7 Preludes (and counting)

The thing I really need to say, is while I find your music enchanting and powerful, among the best I've heard on the site, and simply in general ... you always stick a knife in my heart and twist it with how bone-breaking-ly DIFFICULT it is. Seriously. My arms and fingers, and indeed, my whole body, and somehow, even the area around my body, all throb with pain when I listen to your preludes.

Please. PLEASE. Tone down the difficulty in your future works.

I want you to finish your preludes that you've set before yourself to finish -- and be every bit as demonic as you have been (since it's too late as it is, now!). But once you've finished these preludes, I urge you to make your mind up, to be kinder to the poor pianists who would have to play what you've made. I don't mean give up on pyrotechnics altogether -- just tone it down.

I will comment on the things you've asked when I can

I don't have time to say much right now, but for the first prelude, I will say this: in the context of what you've made so far, this piece sort of reminds me of a dangerous and demented assassin, testing the waters to make sure it's safe to submerge. The quirkiness and sense of humor hide something darker that is to come out in later preludes, as well as a meatier overall "story" than one might expect. I think it makes for a very nice introduction, whether intended or not!

I have commented on virtually every prelude of yours when posted separately, and pretty much agree with Serge's assesment: these pieces are individually very high quality music - if they were playable indeed (I know these are intended as exhibition pieces for virtuoso pianists ). The only thing I could add is that, taken as a collection, these are an outstanding work - but I seriously doubt any pianist would want to play the whole composition in a single recital or concert, as they would be totally demolished by the end of the fourth prelude at most...

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I think that sums up the entire set here, as they're all OK as compositions (generally speaking), but the unnecessary difficulty draws attention to itself much more than the harmony or anything else going on.

The problem with writing something extreme difficult is not only finding someone who can easily play counterpointing 10+ths with one hand (I suppose you have enormous hands considering chords like the one in prelude II measure 110), but also if the difficulty is flashy it starts sounding like a contest piece that's difficult for difficulty's sake. In this case, I think many cases the virtuosity can be toned down without the thing losing any impact. Ie, less is more.

To give you an example, the first prelude there, measure 39. Is it REALLY necessary to have the doubling there on the low register? Likewise, it feels copy-pasta specially at the speed it's going. Remember, the faster it is, the less the details are perceivable. All the difficulty is almost for nothing in many instances since it's going way too fast to appreciate anything.

But either way, I think the harmony in places is very nice. I also like the bass line in prelude III. It would be interesting to see someone really good attempt to play some of these, but I still think they have too much virtuoso fluff as they currently stand, which is a shame since the core ideas are pretty decent. Even as show-off pieces they could be improved considerably by choosing more carefully where to place showy passages. After all, a good pianist is more interesting for the easier things they play, than the virtuoso typewriter bullshit (a realization Liszt himself ended up making later on in his life, apparently!)

Marzique: glad you liked them! Your adjectives were surprisingly apropos.

SSC: Thanks loads for the review! I think whether the difficulty draws attention to itself is a very subjective question, actually. They're several things here, so let me tease them out. You've got a point anyway -- my last two preludes have been fairly simple, relative to these!

1. The difficulty of certain pieces, especially no.3 and no.4, is much exaggerated. Take the chords you mention in m.110 of no.2. Those do not require big hands to play at all -- you simply play the bottom two notes of the thumb. (The 3rd inversion of the F#D7 chord just a couple of bars down is much trickier.) Anyone familiar with the Romantic repertoire will have done this dozens of times. The passage in no.1 you point out is genuinely difficult -- but that's because the LH continues the bitonal descending run started in the RH. The effect of a continuous downward run with a motif briefly appearing above it would be rather spoilt if the LH were left with just arpeggios or scales.

I'm guilty as charged on the large intervals, but I'm happy for them to be arpeggiated with some rubato to hide the distortion. Pretty standard-ish performance practice, so hopefully not that much of a problem. I'd think most people's hands could easily fit a 10th anyway. I can get an 11th with strain on the 5th finger, but a 10th is comfortable. I credit Chopin's etude op.10 no.1. (The very second run!)

