
f
Ó
œœ
F
b b ww
F
œœ
œœ
œœ
œœ b b œœ ..
œœ
œœ
œœ
œœ
œœ b b œœ ..
43
3
4
ww
∑
∑
43
∑
∑
∑
43
∑
∑
∑
43
Œ
‰ œœœ œ
F
˙
b˙
‰ bœ œ œ bœ
∑
Ó
‰ œ̆J
f
F
‰ bœ œ œ bœ
F
˙
œœœœ
œœœœœ
white key gliss
œœœœœ
∑
w
43
œœ w
∑
w
3
4
43
191
Œ
>
>
>œ œ b œ >œ œ œ
>œ œ b œ >œ œ œ
œ b œ b œ b œ b >œ œ b œ b œ œ œ œ n œ
3
44 œ œ œ b œœ œ œ œ œœ b œœ œœ œ œ n œ œ œ œ
&4
Œ
Œ
F
Fl.
1&2
& 43
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
& 43
∑
44 ww
∏
B.Cl.
& 43
∑
44
& 43
∑
44
? 43
∑
44
w
∏
& 43
611
∑
& 43
∑
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
Mrb.
Vib.
b >œ
& 43 J
f
b >œ
& 43 J
f
‰
>œ
J
‰
>œ
J
‰
‰
>œ
J
‰
>œ
J
‰
? 43
∑
? 43
∑
611
œ
& 43 œ
b b œœ
∑
Perc. 2
÷ 43
∑
Perc. 3
÷ 43 Ó
& 43
611
E. Bass
˙
?3
4
? 43
w
œœœœœ
p
white key gliss
∑
∑
Œ
b œœ.
œ.
œ
Œ
œ.
œ
Œ
œ.
Ó
œ.
Œ
Œ
œ.
∑
‰ j
œ œ
œ
œ œ
F
>œ œ œ. œ. .
œ œ # œ œ œœ œ œ. œ. .
œ̆ œ œ n n œœ
‰ J
F
∑
∑
∑
∑
‰ œj œ
F
∑
∑
∑
œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
>
>
p
f
∑
∑
œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
>
>
p
f
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
œœ
J
F
44 b w
∏
˙
œ.
œ
J
F
∑
œ
bœ
œ
>œ œ œ
œ œ œ œœ
>
œœ œœ œœ œœ n œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
∑
>œ œ œ
œ œ œ œœ
>
œœ œœ œœ œœ n œœ œœ œœ œœ
>
∑
˙
œ.
œ
J
F
∑
œ.
œ.
œ.
˙
œ.
j
œ
F
∑
œ.
œ.
œ.
p
p
44
∑
∑
∑
b >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ .
4
4
∑
∑
∑
b ˙˙
œœœ ‰ œœ œ œ ‰ œœœ
>
>
44
∑
∑
∑
44
∑
∑
∑
>
>
>
>
œ œ œ 44 œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ
F
4
4 w
44 œ
F
œ
œ
‰ œ
œ
J
p
‰ œœ
œ
bœ
œ
Œ
Œ
Ó
Œ
∑
Ó
∑
œ
Œ
p
∑
w
œ œ ˙
∑
bœ œ
∑
œœ ..
>
‰ œœœ
∑
a2
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
F
∑
œ
‰ œ̆J
F
˙˙
44 >œœ œœ œœ œ
œ
F
44 >œœ œœ œœ œ
œ
F
bœ œ
∑
‰ œœ̆
J
F
44 ww
∏
44 œ œ œ œ Ó
F
Tree
— Bell
ggg œ
gf
œœ.
œ.
44
w
∏
3
& 4 ˙˙ ..
÷ 43
w
∏
44 w
∏
œœ
Perc. 1
Electric
Organ
44 ww
∏
œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ.
J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ Œ
F
a2
611
w
œ >œ
Í
Œ
‰ œ̆J
f
∑
‰ œ̆J
f
∑
>œ œ
bœ
œ œ >œ œ œ > œ
J
f
F
>
‰ œœ œœ ..
J
f
>œ
‰ œ
J
f
Crash
‰ >œJ
f
b >œ ˙
œ ˙
J
F
∑
∑
∑
>œ œ
>œ
b >œœ
‰ œœJ œœ ‰ ‰ œœ Œ b œJ ‰
F bœ œ œ œ
œ
‰
‰
‰
œ œ bœ œ œ
œ œ b>œ w
f
192
617
622
b >œ œ b œœ >˙
œ œ J ˙
J
ƒ
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
j b œj
>œ œ
>˙
ƒ
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
j
>œ œ
ƒ
j
œ ˙
>
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
a2
j
œ ˙
>
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
j
bœ œ
>
ƒ
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
j
œ ˙
>
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
j
œ œ
>
ƒ
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
617
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
617
Mrb.
Vib.
&œ
bœ
œ œ
> œ œ > œ > œ
>œ
œ
˙
&˙
>œ
œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
>
>
> >
b >œ .
œ.
>œ ˙
œ ˙
J
>œ
œ
˙
˙
Perc. 1
÷
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
617 b >
b œœœ
&‰ J Œ
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?
œ
?w
‰
œ œ
>œ >œ
œœ ‰ œœ ‰
‰
œ
‰
œ
>œ
œ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
>œ >œ
œœ ‰ œœ ‰ b w
bw
Sub.
bœ œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ p
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
w
>œ œ
œ œ
J
ƒ
œ >˙
œ ˙
J
j
œ œ
ƒ>
j
œ ˙
>
# >œ œ
J
ƒ
a2
a2
>
œ œ
J
ƒ
a2
a2
œ >˙
J
œ >˙
J
j
j
œ œ bœ ˙
>
>
ƒ
j b œj
>œ œ
>˙
ƒ
œ
œ
œ
j
œ bœ
œ
œ œ œ b œJ ˙
œ
œ
bœ œ œ œ œ bœ bœ œ
bœ
œ
œ
œ
>
>
b
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
b
œ
œ
ƒ
p œ œ bœ œ
ww
b ww
b >œœ œœ b œœ >˙˙
J
J
Let Ring
ƒ
>
>
>œ
>
œœ ‰ ‰ œœœ Œ b b œœœ ‰ ‰ b b œœœ Œ
J
J
w
b >œœ œœ b œœ >˙˙
J
J
ƒ
w
Œ
Œ
w
Œ
Œ
œ
œœœœœ
œœœœœ
>œ Œ
ƒ
œ >œ
œ œ Œ
J
>œ Œ
Crash
— ˙Bell Tree
gg
g
p
Ó
∑
>œ œ
œ œ
J
ƒ
œœœœ
œ
œœœœœ
Œ
∑
œ œ œ b >œœ œœ b œœ >˙˙
J
J
ƒ
>œ œ b œ >˙
J
J
j
j
œ œ bœ ˙
>
>
ƒ
193
623
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
B.Cl.
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
&
w
w
p
w
&w
p
w
&w
&
&
?
p
w
p
w
p
w
p
623
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
&w
&
p
w
p
&w
p
&w
?
?
p
w
p
w
p
& æw
623
Mrb.
Vib.
p
w
&w
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
w
∑
∑
j
j
œ œ bœ ˙
>
>
ƒ
w
∑
∑
∑
w
∑
∑
∑
j
j
bœ œ bœ ˙
>
>
ƒ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
wæ
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
÷
∑
∑
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
?w
?
w
p
p
wæ
∑
Soft Mallets
∑
w
∑
w
∑
æ̇
π
Sus. Cymbal
∑
w
∑
∑
>œ œ
J
ƒ
j
œ œ b œJ ˙
>
>
ƒ
w
j
j
œ œ bœ ˙
>
>
ƒ
w
j
j
œ œ bœ ˙
>
>
ƒ
w
j
j
œ œ bœ ˙
>
>
ƒ
wæ
b >œ œ b b œœ >˙
œ œ J ˙
J
ƒ
>œ œ œ >œ
œ œ œ œ Œ
J
J
ƒ
>œ
ƒ
+
ƒ
j
j
œ œ bœ ˙
>
>
ƒ
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
∑
p
w
w
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
æw
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
ww
∑
æw
∑
∑
b >œœ œœ b b œœ >˙˙
J
J
ƒ
>œ œ b œ >˙
J
J
p
w
w
>œ Œ
Œ
p
w
j
œ ˙
>
j
bœ œ
>
ƒ
p
w
j
j
œ œ bœ ˙
>
>
ƒ
∑
623
j
j
œ œ bœ ˙
>
>
ƒ
p
ww
∑
÷
w
&w
b >œœ œœ b œœ >˙˙
J
J
ƒ
p
ww
w
Perc. 1
Perc. 3
b >œœ œœ b b œœ >˙˙
J
J
ƒ
ww
œ >˙
J
wæ
p
b >œœ œœ b b œœ >˙˙
J
J
ƒ
∑
p
p
∑
Soft Mallets
æ̇
π
Sus. Cymbal
∑
w
∑
w
∑
∑
n >œœ ˙˙
b œœ
ww>
ww
ww
n œœ ˙˙
>
f
b œœ
ww
>
ww
# œœ ˙˙
>
f
b œœ
# ww
>
ww
ww
π
>œ ˙
f
bœ
w>
w
f
>œ ˙
bœ
œ ˙
>
f
π
ww
π
w
π
w>
w
bœ
w
>
w
w
π
œ ˙
>
f
bœ
w
>
w
w
π
# >œ ˙
f
œ
# w>
w
œ ˙
>
f
bœ
w
>
w
w
π
# >œ ˙
f
œ
# w>
w
w
π
>œ ˙
f
bœ
w>
w
w
π
œ ˙
>f
bœ
w
>
w
w
π
œ ˙
>
f
bœ
w
>
w
n œœ ˙˙
>
f
b œœ
w
π
ww
>
ww
œ ˙
>
f
œ
œ Œ
>
ww
π
f
œ Œ
>
f
Ó
Gong
Bass Drum
+
f
> Œ
œ
æ̇
Ó
Ó
Bass Drum
∑
n œœ ˙˙
>
f
b œœ
>œ ˙
bœ
>œ ˙
f
bœ
ww
>
∑
w
π
w
π
∑
æ̇
ww
w>
w
w>
w
∑
æ̇π
ww
π
w
w
π
∑
∑
194
637
635
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
635
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
635
Mrb.
&
∑
∑
Ó
Vib.
&
∑
∑
Ó
Perc. 1
÷
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
Perc. 3
÷
æ̇
635
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
∑
∑
?w
?
æ̇Ø
∑
∑
w
∑
∑
∏
w
j
œ œ
π
œ œ
J
π
>œ œ
π
1.
>œ
‰
π
3.
