String Quartet No. 1, 3rd Movement

Hi everyone! This is the 3rd movement of my string quartet! In contrast to the meandering 2nd movement which does not have any structure, this movement is mostly following the Rondo form, and I used motifs extensively throughout the piece. This was also the first time where I tried using parallel motion for the theme and climax of the movement to contrast the episodes which are more polyphonic and uses more call-and-response. I also included a quasi cadenza for the cello before the reprisal back to the opening of the piece, with a fiery cadenza to end the piece! Let me know what you guys think and feel free to feedback in the comments! Thank you for taking the time to listen!

What throws me off when listening to this piece is that nowhere in your score does it say to swing the eighth notes but all hear when I listen to the mp3 is a triplet quarter followed by a triplet 8th note (when I clearly see straight 8th notes in the score which is what I think is intended in a piece like this).  It's as if the whole thing is in 9/8 or 12/8.  You might have some kind of option toggled in your playback instructing your program to swing all 8th notes.

Took me a while to get used to that but I did enjoy some of the melodies in this.  There are some sweet as well as perilous moments here which contrast eachother.  A nit-pick: in m.34 you switch to 4/4 when you were already in 4/4.  Enjoyable although could be more polished both in graphic and sonic presentation.

1 minute ago, PaperComposer said:

What throws me off when listening to this piece is that nowhere in your score does it say to swing the eighth notes but all hear when I listen to the mp3 is a triplet quarter followed by a triplet 8th note (when I clearly see straight 8th notes in the score which is what I think is intended in a piece like this).  It's as if the whole thing is in 9/8 or 12/8.  You might have some kind of option toggled in your playback instructing your program to swing all 8th notes.

Took me a while to get used to that but I did enjoy some of the melodies in this.  There are some sweet as well as perilous moments here which contrast eachother.  A nit-pick: in m.34 you switch to 4/4 when you were already in 4/4.  Enjoyable although could be more polished both in graphic and sonic presentation.

 

Yea that is the issue with musescore playback, there's a bug where a rhythm goes completely off in random sections, which makes it sound like its swing. This is especially when there's tremolo notated where somehow it sounds very detached and out of rhythm. I'm not sure how to fix a playback issue like that, I tried looking thru the musescore forum but to no avail.

Quote

Yea that is the issue with musescore playback, there's a bug where a rhythm goes completely off in random sections, which makes it sound like its swing. This is especially when there's tremolo notated where somehow it sounds very detached and out of rhythm. I'm not sure how to fix a playback issue like that, I tried looking thru the musescore forum but to no avail.

 Which version of Musescore are you using?  I have Musescore 3 and I can go to Format>Style and turn "Swing Settings" off.

1 minute ago, PaperComposer said:

 Which version of Musescore are you using?  I have Musescore 3 and I can go to Format>Style and turn "Swing Settings" off.

 

Oh I also use musescore 3, I didn't know there was that setting. Thanks for letting me know

I found this pretty engaging. It's good. Some bits will be a real performance challenge. It may set out in the minor bit it's pretty energetic. I looked at the score (separate from listening to the rendering) and it's clear that you've put a lot of thought into it, the detail is exemplary. Much detaché playing that contrasts well with the legato when we get to bar 32 in the upper strings. The parts are well distributed vertically. The harmonic progressions are fine and you have a flair for melody.

The problem as is so often the case with sounds generated by notation software is it's let down by the rendering - which is not your fault. This is a movement that would be full of dynamic variation and articulation that notation software can't reproduce well. It begs live performance - as engaging to watch as listen to as performers plunge into it with panache. Notation software has a habit of narrowing dynamic range and not producing articulations properly.

So, from the composition viewpoint, excellent. 

20 minutes ago, Quinn said:

I found this pretty engaging. It's good. Some bits will be a real performance challenge. It may set out in the minor bit it's pretty energetic. I looked at the score (separate from listening to the rendering) and it's clear that you've put a lot of thought into it, the detail is exemplary. Much detaché playing that contrasts well with the legato when we get to bar 32 in the upper strings. The parts are well distributed vertically. The harmonic progressions are fine and you have a flair for melody.

The problem as is so often the case with sounds generated by notation software is it's let down by the rendering - which is not your fault. This is a movement that would be full of dynamic variation and articulation that notation software can't reproduce well. It begs live performance - as engaging to watch as listen to as performers plunge into it with panache. Notation software has a habit of narrowing dynamic range and not producing articulations properly.

So, from the composition viewpoint, excellent. 

 

 

@Quinn Thank you for the positive feedback! My intention for the quartet in general would be to make a virtuosic, highly lyrical quartet with vastly contrasting movements. As for the sound recording and notation area, I'm looking for better ways to make the midi simulation to sound better. I am considering sending the midi files to a friend of mine who's better at electronic and DAW, who could possibly reformat it using synthesisers to make it sound better. (he has a synthesiser for string instruments)

As a score it's virtuosic without doubt. 

It'll take some work setting it up in a daw because there are so many articulation changes to get it to sound as if 'live'.

