Light Music, for Cello and Harpsichord

Here's a piece I've neglected to upload for a long time, hahah. It won 2nd in Webster University's Young Composer's Competition last year, and received a poor performance by members of the St. Louis Symphony as a prize. The musicians are fantastic; the rough performance was due to lack of rehearsal. Such is life. Anyway, here are the program notes from said concert:

"Shortly before the composition of Light Music, I became familiar with the work of prolific Soviet composer Alfred Schnittke. From the late '60s on, Schnittke's output is characterized by what the composer called 'polystylism': the juxtaposition of heavily contrasting elements within a single piece. In his most famous works, baroque pastiche fights crushing dissonance; cartoon music mixes with gravely serious statements for full orchestra; pregnant pauses are followed by walls of sound. In writing my own work, I took cues from the Soviet musician. The first movement of Light Music opens with a harsh, awkward 12-note row and concludes with a sentimental melody. These contrasting elements provide the basis for the rest of the piece, allowing for an uncomfortable and sometimes slapstick combination of tonal and atonal materials. The lively second movement defeats itself in its continuous attempts to return to the original tone row. In the final panel, previous ideas are brought together in a spare lament that seems to die off before going anywhere. The failure of the three movements to spin out into elaborate, eloquent statements earns the work its title (the term 'Light' here implying both lightheartedness and a percieved lack of artistic value)."

Light Music, for Cello and Harpsichord

Some corrections were made to the score after the performance, but this isn't the revised version. =p

Nice work, I like it.

I wouldn't call the performance "poor" - it's at least "fair" if not "quite good" :-p especially given the short rehearsal time. You can hear the musicianship clearly.

Make the piece way longer.

That's what she said.

I want to give this a close review, but have no time now. A first impression though. What you call "the sentimental melody" is it based on Brahms Cello Sonata 1?

with Schnittke there's unending question whether he was prolific composer or relentless pretender, i guess that's what use of so called 'polystilistic' compositional techniques generate. it surely makes for a great ironic, in socratian sense. and that, in itself, is nothing light i would think. so, i believe, the title is very good, and the music is very pretty and uncanny at the same time.

i like the concept and the ideas.

I want to give this a close review, but have no time now. A first impression though. What you call "the sentimental melody" is it based on Brahms Cello Sonata 1?

Hahah, no. Many people asked me that at the premiere, but I had never heard Brahms' first sonata at the time this was written. I have now, of course.

And thanks for the comments, everyone. Daniel - Yeah, they did very well with the little time they had. I have only respect for them =p

pliorus - Thanks! The title is a little bit tongue-in-cheek; the program notes aren't entirely honest in saying that my intentions were "light-hearted." There's a little bit of irony that balances out the humor.

I agree - make this much longer! Your ideas would easily stand up to being part of a piece twice or three times as long. That said, these three little movements work very well the length they are, and the general impression of the music is very accomplished and with a clear sense of direction. I think you handle the idea of having lots of different styles in a small space quite well, with the 'Brahms' tune to unify the music.

I agree - make this much longer! Your ideas would easily stand up to being part of a piece twice or three times as long. That said, these three little movements work very well the length they are, and the general impression of the music is very accomplished and with a clear sense of direction. I think you handle the idea of having lots of different styles in a small space quite well, with the 'Brahms' tune to unify the music.

Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Wow. I think this is an amazing work. The sentimental melody was very emotive and I think one of the most endearing parts to this. I love the wide range used here. My only comments are on the length... I really wanted more! Nice work!

This performance is pretty top notch, and the music is very interesting. I liked the pluralist feel it had, mostly mixing things up just enough that you don't know what's coming next. Also the brevity of the movements is alright, though they could be a little longer. Specially the first.

One thing I would've liked to see more is more extended technique on the side of the cello, it sounds a little too basic. But the actual content makes up for it even if at parts it seems that it jumps around from idea to idea too much.

The ending is very neat too, specially when I expected something of a surprise after the major chords there.

I would like to see the revised score, however. Also yay for my ex-student!

And, as an added note, parts of this reminded me of Janacek's violin/piano duo.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to it!

Thank you for taking the time to listen to it!

Your welcome. I really like it. The performance is wonderful as well. Have you any plans to lengthen it any?

Your welcome. I really like it. The performance is wonderful as well. Have you any plans to lengthen it any?

Mm no, not as of now. I feel as though any attempts to lengthen it would only be superficial, especially considering the interval of time between then and now. By now, I wouldn't know where to start! haha.

