String Quartet no.1 in C sharp minor, First Draft

I am really inspired by @ComposaBoi's Seven Sorrows that I decide to upload an old work composed by little Henry (lol). 

It's an old work of mine finished in 2014 September, between my ( ) in piano solo and first Piano Sonata. I was way too ambitious then, as I would like to follow the model of Beethoven's String Quartet no. 14 in C sharp minor, op.131, one of my all time favourite piece. It's in the same key as his op. 131; contains seven movements, the same number as Bee's op. 131; and the movements will all be performed in attaca without stopping which also follows Bee's op. 131. At the time of finishing it I though I had completed a masterpiece but of course I am now highly critical of it. But I'm still quite proud of it since it was my first chamber work ever. Detailed are not added there as I didn't have the ability to add those when I composed it. I have some ideas on how to polish it, but I also would like to have you guys' precious opinion on how to polish it since you can always give me new insights and angles to interpret it!! Don't be afraid to criticize or compliment it!!

Here is the brief synopsis of the piece:

First Movement: Introduction: Adagio mesto e espressivo. C sharp Minor. I was trying to imitate Bee's op. 131, so I used fugue as the opening movement as well, though here it's more the combination of fugue and sonata form. This is my first ever piece in the contrapuntal approach, and I'm quite proud of it despite the errors. The movement introduces three important themes that will appear later on in all the movements: The opening theme (b. 1-11 cello), lamenting theme (b.59-62 1st violin) and a theme I don't know how to call it (b.104-105 2nd violin, appears in tonic b.116-117 1st violin) A quite tragic movement and I love it!

Second Movement: Scherzando I: Allegro Vivace. A flat major. Still copying Bee with a scherzando movement follows immediately after a fugal slow movement.

Third Movement: Andante. B major. Another fugal movement. I quite like the calmness in it but the fugal technique is not good enough.

Fourth Movement: Moderato meastoso. Acts as the bridge to the second part of the Quartet. 

Fifth Movement: Scherzando II: Allegro Vivace agitato. C sharp minor. Too short and undeveloped to be called a movement.

Sixth Movement: Andante molto espressivo. A major. A variation movement as in Bee's fifth movement of op.131 in the same key. The variation skill is not too good though. A transition is used to bridge the final movement.

Seventh Movement: Allegro Vivace (No tempo and expression marking??!!). C sharp minor. I LOVE the finale of Bee's op.131: it's so concise and succinct. Here it's a mess. There are some lovely passages but the glue between them fails.

Although I keep saying the bad things of this quartet, I am actually grateful for making it. Without it I will never acquire the skills I have to compose subsequent compositions!

Here is the full score of the piece: 13-12-2017 String Quartet no 1 Full Score.pdf

The score and mp3 of different movements are inserted below.

Hope you enjoy it and the day!!!

Henry

P.S. Thanks to @PeterthePapercomPoser for giving me the suggestion on how to post this!

Well, Henry, I listened to the first movement and glanced through the score. Pretty ambitious competing with Beethoven, particularly Op 131. (It was that quartet that switched me on to the string quartet as a suitable composing medium.)

Basically this piece has great potential without much change. It's an achievement so congrats at that.

I didn't notice any problems with the score except possibly condensing those pairs of demisemiquaver rests into semiquavers.

The problem is with the rendering. It doesn't do this work justice. Any chance you could export it to Musescore 4? Mind, I don't know what solo instruments sound like in Musescore 4, far from you becoming a guinea pig. As it stands, dynamic changes are inadequate and sometimes articulations could be improved, like on trills and marcatos - but you probably know this already.

It has to be said that you've chosen a superb model for a quartet. Maybe transpose it to a different key to disguise the Beethoven-ness about it!

Great work. 

I'll have a listen to the Presto movement later! 🙂

I'll go through movement by movement.