2. You're right about it being too fast to hear notes clearly at many points, but I'm pretty sure I don't want anyone to hear all the notes at once. If you listen to either of Rachmaninoff's sonatas, especially the Bm one, you get a furious wash of notes at many points where everything literally flies by, the harmony is deliciously unclear, and there are only hints of architecture poking through. I just like that effect. Mozart and Mendelssohn are very good at the I-can-hear-literally-everything-in-this style, but I just happen to lean towards using the piano for slightly more orchestral and therefore less precise sounds.

3. This thing about difficult pieces putting off performers. It makes a lot of intuitive sense, and I used to buy this argument, but my personal experience seems to say otherwise. Both preludes 2 and 3 have been performed (by pianists I know personally, one in the UK, one in Singapore) and a pianist I met online is planning to play 8. Why would anyone approach me for the scores for pieces as obviously difficult as these?

I was talking to the pianist at my college -- a certain Joseph Middleton -- and he basically told me why. If I wrote a nice, harmonically elegant, simple sonata, or minuet, or invention (putting aside whether I can even do that, heh) with nothing technically demanding, why would any pianist want to play this piece by this young whippersnapper composer? He has Mozart, Bach, Beeethoven, Haydn, CPE Bach, etc to choose from, so why waste that effort? But if you write something that is very pianistic, that grabs the audience's attention, that will be impressive to look at, and that sounds interesting, maybe the pianist will give it a go. Maybe the audience will go, "that sounded pretty interesting", and now you have your own showpiece or encore piece that no-one else currently plays and that won't let the audience down when they spot some obscure piece like "prelude so-and-so by so-and-so" in the program. So even a deeply flawed piece may be chosen for performance over a more conservative, neatly packaged piece.

Or maybe I'm just unfairly luckly, which is a completely open possibility.

But you are assuming a dichotomy between a flashy but flawed piece and an easy, neat piece. How about an effective, well written set of pieces? Flashy when it needs to be, and efficient. I hope you at least write these on a piano; pianism might make up for the difficulty. If you don't, then all the more for toning it down. Maybe if enough people repeat this sentiment it might actually show through in your future works. Asking an Asian pianist to write easier things is like asking an American to stopping being a fat and lazy donkey, though.

3. This thing about difficult pieces putting off performers.

I said nothing of the sort, but oh well.

If I wrote a nice, harmonically elegant, simple sonata, or minuet, or invention (putting aside whether I can even do that, heh) with nothing technically demanding, why would any pianist want to play this piece by this young whippersnapper composer? He has Mozart, Bach, Beeethoven, Haydn, CPE Bach, etc to choose from, so why waste that effort?

The same argument can be turned around for any challenging piece by saying there's already more than enough repertoire for the pianist looking for a technical showy piece. You already mentioned Rachmaninov, but you can go as far as Stockhausen's piano pieces (10 in particular), Boulez's sonatas, Ginastera's sonata, blah blah blah. There's so much stuff out there already that this isn't a real argument. Anyone can decline to play your stuff for any reason, even on a whim.

My point was, I don't think the pieces needed to be as technically challenging as they are for them to have the same effect. I mean sure you can also make them even harder, but at least you're aware of what it sounds like. If you're OK with the "wall of notes" thing, then that's alright.

However:

You're right about it being too fast to hear notes clearly at many points, but I'm pretty sure I don't want anyone to hear all the notes at once.

So my question is, if you don't care if those notes are audible, why should the pianist playing it care?

I really enjoyed your music ! Even though there's a lot of weird harmonies, each piece has a distinct "flavor", even on the first listen.

I enjoyed most nos. 1, 2, 4. My favorite is probably no. 2. I love the shameless use of all kids of tuplets . It is both beautiful and interesting in a way that reminds me of Rachmaninov, although it doesn't sound like him musically.

