Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Yeah, I saw it in your description, but the file name struck me as odd -so figured I'd ask in case it was a mistake.
  3. "Christmas time's a-comin'"... Around this time of the year I use to make something with popular carols (reharmonization, fugues,.... just for fun). However, I'd like to write my own two or three "carols = villancicos", differences aside, .... because this is not for singing. It's just how I think about and feel this time. So, I let my "harmonic imagination" fly and this is it.
  4. Thank you for your kind review ! 🙂 I know that some of my pieces are truly inspired from other composers but it is something that I accept. I just try to master different styles in aim to develop my own.
  5. Thanks! They're in c#, c minor and c major, not c major all. Read again. The # can't be written, so it deleted and seems as C
  6. Those notes are supposed to be played at the same time by 2 fingers, as 2 independent voices. One example of this happening by greatest composer is Bach's Inventio no.1 where he does overlap 1 note for each hand, near the final part of the piece.
  7. The pieces are fine and could be useful. Thanks for sharing them. However, I would like to see more coherent melodies as well as more harmonic variations , possibly with some purposeful dissonances ( there is some of it in your second piece).
  8. Thanks a lot for your feedback, and I am glad that you like the piece. In fact, Schumann/Schubert are some of my favourite composers, and a lot of my inspiration comes from their style. My new étude is now ready, and I will post it very soon.
  9. Not a bad fugue. Some things to consider: 1. I like the subject. However, I'm trying to figure why when you introduce it in the second voice (left hand) that you variated the ending in a way that -honestly- wasn't necessary to maintain the tonality of it. Particularly, measure 8. Was this change to insure contrary motion against the counterpoint in the right hand (notice I didn't term this material an answer or countersubject -as much of it doesn't return outside a few chosen motivic units that are really inconsequential and undeveloped)? 2. That said, while your counterpoint is good -and the piece does maintain a perpetual motion reminiscent of most Baroque music- the fugal structure is rather weak. Aside from referencing the subject's rhythm a few times, there aren't many areas where the subject returns amongst the counterpoint -let alone even false entries. The thematic material present within the subject doesn't undergo any real development characteristically found in fugues (stretto, diminution, sequencing, imitative counterpoint, etc.) I hope this one wasn't too harsh. Those two points said, I did enjoy the free form counterpoint -and feel you have a good grasp of it. I think most of my critique may rest with this: the true art of fugue writing can be found in the composer who uses a brevity of material and expands upon it masterfully. This is where Bach excelled above his peers. 4 bars of connected motivic material were enough to provide him an entire piece worth of music. Your material here in this can definitely hold a candle. Thanks for sharing.
  10. Shame to see such imaginative miniatures that blend contemporary classical compositional technique with the more popular idiom of jazz. I really enjoy the jazzy (almost blueslike) qualities of the second. The interplay of the flute and piano in the opening of the third is also well done. All in all, love these works. Hopefully others get some enjoyment from these as well!
  11. I think it's interesting that you start off your description with the 'High Middle Ages' and then go back further to provide information regarding Marmara -I think you should provide some insight into the linkage your constructing here (particularly for those of us who aren't too knowledgeable on this topic). Given this is my second viewing of your work, I think it's safe to say that you're very much into the New Age stuff. I saw it a little in the Lonesome piece. This one is even more strongly reminiscent of Yanni. Not bad at all -I was a fan as a kid! Anyways, very enjoyable. Would love to see a score to give a more fruitful review of your work.
  12. Ah minimalism. I love this. Very much fitting of the title of the piece. You definitely create a strong ambient atmosphere with this. I'd love to see some more interplay between the instruments -particularly since they do overlap in range to some extent. Perhaps move around your material more evenly to variate the timbres within your texture (something that many minimalist composers did with great success). All in all, very good work. Would love to see a score to provide better insight.
  13. Not a bad beginning. I agree somewhat with Jean's comments -but I'll add that these are subjective comments in that really, it's your personal taste that dictates these matters. That said, I want to strengthen his argument regarding the scalar nature of your melodic material -which this does have a lot of. In listening to the piece several times, I honestly can't identify aurally the second theme in this. I know you said it was the arpeggio material -which only is stated from measure 27 (and I'm assuming lasts until the 16th note arpeggios found towards the end of the exposition). The problem here is that these arpeggios don't seem to delineate new thematic or motivic material. Instead, they appear to strengthen your harmonic underpinning. What I'd like to see develop as your second theme is the dotted pattern that occurs measures 21 - 26. I feel this simple motif gives enough material (particularly when separated from the strong rhythmic underpinning you've setup) to add an interesting second theme (particularly with the use of a little chromaticism and imagination). All in all some good ideas. I look forward to seeing this worked out into a fuller piece.
