7 Eludes

Ah, such nice harmonies. Very atmospheric, with a translucent melody. I think you did a good job at creating variation with your few thematic materials in this prelude.

The ostinato from 29-33 feel too repetitive to me when their is very little action in the foreground. I would consider slightly altering it to create something a little different but still familiar. Perhaps augment the note values in those measures, so the ostinato will feel rewarding when it snaps back in measure 34.

I really like the atmosphere created here. It's dark and foggy, melodies sound out now and then only to recoil back into the mist.

Is it just me or does the last two thirds of this have the top stave too soft?

It being too repetitive did cross the back of my mind, but I didn't think too much of it since this is a single piece in a set of (hopefully) contrasting pieces. Baxton's advice shouldn't do any harm, though.

I'm definitely looking forward to hearing the first and last movements. I don't remember the last time you uploaded solo piano works.

Thank you both for the comments.
Baxton, I made a minor edit which I hope will result in a more natural and less repetitive return to the initial motive, without losing the ostinato. The idea of augmentation sounds nice, but I feel that the resulting hemiole will obstruct the meter a tad too much. In an other context it would have worked, but here I'm not so sure...

Ian, thanks for your comment (and thanks for the previous on the sinfonietta as well). You're right, I have havent written much piano music, let alone that I put it up here. Which is odd, since I am a pianist. Anyway.
The set will consists of at least 3 movements. And indeed I intent them to be contrasting (the point of this exercise)

Oh, and you are also right about the rendering. Finales Human playback is doing something wierd with the cresc./decresc in the end.

---

I hope that people will give their comments on how this relates to the tonerow as well.
Also I an struggeling with some enharmonic issues.
For example in ms 10-16 (left hand) I had an A# instead of the Bb there is now. I chose for the latter to emphasize the G minor polytonality. But the Bb and the B natural occur simultaneously, which can be confusing, especially on the 5th beat of the measure (upper is Bb, lower is B natural). Is this clear, or should I sacrifice the clarification of the G minor polytonality in favour of the A#?
Please comment

Intrigue and mystery, cool.
The ending, I think could be better... but everything as quite good.

can you tell what you did not like about the ending? I really love the final chord. I think the finale human playback is a bit awkward, maybe going to fix that. Is it possible that is causing you to think it could be better?

I think the last 2 bars are not enough, the change of the C# G# D# in left hand from the low octave to the high, was heard 5 times in low and when 8va up, you or I, waited 2 more repeats of the last, so they could be 4 bars like that, with a slightly difference in the 3rd bar....maybe is just the rit that is too short..

you want the figure of C# G# D# again one octave higher?

As I see it, the alsmost picardic resolution in ms 35 is answered by an higher echo. I think elongating that will disctract the listener of the 'resolution' that is being questioned by the sortof dominant chord in ms 36/7

Or maybe I did not understand what you meant.

Update nr 4 is based on the inverse row. I would like some advice with regard to the notation. esp. the left hand can get somewhat cluttered, yet I prefer not to go to 3 staffs. How is this on legebility? Please comment.
Also the cadencial function of the ending. Not sure if this is how it will end, altough I like the fact that both I0 and P8 (in the final measures) end on notes A-B-C#

Excellent work with the Lento - the voicing of the piece will be tricky - especially where that repeated A is. Really have nothing to add except it is fine. The notation is a little odd with the unusual spellings but when you look ar the bass it becomes understandable.

Your harmonic planning is interesting - it spells out a dom 7 chord the lowest bass notes and moves to B - implying a deceptive cadence to aflt/G# minor which gets you back to the C#. So I like your use of the row and how you cull portions of the row. My favorite part is from bars 21 - 27. Nice overlap of the division of 5/8 where the pattern 2+3 is overlaid with 3+2. Really halps reach a climax.

One thing I noticed with your melodic material - it is somewhat serial but a bit different - you seem to use smaller groups and either transpose them and rearrange the order - eventually there seems to be no serial treatment as the melody and accompaniment switch roles.