Movement 1: It was an enjoyable movement, but I noticed a few things. The opening fugue had an interesting subject and I think you harmonised it quite well, but it felt like for the other voices you wrote a measure, copied and pasted, and adjusted the notes. It's not necessarily wrong, but it does sound uninspired, and I think you could do much better. One part in the subject also reminded me of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody no. 2 . In other places throughout this movement some voices lose their independence by following another line in parallel thirds for too long. Also not necessarily wrong, but it does make it sound like 3 voices instead of 4. Another thing I noticed is, though it is in sonata form, I couldn't really pick out the themes. Might just need another listen, but I think it's a sign they don't contrast enough. This might also be caused by the monotony of the string samples. I also found the recitative part to be a bit random and disconnected. Maybe have more parts like that or just completely remove it? Besides these, the only issue I have are the weird rests, like what Quinn pointed out.

Movement 2: This one was great fun. It had a real sense of motion and energy, something that I struggle emulating. One issue though, is that the enharmonic spelling was chaotic and there were rest issues like in the first movement. I won't point out specific instances since it's probably just from a lack of polish. Just be sure to go through all that. I also noticed the movement ends abruptly. Must not have written a coda?

Movement 3: I liked the material in this one. I agree that the counterpoint could have been better. There were moments where it was more homophony than polyphony and other places where it was a little dissonant. I noticed some passages toward the end that have slurs which stretch over a bit of a long distance, and many of these notes were the same in succession, which defeats the purpose of the slur since you can't really do that in one bowing, you'd have to lift up. Examples measure 138 and 156. I also found the lengthy pauses in the middle and at the end to be unnecessary. Maybe they were supposed to be filled out later, but you didn't get to it? Can't tell.

Movement 4: I liked that the middle movement was brief honestly. It helps give the sense of a midpoint. I think that marking those sections as recitative is unnecessary though, unless you're asking the string players to play it a specific way. I also think that the section starting on bar 19 was a bit abrupt and could use a smoother transition, unless your goal was for it to be abrupt.

Movement 5: I thought this one could have been a bit longer. If you make this movement around 10 minutes or so, that will give the piece a nice symmetry.

Movement 6: I honestly liked this one alot. Its more upbeat mood provided a great contrast to the rest of the piece. And though the variations weren't as "varied" as they could have been, I still think the movement holds up. On top of that, the melody was quite beautiful. However, I noticed that EVERY SINGLE NOTE of this movement has a tenuto mark. You may know now, but I'll explain anyway just in case. For string instruments, a tenuto instructs the players the use a fuller bowing. In other words, use more of the bow. If you want the whole movement to do this, that's perfectly fine. It would just be better to write at the start of each instrument "sempre tenuto", or something along those lines, instead of putting the tenuto mark on every note. Another thing is that you have tenuto marks on pizzicato. You can see how plucking with a fuller bowing doesn't make any sense. This movement also suffers from the weird rests problem. Other than that, this is probably my favourite movement thus far.

Movement 7: I was a little disappointed that there was a pause on the mp3 since this was clearly supposed to continue directly from the previous movement. Oh well. I really enjoyed parts of it, especially the more dramatic section. I personally thought the section starting on measure 155 was a little repetitive and it honestly kind of bored me. I personally didn't really like the melody either, but that's just my opinion. I thought this movement suffered from a lack of strict structure, and I agree with you that the sections weren't glued together very well. Maybe rondo form would work nice? Or maybe sonata form? I don't know, but either way, reorganising the sections I think would benefit. I also noticed at the end that you briefly brought back some material from the start, which is always cool, but the ending itself didn't really satisfy me. This movement also suffers from weird rests syndrome.

Overall, I think the piece has great potential, it just needs a lot of work. From seeing some of your other compositions, I think you are completely capable of turning this piece into an absolute banger 👍. Thanks for sharing.

Hi, I listened to the first  two movements. I'll go on later.

Apart from the engraving and the virtual libraries sounding, the fugue is fine. I don't hear any inconsistencies, although the review by CompoSai is profound.

The second mov. makes good contrast with its homophonic mood. 

It's nice to listen to works we've written years ago. Perhaps it would be funny to have a subfourm of "old works" with one condition: not rework them, just show them as they were.

I feel like starting with reviewing the 2nd movement first for some reason LoL.  I feel like this piece was somewhat tame and happy for a scherzo.  I think scherzi are usually expected to be intense, driving pieces and I feel like your major scales undermine this intensity making it seem like a trifle.  Also, there were no sudden dynamic changes and the associated playfulness of a quasi-dance-like movement.  I think if you turned all your scalar material in this scherzo from major to minor scales it would retain more intensity and leave an overall better and more serious impression (and least with me - imo).