Very interesting upon first listen, however not being able to veiw the score at present, I can barely do better than to complement the piece! Your concise treatment of subject matter perhaps feels as if it was dealt with ever so slightly hastily, however I really admire the generally comfortable handling of it; excellently done, with the total playing time in mind. I haven't come across a piece for Harpsichord and Cello before; a combination that made for an altogether exciting listening experience. Well Done!

Okay. So I've listened to this entire work three times now with score and I've read over your program notes and comments on this thread each more than once. And before I say anything more, I think I should preface this with saying that I really dislike Schnittke's music. I've read plenty of his writings and have made numerous attempts at trying to listen to his music. There's no doubt in my mind that he was a very intelligent and very open-minded man. However, I just really can't stand most of his music. And since I don't care for Schnittke much at all and, if he was an influence (though I honestly don't hear much of one), there's a chance I just don't 'get this.'

Now, all of that being said, I just... can't say I care for your piece. To me, it feels very frivolous and even kind of vapid. I suppose this was partially (if not entirely) the intent but, for me, it doesn't even seem to work on this level. And reading and re-reading your program notes, I just can't help but feel you've failed in your intentions with this.

You speak of the opening movement, saying that it opens with a 'harsh, awkward' 12 note row and concludes with a 'sentimental melody.' Now... none of this was particularly conveyed to me at all. The opening of this first movement didn't sound very awkward at all, let alone 'harsh.' If anything, the opening cello melody sounded contemplative, as if it's reflecting on a tragedy. The harpsicord enters and seemingly mocks the cellos pain with some offbeat chords. The cello continues its mood and the harpsicord responds with baroque imitations. My personal interpretation of this is something of a drama between two strata. The cello represents the fleeting, emotional individual in pain while the harpsicord representing some sort of aristocracy (this is made especially clear to me based on the choice of instrument which very sound is almost inseparable from the 'High Baroque' era) that is unaffected by the plights of the individual even antagonistic.

It's most likely that I'm reading far too much into these opening ten or so measures but, at this point, I do see definite potential for a compelling piece of music. And, to me, your opening measures clearly suggest this sort of interpretation. My problem comes in very soon though. You never go back go back to this dynamic (other than close to the very end which, had the preceeding material been more compelling, this would've been an excellent ending.) In fact, you even pretty much abandon any sort of 'dialogue' dynamic that was going on between the cello and harpsicord for most the rest of the piece. After this, the harpsicord takes on a much more traditional role of an accompaniment that entirely supports the cello line. You remove any sort of tension or opposition from the piece.

I realize I'm partially being unfair to this as it seems that your intentions were to create some tension through polystylism and a lack of stylistic unity. Except... that never happens either. While my biggest problem with Schnittke is that his stylistic shifts are dumb, obvious, and unconvincing, my problem with your piece is the opposite there are no stylistic shifts. Your supposed 'awkward, harsh' twelve note row and 'sentimental melody' sound very much of the same character and I wouldn't even have guessed they were meant to be be opposed in some nature. To me, the stylistic tensions came between the cello and harpsicord which, as I said before, you quickly abandon.

On a separate note, I also do have to comment on your rhythmic sense. Now, compared to a lot of the compositions I see on this site (and compositions by 'amateurs' in general), this is very advanced. You do manage to avoid a sense of periodicity whenever it doesn't suit the music and your cello lines, at times, display a lyrical capriciousness about them that is beautiful. However, you still seem very stuck in what I like to think of as the 'quadruplet mentality.' For the most part, all of your rhythms land on square metrical pulses. You sometimes ties a note over from the last measure and avoid the strong 'first' beat of the next measure (such as measures 5-7 in the first movement) but this is a rare occurrence. Also, almost all the rhythms are written in straight quadruplets with rarely anything in the way of triplets (and when they do occur, they're 'decorative' effects.) And while I can't say your music has a 'pulse,' it was clear to me that you composed in this sort of way.

To be fair, this doesn't hurt your piece quite as much as it hurts others but I do feel that this especially becomes a problem during the segments in which you intended to be 'harsh' and 'awkward.' A lot of people underestimate the value that rhythm has in articulating dissonance and this is especially the case in music outside the tonal realm where dissonance is primarily articulated by rhythmic tension and release rather than harmonic. Some of your harpsicord lines in particular lack the bite that I'm sure you intended because they fall in such predictable, safe rhythms. I think your rhythmic sense also hurts you in terms of the polystylistic mentality that you're trying to convey as the rhythmic procedures are pretty much uniform throughout. Again, rhythm has just as important role as pitch in conveying and articulating stylistic shifts and when you use mostly uniform rhythmic procedures, you convey that everything should be heard homogenously (this is an effect that can have great effect too but it doesn't work at all in your piece in my opinion.)

