Violoncello Duet in C

[Exen]

I believe this is one of my first duets I wrote.

It's pretty rudimentary. Basically its just free counterpoint.

If anyone wants the piano arrangement I worked for a friend send me a PM.

Enjoy.

[Majesty]

How fast is this suppose to be?

I know you said this was one of your first duets. And I'm guessing it was one of your earlier compositions? So, if you are ever interested in reworking it, I think you could do so by adding mleodic notes that are suggestive of other closely related keys for a little variety.

Also, as it is the cello parts have their own separate lines of "free counterpoint" as you mentioned. I think it would be even better if you created some kind of interplay betweent the parts by having vaious melodic or motivic ideas bouncing back and forthe between the parts.

It does look like a light "sunshine" piece.

Regards!

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Exen

I believe this is one of my first duets I wrote.

It's pretty rudimentary. Basically its just free counterpoint.

If anyone wants the piano arrangement I worked for a friend send me a PM.

Enjoy.

Th,

Do you have a midi file of it also? Many people like to hear the music as well - some are not as good score readers as others.

Steve

[Exen]

Majesty,

With the lack of a tempo marking, it's up to the players to decide how fast it should be played. I give them the tones and durations, they set how fast those tones should "hang" in the air before the next is played. But I will look into the suggests you mentioned, thanks for taking a look.

[Exen]

stevel,

Heres the midi of it.

I have the tempo set for Moderato, but it can be played slower, faster, whatever the players decide.

[Majesty]

Hi Exen,

I did have some additional comments/issues I was going to make but I reserved them for when you provided a midi/mp3. The issues def came through in the midi. The issues are those of the independant voice leading. It seems that there is a "weakness" that exisits because of handling issues like tritone and leading tone voice leading. If this issue was your intention then please ignore my comment. Otherwise, as bouncy and fun as it is, I don't really feel that I'm being melodically or harmonically lead throughout the piece.

I do really like the use of the articulations though. It helps to make certain melodic moments "jump out" and come through nicely.

Hope you don't mind my comments

[Exen]

Majesty,

Will you elaborate more on the things you pointed out, I'm rather curious as to what you mean. As for the leading melody, yeah I know, I was just starting out and didn't take much into count when I wrote it, it was more along the lines of still playing around. Though I will say, it sounds better scored for piano, even sounds better played on piano I must admit, or at least when a friend played it it did. Hope this helps. Though I would still like to hear all your comments on it.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Exen

stevel,

Heres the midi of it.

I have the tempo set for Moderato, but it can be played slower, faster, whatever the players decide.

Since the Cello is a traditional instrument, and your style of music is largely traditional, performers will expect to see a traditional Tempo Marking. Even if a work is from the Early Baroque before Tempo markings had become standard, a modern editions will still include them.

Therefore, if you want to leave it up to your players to decide, you should put something like:

Moderato q = ca. 72-84

The "q" means quarter note.

The "ca." here is for "circa" which means "about" or "approximately".

You could also put "Tempo Ad Libitum" or just "Ad Libitum" but that implies the ability to constantly fluctuate tempo rather than pick say, a range from "slow to fast".

If you wanted to use a more modern approach, you could just put "any tempo you wish" at the beginning.

In any event, modern editions of "finished" music include Tempo Markings of some sort. Leaving it off appears unprofessional and/or unfinished.

Steve

[stevel]

Will you elaborate more on the things you pointed out, I'm rather curious as to what you mean. As for the leading melody, yeah I know, I was just starting out and didn't take much into count when I wrote it, it was more along the lines of still playing around.

Ok, well, that's "playing around" , not a "composition". It's kind of like the difference between doodling in a notebook, and painting a canvas and hanging it on the wall. It's OK to doodle with music, but usually when you present a piece in a forum like this, people are going to assume you are "hanging it on the wall" to be viewed as a work of art - unless you say something like "this was an experiment" or "what do you think", etc. etc.

More to the point, since the piece is largely melodic, one would generally put the most thought into what the melody is doing or going to do. It's kind of like the difference between just walking up to someone and starting to talk in a random series of words: "Hi, there, did you, Oh, I know, perpendicular angles, flagella, nice day today." versus "Excuse me sir, can you tell me how to get to Vine Street?". While there a recognizable elements in the first, it doesn't make sense. The latter makes much more sense.

Now, this is not to assume that you want to compose music that "makes sense". Or, it doesn't assume that you're intentionally writing a modernistic style that uses that sort of "nonsensical" grammar. But, because of the instruments, the pitches, melodic elements, rhtyhmic elements and so on, a listener will assume you're trying to emulate a more tradional approach, for which we have a "sensical" grammar. So instead of saying "This is my piece". You've said "He be my piece" - ungrammatical as compared to the traditional grammar we assume you're trying to use.

Though I will say, it sounds better scored for piano, even sounds better played on piano I must admit, or at least when a friend played it it did. Hope this helps. Though I would still like to hear all your comments on it.

I'll expand on some of the issues Majesty might have been touching upon:

A good example is what you just said - "it sounds better scored for piano". Then guess what my friend - this is a Piano piece and not a Cello Duet! If a piece sounds worse in some version than another, I don't see much point in making the alternate version. It's like all of those pointless Hollywood remakes they make! If you can't make Star Wars better than Lucas did, then don't do it. Hell, even Lucas couldn't make Star Wars better, even though he insisted on trying :-)

A more technical issue:

Immediately, you start crossing your parts. This becomes confusing for the listener, especially since you're using two instruments of the same timbre. You can't really tell who's got the upper part, and who's got the lower part. You can't "follow" any line because it's constantly getting interrupted by another line. By beat 2 your upper part is already your lower part, and then remains there for over a measure. This is kind of unusual. It's not "bad" and it was done commonly in the Bicinia of Lasso etc., but is that what you're trying to tell us? Modern ears have a different perception of how melodic lines should interact in order to maintain their individuality and work together as well.

m. 16 and 17 are kind of funky with the octaves on the downbeats - we've been having other intervals that produce "harmony" for most of the music and suddenly you've got these octaves - in m. 16 it's especailly "bare" sounding - the octave is "not a harmony" and therefore sticks out like a sore thumb in this position (especially on the down beat).

You may want to see the post I just made in the Music Web Authors forum "Added a little more" - while this may not be a final draft, the information about "Balance - Unity and Variety" is worth investigating. You've got a lot of variety here - what Majesty I think rightly picks up as "not being melodically or harmonically led" through the piece. It tends to "wander:. While Majesty notes some particular voice leading issues and mentions the tritone, I don't feel that's a big an issue as the broader issues of "independence" (which both Majesty and I mention) of lines and more so for me, the voice-crossing (which contributes to a lack of independence). Furthermore, the amount of variety - even though there is repeated material - is confusing. The repeated material doesn't appear in a logical or predictable manner. That's ok again if you're not going for that. But it seems like you set us up at the beginning to expect a "two part contrapuntal" piece and you end up not being successful at doing that.

I think you'd really benefit from some study of counterpoint - at least for a piece like this. I think you'd also benefit in learning a little more about various types of music through listening and reading scores, study, etc.

Best,
Steve

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Exen

Majesty,

Will you elaborate more on the things you pointed out, I'm rather curious as to what you mean. As for the leading melody, yeah I know, I was just starting out and didn't take much into count when I wrote it, it was more along the lines of still playing around. Though I will say, it sounds better scored for piano, even sounds better played on piano I must admit, or at least when a friend played it it did. Hope this helps. Though I would still like to hear all your comments on it.

I mentioned a document in another section of the forums but I am warned only certain participants here may be able to view. So if you want the information, I can post it here.

Best,
Steve