# My first attempt to compose something for strings



## aleazk

It's a little prelude for strings orchestra:


__
https://soundcloud.com/aleazk%2Fstrings-1


----------



## Ian

Very nice... very nice indeed. The end reminds be a bit of the 2nd movement of Korngold's Violin Concerto.

Ian


----------



## chee_zee

wow man, that's good stuff! you wouldn't happen to have a score for us mere mortals to learn from would ye?


----------



## Kopachris

The music itself is good, but it seems somewhat disorganized to me, like a simple succession of themes with no real transition or development, and lacks direction. And it seems that the second half is just a repeat of the first half--is there a reason for that?


----------



## aleazk

Kopachris said:


> The music itself is good, but it seems somewhat disorganized to me, like a simple succession of themes with no real transition or development, and lacks direction. And it seems that the second half is just a repeat of the first half--is there a reason for that?


"like a simple succession of themes with no real transition or development"

I strongly disagree with this. Of course you can't have much development in a short piece like this one, but from 0:00 to 0:22 you have the introduction with a theme. Then you have another section and the introduction comes back in 0:42 with variations.
Then in 1:06 you have a new short theme, and in 1:18 you have a response to that theme, which is itself the theme variated and transposed. And yeah, the second half it's a repetition of the first, I strongly support repetition of sections in music, rather than a continuos exposition of new material, I learned this from Bach. He always repeat sections, so the ear can reafirm the ideas. Anyway, thanks for your reply and constructive critique, maybe the piece is too short to apreciate the developments that i say. (sorrry for the bad english).


----------



## Kopachris

aleazk said:


> "like a simple succession of themes with no real transition or development"
> 
> I strongly disagree with this. Of course you can't have much development in a short piece like this one, but from 0:00 to 0:22 you have the introduction with a theme. Then you have another section and the introduction comes back in 0:42 with variations.
> Then in 1:06 you have a new short theme, and in 1:18 you have a response to that theme, wich is itself the theme variated and transposed. And yeah, the second half it's a repetition of the first, I strongly support repetition of sections in music, rather than a continuos exposition of new material, I learned this from Bach. He always repeat sections, so the ear can reafirm the ideas. Anyway, thanks for your reply and constructive critique, maybe the piece is too short to apreciate the developments that i say. (sorrry for the bad english).


Maybe I just wasn't listening well enough, then. About the repeat though: most classical composers repeat both the A and B section of a binary form: AABB, or just the A section: AAB, to solidify exposed material _before introducing new material_. The way you have it repeated is just: AA, which is not done in the classical repertory.


----------



## aleazk

Kopachris said:


> Maybe I just wasn't listening well enough, then. About the repeat though: most classical composers repeat both the A and B section of a binary form: AABB, or just the A section: AAB, to solidify exposed material _before introducing new material_. The way you have it repeated is just: AA, which is not done in the classical repertory.


yes, you are right in that, generaly is AABB. But because the piece is short, i decided to do AA, maybe in the future i would expand the piece, composing the B part.


----------



## Kopachris

aleazk said:


> yes, you are right in that, generaly is AABB. But because the piece is short, i decided to do AA, maybe in the future i would expand the piece, composing the B part.


It's just that to make the form AA, you may as well just put the piece on loop when you play it. There's no need to repeat it if there's not going to be any modification (as in a large-scale antecedent/consequent form). If the repeat were modified so that it ended with a stronger close than the exposition and built up to that stronger close, then it would sound a lot better. If you haven't already read it, _Classical Form_ by William Caplin would probably explain it better than I can.


----------



## aleazk

Kopachris said:


> It's just that to make the form AA, you may as well just put the piece on loop when you play it. There's no need to repeat it if there's not going to be any modification (as in a large-scale antecedent/consequent form). If the repeat were modified so that it ended with a stronger close than the exposition and built up to that stronger close, then it would sound a lot better. If you haven't already read it, _Classical Form_ by William Caplin would probably explain it better than I can.


I'm not going to enlarge this discussion. cheers. And i'm certainly not a "classical composer".


----------



## Kopachris

aleazk said:


> I'm not going to enlarge this discussion. cheers. And i'm certainly not a "classical composer".


