danishali903

It's clear it took a lot of effort and thought to write this work, so kudos! The orchestration, attention to melody, and engraving are the highlights for me (my score engraving is quite horrendous, so this is quite impressive!). Your solo violin writing isn't that bad...there are a few technical difficult spots here and there. My biggest concern is that the solo violin plays continuously, and since it's a REALLY long piece, the soloist is probably going to lose steam halfway through the 2nd movement. To me, this is less "Violin Concerto", and more a Symphony with Violin Obligato. Each movement does seem to have a structure/roadmap, but sometimes, some sections are unnecessarily prolonged, or they seem really random...Here are my thoughts for each movement: First movement: Probably my favorite of the three, and the most cohesive in structure. I hear a little bit of Dvorak's influence in there. Everything seems good until, measure 155. 155 to about 195 seems like I've entered a different movement, and it's very jarring how different the tone and atmosphere is compared to the everything else. For a movement in A minor, I'm surprised you don't explore the material in A major or C major....But overall not too bad! Second movement: Not a big fan of this movement. There was not a cohesive structure, and I feel like you were trying to throw a LOT of stuff in here to fill out the movement, and it did not gel for me. I kinda liked the section at A, with the Gershwin-esque jazzyness....even though it didn't quite match the tone of the first movement...but I still enjoyed it! I think you can expand that section a little more. The sudden shift in measure 68 however was jarring, but weirdly that was what I was expecting the 2nd movement would sound like more, and it flows very well from the 1st movement, and the introduction of the 2nd movement. Then there is a complete tone shift at letter F...did not like it. Might've worked better if the previous section was more developed and the transition material worked, but the shift in tone did not sit well with me. The tone does shift again....at measure 110. Personally, I would omit everything F and 110, it would flow much better. I would also developed ending little more, and make it a little less thick, orchestration-wise...maybe just the violin and strings...and do an attacca into the next movement. Third movement: I have to be honest here...I couldn't listen to the whole movement, and had to skip around some sections. This movement is unnecessarily really long, and really taxing on the solo violinist, the orchestra, and the listener. I think you were going for a Rondo-esque form here...but some of it was really superfluous. It started off really well, with the melodic material brought back from the first movement. I really like the cadenza moment at 93, and I think that should be heavily expanded! Measure 125 (and whenever that is repeated later) should have varied orchestration...gets kinda boring with the exact same material. Plus the solo violinist does need a rest from all those ricochet arpeggios. Transition at 130 starts out great, and the material that follows is intriguing....but it feels like I've entered a whole different violin concerto at 150. It suddenly goes from a romantic sounding work to something Bartok/Madonna would've written (VEERRRRRRYYYYYY jarring). We return back to the main material at 204, but that gets interrupted by a a Beethoven-esque scherzo at 242, which still somewhat fits better. Around measure 400, I was starting to lose interest....measure 424 could use some counterpoint to keep things moving. The whole section from 445-470 is very meandering, and can probably be omitted. Same for after the cadenza at 523-533. I think you were trying to throw different things together and hoping the hodgepodge of different styles/melodies come together, but it's not working. There are barely any rests for the solo violin, and thought it's not overly technical...it is EXTREMELY long.

This is quite good! Your string writing is nice, but I think the score is in desperate need of phrasing markings (slurs, bowings, articulation markings, etc.)! Adding more tempo fluidity might help with phrasing as well...but I guess that's more of a subjective take. I do agree with @Luis Hernández that the piece does get a little tiresome due to the homophonic nature. I think there are areas where some counterpoint/development would be beneficial (especially towards the end of the piece).

Disclaimer: I haven't listened to the other movements, but I will in time. I echo what @malumCompositorsaid about a lack of structure. You have some good ideas here and there, but they seem to be severely disjointed. Try to not to cram everything at once. I did like the motivic figure and its subsequent development from measures 9-16. There are also a lot of questionable harmonic/melodic choices...For starters, the key signature at the beginning is in C minor, but the material is in G major...and it mostly stays in the G major/minor-ish tonality the rest of the piece. There are odd harmonic progressions (the last few measures of the movement for example), harmonic clashes (flute/oboe around 97, B natural in bassoon at 96)....even if intentional, sound very odd. Your string writing is alright. Wind writing on the other hand needs more polish. Overall, a little orchestration studying might be helpful, just to get a general idea of the capabilities for each instrument.

