Leaderboard

I just completed a piece for clarinet and piano. I would be very interested in getting your comments. There is probably still a need for some revision (spelling issues, slurring etc.). I am particularly interested to know about the potential playability of this piece. I am looking forward to your feedback!

So, I've been binge watching a lot on music history and the development of compositional styles from pretonal to modern day. I came across these interesting lectures by Leonard Bernstein -yes, the great conductor and composer from the latter half of the 20th century. To add some context of my interest in this stuff.... these lectures were done in 1973 -just 7 years before my birth! So, they are still quite current within the musical discussion. To sum it up: most composers see a dichotomy of crisis within the 20th century that has continued into the 21st century. As Bernstein states within these lectures, this led to a split in aesthetics with Stravinsky on one side and Schoenberg on the other. We see this split today (despite Stravinsky's later adoption of serial technique late in his life). Bernstein also, rightly, predicts an 'age of eclecticism' in music. His prediction -which does appear to have come true- isn't coupled with any discussion of whether it is a positive or negative addition to our high art form. Here's the link! Let the discussion begin!

This is my elaboration on Handel's Messiah: For Unto Us a Child Is Born. I plan to finish the entire movement, but that will take some time to complete. In the meantime, what do you all think of it so far? Let me know and please critique my work!

Though not a fugue per se, I find this vaguely Purcell-ish sonata movement contrapuntally imitative enough to qualify as one of my personal favorite pieces in my production. I am rather unsure as to how a roughly two-minute long non-fugato movement with repeats is supposed to share ranks with my 2nd fugue in B minor, the Anno Domini 2020 fugue in G minor or the Halloween fugue in G-sharp minor, yet somehow my subjective unconscious seems to point in such a strange direction. Probably just me being nonsensically whimsical. Enjoy! Video link: Trio Sonata in F minor - Adagio. - YouTube

I am really inspired by @ComposaBoi's Seven Sorrows that I decide to upload an old work composed by little Henry (lol). It's an old work of mine finished in 2014 September, between my ( ) in piano solo and first Piano Sonata. I was way too ambitious then, as I would like to follow the model of Beethoven's String Quartet no. 14 in C sharp minor, op.131, one of my all time favourite piece. It's in the same key as his op. 131; contains seven movements, the same number as Bee's op. 131; and the movements will all be performed in attaca without stopping which also follows Bee's op. 131. At the time of finishing it I though I had completed a masterpiece but of course I am now highly critical of it. But I'm still quite proud of it since it was my first chamber work ever. Detailed are not added there as I didn't have the ability to add those when I composed it. I have some ideas on how to polish it, but I also would like to have you guys' precious opinion on how to polish it since you can always give me new insights and angles to interpret it!! Don't be afraid to criticize or compliment it!! Here is the brief synopsis of the piece: First Movement: Introduction: Adagio mesto e espressivo. C sharp Minor. I was trying to imitate Bee's op. 131, so I used fugue as the opening movement as well, though here it's more the combination of fugue and sonata form. This is my first ever piece in the contrapuntal approach, and I'm quite proud of it despite the errors. The movement introduces three important themes that will appear later on in all the movements: The opening theme (b. 1-11 cello), lamenting theme (b.59-62 1st violin) and a theme I don't know how to call it (b.104-105 2nd violin, appears in tonic b.116-117 1st violin) A quite tragic movement and I love it! Second Movement: Scherzando I: Allegro Vivace. A flat major. Still copying Bee with a scherzando movement follows immediately after a fugal slow movement. Third Movement: Andante. B major. Another fugal movement. I quite like the calmness in it but the fugal technique is not good enough. Fourth Movement: Moderato meastoso. Acts as the bridge to the second part of the Quartet. Fifth Movement: Scherzando II: Allegro Vivace agitato. C sharp minor. Too short and undeveloped to be called a movement. Sixth Movement: Andante molto espressivo. A major. A variation movement as in Bee's fifth movement of op.131 in the same key. The variation skill is not too good though. A transition is used to bridge the final movement. Seventh Movement: Allegro Vivace (No tempo and expression marking??!!). C sharp minor. I LOVE the finale of Bee's op.131: it's so concise and succinct. Here it's a mess. There are some lovely passages but the glue between them fails. Although I keep saying the bad things of this quartet, I am actually grateful for making it. Without it I will never acquire the skills I have to compose subsequent compositions! Here is the full score of the piece: 13-12-2017 String Quartet no 1 Full Score.pdf The score and mp3 of different movements are inserted below. Hope you enjoy it and the day!!! Henry P.S. Thanks to @PeterthePapercomPoser for giving me the suggestion on how to post this!