I also can hear and see all your grounding in counterpoint serves you very well.

So I can only say that you may want to mark for the performer - possibly with dynamics the moving lines - especially as they occur in an inner voice - the marking of articulation but I am just thinking a dynamic marking may be helpful.

OK I listened the no.4, is great, short but great.

See if you could choose a different name for these piece, I think preludes is like... sort of.... not enough to describe them.

Ok Maestoso - I like it though I think the Lento is stronger. The Maestoso's final chord just seems to lack any sense of cadence because you just reiterate the suspension between B-A. Either you figure out a way to delay the resolution to A major or you move to another chord a bit foreign to A major.

Also, the grace notes to the chord - I would have liked to have heard a little of it on the chord with mp, calmado. You can achieve calm with those grace notes.

These two points are small criticisms and I am suggesting just rethinking your note selection in one or two spots and adding a grace note to that chord. I also think that B octave at the end will never quite sound well in performance because it is rather awkward writing - primarily for what follows it. Maybe you really want some appagiaturra (sp?) octave rather than an octave with definitive note value.

Excellent work with the Lento - the voicing of the piece will be tricky - especially where that repeated A is. Really have nothing to add except it is fine. The notation is a little odd with the unusual spellings but when you look ar the bass it becomes understandable. Your harmonic planning is interesting - it spells out a dom 7 chord the lowest bass notes and moves to B - implying a deceptive cadence to aflt/G# minor which gets you back to the C#. So I like your use of the row and how you cull portions of the row. My favorite part is from bars 21 - 27. Nice overlap of the division of 5/8 where the pattern 2+3 is overlaid with 3+2. Really halps reach a climax. One thing I noticed with your melodic material - it is somewhat serial but a bit different - you seem to use smaller groups and either transpose them and rearrange the order - eventually there seems to be no serial treatment as the melody and accompaniment switch roles. I also can hear and see all your grounding in counterpoint serves you very well. So I can only say that you may want to mark for the performer - possibly with dynamics the moving lines - especially as they occur in an inner voice - the marking of articulation but I am just thinking a dynamic marking may be helpful.

Glad you like this. For me it feels like a small step to even less tonal music. Nice to see that you note some harmonic planning. I think that is accidental, as I was browsing my matrix for polytonal chords I happen to come across some regions. The only planning is in the repetitive notes. A F# and B(Cb) that occur once as a single note, and as a chord in the final measures.
Also nice that you like the climax and the cadence.

I know the voicing is a bit hard. I have small hands, so the midvoice in ms 6 and 7 needs to be divided between both hands. I know it is doable. The interval in ms 28 is big (at least for me). I need to arpergiate, Although I prefer if they need not to be arpergiated.

I think I do not understand what you mean by the markings for the innervoices. I have articulated them, to let them pop out, be noted as some inner voice melody. Do you think this is not enough?

You rightly say it is not really serial. This movement is indeed quite free in its use of the row. Although the melody is the literal P0, the harmonic accompanimental material is taken from several elements (often tetrachords) of a row. The bass of ms 1 is taken from the 3rd tetrachord (G# D# F C#) with the obvious omision of the F. (this is why the almost picardic resolution in ms 35 suddenly pops up), and the E F# B trichord is also part of the row. That sort of cicles. The midvoice becomes bass, the new midvoice is the G minor trichord. In ms 17 I-6 kicks in, the harmonies in ms 21ff are from this I-6 row (AEG# and CFEb)
In ms 22 there stars a 2 voice canon-like thing, soprano has P6 (where the 4th til 6th note: EbCF match the second trichord I used from the I6 row), tenor if ms 23 gets P5, and the bass from ms 26ff gets P4.
Despite being free in the use of serial technique I think this is (at least for me) rather serial nonetheless. For now I really like the mixture of exploring the pitch content with a matrix, and also be guides by some (poly)tonal/modal principals.

