String Quartet -WIP

I've been a bit quiet in the forum the last few weeks -despite coming back from a long hiatus. This is what I've been working on. I'm sharing it here for a few reasons....

1. This piece has taken up every thought in my head. Most people would see that and scoff (or perhaps prep the sanitarium!) I think many of us here feel this about some of our work. I don't normally labor over a piece as much as I have this one. So, this work definitely is a bit more refined then many of my others.

2. The work is highly personal in that the thematic material is my first name (a technique employed by countless composers known as nomenclature). The nomenclature here is Db-A-Bb-D-E. This 5 note motif serves as the basis for the first movement and large swaths of the second movement. The motif will also appear in the 3rd and final movement (which isn't finished yet).

3. Another motif also appears in the second movement that I plan to utilize in the third movement as well: G-C-D. This motif appears first in a very stark chord towards the end of the second movement. 

I hope you guys enjoy this work in progress. Like I said, It's taken a large amount of time over the last few weeks to compose. There's definitely a sense of seriousness to it. Any comments would be appreciated. 

Dear @jawoodruff,

That's another great piece by you. 

I really like the first movement! Nice texture and chords right at the beginning. It's like what you said, it really sets the serious tone of the piece.

I love that fugato fr. b.12 with the main motive as head. Your post tonal fugal writing is always amazing!

B. 34 changes to more homophonic writing. So mysterious at first and your way to build up climax is fascinating: volume, more and more excited harmonic rhythm and shorter beats. Nice change from a purer b.69-70 and suddenly the tritione F sharp enters.

Another nice fugue enters in b.75. Nothing to say to this great fugal section.

I love the murmuring in b.108. And the ending is really surprising for me, so pure! Nice first movement!

For the second movement, the structure is simpler than the first but still complex! That Eb-A in b.3 reminds me the beginning of Quartet of the End Time. I love the agitated section in b.52. Nothing to add, just love it.

I bet you've known Reti's "The Thematic Process in Music" well. Your music is always saturated with motive. Everything comes from your name motive. I also find the G-C-D motive a great contrast to the name motive, since it's more purifying!

I love these two movements! Hopefully the third and final movement will be finished quickly. But waiting is definitely worthwhile too. Thank you for sharing!

Henry

12 minutes ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

I bet you've known Reti's "The Thematic Process in Music". Your music is always saturated with motive. Everything comes from your name motive. I also find the G-C-D motive a great contrast to the name motive, since it's more purifying!

I love these two movements! Hopefully the third and final movement will be finished quickly. But waiting is definitely worthwhile too. Thank you for sharing!

Henry

 

I hadn't heard of that text before. I'm definitely going to find it! My focus on motivic units/cells/germs really stems from my understanding of Classicism in music. To me, that's where Mozart and Beethoven excelled over many of the composers that came after -though deep Romanticism definitely has its place! I think that the classicist idea could definitely help to better organize the modern sounds of the post-tonal tool kit in a way that the Romantic inclination couldn't. That's definitely a topic better suited to the composer's headquarters!

Anyways, thanks for your kind words on the piece. This work feels like it's on an entirely different level for me -which is why I decided to share it. I'm glad you liked it!

20 minutes ago, jawoodruff said:

My focus on motivic units/cells/germs really stems from my understanding of Classicism in music.

Is your approach from Schoenberg? He also likes to compose with saturated motives as well.

20 minutes ago, jawoodruff said:

To me, that's where Mozart and Beethoven excelled over many of the composers that came after

That's definitely right but not only motivic excellence! For the romanticist I think only Brahms can match their excellency, though he's considered a "traditionalist", if not too progressive to be called so.

20 minutes ago, jawoodruff said:

I think that the classicist idea could definitely help to better organize the modern sounds of the post-tonal tool kit in a way that the Romantic inclination couldn't.

Some composers particularly wants to avoid structure though. Or like Schumann who is quite incapable of writing sonata form in his early works.

20 minutes ago, jawoodruff said:

Anyways, thanks for your kind words on the piece. This work feels like it's on an entirely different level for me -which is why I decided to share it. I'm glad you liked it!

I actually don't think this work is a different level from you, since all works I heard from you is absolutely amazing! However I do find it more serious, as distinguished from yoir playful use of post tonal language in previous works. That may be called a level up in terms of the style of the piece!

Henry

1 minute ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

Is your approach from Schoenberg? He also likes to compose with saturated motives as well.

That's definitely right but not only motivic excellence! For the romanticist I think only Brahms can match their excellency, though he's considered a "traditionalist", if not too progressive to be called so.

Some composers particularly wants to avoid structure though. Or like Schumann who is quite incapable of writing sonata form in his early works.

I actually don't think work is a different level, since all works I heard from you is absolutely amazing! However I do find it more serious, as distinguished from yoir playful use of post tonal language in previous works. That may be called a level up in terms of the style of the piece!

