CaltechViolist

Update: there may (or may not) be a live performance of the entire quartet in mid-May. More on that later, but I am definitely preparing parts right now!

It also depends on the tempo - in a slow tempo, these particular double-stops are playable, but in a fast tempo they are fiendishly difficult as the player would have to sustain 4th finger on the G string while moving the 1st finger on the D string (stretching from 2nd finger on F# would just be painful). As for the loss of volume, it is minimal in a divisi passage; the volume is proportional not to the number of players, but to the square root of the number of players. Because each player's ability to vary volume is far greater than the loss of volume caused by dropping half of the section, the section can easily compensate for any loss of volume when playing divisi. (This, incidentally, is also why a solo string instrument can be heard over an orchestra.)

I'm mainly going to make a few comments on the orchestration of the first movement, since any critique of the form from me would only echo what others have already said. I would, however, seriously consider giving the piano left hand more material, because right now it plays mainly block chords, which are not very interesting at all. With the baroque-like sound that you already have, the first movement sounds like it needs some more counterpoint - perhaps the left hand imitating the right? * In mm. 28-35, the pizzicato basses are not going to give you much of a bass line at all. Consider doubling with celli at the octave. * Keep in mind that the flute's optimal range is actually above the staff. You're not getting much use out of them by mainly doubling oboes and violins in unison. * I notice that you are asking the clarinet player to go up and down in the middle of the staff a whole lot. Keep in mind that the clarinet, in particular, has a "break" between written B-flat and written B-natural that is fairly awkward to finger quickly. Although crossing the break occasionally in a melody is not going to draw objections from clarinet players, it is more effective to consider the clarinet to be almost two separate instruments: one playing from the bottom of its range to written B-flat, and a second instrument going from B-natural to the top of its range. It is also notable that the clarinet has a big change in timbre right at the break. * In general, this is two- and three-part writing within a limited span. With an orchestra, you can definitely use a much wider range of pitches, and fuller chords. The piece sounds somewhat baroque, but even Vivaldi made fuller use of his ripieno strings. As it turns out, most orchestral music is four- and five-part harmony with doublings. * And speaking of doubling, you can get much more dramatic effect by doubling at the octave than by unison doubling. For example, right at the beginning, I might suggest the following: double the melody at the octave, either by moving the 1st violins up an octave, or by having the violas double the melody an octave below; and have the second horn play an octave below the first horn. Instantly, without adding any parts, you get a much more solid sound out of the orchestra.

Other people have most of it covered... I'd also suggest the Vieuxtemps viola sonata. I would also stay the hell away from Berlioz's Harold in Italy. If you're not limited to viola solos, Bruch wrote a set of short pieces for viola, clarinet, and piano...

The minor v chord can be used in a cadence, but context may need to be considered carefully. In my own horn concerto, the first movement (in G minor) ends with a v-I cadence, reversing the order of major and minor chords. It works mainly because it is only the first movement of a multi-movement work, and so the lack of finality in this "quasi-perfect" cadence does not detract from the piece as a whole. Besides, it becomes an effective part of modulation from movement to movement: because the 2nd movement begins in C major, the v-I at the end of the 1st movement can be thought of as part of an extended ii-V-I leading into the 2nd movement.

Sure, I'm annoyed at the overwhelming dominance of pop music today - but I think the classical recording industry is in no small part to blame for that. We really don't need to hear every single violinist in the world recording the Beethoven violin concerto, and yet that's what the recording labels tend to give us. No wonder so many people find classical music "boring" - we pretty much have the same 200 or so pieces shoved at us over and over and over. And most of those fall into the "relaxing music" category, because that's what the suits in the boardrooms think we want. There's a lot of good music out there that doesn't get recorded nearly as frequently, and that's what we should be trying to record. It definitely works as a business model: there's a reason why business is booming for Naxos while most of the other classical labels are struggling.

I'm still tempted to put the marking "Tempo di comatose" on a slow movement, just to see YC's reactions.

Why not?

