I listened to his string quartet just now. It was difficult for me to focus on the patterns since I was more distracted by the dissonance, haha, but I can appreciate the point of your message at least… to consider how I might allow thematic material from previous movements to reappear and be transformed. I would enjoy doing that.
you might have better luck with the finale of his piano concerto (which is a bit more relatable, harmonically) and uses this exact structure.
Corigliano, piano concerto (with score) 4th movement
Thanks for sharing, I definitely enjoyed listening to this!
It is a somewhat dense read but if you’re interested in understanding the conventions of tonal music, especially from the classical period, Charles Rosen’s Sonata Forms is a very good and mind-expanding book (also the same author’s The Classical Style & The Romantic Generation). Musical analysis in general is very good at uncovering where conventions come from and what purpose they served, even if that’s not the purpose they serve for you. (For example, for me due to synaesthesia it always somewhat bothers me when a piece ends in a different key from which it began, but the reason the convention of keeping the same key was followed for most of the 18th/19th centuries had much more to do with unequal temperament and no longer makes as much sense with modern tuning and instruments.)
One comment I do have along those lines is that key areas often aren’t very well defined. I’m not sure if your intent is to write tonal music (i.e., chord-based; common practice tonality from Bach to Rachmaninov) or if you’re more into modal or pan-diatonic melody/harmony (i.e., scale-based; 20th-21st centuries such as Britten, Copland, Stravinsky etc.), but you list key centers in your description above and thus I listened to it as I would listen to tonal music. This leads to things like e.g. for me the introduction to the third movement seemed directionless, and the arrival at Bb minor after ~3:40 (where I assume the movement proper begins) feels a bit arbitrary; similarly the final chords in C minor feel arbitrary because the key of B flat was established around ~9:25 and never really left. Ending on the supertonic is rarely done and usually for a special effect (for example, to undercut the entire concept of a triumphal symphonic ending in Arnold’s Fifth: https://youtu.be/21ci-mSDAtY?t=1796 or to bring back the “sunrise”/“2001: A Space Odyssey” motif in Strauss’s Also Sprach Zarathustra: https://youtu.be/vR8Vh3QZOK0?t=1990)
Similar comments apply to other parts of the piece as well e.g. the extended minor key area after the first movement cadenza. I don’t have a problem with a cadenza in a string quartet, but for me a cadenza is most effective when placed at a point where it interrupts a clear structural moment. A good example is the finale of Britten’s 2nd quartet (a chaconne with 21 variations), which has three cadenzas; the first two occur after variations 6 and 13, and are also points where the music changes to different tempos, whereas the last one occurs where the music returns to the original tempo (and presents the theme in close to its original form). I like your cadenza, but I think I would have liked the music after the cadenza to present a greater contrast with the music played before it, whereas in this case the minor key and general mood had already been established.
Hope this makes sense, apologies if it isn’t helpful!
Thank you for listening and for offering such thoughtful, detailed commentary!
Oh, how interesting! I had to look that up. It’s the first I’ve heard of synaesthesia. It must come in handy for someone doing music as it would make things more obvious!
I kind of wanted the feeling of the introduction to be for the listener an experience of not knowing where they were being led, but something still delightful. But actually, I intended the movement proper to begin at 1:13 in Gm. Then a lot of the movement hovers in Gm and its relative major, Bbmaj. It does have a rather long section in Bbm tucked in between Bbmaj on either side of it. Maybe it’s such a long section in that key that it feels like the primary key?
The movement ends in Cmaj (a key change from Bbmaj right near the end). Nevertheless, it’s true, it is not the primary key. I think I often modulate without intending to as I continue the melody while I’m writing. Maybe I need to exercise more discipline and intention with regards to staying in the “correct” key.
Yes, I’m more partial to tonal music, but as you can tell, I enjoy modulation, haha. Yes, it’s true, I can see what you mean about my key areas not being well defined. They do tend to slide into each other without rhyme or reason. The key of the music happens, for me as more of an unintended consequence as I write. So that should be one of the areas of growth for me as I look to improve.
Ah, that’s a good point.
Thank you! I appreciate you explaining this. That makes sense, and I will check out those examples you mentioned.
Again, thank you so much for your feedback. It is really helpful for me to know your impressions and how I can improve the experience for the listener.
A very good example — one of the most shocking and moving of all symphonic endings I would say – (from, for me, the greatest British symphonist but I guess that’s more contentious). I must admit in my own works that sometimes I play close attention to the logic (my logic, not necessarily Common Practice) of key signatures but in some others, the important thing is the specific atmosphere created by a particular key in context. Often remote keys are the most effective and not the more predictable ones you might expect in CP. But in most cases, I do decide what key a piece should end in and why.
