Stringquartet no.2

Here is my Stringquartet no. 2 in one movement. It is made of three themes, one lydian starting (ms 3), one wholetone (ms 74) and one in Messiaen's Mode III (ms 94). The motive of ms 1 and 2 functions as a kind of glue between those themes. When the upload was not working I posted this to the incomplete section. After the fix I merged that topic with this, but in the merging I one post got lost...

Stringquartet no.2

 In merging the topic I lost accidentaly the first response. Sorry last life:( . Jaap

LOL @ John

Last Life, thanks for your remakr. Can you point out some places whete you think I repeat too much and should alter it a bit?

Impressionism in music has nothing to do with the actual artist movement, it is just a label given to the style of the majority of music written by Debussy, Ravel etc. I think that kind of influence is obvious here. There's no need to get upset.

You should probably change it so all the literal repeats aren't so literal. I already mentioned some of the places in the last post, you should just use your own best judgment; I don't want to write the piece for you :P.

That particular theme is altered each time. So I cannot really agree with "all the literal repeats"

In ms 103 the harmony goes from Dm, Bm, to F#m.

In ms 138, the harmony goes from Db, Bb, to F. In this case the 'intervalls' are the same, using mode III (Bb C Dd D E F F# G# A), but 'transposed' one down, so the minor chords become major triads.

In ms 178 the violins and viola play something similar to ms 103 (minor triads) but the cello is playing his accompagniment a third lower, creating major triads, a kind of polytonality (if you could percieve F#minor and D major as polytonal and not as a D7)

In ms 217, the last time the sequence is not made of 3 times the measure, but 5 times. It has therefore more the function of a transition than the other occurence.

You don't have to write the music for me, but I would appreciate it if you could prove your statements by examples. That way your remarks can be beneficial. Thanks for your comments!

I like the idea and transformations in your works. The only thing I'm worried about is how you handle and specify your triple and quadrouple stops. A strings player can bow two strings at once (or three...if they're really really unusual...and that's a sheer physical thing.) It's not a problem with skill-it's one of the physical limits of the instrument. In places like m12 you might want to notate that differently. The standard practice would be to roll the first two notes and hold the third, but if there's a slur telling a player to hold three notes at once, we can get overwhelmed and spend hours debating over which notes should be held. Also, in places like m26 I really like how you want that "BUH-dum" effect, but be prepared if a less-than perfect player (like myself) rolls those notes or shaves off some of the previous note-ruining the nice hold-effect you had written. Still very nice written.

are you a string player?

I think I notated in a consistent way how the triple stops are to be played. Ms 12 cello is a good example. Had I not notated the grace notes the triple stop would have been probably played from the lower to the higher notes; I know what the standard practice is...

I guess "literal" is the wrong word, sorry. Even though the harmony is different each time, the type of gesture is the same sort of thing, a chord progression or sequence. And the theme occurs a lot, which is sort of strange because it seemed at first to only be a variation of the first theme, or some kind of transition.

Also now that I re-listen, I could use more of the theme which starts at 74. It doesn't seem like you develop it as much as the other material, and since it a really different character than the rest of the music it would give the piece a bit more variety if you extended it.

As a string player, none of this looks problematic, in fact most of it seems pretty comfortable to me.

As point of reference I'd like to give a short overview of the structure as I preceive it.

Theme A is from ms 3-6, mostly in lydian and dorian scale. What follows is a long development. I'd like to point to the harmonic motive often played col legno, first appearance in ms 7-9 in V.2 + Vla.

Theme B starts at ms 74 in a wholetone scale. (On could say that this theme is prepared from ms 53, where the A theme is played in that scale.)

In ms 94 starts the C section, in messiaen's mode III. Ms 94-232 was originaly a seperate piece. I inteded it as a movement for another work, in which I also had planned a movement based on the B theme. In ms 160 is a clear quotation of the B theme. I now decided to put this material together.

When analysing the C section one could count 4 ideas: C.a (ms94); C.b (ms102, sequence down); C.c (ms112, sequence up (serial) in vl.1); C.d (ms116; sequence down again (also serial).)

