Leaderboard

Fourth Movement of Beethoven's String Quartet no. 4 in C minor

This is the scale here: C - D# - E - Fx - G# - B, which is a mix of C+ and B+.

I was challenged by Peter to compose a baroque dance form for four parts. I haven't studied harmony yet so its probably full of mistakes.

Thank you for your feedback. I watched that video before I composed so I'm not sure how I'm getting the character of a sarabande wrong. I should probably listen to a few examples to get a better idea perhaps. I could use more block chords, slightly quicker tempo, come to think of it, the rhythm needs to be clearer for it to be dance-able. *15 minutes later* I have a book called, 'Dance and the music of Bach'. I've not read it yet but I took a look at the section on the sarabande and its packed full of information. I can send you the link if you want to delve deeper into the dance forms?

Great work! I love baroque dances and suites, when they are treated in the baroque way, but also when it is seen from a contemporary prism. Sarabande in Spanish is Zarabanda. I did some research because I wanted to write a Spanish Baroque Suite, and apart from popular dances taken by the great composers, there are many others (Zorongo, Fandango, etc...). Your piece seems to go a bit quick but I think it's OK. Regarding dynamics, I also think it's right, because in the baroque crescendo and diminuendo were not invented yet. I haven't analyzed it exhaustively but if there are parallels, they don't bother at all. In fact, the first part seems to use heterophony ("a type of texture characterized by the simultaneous variation of a single melodic line. Such a texture can be regarded as a kind of complex monophony in which there is only one basic melody, but realized at the same time in multiple voices, each of which plays the melody differently, either in a different rhythm or tempo, or with various embellishments and elaborations". In this context, even the bass and the upper voice can be seen as doubling voices. The most famous Zarabanda in those times was the Spanish Folia..., with a fixed harmonic pattern. This has been used even in the 20th century (Rachmaninov, Ligeti). Greetings. Luis.

I just compose what comes to mind. Beethoven influence usually shows up subconsciously, but that's not saying that I necessarily want to be Beethoven 2.0, that's just saying that I've been exposed to Beethoven a lot more than other composers because he's my favorite composer.

This was fun to listen to. I liked a lot the lightness from 1:10 to around 1:50; and 2:30 to 2:36.

I won't say the obvious here except I don't think it's as simple as this thing or that. Aesthetics seems to be a consensus issue; in music a mix of that and the culture in which one's perceptions of the quality of aesthetics grows. In "the west" it pays respect to an innate neurological attuning to the harmonic series through which a series of conventions and expectations have developed. It would be futile to claim for example that Amazonian music has no aesthetic - it grew as part of the culture. The developmental scope of western "art" music is largely thanks to the church. So I can't belong to either of these schools unless I'm writing utility music - more the province for those who earn from it. The aesthetics to me are "does it sound right? Is it what I wanted it to be?" It's important to be self-critical. No matter what I think my music set out to say I can't guarantee a listener finds my music any particular thing. Fans of pop and the classical era will find it obscure, accustomed to the ultra-conservative formulae as they are; the metal-merchants will find it too sensual rather than visceral because I pay little respect to rhythm and sharp dynamic. The serial folk will find it ill-structured and banal. I have no wish to be a Palestrina or a Beethoven. It's all been done. So is there a point in them being a target aesthetic? Or should we pay lip-service to aesthetics but recognise we have our own moods, our preferences that allow us latitude to bend things a little. We can still use the chromatic scale. We can have tensions and resolutions; we can estimate how audiences might react and audiences can be quite forgiving if they know at least some names on the programme. We compose because we have creative streaks that happen to focus on sound organisation.

Yes, exactly. Striving for maximum consonance is not always the best artistic goal. A C7b9 in third position might sound "ugly" in isolation, but in context, like resolving to an F6add9, it can be beautiful. A balance of dissonance and consonance is, in my opinion, important.

Schubert's String Quartet no. 14 "Death and the Maiden" first movement.

Notturno, from the String Quartet no. 2 by Alexander Borodin. There are others I rank highly, like the 2nd movement of Tchaikovsky's String Quartet no. 1, or the opening movement of Hugo Wolf's String Quartet, or even the second movement of Rachmaninoff's String Quartet no. 2 (and of course, the classical quartets by Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert), but if I'm being honest, it has to be Borodin's Notturno. The perfect balance between melodic beauty and proportion is unparalleled, not to mention being one of the most moving pieces ever written (at least in my opinion).