OK I listened the no.4, is great, short but great. See if you could choose a different name for these piece, I think preludes is like... sort of.... not enough to describe them.

Thanks Daniel. Although I need you to be a bit more specific on why the name Prelude would be insufficient.

What I meant is juist be ready to have dynamic markings in mind if another performer asks for this or is having trouble highlighting the main melodic material just with articulations given.I agree the articulations may be just enough, but what I am also saying is the Lento is something you gotta to give to a professional pianist to get it performed publicly - especially if you have more of these pieces - I consider the piece that good that it needs a public performance.

Any reactions or thoughts on my comments on the maestoso? Despite my critiques, I think it just needs only a few minor adjustments for it to stand out as the Lento does.

PS. pardon all the typos in my initial posts - I am usually articulate if I have time to edit my comments.

I was waiting for a response after my long post (even double post) to prevent a wall of text, but mainly in the hope that I would fix the cadencial issue you rightly mention in the last measure. The idea was to mimic the same cadence that works much better in ms 4.

Well. I have shifted the notes in ms 9 a bit to make the shape more like ms 4, but it still isn't really it. It's better than the previous version, but not ok.

About the grace notes. I do not entirely understand what you mean by the "chord with mp, calmado".
Or do you mean both in ms 3 (mp) and 6 (calmando)?
In ms 3, the 8th notes DA#F# are meant to sort of be the 'grace' notes to the higher DA#F#, and the 16th note delay of the ECG# does the the same: anticipating the graces.
In means of pitch-content I feel somewhat limited using other notes. I used the same (in different octaves) to sort of emphasize the dramatic entry of that phrase. Adding other notes seem to disctract from that purpose and should add harmonic function, which is not my intent.

I appreciate your thinking with me and suggestions. I hope my scribles are adequate responses to your observations Oh, and I really don't mind the typos. (make them all the time and/or do not notice them)

Jaap - Ignore my comment about the grace notes which referred to measure 6. It is fine as is.

As for your cadence - I agree you are getting closer, but look carefully at your 3 note descent in the left hand which starts your piece. Now, notice at the end of your piece you go only from b to a. Experiment with continuing the descent to G in the left hand and see what you think about it and what harmony would go above the G. If you don't like G try something else, my main point is the b-a may need to descend further with another or the same harmony on top so the end of the piece ties in with the opening 3 note descent in your left hand in the very first measure.

Just an idea.

wow, this is an interesting notion. the 3 note downward motive from ms 1 is a coincidental thing. more for reasons of counterpoint that i choose to make these notes stick out of the row. the same applies to the imitative upward answer.
the 3 notes I was refering to are just the last 3 of row.

I'll think this over, but now I think I will extrapolate the descending bass (wholetone), maybe even arive at the same pitches as ms. 4

thanks for setting me on this track!

EDIT: Ok, now I have updated the cadencial issue in Prelude Nr 4. I think it is better now.

I am not really good at reviewing, but I do like to leave a comment when I see something interesting which is the case with your preludes.

Having said that, I agree that the weaker of the three is the fourth one, but that doesn't mean it isn't good as well. Regarding the cadential problem, I believe that a good conclusion would be B-A and then B one octave lower played in octaves.

The repeating bass motif of the second prelude is also interesting and I like the way you treat it throughout the piece.Also, the legato slurs at the beginning of the piece and later on don't really make much sense (or at least they are not properly notated). They would if you eliminated the rests and put a tie after every quaver or if you put a dotted slur in the first place...

Nothing much to say about the first prelude except that it was well-notated and good on the whole. The harmonies weren't perhaps so much to my liking, but that's mostly a matter of taste.

Alexander, thanks for your review. Glad to hear you saw something of interest in it.

