Piano Concerto in G minor

I did not compose anything at all for one year, until suddenly when I was improvising on the piano, I got an idea to write a symphony, but then I was thinking it would be nice to have a piano part and then it turned out to be a piano concerto.

Honestly, I am terrified myself to write such genre of piece, and to me it is indeed too far-fetched. But since I just recovered from a non productive year, so I was so excited and produced this. I did it a few days ago, and the first movement is already finished.

The ideas for second movement is already on and waiting for some development. The thrid movement not yet thought of, although I have thought of how to end it (my bad habit). But I promise I will finish this piece one day.

I havent done the dynamics and stuff yet, but I will do it soon. The score cant b published, because despite the compressing, it is still 3.9 megabytes. It has 78 pages, and the sibelius file is an invalid file to be attached for some reason.

I do really need some feedback and comments and critiques. All would be welcome. Thank you very much.

Steven Tanoto

EDIT:

I have changed the development section extensively, thrown out the 3/4 section. Some transitions are still pretty mediocre but this is what I have so far. =)

Thanks for the feedback =) thanks.

ST

P.S. the bottom two files are the newer files.

Well, I'm not sure what I make of this piece. I am always wary when a composer posts a work that is 100% tied to a certain musical tradition. This is clearly a pastiche, and I don't mean that in a nasty way, but it is unoriginal. It is what composers at the time of Tchaikovsky was writing and it just would not work in a concert today. The opening piano gestures are an almost exact replica of Rachmaninoff's first concerto, so I would be really careful about that, you won't win against Rach unfortunately.

The orchestral writing is largely heavy and chordal and there is little movement between the parts, and the piano wiritng is alos heavy and whilst it is clear it is in the grand virtuoso manner, I would say it is not very piano friendsly in some passages. It seems demanding for the sake of it.

Can you play it?

I think it is a worthy attempt at a large piece but it did very little for me. Add some spice to the music that is inherently you and not any other 19th century composer pianist.

Sorry, I must have my overly critical head on today!

I think the piece shows the composers potential for some very good works. It wasn't something that would stick with me and it didn't seem as if it had a real theme either. But I was impressed with the composers use of so many different tools - the use of triplets (3's, 5's, etc.) It definitely had a nice variety in the different passages. If that much variety were used around a concrete subject it would have been much better.

Too me it was just a showing of mechanics that seemed to wander around with no definite purpose to hold on too. I'm still impressed with the variety in your construction and the potential you have though. I look forward to hearing more works by you with a subject that keeps me interested.

I really liked this, although, I agree with the "wandering around" aspect to it. Kind of around the part where it goes into 3/4 for a bit. Looking at the score, it's kinda like "Wha? Where'd that come from?"

The piano part is very nice, though. I especially loved all the quintuplets. You definitely listen to Rachmaninoff, and the octave triplets in one portion remind me of Shostakovich's 2nd Piano Concerto ... you listen to him, right?

Very good job.

(Oh ... and like the other person: can you play this? Some of the piano part seemed impossible to me, but I haven't sat down and tried it.)

Hi,

Hymnspace: I agree with you, I always despise myself from writing pastische music all the time. I had always wanted to refrain myself from doing it, but it seems so hard for me and I just can't find that "voice" that every single person had told me to find.

I also agree that some piano parts aren't possible to be played and the orchestration wasn't really careful. I should remind myself to take care of the orchestral parts better when I edit it.

Invisionary: About the wandering around, I was also told by my old music teacher. I have to seriously redo the development section.

Rafn: The 3/4 part is my desperate attempt to finish the piece quickly because I am afraid I might be bored with writing the piece. But I will change that =P

Yes, Rachmaninoff definitely! But, Shostakovich, I didn't even know that he had piano concertos, I will look it up in the library for the score.. And which particular octave triplets was it?

Thanks for your critiques and comments, I appreciate it.

Steven

The last measure on pg. 49 starts it out (on the octave D's). Yeah, Shostakovich's piano concertos are really something. It seems that you took some stuff from the first movement and third. But, of course, you didn't :p

-__- right... I just checked the music (not score or recording) out on wikipedia, it seems quite interesting.. Makes me want to listen to it because I like the Violin Concerto No.1 in A minor

Steventanoto, I think Hymnspace's comments are marginally unfair. EVERY composer of note begins by imitating those whom they admire. Look at Mozart, Beethoven, Rachmaninoff. All have started with pastiche . . although maybe not to this extent!

Despite the obvious quotes and ideas lifted from other works (eg. . . Rachmaninoff's First Piano Concerto!), your own voice shines out quite clearly. Technically, some of this piece is pretty bizzare, and lots of the piano parts are incredibly difficult (they could be scored more safely between other instruments I think). Especially the part with the duple/triple/septuple clashes or whatever you've got going on near the start.

You complained that you though you were getting bored with writing this piece. Sadly, by the time you reached the 3/4 section, I had already got pretty bored myself. I think you need a tad more repetition to give the listener something to hold onto. Otherwise it's a bit like going on a journey and not being told where you're going. You keep asking "Are we there yet?!" and getting more and more fidgitty.

I'm still listening. Arrgh. You have to remove that G,A,Bb, D figure. It's too much of a quote. If you published it, you'd probably be done for plagiarism! Maybe HymnSpace was right after all. Also, I'm not keen on the very last bar. I can't help feeling you need to end on a strong beat after all that flourishing (which I thought was great).