>œ
œ
b>œ
œ
œ
>œ
bœ
>œ
‰
b>œ
‰
‰
>œ
Œ
œ
>œ
œ
œ
>œ
œ
>œ
J
‰
‰
>œ
J
Œ
j
bœ
œ
œ
bœ.
j
œ
œ
œ
j
œ bœ.
bœ
J
œ
œ
bœ.
œ
J
œ
œ
œ
J
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
w
∑
w
∑
∑
bœ.
œ
195
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
U
∑
∑
Bb Cl. 1 & 2
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
U
∑
∑
B.Cl.
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
U
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
U
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
U
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
U
∑
∑
&
∑
∑
∑
∑
U
∑
∑
Fl.
1&2
Ob.
1&2
A. Sx.
1&2
Bsn.
1&2
640
Hn. 1 & 3
Hn.
2&4
Tpt. in Bb
1&2
Tpt. in Bb
3&4
Tbn.
1&2
Tba.
œ œ b>œ œ œ œ œ œ b>œ œ Œ Ó
>
∑
U
∑
∑
> > >
>
& bœ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ
>
Œ b œ ‰ ‰ œj Œ
J
>
∑
U
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
U
∑
∑
?
∑
∑
∑
∑
U
∑
∑
U
∑
∑
U
∑
∑
U
∑
∑
& bœ
œ bœ.
j
œ œ bœ
j
œ œ.
bœ
œ bœ.
œ
J
œ œ.
J
640
Mrb.
Vib.
&
œ bœ
æ
n ww
wwæ
w
nw
æ
Ø
w
w
æ
Ø
Perc. 1
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
Perc. 2
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
U∑
Perc. 3
÷
∑
∑
∑
∑
U∑
∑
U
∑
640
&
Electric
Organ
E. Bass
∑
> > >
>
& bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>
bœ œ Œ Ó
∑
? w
?
∑
w
∑
∑
w
∑
w
∑
Ø
∑
U
∑
U
∑
>œ œ œ >œ
J
J J
Ï
a2
U
∑
640
æ̇
Ø
Bass Drum
æ̇
Ø
>œ œ œ >œ
J J
J
Ï
a2
# >œ œ œJ >œ
J
J
Ï
a2
j j
j
#œ œ œ œ
>
>
Ï
# >œ œ œ >œ
J
J J
Ï
>œ œ œ >œ
J J
J
Ï
>
>
œ œ œJ œ
J
J
Ï
j j
j
œ œ œ œ
>
>
Ï
a2
# >œ œ œJ >œ
J
J
Ï
a2
# >œ œ œJ >œ
J
J
Ï
>œ œ œ >œ
J J
J
Ï
j j
j
œ œ œ œ
>
>
Ï
>œ œ œ >œ
J J
J
Ï
>œ œ œ >œ
J J
J
Ï
˙
>
Ï
Sus. Cymbal
Soft Mallets
Ó
œ
œœœœœ
œœœœœ
œœœœ
œ
œœ
œœœœ
Ó
∑
Œ
‰
Œ
‰
Œ
‰
Œ
‰
Œ
‰
Œ
‰
Œ
‰
Œ
‰
Œ
‰
Œ
‰
Œ
‰
Œ
‰
Œ
‰
Œ
>œ œ œ >œ
œ œ œ œ
J
J
Ï
Soft Mallets
white key gliss
‰
œœœœœ
œœœœœ
Ó+
Ï
Œ
˙
>
g˙
‡gg
Ï
Bell Tree
>œ œ œ œ œ œ
œœœœœ
J
J
œœœœœ
>
œœœ
Ï
white key gliss
∑
>œ œ œ >œ
J J
J
Ï
‰
Œ
APPENDIX A
EMAIL SOLICITATION
Dear Music Professor,
I am a doctoral candidate in music composition at the University of Florida. I am in the
process of developing tools (assessment rubrics) for composition instruction and
assessment. The overall purpose of my current research is to determine the validity of
research-based rubrics for use in assessing undergraduate music compositions. Validity
will be determined by having professors in the field of music composition examine and
comment on the rubrics. The rubrics were designed based on research in music
assessment, creativity assessment, music composition, creativity models, aesthetics,
music education, and psychology; research which reveals an overall model of the
assessment of music composition (a rubric is an assessment tool—see attachment for
example). Similar rubrics have been developed for the assessment of children’s music
compositions. My project explores whether this type of assessment is possible with
undergraduates.
I am asking for volunteers to take part in the study. Volunteers must be teachers of
undergraduate music composition.
What you will be asked to do in the study:
You will be asked to examine research-based rubrics and to comment on their validity
and usability in undergraduate education. You will also be asked to fill out a short
questionnaire.
Time required: 1-2 hours
Risks and Benefits: There are no anticipated risks or benefits.
Compensation: There is no compensation.
Confidentiality:
Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your name will
only be known by the experimenter. The comments and questionnaire you return will be
assigned a code number. The list connecting your name to this number will be locked in
my faculty supervisor's office. When the study is completed and the data have been
analyzed, the list will be destroyed. Your name will not be used in any report.
Voluntary participation:
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not
participating. If you agree to take part in the study, you do not need to answer any
question you do not want to answer.
196
197
Right to withdraw from the study:
You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence.
Whom to contact if you have questions about the study:
Tom Nelly
University of Florida School of Music, Box 117900, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Fl 32611
[email protected], 352-376-3054
Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study:
UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 3920433
If you are interested please email me directly: [email protected]
Thank you very much,
Tom Nelly
APPENDIX B
SUPPORTING MATERIALS FOR THE STUDY
Directions for Rubric Evaluation
The purpose of this study is to determine the validity of the attached research-based
rubrics for use in assessing undergraduate music compositions (products) by having
experts in the field of composition examine and comment on the rubrics. The rubrics
were designed based on research in music assessment, creativity assessment, music
composition, creativity models, aesthetics, music education, and psychology; research
which reveals an overall construct of music composition. The main categories in the
rubrics include craftsmanship (technical skills), creativity, communication of ideas, and
musicianship. Each contains its own essential sub-categories. Please examine the rubrics
carefully, and on a separate sheet of paper, answer the following questions. If necessary,
you may comment by writing directly on the rubrics. Please remember that you don’t
need to answer any question that you don’t want to. There is no penalty for not
answering.
•
•
•
•
•
Do the rubrics contain the skills and factors necessary for success in undergraduate
composition? In other words, do the rubrics contain the constructs of undergraduate
music composition?
Would you use this type of rubric for university music composition education?
Why or why not?
How effective is the use of the Likert-scale (from 7-1) to quantify assessment
results in these rubrics?
What would you change about, delete from, or add to the rubrics?
Do you have any additional comments (i.e., strengths, drawbacks)?
198
199
Please also fill-in the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Name__________________________
Job Title________________________
Number of years teaching__________
Degree/Major____________________
Current University________________
Are you an active composer? _______
Age ____ Race _____Gender_______
When you are finished, please place all materials in the SASE provided and return
it to me at:
Tom Nelly
725 NE 7th ave
Gainesville, FL
32601
You may also email comments and answers to [email protected].
Thank you very much for your time.
Important Explanations, Definitions, and Clarifications
Recent research has revealed a number of skills and knowledge required for the
ability to compose music. I have organized these constructs into rubrics, which are
designed to help teachers assess their students’ music compositions. A construct is a part
of a model. The overall model includes four main constructs (craftsmanship,
communication of ideas, creativity, and musicianship), each of which is divided into
individual categories. The following is a list of elements and their categories.
•
•
Craftsmanship:
• Technical skills and an awareness of practical considerations:
compositional techniques, general musical skills (rhythm, harmony,
melody, tempo, articulation, balance, instrumental/vocal considerations,
notation), counterpoint, orchestration.
Communication of ideas (a sense of identity, shape, and style):
• Presence, involvement, ability to evoke responsive listening, the ability to
write interesting music, expressiveness, first impression, general
impression, aesthetic value.
200
•
•
Creativity:
• Fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, domain-specific knowledge,
novelty and usefulness.
Musicianship:
• Feeling for design or structure, sensitivity, imagination, unity and variety,
tension and release, development, pacing, cohesion, the ability to choose
good musical materials to work with, musical syntax, expression using
musical elements.
It is understood that music compositions are holistic creations—craftsmanship,
communication of ideas, creativity, and musicianship are integrated and overlap in many
regards. However, these categories have been created in the present study, not to promote
a separation of skills, but to assist educators and students in the teaching and learning
process—sometimes specific aspects of music compositions must be isolated in order to
encourage students to work on specific skills. It is also important to understand that these
rubrics are designed to assess creative musical products, not processes.
Craftsmanship
This rubric is concerned with technical proficiency. Basically, does the student
show an understanding of compositional materials? Do they have the tools that an
undergraduate student is expected to have? The category for Sound Production Media is
concerned with instrumental, vocal, or any other sound production considerations (i.e.
computer, tape, non-traditional instruments or sound sources).
Communication of Ideas
This rubric is concerned with whether or not the student communicated their ideas
effectively and clearly. Assessments using this rubric are concerned with the degree to
which a piece makes an initial impression and a general overall impression on you, and
the degree to which you were interested in and involved with the piece. Also assessed is
the work’s aesthetic value and level of expression.
201
Creativity
This rubric is based on Guilford’s Structure of Intellect Model and Amabile’s
consensual assessment technique. The following are explanations.
•
•
Guilford identified the factors of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration for
measurement of creative responses.
• Fluency: the number of creative responses. A high score in the “fluency”
category would mean that the composition contained many creative
responses.
• Flexibility: the degree to which creative ideas are flexible and shift in
character. For example, a motive can shift in character through
augmentation, diminution, retrograde, inversion, orchestration, etc.
• Originality: the degree of non-conventionality and novelty of products or
responses when compared to other members of the domain from which
they come.
• Elaboration: the degree to which creative ideas are detailed and complex.
When using Amabile’s consensual assessment technique, experts in a specific field
use their own definition of creativity to rate creative products in that field.
Musicianship
This rubric is designed to measure musicianship and sensitivity to musical
elements. It will focus on the ability to make musical judgments, such as the selection of
musical materials (Hickey, 2003), musical syntax (Webster, 1977, 1987a, 1988, 1991;
Webster & Hickey, 1995), large-scale structural decisions such as cohesion, pacing, and
tension and release (Hickey, 2003), and musical sensitivity (Gorder, 1976, 1980).
Sensitivity is concerned with “the depth and quality of feeling captured in the dynamic
form of a work. The absence of sensitivity is betrayed by works in which the obvious
overwhelms the subtle, in which the surface of feeling is offered rather than challenges to
feel more deeply” (Reimer, 1989, p. 136).
202
Other Rubrics: Application of musical materials
The remaining rubrics are concerned how individual musical elements (listed in the
‘Craftsmanship’ rubric) are used creatively, are communicated well, and display
musicianship. Also included is an overall rating of the piece.
Other Considerations
•
•
•
•
The N/A column is used if the category does not apply to the specific composition.