On how they fit together: I find there's too few breaks. To me, the bombastic stuff lost its edge, because there is too much in too little time. I see there are some numbers missing, I would have some slower, and yes, less showy pieces for these.

On the general discussion about showyness: I support you in wanting many notes. I love being able to pick out melodies from fast runs, I don't think the showyness draws attention to itself any more than it does in for example Liszt's music.

Listening to it again, I find that the pieces grow on me, which is a mark of quality .

Thanks!

This collection is quite impressive, but it is really puzzling, and I have mixed feelings. My previous experience with this composer was the "River" prelude, which belongs to this series but has been posted separately. I hoped to find a similar type of music here, and I really do not know if I'm disappointed or relieved...

Let me try to explain: I am disappointed that I did not seem to find the same composer who wrote the "River" prelude, but on the other hand I was relieved to find a composer who handles a wide diversity of styles, which prevents the "heard one, heard all" effect.

This points to the main problem of this preludes to work successfully as a collection: they feel like they have been composed by at least four people! Individually, they are stylistically coherent enough (with some cross-breeding, but with an overall unity of style), but colectively, there are too many voices going on... So the questions are: how to make sense of those "authorship discrepancies" and who is the real Mr. Xiangyik?

A simple explanation for the style discrepancies between the individual pieces is a composer with a multiple personality disorder. It does not seem to be the case, for Mr. Xiangyik is obviously aware of himself as a single entity (otherwise, he would not have signed the works under the same name). So, my guess is that this composer is deliberately and consciously "channeling" different composers, most likely as part of the quest of his own individual voice.

As per the real musical identity of Mr. Xiangyik, I don't have an answer. Maybe it is not there yet. Nothing wrong with it, and quite natural; it will blossom and manifest itself in due course without the need for the composer to actively seek uniqueness. All I can do is an attempt to separate the different composers.

You know those test where you are asked to identify an item that does not belong to a collection of items (say, you are presented pictures of animals and figure out that the bird does not belong, because it is the only one that can fly). On a first round, Prelude II (Green Lake), does not belong with the others. It seems strongly connected with the River prelude (not featured here). Coincidentally, both preludes are water-themed. I would pair those into their own collection, under the name "Two water preludes" or some such...

A second round singled out Prelude V as the odd item. I would connect it with some other prelude written by a Chopinized version Mr. Xiangyik, or Mr. Xiangyik channeling Chopin. I would try to look for other preludes in this vein and group those under some umbrella designation: "Hommage to Chopin", for instance.

The remaining preludes seem to share a common angular, dark edge. I was too overwhelmed to do a third round, but they might be further separated into more than one composer, allowing some cross-pollination.

To sum up: the entire collection is too intense, overwhelming and lacking stylistic integrity to be performed in one sitting (let's assume the preludes are playable and that we have found a pianist with the required chops, for the sake of the argument). The overall effect is quite schizophrenic. However, self-contained pairs or triplets by "composer" could work admirably. Those autonomous groups can be then compiled into a single big collection.

Said that, the preludes are very engaging and the piano writing is quite creative. They show a great knowdlegde of the instrument. I have some reservations and concerns about the outlandish and unrealistic level of virtuosism, shared by other reviewers. I shall comment about that in a separate review, because this one is too long to read already ;-)

Thanks for sharing, and keep up the good work!

I'm aware that the set of Preludes you're working at is intended to reach 24 pieces. That said, I'd love to hear all of them posted as a single work, but all the same I can bet the upload size limits will almost certainly hamper your ability to do so.

The insightful comment of Sarastro sheds another light on your collection. It's indeed true that each of them is intended to stand on its own, while forming part of a larger work as well. But I'm now questioning myself if such striking pieces can work as a whole. If this was the case, I wouldn't hesitate to hail it as a major achievement, as it certainly showcases some of the best piano music in YC.