From ms 233 is starting a final section, that combines all themes. Most clearly in ms 251: A (Vln1 melody), B (in cello) and C (harmony in Vln2+Vla)

I guess "literal" is the wrong word, sorry. Even though the harmony is different each time, the type of gesture is the same sort of thing, a chord progression or sequence. And the theme occurs a lot, which is sort of strange because it seemed at first to only be a variation of the first theme, or some kind of transition.

Now to your remark. No hard feelings you call it literal :)

I am not sure where you think this would be a variation of. I agree the texture is the same, and the harmonies are not so obvious different. (It is basicly what I liked about the scale. The neighbor tone in the first case creates a suspended to minor suspension; the second goes form a minor to a major suspension. Both together could be remembered as a minor sequence)

I do not think the C.b occurs that often (I count four times in the previous post) Maybe it is too cliche that (texturaly) unaltered repeats start to be too much the same?

Also now that I re-listen, I could use more of the theme which starts at 74. It doesn't seem like you develop it as much as the other material, and since it a really different character than the rest of the music it would give the piece a bit more variety if you extended it.

John Bucket made the same observation. I agree it is the least developed theme. In the proces of making this has bothered me a bit. I think, but it is to you to say whether you think it is convincing; I think that the wholetone preperation of the development of A (ms 53-73), the connection to the B theme in the C section (ms 127, 214 but the clearest in ms 164), and in the final section, ms251 cello, ms 255 vln1.

Note also how a rhythmical cello motive, first introduced in B (ms82) reoccurs in C (ms 133) and in the final section (ms 258)

All things considered I think I have reused much of the material presented in B.

As a string player, none of this looks problematic, in fact most of it seems pretty comfortable to me.

This is nice to hear. Thanks!

I'd like to thank you for your thorough review, it's really appreciated.

Point about the sequence-like part: I guess that's what it is, I just got a feeling that it was "too much" of that idea. I think the main problem is how rhythmically exact it is each time, when the piece generally more flowing, and that bit sounds like it should be flowing, it comes of a little mechanical. All these are feelings, I haven't really sat down and analyzed the material that well, so that's why my posts might seem a little vague.

About B: It's not that it's reused, it's just that when B first comes in, it brings a new sort of character with it. It's more upbeat and driving, and while you do use the melodic material later, you never really bring back that character. It's very clear from a brief glance at the score: that section is mostly 16nth notes, in all the instruments, which never happens anywhere else really. There's also different articulation. Might I suggest that you write it détaché (or mostly détaché) to emphasis that it's a more rhythmic, rather than lyrical, part.

This is pretty solid writing! I enjoyed it from start to end. Things that bothered me was so little that I don't even remember them. I have to listen it one more time...

I think that there is enough variety on every aspect that makes it interesting and worthwhile to listen the whole thing. Harmony feels a bit static at places but then again, it creates consistency. At other places, I felt that you could have expanded the range. The violins as you know can go waaaay up, and it really could make a good impact at those high climatic points. When I skim through the pages I notice that the range is quite similar throughout. However, on the second listen I think this is not so important, it's just that my ears expected to hear some hight ear piercing moments ( a kind of masochism lets say)

The repeats did not bother me at all. On my first listen I didn't look at the score so the way my ears judged it, it sounded ok to me. The whole tone section was a low point. I never liked that scale anyway, so it could be just me. But apart from that it is very obvious and stands out as the odd one.

What can say, I don't know. This quite a big work and is wonderfully written. From this point you should try to find a quartet willing to perform this piece. I don't know if you had experience with players but I can tell you that you'll learn a lot from them. Things such as proper notation (not that yours was bad, I could not make a through analysis of your score). Good work friend, love to hear it sometime performed...