The slurs in the second are not meant as legato slurs, in that case it would indeed be notated in a wrong way, but phrasing slurs are meant here. I believe the rest means the the key is not pressed, but the slur indicates that the pedal still has that sound. I know little about official notation, but I thought this is right. I beleive I have seen this in piano literature, Debussy I think. Can others shed their light on this issue?
Anyway thanks for keeping me sharp;)

Hahah, the major chord at the very end was a nice touch, it's like a modern day picardy third. Good job using the tonerow-technique, whilst keeping to a somewhat tonal atmosphere. So far you've got Lento, Andantino and Maestoso. I wonder, might the 3rd movement be a bit livelier? The score is nice and clean. I could really imagine finding this in a library, for instance.

So far you've got Lento, Andantino and Maestoso. I wonder, might the 3rd movement be a bit livelier?

I indeed uploaded a livelier 3rd movement. The 6th movement again is somewhat dreamy, but currently I am working on the 5th movement that will become an Allegro marciale.

I listened to the whole set. I really enjoyed the first 3: they made perfect sense to me.
#4 was a bit sluggish - maybe have a look at it when the dust settles.
#6 was okay. Perhaps a slightly more insistent tempo would give it more of a charge.

It's hard to remain interesting in tone rows. You made a good case for their continued use.
peace

Thanks for listening. I am glad you liked the first 3.
I have worked much on the 4th. Before this there was a even more unsatisfiying final cadence. It has rested for about two weeks now, the dust has settled, and revisiting the piece I am sort of satisfied with it. I think it just needs its room (not after the tumultous end of nr 3 without rest).
It is interesting to hear that you think the 6th preludes needs a bit more speed. I would say it can be player a tad slower. I really need a calm, wide, sphere here, let the chords resonate. But I will give it a try, but then I have to let the dust settle again, and get used to the new idea Anyway, thanks for your listen.

There is very little to add. I think each Prelude is working out well now. If you write more Preludes my only gut bit of advice is to write a few where you write a draft with the rules in mind and then loosen them up more to explore a greater number of textures and timbres you can pull from the piano. For example, why not an additional prelude or two which explore quick, extreme timbral changes by starting in the some of the highest octaves of the piano with alteration in the very bottom. Many of your preludes wisely use the most ideal range of the piano - the second C below middle C to the second C above middle C. Of course you aren't rigid with this range - you offer some great octave doublings and good voicings - but they all tend to stay in one area and slowly build to another register. So I guess what I am suggesting is a more rapid change in registers and timbres. A great example is your third prelude, where contrast and the structure of your phrases rely on extreme contrasts of timbre and texture. I think another Prelude with such an approach would enhance the range of moods you already present in the set you have.

And as a model I would suggest Prokofiev's Vision Fugitives - the quality of your work is at this high level already.

And as a model I would suggest Prokofiev's Vision Fugitives - the quality of your work is at this high level already.

Chris, this is high praise, thanks a lot. I am quite familiar with the pieces. As a regular listener of all of then, and player of about half of the pieces. Also thanks for your overview comment.

Enjoyed all pieces!
It would be more philosophic to play 6th a bit slower......
Really like the way harmonies are progressing throughout the form)
Thank you for sharing!

