String Quartet in the Webern Style

This was written in three hours. A simple assignment for a class that required a minute-long piece that used a hexachord. I went over the top and fashioned it after Webern. Not strictly or carefully, but I'm rather happy with the result.If you know atonal set theory, you'll see that almost everything in the piece is significant. The base sets are [3-3], [4-17], [6-20], and [9-3]. Each of them are extensions of a [3-3], so the work is very simple and rather shallow theoretically.

String Quartet in the Webern Style

I think the dynamics vary too much to be in webern style. he is somewhere in between pppp and p :P

So, this sounds like nothing like Webern whatsoever and almost all of your harmonic choices reflect this. None of the pitch sets you cite were at all pervasive in Webern's output other than the fact that, yes, 3-3 is one that Webern loved and shows up in all his tone rows. The problem with that being is that is also shows up in just about every composer of the early 20th centuries vocabulary including Messiaen, Bartok, Stravinsky, Scriabin, Grifess and Schoenberg (just to name the names that come off the top of my head.) And other than this one common motive, nothing in your broader harmonic choices or anything you've actually written reflects Webern at all. And while you admit that you didn't so strictly, the fact that you do seem to think this sounds like Webern at much of all is indicative of the fact that you probably just don't know much about Webern in the first place. Really, if anything, it comes off slightly closer to sounding like badly done Bartok.

So, this sounds like nothing like Webern whatsoever and almost all of your harmonic choices reflect this. None of the pitch sets you cite were at all pervasive in Webern's output other than the fact that, yes, 3-3 is one that Webern loved and shows up in all his tone rows. The problem with that being is that is also shows up in just about every composer of the early 20th centuries vocabulary including Messiaen, Bartok, Stravinsky, Scriabin, Grifess and Schoenberg (just to name the names that come off the top of my head.) And other than this one common motive, nothing in your broader harmonic choices or anything you've actually written reflects Webern at all. And while you admit that you didn't so strictly, the fact that you do seem to think this sounds like Webern at much of all is indicative of the fact that you probably just don't know much about Webern in the first place. Really, if anything, it comes off slightly closer to sounding like badly done Bartok.

You're actually absolutely right and I agree, which is why I appreciate your comment. However, it's not supposed to sound like Webern - it's supposed to sound like me employing a very limited variety of Webern's techniques and style. I agree, there is a hint of Bartok and possibly some Xenakis snuck in. My chosen sets don't reflect Webern's choices, however I aimed for my treatment of them to be closer to how Webern might have treated them. You're welcome to explain if you disagree. This is a very superficial impression on the style and I did not put much effort into it at all.

Thank you! =]

P.S., how do you get even poorly done Scriabin and Griffes out of it?