Henry

 

While I like Schoenberg, I don't like Schoenberg. I feel that most of his work -save a small handful- is a bit too clunky. Like, he never quite gets his ideas going in a way that can be appreciated on any level outside the cerebral. In a way, I feel that of the 2VS, Berg was probably the stronger of the three in that department. I would argue that Mozart was the one who I developed my approach from -somewhat. You should really analyze his scores with open eyes a bit. There's a lot of simple complexity to it that is often missed with more theoretical forms of analysis. 

The second movement of this is in a free form structure that Schumann would definitely relate to. However, even with free form... you still have structure. 

13 minutes ago, jawoodruff said:

Like, he never quite gets his ideas going in a way that can be appreciated on any level outside the cerebral

I think post tonal theorist like his works most though. Too intellectual to be appreciated especially his late works. His "Transfigured Night" is great since it's less intellectual, though still a bit not flowing enough.

14 minutes ago, jawoodruff said:

I would argue that Mozart was the one who I developed my approach from -somewhat. You should really analyze his scores with open eyes a bit.

Yes Yes Yes! His work appears simple but so complex. I remember I was once jogging while listening to his G minor String Quintet, and I suddenly noticed how the motives were used perfectly at the recapitulation, but the sound was so elegant UNLIKE that of Schoenberg! I literally just stopped jogging! Also his fugue in C minor for two pianos! Also his Quartets, Symphonies, Divertimenti, which is literally everything. Even that "easy" piano sonata in C major is not easy at all if you notice how he keeps the motive playing from up to bottom. Not to mention that quintuple counterpoint in the Jupiter. Even his Musical Jokes fails perfectly. His work appears simple, just like the rainbow colors combined and appears to be white. 

Henry

Despite being an older member, I can't ever get the quote thing to split up like that!!!!!

Anyways, one of the complexities of Mozart that I learned YEARS before you were born, lol, is that he used germs or seeds. For instance, you'll often see that he'll use a leap at the beginning of the work and then fill in the space between leading up to the cadence. This was a technique that Beethoven and other later composers utilized. Also, his form of development is a lot more subtle -almost to the point where many feel he doesn't develop at all. He'll take a small motif (or leitmotif as Wagner would call it) and craft full classically designed melodies from it. And all he does is just variate the motif to do it. Beethoven, of course, took this to new heights in a way that Mozart wasn't allowed to do (I wouldn't say he wasn't allowed to, he just couldn't afford to do it).

I only want to say that I find this music very moving. I understand what you said about Schönberg and Berg.

I like these pieces - they're cerebral too but still quite lucid.  They're motivically interesting because they're not tonal in any obvious way.  I feel like they are also somewhat similar in language to Bartok's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celeste 1st movement.  Great job and I am looking forward to hearing the final movement!

11 hours ago, jawoodruff said:

The nomenclature here is Db-A-Bb-D-E.

How is that related to your name?  Does that spell Des A B D E?  Or something?  I thought your first name is Jason?  Pardon me for not understanding this, I will probably kick myself once I get it LoL.

I couldn't do a Cb or Fb in the nomenclature (just didn't feel right including those, for whatever reason LOL).... So, with those two omitted, it left a lot more that were open to either b/#. SO, The nomenclature equated to Db = J, A = A, Bb for S, C# for O, and B for N. 

I remember there's a piano work when I was playing grade 3 piano. The work is a hommage to Haydn and the comoposer use H=B, A=A, Y=D, D=D and N=G. I agree with H, A and D, but don't why Y and N has that respective notes though. Here I also don't get why Db=J, Bb=S (maybe Si?), C#=O and B=N. The motive itself is confusing but the use of motive is fascinating, so I don't really care about its origin!

Henry

DUDE!!!  This is ridiculous. I never listen to music in this style of writing, but I'm fascinated with how much I enjoy your stuff. I didn't realize at first how "complete" the work is so far, you sure as hell have been busy working on this.  

I generally don't like to comment too much on incomplete works, so I'll save a more detailed review once you complete it in it's entirety. Just know that I am a huge fan of this.

I will say one thing though. I kind of noticed a pattern in your music. I feel like you either have fugal type sections with lots of counterpoint (which you do brilliantly), or you write these static rhythms with a melody intertwined (also, you write this way brilliantly). The 1st movement kind of has an ABA form, like counterpoint, rhythmic section, then counterpoint. The 2nd movement has more "sections" to it, but it also follows the same format in a way. I'd really like to see the 3rd movement be completely different somehow, for an overall change in the grander textures. Maybe you have long chordal sections, or have a longer melody at the forefront, possibly sprinkling in counterpoint filled sections or rhythmic based ones to fill in the gaps? I dunno, just my initial impression.

Very well done so far, I'm excited to pick your brain with this piece once you complete it. Thanks for sharing your progress so far!