That's it for now!  I will try to review the other movements separately.

I like the 5th movement scherzo better!  It is more intense and serious although still lacking in dramatic dynamic changes.  In fact besides a single ff marking at one point in the score, this movement is completely devoid of dynamic markings!  Did you forget about the dynamic capabilities of the instruments?  Scherzi are often characterized by and tend to feature sudden dynamic changes to help surprise the listener and give a kind of jolt when there's a sudden ff after a quiet section.  And the sprightly rhythms and subdued intensity in the quiet sections are meant to create a playful atmosphere.  Although this is still scherzo-like and quite enjoyable!  I bet it would be more interesting still if dynamics were somehow included.  Although the solo pizzicato section in the 2nd Violin does kind of serve as a temporary relief from the dynamics of the other parts.  Thanks for sharing!

Dear @Quinn,

Thank you for your comment on the movement concerning the scoring and midi! I think the first movement has beauty in it, but I was not mature to present and develop it better. It for sure has greater potential to be better!

20 hours ago, Quinn said:

Pretty ambitious competing with Beethoven, particularly Op 131. (It was that quartet that switched me on to the string quartet as a suitable composing medium.)

Bee's op. 131 was my all time favourite piece and still is. But it was too gigantic for me to digest it then, and I was too ambitious to use it as the model for composition. However, having it as my model, at least I know how great a composition can be and I definitely what my compositional path should be. Every composers' path are different, and I will try to walk my way to achieve something better.

Thank you!

Henry

Dear Jonathon,

Thank you so much for going through this long but immature work! I greatly appreciate your effort paid!

1st Mov:

18 hours ago, ComposaBoi said:

The opening fugue had an interesting subject and I think you harmonised it quite well, but it felt like for the other voices you wrote a measure, copied and pasted, and adjusted the notes. It's not necessarily wrong, but it does sound uninspired, and I think you could do much better

18 hours ago, ComposaBoi said:

In other places throughout this movement some voices lose their independence by following another line in parallel thirds for too long. Also not necessarily wrong, but it does make it sound like 3 voices instead of 4.

Yes definitely. I didn't know counterpoint at all so I didn't pay attention to fhe independence of voice then. Using countersubjects is not bad, but the interaction between it and the subject is not flowing enough, thus making it boring.

18 hours ago, ComposaBoi said:

Another thing I noticed is, though it is in sonata form, I couldn't really pick out the themes. Might just need another listen, but I think it's a sign they don't contrast enough. This might also be caused by the monotony of the string samples. I

The second subject begins b.59 for me, but you are right that it's not contrasting enough. There's also not a medial ceasura to indicate the 2nd subject's presentation.

18 hours ago, ComposaBoi said:

I also found the recitative part to be a bit random and disconnected. Maybe have more parts like that or just completely remove it

I probably won't remove it, since it's used as a hook in later movements. But I will think about that and may remove its later appearences too if removed here.

2nd Mov:

18 hours ago, ComposaBoi said:

This one was great fun. It had a real sense of motion and energy, something that I struggle emulating. One issue though, is that the enharmonic spelling was chaotic and there were rest issues like in the first movement. I won't point out specific instances since it's probably just from a lack of polish. Just be sure to go through all that. I also noticed the movement ends abruptly. Must not have written a coda?

I wasn't a detailed composer then. I will for sure polish it it I decide to make a final draft of it! You are right it ends abruptly esp. with the unaccompanied melody. I will add passages before it.

3rd Mov:

18 hours ago, ComposaBoi said:

I liked the material in this one. I agree that the counterpoint could have been better. There were moments where it was more homophony than polyphony and other places where it was a little dissonant. I noticed some passages toward the end that have slurs which stretch over a bit of a long distance, and many of these notes were the same in succession, which defeats the purpose of the slur since you can't really do that in one bowing, you'd have to lift up. Examples measure 138 and 156. I also found the lengthy pauses in the middle and at the end to be unnecessary. Maybe they were supposed to be filled out later, but you didn't get to it? Can't tell.

