Hello everyone.

I am new in this prestigious forum and I am delighted to be able to participate in it. Especially since I can know the opinion of very prepared and sensitive people about my string quartet. My composition is twelve-tone inspiration,  but it is not very radical either. It consists of four different parts:

1.Allegro

2 Moderato

3 Scherzo

4 Rondo

 

It is performed by a computer program of synthesis.

 

I'm attaching two links to YouTube:

  1. Video with music and a visual creation (made with java language) as a graphic score.

 https://youtu.be/eEQl66ltooM

       

       2. Video where you can see the authentic score running in case you want to go deeper.

 https://youtu.be/s1enRyxiZYY

 

Thanks for listening

You need to be a member of Composers' Forum to add comments!

Join Composers' Forum

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Hi Ramon.

    I found the overall 'tone' and texture  interesting.. But i felt i needed more contrast.. (although i do get 'sticking' w a vibe)

    It seemed (my sense of it)  that is was quite strict by the number.  Though i did find it musical, I would like to see your 'personal' manipulation more obvious.

    I will listen again, and perhaps have a different response.

    Thanks for sharing.  

  • Gregorio, thank you very much for your evaluations. For me it is very important to know the opinion of other composers.
    One of my objectives has been to obtain thematic homogeneity in the set of the four movements of the work. To achieve this I started from a single chromatic series of 12 notes and I applied the usual twelve-tone transformations (translations and symmetries). Maybe this is the reason why you have found lack of contrast. This lack of thematic contrast I have compensated for the rhythmic contrast of the different units and movements. . .

    Thanks for listening.

  • Hi Ramon--

    I had a hard time trying to put my thoughts into words, so I hope this somehow works--

    I very much enjoyed your piece..and as posted its a very original work, and I appreciate what youve done with it.

    Its known here that I really do question the worth of having others critique ones work, when what they suggest is how THEY feel your music should sound and be written, but its NOT yours--the composers--as the posted work is just that, ie.what the composer feels it should sound like. And for my money, just about all of the "suggestions" by others on what should be done with others music, are based on common practices, and observations..and as such they will lead ones music straight into what everyone else is doing, which if one is trying to be original is really troublesome.

    A little long winded--LOLOL..but a way to say that critiquing this from these common practices, and if you desired it to sound more like other peoples music you might hear that especially in the first movement longer notes esp in the cello would help, and also removing some of the cello writing or raising it an octave or so to help alleviate the sameness of texture that has already been mentioned, might be something to look into. Also transpositions...and motivic variations, etc..all to provide more contrast.

    I have found that letting the cello rest more really helps the composition as a whole, and makes what the cello has to say even more valuable. I usually raise it an octave first to see if that helps.

    But as I said--for me, as you posted it is how I accept and I enjoyed it very much. The other suggestions provided might help if you wanted it to sound more like others music, which Im not sure is your intention.

    Thanks for posting!!

    Thanks Bob https://soundcloud.com/bob-morabito

  • Ramon, irrespective of critiquing notes, which I personally rarely do because I believe that is the composers own choice and we all have different proclivities in that regard, there is the matter of technicalities. Would you like this work to be performed by a real 4tet? is the obvious question to ask up front. Leaving it in the basic midi world always leaves a lot to be desired musically speaking IMV, so if you have aspirations for a real performance, some work might be needed in the score, notably bowing and articulations, all of which will define and improve the interpretation of your piece by clarifying your intentions.

    Also, and here I am just curious, did you set up the machine and let it run, or at any point did you intervene to change anything you might not have liked or have any guiding hand in its future development?

    mikehewer.com

  • Bob,

    Thank you very much for your opinions and ideas. For me they are very important.

    I am glad that you consider that my work is original because, certainly, this has been one of my main objectives: based on personal and firsthand criteria, to obtain a product that provokes an emotional reaction to the listener.

    I will meditate on the topics that you suggest to me: to be too breathless and of the excessive use of the cello as well as to increase its tone. To see if I can integrate it in my approaches.