Thanks Inal. I hope to get a preformance

Meanwhile here is a slightly updated version, added articulation and a bit more variation in the C.b.-theme

Your score is pretty, hah. As an aside, all of the string writing is fairly idiomatic; none of it is really too awkward (even in some of the more difficult parts, the instruments are handled nicely). I don't know if the alternations between arco normale and col legno tratto will be quite as smooth in performance as you may have imagined, but only rehearsals and performance will tell. In any case, the different uses of the bow are well done in isolation. I also like your use of tone color - the cello line in the treble range surrounded by the col legno tratto bowing in m. 18 - 21, for example, or the sul tasto octave doubling that comes soon after.

Also, just a note for score purposes - in bar 48, you have "allegrando" - did you mean "allargando?"

As for musical material - the first two bars are very emphatic and arresting; they demand immediate attention from the very beginning. These bars almost sound like an introduction to me - my mind begs for a ritardando and fermata there before m. 3. I know that it would be a fairly traditional gesture, but that's the gesture I think of every time I hear it. Besides that, there are standout moments all over - I particularly like the cello solo starting in m. 18, the slower sections from ms. 26 - 43 and ms. 55-73, and the "Allegro feroce." I also think your transitions between all of these contrasting episodes is well worked-out, but the effect loses some steam because you don't seem to spend enough time on each section for it to be satisfying. All of them work beautifully when taken alone, and even flow together fairly nicely, but they're not long/developed enough from my point of view. This is less obvious in the Allegro feroce itself, which is fairly extensive. The 1st violin part in ms. 251 - 254 is really cool, by the way.

All in all, I think this is a really good piece. The only major issue that holds it back is the brevity of the individual sections, like I said. As of now it feels incomplete; work on developing each part to its fullest potential and I think you'll find that you have a really fine piece of music. I enjoyed listening to this and reading the score.

Thanks for this nice review; really helpful. I corrected the typo, thanks for noticing!

You are in a way repeating what was the complaint of John Bucket and last life. They both said the B theme (ms74) is not enough developed. Is there another section you think is too short/under-developed?

You say the Allegro feroce is fairly extensive (which makes sense since it was originally a separate movement); the first theme (from ms3) is developed before 74 and recapped after the allegro feroce. thus would remain the B theme. But as stated in previous post I feel like this theme has numerous connections to other places, yet three reviewers seem not to agree...

The constructing of this work has been a real learning experience since it was a challenge to structure the many ideas; it still is...

My main question to you is basically to point to places you think are too short or under developed.

I have been thinking to fit ms 74 in another scale (like the lydian of A or Mode III of C)

About the introduction. Your proposed rit+fermata seems a bit too traditional, but you are right in the intimidate attention they ask. I wanted it to be a bold short statement to be able to act as a kind of anchorpoint connecting the 3 main ideas. In a way your rit+fermata are there: by altering the meter to 4/4 and adding a quarter its like a written fermata, without loosing the momentum, the 'con spirito'

Love love love :D

Thanks for this nice review; really helpful. I corrected the typo, thanks for noticing!

You are in a way repeating what was the complaint of John Bucket and last life. They both said the B theme (ms74) is not enough developed. Is there another section you think is too short/under-developed?

You say the Allegro feroce is fairly extensive (which makes sense since it was originally a separate movement); the first theme (from ms3) is developed before 74 and recapped after the allegro feroce. thus would remain the B theme. But as stated in previous post I feel like this theme has numerous connections to other places, yet three reviewers seem not to agree...

The constructing of this work has been a real learning experience since it was a challenge to structure the many ideas; it still is...

My main question to you is basically to point to places you think are too short or under developed.

I have been thinking to fit ms 74 in another scale (like the lydian of A or Mode III of C)

About the introduction. Your proposed rit+fermata seems a bit too traditional, but you are right in the intimidate attention they ask. I wanted it to be a bold short statement to be able to act as a kind of anchorpoint connecting the 3 main ideas. In a way your rit+fermata are there: by altering the meter to 4/4 and adding a quarter its like a written fermata, without loosing the momentum, the 'con spirito'

Haha, sorry for repeating anything said already - I didn't really bother to read the other reviews. My problem isn't so much with the connections between themes - it's all obviously interrelated. My problem has to do with the length of the actual -sections-, in terms of tempo divisions (whether those divisions be from actual tempo markings or just note values or "mood").

