Well for a sketch is something complete by itself.
First of all, I don't believe that music can describe anything. I do believe music can transmit emotions and sensations and you can take a story as inspiration.
There are many good ideas in the sketch. At first I thought it would be a bit boring because of the vertical chords (wich is a way to underuse the piano), but as an introduction is perfect for what comes next. The allegro speranzoso part is wonderful, simple but fantastic (I would take this part to develop, it's between impresionistic and minimal). The third part is OK because the chords are emphasized and tha left hand is different. The frenetico part is the one I understand less in the piece... The largo part is good, a strange chord here (F - Ab - B - C), this is used in some oriental scales. The last parts include new motives... And that's a "problem"... many parts with many possibilities...
When there is much material in a short time is like a musical brainstorm. Yes, I know it's a sketch and it's supposed to be written quickly. Anyway I always, in my case, try to put some order in everything I do (even using simple forms like AB, ABA, ABAB).
Indeed! I spoke with the conductor afterwards, and he was almost apologizing, telling me he had done his best with the available time. I told him I was actually impressed, since I knew it to be a complex work and the orchestra had handled it pretty well for the first time. It seemed to me he was willing to push forward with it, and I'd bet they'll be playing it smoothly within 3-4 rehearsals.
Umm... Thanks a lot! I'd want to excel in all of them, but if I had to pick only one, I think it would be music.
Thanks Austenite for your review and advice. As this is only my second example of a "Conversation" piece, I think I am still exploring this genre. I hope to be able to compose better examples of conversations in the future.
Echoing Monarcheon's opinion, the piece feels more like an "argument" than a " conversation". Granted, the instruments take turns at the beginning - it's just that the topic doesn't seem to be very exciting or memorable, doing which the concept, very clever in itself, could be better executed. Then the instruments increase their pace of exchanges and ultimately "talk" over each other, very much in a "clashing" way - but, since the initial subject wasn't that sticky, one gets the feeling of a dialogue spinning out of control.
Generally speaking (and this piece being no exception), the shortfalls most reviewers have pointed out in your works have little to do with their whimsical nature, the philosophical concept behind them, or their stated goal. I can think of "sententiae" and "conversations" as valid artistic genres as themselves, without any question. What is puzzling for some of us is their execution, since the success of a given concept depends a lot on the particular, engaging elements which make a specific composition to stand out as an example of it (think Mendelssohn's Songs without Words or Liszt's Symphonic Poems). You've been able to pull out the feat with good results in some of your pieces, but tend to fall flat in others, and this inconsistence leads your work as a whole to be underapreciated.
I'd suggest (if you were willing to take any friendly advice) to go back to your more "successful" pieces and look at what you did, and try to carry out the traits of these pieces into your newer works, so that the quality of your output can be more consistent. By doing this, you can deploy and reinforce your musical individuality while allowing listeners to know what to expect (perhaps in the same way that Berlioz, Debussy, Satie or Ives managed to master their craft while remaining staunchly individualistic).
Another edition in the daily sketch project I've been doing, this one aimed to try to tell common and simple stories through musical means (the one before was "Little Red Riding Hood"). The ending has the tone I want, but I don't really know about how it was executed. Let me know what you all think;