Regarding the polyphony the commemt is very accurate. The most important thing to achieve polyphony is rhythm, but here the rhythm is not different enough. Regarding the slurs I probably used it with a pianistic concept, so it definitely should be changed. Thanks for pointing out that! The rest, oh my God, are gaps I didn't finish. I should fill them up!!

Fourth Mov:

Probably I will cancel the recitative marking. The transition is fine for me though.

Fifth Mov:

Glad that you find the symmetry! I was unable to extend and develop it them and I can now!

Sixth Mov:

What the hack is it with the tenuto?!😱 I WILL delete all of them!! I am surprised that you love the movement most actually! I probably press the tenuto sign whem pressing all the bars. My variation skill was not good at that time, but I'm glad you love it the most!

Seventh Mov:

19 hours ago, ComposaBoi said:

I personally thought the section starting on measure 155 was a little repetitive and it honestly kind of bored me. I personally didn't really like the melody either, but that's just my opinion.

I was then wanted to have a "transcendental" feeling by having the parallel motions, but I agree it's quite repeitive. 

19 hours ago, ComposaBoi said:

Maybe rondo form would work nice? Or maybe sonata form? I don't know, but either way, reorganising the sections I think would benefit. I also noticed at the end that you briefly brought back some material from the start, which is always cool, but the ending itself didn't really satisfy me.

I honestly don't know what the form is. I will probably delete quite a number of sections to make it glue better! I wanted a triumphant ending but here it's quite out of mood and honestly, stupid, and I will probably change it!

19 hours ago, ComposaBoi said:

Overall, I think the piece has great potential, it just needs a lot of work. From seeing some of your other compositions, I think you are completely capable of turning this piece into an absolute banger 👍. Thanks for sharing.

I believe so😅, but will need a lot of time and effort! I will if I really want to and finish my current projects!

I can't say how grateful I am to have your enormous effort to go through this. Thank you so much Jonathon!

Henry

6th movement:  I've rarely heard a classical styled melody that is completely in the meter of 5/4 throughout!  Maybe Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony 5/4 movement could qualify although it's more romantic (and also happens to be in the same key of A major as this movement!)  I chose to review this movement next because I love variations pieces!  I think my favorite variation in this is the 6/8 variation (why don't you label your variations in this movement?).  This movement also suffers from lack of dynamics.

The theme has some really well executed and interesting harmony!  There are places throughout the movement which are meant to be sort of dramatic grand pauses.  To me, they arrest the flow of the music and leave the listener hanging imo.  Although you already have the seed of that grand pause idea present within the theme at meas. 46. Meas. 66 sounds like you just stopped writing at a certain point.  In other places the pauses sound more "grand" and like they're a dramatic element as if part of an opera/recitative.  But meas. 204 - 205 really sounds like a very disconnected idea/fragment.  Putting the theme also at the end of the movement is a nice touch but I expected meas. 227 to be the last measure.  Surprisingly, it continues after that - with more variations?  Formally that decision just doesn't make sense to me unless you were looking as you say for a transition to the next movement which I don't think is necessary in a theme and variations movement.  Maybe you were relying too heavily on the model of a previous Beethoven String Quartet which had transitions between the movements?  But I don't think that means that you had to also have a transition.  Thanks for sharing!

I chose the 7th movement to review:

This definitely has a kinship more to Schubert, than Beethoven, imho. Bar 71 almost comes directly out of his style! The articulation marking at bar 151 should be staccato. That would make more sense and provide what you seem to be looking for there.

Compositionally, the material at bar 173 doesn't quite seem to sound coherent with what came before. It's almost like you've led us into another piece. I find the material interesting, but the texture you present it in doesn't quite seem to work with that interesting theme. Perhaps you could have cello play pizz, 2nd violin droning that chord softly with double stop, and viola with 1st violin presenting the theme conversationally? 

The marcato markings at Bar 305 can be done with just a regular pizzicato mark. With string players, it's easier to let them assist in applying minute articulations to bring out your lines. Most of us have a no. 2 pencil that we use to change passages to make them more 'string' friendly. Simply, writing above the score 'spiccato' or 'light staccato' or 'with force' will give us an idea what you want. These wedge passages almost remind me of a Mozart piece.

All in all, quite an enjoyable movement. This many bars -you should definitely be proud of your work here!

