Leaderboard

I‘m glad to hear that, and to see that you are not too „disappointed“ or overwhelmed by the discussions. Since I see that you are (again) in „good hands“ with @muchen_ continuing a detailed discussion, I will not go so much in detail, but give only some more general thoughts. I‘ve noticed your new version (v3.mp3 – not yet v3m.mp3). Will say that I put it together with the first one on my playlist and listened them, in a loop, perhaps a dozen times while walking. I do the same with my own compositions (where I use different piano soundfonts producing 10 different recordings of the same piece) and listen to them extensively while I take a long walk. This approach helps me to judge the piece whether it is fluent and I get distracted from my thoughts every time something „rattles“. Will say, a more relaxed review on the work thru listening only – being away from the score – is very useful to find out bars which need overhaul or get new ideas how a piece could be continued. Coming to the two versions of your invention I‘ve listened, I must say they are only slightly different (which is good in the sense that your corrections/modifications had no impact on the overall mood). The longer I listened them, the more I loved the subject with the repeated notes! Yes, in the first version there are the few bars, where the „octaves“ produced a bit „thin“ sound in the counterpoint. They have gone away in the newer version (what is good) except of – in my listening impression - two bars, one at the first subject entry in the lower voice and one bar nearly the end. So, I will now look to the score to see whether I can find out what I thought to have heard. ... The one bar which retains to sound „thin“ is bar 4 and the other one is bar 22. Yes there is an octave on an A on the second of the repeated notes. But I think, it‘s not the octave only - there are other ones on a C in bar 3, last of the repeated notes and on a F# in bar 5, second of the repeated notes – which don‘t need „correction“ in my listening impression. I think the „problem“ in bars 4 and 22 is more harmonic nature, I would replace the three sixteenth notes in the upper voice [G A B] with [E# F# G#] emphasizing the dissonance between B major and the four repeated A naturals. Because this was more detailed than I initially intended to be in this repost, so take it not too seriously. The more general question I have – and you probably have yourself – is what do you intend with, for example, this particular invention. If it is an exercise, you‘ll have learned something, especially about „octaves“ – and can leave it at that, going to the next one. But perhaps this is not the best idea to continue with the 1601st exercise, as you seems to me to be already somewhat „overteached“ and „overpracticed“. If you are about to create a „full fledged“ composition of it, we could further talk about episodes, cadences and a more elaborated ending. However, I suspect that you would prefer for that purpose another piece with a subject of your own, which than will be „complete your baby“. For that case, I would suggest you to put your composition in a more larger „framework“, such as in a cycle of, for example of six or twelve inventions, calling it somewhat like „Mein Notenbüchlein“ 😅. I think, that‘s quite enough for today! Greetings, Wieland.

It'll take some time though.

Oh yes, please do. I'm convinced it will sound different - and better.

“It’s a huge…comment!” Lol. Thanks for the supportive and constructive feedback. I have inserted my comments inside brackets: “It's a huge improvement from the previous piece. The countersubject you've written is very melodious, and you've exploited its scalar nature and its rhythm very well for the rest of the piece.” [The original motive is longer than you thought. There is an important stretto in this #10 (see pic) and I cannot take full credit for the scalar line and the rhythm]. “ The harmony in your counterpoint is very apparent and well-constructed too: the first bar outlines descending thirds, and the second bar is a dominant chord. The issues regarding accented 8ves are also no longer there. You can refine your countersubject slightly though. All of the semiquavers in bar 4 should be raised by 1 pitch. This will both highlight the underlying dominant harmony, and also lead to the E in the following bar more smoothly. “ [yes it sounds better! I made this change to bar 4, 10 & 22. I have also changed some registers because it became too high or separated. Then I made a few adjustments in bar 10.17 and 12.83 (see v3m.mp3) ] “With this change, your solution will be perfectly acceptable, but a slightly more musically "interesting" solution will be to turn the beginning of bars 3 and 4 into 4-3 suspensions.” [The motive ‘forbids’ that change, I suppose. It could be possible at bar 3. For bar 4, on the other hand, I cannot have there a 4-3 suspension because the 3 doesn’t belong to the V chord. In fact there was a 4|7 at bar 4 in the original motive, but I cheated and replaced it with a 8|7 because I wanted a VI, not a iv or a ii° chord. Am I wrong? Should I bring back the 4 of aiv or ii°? ] [And for the 3 other points, I’ll look at it closely and rework my piece. Thanks a lot for this precious advice ;)]

Hallo @TristanTheTristan! Even your Sonatina has a length of a Sonata, I think it was wise to call it „Sonatina“ only, due to its youthful spirit and its refrain from the drama and heaviness of a „full-fledged“ sonata. So it is a cheerful, enjoying piece at all! However, what refuses me to count it as a piece that I would enjoy to put in my playing list is its hyperactivity expressed by the much to fast and repeating passages with ornamentations (trills, tremolos etc.) which heavily remind me on your signature „TristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristanTristanTheTristan ….“. I can therefore only emphasize @PeterthePapercomPoser' questions about playability for a human performer and would love to hear the piece as it would be interpreted by a real pianist, whether it's a live recording or a recording from a MIDI file. In the latter case, however, more sensitivity to the technical abilities of a human pianist and their enormous nuances in articulation, dynamics, tempo, etc. would be required.

Hi @TristanTheTristan! It's a vigorous sonatina brimming with your youthful energy! The only thing I didn't care for was the meaningless shows of impossible virtuosity. I think you are not composing for a human being but rather for the computer program which is a shame. Making music possible to be played does not make it worse which is something I don't think that you understand. But even with that - I enjoyed many parts of the piece - the adventurousness of the 3rd movement especially. But the 2nd movement was horribly boring and the melodies in the 1st movement were meaningless scalar passages. There are so many parts of your piece that are mechanical and robotic that I won't go through mentioning them by measure number as it would be too herculean a task. I don't know - don't you want to write music that could someday be performed? Or do you want to be known as a midi or Musescore composer for the rest of your life? Thanks for sharing.

I would be more along the lines of giving a good classical guitarist an electric to play around with for a couple of months.

I've used an 8-bit soundfont here because I have not found any orchestral soundfonts that I liked. Everything has just too much vibrato and too heavy a texture from a HIP (historically-informed performance) point of view. I think Bach works well realised as 8-bit music so this is the approach I took. If you prefer audio which is faithful to the original instrumentation then I've attached a version of it here.