Very interesting work! Your string writing is excellent. Not an expert on Marimba, so can't really comment on the playability...but it looks challenging. I also liked the fact that the piece does follow the sonata structure and is very concise. Very well done! Hopefully you get to post a live recording of the piece soon 🙂

Very impressive for a 17 year old...great job! The movement has very Shostakovich-esque qualities. I think @Tónskáld did a good job of explaining the things I was going to mention.

I am gonna throw my hat in and enter as an entrant. Should be fun!

This is quite impressive! Some parts reminded me of something Schubert would write, some had a more Rachmaninoff quality to them. Beautiful recording as well. It'd be nice to see a score too. If you need a violist in the future, I am at your service 🙂

It's a very introspective work, just like the title suggests. I'm not a clarinetist so I can't comment on the technical stuff, but it sounds playable. It would be beneficial to include the score. Overall, great job!

It'd be interesting to hear a live performance of this work, the mockup doesn't do it justice (as always). The music's atmosphere is reminiscent of a movie score. If you do ever work on this piece more/revise it, I would develop the middle section a little more (starting at bar 67). That whole section just felt out of place...(mostly)harmonically and (somewhat) rhythmically. This might be a personal preference, but when I don't like seeing the 8va dash thing...I prefer to read the actual note. I try to avoid using the 8va as much as I can, I think you can too especially in the beginning of the piece for the first violin. You can probably keep it at the end. Also, string tremolos are noted by 3 slashes.

I would call this piece a Passacaglia rather than a Canon...technically the infamous Canon in D is also passacaglia. Not a wind player so can't get THAT technical, but some of those figures in the horn parts (around measure 29) seem difficult, plus the range is a little too high for horn.

What an unusual chamber set up, but very effective! Loved the whole piece.

Very catchy, very Tchaikovsky-ish. The piece loses its charm a bit in the B/trio section (around measure 131). I agree with @maestrowick about adding a counter melody there (probably would work best with a cello/horn combo). Overall, pretty good though. In terms of orchestration, you need to better use the 2nd player of each group (ex. flute 2, oboe 2, etc.). The 2nd violin part could benefit from doubling down an octave in same places, like measure 38. In measure 62 (and whenever that reappears), the wind figures will most definitely by drowned out by the strings. This should be reinforced by the clarinets and bassoons...maybe the harp. Side note: most orchestras will only have one piccolo player doubling flute 3...something to keep in mind. The horn parts could use some love, they'll definitely be bored out of their minds. I personally would've added another trombone and tuba to reinforce the bass notes...but that's just me.

Besides what @aMusicComposer mentioned (which is really good advice), the piece lacks formal structure and is not very "rhapsodical". I think each idea could be developed a bit more. The piece loses its energy at rehearsal C, which is a shame since I liked what was going on at B.

Very impressive! Beautiful string writing all around. I have one minor critique: The first movement repeat (bar 18) to the beginning seems...disjointed. Bar 18 is a perfect setup for the next section, but its a little jarring when it repeats to the beginning. But overall, great job! The orchestra sounds marvelous as well!

I don't quite understand what you mean by that. When you're reducing a piece meant for 40-50 players to a piece for 7 people, you are going to lose that "power" regardless of the piano. My main gripe is not with the addition of the piano, its the way it's used in the ensemble. I'm not a pianist myself so I can't really give you any feedback about how to write for the instrument. I can recommend you to listen to Liszt's transcription of the Beethoven symphony and see how transcribes/arranges the piece for solo piano (you can find the score at IMSLP.com) Just to nitpick...those aren't "tremolos". They're just a short-hand way of writing 8th notes, which most composers do use. It's just in figures like those that you must "spell out" your notation clearly. You are assuming that the musician who plays your piece is already familiar with it (in this case most people probably are)...just a good habit to make it easier for musicians by spelling it out.