I composed this piece when I was 14 years old for the 2nd Szokolay InspirArt Composition Competition, where I won a special prize.

Well, the thing is, it now discourages all the concepts that made music resemble "music" for thousands of years and what was the source of much scientific study and innovation. It does the same in visual art. A stack of pennies or a bunch of random, painted squares would never have been considered art by the elite reaching back into antiquity, and for good reason. It was a type of music that was performed and enjoyed by the elite, but in previous times, the elite strove to create beauty and a society worth living in. The current elite do the opposite. Especially the academic elite. That's not the same language. It's the same materials, but what they do with it is dramatically different. Atonalism and serialism were about rejecting the hierarchies (which gave way to the craft of composition) that are necessary in tonal music. If you were to sit down someone at a piano who knows nothing about music, who has no knowledge of these hierachies and how to use them, only that there are 12 different notes to play with, the results the musically-ignorant man will produce are indistinguishable from the self-described "atonal composer"'s work. Thus, to teach atonalism is to teach musical ignorance, and I would say that qualifies such teachings as being anti-music. True. If something is great, it always will be. 80s rock music similarly doesn't require eclecticism to remain marketable. It endures on its own, where other eras of rock have mostly faded away.

Yes indeed, academia is thoroughly anti-music now, and encourage further incompetence of their students. A veritable crime. It's one of the main reasons I turned down college music study years ago when they offered it to me. If we are talking about eclecticism in regards to tonal vs atonal/modernism, then it has definitely been a bad thing. If we just mean eclecticism of styles and genres in general, then it has not been a bad thing, but also not wholly-good either. I would make the comparison to video games, which now tend to feature aspects of every genre to the point they have no genre; no clear identity, and don't particularly excel in any given area. I would also use myself as an example. Years ago, I had met Tommy Tallarico on a few occasions. Back then, when I was getting into video game music, his advice was not to send out demos with a lot of different styles on them. At the time, I thought it was the dumbest thing I'd ever heard. Surely, I'd be more employable in the business if I could do everything? I also liked so many different kinds of music and that's what I wound up doing. But in time, I've come to realize he was right. There is a lot of esoteric knowledge in doing a particular genre, or writing for a particular ensemble very well, and if you dedicate yourself to one, or just a couple things, and you get really good at it, you will become an expert and also develop a unique style within that. It's like AC/DC. Ultimately, only they authentically offer their now-timeless style, and it's what made them rock legends. Probably, I think the better question is whether or not such distinction is meaningful, though. Of course. Even in heavy metal they will apply classical melodic tropes alongside the usual metal style. So that's kind of the inverse: "High art" influence the pop stuff. Also, a lot of the low chuggy-chuggy strings that have become popular rip from rock music That question is potentially a powder keg

Ciao, Since my string quartet was getting absolutely no where, I decided to work on something different. This waltz uses a theme I've had for a while, and have sort of developed in to this new piece. I was going for something alla Tchaikovsky or Strauss with this waltz, and it was really fun to write! I'm intending to orchestrate it so some of the stuff here, such as bars 94 to 97 and the harmony of bars 38 to 47 will probably be revised and changed in the orchestral version. Anyhow, please do enjoy this waltz. Yours, Arjuna (Archie)

