Leaderboard

[INFO DUMP] Hello! It's been a few days, but I feel I also want to put my two cents. I am a professional Pianist and have been for a few years going so far as getting my Masters Degree, and hopefully soon a doctorate in this field. I can understand Peter's approach with a few caveats in my opinion. I want to share my views as a pianist versus a composer: When I read the title "Sonatine," I immediately think of the Ravel's piece of the same title. I have yet to do an harmonic and structural analysis of your work, and on the first listen, it is very much classical in style versus the impressionistic tone of Ravel. Simply an observation on this point. In terms of playing, what will stop anybody from playing this is the raw notation. It is my opinion that some decisions with the music came purely for playback purposes versus how it should be notated. After playing... probably at least 300+ pieces in my life (i've lost count...), you find there are standard notations for tremolos, trills, runs, embellishing passages, etc. MVT 1: Measure (mm) 25: What is the left hand? I am confused if it is meant to be a triplet or quarter note on 1 with two eighth notes. However, that doesn't fit the beats in the bar... Same at mm. 34. mm.45, why are the trills suddenly tiny? Are they meant to be played exactly, or are they only a suggestion? mm.64 is a little weird in the right hand with such quick thumb hops. It would be better to alternate constantly than hitting the thumb twice. It's asking for tension. mm.125, the left hand is still confusing and a little more so than before. MVT 2: Pianist's do not always need pedal markings to know when to pedal. Since you notated the pedal for the same rate, you can write it for the first few bars and at.. bar 5 for example, write "Ped. Simile". This tells us that you want the pedal to be the same the entire time. It also de-clutters the score and makes it easy on our eyes. To the clutter point, there are too many systems on one page sometimes. It makes it overwhelming for our eyes. You can shorten the systems to 4 measures as a way to help or limit the mvt to 5 staves per page. It will make it really nice to see on the page. mm.11 is confusing in this movement as the left hand notation is broken and feels misplaced. MVT 3: mm.59... we... can't do piano-fortes on a single note... A piano cannot crescendo on a single note once it's been struck. So.. is it piano, or forte? mm.74, I think it is better to write it as a 6-tuplet versus two triplets. Same at mm.90 mm.98-129. Be careful here, you keep the rhythmic pattern the same, but the interval sizes change all the time. This means the hand is constantly changing size and expanding and contracting. It will make it hard to play well, fast and consistent. It would be more comfortable if you kept the same intervals for longer. mm.146 onward: please just use the regular arpeggio sign. The one with the arrow is redundant and just means the same thing. It is uncommon notation for standard piano repertoire. mm.234: most likely, it will be played a little slower for clarity when done live. mm.386, yeah.... unlikely to be played that fast. Even with normal arpeggio fingerings, It will be played slower. mm.396-397 will be played as a glissando. Better to write that in too for clarity. Overall, it is very difficult and more importantly very uncomfortable for the hands. Specifically, you start the movements in a fine capacity, yet, it gets really hard to play near the ends of MVT 1 & 3. Please do not let this comment discourage you and I only wish to shed light into how a pianist would tackle this. It has potential to be programmed into a recital, and if you were to sit down and work out the kinks, I think the product will be swell.

MP3 Play / pause Prelude in C# minor 0:13 2:13 volume > next menu Prelude in C# minor > next PDF Prelude in C# minor I don't think you should extend it. It is a prelude. Anyways, nice prelude, with innovative ideas.

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

I've listened to it now at least 3 or 4 times because I like it a lot! I like the dynamic 'pause and go' flow throughout and full use of piano range. While it sounds difficult I would think any decent pianist could play it. Nice piano sound. What piano sound was it made with?

Hello @luderart! Thank you for sharing such a piece at a time when the earth is being ravaged by wars with frightening frequency! Two weeks ago - on the tragic fourth anniversary of the Russian invasion to Ukraine -, I posted my fugue („Dona nobis pacem“) which is dedicated to the victims of that particular war, and now we are faced with another war in Iran and elsewhere in the middle east! Even if your piece – or your three pieces or sentences – are rather short, they are good reminders not to despair, but to hope and pray for peace and for overcoming the evil.

