Leaderboard

Well, whether or not you wrote specific bowings, you still wrote slur markings for the strings, which to them imply bowing information. Whether or not it's explicit, you can always justify your reasoning as the following; "With the given technicality of the work already demanding high accuracy from the performer, I wanted to take today to test if my orchestration would make the bowing information clear and implicit. For today, I decided to give their bowing instructions based on the slur markings in their parts, and following this session, I will amend and update the bowing instructions on the final copy of the score before its first performance." This essentially covers you in case they ask about it

I really enjoyed this! I think you capture the "voice" of Schoenberg that he has in most of his orchestral works. I said this in a previous review, but orchestration is really subjective....so here are my suggestions: First piece I think the oboe is suppose to be piano as well (it's not marked in the score). I also think the pickup Trumpet run can be transferred to the clarinet I don't think the 1st trombone needs to double the cello/horn in the 4th bar. In measure 7, unless the orchestra has 5 timpani drums (or an EXTREMELY good player who can quickly adjust tuning) that is going to be difficult In measure 8, that trumpet part looks questionable...that 32nd note might be messy In bars 13-14, probably could combine the cello/bass part to be played by divided cello....helps with thinning out the sound since it's marked p Generally, it's really hard for brass players to play pp or ppp when there is a moving/active part with leaps. I would give the trombone/tuba part to a bass clarinet and/or bassoon near the end. Second piece I would've used bassoons instead of horn in the 2nd measure. They sound more "dry" staccato and will blend with the pizzicato I'm assuming "ord" means Arco? make that clear in the string parts Trombones don't usually read in treble clef. I would change that to a tenor clef in the last measure. Third piece I would just have the tuba play without doubling from trombone. The passage is already pp and tuba has a more rounder sound for that I think the pppp markings are a bit much Fourth piece Measure 10: that bassoon/trumpet figure is going to be very tricky to play in unison. I would just have trumpet play it (even though it would be a challenge) Fifth piece From how it's written in the score, it looks you only want half of the 2nd violin section play measures 8-11? Sixth piece There is a lot of pp and ppp in here...but a lot of instrument doubling - for example bars 5-6 cello/bass doubling bass trombone/tuba AND all bass instruments the last measure. I would do mutes for all strings and brass in this piece. Maybe even solo strings to reduce the sound. The last two eight notes could easily be just a single bass player doing pizzicato

Hello @Luis Hernández ! I’m not able to write a „review“ today since therefore I would like to explore the six little piano pieces in more depth in its original version to compare them with your orchestration. So for now, all I can say is that I really enjoyed them and consider them good examples of orchestration—especially for someone like me who has no experience yet. The great thing about them is that the pieces are so short yet still expressive—so there should be no excuse not to go even deeper into the details (if the time allows me). Now, somewhat off-topic: Two days ago, I attended a performance of Dvořák’s “Stabat Mater” with a full orchestra and a massive choir (430 singers). This was a real fun, not only because of the bombastic sound, but also because I was able to follow Dvořák’s orchestration live. It is the total contrast to the „six little piano pieces“, since he stays very long on the harmonies and even single tones – letting them „rotate“ through the entire orchestra. At one point, you hear and see the cellos playing a chord while the double basses accompany them with pizzicato. A moment later, you can still hear the chord, but you see that the cellos have stopped playing, and after a moment of surprise, you realize that the horns have taken over and the pizzicato has been reinforced by the timpani. Yet the transition was so seamless that you didn’t even notice the change in instruments, only a slight shift in timbre. And by the way, the first movement of the “Stabat Mater” begins with exactly one note being played for nine measures, passing through all the instruments before the main theme begins. That reminded me of one of your recent posts: “What can I do with two notes?” 🙂

The six short piano pieces date from 1911 and belong to the free atonal period, preceding a more “radical” systematization.

You sure you're not an English major too? 😂 I like how you spun that 😆

Thx bro - you were a HUGE help!! I learned so much.

Thanks for the comments, Alex! The piccolo will sound an octave higher than written, so technically it is still pitched above the flutes. I agree! I tried figuring out how to do this in Dorico but couldn't figure it out without it looking weird (hence my note). The "vertical" accents denote Marcato. My interpretation is that they are played stronger than your regular accent and are slightly shorter in duration (a half note maybe played as a dotted quarter perhaps)...each note with the Marcato marking needs to be hammered and short-ish. Err...I guess that is subjective and depends on the context of what else is going on in the score. sffz definitely is more "hammered" than sfz