Hey @panta rei (or should I call you Johan?), I love your work as always. It's very "panta rei" or "Johan" for me, with your modal mixtute, surprise modulation and fleeing rhythm. I love how you change the time signature for a fleeing effect! For me the clarinet melody is very beautiful, and the piano supports it well. I love the change of texture in piano, but I think the clarinet can do that as well! I definitely love the modulation from F minor to F sharp major in b. 90 and Eb minor to D minor in b. 121! I think there can be more interplay between clarinet and piano. I never see the clarinet act as the accompaniment to support the piano here. I love the interplay in b.101 - 108, and more can be added! I think the clarinet is playable, the breathing is OK and the slur indicates the breathing well. But for the piano b.31 R.H. will be too wide for most of us though I can play it. For spelling, the A# in b.10 should be Bb, D# in b.21 Eb, E# in b.37 F natural, D natural in b.110 C double sharp. Thanks so much for sharing! Henry

Not exactly tonal vs atonal. It's more a deeper look at the history of the demise of tonality and the crisis that ensued after Schoenberg's emancipation of the dissonance. I figured it'd be a good discussion for the forum -as many of you are most likely going to encounter the effects of this topic once you enter college, conservatory, or university (particularly if you're going to a modern leaning institution). I know from my own experience at conservatory that the modern aesthetic is highly encouraged by most composition departments here in the United States. The result of this is a lack of students who compose fully tonal works. Those that come in with tonal works under their belt are generally discouraged from composing these works as they often lack any semblance of a modern harmonic language. I've seen this first hand over the years. Then we come to the prophecy of Bernstein: the prediction of greater eclecticism in contemporary music. My question -which ended the OP- was whether this eclecticism is a good thing for our art form? Do we still distinguish between folk musical styles and high art music? Is the idea of musical eclecticism even something that is possible given the long standing influence of folk music on that art form? Or is there something more profound going on within contemporary music that transcends the idea of eclecticism? These are deep questions that we -as composers- have to ask ourselves. Questions, that I feel, move way above the crisis of the 20th century discussed in Bernsteins 12 hour long lecture. In a way, this may be a crisis of the 21st century as composers strive to maintain the status of our work as high art.

I found a whole bunch of free sample libraries recently on pianobook.co.uk, some of which might be useful here. The ones designed for the Decent Sampler plugin are especially good, and include a number of different clarinets.

Hello! This is my first sonata for piano trio in a major key. Took me one month to write. I tried to give more emphasis to the violin part that can also be played by flute, and the cello part is a bit less developed. The keyboard part can be played on piano or harpsichord (of course, without dynamics on harpsichord). I tried to maintain a classical style but with some liberties. I. Allegro (sonata form) II. Largo (ternary form) (A major) III. Minuet (and trio) (A major) IV. Rondo (sonata-rondo form) Looking for feedback! Score video (violin and piano): sonata.pdf

I just used the coda as a scoring tool, without actual correlation with the structre of the movement. It makes sense I should use the coda only with the coda section (duh). Thanks for pointing it out and for the other observations!

Hi again, Henry, I also listened to the scherzo (5th movement, in the same position in the work as the "rats-feet-on-broken-glass" scherzo of B's work). It came across a lot better probably because bravura playing takes precedence over the expressive demands of the first movement. A nice compact movement, lively. When it came onto the 6th movement I felt it was a bit spoiled by the rendering itself - the unvarying pesante repeated chords of Vn2 Va and Vc. This is going to be difficult to solve without detailed attention to the dynamics (and sadly where notation software won't help too much. More could be done in a DAW where you could control all aspects of HOW notes are played (within the limits of MIDI)). Good ideas and structure there though. I'm wondering if those chords could even be articulated as spiccato or staccato? It's a thought, anyway. The last movement - same comments but it becomes clear - if you don't mind me saying so - that you've learned a lot from Beethoven. (How nice to have him as a teacher!) in your doublings and interplay of parts, articulations and so on. Well done (except those phrases of parallel 5ths!). I took your work as you explained in your intro: an early work and you recognise the potential and need to polish it. In that context I still think it's an achievement. Certainly a work worth refining and use as a platform from which to launch new work. All the best.