I'm on a trip lol

Hello @Alex Weidmann! Nice mysterious Prelude! I'm surprised that @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu hasn't reviewed it yet since it's in his favorite key! 🤣 I have a few technical nit-picks: I've recently changed the way I write for piano through Musescore Studio 4 which I think might benefit you to hear about. If you favor the Musesounds Piano as I now have come to prefer, then in order to have more control over balance between the most important melody notes and less important background chords/figurations, you could actually load up two (or more) separate pianos and change the way they're displayed in the Layout section of the program (by deleting the bass clef portion of the right hand piano and deleting the treble clef portion of the left hand one). Then, not only will you be able to change the balance between the hands in the mixer, but you'll be able to give separate dynamics to each hand - an amount of control which you would lack with just one grand-staff track. Although you'd have to put in pedal marks for both tracks, and hide them in the top track. As well as hiding dynamics that are redundant. But I think bringing out the most important notes in each chord and passage will greatly improve at least my impression of the work. Another thing is the tempo. I noticed that you're trying to create a sense of novelty through the use of unusual rhythms and meters. I think it could be even more effective if you included an ebb and flow to the tempo by simulating a sort of constant rubato with choice accel.'s and rit.'s here and there. I can refer you to examples in my own catalog if you'd like, where such rubato gives a very satisfying result (at least in my opinion) and cases where the piece would suffer greatly from the mechanicality of the rendition if not for the rubato. Some places to consider including an accel. and rit.: bar 30 accel. into 31 I think would be a nice paired with that crescendo you already have. Other than that, nice job! I also question the interruption of the expected 4/4 flow of the beginning melody with the 9/8 measure - I think that's unnecessary. Thanks for sharing!

Made this account just so I could upload this and remind y'all never to end in minor : ) Also accidental Shostakovich in bar 3.

You are back Jason! Henry

So, I've been binge watching a lot on music history and the development of compositional styles from pretonal to modern day. I came across these interesting lectures by Leonard Bernstein -yes, the great conductor and composer from the latter half of the 20th century. To add some context of my interest in this stuff.... these lectures were done in 1973 -just 7 years before my birth! So, they are still quite current within the musical discussion. To sum it up: most composers see a dichotomy of crisis within the 20th century that has continued into the 21st century. As Bernstein states within these lectures, this led to a split in aesthetics with Stravinsky on one side and Schoenberg on the other. We see this split today (despite Stravinsky's later adoption of serial technique late in his life). Bernstein also, rightly, predicts an 'age of eclecticism' in music. His prediction -which does appear to have come true- isn't coupled with any discussion of whether it is a positive or negative addition to our high art form. Here's the link! Let the discussion begin!

A symbolist piece, recently finished, now time to see if it needs a few touch ups. Modern but not atonal. I'm trying to put a suite together of similar styled pieces. This would likely be one of the middle movements. If you have time to spare please give it a hearing and make any comments or suggestions you like - always gratefully received - including to the score. There's one discrepancy between score and audio: I originally wrote a part for bass flute but transferred it in the score to the bass clarinet.

Interesting. This piece definitely has his pointilistiv, minimal tendencies. Your user of gestures is also reminiscent of him.

Very interesting musical ideas here. I like the energy behind your writing. That said, I'm noticing some issues here and there. First, some of your double stops on violin (and the viola in the orchestral rendition you posted) are nearly impossible to play. 4th movement, measure 13 for instance. Third position (III) would make this somewhat doable -but there'd definitely be a high risk of intonation issues due to the awkwardness of the fingering needed here. The double stops mm 11 and 12 also are difficult due to the fact you have the violinst in 5th position. Cpincidentally, the bowing here would make the accent on the first beat of bar 11 impossible. If you want that all bowed, then I'd recommend you crescendo that passage to bring out that first double stop. Measure 31, the double stop here doesn't quite make sense -it's doable, but I'm wondering if that's a wrong note. Bowing at measure 47 is going to make the accent on bar 48 nearly impossible... particularly with the held trill afterwards. I'd look at redoing this passage. Keep in mind with your slurs that string players -while they can adjust the speed of the bow while applying pressure to sustain dynamics- only have so much bow available to use!