Hallo @HarryWood ! First of all, a warm welcome here at the YoungComposers Forum! Here are you among numerous music enthusiasts of a huge variety concerning their styles, compositional approaches and skills, so that I think, you’ll get the desired feedback. I was curious about what to expect about the style of your music, since you’ve called you a „new neo classical“ piano composer. The term „classical“ reminds me first to Beethoven or Mozart and „neo“ means for me to integrate more contemporary harmony and tonality. After listening to your pieces, they remind me more of Beethoven’s „Für Elise“, Richard Clayderman’s „Ballade Pour Adeline“ or „Comptine d'un autre ete – l'apres-midi“ from the French movie „Amelie“. Although all that pieces are very popular, that kind of genre is – as mentioned already by @Luis Hernández – somewhat too soft and non-exciting for me, too. Please don’t misunderstand that as a criticism on your person or your achievements in piano playing for about one year. The pieces sound good and have a calm mood, but putting some more ingredients in them would make them more unique: Whenever I think about what a good piece requires, the following things come to my mind: • First, a piece needs an idea how it could sound like, what mood it should have or which other pieces could be used as an inspiration (I think, that „ingredient“ you have already achieved with your pieces). • What a piece makes unique or captivating is a clever idea, creating a „unique selling point“, bringing some surprise to the listener. That is the „spice“ of the unexpected, for example a distinct harmony progression, an unexpected tonality or dissonances or a rhythmic surprise such as an unconventional meter (so I could imagine for your pieces a kind of Jazz harmony or somewhat more dissonant harmonies). • Another important thing is to think about the form of the piece. While this is a more theoretical topic, one sometimes has a good melodic idea (or even a number of), but the question is, how to put them together. So now the reflection comes, what the piece could be structurally, a simple A-B-A form, a rondo, in sonata form, a number of variations about the main theme? • A final question could be: In which context should the piece appear? I could imagine, that it is more satisfying to have an idea or „project“ of multiple pieces to be put together, for example, in a cycle such as „Six preludes“ or something like that. With such a framework in mind, you don’t run the risk of trying to create numerous unrelated pieces and perhaps putting them „unfinished“ away. The incentive „Now have I finished number four of six“ helps yourself to focus and you’ll see, nearly every piece is worth it to be retained. Looking around here at the forum would be a perfect place to get inspiration and don’t hesitate to „review“ other compositions too, even if they are from „more experienced“ composers. Every reply is welcome and receiving the „incentives“ (such as points, badges and finally ranks) does not primarily depend on the quality and quantity of the compositions you shared, but even more from the amount of feedback you’ve given. And, by the way, if you share your scores, too, the reviewers would be able to give more in-depth reply, for example also concerning the „art“ of score engraving. Friendly regards. Wieland

Hi everyone! I'm currently working on a 4 movement Piano Sonata in E minor, and I've already written the first movement, at around a little over 10 minutes in length alone. Im 15 years old, and although I'm a classically trained pianist studying at the peabody preparatory, I'm a self taught composer, so I'd appreciate any feedback on notation, structure, and really anything else that could benefit the piece, which could help me refine further. The piece is in sonata form, with the A and B themes in the exposition both lasting from m.1-163 (A - m.1-82, B - m.83-163), a development section (with a brief 24 measure Fugato on the main theme from m.21-37) lasting from m.164-219, and then the recap from m.220-293. The piece goes through many modulations, occasional complex polyrhythms, chromaticism, complex late-romantic/impressionist harmonies, cross-staff textures, delayed resolutions, distant key relationships, using "deceptive" major keys, and it ends the exposition in B major, the dominant, rather than G major the relative major. The development begins with the fugato in D# minor, and then after going through A# minor, G# minor, Ab major, breaking the fugato, and E major, it begins the recap back in E minor, moving through a few more keys to finally reach E major in the end. For this sonata, I'm very inspired by liszt (both his more virtuosic showpieces and his more introspective late works), especially with how he uses thematic development and combines "mephisto" drama with lyrical spirituality. In the beginning of my piece, you have the main motive of the entire piece, what I call the "B octave motive", since it's just octaves in both hands repeating the note B, but this single motive (both rhythmically and melodically) can be found in almost every section of the piece, from the tempestuous A theme, to the spiritual, watery and flowing B theme. The polar opposite contrast between the A and B themes creates both immense technical and musical demands for the performer, while still being idiomatic. Additionally, many of the ideas in this sonata, come from my own improvisations over the years, which I think helps give me a little bit of a distinct voice, but I'd like to know the perspectives of others. As I already mentioned, all feedback is appreciated! Note: the first link is me playing a slightly cut version of the exposition, and links 2 and 3 show me playing the parts I cut out from the first link. Links: https://youtu.be/MyptBsYMNiw https://youtube.com/shorts/-kIa8oVrUg4 https://youtube.com/shorts/_eLFRSilBzs https://youtube.com/shorts/_lOHz4Nz5qE https://youtu.be/qlEPGqwAq64 Piano Sonata in E Minor - Full Score.pdf