Who summons me? Edit: Holy damn that is a long piece of music. Anyway, I would personally not even attempt to mock this up with samples. I am not exaggerating when I say you'd be there for years. The best options that are out there for notation playback is without a doubt Musesounds (it's free), followed by Staffpad, and Noteperformer in last place.

It's been too long, my friend... way too long... the time it took to review your piece would compare to the time it took you to write it...not literally...but I really needed a lot of time to fully digest this one! So...this has received quite a bit of attention. You've gotten lots of viewpoints and critiques from members here, I almost don't know what more could be said. We all know @Omicronrg9, @chopin, and @jawoodruff really know their stuff, I'd take to heart everything they had to say. All of them have vastly different musical output with their compositions, and one thing I love about YC is the extremely different viewpoints that the different members have, all leading me to new ideas and angles to analyze my own music from. There were a few others I didn't mention, but those three are very good composers that I happen to have gotten acquainted with their music pretty frequently (as a side note, I'd love to hear a new @chopin ballade one day. I know you're busy with MJ, Mike, but I miss your music). Before I say anything, I'd just like to remind you that I'm just a simple blues musician who occasionally ventures into the world of this type of music. I'm always interested in what the "classical" composers have done, and in fact, there are even a few that are some of my biggest inspirations. In 2023, I'm referencing "classical" as Bach to Corigliano, so I guess the more concert style of music. I'm just saying, these are just my opinions as a musician living today. Before I get into the actual music that you wrote, I'd like to say that this piece DESERVES much better sound samples. You write very well crafted music, but it's 2023. Without a live performance, I strongly encourage you to incorporate something you worked so hard on to be presented in the best way possible. The simple truth is, not everyone is like me or the ones that have delved deep into your music. If you give them old midi samples of the audio, they won't even give it a second thought; they'll see the hour long time of your piece, and think, "do I even want to listen to this?" No matter how great you are as a composer, this is an unfortunate fact of the present world we live in. And no matter how great your music is, if it isn't presented in the most polished way possible, you might find it'll be hard for people to gravitate towards your music. Your music is quite good, Henry, and I know you have a desk job...spend a bit of that in upgrading your sound samples. Yes this is an old piece, but I use Sibelius too, and you'd be surprised at how well the midi is saved when importing into a sequencer. If you go that route, I'd be happy to share some thoughts on sound samples ( @AngelCityOutlaw would be a great person to talk to as well about this). But also, Noteperformer integrates very well with Sibelius (I believe @Brandon S uses it as well), and you don't have to do a thing with a DAW. Just keep that in mind. Your music deserves to be heard brilliantly, and until I hear a performance by whatever ensemble you pay to recreate your work, I'd strongly consider the more advanced computer renditions. Now, finally, on to the music. HOLY BEETHOVEN Sorry, had something in my throat... In being fair, Beethoven is my all time favorite composer. Although I seldom listen to his music anymore (wth is wrong with me...), I can hear when he's been an influence. I remember when one of my music history teachers told me that Beethoven was a terrible melody writer, and...well, he kinda was. Very seldom did I ever hear a melody of his that floored me. But does that make him a bad composer? Of course not, because Beethoven did everything else so well that it didn't matter. He could turn a simple motif that most of us would have discarded into a grand development that we wouldn't think possible. I kind of hear the same thing with this piece. For the whole deration of this piece, there's not a single moment when the melody was at the forefront, and tbh, I feel like that's a mistake. If you're going to undertake an epic mission of an hour long piece, I think you should have the strategy of making each element of music profound. First of all, you do a SUPERB job of motivic development. In fact, that's what really kept me interested. I was always surprised by how you continued to develop your motifs and adhere to your forms, and it's by far, to me, the strongest element of your music. You, just like Beethoven, took a kernel and molded it into a plethora of popcorn (yeah the analogy is dumb, sorry). But I would have loved to hear a strong melody at the forefront somewhere. Let's see, Beethoven Emperor Concerto? Most famous movement is with the melody. 5th symphony? 2nd movement has a strong melody. What about the 9th? Well, we all know what comes to mind. How about his famous Pathetique sonata? Strong melody in the Ab major movement. Hold on...Appassionata? 6th symphony? Do you see where I'm going with this? Sure, not every piece he wrote may be applicable, but the notable ones are. It's just something I would consider moving forward. I myself have always viewed my music as the same as yours. I focused so hard on developing small fragments, just like Herr Beethoven, but it wasn't until within the last few years where I really concentrated melody that it was a big deal to me to rectify a flaw I saw in my music. That was the whole reason on writing my gypsy piano piece, or the new blues guitar piece I can't wait to show you. I waited too long to discover the finer intricacies needed to implore that side of me. I don't want you to make the same mistake. You did a fair job in giving space to the texture of the piece as a whole, but I greedily wanted more. What if you gave a full minute or longer of just one or two instruments? It's an hour long, I mean, to me, give the listener and the players a longer break. Like I said, you do this