My recommendations are to try and avoid landing 'on the beat' so frequently. Something I like to do is say, in the instance of four half note and I want to increase the sense of tension and anticipation. I'll subtract a sixteenth note from the first one, then maybe an eighth from the next, then an entire quarter note from the next, followed by lengthening the next half note by another eighth to add stress. So, the resulting rhythm would be one that never lands on a typical landing point and creates a sense of both anticipation and unpredictability. Something else I like to do at times is compose different voices in different subdivisions of the meter. So, one voice may be firmly in quadruplets while another may be in triplets and another in quintuplets. This combined with avoiding typical metrical stresses can both create a deeper independence of voices and add an almost 'weightless' quality to the music (ligeti employed this sort of technique regularly.)

Now, I've essentially been typing train of thought this entire time so I'm likely rambling and poorly focused here. I want to just reiterate that I don't think this piece is bad necessarily. I feel like it has a lot of potential and this isn't even potential that is squandered by the length. The length is near perfect in my opinion, I just can't say the same for what actually happens during it. I just feel that this is the result of a young composer who is not entirely aware and not entirely in control of his material. I'm not trying to suggest that you should go in the direction that I suggested above in order for this to work. I'm simply saying that, based on what you have, that is how I saw it (which I do think would make a much more compelling piece but that's entirely subjective) and that, in my view, you were not able to convey much of any of your intentions. I think this could very much use a re-write as there is certainly an idea worth salvaging in here but I'm not sure I so much agree that this piece should be expanded. The length is perfect for your intentions, just not the content.

I hope I haven't come off as overly negative or pretentious in all of this. I do legitimately want to help.

Lovely work though not sure what cues you took from Schnittke. I like how you invert the traditional fast-slow-fast pacing of three movement works to make it slow -fast-slow. As for influences, the piece reminds me much more of Carter (if he were a tad less loquacious and concerned over how his procedures work out). So, bravo for that.

Now, I actually think there is a fine conversation going on but I agree with Nirvana that your twelve tone melody is NOT rough NOR is anything sentimental. I find the outer movements quite melodic - almost romantic in their contours though the pitch choice is intensely chromatic. Interesting thing is you do revert to some older practice - when you spell out cadential chords, but this time the majority of chords are quartal. The middle movement is a fun scherzo and I like how you blur the line between foreground and background - would like to hear you do that with other pieces in the future.

I do like your reasons for choosing a title - a short succinct work which presents its ideas with only the minimal amount of exposition and therefore considered by some "Light". Again though be careful of your words, because Webern could have called his whole oeuvre "Light Works of Anton Webern".

In sum, excellent piece but be careful your statements about the piece - they contradict what actually is heard (a point Nirvana caught) - and this may mean you are still not entirely conscious of how "unconsciously" you compose. Of course, you are not alone -- I don't think we ever fully plumb what unconscious stuff arises from the depths in our compositions.

I'll listen again as I have to consider nirvana's comments - it sounds like he made a thorough effort to review your piece.

PS. I find no squareness with your rhythm upon first listen.

carraghan-spatz - I'm glad you enjoyed it! It was written in a sort of stumbling manner, yes - this piece marks my first attempt at anything resembling a multi-movement structure (besides one of my very first pieces).

cschweitzer - Hah. Thank you.

You speak of the opening movement, saying that it opens with a 'harsh, awkward' 12 note row and concludes with a 'sentimental melody.' Now... none of this was particularly conveyed to me at all. The opening of this first movement didn't sound very awkward at all, let alone 'harsh.' If anything, the opening cello melody sounded contemplative, as if it's reflecting on a tragedy. The harpsicord enters and seemingly mocks the cellos pain with some offbeat chords. The cello continues its mood and the harpsicord responds with baroque imitations. My personal interpretation of this is something of a drama between two strata. The cello represents the fleeting, emotional individual in pain while the harpsicord representing some sort of aristocracy (this is made especially clear to me based on the choice of instrument which very sound is almost inseparable from the 'High Baroque' era) that is unaffected by the plights of the individual even antagonistic.