Remember that this study is concerned with undergraduate compositions.
The comments sections at the bottom of the rubrics should be used by teachers to
comment to the students about their work. Included in these comments could be
model works that represent a certain issue relevant to the student’s development, a
detailed description of a certain aspect of the student’s composition, or statements
about the student’s process of composition.
These rubrics are designed to assess creative musical products, not processes.
APPENDIX C
RESPONSES FROM PARTICIPANTS
This appendix contains the literal responses of the professors to the rubrics and the
questionnaire. Some of the participants responded via email, and others via US mail. All
participants shall remain anonymous.
Participant 1
Do the rubrics contain the skills and factors necessary for success in
undergraduate composition? In other words, do the rubrics contain the constructs
of undergraduate music composition? I do believe that the rubrics contain the
constructs of undergraduate composition. I am a bit at a loss to determine how pitch,
melody and rhythm would be considered "technically proficient." As I'm considering
this, I'm wondering if the rubrics lead us toward grading more complicated works higher
than those that are less complex.
Would you use this type of rubric for university music composition education?
Why or why not? Yes, I would try this type of rubric in my teaching. I'm intrigued by
the organization of ideas, and I long for some sort of objective grading practice.
How effective is the use of the Likert-scale (from 7-1) to quantify assessment
results in these rubrics? What would you change about, delete from, or add to the
rubrics? I do agree that a seven-point scale is a good choice (although I understand the
Likert scale to be a five-point scale). In trying the system out on a student composition, I
find the scale to be effective; however, I still find it challenging to determine how
rhythm, pitch, and melody are "technically proficient." I also find "involvement" difficult
203
204
to quantify. "Fluency" in creativity is another challenging rubric to quantify. I do,
however, find the Musicianship rubrics to be very easy to quantify, and very effective in
assessing the quality of the work.
Do you have any additional comments (i.e., strengths, drawbacks)? In the
craftsmanship rubric, the heading "Compositional Technique" seems to incur the same
balance of overall grade as those of rhythm, pitch, melody, articulation, dynamics, etc.
To me, compositional technique is in large part determined by the remainder of the list.
Under "Musicianship," I find that musical syntax and pacing are difficult to distinguish
between. I might consider combining the two.
I'm delighted with your work, Tom, and I'd be happy to put these into practice this
semester and let you know how I do.
Participant 2
Do the rubrics contain the skills and factors necessary for success in
undergraduate composition? In other words, do the rubrics contain the constructs
of undergraduate music composition? Yes, I think the rubrics contain the elements and
skills for undergraduate composition success. The craftsmanship portion is the most
easily judged. The other areas are highly subjective and not all of the elements would be
of the same weight in every composition. The elements of communication and creativity
would have to be more clearly defined in order for them to be of relevance.
Would you use this type of rubric for university music composition education?
Why or why not? I would use this kind of rubric for informal assessment, but for the
reasons stated above, I wouldn't assign grades based on this instrument alone. My
students do want to know why they received any given grade and this instrument or a
similar one, would help to explain the basis for grading.
205
How effective is the use of the Likert-scale (from 7-1) to quantify assessment
results in these rubrics? The Likert scale seems sufficient to quantify the elements.
Again, I might use it informally to rate a composition, but would prefer to couch my
comments in more descriptive language to the student. Such as "the melodic contour is
very strong, but your placement of important harmonic changes weakens its
impact". The Likert scale is broader than A-F but narrower than A-F with + and -.
What would you change about, delete from, or add to the rubrics? I would make it
very clear by what the terms are. i.e. "involvement", "aesthetic value", "originality" etc.
How many occurrences of elaboration are necessary for a high grade? Other questions
like "what was the intent of this piece?" would be useful. Then the grading could be done
in context of the intent.
Do you have any additional comments (i.e., strengths, drawbacks)? I think
that this is an interesting and provocative attempt to create a less subjective method of
composition evaluation and I applaud its intent. Many of my most difficult discussions
have been with students who were unhappy with my grading of their compositions. It
creates a good framework for discussing a compositions strengths and weaknesses.
Perhaps a unique rubric for each individual composition assignment? I guess the teacher
could choose only some of the areas specific to an assignment.
Participant 3
Do the rubrics contain the skills and factors necessary for success in
undergraduate composition? In other words, do the rubrics contain the constructs
of undergraduate music composition? Rubrics for craft and creativity seem most
useful. Musicianship and craft seem to overlap quite a bit, but I think a general reordering of the scale would solve most of the problems.
206
For a diverse group of teachers/students a cross section of the entire scale for craft,
communication, creativity, and musicianship would probably be useful. If by success you
mean that the Rubric allows the teacher to assess the student more objectively, your scale
is robust enough. It is important to allow for a high degree of freedom--some of the terms
are historically loaded. In that sense the "creativity" rubric is the most successful. Think
of how many pieces of the last century would score low on many of the rubric's headings.
Maybe there would be some way of linking pre-composition to this rubric. This seems to
be the primary compositional concern with undergraduates (other than basic technical
concerns)--that they set out to do "something" and end up with "something" that is
entirely different. Charting the ability to "determine and stay the course" seems to me as
important as any of the more determinate rubric headings.
Use of such a scale also depends on the sensitivity of the teacher. Part of what
makes studying composition or art in general interesting is that it is so subjective. Take
the same piece to 5 people and you'll hear 5 entirely different assessments--even if all the
teachers used this rubric. I don't believe that an overall high score on this assessment
would guarantee that the "successful" piece was a "good one."
Would you use this type of rubric for university music composition education?
Why or why not? In general I use a similar scale (less formally) for assignments given in
lessons. I tend to use a grading rubric when a student demonstrates the need for such an
assessment, or for those who are having trouble producing work. The scale given to them
in the form of a "contract" often helps them to develop and manage their work time.
Students who think of themselves as creative may not respond to such criteria well. They
207
tend to be more global and are able to identify their weak points before you point them
out.
How effective is the use of the Likert-scale (from 7-1) to quantify assessment
results in these rubrics? I don't know, I lean towards "successful, needs improvement,
and fails to meet expectations." I tend to be less interested in "scoring/grading" an
assignment than assessing the work as a successful composition by the set of criteria
established for the assignment or pre-composition.
I don't know if a 3 or 4 would be as meaningful unless there were to be some way
to assemble a composite score that could illuminate overall trends and tendency. This
would be useful for guiding further work (with the same or different teacher), developing
assignments that cover important areas (help to determine how successful each
assignment was), and help the student to challenge themselves.
What would you change about, delete from, or add to the rubrics? I would group
the items differently:
•
•
•
Craft/Musicianship
• pitch (material, use)
• rhythm (material, use)
• horizontal (melody/counterpoint)
• vertical (material, use)
• form/proportional balance (cohesion, tension/release, pace, sensitivity,
expression)
• techniques employed
• orchestration (instrumental usage, media)
• notation: (orthography-layout, articulations, dynamics, phrasing)
Creativity (all good-these are the most applicable in all cases)
Communication (your scale is the most "loaded" here) I would leave these out and
leave a portion of the rubric for written assessment where these more subjective
qualities could be more easily addressed.
Do you have any additional comments (i.e., strengths, drawbacks)? The project
is noble and worthy of further development. My general feeling is that the rubric will be
208
most successful in situations where students do not consider themselves
artists/composers, where they want and very need concrete feedback. I want to think
about this more and respond more completely.
Participant 4
Do the rubrics contain the skills and factors necessary for success in
undergraduate composition? In other words, do the rubrics contain the constructs
of undergraduate music composition? I believe that these rubrics do contain, for the
most part, the constructs of music composition in general, including that of
undergraduates. They seem nearly complete in the concepts that they include (I will
suggest additions and subtractions in a later paragraph).
Would you use this type of rubric for university music composition education?
Why or why not? I would use this type of rubric in teaching composition at the
undergraduate level—overall, I think it would be a very effective tool. These rubrics are
not unlike a rubric that I used several times in Iowa to judge a state composition contest
sponsored by the National Federation of Music Clubs. Their rubric (which was not
designed by me) was less involved than these; it included ten categories to which
numerical scores were given as well as space for written comments. It proved quite useful
in communicating ideas about composition to composers of various ages, from first grade
through adult. I would use this type of rubric in college teaching because it is
comprehensive enough and flexible enough to allow an instructor to really communicate
with a student about the strengths and weaknesses of their compositions. It includes
enough concepts and skills to allow the instructor to comment on a variety of aspects, and
the “N/A” column allows the instructor to tailor the rubric as he or she sees fit. The fact
that the rubrics ask for written comments in addition to numerical scores is excellent,
209
because the former will certainly prove more useful to the student than the latter. I
believe rubrics of this sort could prove useful for graduate students as well. We should
keep in mind that with their busy schedules, most composition instructors would
probably not have the time needed to evaluate every composition by every student in this
way; this kind of evaluation would probably need to be limited to one or two pieces per
student per semester.
How effective is the use of the Likert-scale to quantify assessment results in
these rubrics? I believe it is as effective as any other numerical scale or system of
grading would be, but it certainly does not seem special to me in any way. I’m not sure
why the scale runs from 1 to 7 (instead of from 1 to 10 or 1 to 100), but I’m sure there is
a reason that is backed up by some sort of research. Any numerical scale that is used in
this sort of evaluation will be useful to some extent, but of course it will also be rather
subjective—it will not quantify a composition in any exact way (as such quantification
cannot be achieved) but rather communicate in a rough and imprecise fashion the
opinions of one qualified person. We will not be able to learn any more information from
numerical ratings of this sort than we do from traditional grades. However, apart from
written comments, measurements such as grades or numerical ratings are all we have, so
we should use them. I believe that students will still learn the most from the written
comments, which will back up and shed light on the numerical ratings.
What would you change about, delete from, or add to the rubrics? In response
to this question, I will comment on each of the rubrics individually:
Craftsmanship: My general impression is good, although there are a number of
questions and suggestions that I have. First of all, is this rubric concerned only with
210
technical proficiency (as it says) or is it actually concerned with quality and musicality?
After all, one can write technically correct but boring counterpoint, and one can write
idiomatic but colorless music for instruments. If it is only concerned with technical
proficiency, then I believe there needs to be another rubric that will allow the instructor to
comment on the actual level of quality or interest that the student achieved in these areas.
The other rubrics are not specific enough to allow an instructor to do that. Second, this
rubric does not seem to take into account the level and background of the student, but I
believe those things are very important in evaluating compositions. I’ll certainly expect
more out of a senior than a first-year student, and the scores I assign and comments I give
will reflect that. Also, what if I have a student who is a senior non-major with no
compositional experience who is just taking composition for fun? Of course I would
expect less out of that student than I would out of many first-year music majors. If the
rubric could somehow give some space for the instructor to make note of a student’s level
and background, then the scores would mean more, because anyone looking at it would
know about where the bar was set. Of course, this must be done in a way that does not
belittle the student.