a bit, but don't ever feel like just because you have 5 instruments they need to be constantly playing. If the piece is under say 10 minutes, maybe this is different, but man...this is an hour long! It would have been so cool imo to have prolongated sections featuring only a few instruments. You did this a bit in movement 1, but...well idk, I think it would have been cool, since this piece was featuring the clarinet, to give LONG extended periods of time to the clarinet. Let it sing, man. I'm not saying that all your instruments were playing all the time, but it was just something that I expected with a piece of this length. I guess I was just hoping for more elongated solo sections, to really feature the clarinet and what it could do. Yes, you do a good job in general of exploring it's full register, but what about technique and rhythm more applicable to our current time? Speaking of rhythm, I felt like it was a weakness overall in your piece. Now, to be fair, if you were going for a more classical approach to your music, I guess it's ok. But rhythm is one of the elements that I feel like is a weakness of the classical time period, just because it wasn't explored like it is nowadays. If you want your music to sound like 1802, sure, it's more than fine. But I feel like us composers in 2023 should really dive deep into the intricate rhythmic textures that have been utilized within the past 100 years. You don't have to be overly complex with layers and layers of polyrhythms, but just think about the rhythm that you hear in today's music. Your music is for sure harmonically complex, as it scurries around all different keys, but most of the time it's a straight rhythm with hit points of classical era moments. What if you have a movement in a swing rhythm? Or what if your rhythm for an extended section made use of a syncopation like a lot of hip hop music today uses? I don't know, these are just some things that come to mind. Moving forward, I guess I'll follow suit in naming my favorite movements in order. Least to best, I'd say 3, 1, 2, 4. I just personally don't care for fugues, but I know lots of people here do, so I won't go to into that. They all sound "pretty" to me, but I don't really care for them. Yours sounded pretty too, so I'll leave movement 3 for more adept people of the style to give you advice on. Movement 4 was by far my favorite. I love how you took the main theme and syncopated it in an interesting way. Measure 101 of that movement was the first time I can recall that you had a cool arpeggio in the strings and just let the harmony sing, without all the busy counterpoint. Don't get me wrong, you're an absolute legend when it comes to counterpoint with this piece, but my ears needed a moment to just soak in the chords, especially after movement 3. Right around bar 342 of the 4th movement we even get bits of pentatonic melodies, I wish there were more! It sounded so fresh after hearing such a dense assault of major/minor scales. I love the triplets introduced at 403 too, I wish a more rhythmic varied texture was introduced earlier in the piece! You saved the most exciting moments for the last bit. The spicy harmonic lines of the violins at 547 were really cool too, just do more of that imo! Bar 576 was very cool too. Again, interesting textures that take my ears away from endless sequences and counterpoint. I really like the little clarinet cadenza at 614, just think about the breathing! In fact, that was something I was thinking about the entire duration of your piece. ALWAYS think about the performer, and there are several moments where I questioned the breathing of the clarinet. I don't play the instrument, so if this was to ever receive a live performance, I would constantly confer via paranoia about this aspect of the instrument. You could even amend your phrasing if you were extra cautious like I am, and give ample rests in between long and fast sections. I know you wrote ad lib., and maybe that takes care of that. But still, I would consider it a vital fundamental in your clarinet writing. It's nice that you gave it ample time to catch a breath afterwards however. Overall Henry, I really did enjoy this piece in it's entirety. This isn't my go to for style when listening to music, but you compose extraordinarily well. I purposefully focused on ways to maybe improve your writing, but you do loads of things very well. You give us listeners lots to soak in as far a color varying in the keys you flow into, and your writing is very technically sound. I'm only merely pointing out the things that stylistically differ with what I love listening to, but you do the baroque/classical era justice. I would love to see you flourish in a more modern style, given that you do what you do so well, but I know we're all different in what we're going for with composition. Your piece is superbly crafted, and I wouldn't dare comment on the finer points of what's "correct" with the counterpoint, or venture too deep into the use of sequencing and motivic style. You develop your music like your inspiration Beethoven, and I hear it wonderfully crafted all throughout your music. My only hope, albeit a selfish one, would be for you to use your experience in the style and knowledge of the era to create music that's more uniquely you in our modern age. Again, if your goal is to embellish the lovely techniques of that era, than job well done. But I want you to stand out in the crowd of the plethora of composers existing today, and with your attributes I think you could become a phenomenal composer that stands with the competition of his era. And to quote my buddy Daniel... excellent, keep composing, keep uploading your works both on here and on YouTube! Wonderful job, and you should be very proud of this work, even if it is years old. It's emotionally deep, and I can tell you poured your heart and soul into this. I hope everything I hear from you stands up to this piece, no matter how small you may deem it. This is an extraordinary work, that took an extraordinary time to compose, and thanks so much for sharing. It was thrill and joy to listen critically (twice!), and I can't wait to hear what you come up with in the future!