It's most likely that I'm reading far too much into these opening ten or so measures but, at this point, I do see definite potential for a compelling piece of music. And, to me, your opening measures clearly suggest this sort of interpretation. My problem comes in very soon though. You never go back go back to this dynamic (other than close to the very end which, had the preceeding material been more compelling, this would've been an excellent ending.) In fact, you even pretty much abandon any sort of 'dialogue' dynamic that was going on between the cello and harpsicord for most the rest of the piece. After this, the harpsicord takes on a much more traditional role of an accompaniment that entirely supports the cello line. You remove any sort of tension or opposition from the piece.

This is interesting. Obviously we hear this music differently, and it's quite possible that I don't understand my own music here. However, I also believe that the emotional content of a given piece (or fragment) isn't set in stone - obviously different listeners get different things out of it.

I also find the "tension between two instruments" idea more traditional in nature than your own, and it was something I tried to avoid to some extent in favor of a different dramatic scheme (namely, the increasing importance/bringing to the foreground of the "sentimental theme").

I don't think you're wrong, though. Listening to it now, I can see how one might hear it as you have -it depends on how sincere/sarcastic one believes I was during the work's composition (and I'm sure some assholery played a part in my writing for the harpsichord in the opening, consciously or no).

In any case, your remarks regarding rhythm are helpful (although I don't find it particularly "stuck"). Thanks for your in-depth review.

With that in mind, I would advise any future listeners to take my notes for the music with a grain of salt (especially considering that they were written hastily to fulfill a deadline).

CO - Hahah, that's not the first time you've compared me to Carter. It's interesting that you hear conversation while Nirvana doesn't as much. I definitely made an effort to have a conversational feel in many passages (and that's one of the first things Shulamit Ran picked up when she looked at it,) but I don't feel that it's integrated as fully or as well as it could be. Nevertheless, I'm pleased with some of it.

ALL OF WEBERN'S WORK IS LIGHT

Voce,

This is a very beautiful work! One of your best, even, I think. For the first movement: I really love your use of space and register in this peice, especially at the beginning of the movement, followed by the very nice entrance of the haprischord, very beautiful. I like the way you mold both instruments together yet keep them distincly seperate playing with both voices as a whole. In any case, a few problems. I think you are two sparse in dynamic control, and I believe you would have gotten a better performance if you were more direct with the dynamics, in fact even at the last measure of the score, you have a diminuendo but don't specify were to go. Did you want to go to niente? Or did you want them to hear a break from the cello in exactly three beats? One will never know.

Secondly, for movement one. I think you use tempo very well, but I think you can be even more dynamic with that. Adding some rit... or accel to those transitionary phrases, I believe, would work wonders the the already musical phrasing of the piece, you should give it a try! Last, but not least, you need to specify dynamics in the haprischord. You barely address that issue throughout the whole piece, and there are some wonderful moments were I think you could bring it out in contrast with the other sections.measure 16 - 23 in fact. Also, you need to specify were that dim... is going in the cello part there.

The second movement:

This movement had some wonderful Ideas, mainly that wonderful slide at motive at beat one! Use that more, I feel you neglect it so much, and if I recall you only use it once more in the whole piece.

I love the way you use the playful side of both instruments in this movement. At measure 21 I really want to hear a crescendo to forte, rather than it just starting out forte, I think that would be a wonderfully musical expression at that point of the piece, especially when it repeats the opening motive!

Furthermore, I love the ostinato in the bass that kept coming back, that really held the movement together, and I felt that the peice was long as it needed to be before it ended. So very good, I think this was my favorite movement of all three.

Third Movement:

I could hear how you tied it into the first movement, and that was a really great thing. I notice that at measure 7 you use a rubato marking. I would be careful with that, especially nowadays. Instead I would use accel's and rallentando's to control how you want the player to play that passage. Sure they bring out the musicality of the piece, but you being the performer of the piece can make it even more musical, especially, say if you used it to tie it in with the first movement if you consider my suggestions above.

Finally:

I heard a long nice applause there at the end. Must have been riveting to hear that. This is a very fine piece and I think you did a great job with it, I think you should try submitting it to some festivals, it would stand a good chance of possibly getting selected. Furthermore, I really like the orchestration, paring those two instruments was really neat. Good Job!

OMG - now I know the schnittke reference - of course how dumb! The applause at the end is a reference to the applause section in the middle of Schnittke's First symphony. LOL (w/ a side of sarcasm!)

This is in Reviewer's Picks? I really don't see what people see in it.

this is amaaaaaaaaaazing.