  14. Thank you so much for taking the time to listen, Luis. I'm afraid I can't find the spot you mentioned. Are you sure it was measure 21?
  15. Thanks for the review. Much appreciated. The delay wasn't just of PC6 from P0 -I'm sure you can find other instances where I deviate from directly following common serialistic rules. In this piece, my first attempt at pointilistic texture, I sought to explore the potential of serialism in creating tension and release. That's also why the texture from bars 12 - 17 culminates into the chords of mm. 18 and 19. The E and B drone pattern in the left hand was an attempt to prepare for the chords that resolve to the F# in measure 20. All in all, thanks for the review and glad you took a listen!
  16. Not bad. Some good ideas. A few thoughts: 1. Consider expanding more on your harmonic language. The piece doesn't seem to venture or modulate much. 2. Work on strengthening some of your lines. I noticed, for instance, that you have some contrapuntal interplay between the 2nd violins, violas, and cellos -primarily imitating the accompaniment. I'd love to see some of this material engage in more contrapuntal textures (which brings me to the second thought...) 3. Given the limited scope of the harmonic underpinning, I think the piece could be further improved with stronger -more dynamic- textures. The ending of it is, hands down, awesome. I'd like to see more of this peppered throughout the work. It would definitely lend more interest. 4. Finally, be sure to correct some of the misspelled tempo markings. For example, at letter J... you have PUI moso, when it should be Piu moso. All in all, not a bad piece. Looking forward to hearing the live recording.
  17. I agree with Gustav about the number of instructions in the score. Trust that your musicians are musicians and will know what to do with your piece. You shouldn't need to explain too much unless you are looking for an effect that is very counter-intuitive and for which modern music notation doesn't already have a system. I worry that the ranges you have included in this piece may limit the number of groups who feel confident in their ability to perform it. Particularly because it is a long a cappella work, and the pitch of the group may drift slightly over the course of the piece without an instrument to keep them in key. High A's for the sopranos really are high. Anyone who has a cold, or has had a busy rehearsal schedule with more than one ensemble that week, is going to have problems both rehearsing and performing this piece. High E's for the basses are similar. And because you also have some very low notes in the piece, a director can't decide to just perform it down a half step. That's not to say that the piece can't be sung, but it becomes a riskier bet for a director, and they may choose to program someone else's work over yours as a result. On the other hand, I see what you were doing when you chose to work at the extreme ends of the range. It's very dramatic! And highlights the text well as a result! Good luck!
  18. Cool pieces! I like the 2nd one (in C minor) the most!
  19. Hi Sam, thank you very much for listening! Yes, there are some difficult parts unfortunately. I'll try to keep the "playability" in mind when I will compose my next piece. K.R. Alex
  20. This is an interesting idea. I think it's a little bit of a shame how PC6 was delayed from P0, only to just kind of show up in an inner voice. M. 18 also seems a little bit empty compared to the relative motion of the passage before it. It's a neat idea for a piece, though! Nice to see some different stuff on here once in a while.
  21. Everyone is welcome to contact me if they have questions about any of my scores! @Gustav Johnson, if you'd like to start a new thread for ideas, you can, but since I mostly run that portion of the forum you can just message me if you have a specific idea you want to elaborate on.
  22. CONGRATULATIONS @Gustav Johnson @Tónskáld @Noah Brode I've been so excited to get the feedback/scores for this that I forgot there would even be winners! You guys totally deserve your places at the top in this challenge! Each one of you wrote such a lovely submission. Great job guys! Can't wait for the next one!
  23. I've noticed there aren't many pieces representing more modern musical styles -so I'll add one of my newer works. This is part of a larger series of smaller piano works (Images). I apologize about the score, I used 'Flat' to input it from my manuscript and still am not used to it. Hope you enjoy!
  24. First one: I think a little bit of variety would do well here. Doesn't seem to be much until the end. Second one: I love the brevity of material here -and feel you could have done a bit more with it. Similar to the first one, your variation of the material doesn't provide as much variety. Third one: This one has a more playful nature to it -that I like. One thing that would really benefit this one is a bit more contrapuntal usage. Not sure if you thought about maybe transforming the base material of this into a more fugue-like passage, but it would lend itself well. I'm curious why these are all listed as being in C major?
  25. Hi, Alex. This is a delightful, enchanting waltz! The sections flow so seamlessly into each other, that it's hard to notice when the piece enters a new section, unless one is paying really close attention -- which in itself is difficult when the piece is this hypnotic. There are parts where the hand-span requirements seem pretty jaw-dropping. The span is huge. Especially in the parallel octaves section, where occasionally notes in the right hand need to play notes much greater than an octave apart. Possible, but extremely difficult, it seems. But that's about my only... 'gripe' shall we say. Anyways, keep up the good work. B.R. Sam
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...