Yeah the dynamics and details... It would be unacceptable for me now but then I didn't know how to deal with them. I would extend this one as to balance with the second movement, as noted by Jonathon. It would probably be a rondo or an ABABA form. Thanks for your effort! Henry

Hi Peter, Thanks for your suggestion and review! LOL🤣. But that's a good one to start! I persist to use that A flat major chord may be due to its dominant function with C sharp minor. But I do think it's quite happy as a teen then (not as dark as the quintet though)! I agree that it can be much more intense with added dynamic markings and details. I was then a careless composer and didn't know how to polish the scores. I would probably keep its playfulness since it's a Scherzando, not a Scherzo, and I think the 1st movement is already quite serious and I would like to have contrast with it. Thanks for your reviewing! Henry

6th Movement: The opening string pattern I would slur, remove the staccato and just keep the tenuto mark. Even beginners are trained to do this type of bowing -it's basic of strings. This will give you a more gentle texture that will seem more pulse like (which I think the opening needs). The double stops at bar 52 should be doable. But be sure to consider that your violins will be in an upper position here to prep for the next passage. Just be mindful when writing double stops. I generally tend to utilize open string double stops alongside a fingered note. Or... I try to configure it to where the string player is in at least 1st, 3rd, or 5th position. That said, overall I'm really liking this quartet!

Dear @Fugax Contrapunctus, I really enjoy all the stuffs you post here. It's not a fugue this time but I don't think it should rank lower than your fugue. They are different approaches but the music is right. I think you can actually compose more non-fugal composition! Thanks for sharing! Henry