12 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

I can't say how grateful I am to have your enormous effort to go through this. Thank you so much Jonathon!

I thought it was only fair to give feedback here since you took the time to do so with mine

6th Movement:

The opening string pattern I would slur, remove the staccato and just keep the tenuto mark. Even beginners are trained to do this type of bowing -it's basic of strings. This will give you a more gentle texture that will seem more pulse like (which I think the opening needs).

The double stops at bar 52 should be doable. But be sure to consider that your violins will be in an upper position here to prep for the next passage. Just be mindful when writing double stops. I generally tend to utilize open string double stops alongside a fingered note. Or... I try to configure it to where the string player is in at least 1st, 3rd, or 5th position. 

That said, overall I'm really liking this quartet!

18 minutes ago, jawoodruff said:

That said, overall I'm really liking this quartet!

What??!! I really don't expect this naive and unpolished work to be liked by you at all! Thanks for this!

19 minutes ago, jawoodruff said:

The opening string pattern I would slur, remove the staccato and just keep the tenuto mark. Even beginners are trained to do this type of bowing -it's basic of strings. This will give you a more gentle texture that will seem more pulse like (which I think the opening needs).

I will probably add up the slurs, remove staccato and cancel most of the tenuto! Bit the opening is quite pulse like as you've said!

20 minutes ago, jawoodruff said:

The double stops at bar 52 should be doable. But be sure to consider that your violins will be in an upper position here to prep for the next passage. Just be mindful when writing double stops. I generally tend to utilize open string double stops alongside a fingered note. Or... I try to configure it to where the string player is in at least 1st, 3rd, or 5th position

I'm learning to write all those kinds of multiple stoppings! Thanks for your suggestion!

I will reply bit by bit! I don't expect the passionate replies! Thank you all!!🥰

Henry

Thanks for listening Luis!!

On 1/22/2023 at 3:05 AM, Luis Hernández said:

Apart from the engraving and the virtual libraries sounding, the fugue is fine. I don't hear any inconsistencies, although the review by CompoSai is profound.

I think it's not inconsistent and has some beauty in it, but the skill is not good. Jonathon's reply is EPIC!

On 1/22/2023 at 3:05 AM, Luis Hernández said:

The second mov. makes good contrast with its homophonic mood.

I love the energy in it, even though it's immature!

On 1/22/2023 at 3:05 AM, Luis Hernández said:

It's nice to listen to works we've written years ago. Perhaps it would be funny to have a subfourm of "old works" with one condition: not rework them, just show them as they were.

I find it really inspiring to hear others' comment on your old works. Sometimes you have prejudice on your old works and other approaches will definitely help! They will notice something you have never thought of, and I am grateful for that!

Thanks for listening!

Henry

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your suggestion and review!

22 hours ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

I feel like starting with reviewing the 2nd movement first for some reason LoL.

LOL🤣. But that's a good one to start!

22 hours ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

I feel like this piece was somewhat tame and happy for a scherzo.  I think scherzi are usually expected to be intense, driving pieces and I feel like your major scales undermine this intensity making it seem like a trifle.  Also, there were no sudden dynamic changes and the associated playfulness of a quasi-dance-like movement.  I think if you turned all your scalar material in this scherzo from major to minor scales it would retain more intensity and leave an overall better and more serious impression (and least with me - imo).

I persist to use that A flat major chord may be due to its dominant function with C sharp minor. But I do think it's quite happy as a teen then (not as dark as the quintet though)! I agree that it can be much more intense with added dynamic markings and details. I was then a careless composer and didn't know how to polish the scores. I would probably keep its playfulness since it's a Scherzando, not a Scherzo, and I think the 1st movement is already quite serious and I would like to have contrast with it.

Thanks for your reviewing!

Henry

4 hours ago, ComposaBoi said:

thought it was only fair to give feedback here since you took the time to do so with mine

I appreciate this kind of mutual reviewing! However, don't feel like a pressure to review mine even if I had reviewed yours, since I enjoy it! Just review when you want to!