I think that (though this piece is at times unplayable save for Liszt) you do show signs of having some potential at writing for the piano. Reminiscent though the concerto no doubt is of Rach, it was at times rather enjoyable. Nevertheless, it certainly did have its awkward moments, for instance, the piano arpeggios from 13:45-13:55 were so simplistic that they killed the moment. Also, you use a certain set of keyboard rolls throughout the piece first heard at like 6:45 that bear the classic "difficult for the sake of being difficult" mark (as I think was said above). Also, the exposition, development, and recap sections are blurred together so much as to be indistinguishable from one another, such that the piece sounded as though it was a long exposition with traces of development here and there, lots of solos, then a coda. Composers that can execute a blend of the three parts deftly are indeed skilled, but until you have reached that level, using a clear form is usually easier.

On a purely stylistic note, the last note of the piece, the G; I think it would sound even better if you gave the piccolo and flute a high G to contrast the low ones.

~Sapphire

Steven,

There is a great deal in this Concerto movement to like. Pretty much at every point in the work, I was enjoying the music you were stating at that time. However, as a whole, I did not find this movement nearly as convincing as I should. Let me explain why.

It is not because of the length of your work that this movement suffers. On the contrary, many piano concertos have large first movements (my own among them). But when constructing a movement of that length, careful thought has to be applied to ensure that the movement has a feeling of wholeness. Everything in the movement should make sense in regards to everything around it. I do not have that impression of your work. While most of the music seems to flow well, the themes you employ are not clearly related, nor are they developed together. I am not saying your themes are not good (I did enjoy them), just that at present they do not seem to make sense together.

My understanding of the structure of this work is that there seems to be three distinct themes. You state each one of them, then restate each one of them, then conclude with a coda based on the opening theme. That we reached the ending of the movement was unmistakable, which means you did a good job there. However, at a few other junctures, I thought you could have ended the work and it would have sounded just as nice. That is a product of my inability to place myself in the piece.

Now, let's sit down with the music and examine it more carefully. Your opening fanfare has shades of the Tchaikovsky 1st (which is a good thing), and leads to a dramatic almost Lisztian piano solo. Measure 13 has a quasi-Arabian twist to the tune that I like, placing it squarely outside the Classic-Romantic Era. When you bring the vibrato strings back, it also works nicely, allowing the pianist to be dramatic about their quavering voices. And if I am not mistaken, in measure 24 you quote the Dies Irae.

In measure 37 we switch to a new theme which is still in G minor, but it does not seem to be based on what came before. And in measure 53 you move this theme to the piano. I think it is important to have a softer theme after the bombast of the opening. You might want to blend the two more carefully together, perhaps by having some figurations that more clearly recall the opening. Hmm, measure 82 brings back the quasi-Dies Irae... and just as we are having an interesting orchestral section develop around measure 100, you cut back to solo piano. You need to give the Orchestra more time to play, otherwise it is a piano work with obligato Orchestra, which is not the proper way to balance a Piano Concerto. I think you are doing a good job of developing your second theme, however, we are still in the home key of G minor.

Measure 108 brings the third theme. While the connection between this theme and the second theme is a little clearer, you normally only have two themes in the Piano Concerto. Also, I note that you've modulated to Bb Major, which really isn't much of a modulation from G minor. While it is permissible to modulate to the relative major, it is often more convincing to modulate to the Dominant. Another thing that bothers me about this section is that it is even more peaceful than the second theme. By this point all the excitement we felt at the opening of this work has been sapped. We should feel relief when we reach this section, not drained.

What's up with the two beat silence in measure 127? Cut that definitely.

The section from around 150-160 does a good job of disguising your tonality. By the time the music dies and you bring back the opening theme in measure 161, we've forgotten what our home key is. That's some good stuff there.

The tutti in measure 166 is a welcome change. We haven't heard the full orchestra in a long time. It is unfortunate that it lasts so briefly. I am confused though if you are attempting to start a Development section here. At this point we've lost track of your original structure. And you are back to G minor. A development section should take us through several different keys. That's been the case since the Sonata-allegro form was fashioned!

Okay, we must be in the development section because the tutti that shows up abruptly around measure 230 uses portions of your third theme. Good tutti too, and it does seem to mask the home key a bit. You follow this up with your second theme, but the piano line there is a bit clunky and overpowering with its repeated ostinato. This sort of winds down again like we heard the first time back into the third theme proper. I feel like the whole piece is only given a certain allotment of energy, and we move through your themes that energy begins to wane. This is especially noticeable in the slowness of measure 302. Dang, will it ever end??

The section starting immediately after with strings and woodwinds joining the piano is very nice. But we are still in the relative major, so keywise, we haven't gone anywhere. We've heard some lovely themes, but harmonically the piece has not gone anywhere, and that's a shame.

I love the section around measure 320. It is very peaceful, and seems to carry some of your themes in a delicate way that really speaks with me. You could end this piece with measure 331, and I would not have complained.

The coda starts back with the opening theme, and on solo piano too. I think this is a mistake. If you want to build up to that tutti in measure 339, you ought to consider a more stately approach, one that builds the dynamics slowly, but intensely. I suggest you study the first movement of Franck's D Minor Symphony to see what I mean (specifically, letter T - measure 473).

But I do enjoy the coda, from measure 359 on, we know we're rushing to the climax, and it sounds good!

Overall, I think you need to add more orchestral colour to this work. Further, you WILL want to add more harmonic vitality. Right now, your key signature never changes, and that is a weakness in the first movement to a work, especially one of this length. I think if you can accomplish even only these two things, you will have dramatically improved this work.

I understand how inspiration can be slow to strike. I have been working on my own Piano Concerto for years, and I only have one and a half movements complete (I finished the first but I am now revising it). So don't give up and keep at it. I think you have some great material here.

Matusleo