Japp, this is in general excellent work – probably your best to date. I found 1 and 3 to be my personal favourites. As had been mentioned, they approach the level of Rachmaninov preludes as examples of expanding a small figure into a large dramatic work. At times I think you approach the limit of how often we can hear a piece of material before it sounds repetitive but generally they are inventive and coherent miniatures.
1 has a brilliantly unexpected gesture – the sudden forte in the opening bars which you handle superbly. I was reminded a little of Shostakovich and Nielsen in the harmonic language and the way in which the tension is maintained despite the simplicity of the writing. I would hazard a guess that this is possibly the most difficult to perform due to the control required. Very little improvement to be made, although in performance I might take the forte and fortissimo down a little to avoid melodrama.
In No.2, bars 8 and 9 sound as if they require an extra note on the fourth quaver of the bar in one hand (I would go for the bass) as by this stage in the piece we’ve got used to hearing a note on every beat and an unprofessional performer might rush the bars for this reason. I would also make a subtle change to the chord in 14 as it sounds too repetitive and undermines that fact that the right hand is moving to new material. Not sure the pause in 20 does any favours either and am also not convinced by the move to the harmony in 21. However the move to the coda section in 28-30 is very well handled and the chord it arrives on is absolutely perfect for the structural function of this passage. The final five bars do not sound convincing. I think an extra bar could be inserted towards the end to extend the harmony after bar 35 – or on reflection possibly that of 34, as it seems to have too little time to settle before you end with the final phrases, which I also think need amending. These seem to set off as if you are starting another section of the music, but then it suddenly ends.
No. 3 is somewhat difficult at the speed required – although as you’ve written it carefully it is actually quite playable and idiomatic to piano technique. The only disappointment here is the last measure. I think there is a better solution to end with the motif than repeating the same rhythm four times – maybe have the long notes a quaver shorter so the figures go across the beat? I am also uncertain as to how legato unslurred runs of triplets are meant to be. Making a conscious effort to detatch them would be difficult at this speed.
In 4 I would alter the l.h. rhythm at the end of bar 6 to match that of the next bar – we miss the short-long rhythms here and it would make the upward figure more interesting whilst still keeping the slow tread of the left hand going. I feel this prelude ends too abruptly and could even be extended into a 4-5 minute piece as its climax here isn’t total and if feel unfinished at the last bar as it stands.
No.6 I feel might benefit from a little more counterpoint and some other variation in texture and timbre. It was in danger of becoming a series of repetitions of very similar gestures, and the left hand tends to occupy the same register all the way through.

simon, thank you very much for the thorough review. I will give it some thought.
With a little luck I'll upload some own recordings, we'll see then if the 1st really is the hardest. so far I have much more trouble with the 3rd

I actually think this is a very good piece. I'm going to say in advance that I haven't read through any reviews of these preludes yet, so sorry If I repeat any points already made before.

Prelude no.1: My favorite one, actually. Very nice harmonic shifts, and great use of a basic motif with changing harmony to create a beautiful piece. Only complaint I have is of a bit of predictability with your motif (1-2-3) and a few very abrupt dynamic and harmonic shifts (not necessarily a weakness!)

Prelude no. 2: Very mysterious. The opening bars are warm though, and I thought the prelude would then open in up into something much less cold and mysterious. A nice surprise, though, but I think it's a bit harmonically schizophrenic in a way, especially in the way it ends similarly to the beginning. Either way, it works well. Lovely.

Prelude no. 3: Not much to say here, good work.

Prelude no. 4: Nice sonic atmosphere you create here, just curious to hear your opinion on the free meter; to me it divides rather nicely with changing time signatures... Also, it doesn't sound like it would be totally free in rhythm; it sounds a bit more like a solemn funeral march to me, that would require a stronger rhythmic anchor. However, still loving the harmonies (although the rhythm is a bit stagnant - probably your intention!)

Prelude no. 6: Nice opening, sets a similar mood to the second prelude's opening in warmth. Actually reminded a bit of Copland, a nice open "American" sound! Again, exquisite harmonies, although your strict use of the motif again makes it a bit predictable. It does develop well, though. The ending puzzled me a bit though... I think it ends rather abruptly.

As to your opening question, I think that all of the preludes match each other nicely, although because of their similar (but very nice) harmonies, moods, and dynamics they do not sound totally unique from each other.

Other than that, very excellent job! I know I don't sound like I do, but I definitely enjoy all of them a lot. Keep up the good work! I'm interested to see how the 5th prelude turns out. =)

I added two live recordings played by Ian. He recorded no's 2 and 4, because that is how amazing he is. I forgot to upload them, so here they are.

Hey, you liked your own post above! Tsk, tsk ;-)

These preludes are lovely, and they deserve five starts, so I hope my vote sparkled up the only dead star left.