Very well. I still think the piece would be more effective if the repeat were either altered or omitted entirely, and the principles outlined in the book I recommend are applicable to more than just classical music if you can figure out how to apply them to new situations (it defines form by functionality and gives reasoning behind each function, so you can figure out new ways to perform the same function or order the functions in a new way to create new forms). :tiphat:


----------



## aleazk

Kopachris said:


> Very well. I still think the piece would be more effective if the repeat were either altered or omitted entirely, and the principles outlined in the book I recommend are applicable to more than just classical music if you can figure out how to apply them to new situations (it defines form by functionality and gives reasoning behind each function, so you can figure out new ways to perform the same function or order the functions in a new way to create new forms). :tiphat:


well, the problem is that i think you don't even bothered to listen the piece at all. You criticized every single aspect of it, even when the variation of the introduction in 0:42 is obvious. So, understand me, I'm not going to discuss, then, that subtle thing about the repetition. I'm not saying that this is "the" piece (as I say, it is the first time that i try sometrhing for strings, i'm a pianist), but you could be more respectful: if you want to criticize, fine, in fact, i need it, but, please, don't do it just because it's free. Bottom line, I'm offended by your first egoist critic, for that reason, i'm not going to discuss more subtle points.:tiphat:


----------



## Kopachris

aleazk said:


> well, the problem is that i think you don't even bothered to listen the piece at all. You criticized every single aspect of it, even when the variation of the introduction in 0:42 is obvious. So, understand me, I'm not going to discuss, then, that subtle thing about the repetition. I'm not saying that this is "the" piece (as I say, it is the first time that i try sometrhing for strings, i'm a pianist), but you could be more respectful: if you want to criticize, fine, in fact, i need it, but, please, don't do it just because it's free. Bottom line, I'm offended by your first egoist critic, for that reason, i'm not going to discuss more subtle points.:tiphat:


I apologize for offending you in my original post--it was not my intention. As a matter of fact, I listened to your piece several times before posting. The fact that _I_ didn't recognize the thematic variation was due to a lack of ability on my part. My comment on that was not meant to insinuate a fault on your part, and I once again apologize for not articulating my thoughts more clearly. However, we have two different ideas on what a "subtle" point is. To me, the lack of thematic development was a subtle point, since I recognized the possibility that it was a shortcoming on my part; I dropped the subject as soon as you pointed out the development to me. The simple, unaltered repetition of what is essentially the entire piece, however, was not a subtle point to me. Honestly, the way in which you repeated the piece adds nothing to it because it is not contrasted with anything else. A repeat like that is better left to whoever chooses to play it. (Note that, had you mentioned that it was a work in progress, and that a proper B section might be composed at a later time, I would have dropped the subject of the repetition.)

Again, I apologize for coming off as egotistical in my other posts, and in this one. In my other posts, I suppose I just wasn't very considerate; I had no idea what level of experience with music you had. In this post, any egotism is due to my indignation at being called egotistical (how ironic).

I apologize once more and exit stage left, never to be heard from again in this thread.


----------



## aleazk

Kopachris said:


> I apologize for offending you in my original post--it was not my intention. As a matter of fact, I listened to your piece several times before posting. The fact that _I_ didn't recognize the thematic variation was due to a lack of ability on my part. My comment on that was not meant to insinuate a fault on your part, and I once again apologize for not articulating my thoughts more clearly. However, we have two different ideas on what a "subtle" point is. To me, the lack of thematic development was a subtle point, since I recognized the possibility that it was a shortcoming on my part; I dropped the subject as soon as you pointed out the development to me. The simple, unaltered repetition of what is essentially the entire piece, however, was not a subtle point to me. Honestly, the way in which you repeated the piece adds nothing to it because it is not contrasted with anything else. A repeat like that is better left to whoever chooses to play it. (Note that, had you mentioned that it was a work in progress, and that a proper B section might be composed at a later time, I would have dropped the subject of the repetition.)
> 
> Again, I apologize for coming off as egotistical in my other posts, and in this one. In my other posts, I suppose I just wasn't very considerate; I had no idea what level of experience with music you had. In this post, any egotism is due to my indignation at being called egotistical (how ironic).
> 
> I apologize once more and exit stage left, never to be heard from again in this thread.


"The fact that _I_ didn't recognize the thematic variation was due to a lack of ability on my part". Precisely for that reason is that i repeated the first part. The piece is short, and many of the ideas can be overpassed. Of course, in your home, you could play it again, but if this piece is to be interpreted by a real orchestra, i think that the repetition it's essential for the listeners to catch the ideas. There are abrupt harmonics changes in the piece, this has the effect of dominate over the motifs in the first listening. As you ask, I'm not a professional musician, but I have formally studied music, and piano interpretation, for ten years. I'm a theoretical physicist.


