Nocturne in G Minor for piano, Op. 18

Thank you for sharing I absolutely loved this. I...really don't have anything to say but that I loved it. I can't wait to hear your other music- you are truely gifted.

Thanks, Liz...! It's wonderful to hear that you loved my work. I still have to improve a couple of minor details here and there (mostly counterpoint issues), but this is pretty much the final version.

I can't wait to hear your other music- you are truely gifted.

I'm very willing to submit other pieces - I need feedback.

BTW, you play the piano, don't you? Perhaps you could play this one...

Austenite --

Nice work! I took pity on your woeful MIDI rendition here, since the actual music here was pretty darn good. Here's a link to a higher-quality version.

http://www.box.com/s...haljxlebs81cbzr

Hope you enjoy it

I liked the piece a lot, but I do have some mostly-minor criticisms. For example, there are some really nice set-ups for some contrary motion that are left undone. Not that there's no contrary motion in the piece -- there is a great deal, actually, and it's generally well done. But the section at bars 152-162 felt out-of-place as a result -- some parallel motion for variety is a good thought, but that passage seems to lend itself to contrary motion rather than the parallel motion you opted for. I think you achieved parallel motion in a good way already at measures 58-64, so I thought it wasn't really necessary for you to do that later at measures 152-162.

I also find it strange that with such a dramatic and powerful piece, you neglect bass notes further down than two octaves below middle C. I'm not saying there has to be a deep bass note every two measures -- I can see that while the piece has a lot of emotion, it is also going for a sophisticated feel too. But some rumbling bass notes at significant parts of the piece could add a lot of color and vibrancy.

Overall, though, I think this piece is quite a success. I has a strong, engaging motif, and a good structure.

Very enjoyable stuff Thanks for sharing with us!

Serge: thanks a lot!! I was astounded myself about how well did my music sound through your rendition. In fact I'd love to replace this woeful MIDI version with the newer one, which is by far more credible and does better justice to what I was trying to compose.

Of course, as I told Liz as well, there are some minor issues with what I'd call "missed chances" for a rather good counterpoint. I'd love to take them into account (but that would mean I'd have to make yet another woeful MIDI file and then you'd have to take pity on it again and fix it)...

You forget to transition to other key

You forget to transition to other key

Thanks for your input. But there IS a transition to D minor at the very middle of the piece (to which belong the parallel-motion bars criticized by Serge). Of course I could have explored many other keys (as I usually do in longer pieces), but in this case I just didn't...

I thought lots of this piece was quite excellent, but there are too many parts that take away from this for the piece itself to maintain that standard. I've spoken to you about this work before, so some of this will be old, and some will be new.


As I mentioned to you before, it doesn't sound like what I'd call a nocturne. I appreciate a different take on the nocturne, but I wonder if there isn't a way to make it more obvious that that's what you're doing? Start the piece light and softly, like a traditional nocturne, and then bang in the contrast with how the piece begins now? I dunno.

This is another oldie: bar 18 and most (not all) places like it are crying out for some counterpoint in the right hand to get rid of the pause in motion. It sounds unnatural to the music to just stop on the chord like that, and it's very boring.

I thought the chord movement in the right hand moving from bar 32 to 33 sounded a little poppish.

After this part is when I start to feel that the music is repeating too much, and it's even worse 'cause it's repeating a part that I feel already has a problem in it. The piece is longish, considering, so I don't think it'd be the end of the world if you cut out some of the repeated stuff.

I hear the same poppy kinda thing in bars 48-49.

Bars 58-60 were super cool.


Bars 90-93 are what I'm talking about above (bar 18) with regard to the counterpoint. These bars are much more interesting.

I think the accented D in the right hand of measure 108 is unnecessary and jarring.

139-140 has another gesture which I feel is little poppish or folkish or something, but I think this one is the sort of one that some people may like.

It's unfortunate that in 175 you return to the more boring equivalent of 90-93.

Bar 224 was absolutely great. One of my favourite moments in the piece. I think it's easy to make these sort of moves sound cliché, but I think you did a great job, here.

If you're going to bring that idea back, in 279, I think it almost ruins hearing it the first time if it's just repeated. Maybe either don't repeat it at all, or make more of it: have a couple of more bars continuing with it in a more elaborate and dramatic way.

I didn't like the ending, I thought it could've been much better with a different approach to it and with a deeper sounding chord.

Lastly, why are there letters in the score? You only need to add rehearsal marks for ensemble pieces, so the musicians have points of reference; they're out of place in a solo piano piece.

This review might seem negative, but it's not: if the piece was rubbish, and had no potential, I wouldn't bother commenting, and I can't go through every single bar saying whether I liked it or not, so take it that I'm only pointing out things I didn't like, which means that, anything I didn't point out, I liked.

Wayne: thanks a lot. As I told you before, I'd like to take a closer look to what you point out as "repetitive", since it's not intended as such. Your input on counterpoint is also very welcome (and perhaps an introduction can help the 'nightly' atmosphere). Of course I understand your long, detailed review as a sign of how much do you actually value this work.

you are not just transition to other key then the audience will know where it change the key . you have to change the texture and other aspect to strengthen to time which you want to change the key other wise , it just look like someone use chromatic chord

Makwingka: thanks for your interest. I thought I had gone to considerable lenghts in the D minor section to ensure precisely that.

Great piece!! I really liked this. It is very strong and emotional!

Thanks Gsus4...! Very glad you enjoyed it.

Indeed a very impressive piece, but a bit to strict for a Nocturnes, it reminds me more of Bach or Scarlatti; nevertheless nice to listen to!

Yep, it's a bit severe for a Nocturne... kind of a reminder that not everynight has a peaceful sleep.

Hi, just heard into the piece.

Indeed, iIt doesn´t sound like one would expect a Nocturne to sound like, it is a bit too "strict", too Bach-like for that.

However I think it is a very impressive piece of music!
Thanks for sharing, your piece moved me!

It is a bit too "strict", too Bach-like for that. However I think it is a very impressive piece of music! Thanks for sharing, your piece moved me!

@Stephan: thanks for your reviews - it's great to know that this piece somehow stirred your emotions. This is no quiet night, certainly ... As for the 'Bach-likeness' of this music in terms of 'severity', I quite agree - but of course it would sound even more Bach-like if I made a point of pushing towards fuller counterpoints, as other reviewers have suggested. Anyway, everything is still subject to improvement.

This composition is a hybrid of Baroque and Beethoven-like early Romantic style which makes it sound a bit confusing since these two elements are not combined into unity but used as a contrast. I am not sure this is the best solution. But still, it's up to you.

Bar 40 sounds rather strange. Since you mostly use Baroque-like sequences there is no resolution to harmonic tension which is stylistly inappropriate. Maybe you should still use dominant function properly.

The second section, which is more nocturno-like bonds itself too much on repeated chords in left hand. It doesn't make it exciting enough for me.

Now that I have listened to several of your compositions I can see you are trying to explore different stylistic orientations throughout traditional tonality. Compositions differ significantly so your personal voice is still to be confirmed, I guess... I know it takes time, I've been composing for 17 years now and I am still searching for more unique musical language. If that's possible at all.

Have a nice weekend!

Crt

@Crt: thanks for your reviews. It's a bit funny that you seem to have listened to my compositions in 'reverse order', starting from the newer ones and going 'backwards'. You're right in pointing out my wish to explore several styles in the diverse works I've uploaded so far (I personally believe that, in terms of searching a genuine musical language I'm comfortable with, I've achieved better results in Adriana's Waltz and Jabberwocky, as well in the Piano Sonata's second movement).

As for this piece, I know it's very far from perfect. What I have done (or failed to do) includes several instances that could be described as 'flaws' from an academic point of view. (For example, I wasn't really going for a Baroque-ish feeling, but seem to have run into it from the very starting phrase - despite the piece being very light in counterpoint). It's here to show not how much I can do, but also how much I need to improve.

Thanks again,
RFB (Austenite)...

Unfortunately I'm not a big fan of this piece, but hopefully I'll be able to give some coherent and helpful reasons why.

1. It's not a nocturne, at least to my ears. Nocturnes are *broadly* speaking intended to invoke the night, but maybe even more important than that is a kind of languido placido + dolce rubato feel, and I can't hear that here -- though of course this may just be me banging on about recording quality like an idiot. If you're familiar with Chopin's nocturnes -- which I am sure you are -- you'll see how that incredible lilting quality is created and sustained, even with stormy middle sections a la op.15 no.2, op. 32, op.27 no.1. A typical feature for nocturnes is, inter alia, a constant LH figuration, which is not deployed here.

2. The constant repetition of the 3rd inversion of the dominant 7th chord in Gm is a very effective device for resolution downwards into the first inversion Gm chord, but here it resolves upward to the second instead, which creates an interesting angular feel to the phrase and an expectation of another dominant chord, but which detracts from any nocturne-like quaity it has.

3. I'm a real stickler for interesting modulation and harmony, so I just wish there was more stuff harmonically going on here, thought it all sounds quite pretty in its own way. Some bits , such as those around m34 and m50, sounded like they came a bit too easily off the cuff, and seem to be asking for more sophisticated treatment. The waltz section, furthermore, is exceptionally harmonically static, and there is no clear rising or falling of the overall dramatic structure. Of course, Chopin in his op.9 no1 gives a nocturne a lovely static soundscape in the middle section, but more than compensates for that with a gorgeous melody and some incredibly deft modulation. (Also, see the opening of both op.27 nocturnes to see openings extended sequences of nearly-identical harmony executed well).

4. Melody! Noctures are all about lovely, long, cantabile, dolcicissmo melodies -- at least I've yet to hear a nocturne without one, whether it was Field's or Poulenc's or Chopin's. Here the melodies move too fast, and are often composed of scales, and the RH often fills pauses with chords. Nothing wrong with that at all, except that it's not something nocturnes do. I'd add a caveat about the inherent arbitrariness of quasi-formal musical structures and the auditory baggage they come with, but I'm sure the reason we all write pieces with these names is not merely because we want to singlehandedly redefine a genre, but relate to the existing pianistic literature in a way that is enlightening and interesting -- finding that right mix of continuity and change. Too much change here, or so my ears seem to tell me.

Hmm, all that seemed to sound unduly negative. I'm referencing this to an incredibly high standard because it needs and deserves it and I figure that's what reviews should do. Hope you'll be able to listen/to review some of my stuff sometime soon! Cheers.

@Xiangyk: thanks a lot for your helpful comments. This is what reviews should be about: sharing knowledge, pointing out what can be improved, and setting a high standard in both technique and expresiveness.

I can see the most frequent criticism to this piece is about it not being a "real" Nocturne. It's true that a title or musical form creates expectations from listeners, so in this case it might be misleading. This work went entirely another way - not through the cantabile-like melodic flow (of which, paradoxically, I'm a huge fan myself) but rather into a kind of severity, even anger. Not really fitting for a piece named Nocturne. If I could change its title, perhaps the created expectations would be quite different, so I'll give it serious thoughts.

As for the technical harmony issues (also pointed out by previous reviewers), they are still susceptible to polishment and improvement. These are certainly not my strenghts, and the fact of being a self-taught composer with zero theoric background shows in these flaws.

Thanks again and I'll be sure to take a listen to your own music as well.

It's obviously a very well constructed piece, in my opinion, and I definetly enjoyed listening to it!

three comments, if I may (I hope that's one of the reasons you uploaded this piece - in order to recieve constructive reviews...?):

1. You sub-titled the piece as neo-romantic. It's definetly romantic, but I'm not quite sure about the "neo". I heard a lot of almost-classical elements in this one...
2. If there is one less-technical comment for me to advice you, is that I felt (at first hearing, at least) that it can use more "zest". More elements of surprise, more of your personality in it, that's what is so great about Romanticism...
3. You called it Nocturne, but it really really did'nt sound like a Nocturne to me. This comment is rather intuitive, but I fell strangley confident about it... :-)


It's important for me to state that any of my comments may well be mistaken to some extent, and this is only my (current) opinion.


Thank you very much for posting!
Amit.

@Amit: I'm very grateful about your positive comments. Constructive reviews are indeed the main reason most of us share our works - knowledge and feedback can really help a composer to grow, improve and polish an individual style.

I pretty much agree about the "Neo-Romantic" subgenre. Only that I had not a choice to pick "Romantic" without the "Neo". I think "Retro-Romantic" would be better fitting ...

I quite agree with the "zest" comment too. The piece has a severe, rather austere mood, and it could use some variants as well (which should be present as well in other pieces by me).

The comment about this piece not being what is usually expected from a work called "Nocturne" has been frequently pointed out by several reviewers. I'm now wondering what to call this instead of a "Nocturne" - it's certainly not an Étude, a Prelude or an Impromptu... a Ballad perhaps? (Any suggestions are welcome).

Thanks for your review!

How about - and I'm just throwing some intuitive titles out of my sleeve here:

A Musical Moment?
Or a Bagatelle?
Or maybe even an Impromptu (Why not?)?


I think they all fit, mostly beacuse of their vague modern definitions and foggy meanings...

I don't think it's "epic" enough to be a Ballad, but maybe I'm just talking nonesense here :-)))

Oh, and how about Melodie, or Romance?

also quite vague... :-)))

@Amit: very grateful about your suggestions... I'm leaning towards Romance or Impromptu (I had earlier said it wasn't an Impromptu due to the piece not having an "improvisation" air - but now it seems it does have it, or at least the title could relax the expectations on the listener ). I'll give it thoughts, since you haven't been the only one to point out the "un-Nocturnish" spirit of this work.

Wow you are really gifted at composing. I would not say this was boring or repetitious at all. I could listen to this all day! Is there any possibility to download the MIDI somewhere?

@Fredrik: thanks for your enthusiastic comments! These are some of the better rewards a composer can receive.

I could listen to this all day! Is there any possibility to download the MIDI somewhere?

As for a link to download the piece (and listen to it over and over until it drives you mad ), there was a link to one on the first page of reviews (by SergeOfArniVillage). In case you missed it, you can check it here: http://www.box.com/s...haljxlebs81cbzr (it's the same MP3 you're listening to right now). Enjoy...

I am sorry to be unable to give technical advice, but: the piece breathes and inspires, you are really in the mood of your composer heroes. It's true it needs a good interpreter, but you was able to put everything within to suggest a good interpretation. I hear here and there some citations, well mixed together. And the repetitions are ok, they fit very well within the structure; and, personally, I feel the piece is so beautiful one is eager to listen them again.

@Calle: your comment makes me feel very pleased. Surely a good interpreter is what any composer dreams of, and I'm no exception. I'm glad that you're eager to re-listen to the piece. Thanks!

I LOVE THIS!!!!!!! OKAY, I AM GOING TO PRACTICE THIS. UNTIL MY ARMS ACHE! >< I LOVE ITTTT <33 THANK YOU AUSTENITE! MWAHH~

@Dina: Thanks for your enthusiastic comment! I really look forward to you actually performing it, and hopefully we'll get a recording - good enough to share here in YC ... Keep me updated on your progress on it! (Oh, and please don't get your arms killed in the process )

Wow! This is gorgeous! I would love to buy this one and listen to it on my ipod. It's lush and deep. And it is a great combination of romantic mixed with classical. It is also elegant - well done!

I 100% love this piece. I love its dramatic themes, 3:18 is deff my favorite section. The score is very neat and well written. I have no complaints. Loved it! =)

@Kagenui: I'm really happy that you've enjoyed this piece too. It means a lot to me, since it was my first upload ever on YC, and I did choose a piece that had elements of my two favorite styles (Romantic + Classical). I hope to find a way for this work into your ipod .

@BigDrumMachine: true, the piece has its fair share of implicit drama - enough of it to have quite a few people asking if this is really a Nocturne in the "traditional" sense of this genre. I also tend to take great pains to have a neat score, so I'm glad you noticed . Thanks a lot for your comment!

@Marzique: thanks yet again for listening and commenting. There are indeed a lot of emotions poured into this work, yet I made my best to convey them through the piano's particular timbres. I'm pretty satisfied with the result, and the loads of feedback I've got will certainly help me to improve in future compositions.

Wow, what a passionate Nocturne! Unlike the peaceful serene atmosphere that a typical Nocturne has, I like how you gave it an ardent character with a solemn tone that still manages to evoke the dark aura of the Night. I'm fine with it being called a 'Nocturne' because I am sure you have your own reasons for calling it (it might probably be a result of you working on this piece constantly during nights/symbolizes emotions that you have, etc).

Some of my favourites:
1)Measure 58 onwards: Those surprising delicate semiquavers are really pleasant and sweet- they make the mind wander off-focus a bit with a dream-like quality, and the harmonies they lead into at measures 61-65 complement each other so perfectly. Really really loved those!!

2)Measures 14-17: The sudden subito piano there really caught me by surprise. It is highly highly original and really made a big difference in the overall melodic structure. I would never think of continuing the previous phrase in this way. You've shocked me, Austenite. Really lovely =)

Some suggestions:

Due to your highly repetition of section B, I would suggest you add some rhythmic variety to that left-hand motive, instead of it appearing "quaver-quaver-quaver-quaver-quaver-quaver-quaver-quaver-minim" everytime it repeats itself, you could change it to triplets (it would strongly push the flow of the piece), dotted rhythms (more swing-y feeling), etc.

Also, the rehearsal letters, yes, as mentioned by someone who also commented on this piece before (forgot who). However, i'm glad that you put it there for me to identify and point out certain parts more easily But we seldom use that in piano scores- they appear more often in orchestral scores for the conductor's convenience.

Overall, really lovable and pleasant piece of work. Your theme, which is strongly arched in my head, is the most attractive of all- it descends so fervently and eliminates all pre-conceived expectations of a typical tranquil Nocturne. And then it ascends, and is challenged by another opposing answer to it a dominant up, in a stubborn yet distinguishable manner. The left hand just answers it with deep warm chords. Gave the melody a really good support. Extremely brilliant, and I enjoyed your Nocturne a lot!

@CJPlumBlossom: I can't thank you enough for your long, detailed review of this work. I totally loved it! You're quite right in several aspects of it - I worked in this piece almost exclusively at night, and as I've stated before, it goes for the feeling that not every night has a quiet sleep, but also passion and ardour as well.

I'm taking your suggestions very seriously , as well as those provided by the previous reviewers. However, before making any changes, I hope to hear a live recording (*looks gracefully at Dina*).

Great to have your impressions on my music! Thanks again

Haha, my goodness, the score looks deceptively simple. Way to work them quarter notes

This reminds me somewhat of a piece I heard on pianist William Joseph's album "Within".

You use Finale, correct? How is it that your piano sounds so clean? And in your other works, the instruments don't sound quite as synthy as what I hear from my finale program.

@Angrygraces: thanks for your comment ! I'd like to listen to that album, since I haven't heard about it before .

It's true that I use Finale (in fact, I still used an obsolete version when I uploaded this piece, which sounded hopelessly "synthy"). Fortunately, a fellow member took pity on it and reworked the music using his own (magnificent) piano samples! As for my other works, I got lucky again as I got a newer version of Finale that included Garritan samples, so I started using them for my orchestral pieces.

Thanks again!

Personally i think the parallel motion is fine even elegant. It adds power with out muddying up the beautiful melody with unesseceary chords.
sometimes people get to worked up about parallels

I didn't read all the comments before my own review, so I hope I don't just repeat what others have already said.
I can't deny that I am a bit disappointed by this piece.
Firstly, I don't really understand why you called this a "nocturne". I really got mislead by the title because the mood of this piece is not comparable to the nocturnes of Field or Chopin, except in some passages of section E.
Secondly, I think the melodies are rather weak. There is nothing catchy or really organic. Nothing where I would say: The composer is communicating deep feelings.
To go a bit into detail, I just mention three technical defects which are, in my opinion, characteristic for the whole piece:
1. The note repetition in the left hand at the beginning of bars 22 and 24 is just filling material, and it doesn't sound good.
2. In bar 123, the melody e-f-e-f is weak and uninspired.
3. You sometimes use major7 chords (e.g. beginning of bar 21, bar 30) which would rather fit into pop or jazz harmony, but not into the romantic vocabulary.