In terms of the categories, I have several questions and ideas. “Compositional
Technique” is rather vague—I’m not sure how useful this category will be by itself, it
seems like this whole rubric is about that. Does “pitch material” mean harmony? Why not
just say harmony? Does “sound production media” refer to how idiomatic the writing is?
It seems like there should be a more clear way to express that. I would suggest adding the
following categories: phrasing (or phrase rhythm), harmonic rhythm (this is significant in
many undergraduate works), overall tonal structure (most of the students I work with
211
write some brand of tonal music), texture (I might take out the counterpoint category and
put this in its place), register, and text setting (for vocal works). Also, despite the fact that
allusions are made in later rubrics to both of the following, I might suggest adding
“motivic development” and “organization of pitch material” or “cohesiveness of pitch
material” (in the case of non-tonal works). I believe these are all extremely important
areas—I am constantly aware of them in my own works, and I often talk to my students
about them as well. Finally, for all four of the rubrics that you have created, I would
strongly suggest adding a “miscellaneous” category, to take care of anything that is not
covered by the other categories (such as, for instance, the amount of drama involved in a
piece or the placement of a climactic point). This “miscellaneous” category would also
further allow instructors to tailor the rubrics to specific pieces and students.
Communication of Ideas: This rubric raises some questions for me. What is exactly
is the “Expression of Ideas” category concerned with? Is it really the level of
expressiveness of the work? To me, “expressiveness” suggests something quite different
from “expression of ideas”. The latter would suggest something more like what you’ve
got in the “overall rating” category (whether or not the ideas were clearly
communicated), whereas the former would suggest emotional expressiveness. These two
might be best separated—maybe “expressiveness” might be put in the “musicianship”
rubric instead. Also, I think we should be careful about linking the overall rating for
“communication” with the concept of expressing one’s musical ideas “clearly”. After all,
are there not pieces by master composers that deal only with suggestion rather than the
“clear” expression of musical ideas? What about works that are highly structured but
sound somewhat random (like some of Webern’s works)? Is a clearly stated main motive
212
a requirement for good music? I don’t believe it is. Maybe “clarity” could be a separate
category. I also have questions about “initial impression” vs. “overall impression”. Does
initial impression refer to the first listening of a piece, or the way a piece begins? Does
“overall impression” refer to repeated listening, or to the totality of a work, or both?
Some clarification might prove useful there. Finally, I would probably suggest putting the
“aesthetic value” category somewhere else—it occurs to me that all of these rubrics
together are trying to communicate an opinion about “aesthetic value”, it comes about
from the combined results of all the other categories.
Creativity: I believe this rubric is quite problematic. First of all, is there anything
truly novel anymore? Hasn’t everything been done in music? More importantly, what
value does novelty truly have? The whole idea of novelty is very dangerous in my view. I
believe that musical interest and substance are worth a great deal, but novelty is worth
nothing unless it contributes in some way to the level of musical substance involved. As
you know, we must be very careful not to encourage students to value things that are
supposedly novel and non-conventional for their own sakes, but rather to simply value
music that has substance and depth, regardless of its degree of novelty. Of course, all
good music does show a high level of creativity, but to me, whether or not a piece of
music is “creative” or “imaginative” is a question that deals largely with how interesting,
engaging, or colorful it is in a variety of aspects, and not necessarily with its level of
novelty. Also, an “individual style” or “voice” is of course very important for a
composer, but I usually don’t expect that from most of my undergraduates, as such a
thing takes many years to develop (if I have even developed an individual voice yet, I
know that I didn’t develop it as an undergraduate). Of course, I’m not suggesting that
213
students should not try to write music that is imaginative, interesting, unique and
stylistically non-derivative—indeed they should, and we should hold them to high
standards in that regard. In my view, the categories of “fluency” and “flexibility” are not
useful at all and should be removed. “Flexibility” could be taken care of in “motivic
development”, as I suggested earlier, and can also be commented upon in other parts of
the “craftsmanship” rubric—for instance, if a student’s harmonies lack variety and color
(thus lacking flexibility), that will certainly be reflected in the craftsmanship rubric.
“Elaboration” is an important concept, but seems to me again to be already covered in
other areas—for instance, if a student’s rhythmic ideas are not sufficiently complex, they
will most likely be boring, and that will again be reflected in the first rubric. I believe that
“originality” is extremely important, but depends on how much musical interest the
student infused into the work, and not on novelty or the “number of creative responses”.
Ultimately, “originality” is a very murky word, and I believe we are on extremely
dangerous ground if we are going to try to measure it by counting “creative responses”. I
think that we still need to communicate to the student our opinions about how creative
they have been in a work, and we still must of course urge them to be as creative as
possible, but I don’t think we can really quantify that in this way or break it down into
categories—in the end, it’s largely a judgment call on the part of the instructor, and that
judgment depends in large part on how the student handles the many factors that appear
in the other rubrics, especially those dealing with “craftsmanship” and “musicianship”.
Also, creativity is still relative—I would expect an experienced composer to be much
more creative than a beginner. Furthermore, I believe that creativity can also be
stylistically relative. For instance, it is possible to write a piece that has artistic worth but
214
that is on the whole rather stylistically conventional yet is infused to a limited degree
with certain creative idiosyncrasies that make the music unique and engaging—in other
words, creativity within certain stylistic boundaries. I believe that students should work
toward developing their own voices, but the creation of such conventional works along
the way can be excellent learning experiences and enriching in other ways as well. In the
final analysis, I might suggest retaining the “creativity” rubric, but having it simply
consist of one category: an overall rating of how creative or imaginative the instructor
thinks the piece is (with the knowledge of the relativity of creativity, as I have pointed
out). Because it would be a sort of overall evaluation of the piece, it might be best put at
the end of the group of rubrics. I question whether we can really quantify creativity or
break it down into categories beyond that.
Musicianship: In general, this rubric looks good to me—it allows the instructor to
comment on the ever-important issues of drama and structure and the attempted balance
between the two. Not all pieces of music are intended to have sections that “move
logically from one to another”, and not all works are intended to offer “challenges to feel
more deeply”, but of course in these cases the instructor can use the “N/A” column. Also,
with the addition of a “miscellaneous” category, that will allow the instructor to
communicate about other issues that may arise.
Do you have any additional comments (i.e., strengths, drawbacks)? I think it
would be good to give the instructor a way to provide an overall rating of the piece, like
you have done on the other rubrics that you included in the package. A simple way to do
this would be to simply add up all the scores and take the number of points earned
compared with possible points. Also, as I mentioned before, I might suggest leaving
215
“creativity” and “aesthetic value” until the very end—maybe they could accompany the
overall rating of the piece.
In the end, I think rubrics of this sort will serve their purpose well—they will give
us an effective way to communicate with students. That is really all we should expect of
them—I don’t believe that any competent member of our field would be enchanted into
believing that these sorts of rubrics will make the task of evaluating compositions any
more objective or any less difficult. The end result will still be simply the communication
of the opinion of one qualified individual.
Will the rubrics help us to assign (or at least justify) end-of-the-semester grades to
composition students? Perhaps. However, when I assign semester grades, I take into
account a number of other factors beyond the quality of the student’s music. How much
effort did the student put forth and to what level of consistency did they do that? What is
their skill level and background? How much self-discipline do they have and how much
have they gained through the course of the semester? How much music did they write?
Did they get a piece performed on the concert? How much control over their
compositional process do they have? How much control should I expect them to have?
These are all questions I end up asking myself, and although I sometimes find myself
wishing I could focus solely on the music, in the end I believe these are all important
factors, especially when dealing with undergraduates.
Participant 5
This professor noted the following:
•
•
A discrepancy in terminology: pitch and harmony were both used in the pitch
material category in the Craftsmanship rubric.
Use terms such as 7=always, 4=often, 1=never in the grading scale.
216
•
•
•
•
Technically Proficient should be defined: students should know how to improve
from the term.
Sometimes a piece contains too many novel elements (commenting on the Fluency
category in the Creativity rubric.
A prototype composition should be sent to professors and have them apply the
rubric.
Overall, the rubric has really great potential.
Participant 6
Do the rubrics contain the skills and factors necessary for success in
undergraduate composition? In other words, do the rubrics contain the constructs
of undergraduate music composition? The rubrics do seem fairly comprehensive in
scope.
Would you use this type of rubric for university music composition education?
Why or why not? I think I will try to use something like this in the future.
How effective is the use of the Likert-scale (from 7-1) to quantify assessment
results in these rubrics? I think the Likert scale is as effective as any other (A, B, C, or
4.0, 3.5, etc.).
What would you change about, delete from, or add to the rubrics? The change
I would make would be to distill the rubric to a more manageable size.
Do you have any additional comments (i.e., strengths, drawbacks)? I do like the
idea of a rubric because it allows the instructor to quantify different aspects of a student’s
work in a more (at least seemingly) objective manner. I think the rubric would be
especially effective used in a composition class for non-majors. It gives, in my view, the
students something concrete regarding how well they are doing and, along with the
instructor’s comments, how and where they can improve. It helps demystify composition.
217
The grading of creativity, communication, etc., could easily be seen as the
subjective response of the instructor—one that is the result of his/her personal tastes.
Perhaps having the student describe what they are trying to create, special effects they
were attempting, and any other important aspects of the composition, would not only help
the student define and refine their ideas, but also provide a context for the instructor to
assess the composition. For instance, I might think that a student had made a grievous
mistake putting a wonderful, lyrical melody in the upper tessitura of the E-flat clarinet,
doubled by the piccolo a step above, and by the oboe a tritone below. However, it might
be creative and communicative if the context was that they were writing a horrendous
sound to accomplish some compositional goal.
There is always a tension between being comprehensive and cumbersome. All of
the items in the rubric are important, however in the context of a single assignment or
composition I would prefer to combine some of the aspects. The Other Rubrics:
Application of musical materials seems to assess the fundamental issues fairly well. I
agree that, for instance, the Creativity rubric does go into details that the Mark the degree
to which the following musical elements are used creatively rubric, however I suggest
that those elements of the former are inferred by the latter. I would consider using the
entire rubric in the context of a committee reviewing student portfolios of several
compositions. In that instance, I think the additional detail would be useful in assessing
the overall skills and creativity of a student as represented in a variety of compositions.
I use rubrics in my orchestration class and to grade an analysis term paper in my
theory class. I find them extremely helpful in getting through the task of grading and the
students seem to use the rubrics when doing their assignments. It takes the mystery of
218
what I’m looking for in an assignment—let me emphasize at this point that there should
be no mystery because I pass out a sheet listing everything that I expect and we also do
assignments using the exact format, etc., however, even though I am redundantly clear, it
doesn’t really click until they look at the form I use to grade.