     

    Thanks for listening.

  • Mike,

    I also thank you very much for your comments and opinions.

    I have not really considered a possible real interpretation. My initial approach has been that of a creation using computer tools. However, I agree with you that my score is technically improvable. I would have to work more.

     

    Regarding your curiosity about the creation process, I have to say that it is not just a piece product of an algorithmic process. The mathematical and computer tools used are low power. All the decisions of melodic and harmonious structures and development have been taken by me and not by any algorithm. But I have used Csound programming language to generate the dodecaphonic series, with the calculation of time and tones, apply translational transformations and symmetries and generate the midi file that allows me to import it into Finale to make the final tweaks (this it's redundancy!).

    Thanks for listening.

  • Glad to hear you retained control Ramon. Music imo is meaningless if it is reduced to something anybody decent at math can do - it needs human input in order to connect honestly and with moral integrity, especially in concert music. It is sad that a mistrust has developed between audiences and atonal composers and whilst it is understandable, it is not helped by anybody who takes advantage of the fact that no-one, not even musicians, can tell the difference between sincere utterances and hands down, who cares what it sounds like "works". 

    I've heard a few pieces in my time, that have raised my suspicions about the integrity of composers aesthetic and moral intent and issues like undue care to practicalities in performance always give away more about a composer than he or she might wish for, especially to a professional.  One example was related to me by a founder member of a world famous 4tet who is a good friend. The 4tet commissioned a composer who then wrote a piece laden with quarter tones. Fine in its self, but then he marked the parts molto vib! which of course obliterated the tuning!! I shan't mention who my friend is as it is in confidence, but the tale harbours a warning to some so called composers.

    Not that I hear any charlatanism your work btw, your processes (especially contrapuntal ones) are imo, clear and focused and as a result, make it easier for comprehension on first hearing. Have you ever written for real world musicians?

  • Mike, I think your opinion very interesting.
    The very nature of algorithms and computers implies that the tasks they can perform most effectively are those that are resolvable through the application of precise rules in a finite number of steps. This applied in the case of musical composition, means that its simplest and most direct use is as tools to support creation.
    The creation itself (because it is the product of an intelligent act) is much more difficult to deal with algorithmic procedures, although I do not think it should be ruled out either. But in any case it would have to be addressed using highly complex systems that would be within the scope of artificial intelligence. 
    The mistake is to confuse the two previous spaces and use low-power tools to solve problems of great significance, such as that of a machine to make, with total autonomy, musical creation. That is when inconsistent products are obtained: beneath an apparent and false complexity there is nothing but triviality and banality.

    (Answering your specific question, I have nothing written for real world musicians that is complete enough).

  • All the decisions of melodic and harmonious structures and development have been taken by me and not by any algorithm. But I have used Csound programming language to generate the dodecaphonic series, with the calculation of time and tones, apply translational transformations and symmetries and generate the midi file that allows me to import it into Finale to make the final tweaks (this it's redundancy!).

    Hi Ramon--Thanks for the explanation.

    Are these along the lines of how youre using Csound? They're both regarding Brian Ferneyhough:

    Ferneyhough walked through his process of incorporating music generational programs, like OpenMusic and Patchwork (PWGL), into his compositional process and the use of these programs in combination with Finale:

    Also this:

    Brian Ferneyhough's use of Computer Aided Composition

    https://www.scribd.com/document/292717229/Ferneyhough

    I find his music extremely interesting.:)

    Thanks Bob https://soundcloud.com/bob-morabito

    openmusic:home [Music Representations Team]
  • The mistake is to confuse the two previous spaces and use low-power tools to solve problems of great significance, such as that of a machine to make, with total autonomy, musical creation. That is when inconsistent products are obtained: beneath an apparent and false complexity there is nothing but triviality and banality.

    Well put Ramon, I believe I have met online, one person guilty of similar practices.

This reply was deleted.