Thanks for posting @Sebastian Guzman ! It's been a while since I've listened to the Liszt B minor Sonata, but I am definitely getting vibes of it here (most assuredly from your B-octave motif). Your musical language in this work does feel very Lisztian to me, which is inclusive of the harmony and the piano textures, and that I mostly do mean as a compliment. I'm curious to know what other influences/inspirations you may have had while writing this movement though, as some sections do seem to draw from other wells of musical ideas (e.g. the harmonic movements in b. 91-105 felt distinctly modern to me). I confess that I am not really in a position to offer super helpful advice but I hope you'll find this useful anyway. I also don't mean any suggestion as an attack on your writing, of course, but as an exchange of ideas that you could optionally disregard :) Exposition The B-octave motif is very reminiscent of one of the motifs in the B minor Sonata, haha. I see that the majority of the dotted rhythm in this motif is the backbone for the rhythm of the A theme, if I am correct... I noticed in your trimmed-down video you seemed to have cut out b. 54-62 from the A theme and b. 105-118 from the B theme? Admittedly, I prefer the abridged version as I thought the material in question to be a little redundant, given that you do cover well and to great length both themes in the exposition. My thematic economy side of my brain would like to think that one should only state a theme until the listener is familiar enough with it to recognise said theme when it pops up in the development. If you wanted to keep said material for symmetry/form-related reasons/other personal preferences, though, by all means do so. I do love the B theme in all of its mellow sweetness, especially its first half. The second half of the B theme feels a bit static with the repeated notes, but coupled with the rolling left hand accompaniment, it does give a sense of floating/gliding, if that is what you desired. As I said, I quite like the harmony you move through in b. 91-105. A charming change in texture from b. 154 onwards! Development The fugato start of the development seems a bit dry? I can see where you are going with the material but I'm not super convinced by b. 164-187, though I suppose some pedal would help, or varying the articulation and texture a tad more even if a fugato. I didn't quite exactly get fugato vibes from it either, given how long the statement of the theme is. This is completely a suggestion, of course, and it is up to you as to how you'd like your sonata to work, but perhaps using only the first phrase of the theme (b. 164-166) and then building up a series of entries in other voices could be rather effective. I somewhat find this example to also be a bit dry, but I like the energy build-up of this fugato moment in the development of the fourth movement of Scriabin's Third Sonata, if you wanted something similar. Interesting, from b. 178 onwards in the fugato, you introduce another voice that is the B theme, or at least an echo of it, if I'm correct? I am a big fan of juxtaposing thematic material in the development sections of sonatas, if so... The material in b. 196-215 seems a bit overly virtuosic? I'm uncertain whether there might be some significance in the chords/harmonies you use here, but I think it'd be great to insert more of the existing thematic material in here, fragmented or whatnot. Overall, the development feels short to me, not in the least because I feel like you could've pulled out your compositional chops a bit more. Given the length of the exposition, I think this deserves a heftier development with varied treatment and inclusion of all three of the A and B themes and the B-octave motif. Trying to set the tempestuous A theme or the B-octave motif into the suave atmosphere/mood of the B theme, for example, or more chopping and changing, there are a wide variety of things you could do. Liszt can of course be a great source of ideas here! Recap Nice to restate the B-octave theme. Maybe the transition from the end of the development could be made smoother? I'm not sure though. I like the recasting of the textures in the recap of the A theme, but it feels a little airy? I'm not sure if you were going for that feel, and if you were, then I am in no place to complain. I suppose you could add some deep bass notes on the offbeats to give it a bit more body and hold them with your regular pedal, or see if the sostenuto pedal could work (though it could make the right hand arpeggios rather dry). I also appreciate the A theme being a bit shorter here... With b. 236 onwards and B theme, the energy seems to drop somewhat, with almost the exact statement of the original B theme but transposed. It is once again up to you, but you could also recap the B theme in a different texture, as you did with the A theme. I felt like the energy levels ought to have ramped up a bit more moving further and further down to match the energy of b. 282 onwards to the coda, possibly? At the moment, the ending feels mildly content with itself, though I would think the large chords and dynamics would suggest otherwise. With notation and formatting, I also admit I'm not the best person to offer advice, but there does seem to be the occasional odd things, e.g. whatever is stretching out b. 122 (the rest in the upper staff can also be removed there), the clipping of text at the end of the system at b. 248-250, and the slightly overzealous floating slur in b. 288. I've been told that with hairpins, it's best practice to state exactly which dynamic the hairpin starts and ends at, including double hairpins like < so >, but I am open to corrections. Yeah, that's most of what I have to offer with thoughts. Excellent playing, by the way, I almost forgot to mention! This already looks like a difficult sonata so far with this first movement and you interpreted it very pleasingly, at least to my ears, and in a very convincing way (though I suppose it is up to the composer yourself to decide whether it was served justice, lol).