Composing is of course hard and trying to get everything right is usually beyond me, especially as I write relatively quickly. Usually I focus on one or two areas to improve on and accept possible failings in others. Others are perfectionists but the problem with that can be a lack of creative spontaneity. Those of an analytical bent (not me) may appreciate the care and precision but others may simply be looking for music to enjoy and be moved by.
Incidentally, as someone who also in general enjoyed the music a good deal, I would also concur that not only is the cadenza arguably in the wrong place but the lack of contrast in what follows isn’t entirely logical.
That was definitely my experience at least—not only the length of the section but also the rather dramatic full cadence in B-flat minor that led into it.
I love modulations in general, so I don’t think it’s important to stay in any one key! I enjoy writing music that touches on various keys without firmly establishing any of them, and like you I do write intuitively without worrying about what key the music is in, although I do think a lot about voice-leading (modern music textbooks go beyond common-practice voice-leading & thus should be more helpful; this is an example). For example this is the “A” section of the 5th movement of a serenade for string orchestra I’m working on:
That said, the thing about modulations is that you usually need to have a full cadence to establish that a modulation has happened. As I said I wasn’t thinking about that at all when writing, I just wanted the effect of playfully skipping around between different keys, but maybe due to experience or whatever else, I still ended up subconsciously cadencing in almost every key. See “technical stuff” and score pages below
Yes, one of the nice things about tonal music is all the effects you can get from remote keys, via modulations, etc. With the demise of a common practice, the only really important thing is tension/resolution; practically any chord can be substituted for a dominant, subdominant, etc., so long as you can find a way to resolve it, and practically any chord can be substituted for a tonic if you can make it feel static.
I’m not usually of an analytical bent but I took apart my own excerpt posted above (just bc I had the score). If anyone is interested in modulation, harmonic motion, etc., I would encourage you to do this with excerpts of your own scores as well: specifically as a post facto analysis rather than in the moment, so that you can determine the logic of why a particular key or chord progression sounds good or bad to you, what modulations the music wants to undertake, how you establish or disestablish new keys.
Technical stuff follows:
A key is defined by its tonic triad and the presence of goal-directed harmonic motion towards it. Just using V-I, e.g. F# major-B major, is not sufficient because that could just as easily be I-IV in F# major. So to establish a new key, a cadence requires a minimum of three chords: pre-dominant (almost always II, IV or VI—II can be altered to V/V, dominant of the dominant; VI can be altered to V(6/4), the tonic chord, but used as subdominant of the dominant), dominant, tonic. Sometimes you can also establish a key with a plagal cadence (subdominant → tonic). However almost any chord can be used as a pre-dominant, which means you can get from any one key to any other key through a pivot (a chord or note that is functional in both the old key and the new key). Random examples; there are countless more possibilities:
The capriccio of my string serenade is in B minor, but this key is not firmly established until bar 25. So I wrote out the chords above the music and the implied keys they touch upon; pivot chords between 2 keys are connected with dashed lines. Again, I wasn’t thinking about any of this while writing so in some cases I’m not sure how to analyze a chord I used or what the logic behind it could be. In those cases I could choose to change it, but if I enjoy what it sounds like I could also decide not to. I also highlighted every cadence. [A full cadence ends on the tonic (I), a half cadence ends on the dominant (V), and a deceptive cadence is one that ends on any other chord.]
Obviously you don’t have to go to this length for your own music. However, I think it might be useful, either for sections you’re struggling with or sections you’re very happy with (for me I was very satisfied with this section). The most important thing is having a sense of what constitutes a sense of direction and goal-orientation for you personally: how do you make a new key sound like the music is inevitably leading towards it—or like it’s an unexpected plot twist, like in Malcolm Arnold above? and same with a recapitulation? a climax? a change in tempo or meter? a cadenza? etc.
Wow, you’re doing a great job on your Capriccio! Very fascinating listening. I am amazed at your analysis too… had to study it carefully and listen multiple times as I’m not adept at harmonic analysis, but your post has helped me go deeper in my understanding. Thank you.
Yes, I can see that I need to listen for cadences in my writing and be able to notice where they are absent and should be included in order to give the music more clear direction.
Do you use Dorico? How do you make that extra staff on top with the diagramming line? That would be useful for me to do because I’ve tried to do some mapping of chord progressions before, but have gotten lost with all of the different staves and voicings.
with me it’s very simple – what is the music trying to express? Does a chord progression sound angry/hesitant/nostalgic/tearful etc etc. As I’ve said, analytical music theory doesn’t interest me much as it doesn’t help to compose the sort of music I want to compose.
Yes, in this case I added an ossia staff above the first violins (select anything on the top staff, right click, open Staff submenu > select “create ossia above”—or same on bottom staff for an ossia below). If you want a full-size staff instead that option is there as well.
