ZiggyPastorius

This is fine and dandy, but it doesn't help me at all. Individually, I know what all those words mean, but I don't know how they mean. I've never personally known another composer, I've never taken lessons, I'm completely self-taught in theory and composition...I can follow my melody through the entire piece, someone else commented on it sounding atmospheric, which I don't know how that would differ from texture. As for rhythm and form, they're probably not as refined as they could be. But none of this helps me because I don't know how to fix it. If I don't know why what I identify as the melody is not the melody, I can't start writing melodies. If I don't know how to write with more texture, I can't do it. The structure of the piece makes sense to me - how am I going to fix it? For another month and a half, I have no guidance in my composing except what you guys tell me here. I'm studying, I'm reading, but it's not helping me because I can't apply it. I can handle negativity, but it should serve a purpose.

Thank you. It can be a huge spot of weakness, and one that's been commented on a few times. When I am writing a piece, I don't make a strict form for it. For example, I don't say "I am going to do the theme, develop it, and recapitulate it here in a different key." My method of writing is more to sit down with whatever I have, say just a melody and some harmony, and see where I can take it. It's a development of sorts, but instead of working off variations of the original melody, I try to develop it into a "super-melody," or an extension of the original melody that works from it, but doesn't necessarily borrow from it. When I'm stuck, I look at what I've written, and say "What can I restate, reuse, recycle from earlier to keep going from where I am?" So, when someone makes the comment that my piece has no structure, they're probably partially right. I did not set a specific structure before I wrote it. However, I don't feel, looking at it, that it goes off into space and beyond, either. A person looking at Petrushka by Stravinsky for the first time could probably find a hundred places where the transition "doesn't make sense," but it made sense to him, it makes sense in the ballet itself, and it'd probably make sense if you looked at it a bit closer. One example of that would be between the piano solo and the sped up parts in I believe in the trumpet in...I think second tableu, fourth "section," (Petrushka's Cell). So, I don't know if that makes sense, and again, if anyone has any specific parts they find problematic, let me know, because it's hard to know exactly what you mean without examples :) Thanks for all the feedback, everyone.

Thanks for the feedback. Firstly, I'll assume by the pianissimo in 19, you're talking about the fact that I put them in two measures in a row? It's probably not needed, but my reasoning for that was because of the fermata there, and the fact that the only instrument changing from pianissimo is the cello between those two measures, it would help the performers not to get confused when they saw no change, and one instrument got louder. In other words, because of the chamber setting, I figured it would avoid any confusion, sort of like adding a natural sign after a B in a piece in the key of C after you've been using Bb for a while. As for the dynamics in 43-44, perhaps you could be a bit more specific as to what's wrong with it, as the crescendo then drop-off is exactly what I wanted in that part. I'm also not sure about the problem in the 60s...again, a little clarification as to why it's pointless would be helpful, as I can't see any reason why it'd be pointless, even if it wouldn't be what you'd do... Some of my dyanamics may very well be in-effective, but honestly, I wouldn't know how you'd decide that. The piece does what I intended it to do, dynamically. And it may not be what you're talking about, but you mentioned the drowning of the melody, and if you're referring to measures 23 and beyond, I believe that's a technological error, as I have the dynamic set higher than the other instruments' harmonies. @jrcramer, I'll do my best, but without some specific examples, I'm not sure how much it'll help you... The cello at 14 is using the rhythm of the beginning of the piece (as simple as it is) to work away from the original key slightly before the chromatic mediant that ends that first section. Nothing too exciting there. The first section tends to gravitate around G and Em. The following few measures are pretty self-explanatory as the sudden dynamic change completes the short descending arpeggio at the end of the cello solo and leads into the next key. From there, the piece stays basically in the key of Bb major. Around 37, I think that cello and viola descensions led nicely into the melody that crescendos into the whole and half notes before the tempo change. At the tempo change, the rhythmic figure from measure 28 is revisited using new chords (F7, Ebm and Bb7 instead of the A7 before). In the last of those four measures, the cello is the only line that moves. While the final chord that results does not have a traditional dominant function because of the A being flat, rather than natural, I felt it worked well enough moving to the following section which does not hold any chords, but begins rooted on a Bb. As for the section immediately following that...I had to do a lot of editing to fix it, as I had some parallel motion that made it stick out quite glaringly. If there is anything that still makes it sound awkward, I'm not entirely sure what to do with it, as I believe I eliminated the parallel motion that was affecting it, and it now sounds acceptable to my ear, and I like it as a couple of transitional measures. Measures 51-52 uses the violin in a way that I've used it a few times throughout the rest of the quartet, so I feel it helps establish some "togetherness." 54-55. This modulation is a bit rough, and I messed with it for almost an hour, trying to make it sound okay in my ear. I will admit, too, the modulation is simply there for the sake of being there. Or really, I put it there in hopes that it revive a bit of interest, sort of "wake up" the listener a bit. Whether that worked in a positive way is up to the listener. Those are my responses. I do think you hit on a lot of important weaknesses in my writing. Blocky writing is probably the biggest, or as was mentioned, the predictability in the occurance of harmonic changes. Still trying to work through it...it's hard. It'd be nice if anyone who has listened to my other pieces could chime in and compare this a bit to them. It's hard to look at your own writing, especially when you're learning how to write, and see what you're doing better, worse, et cetera. I'm still working on it, still thinking. I consider this piece "complete" but I have not discounted anything you guys have said, and I have been taking a big look at the things you guys have mentioned, so please, if you have more comments, or more detail, let me have it. You need not worry about being negative -- it's depressing, but it's a part of learning, and I'm fine with it.

