String Quartet - "Fondest."

Hello all. Since June 1st, I've been working on a string quartet written for my alma mater High School's string quartet. The piece is written for two Violins, a Viola and a Cello. I "commissioned" it for myself near graduation to be a gift for the high school, so I could leave a small piece of myself before I move on to bigger things.

This is the first piece which I have ever completed completely by hand :) That's a bit of a big step for me, so I'm proud of myself for that. There are linked pictures (kind of blurry and hard to see) that show the original score that I wrote myself by hand. Also attached is the .pdf of the score and an .mp3 (rendered through .midi by Logic Pro 8). Please let me hear your thoughts :)

Mp3

fondest.pdf

Hey Ziggy,

While this piece sounds nice (there were some quirky sounding changes here and there) that's really about all it does -- I hate to say it but I found it rather dull. :ermm:

I really didn't get anything out of it aside from a nice sounding chord progression -- there wasn't much beyond that. Also, you progressions became rather predictable, not just in terms of harmonic choices, but in terms of durations, etc. I guess this piece could be nice as background music, something the listener can ignore (i.e. while they're doing other things), but I didn't find this very captivating. Nothing in it really kept my interest. I think you should also consider re-evaluating some of your dynamics, I don't think they were all that effective.

I hate to give you such a negative critique, and I hope to see more from you in the future. :)

Also, congrats on your first work done completely by hand. As someone who does their writing exclusively with a pencil and paper, I commend your commitment to it! :thumbsup:

Thanks, Charlie, for the critique. Negative is fine - it gives me something to think about.

I agree with what Charlie said about dynamics. It sounds nice, but I felt that the melody was lost after a while, and became "drowned". It seems to grow weaker because it continues to change throughout the piece. I liked how it progressed, and I think it could benefit if you did something such as divide it into sections (Like "Part A" "Part B", and so on) for each major change or development, and then better establish it , similar to how your piece started. That initial clarity seems to get muddied as it developed. If you're happy with how it is, then I think your only concern would be dynamics. Some of them seem unnecessary, like the consecutive pp's in 19, and dynamics in measure 43-44 and 61-63 seems pointless.

I agree with bretterfly: everything gets lost, I dont see any structure. Can you provide one for me, give some analysis?

Thanks for the feedback. Firstly, I'll assume by the pianissimo in 19, you're talking about the fact that I put them in two measures in a row? It's probably not needed, but my reasoning for that was because of the fermata there, and the fact that the only instrument changing from pianissimo is the cello between those two measures, it would help the performers not to get confused when they saw no change, and one instrument got louder. In other words, because of the chamber setting, I figured it would avoid any confusion, sort of like adding a natural sign after a B in a piece in the key of C after you've been using Bb for a while.

As for the dynamics in 43-44, perhaps you could be a bit more specific as to what's wrong with it, as the crescendo then drop-off is exactly what I wanted in that part. I'm also not sure about the problem in the 60s...again, a little clarification as to why it's pointless would be helpful, as I can't see any reason why it'd be pointless, even if it wouldn't be what you'd do... Some of my dyanamics may very well be in-effective, but honestly, I wouldn't know how you'd decide that. The piece does what I intended it to do, dynamically.

And it may not be what you're talking about, but you mentioned the drowning of the melody, and if you're referring to measures 23 and beyond, I believe that's a technological error, as I have the dynamic set higher than the other instruments' harmonies.

@jrcramer, I'll do my best, but without some specific examples, I'm not sure how much it'll help you...

The cello at 14 is using the rhythm of the beginning of the piece (as simple as it is) to work away from the original key slightly before the chromatic mediant that ends that first section. Nothing too exciting there. The first section tends to gravitate around G and Em.

The following few measures are pretty self-explanatory as the sudden dynamic change completes the short descending arpeggio at the end of the cello solo and leads into the next key. From there, the piece stays basically in the key of Bb major. Around 37, I think that cello and viola descensions led nicely into the melody that crescendos into the whole and half notes before the tempo change. At the tempo change, the rhythmic figure from measure 28 is revisited using new chords (F7, Ebm and Bb7 instead of the A7 before). In the last of those four measures, the cello is the only line that moves. While the final chord that results does not have a traditional dominant function because of the A being flat, rather than natural, I felt it worked well enough moving to the following section which does not hold any chords, but begins rooted on a Bb. As for the section immediately following that...I had to do a lot of editing to fix it, as I had some parallel motion that made it stick out quite glaringly. If there is anything that still makes it sound awkward, I'm not entirely sure what to do with it, as I believe I eliminated the parallel motion that was affecting it, and it now sounds acceptable to my ear, and I like it as a couple of transitional measures. Measures 51-52 uses the violin in a way that I've used it a few times throughout the rest of the quartet, so I feel it helps establish some "togetherness." 54-55. This modulation is a bit rough, and I messed with it for almost an hour, trying to make it sound okay in my ear. I will admit, too, the modulation is simply there for the sake of being there. Or really, I put it there in hopes that it revive a bit of interest, sort of "wake up" the listener a bit. Whether that worked in a positive way is up to the listener.