I don't feel that this is quite so pronounced after listening again with a different point of view (I only listened to it for the first time earlier today, hah). I do still feel that everything before m. 53 could go further with some elaboration on the ideas already presented (running 16th accompaniment, the theme in a lyrical kind of dance-rhythm, etc.) Probably the most obvious example of something sounding "broken" or "unfinished" in an undesirable way is the abrupt change between the idea of bars 74 - 87 into 88 (and then the section after it, by extension). It just doesn't sound convincing to me.

Pretty much everything afterwards is fine for me.

I noticed a couple more things now that I've looked at the score again, though: in bars 41 and 43, you have sixteenth sextuplets written with two "3s" per beam - just write a single "6" per beam instead. It's also not probably not going to be entirely clear what you mean by "buzz pizz.," you should probably clear that up in a side note or something.

About the rit and fermata - yeah, you're right. It doesn't quite fit, but I think it does need some division besides just the addition of an extra beat. Maybe a short breath mark between ms. 2 and 3, for example. It's just personal opinion, though, of course.

OK. I have considered expanding the B section a little. I hope that by doing so the B section becomes a bit more clear and more closed and that the passage (originaly ms 88, now ms 95/6) is a proper subito, and not one "broken" or "unfinished". This version is now uploaded (after ms 87 there are 7 measures added, and at some places minor changes, some esthetic)

I hope it is now more convincing. I think it is...

Is well within the genre and style, the only thing is that the first violin sometimes goes too far above the staff on additional lines ... A professional violinist would help you more you write the notes within the staff and uses the indication of the 8va without having to get out of the staff .... Otherwise, good job.

Is well within the genre and style, the only thing is that the first violin sometimes goes too far above the staff on additional lines ... A professional violinist would help you more you write the notes within the staff and uses the indication of the 8va without having to get out of the staff .... Otherwise, good job.

Ah thank you very much. Can you indicate where you would do that? I imagine I could 8va the high notes in ms2, but would you do this in the phrase in ms 14-18? Maybe ms 27-30 is a good place where I could notate with 8va.

But I know for example from flutist they are very able to read from ledger lines. I think the same applies for violinists as well. So I am a little unsure here, maybe this is not really necessary? I think 8va looks not so nice, it often makes the score uglier.

It was just an observation .... When only write 2 or 3 bars with additional lines can be understood, but when there are many bars scattered around the work of musicians is that they seem unreasonable.

I agree, this wouldn't be toooo hard to play. It would take practice, but nothing that made me go "What the heck was he thinking?".

This is a really cool piece. I like how the harmonies move.. it makes a very interesting piece. Thank you also for giving the melody to everyone, and not just the first violin! The viola part looks quite interesting and fun to play, glancing over it.

Really great work here... not sure what else to say. I mean, when it's good there's not much to say but "bravo!"

Heckel

Really great work here... not sure what else to say. I mean, when it's good there's not much to say but "bravo!"

Thanks for replying Graham. I am glad you liked it. So did I :)

Now a little word of encouragement to you. I want you to become more precise. Because, I imagine, not everything was great. You could say the form is not really working, or maybe it is, but then some harmonies where not fitting. Whatever, give me some critique.

I really want to know what you hear, what you think is working and what isnt. So I would like to encourage you to go a little more in-depth. Everyone can have an unique insight. So let's hear it! :D

Please re upload the score the score and the music, the file is not found.

fixed

I think of all the comments above, the one that I agree with the most is that of Voce

My problem has to do with the length of the actual -sections-, in terms of tempo divisions (whether those divisions be from actual tempo markings or just note values or "mood"). I don't feel that this is quite so pronounced after listening again with a different point of view (I only listened to it for the first time earlier today, hah). I do still feel that everything before m. 53 could go further with some elaboration on the ideas already presented (running 16th accompaniment, the theme in a lyrical kind of dance-rhythm, etc.)