Revision of d minor Moderato

Ok, I did it! Well, you have a beautiful score, there! Congratulations! It is something I crave in YC! There are some minor issues:
1) Some minor collisions (m.1, the tenuto mark with the tempo, m.16&90, the mp with the beam)
2) Grace notes need slurring (e.g. m.9)
3) m. 35&79&83, needs a double barline before the modulation!
4) m.68 LH is quite clear, but you could notate the low A in the bass clef, maybe? Or lengthen the beam?

There you have it! Hope this helps!

Cheers!

Thanks for the review manossg.
I should be able to address those quite easily.

Bump when you do!

Well, I finally updated the score manossg.
It didn't take me very long but I was working on something else so I put off coming back to it.
In addition to what you suggested, there were a few wrong notes which I corrected.

Also, I generated a midi that is more in sync with the score. I use two different programs so that's why the score and midi diverge sometimes. Granted, the differences from the previous midi aren't huge, just a few notes at the end where the theme continues in the pdf score.

I tried getting the end to die away in tempo and volume but it wasn't working out with the program I am using. The tempo mark was slowing down the music before it so I just had to leave it as it is.

ohhhhhhhh soooooooooo gooood!!! that was fantastic, i cant remmber if you've changed it, i tihnk you have a lot, but its brilliant, i really really like it, ill try to make time to learn it and get a recording up for you to hear

Oh wow! Great work! You have some great developmental talent and clearly skill going on here. The whole piece is very well balanced: clear phrasing, clean harmonies and an overall unity. At one point i started to feel like there wasn't quite enough variety, but then i heard the bars 47-60 which is very beautiful and i felt very interested again and wanted to hear the rest of it. Your melody is interesting and has lot of flexibility, that's what i loved the most about it. Harmonically it seems to be just a little static...but it definitely doesn't sound boring or out of style. It's just that i prefer the sharper harmonic contrasts for pleasure listening (e.g. Ravel).
The question is though...is there a reason why you don't try a more adventurous style of music? Impressionistic perhaps? Did you just do this as an exercise?

Thanks Ljoekelsoey, you're too kind.

Jannokas:

Thanks for taking the time to comment even though it's not quite your cup of tea.
Feedback is relatively rare around here much more one so detailed.

It wasn't really written as an exercise but I had a goal of finishing it.
I have a habit of leaving sketches hanging so I selected this one to complete.

As for stylistic explorations, the future holds possibilities!.
Mostly, I want it to be a kind of organic evolution; going where the imagination takes me.

Good job!

Some issues:
1) m. 9-11. Grace notes should be slurred...
2) m. 90. The beam collides with the dynamic.
3) m. 93. That's a bit onorthodox, there. Are you sure you want such a thing and nut notate it as one voice?
4) m.128. The beam collides with the crescendo marking.

Apart from that, the score is truly beautiful! It invites the player to start rocking!

I listened to it again, but couldn't remember any differences.

Hey, get it performed!

Cheers!

Thanks manoss, you sure have an eye for this stuff...lol
The only change to the midi was that the ending wasn't quite as scored.

At 9-11 I thought I slurred the grace notes or maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.

At 93, and those like it, I didn't want it as one voice.
The upper melody begins with the g at 93.
The descending c g e at 92-93 is a new accompanimental figure.
(Compare its analogue at bars 25-31)

In other words, the leap of a 6th at 93, an octave at 95, a ninth at 103 etc are parts of the melody so the first note of the interval should not be linked to the last note of the previous descending figure. It should be set apart from it (by a slight accent and louder dynamics) and linked to the following note a 6th, 8ve etc away.

That's what I was trying to show in the score anyway.
The midi doesn't really bring this out either.
Maybe there's a better way to show it?

Slur marks could probaby work but I wouldn't want that to be taken as legato for the detached quavers.
I dunno, whatever is clearer is best.

Hah!
Getting it performed is probably unlikely.
I wouldn't know where to begin.
May be I'll play it myself for a roomful of friends!

I have been scolded on such errors many times! :S

About point 3. Your intention is clear. Leave it as is.

Play it for them. And record it for us!