Those are my responses. I do think you hit on a lot of important weaknesses in my writing. Blocky writing is probably the biggest, or as was mentioned, the predictability in the occurance of harmonic changes. Still trying to work through it...it's hard. It'd be nice if anyone who has listened to my other pieces could chime in and compare this a bit to them. It's hard to look at your own writing, especially when you're learning how to write, and see what you're doing better, worse, et cetera. I'm still working on it, still thinking. I consider this piece "complete" but I have not discounted anything you guys have said, and I have been taking a big look at the things you guys have mentioned, so please, if you have more comments, or more detail, let me have it. You need not worry about being negative -- it's depressing, but it's a part of learning, and I'm fine with it.

I liked this piece - it had feeling and atmosphere.

Some other people have commented on it's lack of structure. I'm not sure whether this kind of piece is meant to have "structure". Forgive me if this was not the intention - but I heard it as a kind of impressionistic piece - and thought it was quite effective.

Some other people have commented on it's lack of structure. I'm not sure whether this kind of piece is meant to have "structure". Forgive me if this was not the intention - but I heard it as a kind of impressionistic piece - and thought it was quite effective.

You mean; impressionism has no structure? ;)

Thank you. It can be a huge spot of weakness, and one that's been commented on a few times. When I am writing a piece, I don't make a strict form for it. For example, I don't say "I am going to do the theme, develop it, and recapitulate it here in a different key." My method of writing is more to sit down with whatever I have, say just a melody and some harmony, and see where I can take it. It's a development of sorts, but instead of working off variations of the original melody, I try to develop it into a "super-melody," or an extension of the original melody that works from it, but doesn't necessarily borrow from it. When I'm stuck, I look at what I've written, and say "What can I restate, reuse, recycle from earlier to keep going from where I am?" So, when someone makes the comment that my piece has no structure, they're probably partially right. I did not set a specific structure before I wrote it. However, I don't feel, looking at it, that it goes off into space and beyond, either. A person looking at Petrushka by Stravinsky for the first time could probably find a hundred places where the transition "doesn't make sense," but it made sense to him, it makes sense in the ballet itself, and it'd probably make sense if you looked at it a bit closer. One example of that would be between the piano solo and the sped up parts in I believe in the trumpet in...I think second tableu, fourth "section," (Petrushka's Cell). So, I don't know if that makes sense, and again, if anyone has any specific parts they find problematic, let me know, because it's hard to know exactly what you mean without examples :) Thanks for all the feedback, everyone.

So, when someone makes the comment that my piece has no structure, they're probably partially right. (...)

However, (...) A person looking at Petrushka by Stravinsky for the first time could probably find a hundred places where the transition "doesn't make sense,"

do you mean: Stravinsky might be difficult at first glance; therefore I don't need structure?

I would try to give an example of what I mean by "everything gets lost". I tried to analyse your piece, but failed. I expect a theme to return somewhere, sometime. For example your first 5 measures, or ms 1-9, a A-theme. from ms 10 there starts something new. But I recognise nothing of material. Maybe one thing, a Major chord, with the terz in cello and violin 1 (ms 16 and 19)

Everything seems a puzzle. The key for example, it seems C, for a while. The G in the first measures ought to be interpreted as a dominant, and the A in ms 5 might be a sext-ajoute. But the first notes of this piece are 2 D's and the last chorch contains 3 Db's ?

These are some things which i meant when i said everything gets lost.

I hope I haven't been to harsh. You made me curious why you did some things, while I suspect (based on your structure appoach) there is no reason.

I hope there is :)

Your piece has no distinguishable melody. It almost sounds as if the melody was removed and only the underlying chord progression was left. As a matter of fact, it is only a chord progression.

Sorry, but you need to write a piece with melody, harmony, rhythm, texture, timbre, form, and dynamics (those are, after all, the seven elements of music). You piece only seems to contain harmony, timbre, and dynamics.

Your piece has no distinguishable melody. It almost sounds as if the melody was removed and only the underlying chord progression was left. As a matter of fact, it is only a chord progression.

Sorry, but you need to write a piece with melody, harmony, rhythm, texture, timbre, form, and dynamics (those are, after all, the seven elements of music). You piece only seems to contain harmony, timbre, and dynamics.

This is fine and dandy, but it doesn't help me at all. Individually, I know what all those words mean, but I don't know how they mean. I've never personally known another composer, I've never taken lessons, I'm completely self-taught in theory and composition...I can follow my melody through the entire piece, someone else commented on it sounding atmospheric, which I don't know how that would differ from texture. As for rhythm and form, they're probably not as refined as they could be. But none of this helps me because I don't know how to fix it. If I don't know why what I identify as the melody is not the melody, I can't start writing melodies. If I don't know how to write with more texture, I can't do it. The structure of the piece makes sense to me - how am I going to fix it? For another month and a half, I have no guidance in my composing except what you guys tell me here. I'm studying, I'm reading, but it's not helping me because I can't apply it. I can handle negativity, but it should serve a purpose.