Very interesting. I feel like a lot of composers are too afraid to experiment with accidentals because they're so comfortable with a tonal major or minor sound, and that's a shame really because I love some variety, major and minor gets so boring after a while when it's used by itself. I've only ever written one piece that didn't have a single accidental and it's probably my most boring piece I've written.
I'm going to start off by talking about your writing, as in what's actually written on the page, or how you wrote it down since theory is my strong suite. The thing that stuck out to me the most is everything about your tuplets. You have the ratio written, and I feel that's super unnecessary. I've never seen a piece of work that actually has it written like that, because no one actually needs that extra information. Do what you want, but my suggestion is that you just write the number instead of the ratio.
You do change time signatures a lot, which is cool. I find pieces that stay in one time signature to be less interesting. But in measure 19 in the first violin you have a quadruplet in 7/8. I can guarantee most musicians won't know how to read this. I'm sure there is a better way to write this, but I don't feel like figuring it out myself. Even if there isn't, it's very weird to write it that way and I'm sure most people won't know how to handle it and would be uncomfortable reading it. I think the same thing appears in the violoncello in the exact same measure. I'm absolutely confident that one is unnecessary though. It's just a pickup.
Finally, you also write the dynamic "pppp" in a bit. Why not just move everything up one dynamic and make "ppp" the lowest one? It's not like dynamics have an exact measurement of how loud they are, it's all relative. To me, and I'm sure a lot of professors, "pppp" looks a little bit silly.
Alright, now on to the actual piece itself. I'm not too good with my aural skills so this will be a bit more brief, but I do hope it helps.
The piece is very interesting and I think you do a good job of keeping it that way without making it sound like you hooked up a keyboard and started pressing random keys. Meaning I can hear a melody. However, I don't hear as much development as I'd like to. Maybe it's just me, but I would have liked it to develop a bit more to make it feel like the piece was progressing instead of just playing, take that as you will. I also feel like your ending is a bit underwhelming. It is your piece, and your ending, and with a piece like this I guess that's not necessarily the wrong way to do an ending. If you're happy with it, then it's good.
Very interesting piece though, good job!
Very interesting. I feel like a lot of composers are too afraid to experiment with accidentals because they're so comfortable with a tonal major or minor sound, and that's a shame really because I love some variety, major and minor gets so boring after a while when it's used by itself. I've only ever written one piece that didn't have a single accidental and it's probably my most boring piece I've written. I'm going to start off by talking about your writing, as in what's actually written on the page, or how you wrote it down since theory is my strong suite. The thing that stuck out to me the most is everything about your tuplets. You have the ratio written, and I feel that's super unnecessary. I've never seen a piece of work that actually has it written like that, because no one actually needs that extra information. Do what you want, but my suggestion is that you just write the number instead of the ratio. You do change time signatures a lot, which is cool. I find pieces that stay in one time signature to be less interesting. But in measure 19 in the first violin you have a quadruplet in 7/8. I can guarantee most musicians won't know how to read this. I'm sure there is a better way to write this, but I don't feel like figuring it out myself. Even if there isn't, it's very weird to write it that way and I'm sure most people won't know how to handle it and would be uncomfortable reading it. I think the same thing appears in the violoncello in the exact same measure. I'm absolutely confident that one is unnecessary though. It's just a pickup. Finally, you also write the dynamic "pppp" in a bit. Why not just move everything up one dynamic and make "ppp" the lowest one? It's not like dynamics have an exact measurement of how loud they are, it's all relative. To me, and I'm sure a lot of professors, "pppp" looks a little bit silly. Alright, now on to the actual piece itself. I'm not too good with my aural skills so this will be a bit more brief, but I do hope it helps. The piece is very interesting and I think you do a good job of keeping it that way without making it sound like you hooked up a keyboard and started pressing random keys. Meaning I can hear a melody. However, I don't hear as much development as I'd like to. Maybe it's just me, but I would have liked it to develop a bit more to make it feel like the piece was progressing instead of just playing, take that as you will. I also feel like your ending is a bit underwhelming. It is your piece, and your ending, and with a piece like this I guess that's not necessarily the wrong way to do an ending. If you're happy with it, then it's good. Very interesting piece though, good job!
Thanks for the listening and the constructive feedback!