Participant 7
Do the rubrics contain the skills and factors necessary for success in
undergraduate composition? In other words, do the rubrics contain the constructs
of undergraduate music composition? The rubrics are quite detailed, and would give
students and teachers a lot to think about—one might want to emphasize only some of
them at a given lesson. Assuming one were trying to address many of the rubrics for
formal evaluation purposes, the level of detail and number of items might pose excessive
demands on an instructor, particularly if one were trying to give a grade for each
individual lesson. On the other hand the rubrics provide a comprehensive pool of
elements that an instructor could use in specifying selected instructional objectives or
outcomes.
I like the use of “model works” in the comment section. I’ve found one of the most
frustrating aspects of teaching undergraduate composition is that the majority of the
students lack exposure to most Classical “standard repertoire,” let alone pre-1600 or
post-tonal repertoires.
Would you use this type of rubric for university music composition education?
Why or why not? I’ve taught an introductory undergraduate composition class of 6-7
students which included music performance majors (two of whom later changed their
majors to composition) as well as a couple of non-majors. In such a class, I think these
219
rubrics would not have been useful because the students for the most part did not have the
background to understand the criteria.
As far as individual lessons, I have not usually relied on documentation beyond a
syllabus that outlines rather general expectations. I’ve talked with some applied music
colleagues who take notes on each student’s lesson as a basis for grading, and that’s
something I should probably do if I teach lessons in the future. Realistically, it would be
an effort for me to use these rubrics because they have so many items. It might be more
practical to go over the rubrics with each student and let him or her decide on particular
areas on which to focus for learning and evaluation.
The four rubrics preceding “Other” ask for evaluation of 27 items, not counting the
overall assessment within each category. If one spent 10-15 seconds considering each
item rating, a complete evaluation would require from 4½ to almost 7 minutes.)
A “global” question: In the literature on teaching evaluation procedures, there is a
lot of emphasis on the need to make a clear distinction between “formative” evaluation
(done to faciltate improvement) and “summative” evaluation (for purposes of promotion,
tenure, salary determination). In evaluating students professors tend to conflate these
purposes (learning and grading). One way to approach the rubrics might be to use some
for formative evaluation and others for summative.
How effective is the use of the Likert-scale (from 7-1) to quantify assessment
results in these rubrics? A 5-1 scale would be easier to use, and could be converted
relatively easily into the standard A/B/C/D/F undergraduate course grading, if one
wanted to go that far. Practically speaking, I would be unlikely to “quantify assessment
results” to the level of detail represented either by the substantive items in the rubrics.
220
What would you change about, delete from, or add to the rubrics? Under
Notation I would make it explicit that students must write their music by hand (I put a
statement to this effect in the syllabus. Once the piece is complete then it can be put into
Finale, Sibelius or whatever notation software the student wants to use. It’s important for
notational and aural skills that students do not become dependent on composing acoustic
music with notation software and MIDI playback.
Under “Craftsmanship” one might address text setting in vocal/choral
composition, e.g., the coordination of musical accents with text accentuation.
It seems particularly difficult to separate musicianship and creativity: issues
regarding treatment of material such as “development” and “elaboration” could fall under
either rubric. I tend to think of musicianship as having more to do with basic skills, but
that is perhaps due to the use of the term in most schools in connection primarily if not
exclusively with lower-division undergraduate ear-training and sight-singing curricula.
It’s worth noting that “advanced musicianship” hardly exists as an instructional category
in upper-level undergraduate music curricula, where, in my experience, one can no longer
count on students necessarily having taken any given course such as counterpoint (modal,
tonal, or what have you), orchestration, or “form & analysis.”
In terms of issues such as feeling for design or structure, particularly how a given
small-scale idea (such as a motive, theme, melodic line, or chord progressions) fits into a
particular context, the notion of “function” is very useful. (In the realm of tonal analysis
this idea has been elaborated theoretically by William Caplin in his work on the analysis
of late 18th century music, particularly in Classical Form [OUP]).
221
The issue of “craftsmanship” as regards rhythm seems a little problematic, beyond
the basic notational issues: the issue might be better framed in terms of syntax or
function. Rhythm presents difficult problems—think of the relatively far greater
emphasis on pitch relationship in music theory. I’ve had to grapple with the difficulty of
rationalizing rhythmic features in teaching Renaissance or Baroque counterpoint.
The rubrics for “Creativity” would be better suited for graduate composition
lessons given the emphasis on novelty, originality, and complexity. A rubric such as “The
piece is non-conventional, novel, and imaginative in many aspects and shows an
individual style” is not one on which I would place a great deal of weight in
undergraduate instruction: most undergraduate composition students are not well-enough
acquainted with the repertoire to have a valid notion of what is really “original” or
“conventional” means, and such terms are debatable anyway, especially given the
“postmodern” emphasis (which I personally don’t subscribe to) on stylistic borrowing,
eclecticism, and the like.
Under “Elaboration” I would change the rubric “Musical ideas are appropriately
detailed and complex” to something addressing the relationship of motivic/thematic
process and formal context, such as “The musical ideas are appropriately presented,
liquidated, elaborated, or developed.”
Under “Other Rubrics,” there is a high level of ambiguity involved in evaluating
whether musical elements are used “musically” or “creatively.” In my modal or tonal
counterpoint classes (which involve primarily music writing) I’ve had occasion more
than once to tell students half-jokingly that they should avoid “getting creative” because
222
they are supposed to be writing within a well-established and circumscribed set of
syntactical restrictions.
Participant 8
Do the rubrics contain the skills and factors necessary for success in
undergraduate composition? In other words, do the rubrics contain the constructs
of undergraduate music composition? I agree that the rubrics contain the constructs of
music composition. And then some...
Would you use this type of rubric for university music composition education?
Why or why not? I currently use a type of rubric similar to yours but with a little less
detail. I also use a numbering system based on a total point value of 100 (I’ll address this
more a little later). I have the same four general categories you have and most of the subheadings.
How effective is the use of the Likert-scale (from 7-1) to quantify assessment
results in these rubrics? I think the Likert scale is fine. Frankly, I don’t know enough
about it to be critical one way or the other. I use a weighted scale which I will discuss in
the last question.
What would you change about, delete from, or add to the rubrics? Some of the
wording on the rubrics bothers me a little. “The rhythm is technically proficient” just
seems like a strange way to say it. But that’s a minor thing. I’m more concerned about...
Objective vs. subjective statements. On my rubrics I heavily weight the easily
quantifiable items. For example: understanding instrument ranges and abilities is fairly
easy to assess. I can clearly remark that an instrument is capable or incapable of playing
certain pitches. Items such as notation, general appearance, and appropriate length
(predetermined) get a higher percentage than more subjective items.
223
“The piece made a positive/negative initial impression”? Hell, the first time I heard
a Mahler symphony, well, I don’t want to tell you my impression. “Interest”? Wow, I
have a hard time with that. For example, I personally like Minimalistic music but I know
many fine musicians that completely understand the concept and point of this style and
still don’t find it of any interest. I understand the intent of the rubric but it’s too
subjective and even though I include it on the rubric I use, it is weighted much less
heavily. And of course I understand that a simple N/A would solve some of the problems
but I’d rather have a rubric that has fewer possibilities of that.
Participant 9
Do the rubrics contain the skills and factors necessary for success in
undergraduate composition? In other words, do the rubrics contain the constructs
of undergraduate music composition? The rubrics do not contain the skills for success
in undergraduate composition, they actually suggest extensive elements that need to be
addressed by a student. They can be used as guidelines by a composition teacher to give
very specific feedback to a student that would seem more objective and tangible when
itemized.
Would you use this type of rubric for university music composition education?
Why or why not? I feel the rubrics presented may be useful for undergraduate students
in the evaluation of their work. I also feel that this sort of evaluation should be done by
students on established works (by such composers as Boulez, Ligeti, Crumb, Stravinsky,
etc.) to see how a ‘rubric’s score’ may or may not be indicative of a good composition or
certain elements of the evaluation are really not applicable and not necessary for a good
composition.
224
How effective is the use of the Likert-scale (from 7-1) to quantify assessment
results in these rubrics? I’m not a psychologist or an education theorist to assess the
Likert scale as an authority, but my layperson’s opinion is that when there are more
choices available the answers become less clear. Somehow 5 levels would seem
sufficient plus the n/a category.
What would you change about, delete from, or add to the rubrics?
Craftsmanship section: he piece displays a deep understanding of the compositional
techniques used.”—I find this too one-sided. It is not only the understanding of the
techniques used, but the techniques selected in terms of its appropriateness or relevance
in conveying/realizing the initial impulse or raison d’etre of the work.
Craftsmanship section & final “Other Rubrics” section: don’t like the use of the
term “technically proficient.” It is not specific enough. In the final page you have
OTHER RUBRICS for creativity, musicality and communication. I think the creativity
and musicality sections here are very clear whereas the sections on the craftsmanship
section seem like busy and unnecessary textbook banter—an over-classification for music
education analysis versus actual composers.
Since this is for undergraduates (obviously ranging from the very beginning to the
more advanced composers) the forms become too convoluted and may hinder actual
composing. (I’m assuming that the students are privy to these rubrics as feedback from
the teacher.)
Creativity section: The “fluency” point’s description doesn’t make sense to me.
“The piece contains many different novel and appropriate elements.” The terms
225
‘different, novel, and appropriate’ don’t really have anything to do with each other and
may be contradictory.
Musicianship section: This section, along with the final page with other rubrics, is
the most useful sections, the most user-friendly.
Other Rubrics section: The third section “...communicated well” seems to be the
technically proficient idea that comes from the first section. Could these sections be
combined? There seems to be too much repetition of the same question under a different
heading making ‘busy’ work rather than a helpful critique.
Participant 10
The rubrics are very detailed/thorough, and cover important aspects of
compositional effectiveness. However, the set of rubrics as a whole are perhaps too
thorough. It would be needlessly time consuming to fill out all of the rubrics for every
piece. Similarly, the 1-7 scale seems unnecessarily nit-picky. Perhaps 1-5 or even 1-3 is
sufficient.
The biggest drawback to the whole notion of using rubrics to evaluate composition
is that real creative work doesn’t always fit rubrics, and creativity/effectiveness can’t be
easily quantified some great pieces emphasize one parameter/rubric over others—they
might get a low score, but still be effective artistic statements. The melody of
Beethoven’s 5th 1st movement isn’t stellar as a melody, but the piece is not about melody.
Ravel’s Bolero has lousy form, but that’s what makes it effective. Philip Glass has no
counterpoint, but that’s not important to his style.
Thus, I think the rubrics you’ve provided give teachers a good list of possible
things to evaluate (comment on) about a piece, but I think they’d be better presented as a
list to generate open-ended comments, rather than as a series of scaled scores.