Henry

22 hours ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

I like the 5th movement scherzo better!  It is more intense and serious although still lacking in dramatic dynamic changes.  In fact besides a single ff marking at one point in the score, this movement is completely devoid of dynamic markings!  Did you forget about the dynamic capabilities of the instruments?  Scherzi are often characterized by and tend to feature sudden dynamic changes to help surprise the listener and give a kind of jolt when there's a sudden ff after a quiet section.  And the sprightly rhythms and subdued intensity in the quiet sections are meant to create a playful atmosphere.  Although this is still scherzo-like and quite enjoyable!  I bet it would be more interesting still if dynamics were somehow included.  Although the solo pizzicato section in the 2nd Violin does kind of serve as a temporary relief from the dynamics of the other parts.  Thanks for sharing!

Yeah the dynamics and details... It would be unacceptable for me now but then I didn't know how to deal with them. I would extend this one as to balance with the second movement, as noted by Jonathon. It would probably be a rondo or an ABABA form. Thanks for your effort!

Henry

21 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

Bee's op. 131 was my all time favourite piece and still is. But it was too gigantic for me to digest it then, and I was too ambitious to use it as the model for composition. However, having it as my model, at least I know how great a composition can be and I definitely what my compositional path should be. Every composers' path are different, and I will try to walk my way to achieve something better.

Hi again, Henry,

I also listened to the scherzo (5th movement, in the same position in the work as the "rats-feet-on-broken-glass" scherzo of B's work). It came across a lot better probably because bravura playing takes precedence over the expressive demands of the first movement. A nice compact movement, lively.

When it came onto the 6th movement I felt it was a bit spoiled by the rendering itself - the unvarying pesante repeated chords of Vn2 Va and Vc. This is going to be difficult to solve without detailed attention to the dynamics (and sadly where notation software won't help too much. More could be done in a DAW where you could control all aspects of HOW notes are played (within the limits of MIDI)). Good ideas and structure there though. I'm wondering if those chords could even be articulated as spiccato or staccato? It's a thought, anyway.

The last movement - same comments but it becomes clear - if you don't mind me saying so - that you've learned a lot from Beethoven. (How nice to have him as a teacher!) in your doublings and interplay of parts, articulations and so on. Well done (except those phrases of parallel 5ths!).

I took your work as you explained in your intro: an early work and you recognise the potential and need to polish it. In that context I still think it's an achievement. Certainly a work worth refining and use as a platform from which to launch new work. 

All the best. 

On 1/23/2023 at 4:27 AM, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

I've rarely heard a classical styled melody that is completely in the meter of 5/4 throughout!  Maybe Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony 5/4 movement could qualify although it's more romantic (and also happens to be in the same key of A major as this movement!) 

Yeah the Pathetique one is special! Though it's in D major😅. I don't know why I chose 5/4 then.

On 1/23/2023 at 4:27 AM, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

I think my favorite variation in this is the 6/8 variation (why don't you label your variations in this movement?).  This movement also suffers from lack of dynamic

I should do both!

On 1/23/2023 at 4:27 AM, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

The theme has some really well executed and interesting harmony!  There are places throughout the movement which are meant to be sort of dramatic grand pauses.  To me, they arrest the flow of the music and leave the listener hanging imo.  Although you already have the seed of that grand pause idea present within the theme at meas. 46. Meas. 66 sounds like you just stopped writing at a certain point.  In other places the pauses sound more "grand" and like they're a dramatic element as if part of an opera/recitative.  But meas. 204 - 205 really sounds like a very disconnected idea/fragment.

I really love the idea of sudden rests then, as in the 1st mov, 2nd mov, 6th mov and other places. For now I will fill up all of them to make sure it's not too abrupt!

On 1/23/2023 at 4:27 AM, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

Surprisingly, it continues after that - with more variations?  Formally that decision just doesn't make sense to me unless you were looking as you say for a transition to the next movement which I don't think is necessary in a theme and variations movement.  Maybe you were relying too heavily on the model of a previous Beethoven String Quartet which had transitions between the movements?  But I don't think that means that you had to also have a transition.  Thanks for sharing!

I really wanted to have a transition to prepare for the "grand" finale then. It's not really inspired by Beethoven though. But it's true that it's quite weird. I will decide whether to keep it or not.

Thanks for listening!

