Thingeh

I don't have a favourite note value, they're symbols which serve a purpose (what exactly they communicate depends upon context, of course) and I don't have any sort of fetish towards one of them. Then why doesn't your poll reflect this? It's a weighted question which imposes the idea that everyone looking does have a favourite note value (we can't vote that we don't have a favourite note value/etc), which they clearly do not and thus it's a biased, inaccurate and pointless poll.

Hum to address previous reviewers; I think the structure Tokke outlined is quite clear even on first listening if you pay attention, the proportions are just rather large. The orchestration was effective and your themes were quite compelling, I particularly enjoyed the central section (the "romantic climax", I believe); MUCH better than movement 2. I do not like your triumphant ending and it spoils the movement for me; I'd rather you'd ended darkly on Eflat minor (or a less "triumphant" Eflat major ending) and save something like that for the finale, which we could of course attribute to personal taste but considering the nature of movement 2 I think this is an artistic misjudgement on your part. Don't get me wrong, well written in itself, but I think this artistic decision takes away something which is potentially rather special from this movement. Outside of that; well done, really quite a powerful movement. Your best work (published on here) yet, in my opinion.

Aww, some of your writing is so cute! You have a nice character comming through in these works. As you're clearly aware from your opening post, more work on musical disciplines (counterpoint, harmony, etc) would of course be beneficial (and I would also advise that you think about contrast/intensification of your musical ideas) but this is a very pleasant work and not a bad start at all. P.S. Jason (Jawoodruff) raises a good point; a lot (not all, admittedly) of the time siganture changes in the middle of a movement make little/no sense?

I have no clue how we'd define this as "minimalist" or "dissonant". That aside, I enjoyed listening to this work; you sustained quite an interesting sense of ambience with your material.

Cute effort. Last Life that's naughty!

If this is indeed meant to be a "sonatina" (as oppose to what I assumed to be an attempt at a more complete sonata form), your development should be considerably shorter and your recapitulation would still be too short in my opinion. It's mostly due to the relative size of the development that I disregarded the idea of this being a sonatina. Glad I could help though.

Hi, cute work which has more potential than what you've fullfilled. You've clearly attempted to compose this in a classicicistic sonata form, the effectiveness of which derives from the appropriateness of the proportions and I think this is something you really need to have a look at in this work. Your exposition is too small. You state the themes and don't really do much more (development please?), and you also modulate (smooth modulation, I'll give you that) very quickly and dispense with any sort of harmonic tension/conflict. The exposition does fulfil a very particular role in a sonata form; that is, the articulated move from the tonic to another key (typically the dominant in a major piece), which you have observed to a degree. However, this isn't merely a "chore" or "tickbox", it's a harmonic event, your chance as an artist to arouse interest/tension due to the harmonic polarity which you have enveloped, which sorry but you did not achieve; the modulation needs to be more persuasive (Beethoven is worth looking at in regards to this; his transitions were often the most intense point of the exposition). I was more impressed by your development section, you had some interesting stuff going on here and it looks to me from this that you have potential as a composer. However, considering the size of the exposition (and the recapitulation), this was far too large (it dominates the work far too much); even if we talk solely in terms of harmonic "requirements", you'd need a considerably larger recapitulation/coda to properly resolve the harmonic tensions of the development section, which were also hindered by the weaknesses of your exposition section. The recapitulation (like the exposition) was far too brief, and I'd want much more. Your writing for string quartet was fine, you played it safe but that's okay at this stage. Your ideas are quite good and there's alot of potential, I think you just need to work on developing ideas and on your handling of structural factors/events. It might be worth you getting some string quartets by Mozart/Haydn/Beethoven (since you seem to be interested in classical stylings) and observing the procedures they use in their sonata form movements. Not a bad effort, but I think you could do much better; in fact I don't think this is even 30% of what you could achieve if you put your mind to it. I'll be interested to hear your future efforts. P.S. It might benefit you to read Charles Rosen's "Sonata Forms", it's very interesting for those who're interested in the classical era and may help you as a composer.

Four interesting works, I particularly like the cello miniature. Only issue I have right now would be the notation issues I mentioned on shoutbox. Well done.

I think you was successful in atmospheric establishment in this piece. The left hand part (or, that part which I presume to be the left hand) does instill a strong sense of stability and coherancy within the music, though I do wonder more could be done with this at certain points (to me this feels rather monotonous, though this might be your intention). It'd be nice to have a score to give more specific/elaborate criticism, particularly in regard to your dynamic markings (I think abit more could be done here).

Since it's been brought up I'd like to add that I thought this also, though I personally assumed (like Last Life seems to suspect) the intent was to have an unsatisfying ending.

No, not necessarily. I literally mean the last bar (I should've made this more clear, sorry). The final section I like, and works very well; the last bar however bugs me beyond belief and spoils your ending (in my opinion).

Interesting ideas, which I think you have sufficient skill to do abit more with. Lack of dynamic markings/variation for long stretches come across as missed opportunities to me; particularly in bars 52 to 140ish, as though the dynamic consistency might be quite purposeful on your part (I can both see and hear the effect of this, if that's the case) very subtle dynamic changes (underline crescendo's and diminuendo; even the occassional sforzando, dependent on what you decide to aim for) could enhance the sonorities of this passage. I can't give precise comments on piano playing (as, sadly, I'm not a pianist), but I find your piano writing to be suitably expressive (though I can indeed hear your influences!). I don't like the way you end this work; it's the type of ending which, though once unorthodox, has became a musical cliche and to be honest doesn't satisfy the sonorities of this piece. I want a considerably more cynical/violent ending than that. Overall I think you have an interesting set of ideas, which with some fine tuning and work could be become a compelling piece of piano literature.

Yay you answered my query from last night. Bit late, but nevermind xd. (Thank you^^) Edit: Probably this morning for you.