Duo for violin and cello

Hello, everyone,

I hope you’re all doing well. After quite a long time, I’d like to introduce one of my new compositions to you.

It’s called “Duo for violin and cello.” It’s not exactly easy to listen to, but I believe some of you might enjoy it. Unfortunately, I’m a poor student, so I can’t afford to pay live performers, that’s why the recording was once again made using VSTs, but it’s better than nothing :)

I’d appreciate any comments. Thank you very much.

Score?

33 minutes ago, MJFOBOE said:

Score?

The sheet music is not currently available to the public.

When posting in this community it’s preferred to include the Score for its constructive feedback oriented.

When listening to this, what I feel lacking is anything memorable. One idea seems to move onto the next with seemingly little connection to the previous.

Perhaps you can help me: how did you conceive the structure, ideas and development of each movement?

Edited Thursday at 08:13 PM2 days by Markus Boyd

7 minutes ago, Markus Boyd said:

When posting in this community it’s preferred to include the Score for its constructive feedback oriented.

When listening to this, what I feel lacking is anything memorable. One idea seems to move onto the next with seemingly little connection to the previous.

Perhaps you can help me: how did you conceive the structure, ideas and development of each movement?

Hi, thanks for your comment.

You’re right that in some situations it might be helpful to include the sheet music, but I’m not really used to doing that, I usually don’t. However, I’ll consider it, as several people have asked me about it.

As for the form, it’s actually quite a specific aspect of my compositions. It can be difficult to pick up on at first, but it is there and plays an important role, even if it isn’t immediately apparent on a first listen.

9 minutes ago, Petr Kopuletý said:

Hi, thanks for your comment.

You’re right that in some situations it might be helpful to include the sheet music, but I’m not really used to doing that, I usually don’t. However, I’ll consider it, as several people have asked me about it.

As for the form, it’s actually quite a specific aspect of my compositions. It can be difficult to pick up on at first, but it is there and plays an important role, even if it isn’t immediately apparent on a first listen.

Thanks for the reply. Well, I was only curious to understand how you make your art. But it doesn’t sound like you’re willing to share…

9 minutes ago, Markus Boyd said:

Thanks for the reply. Well, I was only curious to understand how you make your art. But it doesn’t sound like you’re willing to share…

I didn’t express myself very clearly, I’m sorry. It’s not that I don’t want to, but for one thing, it would take quite a long time, because the development of my compositional language hasn’t exactly been straightforward, and my musical expression draws on many different influences. I also think I’m not very good at putting these things into words.

I can tell you what other people have said, though. I often hear that when they listen to my music repeatedly, something suddenly clicks for them. My friends, who have been with me since the very beginning, might actually be able to explain it better. After all, I’m not an outside observer of my own music, so it’s difficult for me to see it from the listener’s perspective.

I suppose my opinion is somewhat different than Markus Boyd's; which I will get to momentarily.

I will say, the very beautiful music that we have going on felt, still, rather "flat" to me. There was little contrast throughout; at least during the first portions of the piece. I get there were moments when the music somewhat rose (achieved through slight crescendos). Otherwise, there was no "aha" moment, where something changed and grabbed my attention. No tempo change, no change in mood. No new visitation to various tonal/post-tonal keys. Nothing stood out to me. After listening to the first two or three minutes of it, I felt like I've heard the entire piece.

Once more, it was beautiful music; and I certainly found it a lush relaxer. But, there was nothing "different" from start to end. Perhaps that's the style you were going for.

On 9/10/2026 at 1:12 PM, Markus Boyd said:

When listening to this, what I feel lacking is anything memorable. One idea seems to move onto the next with seemingly little connection to the previous.

There is absolutely a place in the music world for this kind of musical development; "one idea moving ('hastily') onto the next, without much chance of development".

Background music is the primary example that definitely calls for this type of stylistic development.

(As a far-branching sidenote (which, to clarify, speaks nothing to Markus Boyd's meaning here), I usually get this^^ feedback as a form of dismissive criticism; by people who superficially look at the music and then don't care to observe the potential deeper web of my"overly complicated" music. Usually, when I "defend" myself to say that my piece does in fact develop with themes that do come back, and that the form is there, I don't hear from them again. Have I proven my point regarding "dismissive"? Now, once more, I'm not saying that Marcus Boyd was being dismissive of Petr Kopuletý at all. In fact, I see the opposite: I appreciate that MB was being curiously inquisitive.)