I see you are also fond of working with limiting systems of your own, and I see this set as a parallel of a little song cycle of my own. Our limitations are of a different nature, but we both struggled to overcome them in order to minimize the monotony imposed by our systems (in your case, a tone row, and in mine, some very similar and simple melodies), while at the same time being consistent with those systems.

So, I'm afraid to tell you, you did not entirely succeed here... I could have almost pasted back here what you wrote about my cradle songs ;-) Beautiful as the individual preludes are, there is still a certain homogeneity of color and mood when listened as a set. In your case, you have a prelude missing (# 5). If it is not composed yet, make it fast and active, like #3, to balance out the collection, since it tends to instrospection.

The writing is mature and sophisticated, and you use the tonal row in I way I particularly like (I suspect you are not using it too strictly). I mean, tone-row-based music (the same goes for other systems, such as quartal and octatonic; it does not need to be atonal) tends to sound to me rather emotionally challenged (either it is detached and devoid of emotion, or it is overly emotional, which I also find obnoxious). You seem to have found an attractive middle ground, with an overall chilly and detached mood but with complex and ambiguous undercurrents of strong emotions going on.

I forgot to mention: Yes, number 4 is Danseuses de Delphes ;-)

the 2nd piano prelude sounds great!! i'd love to hear a orchestral version of it...

Juan and GDB, thanks for the comments.

I have put a nr5 up.

I thought that your use of harmony limited to a particular pitch set was very well done. You were innovative with your ability to change things up and to keep the music progressing. I especially liked how, in your first movement, you would at times keep a section going, but would ever so slightly change it as you progressed on, making the section become more and more interesting as it went on.

Great job.

If you find the time, my Prelude No. 3 is something you might find interesting. 

I evaluated which one between 1-5. (5 is the maximum)

 

1^st Prelude - 5

 

It is so intimate! The harmony is very intelligent – I love the way you use the minor seconds! The first three bars are memorable. Relatively to this piece I only can say two things, it is a good I idea, you developed it very well, I think that if you compose more bars it would be a good idea, because this material deserves and asks for more. And in some parts, more to the end, you could add more one voice, for example you never add another voice with quavers when the soprano has quavers, and as the work goes to end, I think that could be interesting go to more complexity. But I give maximum grade to this one!

 

 

2^nd Prelude - 3

 

It has also interesting harmonies, but has not the fluency, inspiration and intelligence that the first one has.

 

 

3^rd Prelude - 2

 

I understand the idea, and the structure, but I simply don’t like it at all.

 

 

4^th Prelude - 4

 

This one is very powerful. These harmonies are delicious; I didn’t fine any moment that where I can question your choice for one chord. In this I agree with the length, it is short, but the idea is also more limitated, and you had cut with it in the right moment.

 

 

5^th  Prelude - 3 (only because it is too small if it was bigger with would be certainly a 4 or a 5)

 

It is very well done, and as in the first one, this one deserves to be quite longer! It is too much short. In this one I bag you to continue, and if you don’t that, then I will continue from my own. J

 

 

6^th Prelude - 4

 

With this one I clearly conclude that you are better in the slowest one. It is very meditative, however it is never boring.

 

 

 

This set has remembered me the Debussy preludes. The 3^rd was the unique that I didn’t enjoy, but I think that this one is important because gives contrast to the group.

The first one, if you give me permission I would appreciate to record, and I will sent to you the recording, if you want. It was clearly me favourite!

 

Thank you.

 

ps - I didn't agree with the addition of names to this preludes, this music is sufficient good, it doesn't need names. It values for itself.

I added a Fugue and it has gotten the 6th place in the series. The reviews above refer to the previous nr 6 which is now the 7th and final postlude.

 

Also new is the title, is it too cheesy?

The title is not too cheesy. In fact I found it clever and fine.

 

The mechanical recording sucks quite a bit, but it provides quite a fair idea of what's going on, so well done overall.

 

I won't go into details here, but very well done!

 

See you soon! ^_^

Well, "elude" is verb so adding an "s" to pluralize it like that is wrong and sounds weird.