226
Some of the rubrics seem vague/unclear to me:
•
•
•
How is a piece “involving”?
How does one quantify “aesthetic value”?
Does a piece of music really “communicate ideas”?
Sure, we do use terms like this in spoken conversations about music, but they seem
awkward when printed and then evaluated on a scale.
The last set of “other rubrics” merely cross references the craft rubrics with other
applications. This seems redundant and really doesn’t offer any additional insight into a
piece.
Participant 11
Comments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Much value here!
‘Craftsmanship’ rubric: The word ‘form’ implies pre-existing forms—sonata, rondo
etc. Consider using the word ‘shape’ instead. ‘Technically proficient’ bothers me
too. Articulations may be well chosen, practical, sometimes even expressive.
‘Communication of Ideas’ rubric: Doesn’t this word (Aesthetic) cover almost
everything?
‘Creativity’ rubric: I think you are looking at the ‘generative process’ here, as I
define it in Comprehensive Musical Analysis, pp. 22-24. Rethink this section.
‘Musicianship’ rubric: Contrast? Consonance and dissonance? (referring to the use
of the terms Tension & Release).
‘Other rubrics’: See also Theories of Musical Texture in Western History (by me,
Garland Publishing, 1995), especially chapter 18. Timbre, texture, and dynamics
comprise this element of musical sound. See chapter 10 in my Comprehensive
Musical Analysis.
Participant 12
First, let me make an “overview comment,” if I may. I am glad to see these rubrics
suggested in some kind of organized format. You list a number of items, directly
appropriate to teaching composition, that have not been, to my knowledge at least,
heretofore set forth in such a manner. By its nature the subject is highly subjective and
dependent upon so many constantly fluctuating factors from one student to the next and
227
one piece to the next, that it is difficult to nail anything down concretely. Perspectives
will change from work to work as students mature and learn. Over time other teachers
most likely will add to and/or make changes to your procedures, but that is good and
should be encouraged as the field itself changes. With these ‘rubrics’ your input is
valuable, in my opinion.
As to the questions listed on page one of the “directions”, I would note the
following:
Do the rubrics contain the skills and factors necessary for success in
undergraduate composition? In other words, do the rubrics contain the constructs
of undergraduate music composition? The rubrics do list the “constructs” (your word)
of undergraduate music composition. In all cases I would probably require a certain
flexibility in applying them, dependent upon the student’s level of ability, age, maturity
(both personal and as a composer), background in areas such as music theory as well as
composition, knowledge of music history, etc.
Would you use this type of rubric for university music composition education?
Why or why not? Yes, I would use this type of rubric, though with flexibility dependent
upon factors such as those mentioned in item number one.
How effective is the use of the Likert-scale (from 7-1) to quantify assessment
results in these rubrics? The “Likert-scale” I would find applicable only to certain of
the areas listed not to all. Areas such as “Compositional Technique,” a student’s
knowledge of and application of orchestrational devices and “expanded techniques”
(again your term)—whatever those may be—and general “craftsmanship” possibly could
be considered too subjective to be appropriate for the application of a numerical scale,
228
per se. I have mentioned here only items from the first page. Other subject-areas on some
of the other pages also might be considered too subjective for a strict numerical
evaluation (for example: “interest;” “involvement;” “impression;” “creativity;”
“effectiveness;” and “musicianship”). A numerical mark on a student’s paper would
suggest, to me, something much more “concrete” and inflexible than I might want to
indicate, regarding the various factors listed here.
What would you change about, delete from, or add to the rubrics? I might
change the rubrics, as now listed, to reflect those items that could be marked more
directly, then include the items itemized in number three, above, under a “general
comments” category, for example. It would take more time, of course, but would give the
student composer the advantage of a) having the master teacher’s comments (in addition
to the numerical indications of the other areas of the rubrics), and b) knowing the “mindset” of the master teacher at the time the comments were made. I think that would be very
valuable to the student. It would also give the master teacher the opportunity to look over
(and reflect upon) the comments made, as they appear in writing, before giving them to
the student (and also, then, to observe the student’s reaction to the comments, once
received).
Do you have any additional comments (i.e., strengths, drawbacks)? Sometimes
seeing something in written-out form makes a much more “direct” impression on one
than might either be wanted, or otherwise implied. Whether a student is to be encouraged
or discouraged to continue composing (at increasingly expanded levels) there are humane
ways of doing that, that strict, numerical evaluations might not express as well as written
commentary and, of course, discussion.
229
In making my comments, one pre-supposes the student in question is a
“composition major.” We must also consider those students who might be taking
composition as a subject simply to be explored for whatever reasons during his/her
college career. I think it is very advisable, for example, for all music students
(majors/minors) to take composition at some point, simply to expose them to the
disciplines a composer uses in creating new works, including a bit about music
publishing, copyrights, licensing, and other attendant “music business” matters.
APPENDIX D
ASSESSMENT RUBRICS
Craftsmanship:
Technical proficiency
Compositional
Technique
Rhythm
Pitch Material
Melody
Dynamics
Articulations:
(i.e. accents, staccato)
Timbre:
Orchestration and
expanded techniques
Form
Sound Production
Media
Notation
Counterpoint
Craftsmanship:
Overall Rating
7=high
6 5 4 3 2
1=low
The piece displays a
deep understanding of
the compositional
techniques used.
The rhythm is
technically proficient.
The pitch material is
technically proficient.
The melody is
technically proficient.
Dynamics are
technically proficient.
Articulations are
technically proficient.
The piece displays no
understanding of the
compositional techniques
used.
The rhythm is not
technically proficient.
The harmony is not
technically proficient.
The melody is not
technically proficient.
The dynamics are not
technically proficient.
The articulations are not
technically proficient.
The timbre is
technically proficient.
The timbre is not
technically proficient.
The form is clear and
is technically
proficient.
The writing shows
effective use of
selected media.
The notation is clear,
appropriate, and easy
to read.
The counterpoint is
technically proficient.
The form is neither clear
nor technically proficient.
The writing does not show
effective use of selected
media.
The notation is
inappropriate and difficult
to understand.
The writing does not show
an understanding of
counterpoint.
The piece shows a low level
of craftsmanship.
The piece shows a
high level of
craftsmanship.
Comments:
Please include details and/or model works in your comments.
230
N/A
Score
231
Communication
of Ideas
Initial Impression
Interest
Involvement
Expression of Ideas
Aesthetic Value
General Impression
Communication:
Overall Rating
7=high
6
5
4
3
2
The piece made a
positive initial
impression.
The piece is very
interesting.
The piece is highly
involving.
The piece is highly
expressive.
The piece has a
high aesthetic
value.
The piece made a
positive overall
impression on me.
The ideas in the
piece were clearly
communicated.
1=low
N/A
Score
N/A
Score
The piece made a
negative initial
impression.
The piece is not
interesting.
The piece is not
involving.
The piece is not
expressive.
The piece has no
aesthetic value.
I am not
impressed by the
piece.
The ideas in the
piece were not
clearly
communicated.
Comments:
Please include details and/or model works in your comments.
Creativity:
7=high
6
5
4
3
2
1=low
The degree of
novelty and
appropriateness.
Originality
Fluency
Flexibility
Elaboration
Creativity:
Overall Rating
The piece is nonconventional, novel,
and imaginative in
many aspects and
shows an individual
style.
The piece contains
many different novel
and appropriate
elements.
The musical ideas are
used flexibly and
shift in character.
Musical ideas are
appropriately
detailed and complex.
The piece is highly
creative.
Comments:
Please include details and/or model works in your comments.
The piece is
conventional and
unimaginative.
The piece contains
no novel and
appropriate
elements.
The musical ideas
are one-sided.
Musical ideas are
neither
appropriately
detailed nor
complex.
The piece shows a
low degree of
creativity.
232
Musicianship:
7=high
6
5
4
3
2
1=low
The ability to make
musical judgments and
be musically sensitive.
Cohesion
Tension & Release
Musical Materials
Pacing
Musical Syntax
Sensitivity
Musicianship:
Overall Rating
Musical ideas were
combined to form
a unified whole.
Tension and
release was
effective and highly
musical.
The musical
materials used
were selected well
and were
extremely effective
and appropriate to
the context.
The pacing was
extremely musical
and expressive.
The piece
displayed a high
level of syntactic
logic: individual
parts, sections,
motives, dynamics,
articulations, and
timbres (etc.)
moved logically
and musically from
one to another.
The piece
displayed a high
level of sensitivity
to musical
elements.
The piece displays
a high level of
musicianship.
Comments:
Please include details and/or model works in your comments.
The piece did not
contain a unified
structure.
Tension and
release was not
used effectively.
The piece did not
display a good
choice in musical
materials.
The pacing was
not musically
effective.
The piece did not
display syntactic
logic.
The piece did not
display musical
sensitivity.
The piece displays
a low level of
musicianship.
N/A
Score
233
Other Rubrics: Application of musical materials
Mark the degree to which the following musical elements are used creatively.
7=high
6
5
4
3
2
1=low
N/A
Rhythm
Pitch
Melody
Dynamics
Articulations
Timbre
Form
Sound
Production
Media
Notation
Counterpoint
Mark the degree to which the following musical elements are used musically.
7=high
6
5
4
3
2
1=low
N/A
Rhythm
Pitch
Melody
Dynamics
Articulations
Timbre
Form
Sound
Production
Media
Notation
Counterpoint
Mark the degree to which the following musical elements were communicated well.
7=high
6
5
4
3
2
1=low
N/A
Rhythm
Pitch
Melody
Dynamics
Articulations
Timbre
Form
Sound
Production
Media
Notation
Counterpoint
What is your overall rating of the piece?
7=high
6
5
4
3
2
1=low
APPENDIX E
REVISED RUBRIC BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Select from the following list of musical elements and enter those that you wish to
assess into the assessment rubrics. Follow by filling out the rubrics.
