All Activity

The really! How? Is how someone would actually perform this...😦

And it is 4 not 3 movements long too.

Firstly, You combine the symphony and the concerto, and the you add an electrical guitar. wow. i am IMPRESSED. (really! How?)

Hey there, I am also a pianist, not as like, a job, but more as a hobby. I mean, I am just a student, you know. Nothing special about me... Small Tip: Try to read transcript your music for solo piano, but don't write it down! Start easy with 2 instruments, and then get more and more! (No plans allowed) 🙂 Bye! (See you later I mean. Hasta Luego...)

Sonatine 649 Bars, 10 Minutes and 23 Seconds By TristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristanTheTristan... (Continued Infinitely) https://musescore.com/user/96214813/scores/31853885 Yes! I self-taught myself to export stuff! (Not here, Tristan...) A cheerful Sonatine in D Major. Written, to guide composers' into the Sonata Form and how a classical era sonata looks like, although, nevertheless to say, as my works always are, it is also technically demanding. I would say, around Henle 7, maybe? 3 Movements, Fast-Slow-Fast (Ternary-type) Allegro, Sonata Form, D Dur, 173 Bars, 3 Minutes 23 Seconds Largo, Ternary Form (Ternary Form in a Ternary form?), G Dur, 71 Bars, 2 Minutes and 54 Seconds Allegro, Rondo, D Dur, E Dur, D Dur, with a Coda, 405 bars, 5 Minutes, 6 seconds Thanks for listening! (If you did...) Sonatine.mid (Just realized, no repeats are played in Midi...) Sonatine.mid

So I decided to convert the theme of Mozart's perpetual canon at the 2nd for String Quartet in C major (KV 562c) into one of my enharmonic canons by keeping the same melodic intervals across all its entries. As opposed to the four previous installments of this genre, this one is exclusively instrumental, as I struggled to redistribute the voices so that the theme would fit the vocal ranges of a 6-part choir. Partly for the same reason, the string sextet section is comprised of 4 violins and 2 cellos, as the viola ranges appeared unsuitable for the middle voices without significantly altering the whole structure of the canon. Neither is it technically a dual canon by tritone transposition as the others, but instead returns to its initial starting point without the need for a secondary repetition a minor 2nd lower per each iteration. This is due to the fact that, instead of following the circle of fourths, each entry starts a major 2nd lower from the previous one, thus having the first note of each of the 6 entries in this canon trace the whole-tone hexatonic scale back to its inception. YouTube video link:

Revisiting this but wondering if anyone has ideas on how to build from this? I feel like it could work both as only having guitar as well as having something else. It wouldn't be unfathomable to have even a larger ensemble in the background. But either way I'm also thinking about effects and such. If anyone has thoughts let me know; I'll update here

lol just saw this pop up somehow, I Will Survive?? Damn I would've been way off, sounds nothing like the disco version at first. Nice one Luis

just checked this out and damn the orchestration rocks. Keeps that cute vibe from the original but makes it way bigger and emotional. Solid work!

MP3 Play / pause DDLC Your Reality FINAL 0:00 0:00 volume > next menu DDLC Your Reality FINAL > next PDF Your Reality just checked this out and damn the orchestration rocks. Keeps that cute vibe from the original but makes it way bigger and emotional. Solid work!

I have added a 2nd version of the piece where I have changed the relations of the tonics to each other to be tertian rather than quartal as in the 1st version. In the 2nd version I use written C Acoustic Scale, E Ukrainian Dorian Scale, and G Phrygian/Dorian Scale. Let me know which you prefer!

Just listened to the whole thing and really, really loved it. Your handling of the violins is really tasteful. I loved the variety of styles, didn't find the repetition to be a drawback (it's good momentum; it's propulsive to me) and the last movement really struck me. I would love to play the timpani part on this (and that's not something I say very much!!!). Wonderful stuff.

Thank you for this 1st positive feedback. It is comforting :) You make it clear about the accented P8ve. I had never seen anything negative on that in Goetschius books (So I blame him!). The proof is that I have accented P8ves EVERYWHERE! LOL. In the deleted piece (#20) I had one per bar! And in this one, I have about 9 among 24 bars. I will have to update many pieces! The original motive was given an 'allegro' tempo, which should be 125bpm. Ridiculously fast. So I chose 85bpm (moderato). If I had slowed it further downto 60bpm, I would have had a different, non-humorous approach to it. I will make corrections to this #10 and get back. See you!