This is my second fantasy for Orchestra. I'm going to give a bit more -just due to the fact I'm planning on sending this to a local orchestra. My inspiration for using the fantasy form comes from Mozart's fantasies for piano. I loved the way Mozart took the improvisatory technique and used it compositionally -where each section is based off material from the previous section. I tried looking for Britten's Phantasie on Youtube -but sadly, couldn't find a good one with score to analyze prior to writing this (but I heard his work did the same thing?) Anyways, I also wanted to go off the idea of a 'dream-like' opening as I did in my first fantasy (which I'm reorchestrating and recomposing sections of). This one opens and ends in a similar fashion. However, I've applied more of what I've learned orchestrating and have more extensive brass parts and a timpani part written out. That said, I'm probably going to redo the ending of this one to make it more final. I'm probably going to compose more of these types of orchestral works. I really enjoyed writing this and love the result of it. Hope you all enjoy!

I'm glad you enjoyed it -despite you're deep love of my string quartet <3! I really took the idea of the fantasie from the set of them composed by Mozart. In those, he does a similar thing -he gravitates from one idea to the next. They are really free form in that regard -and this follows suit. I really tried finding more modern usage of the form for study -but came short. At any rate, I'll delve deeper here into the construction of the piece. Tonality: I really did a slight of hand here. The tonality is loosely based on the Phrygian Mode -but, I say loosely as I alter the mode within each section (first by flattening the first note, then the fourth, then the fifth). This is why the section at measures 121 -144 sounds remote from the implied tonal center of E. It's probably also why the ending doesn't sound complete to me. I established E as the tonal center right at the outset with the suspended chords in the strings -with woodwind punctuation to offset the fact the passage isn't functional at all. The chords were designed diatonically with stacked thirds -but the progression created was meant to create a state of stasis. That said, the remainder of the work features a myriad of tertian, quartal, and quintal harmonies -sometimes superimposed on top of each other. I also use secundal harmony and 'cluster' chords (but spaced out over the ranges of the instruments to lessen the dissonant impact of the chords}. This type of spatial placement is modern. The lack of functional harmony is also why there aren't any 'formal' cadences. Instead, I had to rely on gestural cadences which are clear -but the rendering via midi doesn't quite do these justice as live musicians would do. Motivic Development and Unity: In keeping with the form of a fantasy, the material here is pretty much reduced. The material for each segment comes from an idea I found interesting in the preceding section -all of which is tied into the material found in the 1st violin from measures 35 - 40. Again, the modal alterations that I made throughout the sections impacts the segments from the motivic units I used per section. The material is then treated in an improvisatory manner -which is why it's bounced around and manipulated but moves quickly from one idea to the next (much as if you were improvising on your instrument). Atonal vs. Tonal: This is really the nuts and bolts of the entire query you had -so I'll give it a go. I've been doing a lot of thought of where I want my music to go and what contributions I want to make to our art as a composer. I've been listening to a lot of orchestral music of late and I happened to notice that a lot of the modern orchestral works either are huge sound masses that explore textural changes at the expense of melodic or motivic development. Works that use thematic material don't seem to really do much imaginative with it -not as some of the great modernist composers of the 20th century did (Bartok, Ligeti, Stravinsky, etc.) I started this piece with the idea of doing a 'sound mass' sort of American Landscape type work BUT... I got to thinking.... do we really need another? I mean, most of these type of works are usually a few listens and then you're done with them sort of pieces. They rely solely on the orchestration and coloration provided by a symphony orchestra -and very little else. I decided I had to do something different. My response was to go the opposite direction and look at the works of the greats of the 20th century and see what I could use within my own musical language. From Stravinsky, I took the ostinato usage from his works in the 1910s. To me, this was an interesting way to establish a sense of tonality -where tonality wasn't exactly functional in nature. From Ligeti, I looked at his use of brevity found within his Bagatelles for Wind Quartet. The whimsical nature of these works with his scaled back use of chromaticism and dissonance were quite breath taking. Yet, they are modern in their own right. From Bartok, his use of implied tonality. I think he excelled far greater than Stravinsky in that department as he utilized similar juxtapositions. Overall, I feel this work definitely builds on what was laid in my string quartet. While the string quartet definitely is more dissonant due to the contrapuntal interplay of the passages, it too has an implied tonality to it. It also uses a myriad of harmonic styles within each movement similar to this -along with the lack of 'formal' cadences. Hopefully, this in depth look at my inner thoughts on this piece is useful. Thanks again for listening and glad you enjoyed it!

