Three String Quartets

These three pieces are unrelated musically (they are, however, the beginnings of a set of 100 string quartets that I hope to write in order to practice different elements of composition in ways that I still find pleasing to listen to), but are so short and relatively simple that I figured they should be put in one topic.

1:

This piece incorporates multiple ostinatos, drones (which are prevalent through all three quartets), polyrhythms, and harmony based in 4ths. It's form is basically ABA1. I'm pretty sure that this isn't playable, at least not in tune. It took maybe 2 to 3 hours to write this.

2:

This pieces entirely focuses on ostinatos and changing/uneven meters, but also has droning notes and harmony in 4ths. I was focused on doing a piece with lots of pizzicato. The form is ABA1B1. I wrote this in only an hour and it shows with how abrupt some of the transitions are.

3:

I wanted to get away from what I had been working with in the first two with this one, yet I ended up FOCUSING on drones this time. This piece is the longest of the three and I think it is the most developed. There is only one melodic theme being developed here. The quartet this time is Violin, Viola, Cello, and Bass (is there a different name for this group of instruments?). It took 5 hours to write this (I think).

Any Comment, Critiques, or words of hatred are appreciated!

String Quartet # 1.mid

String Quartet # 2.mid

String Quartet # 3.mid

Since you invited words of hatred I’ll confess that I didn’t care for the first one at all. I couldn’t even stand to listen to it more than half-way through, so if it has a great ending I never heard it. But this is of course a matter of taste.

I liked the second one though. There were places, however, where it seemed a little boring and repetitive. Just seemed like measure after measure of cut and paste in places making me want to jar the computer to knock it out of the rut. Overall it was pretty interesting. But the violin part looked like it would really be boring to play. I always watch the violin part because I play the violin some.

I’m afraid the third one didn’t enthrall me either. I’d have to put it into the same category as the first one. It had me looking for the fast-forward button and I was happy to click on the “Don’t Save” button when I closed it out.

Sorry. These just aren’t my style of music. Not to say that they are poorly written. It’s just not the kind of music I care to listen to. Although the second pizzicato one was pretty good. :unsure:

I have to say that I am not fond of the 1st one, but thats because you'd prabably call me a tonal kinda guy - I like th feeling of grouding that a key gives. Rhythmically I like it, and I enjoy the very feeling of unease that you invoke... Ok then maybe I like it a little.

The second one, although nothing like my own style or preference, is extremely enjoyable. Those repetitive areas mentioned by abracadabra are nice; they give a feeling of space and keep the piece from feeling rushed (a symptom of my own music). I also like it as it feels far more grounded and doesn't leave that uncomfortable feeling that was invoked by the first.

I have to disagree completely with abracadabra, as the third for me is quite.. interesting. I won't say that I enjoyed it, but listening to it I have a feeling that enjoyment wasn't exactly what you were aiming for? That feeling of space that I mentioned in the second one is clearly evident here. I get images of cathedrals and tall spires, perhaps with a cloudy sky and a funeral...

All in all these are some pretty neat compositions. None of them are what I would consider my style or preference, but in my own opinion they are well written and can be appreciated.

I suppose I owe you an apology for my earlier post. It was made in haste and I didn’t really give your music a chance. My thoughts were more of a reflection of what I’m personally looking for in music. I’m a bit frustrated as I find it difficult to actually find music that I’m seriously attracted to.

My comments were purely subjective as a matter of personal taste in music and they have absolutely nothing to do with how well your pieces were composed. I saw nothing wrong with your compositions from a technical point of view.

So I hope you’ll forgive my biased view. I really didn’t give your pieces the consideration they deserve. I shouldn't have commented other than to say that the second piece was quite interesting.

I’m back again.

I listened to your third piece with a more open mind. It’s quite good for what it is.

I think the problem here is that you posted this in “Chamber Music”. To my ear it sucks as “chamber music”.

However, as “incidental music” it’s quite good. I imagined it being the background music to a movie and just let it bring images into my mind. What I saw was a scene of total devastation and with survivors wandering through the rubble of a city that had been completely destroyed. As incidental music it can work quite well.

As chamber music I’d have to say that it doesn’t work for me at all.

The composition is good. I think you just posted it in the wrong category. But again, that’s my own personal view.

