String Quintet No. 1 in D Major

So I wrote a string quintet piece. I'm not sure yet whether or not I will add more movements to it, but for now I wanted to get some feedback as I've put a lot of effort and time into it. I'm fairly new to composing in the stricter sense (completing pieces, applying music theory, fully notating works) and am still learning. I began work on this piece a little over a month ago when I was at a strings camp playing Schubert's string quintet (which this piece takes a lot of influence from), and is titled "Distractions." It started as a silly, spastic tribute to my easily distracted goofy second cellist, but as I continued writing it grew more sentimental. 

Please be very critical! I'm serious about wanting to improve and putting effort into my compositions.

Gonna be honest here... I don't hear the Schubert Quintet when I listen to this. I'm going to assume it's supposed to be neotonal or atonal, and not necessarily in D major. I don't really hear the tonal center until about m. 19 and it tapers from there relatively quickly. Also feel like you should change the clef of the 2nd cello near the end, there.

Why did you write this in cut time? Especially past 167, the piece kind of suffers in its engraving by having it in cut time; a lot of tied over whole notes and half notes, and not really necessary. 4/4 with a cut tempo might have looked better.

I know it's supposed to be a very sporadic piece. But it's supposed to be tonal, it may be a bit too sporadic. I don't get much sense of a form in this, and the melody is cut off maybe a little too often. In general, I feel like there's a lot of ideas that just don't get developed enough. 

Of course, maybe you like all this, and if you do, who am I to tell you that's wrong?

Cheers.

I agree with the point that this piece has a lot ideas that could be further developed. It seems mostly formless. I would recommend reading about and listening to examples of different forms that have been used by many composers before. (Sonata Allegro, Ternary, Rondo, Arch, the list goes on and on) You don't have to stick specifically to any one of these forms by any means, but I think they would help give you a foundation from which you can consider how to structure and develop your ideas. 

Theres good stuff here, but it could be made much better with some refining. Keep up the good work. 

@Monarcheon

Thanks for your reply. Sorry I'm a bit late. I've been on vacation and hadn't gotten around to typing out a reply. For your first though, the Schubert inspiration lies in my attempt to strongly blend instruments/having a lot going on in any one section of the piece, as well as the solo duets in the middle and the cello duet in the end taking inspiration from the duets in Schuberts quintet (along with the accompaniment triplet pattern during it). Primarily though, I wanted contrast a strong aggressive tone with a gentle, beautiful, melodic one. I do agree that I tend to bounce between ideas far too frequently (even for a piece intended to be sporadic), and I will continue to work on that in my writing. Believe it or not, prior to heavy revisions, this piece was under 2 minutes. Also good point about the cut time and clef change, I'll adjust that.

@fishyfry

Thank you for your comments as well. I will read into theach examples you gave, as I have not studied much about composition. I appreciate your advice!

Interesting.

I like the word "neotonal" that Monarcheon wrote. It's a bit strange that the piece begins playing with tonal ambiguity and bit by bit becomes frankly tonal. Well, I prefer the beginning (but it's just a matter of personal taste). But this was just commented before.

I only want to say that, as a new one in the art of composing (you said) I understand you. Without telling about myself in deatil, I am also an amateur composer. It's been a year or some time more since I took writing music "gravely" and I want to remark some of my experiences:

1. Forms: as fishyfry mentioned, the are essential. It's funny to study them, and it's been one of the most useful things I've learnt. Once you are familiar with them, you can build larger works with coherency. Even if you want to skip them and design your own form, if you know them, you'll know how to break it. Otherwise, the danger is writing pieces that, in an attempt to achieve variation, result in pieces with no coherency (no variation, no repetition).

2. The instruments. I love the piano, and I play it. But when I began to write music for piano, I understood how difficult it was. So, I'm stuck to it yet... What I want to say is that writing for a set of instruments is also hard.  Even pushing aside the orchestration (in case you use a large orchestra) writing for a quintet, or quartet is also difficult. At last, everything relies on counterpoint and harmony.

15 hours ago, Luis Hernández said:

Interesting.

I like the word "neotonal" that Monarcheon wrote. It's a bit strange that the piece begins playing with tonal ambiguity and bit by bit becomes frankly tonal. Well, I prefer the beginning (but it's just a matter of personal taste). But this was just commented before.

Thank you. I do like the element of it becoming gradually more tonal, though if I revisit the piece I think I will add more moments where it restates the initial theme and becomes 'neotonal' again.

15 hours ago, Luis Hernández said:

I only want to say that, as a new one in the art of composing (you said) I understand you. Without telling about myself in deatil, I am also an amateur composer. It's been a year or some time more since I took writing music "gravely" and I want to remark some of my experiences:

1. Forms: as fishyfry mentioned, the are essential. It's funny to study them, and it's been one of the most useful things I've learnt. Once you are familiar with them, you can build larger works with coherency. Even if you want to skip them and design your own form, if you know them, you'll know how to break it. Otherwise, the danger is writing pieces that, in an attempt to achieve variation, result in pieces with no coherency (no variation, no repetition).

Yeah I see this point now by comparing it to something I'm far more familiar with. In writing, there are essential forms and rules to constructing a short story/essay/what-have-you that (if you are in school) must be followed in order to get a good grade. At first it seems obnoxious having to follow all these rules, especially when professional writers seem to break them so often, but as you get more skilled you begin to understand why these rules are in place and when you break them you do so for good reason.

15 hours ago, Luis Hernández said:

2. The instruments. I love the piano, and I play it. But when I began to write music for piano, I understood how difficult it was. So, I'm stuck to it yet... What I want to say is that writing for a set of instruments is also hard.  Even pushing aside the orchestration (in case you use a large orchestra) writing for a quintet, or quartet is also difficult. At lasts, everything relies on counterpoint and harmony.

 

I agree, though I think writing for solo piano is much more difficult than, say, writing for solo violin. There's just a ton more notes and options, it's like having a mini ensemble at your fingertips in some ways (which is why it's often a composer's instrument of choice).

Thank you for you thoughts. Composition is hard but I'm really glad I discovered this forum. Not only is it good for getting other's thoughts, but it's just encouraging to be (digitally) associated with like-minded individuals.