Craftsmanship
Compositional Technique (use of)
Selection of Compositional Technique (was the proper technique selected based on the
situation)
Rhythm
Pitch Material
Melody
Dynamics
Phrasing
Harmonic Rhythm
Overall Tonal Structure
Register
Text Setting
Articulations (i.e. accents, staccato)
Timbre (Orchestration and expanded techniques)
Shape (form implies pre-existing forms)
Sound Production Media (i.e. idiomatic writing)
Notation
Appearance
Texture (i.e. counterpoint, homophony, pointillism)
Overall Craftsmanship
Quality of work
Communication of Ideas
Initial Impression (after first hearing)
General Impression (after reflection)
Involvement
Expression of Ideas (were ideas expressed?—not expressiveness)
Interest
Overall Communication of Ideas
Overall Aesthetic Value
234
235
Creativity
Originality
Fluency (many novel and appropriate elements)
Flexibility (ideas shift in character)
Elaboration (detail and complexity)
Motivic Development
Overall Creativity
Musicianship
Cohesion
Tension & Release
Consonance & Dissonance
Contrast
Musical Materials Selected
Pacing
Musical Syntax (movement from one idea to another)
Sensitivity to Musical Elements
Function
Appropriate Length
Overall Musicianship
Global Issues
Miscellaneous issues
Subjective comments
Intent of the piece
Pre-composition
Student Level
Student Background
Appearance of score
Effort
Consistency
Self-discipline
The amount of music written
Performances
The amount of control the student had
236
Summative Assessment
Student Name_________________________ Name of Instructor__________________
Student Level________________
Name of Piece_________________________
Date__________
Student Background:
Category from
List
Criteria, comments, explanations
Possible
Score
Totals: _______
Score
_______
Total Score______
Total Possible Score________
Total Score / Total Possible Score x 100 = Percentile Grade________________
237
Formative Assessment: (Written Comments)
Student Name_________________________ Name of Instructor__________________
Student Level________________
Name of Piece_________________________
Date__________
Student Background:
Select categories from the list and write detailed comments in the boxes provided. Please
include measure numbers, page numbers, and model works. Use extra forms if necessary.
Category
Comments:
LIST OF REFERENCES
Abbs, P. (1987). Living Powers: The Arts in Education. London: Falmer Press.
Amabile, T.M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 221-233.
Amabile, T.M. (1982a). Children’s artistic creativity: Detrimental effects of competition
in a field setting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 573-578.
Amabile, T.M. (1982b). Social Psychology of Creativity: A consensual assessment
technique. Joural of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013.
Amabile, T.M. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York, Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T.M. & Gitomer, J. (1984). Children’s artistic creativity: Effects of choice in
task materials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(2), 209-215.
Amabile, T., Goldfarb, B. & Brackfield, S. (1990). Social influences on creativity:
Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 6-21.
Asmus, E.P., & Radocy, R.E. (1992). Quantitative Analysis. In R. Colwell (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning: A Project of the Music
Educators National Conference (pp. 141-183). New York: Schirmer Books.
Baltzer, S. (1988). A validation study of a measure of musical creativity. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 36(4), 232-249.
Bangs, R.L. (1992). An application of Amabile’s model of creativity to music
instruction: A comparison of motivational strategies. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Miami, Florida.
Barnard, S.S. (1993). Interior design creativity: The development and testing of a
methodology for the consensual assessment of projects. (Doctoral dissertation,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 53(8), 2780A.
Barron, F. (1955). The disposition toward originality. Journal of Abnormal And Social
Psychology, 51, 478-485.
238
239
Barron, F. (1969). Creative Person and Creative Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Baumgarten, M.D. (1994). The effects of constraint on creative performance. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 57(7), 1997.
Best, D. (1985). Feeling and Reason in the Arts. London: Allen & Unwin.
Bloch, E. (1933). Man and Music. Musical Quarterly, 19(4), 374-381.
Bloomberg, M. (Ed.). (1973). Creativity: Theory and Research. New Haven: College &
University Press.
Boardman, E. (ed.). (1989). Dimensions of Musical Thinking. Reston, VA: Music
Educators National Confernce.
Boyle, J.D. & Radocy, R.E. (1987). Measurement and Evaluation of Musical
Experiences. New York: Schirmer.
Brinkman, D.J. (1999). Problem finding, creativity style, and musical compositions
of high school students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33(1), 62-68.
Brophy, T.S. (1999). The melodic improvisations of children ages six through twelve: A
developmental perspective. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, 1998).
Dissertations Abstracts International, 59(9), 3998.
Brophy, T.S. (2000). Assessing the Developing Child Musician: A Guide for General
Music Teachers. Chicago: GIA Publications.
Brown, R.T. (1989). Creativity. What are we to measure? In J.A. Glover, R.R. Ronning,
and C.R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 3-32). New York: Plenum
Press.
Bruner, J. (1962). The conditions of creativity. In H. Gruber, G. Terrell, and M.
Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking (pp. 1-30).
New York: Atherton Press.
Bunting, R. (1987). Composing music: Case studies in the teaching and learning process.
British Journal of Music Education, 4(1), 25-52.
Burnard, P. (1995). Task design and experience in composition. Research Studies in
Music Education, 5, 32-46.
240
Christensen, C.B. (1992). Music composition, invented notation and reflection: Tools for
music learning and assessment. (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, New
Jersey, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(06), 1834A.
Cohen, V.W. (1981). The emergence of musical gestures in kindergarten children.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1980).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, A4637.
Collins, M.A., & Amabile, T.M. (1999). Motivation and Creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of Creativity (pp. 297-312). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Colwell, R. (1968). Music Achievement Tests. Chicago: Follett Educational Corporation.
Colwell, R. (2002). Assessment’s potential in music education. In R. Colwell and C.
Richardson (Eds.), The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and
Learning—A Project of the Music Educators National Conference (pp. 11281158). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Condry, J. (1977). Enemies of exploration: Self-initiated versus other-initiated learning.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 459-477.
Conti, R., Coon, H., & Amabile, T.M. (1996). Evidence to support the componential
model of creativity: Secondary analysis of three studies. Creativity Research
Journal, 9(4), 385-389.
Cope, D. (1977). New Music Composition. New York: Schirmer.
Cope, D. (1997). Techniques of the Contemporary Composer. New York: Schirmer.
Copland, A. (1952). Music and Imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Crutchfield, R. (1962). Conformity and creative thinking. In H. Gruber (Ed.),
Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking (pp. 120-140). New York:
Atherton.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A system view of creativity.
In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity (pp. 325-339), New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990a). The domain of creativity. In M. Runco and S. Albert
(Eds.), Theories of Creativity (pp. 190-214). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990b). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York:
Harper & Rowe.
241
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and
Invention. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Custodero, L.A. (1996). Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow in young children’s musical
learning experiences. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society
for Music Education’s Early Childhood Seminar, Winchester, England.
Custodero, L.A. (1997). An observational study of flow experience in young children’s
music learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles.
Daignault, L. (1997). Children’s creative musical thinking within a context of a
computer-supported improvisational approach to composition. (Doctoral
dissertation, Northwestern University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 57, 4681A.
Deci, E. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105-115.
Delorenzo, L. (1989). A field study of sixth-grade students’ creative music problemsolving processes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37(3), 188-200.
Deutsch, D. (2000, September). New directions in the school composition program.
Paper presented at the conference New Directions in Music Education: Teaching
Composition and Improvisation, East Lansing, MI.
Diener, C., & Dweck, C. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous
changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 451-462.
Dillon, J.T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16(2),
97-111.
Elliot, D. (1995). Music Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Engel, B. (1996). Learning to look: Appreciating child art. Young Children, 51(3), 74-79.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton.
Gardner, H. (1982). Art, Mind, and Brain. A Cognitive Approach to Creativity. New
York: Basic Books, Inc.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
242
Gardner, H. (1993a). Creating Minds: An Anatomy of Creativity Seen Through the Eyes
of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993b). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic
Books.
Geminiani, F. (1953). The Art of Playing on the Violin. London: Oxford University Press.
(Original work published in 1751).
Getzels, J. (1964). Creative thinking, problem solving, and instruction. In E.R. Hilgard
(Ed.), Theories of Learning and Instruction (pp. 240-276). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Getzels, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The Creative Vision: A Longitudinal Study of
Problem Finding in Art. New York: John Wiley.
Goehr, L., & Bowie, A. (2001). Philosophy of music, III, 1: Aesthetics, 1750-2000: The
rise of aesthetics. In S. Sadie (Ed.), The New Grove Dictionary of Music and
Musicians. London: MacMillan.
Gorder, W. (1976). An investigation of divergent production abilities as constructs of
musical creativity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.
Gorder, W. (1980). Divergent production abilities as constructs of musical creativity.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 28(1), 34-42.
Gordon, E. (1965). Music Aptitude Profile. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Gordon, E. (1979). Primary Measures of Music Audiation. Chicago: GIA Publications.
Gordon, E. (1982). Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation. Chicago: GIA
Publications.
Greenhoe, M. (1972). Parameters of creativity in music education: An exploratory study.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
Gruber, H. (1996). [Review of the book Creating Minds: An anatomy of creativity seen
through the eyes of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and
Gandhi]. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30(3), 213-228.
Gruber, H., & Davis, S. (1988). Inching our way up Mount Olympus: The evolving
systems approach to creative thinking. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of
Creativity (pp. 243-270). New York: Cambridge University Press.
243
Gruber, H., & Wallace, D. (1999). The case study method and Evolving Systems
approach for understanding unique creative people at work. In R. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of Creativity (pp. 93-115). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Guilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
Guilford, J.P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267-293.
Guilford, J.P. (1957a). A revised structure of intellect. Report of the Psychological
Laboratory, University of Southern California, No. 19.
Guilford, J.P. (1957b). Creative abilities in the arts. Psychological Review 64, 110-118.
Guilford, J.P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its
Cultivation. New York: Harper.
Guilford, J.P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J.P., Merrifield, P.R., & Wilson, R.C. (1958). Unusual Uses Test. Orange, CA:
Sheridan Psychological Services.
Gurney, E. (1880). The Power of Sound. London: Smith, Elder.
Halpern, D.F. (1994). Changing College Classrooms: New Teaching and Learning
Strategies for an Increasingly Complex World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Hanslick, E. (1855). The Beautiful in Music. 7th ed. English trans. G. Cohen, ed. M Weitz
(New York, 1957).
Hassler, M., & Feil, A. (1986). A study of the relationship of composition/improvisation
to selected personal variables. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music
Education, 87, 26-34.
Hennessey, B.A., & Amabile, T.M. (1988). Story-telling: A method for assessing
children’s creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 22(4), 235-246.
Henschel, G. (1978). Personal Recollections of Johannes Brahms. New York: AMS
Press. (Original work published in 1907).
Hickey, M. (1995). Qualitative and quantitative relationships between children’s
creative musical thinking processes and products. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Hickey, M. (1999). Assessment rubrics for music composition. Music Educators Journal,
January, 27-33, 52.
244
Hickey, M. (2000). The use of consensual assessment in the evaluation of children’s
music compositions. In C. Woods, G. Luck, R. Brochard, F. Seddon, & J.A.
Sloboda (Eds.), Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on Music
Perception and Cognition. Keel, UK, August, 2000.
Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique for
rating the creativity of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in
Music Education 49(3), 234-244.
Hickey, M. (2002). Creativity research in music, visual art, theatre, and dance. In R.
Colwell and C. Richardson (Eds.), The New Handbook of Research on Music
Teaching and Learning—A Project of the Music Educators National Conference,
(pp. 398-415). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hickey, M. (Ed.). (2003). Why and How to Teach Music Composition: A New Horizon
for Music Education. Reston, VA: MENC.