Thanks, Charlie, for the critique. Negative is fine - it gives me something to think about.

I found the string quartet to be very similar to Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima and Black Angels, which is not a bad thing at all, as I enjoy those pieces a lot. I don't have much to say, as I have no score or anything to go off of, but it was an interesting listen.

I'm very impressed. Very cool and very enjoyable. Your rhythms are interesting, and there's a very strong grasp on the harmony, and that's rather impressive. The whole thing is more impressive to me, as none of my music is along this line of style, and honestly, I'm not sure how I would categorise this even if I could. It's almost like a poppy bop style, but it's pretty unique and I enjoyed it, especially the last chord in Black Elegance! Aaron's comment is a bit true, although I think both are different enough that anyone going through a catalogue of your music would be able to note the similarities, but wouldn't be too thrown off by them, although you may want to try (like I should) to go a different route, stylistically, in your next piece or two. Although, maybe you have. I haven't heard any of your other stuff, so I apologise if my comments are misdirected. Either way, good pieces, I enjoyed them, thank you! :)

Hello all. Since June 1st, I've been working on a string quartet written for my alma mater High School's string quartet. The piece is written for two Violins, a Viola and a Cello. I "commissioned" it for myself near graduation to be a gift for the high school, so I could leave a small piece of myself before I move on to bigger things. This is the first piece which I have ever completed completely by hand :) That's a bit of a big step for me, so I'm proud of myself for that. There are linked pictures (kind of blurry and hard to see) that show the original score that I wrote myself by hand. Also attached is the .pdf of the score and an .mp3 (rendered through .midi by Logic Pro 8). Please let me hear your thoughts :) Mp3 fondest.pdf

I am extremely impressed by this. Unfortunately, I don't have the expertise to make helpful comments like some other people here, but this is wonderful. I was enraptured the whole time, the style of this piece is one I really enjoy. Robin, I just want to say personally, thank you, both for bringing this music into the world, and for being one of the people here who inspire me to become better myself. Peace.

I really enjoyed the style of this piece, and diatonicism in a diminished key is a very cool idea :) The piece reminded me a lot of a piece called "Escape From Chronopolis" by Reber Clark, which is a somewhat obscure piece, but one I enjoyed a lot. Nice job.

And I highly doubt your friend has this issue because he's an electric bass player. I do dabble in other instruments now, but I'm an electric bass principal and could sing intervals very well without any piano (or other instrument) aid at all. I think, like everyone else says, it's just a matter of practice.

It is suggested from analyses I've seen elsewhere that the "finale" of the piece is the only place where a tonal centre is obviously implied, and the analysis here could support that. That said, I have no idea. You did give me something to think about, CO, that I haven't thought about before (for whatever reason), and that is, thinking of multiple tones as leading tones in analysis of large chords...

Yeah, that makes sense. I'm sure I'll I'll have to go back to the beginning of that particular chorale-motif section and study the voice leading if I want to see what's really going on...I just figured I'd be able to see something, cadentially, even if that something is random.

Thank you for the very in-depth replies :) I suppose then, with that second-to-last chord, I'll just have to listen more to try to discern those "awkward" notes from the mess by ear. I haven't studied much of that stuff, but I'll do my best to make sense of it, and I'll look over my band instructor's doctoral thesis on this piece... Thanks, guys :)

The part in question is around 9:02. YouTube - Igor Stravinsky: Symphonies Of Wind Instruments (1920) I am looking at the end of Symphonies of Wind Instruments by Igor Stravinsky, and I am a bit confused by the final two chords of the piece, and would like some help if possible. Here is the list of instruments and their note: Flute 1: C D Flute 2: C D Flute 3: A B Alto Flute: A C Oboe 1: E B Oboe 2: A G English Horn in F: F# F# Clarinet in Bb 1: Eb Eb Clarinet in Bb 2: B A Alto Clarinet in Eb : C B Bassoon 1: F G Bassoon 2: D C Contrabassoon: D C French Horn 1: E F# French Horn 2: C D French Horn 3: G F# French Horn 4: C B Trumpet in C 1: C D Trumpet in C 2: A B Trumpet in A: C G Trombone 1: B G Trombone 2: F E Trombone 3 A G Tuba: D C So, assuming I’m reading this right, the chords are as follows (in concert pitch, from bass up) First: D A F B A A C F C F A D D F Eb A Db B A E A A C C Second: C G E G E B D E B G B C C G D G Db B G B C B D D So for the first chord, we have D F A C E B Eb Db, which is...I don’t know...You can find a B half-diminished in there, a Dm9...but the rest of the notes just seem to be thrown in there. The thing that confuses me the most, is when I play those notes on the piano, the chord sounds nothing like the chord does played in the piece... As for the last chord, everything checks out as a CM9 chord (which is what it is: C G E B D), except the Eb in the first clarinet, which adds a Db. I was told it was probably a notational error on the part of the publisher, which is possible...but it seems to check out with the rest of the part. So my question here is: am I missing something? Did I make a mistake somewhere? Transposed an instrument wrong? I’m trying to understand harmonically what is going on in this cadence, but it’s kind of hard when my notation doesn’t match what I’m hearing... [bad pictures from my score are included]

Nothing in the piece stuck out too much, or made me think "yuck." It was pretty safe, overall. Nice work for a first composition, although I'm curious why the choir is in there when it's never used? :P