Hey So, I've thought a while as to what to say to you, and well, I think that the more honest I am, the more you could benefit from the words. Just know, I think you're a fantastic composer, and your string piece I basically gushed over won me over to your style. I like the patterns I see in your music, especially with you establishing some sort of theme, and then having static rhythms truck along under a secondary thought. I don't know if this matters, but when I first listened, I intently followed along with the score. But after a few times through, I just let the music play while staring at a non-moving discord server, and it seemed to help with my thoughts about your music. Firstly, I love how you really toy around with motifs. Not only did you develop an idea and then explore it's evolution throughout the piece, but you toss it around equally to the other instrument colors available to you. You're great at this, and I think your exploration into your current modern language has helped you tremendously with it. My only qualm is that your material never really "went" anywhere, at least to me. You would develop these great sections, only to be transitioned into something else. Maybe that's the whole point of the fantasia style you were going for, but I just never felt proper cadences or anything like that. I'm probably just a noob, not really fully grasping the grand scope of this piece, but that's just how it felt to a layman like me. Honestly, that was my only real gripe with this one, musically at least. You do such a great job utilizing every sound at your disposal, but I just felt like it was directionless at times. Again, maybe I didn't fully understand the full picture, and maybe it's written plainly in the notes you laid out for us, but aurally I didn't comprehend it to your fullest intent. Sometimes, right when I felt like it was going somewhere I could understand, we had another transition to another idea. Sure, that idea probably came from some logical nucleus, but I missed the seed as it grew. I dunno, just my impression. Aside from that, I love the orchestration. I really like how you took a more modern approach to the ensemble, favoring colors and timbre over dynamics in lots of stuff versus bits of stuff. I would have maybe like to see a bit more variation in what the instruments are capable of as far as techniques, but eh, it's fine as is. I'm curious about the nature of the language you favor in your writing. This seems a little more conservative, I'm just wondering what makes you decide whether something should be tonal and what should stretch our ears more regarding consonance? Is there a rhyme or reason to it or is it just where inspiration is taking you at the moment? Overall, I love the orchestral side of your writing, and I'm eager to hear where you take this avenue next. You're someone I look out for whenever something new is posted, and it's only natural that not everything you write speaks to me in the same way your latest string quartet did. It's not that it isn't well crafted, it assuredly is, but just wasn't my favorite from your repertoire. Keep writing and posting my friend, your output is only as admirable as your quality of work. Well done!

Honestly, I don't think the number of composers has really increased over the past few decades. There were certainly a LOT of composers who we never heard of -or at least didn't find a place in the continued performance repertoire. In terms of music from the medieval period.... we know music was well spread amongst the full throngs of society as we also have traces of this fact in our own folk music histories. One exceptional example is the troubadour and trovatores of southern europe. There's an extensive tradition of pub drinking songs in England as well. That said, I like your view at the end. Very heart felt!

What about Bach V2.0 for excellent counterpoint...