To sum up: the entire collection is too intense, overwhelming and lacking stylistic integrity to be performed in one sitting (let's assume the preludes are playable and that we have found a pianist with the required chops, for the sake of the argument). The overall effect is quite schizophrenic. However, self-contained pairs or triplets by "composer" could work admirably. Those autonomous groups can be then compiled into a single big collection.Said that, the preludes are very engaging and the piano writing is quite creative. They show a great knowdlegde of the instrument. I have some reservations and concerns about the outlandish and unrealistic level of virtuosism, shared by other reviewers. I shall comment about that in a separate review, because this one is too long to read already ;-)Thanks for sharing, and keep up the good work!

Heyo! Thanks loads for the thoughtful review. I hope you can take a look at some of my more recent stuff too! Lemme just make a coupla points.

1. I know for certain most competent pianists have the required technique to pull these off. The most difficult of the 15 or so I've written so far is no.8, and it's actually been performed (as have 2 and 3). There's one jump in no.8 that cannot be taken at the indicated tempo, but I'm fine with that. Rubato and rhythmic distortion is good.

2. I never intended for these to be played at one go! That would clearly be a bit much. The entire set will take up at least 1.5 hours to play, and the challenge would not be worth depriving yourself of a nice well-rounded concert programme. I don't think that the stylistic variety makes people less likely to play the set. I know for a fact, having trained to be a pianist for a time (I foolishly entertained vague musical career dreams for a too-long time, heh) and having met loads of people who eventually did go on to concertize in one way or another, that the Rachmaninoff Preludes (either set) are rarely ever played in full in concert -- a selection of 5 or 6 is the usual maximum put into one concert. There are two reasons for this. The first is that Rach is pretty heavy on the ear -- fairly dense textures, and fairly technically demanding. The second is that -- though only one pianist, a certain Jonathan Shin, has expressed this explicitly -- it's daunting playing the entirety of both sets to an audience precisely because of their stylistic consistency, and audiences tire fast. (This is unfortunate, and not everyone thinks this way, of course. I'd love to play all 23 preludes + the C#m one at one go.)

So a set of preludes can be good without being played entirely in concert, and stylistic variety does not by itself prevent them from being performed in full.

The set is meant to provide a pianist with a nice choice of contrasting pieces that could be plausibly be performed in contrasting/similar groups, as you have pointed out. I put them in one set because they capture a certain period in my piano writing, not for any profound or highfalutin reason, unfortunately or otherwise.

3. I'm not quite sure what "stylistic integrity" means. I certainly do not lie about my influences or how I write. You seem to be working from the premise that the fact that it write in different styles means that I hopelessly ape other composers. The reality is much simpler: I write stuff I enjoy. I enjoy a diverse range of styles. So sometimes I do neoclassical, sometimes impressionist, and sometimes romantic, and sometimes late romantic. I've expressed my thoughts about this value of originality elsewhere, but basically I still do not understand why saying of a work: these notes seem to be arranged in a way that reminds me a little of this style/age/composer connotes anything about the quality of the work. I think good music is just notes put in nice orders. That's not to say I'm not aware of influences on my work, just that I'm not sure those influences, qua influences, detract or add to the work in any meaningful way.

On a different note, surely whether or not a set sounds schizophrenic depends on what you think one person can/ought to write. Surely it's slightly odd to say "you must have what I determine to be one consistent style, or your music is worth less"? This isn't what you are saying, of course -- but you get my drift

4. I'm not too sure this set is too intense, actually, though it certainly contains a load of fairly intense pieces. 2, 5, 9, 14, 15, 16, are pretty relaxed in terms of musical tone. But then, maybe you have hit upon at least one stylistic quirk I have. (Other reviewers have pointed out my odd penchant for chords, thirds, and the variation form. Mea culpa.)

The reason for this might be because I dislike very much having even one prelude out of the set treated as a "filler" or "relaxing" piece, in much the way that Mozart sonatas are (wrongly) treated by many pianists today, or in the way some Chopin preludes are regarded. If I feel like I haven't properly fleshed out a particular idea I'll either develop it some more (which for me often involves adding in more polyphony, or complex figuration) or scrap the whole thing.