Today I am presenting another fugue from my preludes and fugues project. Since it is a long piece with a special feature in its second half, I have decided to split the presentation into two posts. I began composing this fugue four years ago, inspired by Bach's Fugue in E major from WTC2 (BWV 878), after seeing Jörg Demus' wonderful introduction and tutorial, which unfortunately is no longer available on YouTube. The idea is to compose a fugue in the „stile antico“ or Palestrina style, which means having • 4/2 time signature (long allabreve), • long note values (from quarter notes to whole notes, and even „brevis“ notes), • a subject that moves primarily by step, with few leaps. Any leap that occurs is immediately balanced by stepwise motion in the opposite direction. Exposition (mm. 1 – 15). The „regular“ exposition is ascending (subject highlighted with blue-colored notes) • Dux, G flat major, bass (mm. 1) • Comes, D flat major, tenor (mm. 5) • Dux, G flat major, alto (mm. 9) • Comes, D flat major, soprano (mm. 12b) with tonal answer. We have a recurring countersubject (highlighted with olive-colored notes) which is paired with the subject entries in mm. 5, 9 and 13. Whereas the first occurrence of the countersubject starts together with the subject entry (mm. 5), the second one is delayed by one whole note (mm. 9) and the third one is delayed by two whole notes (mm. 13), thus not repeating the previous entry rhythmically but creating a continuous flow. Second Development Section (mm. 17b – 26a). After a one-bar codetta (mm. 16b – 17a) with a tritone substitution we reach the second development section where the subject appears in stretto as following • B flat minor, soprano (mm. 17b) • F major, alto (mm. 18) • B flat minor, tenor (mm. 21b) • F minor, inverted, bass (mm. 23, highlighed in green) The countersubject appears three times (mm. 17b, 21b and 23), the latter one in inversion (highlighted by plum-colored notes). Episode (mm. 26b - 32a). This episode is built from the material of the countersubject (highlighted with olive-colored notes) creating its own fugato. Third Development Section (mm. 32b – 36a). In the third development section the subject occurs the first time in a diminished form. It is not an exact halving of the notes values but also a rhythmic variation. • A flat major, diminished (highlighted with turquoise notes), soprano (mm. 32b) • C minor, tenor (mm.32b) • C major, diminished, soprano (mm.34c) • F major, diminished, alto (mm. 34b) • A major, diminished inverted (highlighted with pink notes), bass (mm. 34b) The subject entries are heavily squeezed together as strettos, and we have a surplus subject entry. The countersubject does not occur in this development section. Episode (mm. 36b - 40a). This episode is built from the material of the inverted countersubject (highlighted with plum-colored notes), also in a fugative way. Fourth Development Section (mm. 40b – 43a). The fourth development section is another one where the subject is presented in its diminished and normal form, together in stretto. • D flat major, tenor (mm. 40) • A flat major, diminished, soprano (mm. 40b) • C flat major, diminished, bass (mm. 40b) • F flat major, diminished, alto (mm. 42) Episode (mm. 43b - 50). This episode consists of two different sections with sequences (mm. 43 – 45 and mm. 46 – 50) whereas the fugue subject once occurs in its inversion (E flat minor, bass, mm. 46). With the crescendo of the second sequence motif, the fugue reaches its first climax, leading to the second half, which I will present next Tuesday, February 24th. Stay tuned!

Hallo @Frederic Gill! I have read the thread about your „2-part invention in counterpoint“ and since there had already been lively discussions I decided to take a look on another piece which has not got a review yet. I like the motif (or „subject“) which is indeed somewhat „stubborn“ because of its repeated notes (but there are many famous fugues with repeated notes in the subject). And so, your decision to vary the motif sometimes to avoid that repeated notes is quite a good idea. The counterpoint is well chosen rhythmically, giving the entire piece a continuous flow and its „funny“ character. As far as I remember from the other thread, there were some dispute about „parallels“ and „octaves“ which was – also in my opinion – somewhat „overteaching“ (I couldn’t follow all arguments or „issues“ without going into detail too deep), so that I can understand that you’ve deleted most of the posts. But to be honest, after listening to your E minor invention, I can understand what the other commenters meant: Not „parallel octaves“ (or „parallel fifth“ as to be avoided in counterpoint generally) are problematic, but only the occurrence of the same note (in an octave) on a strong beat that makes the piece sound something „thin“ at that particular note. This is the case in a two-voice counterpoint only. If you had a third or fourth voice there would be enough harmonic material overall (and that might be the reason that writing a two-part fugue is much more challenging than a three- or four-voice fugue and why there are so few of them). I think, you can solve the problem, for example by varying your counter-motif in that places where it creates the octave. You will then lose the smooth motion at these points and have to insert a leap, but that might emphasize the humorous character of the entire piece!