Henry

23 hours ago, jawoodruff said:

This definitely has a kinship more to Schubert, than Beethoven, imho. Bar 71 almost comes directly out of his style! The articulation marking at bar 151 should be staccato. That would make more sense and provide what you seem to be looking for there.

Yes the spelling in b.71 should be the dominant 7th of F, b.151 should change all the dashes to staccato!

7

23 hours ago, jawoodruff said:

Compositionally, the material at bar 173 doesn't quite seem to sound coherent with what came before. It's almost like you've led us into another piece. I find the material interesting, but the texture you present it in doesn't quite seem to work with that interesting theme. Perhaps you could have cello play pizz, 2nd violin droning that chord softly with double stop, and viola with 1st violin presenting the theme conversationally? 

It is not coherent. I wanted to have a completely different theme then and included all those parallels and thick chords to create an "exotic" feeling, but of course it's not well executed. You suggestion is very sound and I will try that!

23 hours ago, jawoodruff said:

The marcato markings at Bar 305 can be done with just a regular pizzicato mark. With string players, it's easier to let them assist in applying minute articulations to bring out your lines. Most of us have a no. 2 pencil that we use to change passages to make them more 'string' friendly. Simply, writing above the score 'spiccato' or 'light staccato' or 'with force' will give us an idea what you want. These wedge passages almost remind me of a Mozart piece.

Yup, I will probably use spiccato in it. I don't even know the term when I wrote them! Too bad!

23 hours ago, jawoodruff said:

All in all, quite an enjoyable movement. This many bars -you should definitely be proud of your work here!

I tend to write so many bars without polishing it then. Thanks so much for your suggestion and critique Jason!

Henry

3 minutes ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

Yes the spelling in b.71 should be the dominant 7th of F, b.151 should change all the dashes to staccato!

7

It is not coherent. I wanted to have a completely different theme then and included all those parallels and thick chords to create an "exotic" feeling, but of course it's not well executed. You suggestion is very sound and I will try that!

Yup, I will probably use spiccato in it. I don't even know the term when I wrote them! Too bad!

I tend to write so many bars without polishing it then. Thanks so much for your suggestion and critique Jason!

Henry

 

I meant to say staccato marks and not pizzicato marks lol

15 hours ago, Quinn said:

I also listened to the scherzo (5th movement, in the same position in the work as the "rats-feet-on-broken-glass" scherzo of B's work). It came across a lot better probably because bravura playing takes precedence over the expressive demands of the first movement. A nice compact movement, lively.

Thanks! I am thinking that it may be too compact and I will extend it to balance with the 2nd mov!

15 hours ago, Quinn said:

When it came onto the 6th movement I felt it was a bit spoiled by the rendering itself - the unvarying pesante repeated chords of Vn2 Va and Vc. This is going to be difficult to solve without detailed attention to the dynamics (and sadly where notation software won't help too much. More could be done in a DAW where you could control all aspects of HOW notes are played (within the limits of MIDI)). Good ideas and structure there though. I'm wondering if those chords could even be articulated as spiccato or staccato? It's a thought, anyway.

I ignored all those details then. I will cancel all those pesante and add a staccato to make it lighter.

15 hours ago, Quinn said:

The last movement - same comments but it becomes clear - if you don't mind me saying so - that you've learned a lot from Beethoven. (How nice to have him as a teacher!) in your doublings and interplay of parts, articulations and so on. Well done (except those phrases of parallel 5ths!).

I was heavily influenced by Beethoven then and I still am, hopefully not too much! I was using his finale of op.131 as model writing this movement, so the doublings, rhythm, interplay are quite the same😅! Those parallel fifth passages are definitely my own idea, so it sounds quite bad!

15 hours ago, Quinn said:

took your work as you explained in your intro: an early work and you recognise the potential and need to polish it. In that context I still think it's an achievement. Certainly a work worth refining and use as a platform from which to launch new work. 

I do think it can be polished to become a much better piece. It is an achievement to write a long one, just that I didn't have the ability to polish it and develop it. Really grateful for your appreciation and review!

Henry

17 minutes ago, jawoodruff said:

meant to say staccato marks and not pizzicato marks lol

Yeah I know that!🤣 That's why I don't reply you about pizzicato! Never mind, I always have typo! Thanks for your review!