Leaderboard

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. 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

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.

Excuse me for not delving as deep into this piece as John. I think you did a remarkable job, this sounds very far removed from any of the clichee kind of ideas you (rather, I) would associate with dodecaphony. You manage to genuinely create athmosphere here. There were some parts I especially liked, for example m33 and m36 where the flute seems to be laggin behind the others, trying to keep up. It made me smile. :) There were other parts though, which I liked somewhat less, for example m10-13. The trumpet part seems too exposed to me. I get that it is an important introduction of that particular motif, but the progression sounded too 12 tone-y to me compared to the rest of the piece. The violin bit after that did not feel so openly 12 tone-y (no gay pun intended). m51-58 were the same in that they sounded very tone row-y, slightly less because they were supported by the low strings, but still. Maybe I should say it like this: I think that motif (if I may keep calling it that) works from a compositional point of view like a charm, but my ears don't seem to totally agree on the sound it creates. Ah well, I don't expect you to change it or anything, it might be just me needing to adjust to it. It could have been left unmentioned I suppose. Another thing though I cannot leave unmentioned is the ending. It was, as opposed to the rest of the piece, something I really disliked. Too abrubt, and I don't see the reason why. I hope this was just a halt in the draft and not the actual draft for the ending. A powerfull ending like the opening is a good idea to wrap it up, but the music stops right in its track. I wanted to hear maybe 1 or 2 additional measures there. I am eager to hear your fuge (and other pieces you are writing) after this :D

Lady Gaga's music is infinitely more complex than 99% of the music I've seen posted on this site. There's a reason she is a millionaire and you all just copy paste early period Beethoven sonatas

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.