Hi! Thank you for sharing your work here first of all. Let's dive into it. I haven't read Luis' and Henry's replies so sorry if I repeat something they say —I might just read them before posting this anyway—. ♫ First movement: • The sections that goes after the exposition of the first motives, as well as the question-answer structure thereafter is very enjoyable. I was not convinced with the beginning, but seeing how it gets connected with the aforementioned passages it did, even more after the contrasting sections after near M86 (if I'm not mistaken). The instruments blend and interact nicely with each other, having their space (like the small piano solo chunk at the measure mentioned above) and don't "eating" or overshadowing one another. • I found the ending a bit disappointing, but that's just a subjective consideration, there's nothing wrong with it. If I had to guess I'd say it didn't convince me because the phrase or couple of phrases that you present at the beginning and that you manage to repeat thrice with nice and cohesive connections with the rest of the material (again, if I'm not mistaken) eventually got much power and I did not feel that the ending you offered solved it all. However, that may even make sense since we're not even past half the sonata. Let's see what the next movement says. ♫ Second movement: • For some reason, the playback in the YouTube video does not accurately play the second measure (flute/violin part). I heard it as if it were a single note instead of three, but perhaps it's just on my end. It happens every time the video reaches this figure: Plus, here the violin sample is behaving strangely. • Now actually talking about the music, the minor part is solid, and the major part is good enough (to my taste, at least). I would say I liked the first movement more. ♫ Third movement: • Why despite noticing evident dynamic changes in this movement (when modulating to A minor for example) there's no dynamic marking? 5 bars before the first piano, the first voice shuts down (in the video), almost disappearing. The transition at M51 didn't convince me much either. • The "Major" motive is strong, beautiful and simple, yet I still prefer the way you developed the first movement. • Should all movements be played attacca? For the III -> IV I'd say a pause would be very welcome. ♫ Fourth movement: • Nice, my only criticism here would be again, transitions; more specifically, the first one that goes back to the ritornello, since the next one is much more fluent and the "C" section itself convinces me much more than the B one. The D section is very beautiful. • Got mixed feelings with the end. On one hand, you were building lots of tension since M128, but this didn't last enough in my opinion since you solved that tension before the end of the piece, and thus subtracted that tension at the wrong time in my opinion, leaving the sonata with a final which I wouldn't call anticlimactic but "lacking" and definitely not as wholesome as it could have been —yet beautiful, anyway—. Again, thank you for sharing this work here, for it is always enjoyable to listen to a hard-working piece with at least 1/10 of the care the composer, in this case, you, put it when and while making it. Kind regards, Daniel–Ømicrón.

Despite I never get enough of fugues (I expected one without actually checking the name of the piece) when time lets me consume them, I equally like almost any other baroque-like pieces, and honestly you never disappoint. I liked the combined sound of these three instruments you chose this time, I also liked the development of this piece all the way to the end, and indeed I believe there's nothing here that be worth criticizing. I don't see any issue or any stuff I didn't like but perhaps —and only perhaps— the very beginning of the flute part. It just didn't convince me too much rhythmically speaking, just the very first three notes, then that feeling of uneasiness abandons me and I completely enjoy the piece. In any case, congratulations, and thank you for uploading this work here. Again, you never disappoint. Kind regards, Daniel–Ømicrón.

I thought it was only fair to give feedback here since you took the time to do so with mine

I chose the 7th movement to review: This definitely has a kinship more to Schubert, than Beethoven, imho. Bar 71 almost comes directly out of his style! The articulation marking at bar 151 should be staccato. That would make more sense and provide what you seem to be looking for there. Compositionally, the material at bar 173 doesn't quite seem to sound coherent with what came before. It's almost like you've led us into another piece. I find the material interesting, but the texture you present it in doesn't quite seem to work with that interesting theme. Perhaps you could have cello play pizz, 2nd violin droning that chord softly with double stop, and viola with 1st violin presenting the theme conversationally? The marcato markings at Bar 305 can be done with just a regular pizzicato mark. With string players, it's easier to let them assist in applying minute articulations to bring out your lines. Most of us have a no. 2 pencil that we use to change passages to make them more 'string' friendly. Simply, writing above the score 'spiccato' or 'light staccato' or 'with force' will give us an idea what you want. These wedge passages almost remind me of a Mozart piece. All in all, quite an enjoyable movement. This many bars -you should definitely be proud of your work here!

