Gardener

Congratulations! That's really great music. I played through it all on the piano (trying to incorporate both pianos as much as possible), which is a real joy. It would be great to hear an actual recording of this once, as I imagine the "stereo-effects" of two pianos to be very beautiful.

I love the overall buildup of the pieces, beginning with those strong, clear bells, then going faster in the central pieces and then again calming down in the last one, while constantly becoming quieter through all the pieces. This combination gives the overall form both a roundness (in tempo/density) and an almost constant direction (in dynamics). Both of these elements already presented in the first piece, beginning and ending slowly, with a faster section in the middle and the fortissimo bell-sounds which slowly decay and form one long diminuendo. Really nice how the formal ideas of the whole cycle seem to be contained in the first piece already. Or am I just imagining this?

In the first piece I primarily wondered whether in the "Let decay" chords, it's actually meant to wait till they have become inaudible. I played them and timed them, and even in a small room without reverberation and a closed piano they took about a minute to fully decay (the first one a bit shorter, the last one a bit longer, because of the bass notes). And of course that was just a single piano. I imagine that in a large resonant room, with two open concert pianos it might easily take twice as long, which is of course a very long time. I really dont' mind listening to a decaying sound for two minutes, that can be very beautiful. But maybe not twice in the same piece. Have you considered having the first fermata just, like, 20 seconds long for example?

In the second movement I really enjoyed the mix of different scales. They create wonderful harmonies and the "shimmering" in the title I can perfectly understand. It sounds strong, clear and vibrant. Like in all pieces, a very nice usage of the two pianos, which sometimes act as "echos", sometimes they answer each other, and sometimes they come together again, which creates really strong effect after the separated passages.

And the rhythms (and polyrhythmic ideas) of this piece were also great and give a great sense of energy. (I especially like the way you divided the 5/4 bar in the first and similar measures. It sounds almost like a Messiaen-like "valeur ajouté". But I don't think I have to tell you about all the connotations to french music one can hear in these pieces).

One thing I thought about in this piece were your dynamic markings in the end. It's clear that at some points both hands have the same dynamics and at others they are separated, but I think such things need to be notated exceptionally clearly, so the performers don't forget. For one, I didn't understand why the dynamics in the right hand were in brackets. Is that a convention of some sort I don't know? In any case, I personally would always add a "l.h." or "r.h." after dynamics for just one hand, and then a "both hands" if they share the same dynamic again. Also, in bars 34 and 49 I would write the fff/ffff for the last octave in the left hands again, just to be really clear that it stays loudly.

Nice use of "added reverberation" in the third piece, and again the way you combined the two pianos is very fitting. You make the fireflies not only flutter around in the registers, but also in the room.

I really loved the fourth movement, especially harmonically. There are always these subtle changes in colour which open up a whole new world. For example the g in the second bar of the first piano, which is completely new to the pre-established tonality and changes the whole harmonic colour, without feeling "out of place" in the least. You have such changes quite often, where a very closed sound-world is confronted with something foreign, but which still completely fits, just in an unexpected way and which in retrospect changes the whole preceding scene. This is of course often realized by combining different, simple scales (just like Debussy), but this is always done in a way that the two scales in some way fit very well together and form a beautiful result. (I love the colour change between bars 15/16 and bar 17 too!). Sometimes it's not completely clear whether a specific note is meant with or without an accidental though, like if an accidental appears in a bar and not again on the same note in the next, but there's no natural (like the B in bar 31 in the first piano which is preceded by a Bb one bar before). Of course you can always assume the "technical case" and strictly play a B there, but it would still be nice to have a natural before the B, as if it -is- meant as a B, then it's a very distinct harmonic change, which may easily be forgotten otherwise.