I'm aware that the set of Preludes you're working at is intended to reach 24 pieces. That said, I'd love to hear all of them posted as a single work, but all the same I can bet the upload size limits will almost certainly hamper your ability to do so.The insightful comment of Sarastro sheds another light on your collection. It's indeed true that each of them is intended to stand on its own, while forming part of a larger work as well. But I'm now questioning myself if such striking pieces can work as a whole. If this was the case, I wouldn't hesitate to hail it as a major achievement, as it certainly showcases some of the best piano music in YC.

5. I've got an idea for organizing the preludes, actually -- not mine, but suggested by a friend. I think it's fairly sexy. The idea is to have one set of 24 preludes, but publish with it performance guides -- so the preludes as a set of 24 can be performed in A, B, or C different orders, or in ordered subsets each with their own internal logic. (Contrast/similarity, key, linked endings/beginnings, increasing intensity, so on.) I think this might go some way to addressing yours and and Sarastro's concerns -- so a performer will have a fairly wide range of choice to choose what effect the set (or some part of it) will have, but I retain at least some influence over that choice. And the set will certainly not sound incoherent, and it'll still certainly be one set. Tell me what you think!

Cheers, and thanks for dropping by.

Thank you so much for your detailed clarification. I clarify back:

1. Re the virtuosity: I understand your point. My review focused more on the disconcerting styilistic variety/lack of unity of the set, not of the individual pieces. Some musings on virtuosity to follow in a separate review :-)

2. Well, this certainly takes a load off my mind. I should have asked outright if you wanted them to be played in one sitting.

3. By "stylistic integrity" I mean "stylistic consistency". Bad choice of words, I guess (English is not my native tongue, so please give me some slack). It is what I said the preludes were written by several composers. Whether is a deliberate decision or not is not the point, and it is perfectly legitimate to take on different influences, blah, blah, by the way. I'm not a believer on uniqueness of voice as a goal and at all costs. Again, the problem is not with the individual preludes, which are perfectly valid musical statements regardless their filiations with the style of such or such composers - I thought I was being very clear on that point, and sure I did not say that imitating your favorite composers and styles automatically means less worthy music; quality is independent of stylistic choices.

I only voiced my concerns about the "stylistic clashes" between the preludes as a set. Of course, this is no longer a problem if the set is not to be played at one go and the pianist can make a selection, or you yourself split up the work in several predefined sub-sets, while allowing some swapping of pieces between sets or omissions to fit better a particular program.

Re the "schizophrenic" feel: Nothing to do with the individual preludes, but with how this particular selection feels as a whole (due to the stylistic contrasts and the pieces being quite intense). Of course, a personal preference on my part is of no relevance whatsoever! I apologize if I suggested otherwise :-(

(As an aside afterthought on "consistency" and "personal voice" in your works, I'm pretty sure there are quirks and traits that you favor and which point to your own individual voice, which is present in all of the pieces, but this voice is not perhaps fully developed yet - you are very young, after all, it is perfectly normal - and the surface flashy virtuosism and the obvious stylistic borrowings conceal them on a casual listen; I'm sure that upon repeated listenings, those traits that are your own - taken from other composers perhaps, but already internalized and made your own - will be more apparent).

I'm aware now that there are missing links of the collection and that the final order or grouping is not decided upon yet, so you will no hear any more complains about "schizophrenic stylistic collisions" from me no more ;-)

4. Agree with your opinion on "filler material", but that does not prevent you to organize the preludes in a way that optimizes variety, unity, contrast, intensity, and so forth. This particular selection is a bit on the overwhelming side, but you have more than enough diversity to balance things out.

5. Yes, the way you organize things is the key to a successful collection. I'm sure you'll come up with the perfect solution by yourself or with the help of others. So, I'm looking forward to seeing how this project develops into a mature, fully convincing collection.

I hope this clarifications are clear enough and that my position and views upon your set does not seem unfair or arbitrary to you, and I'm open to further discussions. Forthcoming review on virtuosism, hopefully not too opinionated and as detached and objective as my command of English will allow.