This exercise is awesome, so I could not longer resist to break my silence! By the way, all your exercises from Persichetti's "20th Century Harmony" are very interesting and inspiring – and I have already looked on many of them, while not yet thoughtfully. I think I will study them all in the next time and try to give a review whenever I can. Whereas composing a canon is complicated enough (not to mean the funny children’s chants but a perpetual one), having three different scales and tonics is a real challenge. Usually, one would expect that the harmonies of that different keys would constantly clash each other, but the usage of different modes, or – as here - different synthetic scales interestingly mitigates that problem, so that in the end a common harmony is achieved which, however, sounds a bit weird in classical sense, reminding me on Klezmer music. But that probably expresses the mood of the F Ukrainian Dorian Scale. When I attempted to create a fivefold stretto in one of my fugues, I discovered that it is required to alter the subject for harmonic reasons at some notes. But as I studied the result, it was not an „adjustment“ of the subject but rather a transformation to a different mode (for example B minor, G lydian, C sharp locrian, A mixolydian and D major), so that I had finally well crafted and not „twisted“ subject entries. Very enjoyed!

Another Persichetti prompted piano piece. This time the prompt was "24. Extend the following chromatically ornamented piano passage." The form ended up being ABACBA. Thanks for listening and I hope you enjoy and let me know what you think!

Here's my beginner's non-academic point of view (for what it is worth): @Fermata's Fugue in D minor sounds flawless and tasteful. The given motive is very interesting. It is rich in complexity, and intriguing because it feels 'incomplete'. It calls for contrasting complements. Also, is it suitable for a fugue where it has to be frequently repeated? It would be nice as a theme for a long development with less imitation. That's my personnal impression.

My most recent Muzoracle casting has constant accel.'s and rit.'s throughout:

Well! That quite possibly might be the most interesting thing I've heard in a long time. A very tricky thing to put together. Myself, I've always found canons far more difficult to write effectively than fugues, so therefore I must commend you. This is a very effective little piece. I must say, I don't much care for the sopranino clarinet up top, far too shrill, and I find myself wondering if the whole top part mightn't sound better on a regular B-flat clarinet an octave down. I suppose the texture is more modern for it though as is, and therefore part of your plan. Great work!

I hadn't even noticed that! But you're right. I guess it just worked out that way by accident. I'm glad you liked the changes of time signature, as I wasn't sure about some of them. I did think of using more ottavas; but found I could read the ledger lines quite easily when playing it through myself. Will add them if the pianist requests it. N.B. The composer who inspired me to write this piece was Julian Scriabin, as I recently discovered his preludes on You Tube. Think my piece maybe sounds more like Rachmaninoff though? Many thanks for your interesting review! Alex

Many thanks Peter, for taking the time to listen and review. Yes please do! I'll be getting a real performance from a pianist in May: so I'll probably just wait for that, rather than trying to massage the midi rendition. Will bear your points in mind for the future though. That 9/8 bar originally had a short fermata on the middle note; but I decided to use a time signature change instead. Then I reproduced the same 4/4 to 9/8 in the recapitulation: so it is reflected later in the piece.

Thanks for your detailed thoughts! When I mentioned monotony, I was referring more to the process of working with a long, slow subject - after a while the contrapuntal development itself felt a bit repetitive to write. The fugue was an exercise I worked out on paper with pen, mainly as a kind of contrapuntal puzzle, which I've always enjoyed doing as a hobby. That said, you're absolutely right that the playback could be improved. I didn't add any articulation or dynamics, so the notation software makes everything sound much flatter than it would in a real performance. I'll try revising it along the lines you suggest to make it sound more natural. Thanks again for taking the time to comment!

Hallo @Fermata! Your asking about the issue of „monotony“ in your fugue. Sometimes it is not an issue with the composition itself, but rather a question of the interpretation or recording. Since you are using four string instruments „played“ by your notation software, you „naturally“ encounter the problem that the entire piece sounds somewhat monotonous. Even real string instruments blend the sound very well, in my opinion, but are not as expressive for individual voices. I can imagine, when played on a piano, the impression would be totally different. As currently discussed in another thread @PeterthePapercomPoser suggested to improve the recording by “fine-tuning” the articulation, dynamics, and tempo for each individual hand or even voice. I also had a fugue which I considered to be „boring“ and I was nearly to get around and throw it away. But then I applied such tiny adjustments in the tempo, for example to make the first bar of the subject a little bit „swinging“, which dramatically changed the perception. Since I do so now with all of my piano works, I know that it is a lot of work to literally maintain two scores, one for the printout and one for the recording. But it's really worth the effort to achieve a sound that is much closer to a live performance. Concerning the composition „as is“, I think there are no issues. With a short overview on the score I see that you already applied the necessary counterpuntual techniques (such as tonal answer, a recurring countersubject, inversion, augmentation, stretto). As in 6/2 meter with mostly half and quarternotes (perhaps in an older, more Palestrinian style), it would be not appropriate to add passages (in episodes) or countersubjects with a faster rhythm. Perhaps one could introduce a kind of diminution which doesn’t increase the rhythmic pulse by doubling the speed but is merely a rhythmic variant of the original subject preserving the quarternotes as the fastest ones, finally resulting in a 1.5x diminution (such as in Bach’s D# minor fugue from the WTC1 BWV 853).