I like to kindly finish that history is on Petr Kopuletý's side on this: people didn't see the development in the "Rite of Spring" either. That famous Bassoon theme? It gets measly developed and revived at best; and then doesn't return at all for the rest of the Ballet Tone Poem. The Stravinsky chord moment? I don't remember hearing it again after that one jarring moment of its appearance. None of his music gets "developed" in the way critiques typically want it to: a theme that comes back and transforms. So, why do we love "Rite of Spring" so much, and why does it keep getting played again and again... and again...?

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by ARCMusicPublishings

Oh! You know, I actually had this similar conversation with yet another inquisitive board member; who too felt that my music could have taken a little more breathing room to develop my themes a little better.

On 7/6/2026 at 6:06 AM, MJFOBOE said:

I still feel the ideas move about too quickly in a thick orchestration .... I feel there needs to be room for the music to breathe to lead and give the listener a moment to connect. For me this didn't happen.

On 7/1/2026 at 12:43 PM, MJFOBOE said:

I wonder if more could have been accomplished with less. When I listened to the work mostly straight through .... I was looking/listening for a central prominent integrative theme(s) to guide me.... Did I miss something here?

My only counter-response here is that I'm really not doing anything in this regard that Stravinsky himself hadn't already done! And, I'm sorry to be clinging to him pathetically as if "Rite" was some be-all-end-all approval post, but it does seem very fitting in this conversation.

2 hours ago, ARCMusicPublishings said:

I suppose my opinion is somewhat different than Markus Boyd's; which I will get to momentarily.

I will say, the very beautiful music that we have going on felt, still, rather "flat" to me. There was little contrast throughout; at least during the first portions of the piece. I get there were moments when the music somewhat rose (achieved through slight crescendos). Otherwise, there was no "aha" moment, where something changed and grabbed my attention. No tempo change, no change in mood. No new visitation to various tonal/post-tonal keys. Nothing stood out to me. After listening to the first two or three minutes of it, I felt like I've heard the entire piece.

Once more, it was beautiful music; and I certainly found it a lush relaxer. But, there was nothing "different" from start to end. Perhaps that's the style you were going for.

There is absolutely a place in the music world for this kind of musical development; "one idea moving ('hastily') onto the next, without much chance of development".

Background music is the primary example that definitely calls for this type of stylistic development.

(As a far-branching sidenote (which, to clarify, speaks nothing to Markus Boyd's meaning here), I usually get this^^ feedback as a form of dismissive criticism; by people who superficially look at the music and then don't care to observe the potential deeper web of my"overly complicated" music. Usually, when I "defend" myself to say that my piece does in fact develop with themes that do come back, and that the form is there, I don't hear from them again. Have I proven my point regarding "dismissive"? Now, once more, I'm not saying that Marcus Boyd was being dismissive of Petr Kopuletý at all. In fact, I see the opposite: I appreciate that MB was being curiously inquisitive.)

I like to kindly finish that history is on Petr Kopuletý's side on this: people didn't see the development in the "Rite of Spring" either. That famous Bassoon theme? It gets measly developed and revived at best; and then doesn't return at all for the rest of the Ballet Tone Poem. The Stravinsky chord moment? I don't remember hearing it again after that one jarring moment of its appearance. None of his music gets "developed" in the way critiques typically want it to: a theme that comes back and transforms. So, why do we love "Rite of Spring" so much, and why does it keep getting played again and again... and again...?

Hello, thank you for your detailed and lengthy comment, I really appreciate it.

I can certainly see what you mean by the lack of a more obvious “aha” moment or a major change of tempo, mood, or musical language. It is intentional: I tend to think of development less in terms of large contrasting sections and more in terms of gradual transformation, interaction. So there may be development happening, but it is not always presented as a clearly perceptible change of scenery. In other words, my music often flows like water, sometimes swelling, sometimes receding, but never coming to a stop.

That is actually very useful feedback for me, because there is a difference between something being internally connected and the listener actually being able to perceive that connection.

Edited 19 minutes ago19 min by Petr Kopuletý

2 hours ago, ARCMusicPublishings said:

Oh! You know, I actually had this similar conversation with yet another inquisitive board member; who too felt that my music could have taken a little more breathing room to develop my themes a little better.

My only counter-response here is that I'm really not doing anything in this regard that Stravinsky himself hadn't already done! And, I'm sorry to be clinging to him pathetically as if "Rite" was some be-all-end-all approval post, but it does seem very fitting in this conversation.

I definitely don't mind the comparison with your own music either, I actually find it interesting that you've received very similar feedback yourself. It makes me think that this is perhaps less a question of whether this approach is correct or incorrect, and more a question of how much space the listener needs in order to perceive the relationships between the ideas.