And thank you (may share on forum when it’s done). I don’t think you need to listen for cadences or harmonic motion! It’s just something you may want to do seeing as you’re already thinking about key relations, but obviously there are so many 20th & 21st century composers who didn’t worry about that in particular: shifting between keys without tonal logic, just based on sentiment or color (e.g. Bohuslav Martinů), not changing harmonies much & instead focusing on melody, rhythm, and thematic material (e.g. Ross Edwards is one), mixing and matching not only keys/harmonies but entire styles (tonal, atonal, classical, non-classical etc.) to fit the mood at any given point (e.g. Christopher Rouse). Meanwhile if you are interested in tonal logic you can fit almost anything into it once you have a sense for it; e.g. Karol Szymanowski’s music is almost always tonal, but its “rules” are not very apparent unless you analyse it in great detail—but any listener can hear which chords are consonant and which ones need to be resolved, even if they don’t know why.
I still write this way, at least for initial drafts! That said, when listening to my stuff listeners very often hear things expressed in it that I hadn’t intended or been conscious of, or strongly disagree with my own sense of whether a chord progression sounded a particular way. At the same time listeners also want me to explain my music to them in more detail, to give them an idea of what to listen for and how to follow it, and I often found myself somewhat at a loss for what to say. (if I could have expressed it in words I would have written a poem rather than a symphony.) So I turned to analysis as a way to increase accessibility, which may sound like a contradiction in terms, but I wanted to know why people were hearing “furious and relentless” when I had intended “cheerful and high-spirited” or “terrifying” when I had intended “majestic” and so on. This means that when I go back over a section I just wrote I’ll think about what I was trying to express there and try to determine how its elements convey that expression.
I know where you’re coming from – I think! Some of my works do have something of a plan, particularly in terms of structure, and many evolve out of one or two motifs just heard at the outset. But sometimes when I go back and listen to something, I really can’t remember exactly why I did something specific so there’s no way I’d be able to explain it to others. It’s also true that not everyone reads music in the same way emotionally so in the end, I guess it’s just what the music expresses to me that counts. But it’s an interesting area of debate, though one that’s not covered much by music theory to my knowledge.
Thanks so much! I will give it a try.
I haven’t listened to their music, so thank you for pointing them out to me and what to listen for.
If the music is great and it satisfies you, and you don’t have any questions about why it works or about needing to improve anything, then it seems perfectly fine not to bother with analysis.
For me, I know there are problems in my writing and I do want to make my music sound more satisfying. My go to method will always be my ear, but sometimes I get stuck or can’t figure out what is missing. Maybe this will help me develop the tools to sort it out.
I tried to create an ossia staff and realized that Dorico Elements (which I have) doesn’t offer that function. I would have to upgrade to Dorico Pro.
Hi, Everyone.
I just wanted to post an update here as I’ve been considering all of your feedback, which I’m really grateful for!
Re: Movement 1: No changes yet, but I am still thinking about how to handle the cadenza and the part immediately following it. One option would be to remove the cadenza and see if it could go in the final movement. Conversely, if the cadenza stays in the first movement, I will still have to think of a solution about changing the lamentoso part that follows it so that the cadenza becomes a divider between two contrasting sections.
Re: Movement 2: I made more changes to the introduction (first 30 seconds) to highlight the pizzicato more and to let the cello voice be solo at the beginning and repeat. In the middle, there are some changes as I deleted an aimless part and extended a couple of interesting sections. I also rewrote the part leading up to the ending (8:56-9:14). I think this revised version has a little more drama, though hopefully doesn’t lose the “night” vibe that is a contrast from the “day” of the first movement.
Re: Movement 3: As a result of Naomi’s impression that the first theme was just an extension of the introduction, I rewrote the part leading up to the theme’s entrance (1:00-1:33), breaking up the pace with rhythm and texture change, making the chords of the cadence longer creating anticipation, petering off into pp and added a cesura before the theme enters with mf. Hopefully it feels a bit more like a theme’s beginning now. I’m still trying to decide whether to keep or delete the eight notes in the cello that lead into the theme (1:31-1:33). They have a transition/softening effect. Later in the piece, I made other small changes, mostly having to do with better preparing the listener better by adding pauses (or creating that effect). I have not done anything to change the keys of the piece at this point. [EDIT: revised as explained below Movement 3]
I’ve changed my mind again, haha! That lead up to the theme in Mvt 3 isn’t working for me now that I’m coming back to it after a few hours. I’m gonna rework that.
I think (hope) I’ve got something now that I’m satisfied with. Instead of petering off right at the end of the introduction, I switch to f , use triplets to get attention and signal that something is coming (similar to the way the Bflat minor section is introduced later) and let the theme’s entrance be the resolution to the cadence. @naomi , thanks, your advice about needing at least three chords to establish a new key helped me pay more attention to that as I worked on ending the introduction and setting up the cadence. Revised Movement 3 here.
By the way, the structure of Movement 3 is more free flowing, like a symphonic poem with different motifs. So don’t be listening for ABA or anything like that.