Adagio Lamentoso (dedicated to Gustav mahler)

I am in awe. This is absolutely beautiful. The handling of the strings is exquisite, the themes are gorgeous and the harmonies are heart wrenching. On a more technical side, your insertion of 5/4 works absolutely perfectly, flows beautifully. A stunning piece. You have a bright future.

This reminds me alot of Tchaikovsky's work, None but the Lonley, I think it's called.

Well, I listened to it, and if your intention was to imitate Mahler, you have succeeded. However, it wasn't completely Mahler. There were a few spots like where there are running 16ths that actually sounded very Brahmsian, and the sole harmonics just standing in the middle of the piece. In fact, harmonics in general are quite rare in Mahler's "solo strings" pieces or movements. The harmonic language and orchestration are clearly lifted from Gustav; the melody changed hands every two to four bars, there is a lot of divisi (some would say excessive), there's excitement and progressive tonality so quintessentially Mahler. So props to you on that side.

Here's the down side: the ending. It killed it for me. Every thing was Mahlerian until that darned ending. Mahler has never finished a movement like that. It sounded way out of context because nothing like that happened before in the piece. It was nice on it’s own, but does not work here. If I were you, I would have kept dying out with the same material just before that ending/coda thing i.e. Mov. 4 of Symphony No. 4.

Don’t get me wrong you have a real gem of music here, and Mahler is my favorite composer. Its original material in the style of a master composer; some would call it pastiche. Fix that ending and I’d buy it for my string orchestra if I had one.

Sorry to be a bit of a party pooper, but I personally don't see the point of writing a piece in such a derivative Mahlerian idiom. Why would one want to go back to a musical aesthetic of the past? What's the point of doing again what Mahler has already done (and done better) more than a century ago? Isn't it a more natural thing for a composer to express himself according to the coordinates of his time and try to search for an original musical language?

Don't get me wrong, Bmiranda, I'm not bashing you as a composer. The musical writing is definitely skillfully done and you have succeeded in getting very close to Mahler's musical aesthetic. But I just don't understand why someone would want to imitate the language of Mahler in the first place (or, for that matter, the language of any other composer), except for the sake of stylistic exercise.

that's insanely good, words can't describe it

Justin,
thank you for your review.

Originally Posted by Justin Tokke

Here's the down side: the ending. It killed it for me. Every thing was Mahlerian until that darned ending. Mahler has never finished a movement like that. It sounded way out of context because nothing like that happened before in the piece. It was nice on it’s own, but does not work here. If I were you, I would have kept dying out with the same material just before that ending/coda thing i.e. Mov. 4 of Symphony No. 4.

Well, I could have finished in bar 96, very Mahlerian and reminding the last bar of the Adagietto. However, I didn't want this piece to be just an example of "how Mahler would do it".
Regarding the fact of Mahler would never finish a movement like that is discussable. Although different in orchestration the last bars, of the 3rd movement of 4th symph., 4th mov. of the 9th or even the final mov. of the 10th (this one not fully composed and orchestrated by Mahler) may be considered to have a similar ending.

About the ending not being related to the rest of the work i'm afraid is not correct. The short theme played by the basses, violas and 2nd violins is in fact a variation of the main theme, and the subject played by the cellos is related to bar 48/53.

Justin, once again thank you for listening and for your comments.

Regards,
Bruno

True, it is related a la thematic material. What I meant was that the change was so drastic that it seems completely different from the rest, so much so that is sounds unrelated. A smother transition would help and a bit more low-range stuff would make it sound more cohesive. It's just so drastic that I was caught off guard, which is not what one should do in a slow and pensive piece like this unless you plan to bring it back later.

Originally Posted by gianluca

Sorry to be a bit of a party pooper, but I personally don't see the point of writing a piece in such a derivative Mahlerian idiom. Why would one want to go back to a musical aesthetic of the past? What's the point of doing again what Mahler has already done (and done better) more than a century ago? Isn't it a more natural thing for a composer to express himself according to the coordinates of his time and try to search for an original musical language?

Don't get me wrong, Bmiranda, I'm not bashing you as a composer. The musical writing is definitely skillfully done and you have succeeded in getting very close to Mahler's musical aesthetic. But I just don't understand why someone would want to imitate the language of Mahler in the first place (or, for that matter, the language of any other composer), except for the sake of stylistic exercise.

Why not? If Mahler is the paradigm of Bmiranba's musical tastes and thus compositional expression, why shouldn't he "copy" Mahler's style? Most composers try to find their own voice by imitating others and often blending other styles to make their own. For example, my style is a cup of Tchaikovsky, with a chunk of Mahler, a dash of Holst, and perhaps a splash of Strauss. Sprinke with Stravinsky and Rimsky-Korsakov, bake for 58 years = Justin Tokke's style.

Composing is not inventing, it is taking what came before and making anew. I will quote the ever impudent Stravinsky: "A good composer does not imitate; he steals."

I personally didn't enjoy it. That may have been because of the 'recording' quality, I'm not sure. Certainly I'm not one to equate personal tastes with quality. I think you did well imitating Mahler. I also find it odd to imitate the past composers; however, I'm more perturbed by people who write more than one piece in such a style. Certainly, there can be advantages to writing a piece in Mahlerian style, or a Bach Fugue. But to write more than one piece in another composer's style is dangerous and sometimes counterproductive. That doesn't necessarily apply to this piece, just food for thought.
Regarding the actual piece, I think you extracted the essence of Mahler well enough. I think I should reserve any further comments until the piece is performed by actual musicians and given the inflections that would normally happen.