----------



## Igneous01

to be honest, I didn't enjoy it, the harmony and progressions were not to my liking. I also found it extremely difficult to pinpoint any theme, even after the repeat, perhaps I felt there wasn't any obvious rhythm or change in rhythm that would catch my attention.


----------



## aleazk

Igneous01 said:


> to be honest, I didn't enjoy it, the harmony and progressions were not to my liking. I also found it extremely difficult to pinpoint any theme, even after the repeat, perhaps I felt there wasn't any obvious rhythm or change in rhythm that would catch my attention.


ok, if you directly don't liked it, it's ok, i can't do more. with respect to the themes, i pointed out earlier what are the themes, they are are subtle themes and very short, this is a short piece.


----------



## aleazk

aleazk said:


> ok, if you directly don't liked it, it's ok, i can't do more. with respect to the themes, i pointed out earlier what are the themes, they are are subtle themes and very short, this is a short piece.


i can tell you that i'm very disorientated right now with this piece, some people here really liked, and some others, like you and kopachris, found it almost like a piece with no-music inside, a simply cacophony of sounds, pointing out that you guys don't liked every single aspect of the piece. sincerely, i don't know what to think (with respect to the piece and my way of composing).


----------



## Ian

aleazk said:


> I'm a theoretical physicist.


Just curious... are you associated at all with the Universidad Nacional de Cordoba?

Ian


----------



## Ian

aleazk said:


> sincerely, i don't know what to think (with respect to the piece and my way of composing).


I liked it... but what's really important, is that you like it. I've been writing music for 40 years and, while it's nice that others appreciate my efforts, what really matters is whether or not I feel that I've added something to the fabric of the universe. I'm just an amateur composer (you're a physicist, I work in computer forensics) but we all have something to offer. 

Ian


----------



## aleazk

Ian said:


> Just curious... are you associated at all with the Universidad Nacional de Cordoba?
> 
> Ian


I'm going to do my PhD thesis there. In April of this year, I went to a conference on General Relativity, held by the relativity group of the university, in La Cumbre. Robert Wald attended too.


----------



## aleazk

Ian said:


> I liked it... but what's really important, is that you like it. I've been writing music for 40 years and, while it's nice that others appreciate my efforts, what really matters is whether or not I feel that I've added something to the fabric of the universe. I'm just an amateur composer (you're a physicist, I work in computer forensics) but we all have something to offer.
> 
> Ian


yes, you are right at some point, but it's important what other people thinks. In that way, you don't live in your own fantasy world, where all it's nice. Sometimes you need a critique to improve. But this kind of extreme critiques, i really liked vs your piece is crap, is very odd and and disorients me. I have been reading the same kind of responses in other forums as well.
For example, the last guy have made clear that he didn't liked one single aspect of the piece. That's very shocking to me, because, although it's only an experimental piece, I thought it was decent enough to post it.


----------



## Igneous01

Dont take it too seriously, Ill admit that yes, I did not enjoy it, but think about it, how many people on this forum enjoy Mahler Symphony 9? Not everyone, and im sure some hate it. Its just the nature of feedback and critique on music, some will like it, others will not. I know it sucks getting those bad replies about music and the work you created, but I think it helps build character for the composer. Its only when we really struggle, do we progress in the most strangest ways.

So please, dont give up on your passion of composing, I never said you should quit, just my thoughts on the music, but I admit, I enjoy music that has alot of counterpoint and is in a sense democratic, and has interesting and unexpected build ups and developments. I kind of sleep through music that is mostly block chords, however not everyone listens or likes what I listen or like. 

Dont compose for me though, compose for yourself, and remember that you are contributing something to this world.


----------



## mleghorn

aleazk said:


> It's a little prelude for strings orchestra:
> 
> 
> __
> https://soundcloud.com/aleazk%2Fstrings-1


I liked it. I has interesting colors, harmonies, and moods. Keep up the good work!

Mike


----------



## aleazk

mleghorn said:


> I liked it. I has interesting colors, harmonies, and moods. Keep up the good work!
> 
> Mike


thanks for listen, glad you liked it. yeah, colors, moods, that's precisely the kind of things that i was looking for when i composed this small experimental piece, and it's nice that you have given attention to them, since they are the central idea of the piece. regards. i'm a mood obsessed composer


----------

