This is a Classical-style clarinet quartet I've spent the past month or two writing. Any comments or criticisms would be most appreciated!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUpdB0H3zB0&feature=youtu.be
Score: Clarinet Quartet.pdf
You need to be a member of composersforum to add comments!
Replies
Hi Steven. I listened to the 1st mov't . I think it is very well written and enjoyable. My only quibble would be in bar 166, where I feel the clarinet (concert pitch) high F is at odds with the violin high Eb (in the context of this piece). I would guess this 'distortion' is a deliberate decision for added tension. (I do feel the 2 notes are fighting for dominance in how the ear percieves that beat. Of course, as you probable aware, if you were to raise the clarinet to (concert pitch) G, that would be less 'fuzzy'.
But I must assume your choice was deliberate.
Very nice work.
Thanks for listening, and for your comments! That chord in bar 166 is a dominant seventh, and I think making it a ninth by raising the clarinet to concert G might sound strange. But I can see how the dissonance with the seventh in the violin might sound a little too harsh. Maybe the better option would be to give the clarinet the concert E flat and the violin a C.
I was just questioning the voicing of the F7. Your idea would resolve the voicing dissonance - but, If the violin plays C instead , as you mention, you lose the ascent of the violin line.
Yes, I thought the F9 chord would sound sweet - though maybe slightly out your harmonic palette in the context of this piece - (but a nice place to put such a chord before the closing bars ). Maybe, see how it sounds to your ear.
But this is just a quibble, and you may prefer to leave it as is.
Yeah, I see what you mean. Maybe I will try it with a ninth chord.
Finally got enough time to listen to this in full. My overall impression is a pleasant work firmly in the classical (pre-/early Beethoven) style. My favorite part was the 2nd movement, where there are some pretty good melodies and heartfelt moments. Runner-up would be the greater variety of rhythm and themes, as well as overall stronger forward momentum in the last movement.
No strong criticisms per se, but if I had to quibble, it would be that the main themes are not easily memorable; after a while it all started sounding like Average Generic Classical Theme. There are definitely interesting turns of phrase, variations of rhythm and harmony, etc. (I particularly liked the way the rhythm was written in the 3rd movement, which hides the triple time and throws my sense of rhythm off-balance with the syncopations and downbeat rests), which are all quite good I have to say, but it did leave me wishing each theme would have a more distinctive "personality" so that it would be more easily identifiable when it appears.
But then again, my musical tastes are firmly biased towards Beethovenian drama, so take what I said with the appropriately-sized grain of salt. As I said, this isn't a strong criticism at all, just my overall impression after listening to the work for the first time in one sitting.
Good work, and thanks for sharing!
Thanks for listening, and for your comments! I can see what you mean about it starting to sound like Average Generic Classical Theme, though I think I'm more of a fan of pre-Beethoven Classicism than you, so perhaps I'm less sensitive to that.
That's perfectly fine, you're the composer so you get to decide. :) I'm more of a sucker for Beethovenian drama, and my works also reflect that to various degrees.
I liked this as well - particularly the opening of the slow movement which had really heartfelt melodies (more so than in many more routine Mozart or Haydn slow movements). The development of the first movement, although relatively short, was exciting and imaginative and possibly even more could be done in this direction elsewhere as, because almost everything is repeated, the work seems even a little on the short side. Perhaps the scherzo was the least inspired, although enjoyable enough in itself. Occasionally the harmony in the lower parts sounded on first impressions a bit odd but this could be just because the actual rendering is a bit muddy -- I'm not going to bother to actually analyse the score because others could do this better. The contentious bar 166 is actually quite effective for me.
Thanks - I appreciate your comments! I agree that the slow movement and the development of the first movement are the most effective sections.