Um, what isn't a good name for a rock band? ;) You might as well go completely meta, and call your band "Great Name for a Band"

And there are even composers who write music intending to elicit nausea... :glare:

"It's about his aspirations to be the next Conlon Nancarrow." :P

I second the suggestion to re-title it. Some parts of this were really effective, others not so much. Personally, I'd like to see a bit more movement right at the beginning, but it works fine as is. Measures 11-12 have a stop-start feel that I find disconcerting - in particular, I feel like the A in m.11 really wants to be off the beat. There's a similar jarring effect in m.14-15, for different reasons. Changing the number of voices at any point brings emphasis to any new voices or lost voices - and in this case, going to two-note chords in the left hand puts too much emphasis on the left hand. And in 15-16 (and elsewhere in the piece), watch for parallel octaves. In 15, moving the right hand does not mask the very obvious parallel octaves, and you still get a very hollow sound. Measures 22-27: I'm not sure what the intention here is - seems almost randomly thrown in? Measure 28-end: MUCH better! Though m.41 has the same possibly unintended emphasis on the left hand... I especially like the progression in m.37-40, starting with the deceptive cadence, though I would consider moving it faster. (Quarter notes instead of half notes?) Just one other issue: in m.51, the IV is played as an open 5th, which ends up sounding out of place. When writing a chord, while it is true that doubling the 3rd degree is frowned upon by theorists, the converse is not true. I would much rather omit the 5th than the 3rd in a chord. Of course, you could (and perhaps should) consider using a fuller texture at the end of the piece?

I think here, with the violin and cello, I was aiming to emphasize a sequence moving upward in a diminished 7th, while the piano was playing motivic material in the background. I think the Db in the violin/cello is necessary to preserve the sequence; however you do bring up a good point about the voice-leading, and I am considering giving the piano a G# there instead. Unfortunately, this seems only marginally if at all stronger, because the tritone then resolves to a rather unstable perfect 5th. Thoughts on that change? As for the direct 5th, it's really a tough call, because of the conflict between horizontal motivic integrity and vertical voice-leading rules. I realize it's especially exposed in a passage that has just two voices, but hoped that the stepwise movement of one of the voices (even if it was the lower voice, it was arguably of equal importance as both voices are doubled at the octave and have different timbres) would mitigate the effect some.

Yes, it's finally done, after four years and two months. The form is fairly traditional, though this quartet is written in three movements rather than four. The third movement begins in G major (the dominant) and eventually ends in the tonic. I've tried to keep some common threads running throughout - thus the episodes in the third movement refer back to the first two movements, and the first theme in the first movement is found in all three movements. The first movement was recorded back in March, by myself and other medical students; that recording can be found here. EDIT: Scores have been attached. These scores should be considered drafts as articulations, bowings, and other performance instructions may be incomplete. pianoquartet-mvmt1.mid pianoquartet-mvmt1.sib pianoquartet-mvmt2.mid pianoquartet-mvmt2.sib pianoquartet-mvmt3.mid pianoquartet-mvmt3.sib pianoquartet-mvmt1-score.pdf pianoquartet-mvmt2-score.pdf pianoquartet-mvmt3-score.pdf

No, it wouldn't. Having any violins at all playing the melody would make the sound brighter. Also, keep in mind that halving the number of players on a part doesn't actually cut the volume in half - it turns out that volume increases proportionally to the square root of the number of players, so half of the first violin section actually generates 70% of the volume of the full section. Anyway, now looking at the score, I see that you have your violins playing an octave above the violas. What you're actually going to get in this case is almost a pure violin sound, with the violas reinforcing it. You can get a darker sound by having the violins playing in unison with the violas, as they would be playing on their lower strings as well as no longer sticking out above everyone else. This is very possible in what you've written: I see no notes in the viola part that are not playable on a violin. Part of the problem here, also, is that the inside 1st violins and the 2nd violins cross the viola melody fairly frequently, and are generally in the same register. In order to emphasize a melody in the middle or lower registers, the general idea should be to clear a "highway" for the melody by leaving a bit of space above and below the melody. What I would do here, then, is either have a half-section of violins double the violas in unison rather than at the octave, or let the violas play the melody alone. I would also move some of the other material in the violin parts up an octave, allowing the violas to stand out in their register.