Hickey, M., & Leon-Guerrero, A. (2000, November). A Collaborative Internet Music
Composition Project: Lessons Learned from a Two-Year Study. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Association for Technology in Music Instruction,
Toronto, Canada.
Hickey, M., & Reese, S. (2001). The development of a rating scale for judging
constructive feedback for student compositions. Journal of Technology in Music
Learning, 1(1), 10-19.
Hindemith, P. (1942). The Craft of Musical Composition. London: Schott.
Hindemith, P. (1952). A Composers World: Horizons and Limitations. Cambridge, MA.
House, E.R. (1994). Integrating the quantitative and qualitative. In C. Reichardt & S.
Rallis (Eds.), New Directions for Program Evaluation: Vol. 61. The qualitative—
quantitative debate: New Perspectives (pp. 13-22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson-Laird, P. (1988). Freedom and constraint in creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The
Nature of Creativity (pp. 202-219). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kostka, S. (1990). Materials and Techniques of Twentieth-Century Music. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kratus, J. (1991). Characterization of the compositional strategies used by children to
compose a melody. Canadian Journal of Research in Music Education, 33, 95103.
245
Kratus, J. (1994). Relationships among children’s music audiation and their
compositional processes and products. Journal of Research in Music Education,
42(2), 115-130.
Lawrence, I. (1978). Composers and the Nature of Music Composition. London: Scholar
Press.
Mayer, R.E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook
of Creativity (pp. 449-460). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McCutchan, A. (1999). The Muse That Sings: Composers speak about the creative
process. New York: Oxford University Press.
Michael, W.B., & Wright, C.R. (1989). Psychometric issues in the assessment of
creativity. In J.A. Glover, R.R. Ronning, and C.R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of
Creativity (pp. 33-52). New York: Plenum Press.
Moore, B.R. (1990). The relationship between curriculum and learner: Music
composition and learning style. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38(1),
24-38.
Moorehead, G.E., & Pond, D. (1978). Music of Young Children. Santa Barbara, CA:
Pillsbury Foundation for Advancement of Music Education. (Original work
published in 1941).
National Association of Schools of Music (NASM). (2001). National Association of
Schools of Music: 2001-2002 handbook. National Association of Schools of
Music.
Palmer, K. (1968). Introduction to Music Composition. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
Perkins, D.N. (1988). The possibility of invention. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of
Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives (pp. 362-385). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Persichetti, V. (1961). Twentieth-Century Harmony: Creative Aspects and Practice. New
York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Plucker, J.A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case of content generality of
creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 179-182.
Plucker, J.A. (1999). Reanalysis of student responses to creativity checklists: evidence of
content generality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33(2), 126-137.
246
Plucker, J.A., & Runco, M.A. (1998). The death of creativity measurement has been
greatly exaggerated: Current issues, recent advances, and future directions in
creativity assessment. Roper Review, 21(1), 36-39.
Reese, S. (2000). NETCOMM. Network for Technology, Composing and Music
Mentoring. Retrieved June 30, 2002, from
http://www.camil.music.uiuc.edu/netcomm/Default.html
Reichardt, C., & Rallis, S. (1994). The relationship between qualitative and quantitative
traditions. In C. Reichardt & S. Rallis (Eds.), New Directions for Program
Evaluation: Vol. 61. The qualitative—quantitative debate: New Perspectives
(pp. 5-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reimer, B. (1989). A Philosophy of Music Education (2nd edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Richardson, C. (1983). Creativity research in music education: A review. Bulletin of the
Council for Research in Music Education, 74, 1-21.
Runco, M.A., & McCarthy, K.A., & Svenson, E. (1994). Judgments of the creativity of
artwork from students and professional artists. The Journal of Psychology, 128(1),
23-31.
Runco, M.A., & Charles, R.E. (1997). Developmental trends in creative performance. In
M.A. Runco (Ed.), The Creativity Research Handbook. Volume I (pp. 115-152).
Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Ruscio, J., Whitney, D.M., & Amabile, T.M. (1998). Looking inside the fishbowl of
creativity: Verbal and behavioral predictors of creative performance. Creativity
Research Journal, 11, 243-263.
Schoenberg, A. (1950). Style and Idea. Edited by D. Newlin. New York: Philosophical
Library.
Schoenberg, A. (1965). Letters. Edited by E. Stein. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Schwartz, E., & Childs, B. (Eds.). (1978). Contemporary Composers on Contemporary
Music. New York: Da Capo Press.
Simmonds, R. (1988). An experiment in the assessment of composition. British Journal
of Music Education, 5(1), 21-34.
Sloboda, J. (1985). The Musical Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, J.P. (1993). Qualities of prompted and unprompted compositions. Unpublished
manuscript, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
247
Smith, M.L. (1994). Qualitative plus/versus quantitative: The last word. In C. Reichardt
& S. Rallis (Eds.), New Directions for Program Evaluation: Vol. 61. Approaches
in evaluation studies (pp. 37-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sogin, D.H. (1990). Creative Responses to Musical and Environmental Sounds: A pilot
project. Paper presented at the Ohio Graduate Music Education Forum, College
Conservatory of Music, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Stanley, J.C. (1971). Reliability. In R.L. Thorhdike (Ed.), Educational Measurement (2nd
edition). Washington: American Council on Education.
Stanford, C.V. (1914). Pages from an Unwritten Diary. London: E. Arnold.
Sternberg, R. (ed.). (1999). Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. (1988). The Nature of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature
of Creativity (pp. 125-147). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1995). Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a
Culture of Conformity. New York: Free Press.
Stravinsky, I. (1936). Chronicles of My Life. English translation. New York: V. Gollancz.
Stravinsky, I. (1947). Poetics of Music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stravinsky, I. (1967). Fundamentals of Musical Compositions. London: n.p.
Stravinsky, I. & Craft, R. (1962). Expositions and Developments. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Swanwick, K. (1988). Music, Mind, and Education. London: Routledge.
Swanwick, K. (1994). Musical Knowledge: Intuition, analysis, and music education.
London: Routledge.
Swanwick, K., & Tillman, J. (1986). The sequence of musical development: A study of
children’s composition. British Journal of Music Education, 3(3), 305-339.
Tanglewood Symposium. (1967). Tanglewood Symposium: Music in American Society.
Music Educators National Conference.
Thompson, D. (2000). Aaron Copland: American composer: A centenary celebration of
the composer. Television Broadcast, BBC2. London: BBC.
248
Thompson, V. (1948). The art of judging music. In R. French (ed.), Music and Criticism:
A symposium. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Torrance, E.P. (1972a). Career patterns and peak creative achievements of creative high
school students twelve years later. Gifted Child Quarterly, 16, 75-88.
Torrance, J.P. (1972b). Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 236-252.
Torrance, E.P. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Technical-Norms
Manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Services.
Torrance, E.P. (1981). Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement: Administration,
Scoring, Testing Manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Vaughan, M. (1977). Musical creativity: Its cultivation and measurement. Bulletin of the
Council for Research in Music Education, 50, 72-77.
Vaughan, M.M. (1971). Music as model and metaphor in the cultivation and
measurement of creative behavior in children. (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Georgia, Athens). Dissertation Abstracts International, 32(10), A5833.
Vaughan, M.M. (1973). Cultivating creative behavior: Energy levels in the process of
creativity. Music Educators Journal, 59(8), 35-37.
Vaughan, M.M., & Meyers, R. (1971). An examination of the musical processes as
related to creative thinking. Journal of Research in Music Education, 19(4),
337-341.
Vaughan, T.D. (1985). The balance of opposites in the creative process. Gifted Education
International, 3, 38-42.
Vaughan Williams, R. (1955). The Making of Music. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Voss, J.F., Greene, T.R., Post, T.A., & Penner, B.C. (1983). Problem solving skill in the
social sciences. In G. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Instruction:
Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 17; pp. 165-213). New York: Academic
Press.
Voss, J.F., & Post, T.A. (1988). On the solving of ill-structured problems. In M.T.H. Chi,
R. Glaser, and M. Farr (Eds.), The Nature of Expertise (pp. 261-285). Hillsdale,
NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
249
Voss, J.F., & Means, M.L. (1989). Toward a model of creativity based upon problem
solving in the social sciences. In J.A. Glover, R.R. Ronning, & C.R. Reynolds
(Eds.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 399-410). New York: Plenum Press.
Wakefield, J.F. (1991). The outlook for creativity tests. Journal of Creative Behavior,
25(3), 184-193.
Wallace, D.B., & Gruber, H. (1989). Creative People at Work. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Webster, P. (1977). A factor of intellect approach to creative thinking in music.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Eastman School of Music, University of
Rochester, Rochester New York.
Webster, P. (1987a). Conceptual bases for creative thinking in music. In J. Peery, I.
Peery, and T. Draper (Eds.), Music and Child Development (pp. 158-174). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Webster, P. (1987b). Refinement of a measure of creative thinking in music. In C.
Madsen and C. Prickett (Eds.), Applications of Research in Music Behavior (pp.
257-271). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Webster, P. (1989). Measure of creative thinking in music (MCTM). Administrative
Guidelines. Unpublished Manuscript, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Webster, P. (1990). Creativity as creative thinking. Music Educators Journal, 76(9),
22-28.
Webster, P. (1992). Research on creative thinking in music. The assessment literature. In
R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (pp.
266-280). New York: Schirmer Books.
Webster, P. (1994). Measure of creative thinking in music-II (MCTM-II). Administrative
guidelines. Unpublished manuscript. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Webster, P., & Hickey, M. (1995). Rating scales and their use in assessing children’s
music compositions. The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning,
6(4), 28-44.
Webster, P., & Richardson, R. (1992). Asking children to think about music. Arts
Education Policy Review, 94(3), 7-11.
Whitall, A. (1999). Music Composition in the Twentieth Century. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
250
Whitall, A. (2003). Exploring Twentieth-Century Music: Tradition and Innovation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
White, J.D. (1995). Theories of Musical Texture in Western History. New York: Garland
Publishing, Inc.
White, T. (1995). Ravi: In Celebration. A 4-cd set with booklet. New York: Angel
Records.
Wiggins, J.H. (1994). Children’s strategies for solving compositional problems with
peers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42(2), 232-252.
Zerull, D.S. (1990). Evaluation in Arts Education: Building and Using an Effective
Assessment Strategy. Design for Arts in Education, 92(1), 19-24.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Thomas F. Nelly (b. 1963) is a composer, teacher, and guitarist whose influences
include western art music, rock, blues, jazz, world music, and folk music. His works have
been performed at festivals in the United States and have been broadcasted on radio
shows. Tom holds a B.M. in music theory (1999) and a M.M. in music composition
(2001), both from the University of Florida. He has studied composition with James Paul
Sain, Budd Udell, Paul Richards, and Paul Koonce.
251