I've always taken pedal staccato markings in scores to indicate that you want the pianist to quickly hit the note and move on -i.e. shorten the note value. The pedal effect with this can be done while still keeping a shortened attack for the note itself -much like string players can still do a staccato passage while playing the lower parts of the bow, near the frog, to keep the resonant qualities of the instrument.

6th movement: I've rarely heard a classical styled melody that is completely in the meter of 5/4 throughout! Maybe Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony 5/4 movement could qualify although it's more romantic (and also happens to be in the same key of A major as this movement!) I chose to review this movement next because I love variations pieces! I think my favorite variation in this is the 6/8 variation (why don't you label your variations in this movement?). This movement also suffers from lack of dynamics. The theme has some really well executed and interesting harmony! There are places throughout the movement which are meant to be sort of dramatic grand pauses. To me, they arrest the flow of the music and leave the listener hanging imo. Although you already have the seed of that grand pause idea present within the theme at meas. 46. Meas. 66 sounds like you just stopped writing at a certain point. In other places the pauses sound more "grand" and like they're a dramatic element as if part of an opera/recitative. But meas. 204 - 205 really sounds like a very disconnected idea/fragment. Putting the theme also at the end of the movement is a nice touch but I expected meas. 227 to be the last measure. Surprisingly, it continues after that - with more variations? Formally that decision just doesn't make sense to me unless you were looking as you say for a transition to the next movement which I don't think is necessary in a theme and variations movement. Maybe you were relying too heavily on the model of a previous Beethoven String Quartet which had transitions between the movements? But I don't think that means that you had to also have a transition. Thanks for sharing!

FIRST MOVEMENT I prefer the version with the flute. But I think it is because of the sound of the libraries. Also, it is more pleasant (to me) the harpsichord than the piano when the background is made by alberti bass or repeated notes. I like very much the part where the harmony changes a lot (m 16...) The second parta is beautiful nd makes a great contrast, and is when the piano has its best moments. II. LARGO Flute version. I love this part. I like also when the harpsichord goes alone... The flute sounds a bit obscuro and low perhaps is the register. III MINUET This is also lovey and well done. I observe you don't take use of the perfect authentic cadence in the final part of sections, which is almos "mandatory" in this style. See m. 7-8, or 23-24, or 50-51. The bass is OK_ 5-1, but the melody is 2-1. That is an imperfect cadence. It's OK but they are weaker and what is expected, at least at the very end is a Perfect Authentic Cadence. IV RONDO This is also great although some cadences still sound odd to me ( form example m. 48-49). Huge work!

Dear @Quinn, Thank you for your comment on the movement concerning the scoring and midi! I think the first movement has beauty in it, but I was not mature to present and develop it better. It for sure has greater potential to be better! Bee's op. 131 was my all time favourite piece and still is. But it was too gigantic for me to digest it then, and I was too ambitious to use it as the model for composition. However, having it as my model, at least I know how great a composition can be and I definitely what my compositional path should be. Every composers' path are different, and I will try to walk my way to achieve something better. Thank you! Henry

I think your initial material is very tuneful. A few caveats: 1. I feel the static waltz in the left hand is a little bland. I'd like to see more interplay between the hands. Don't be afraid to invert the two... give the harmony to the right and let the left explore the scalar motif into the depths of the instrument. OR you could interplay the scalar material thru both. 2. Bars 78 - 93, as Henry mentioned, don't quite diverge enough to be exactly contrasting material. I think this is where the first motif in your melody could be very much developed -given you take the scalar material above like I suggested. Venture into some further tonal areas and really push your harmonic a bit -much like the waltz kings did in their works. That said, I greatly enjoyed watching the process in INCOMPLETE WORKS. Hope to see this work a little more refined.

Thank you! I played the violin for a long time and when I started to learn the basics of Jazz I thought I would write a jazz piece for string quartet. I was awarded a special prize in a Hungarian composer competition, and I had already won a first prize in this competition with a piano piece. This piece was a little bit special because it was mainly classical music. I won the previous competition with this piece when I was 13 years old: