Sign In
Create Account
Submitter
File Information
- Submitted: Mar 26 2012 11:38 AM
- Last Updated: Jul 23 2012 02:51 AM
- File Size: 6.25MB
- Views: 853
- Downloads: 235
- Genre: Romanticism
- Sub Genre: Neo-romanticism
- Form: Prelude
We also suggest ...
| Prelude fantaisie No 1 - reviews: (4) |
|
| Prelude fantaisie No 5 - reviews: (9) |
| Prelude and Fugue In A minor - reviews: (10) |
Prelude VIII, or, Slow Fire
2 Votes
2
Here's one to fill the gap between X and V. 
This one has a rather odd origin: it developed out of an improvisation on two pianos that a friend and I came up with one very hot and lazy afternoon at my JC, as well as my love for two of my favourite performance pieces: Rachmaninoff's op.23 no.5 prelude, and Prokofiev's 7th Sonata. Anyway, please do listen and comment! (Apart from just saying, "this is difficult", which by itself will not tell me anything new, any comments whatsoever are very welcome.) Couple of things to note:
1. This is meant to be a proper virtuoso piece, though some passages, especially the chordal ones, are made quite a lot easier as the work is shared between two hands. This a) makes the work easier and b) makes the performance actually look more impressive and difficult than it actually is, which I shamelessly admit is something I want for a virtuoso prelude like this one.
2. Some bits are very texturally Russian in feel -- not deliberate per se, but I was well aware of the influences on this piece as I was writing it.
3. Structure wise, this is a rough A-B-A-Coda structure, though the third section incorporates motifs from both of the first two sections in a happily rhaosodic manner.
4. This is a piece that suffers greatly from being classified in the genre of "neoromantic" -- I could easily call it "neoclassical" in the Prokofiev sense, but that would be an equally silly label. Oh well.
5. The middle dance-like section was a thing I mostly improvised on the piano before scribbling it down, so it might sound rather impomptu-like, but somehow I liked that feel enough to leave the middle bit slightly rough at the edges. Hope you guys like it.
6. Still working on the in-betweeners, though the 22 essays I have been set as holiday work miiiiight rather get in the way. University. Sigh.
Cheers!
This one has a rather odd origin: it developed out of an improvisation on two pianos that a friend and I came up with one very hot and lazy afternoon at my JC, as well as my love for two of my favourite performance pieces: Rachmaninoff's op.23 no.5 prelude, and Prokofiev's 7th Sonata. Anyway, please do listen and comment! (Apart from just saying, "this is difficult", which by itself will not tell me anything new, any comments whatsoever are very welcome.) Couple of things to note:1. This is meant to be a proper virtuoso piece, though some passages, especially the chordal ones, are made quite a lot easier as the work is shared between two hands. This a) makes the work easier and b) makes the performance actually look more impressive and difficult than it actually is, which I shamelessly admit is something I want for a virtuoso prelude like this one.
2. Some bits are very texturally Russian in feel -- not deliberate per se, but I was well aware of the influences on this piece as I was writing it.
3. Structure wise, this is a rough A-B-A-Coda structure, though the third section incorporates motifs from both of the first two sections in a happily rhaosodic manner.
4. This is a piece that suffers greatly from being classified in the genre of "neoromantic" -- I could easily call it "neoclassical" in the Prokofiev sense, but that would be an equally silly label. Oh well.
5. The middle dance-like section was a thing I mostly improvised on the piano before scribbling it down, so it might sound rather impomptu-like, but somehow I liked that feel enough to leave the middle bit slightly rough at the edges. Hope you guys like it.
6. Still working on the in-betweeners, though the 22 essays I have been set as holiday work miiiiight rather get in the way. University. Sigh.
Cheers!
Thanks loads for the review! Glad you liked this.
Well, first: you're right about the dynamics.The whole thing does sound rather too heady. And yes, the decescendos in the 7th are very nice indeed. (And, on a random tangent, isn't the last movement such fantastic fun to play?) I'm also considering making the last passage in the higher passages more staccato. Also, it's interesting you think this is similar to johnbucket's style, since he's recently written three "romantic" preludes (though they really aren't) just as I've written a mildly neoclassical thing, which is a style I expect he's more comfortable with. Odd.
I don't think there's an unacceptable amount of cribbing here, actually: the only passages that are particularly Prokofiev are those at m.27 (and its repetitions) and m.118, and even then the second of these is only very loosely similar to about 1 second of music from the 3rd mvt of the 7th. The rhythm is a fairly typical jazz rhythm (3+4+2), and the range is pretty much standard for this kind of toccata. The greatest Prokofievian infuence here is just probably the general "sound" of the piece, and the fairly liberal deployment of scales, though those are such vague commonalities that I daresay there's nothing to really call out there.
Re difficulty:I certainly can't play the whole of this piece: the coordination problems of mms 17, 19, 100, 103 are enough to ward me off any serious attempt. But while I think people who write for the piano should be able to play it reasonably well, I don't think the correlation works the other way round. I've always found it difficult to care too much about technical difficulty, because I care a lot more about a piece sounding (reasonably) interesting and intelligent, and somehow for me the number or speed of notes does not really figure in those considerations. So as long as I know a piece is not impossible to play (and my bar is set very high, at Lugansky/Hamelin/Argerich/Kissin/Sokolov levels, becauses these people exist, and existence, a fortiori, implies possibility, heh), I'm happy for it to just sound good. Of course, the difficulty of some of the pieces I write is fiercely exaggerated: see the number of people who were horrified at the thirds and sixths of the 5th prelude. Also, Mendelssohn, Debussy, Ravel, Balakirev, Brahms and Schumann could not play some of the pieces they had written, so at least I'm not alone in compositional overreach. 
Well, first: you're right about the dynamics.The whole thing does sound rather too heady. And yes, the decescendos in the 7th are very nice indeed. (And, on a random tangent, isn't the last movement such fantastic fun to play?) I'm also considering making the last passage in the higher passages more staccato. Also, it's interesting you think this is similar to johnbucket's style, since he's recently written three "romantic" preludes (though they really aren't) just as I've written a mildly neoclassical thing, which is a style I expect he's more comfortable with. Odd.
I don't think there's an unacceptable amount of cribbing here, actually: the only passages that are particularly Prokofiev are those at m.27 (and its repetitions) and m.118, and even then the second of these is only very loosely similar to about 1 second of music from the 3rd mvt of the 7th. The rhythm is a fairly typical jazz rhythm (3+4+2), and the range is pretty much standard for this kind of toccata. The greatest Prokofievian infuence here is just probably the general "sound" of the piece, and the fairly liberal deployment of scales, though those are such vague commonalities that I daresay there's nothing to really call out there.
Re difficulty:I certainly can't play the whole of this piece: the coordination problems of mms 17, 19, 100, 103 are enough to ward me off any serious attempt. But while I think people who write for the piano should be able to play it reasonably well, I don't think the correlation works the other way round. I've always found it difficult to care too much about technical difficulty, because I care a lot more about a piece sounding (reasonably) interesting and intelligent, and somehow for me the number or speed of notes does not really figure in those considerations. So as long as I know a piece is not impossible to play (and my bar is set very high, at Lugansky/Hamelin/Argerich/Kissin/Sokolov levels, becauses these people exist, and existence, a fortiori, implies possibility, heh), I'm happy for it to just sound good.
Of course, the difficulty of some of the pieces I write is fiercely exaggerated: see the number of people who were horrified at the thirds and sixths of the 5th prelude. Also, Mendelssohn, Debussy, Ravel, Balakirev, Brahms and Schumann could not play some of the pieces they had written, so at least I'm not alone in compositional overreach. 
Ian has left virtually nothing left to add, given his detailed review (which doesn't only come from a quite capable pianist, but also from a member best known for his bluntness, which makes his possitive review all the more meaningful). One can clearly hear the Prokofiev influence - not so the Rachmaninoff. But there are also some passages that give me the impression of a jazzy touch here and there.
I'm pretty sure your pieces will hardly be ever performed by anyone short of a world-class virtuoso. But their sheer quality gives me some hope that a world-class virtuoso will actually be interested in performing your set of Preludes someday. Thanks for sharing!
I'm pretty sure your pieces will hardly be ever performed by anyone short of a world-class virtuoso. But their sheer quality gives me some hope that a world-class virtuoso will actually be interested in performing your set of Preludes someday. Thanks for sharing!
Austenite: thanks for the kind words! One of my preludes (the second) has actually been played in concert by a friend, so I'm tentatively hopeful that, someday.....
Anyway, I wouldn't even mind if they're never played. They're still good scores with good music in them! -- or so I hope.
One of my preludes (the second) has actually been played in concert by a friend, so I'm tentatively hopeful that, someday.....Anyway, I wouldn't even mind if they're never played. They're still good scores with good music in them! -- or so I hope.
Update: I've made a couple of dymamic / textural changes, as per some of the feedback I've received. Please take a listen and leave a commen! Cheers.
Cheers.Y there be no review? Me sadface muchly.
Nevermind, off to work on the next!
Nevermind, off to work on the next!
It's like Prokofiev Piano Sonata No.7 mvt.3 ))) Nice piece!
- 4,375 Total Files
- 28 Total Categories
- 1,062 Total Authors
- 397,481 Total Downloads
- String quartet (live rec) Latest File
- MADviolist Latest Submitter
6 user(s) are online (in the past 30 minutes)
0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users
Google (1)
Well it is. In my opinion, composer-pianists at the level we are at should ideally write things for their instrument that they can play themselves. It's not an uncommon thing to do, though. At least what you have is not difficult and bad. This applies to your music in general.
You mentioned Prokofiev's 7th. Many things about this remind me of the last movement of that. Ideas are copied to the point where one could imaginably call you out for it, though I wouldn't. Funnily enough, I can play both the Rachmaninoff you mentioned and said movement of Prokofiev's sonata, although definitely not polished enough for a recital.
This is rather loud throughout. Since this is comparable to it, I'll bring up the sonata movement again. You'll notice that Prokofiev starts with mp and returns to mp most of the time when the main theme restarts. The decrescendo to mp each time is very pleasing to the ears, and I think a similar thing can be done here at parts. Even near the end, when the theme is played higher and sustained, I would have shifted the dynamics lower by a step, having mp for the right hand and p for the left.
Minor things, basically. This is good, and not unlike the user johnbucket in style, whom you find so redoubtable. Possibly my favourite so far from your set.