I hope you don't misunderstand my review, there are some good ideas in this piece, but I guess we're not here to say "Wow, great piece!" to everything, especially if we are rather disappointed.

very pretty

Don't like the transition from minute 1 to minute 2, the whole peace lacks interpretation, it would sound a lot better. But on the other hand it has quite a lot of interesting ornaments, good harmoization, all rouded it has a lot of potential, and is quite good, interesting mix of periods.

@Bibasis: thanks for your detailed comment. I'm sorry that this work didn't appeal to you as much. Perhaps the expectations raised about this work by its title (which has been itself the subject of some debate) didn't do any good. I agree, however, that I didn't display in this piece a lot of melodic flair (there are much better melodies in other of my own works ). As I was more focused on playability, it's possible that I didn't stick entirely to the 'standard' Romantic vocabulary ...

@MarioWest: thanks!

@Luniebin: of course a live recording would fix this perceived dryness. I hope I can get it performed and recorded in the near future (BTW, Dina, are you still practicing it ?)...

awesome babe. I love this stuff.

I was very impressed with this nocturne! For me, and with no doubt, the best part it's the first theme, most of all because of its character! The harmony is very simple, but in this case that is not a problem, because all the character needed is there.

Another thing that I find interesting was that it may appears to the first sight that this is a romantic piece, but I found it more likely it the Sturm Und Drang period, it is a fact that have some aspects that exclude this work from that period, but the majority of the main ideas are very kind of C. P. Bach! And g minor is a typical Sturm Und Drang key (remembering the two Mozart minor symphonies, however this music is very far in almost all the aspects from being similar to Mozart).

A last comment is referred to the d minor theme, that I doesn’t like, simply didn’t say anything to me, but I understand your idea in creating two contrast themes.

 

Thanks for posting!

@Matai Mo: I'm glad you've enjoyed the work.

 

@Antonio Capela: I'm very pleased that you found the first theme engaging. Previous commenters have stated that this piece, while being superficially written in a somewhat Romantic fashion, has some traits which point out to other periods (Baroque or early Classic, with the names of Scarlatti and now CPE Bach popping up). I quite agree, although it has resulted more from my focus on playability when composing this work than by any design or wish to make an artistic statement. I also can understand why the D minor theme sounds much less aggressive than the G minor - by design in this case, as I was attempting to provide some kind of contrast between the two.

 

Thanks for commenting - BTW, I'm astounded that this work (my first upload ever on YC) is still getting detailed reviews !

I came back to this today.

 

I showed this to my piano teacher a while back to see what he thought. He said that there were a lot of mistakes in the writing. I don't know what he was talking about, but I am making a guess that it is how you used the length of the notes. 

 

For example- it is easier to read two quarter rests than it is to read a half rest. Obviously you won't change that now, but I just thought that you would like to know.

@ImperialFlute: the fact that a well-trained eye spots writing mistakes in my works comes as no surprise to me. On the contrary, I'd be surprised if I made no mistakes . I'm nevertheless glad that you thought highly enough of this piece to show it to your teacher - although it would be a big benefit to actually know what other issues did he find. Thanks a lot!

I'm a little late to the party, but wanted to add my kudos.  I like the dynamics.  Good piece... I'll check to see if you have any more recent work to listen to.

This is an amazing piece. Though not what I'd expect from a nocturne, I love it. I find it fascinating how one piece can have so much contrast. The highs and lows of the song fit together seamlessly and dramatically. Also, nice work including baroque, classical, and modern influences into this mainly romantic piece.

 

That's all I have to say for now...I think I'll try this piece on the piano!

I didn't read all of the reviews that other people wrote, you always get so many of them Austenite So I might be repeating somethings that might have been already said. This piece is beautiful. It sounds more like a waltz than a nocturne in it's use of 3/4, tempo and overall expression. The Allegro Cantabile section does sound very much like a nocturne though, a beautiful melody! The return is done very skillfully. The return of the Cantabile theme in the coda was great idea and an effective way of ending the piece. Great work, I'll have another!