|
So, I listened to the thing. It's long, and while I actually listened to a good deal of each movement, I only finished the first one actually hearing it through.
Why? Well, once I saw that it pretty much was more of a harmony exercise than something I'd actually sit through and listen I started to skip around and see if maybe stuff got more interesting for me later, they didn't. I'm sorry to be so harsh and blunt, I seriously am, but I was paying more attention to how you wrote some things technically than the music itself.
Not to be one of those "Unless you smash your violin on stage while singing 12 tone rows it's not good enough" guys, in this case I'm really sorry to say that it's simply way too much like an exercise to me.
As far as how you handled the instruments, I don't know. The scores weren't finished apparently? I don't know but there's a lot of room for improvement when it comes to actually defining phrases and writing down technical indications, unless it doesn't matter to you how stuff is played beyond the typical things.
For a recreation of style I suppose is sort of OK, if I were to look at it like that. But I'm not really sure what exactly are you going for either, this by itself doesn't say anything to me other than you learned some harmony and studied classical forms.
Again sorry for being so harsh, but to me it doesn't matter if you spent 2 hours or 5 years writing something in the end. The end product is all that matters to me, and in this case I find it pretty much like reading out of a classical harmony/theory book. If the intention was that, and that this is a recreation of style, please do say so.
As far as the presentation of the piece goes, your initial post, I found it quite lacking. You could've written at least two pages from just the first movement when it came to harmonic and motive/thematic development. Come on, if you're going this far, give something to work with from the point of view of the composer, yea?
|