Hello! I liked the first movement, or at least bits of it. My problem is that it doesn't have enough time to "breathe", so to speak. The opening gesture (up to 0:21) is quite striking. Why not rest a few beats and then immediately repeat the gesture? I'm not saying you should, but it would be something I'd do, especially in a piece so concerned with repetions. I really like the (quarter-note? Sorry, I'm not looking at a score) triplets in the cello and the five-bar phrase that ends at (:21). These nifty rhythmic patterns seem not to appear again (when you use so many four-bar phrases, it makes the piece soung inorganic and a bit predictable; I don't know whether you want this or not). Why don't you re-use these rhythmic patterns? I'd say the piece could about twice as long and that it could benefit from you providing moments that people could hang on to, if you know what I mean. (I think that Abracadabra and Huckle would appreciate this as well)

I also liked the 2nd movement best :) The only thing I didn't like about it were the parts where you went into arco; I'm not convinced that that needed to happen (although I did like the drone at 1:30). The second movement of Ravel's quartet, another great pizzicato movement, has a lot of interplay between pizz. and arco stuff; your movement didn't seem to have that, and the moments with arco seem too short to be percieved as different sections. When I listen I'm not sure what to think about them. If you want a change of timbre, there are plenty of those available within the pizzicato spectrum (there's a cool Bartok 4tet movement which is all pizzicato of various sorts). My orchestration book lists snap pizzes, nail pizzes, plectrum pizzes (with a pick), buzz pizzes, gliss. pizzes... and on and on. If you could sprinkle a few of those and move the arco sections back to pizz (maybe subdivide them if you want them sustained), I think it will have both enough variety and enough constant-ness for my taste, but again, this is my own taste.

I think the last movement was the best-written of the three; the only flaw, I think, is that the ending (or rather, the introduction of the B and Bb ostinato) seems a bit abrupt. I wish I could write music like that though! I, personally, don't really see it as incidental music neccesarily, but that's because I've been listening to altogether too much minimalism lately :D. Nice job on all three pieces, though. I love the work you're doing with drones. I'll be quite interested to see the other 97 quartets!

Abracadabra: There was no need for an apology! I did, in my first post, ask for comments of hatred, so being slightly critical does not offend me in the slightest. This type of music is not for everyone, and I would not except everyone to say that they like it; I would much rather hear honest opinions.

Unfortunately, the third piece is NOT intended to be incidental music; I've been writing video game music semi-professional for some amount of time and I've been striving for my music to start standing on it's own. Oh well. I'm pleased you could appreciate it for something though.

huckle: Again, thank you for your honesty in appraising all three pieces. The first, probably far too obviously is meant to cause unease. I think that it's lack of subtly may be it's main flaw.

Yes, the third piece may not be enjoyable in the sense traditional classical music is enjoyable. Unfortunately the effects of the music are lost a lot in midi, as the timbres of midi strings are only very slightly similar to real instruments.

jymothias: Thank you for listening so thoroughly; you caught all the mistakes I knew about and even found more! Thank you.

I definitely agree with you about the lack space in the first movement. I attached a modified version if anyone would care to listen. (editing time: 30 minutes maybe?)

Obviously, I need to research more into pizzicato, I haven't even heard of some of those techniques.

I'm happy someone else noticed that I cut the arch of the song short for the ending! I was disapointed with that ending since I wrote it. If I have time I may rework it. To me it feels like this piece will end up much longer once finished.

String Quartet # 1 ver 2.mid

I hate Midis. I hate their sound, their style, their hate.

Enough of the hatred?

Any chance you can post a link to a mp3? Sibelius doesn't like your midis. I have tried a number of times since you posted these which is why I haven't commented yet.

I like what you did to the first 4tet! Just out of curiousity, last life, what composers have you been listening to recently?

Recently I've been listening to a lot of Hindemith, Ravel, Ives, Reich, Ginestra and Bach (heh), so quite the variety.

The first one I think is by far the worst. But the secondand third are delightful. I understand your reasonnig behind the length of the first note in the third part-at least i think I do- but it might be wise to shorten it as well as some of those pauses by just a bit.

The second one has a fair melody, but I think just a little counterpoint in it would be a good thing. Overall though, good work, very inpresive

I actually liked parts of the first one, especially the kinda pulsating, high bit that starts about :50 in, it doesnt go for long enough actually. :thumbsup:

The second one's my favorite. Fantastic B section. I think the contrast between the pizz. and arco works beautifully too, because it's such a contrast. If you blended them together more, you'd lose that.

The third piece is good, but I'm not crazy about it. I really like it's opening, but I'm not sure about some of the chord changes, some of them just don't seem to "work" for me.

All in all, I'm really into the minimalistic elements of all the pieces, I'll be interersted to hear more when they're done