I'm afraid I took the liberty of writing up to end of bar 22 into my daw. May I ask your permission in hindsight? No worries, I'm not going to nick your music. I'll scrap the file. It was more about delving the score detail and how it could be performed. It showcases your insight; I concluded it'll need a top class quartet. It took more work than I thought. Aside from articulation, balancing the various parts and entries was difficult though that'll come naturally to professionals who will know what to do...just need your nod. 

This is real composing

12 minutes ago, Quinn said:

As a score it's virtuosic without doubt. 

It'll take some work setting it up in a daw because there are so many articulation changes to get it to sound as if 'live'.

I'm afraid I took the liberty of writing up to end of bar 22 into my daw. May I ask your permission in hindsight? No worries, I'm not going to nick your music. I'll scrap the file. It was more about delving the score detail and how it could be performed. It showcases your insight; I concluded it'll need a top class quartet. It took more work than I thought. Aside from articulation, balancing the various parts and entries was difficult though that'll come naturally to professionals who will know what to do...just need your nod. 

This is real composing

 

Sure! In fact I'm glad to have someone to be able to do the DAW for me! That would be great! Thank you so much I really appreciate it 🙂

You want to hear it!?   Well, ok - I managed to restore the file!

But please understand it was a bit rough and ready. I wasn't able to spend as much time on it as I'd've liked. And it is just my interpretation of your score.

The problem bit was the viola taking the figure in bar 17 so it could be heard without drowning out the rest altogether. Otherwise there are times when the dynamics could be bettered. But.... here it is.

It goes at a heck of a crack. You'll get your money's worth from the players all right!

1 minute ago, Quinn said:

You want to hear it!?   Well, ok - I managed to restore the file!

But please understand it was a bit rough and ready. I wasn't able to spend as much time on it as I'd've liked. And it is just my interpretation of your score.

The problem bit was the viola taking the figure in bar 17 so it could be heard without drowning out the rest altogether. Otherwise there are times when the dynamics could be bettered. But.... here it is.

It goes at a heck of a crack. You'll get your money's worth from the players all right!

 

MP3

 

 

Play / pause

• String qtet perf piece

0:42

 

 

1:00

volume

 

> next

menu

 

String qtet perf piece

 

> next

omg thank you so much! yea some of the accidentals of the notes were off but the articulation and phrasing was well done! It's really nice of u to help me with this!

Oops, sorry about the accidentals. No excuse for sloppy work. I checked and found a few - most I hope. If you find any more let me know the instruments and bar numbers. Cheers.

Here's the new file.......On the earlier one, I left out a few bars at the end because I hadn't time to look at the dynamics (though the articulations are right). You may as well have this bit as well.

(Aside: this is a weird site. I thought I'd be able to replace the original file a couple of posts up by doing an edit.. But I can't, hence it's here!)

5 hours ago, Quinn said:

Oops, sorry about the accidentals. No excuse for sloppy work. I checked and found a few - most I hope. If you find any more let me know the instruments and bar numbers. Cheers.

Here's the new file.......On the earlier one, I left out a few bars at the end because I hadn't time to look at the dynamics (though the articulations are right). You may as well have this bit as well.

 

(Aside: this is a weird site. I thought I'd be able to replace the original file a couple of posts up by doing an edit.. But I can't, hence it's here!)

 

MP3

 

 

Play / pause

• String qtet perf piece

1:05

 

 

1:05

volume

 

> next

menu

 

String qtet perf piece

 

> next

Yep, you fixed most of the accidental problems! The few that still needs to be changed are:

bar 9 v1: b-flat instead of b

bar 21: f instead of f#

bar 25: b- flat instead of b

But other than that, the rendition is amazing! Thank you so much!

My pleasure. I've been assisting a student with a mock-up in the past days, never mind lockdown - not my student  - she is a student but her teacher sent her my way because she hates formal theory exercises. He'll still give her a pass on the grounds that an unhappy composer will get to hate the subject if not allowed some free rein.

What's emerged from your proof-reading is that you obviously know your work well, something so often lacking in composers who throw stuff together oblivious of what it actually sounds like. I've witnessed a few embarrassing moments I can tell you!.

Here's the definitive file (we hope).

5 minutes ago, Quinn said:

My pleasure. I've been assisting a student with a mock-up in the past few days, never mind lockdown - not my student  - she is a student but her teacher sent her my way because she hates formal theory exercises. He'll still give her a pass on the grounds that an unhappy composer will get to hate the subject if not allowed some free rein.

What's emerged from your proof-reading is that you obviously know your work well, something so often lacking in composers who throw stuff together oblivious of what it actually sounds like. I've witnessed a few embarrassing moments I can tell you!.

Here's the definitive file (we hoped

 

 

MP3

 

 

Play / pause

• String qtet perf piece

0:00

 

 

1:05

volume

 

> next

menu

 

String qtet perf piece

 

> next

Thank you so much for the mock-up! It is well done and you managed to get the articulation spot on! Other than one note  that I think is still needs to be changed (the B natural that should be B-flat) that was very nice of you to volunteer to do the mockup! I think I have a better grasp on how it should sound like. Thanks!!