Jump to content

panta rei

Old Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


panta rei last won the day on November 11 2018

panta rei had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About panta rei

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Occupation
  • Interests
  • Favorite Composers
    Too many to mention
  • My Compositional Styles
  • Notation Software/Sequencers
  • Instruments Played

Recent Profile Visitors

1,282 profile views
  1. Hello Pianist, Nothing wrong with "dark" music. On the contrary!, such music is usually the most emotional. And the major/minor rule is still very much valid. I enjoyed this piece very much. In fact, it is amazing! I love the way you handle the classical style. In my opinion ( and there I think I agree with Theo) you are one of the top composers on this forum. Best regards
  2. Hello Here is the revised version of my Fantasia
  3. Hello Serge, Thank you very much for your comments! I had more or less put this piece in the archive drawer, but your inputs prompted me to look at it again. I am particularly grateful that you have taken the time to revise the score. To write correct and playable scores is of great importance. I agree with you about trimming the 5-note chords. Unfortunately, I tend to write “to many notes” (LOL). However, I left the 5-note chords in 63,64,66 and 68, otherwise it would sound to “thin”. But I arranged it with cross-staves for best playability. I dropped some of the r.h. bottom-E notes in ms 83 and 84, and made some other changes- also in ms 85. Much better now! In ms 193, I removed the first three Eb´s of the 1/16th notes in the lower stave, and in 196, I removed all of them. (Likewise, I simplified 197 and 200. Again, much better! I have to think more about mss 33-40. For me, it does not come across as misplaced or comical, but I see what other people think of it. In any case, I would want to have a new passage with a temporary key-change at ms33, to avoid monotony. Finally I made some other corrections and small changes as you will notice (in the uploaded new score). I also replaced the playback file with a new one. Once more- Thanks a lot for your effort! Best regards.
  4. Thanks a lot ilv for your comments. I am glad that you like it. As you may have noted, I became a bit hesitant about it, but other people seem to like it as well. Best regards.
  5. Hello SonatainfSharp You are right! There are really a lot of similarities with Beethoven´s Tempest. When I started writing, I did not think at all about this piece (although I know it). I just wanted to get a feeling of waves on the sea, being in a small boat, and include some dramatic events. But when I was sort of half way, I suddenly realized the similarity to the third moment of the Tempest. But by then, it was a bit too late to change everything. I actually considered discarding the lot but somehow, I was in the mood to continue with it. I made some attempts to go in a different direction, but, apart from the change at bar 71, I only succeeded to change the rhythmic and melodic line after the arpeggio´s in bar 131-138 . Well, it is what it is, you can´t win them all. Maybe I should just delete it and forget about it. Again, thanks a lot for your comments!
  6. Hello Everybody, I just wrote a new piece for piano. It refers to my memories of a boat trip on the sea. I would be interested to hear what you think of it. (See the revised version in the post above) Best regards
  7. Nice effort- and brilliant, professional piano playing! The composition is in a typical Rachmaninoff-style. I have only one comment. I would suggest a bit more melodic variation/modulation (maybe in some of the slower sections). In my opinion, there is too much C# minor repetition all the time, which for my ears, becomes a bit monotonous after a while.
  8. Hello Monarcheon , ilv and Luis Thank you for your valuable inputs! Here are my answers: Monarcheon Well, I thought that a prelude should be quite short. Many of Chopin´s preludes are even shorter. But then, the preludes of Rachmaninoff are longer. I could certainly extend it a bit more, but I will have to think about how to keep the balance and symmetry between the different phrases. About the engraving: I agree with you that the score is very awkward to read (which is not good), especially the abundant cross-staff notes in the first part of the piece. The use of cross-staff notes is always a bit arbitrarily. Some people can rapidly and effortlessly jump over large distances (while still keeping a kind of legato, which is admirable!), while other pianists have to rely extensively on cross-hands work. Yes! The D-flats in M. 18 (and also m.20) should of course be C#. A key change to F-minor is a good idea (although it concerns only a few measures). But it looks better! I made a first attempt to revise the score, and I have replaced the old one. I would be very grateful for your additional comments. ilv I made a minor change in m. 5 to balance the flow of the melody. The 7th leap in m.7 should not be too difficult when you work out a suitable crossing of the left and right hand. The piece could of course be longer, but actually, I don´t feel that it is incomplete. In m. 24, all the notes are in place, but in connection with the next measure, I agree that it is a bit deceptive (like something is missing). I made a small change. Please let me know what you think of it. Luis Thanks a lot, Luis, for your comments. I am glad that you like it Regards to all of you.
  9. Hello everyone, I have not posted a composition for a while. Last week I wrote a new prelude (short,as it should be) for piano, and here it is.. I still may have to make some minor revisions, by re-checking the score and removing/altering some notes for enhanced playability, but most of it should be OK. I would be grateful to obtain your comments! Best regards.
  10. Hello everyone,

    I have not posted a composition for while. Last week I wrote a new prelude (short,as it should be) for piano, and here it is..

    I still may have to make some minor revisions, like re-checking the score and removing/altering some notes for enhanced playability, but most of it should be OK.

    I would be grateful to obtain your comments!

    Best regards.Prelude nr 3.mp3Prelude nr 3.mp3Prelude nr 3.mp3Prelude nr 3.mp3

  11. Splendid!, Amazing! I am extremely impressed. You should win this competition!
  12. Hello everyone, Recently, I had a look again at my older compositions, and I am posting this one (early 19th century style) here for review. It was my first attempt to write something for violin and piano. Since I am not a violin player, I am not so confident with the bowing slurs. But I suppose that a good violinist could easily help me with this. I have also written about half of the second movement, but I don´t know if it is worthwhile to continue ( working on so many other projects right now!) I am looking forward to your comments. Best regards, Johan
  13. Hello Monarcheon, Thanks a lot for your feedback! Yes, it is constructed in a classical style. You will have noticed that I incorporated quite a number of dissonances, but they all still fit in the classical structure (as long as you play it at the correct speed.) Your comment about the chord density was very interesting. My idea with this piece was to write a more or less continuous sequence of switching fairly dense chords for both hands, while maintaining a clear melodic line. As far as I know, there are not so many exercises of this kind. I had not looked at this piece for a while, but when I played it again, I can see what you mean. I noticed that several chords can be simplified without compromising the music at all. Since there is no point in making things more complex, if there is no musical purpose, I am urged to have a go at a revision to remove non-relevant notes. Thanks again for your excellent observation. Best regards
  14. Hello YC members, Here is another piece, which I wrote some time ago. Looking forward to your comments and critical viewpoints Best regards
  15. Hello Maarten, Emiliano and Maestrowick ! Thank you very much for your feedback. Really great to get such good reviews. You all pointed out the very low writing for the flute, and you are of course right. It´s true that the flute has no power in the bottom range, and playing fast passages are very difficult here. But then, there are not really so many fast passages for the flute in this low range. But I also have to admit that I do not know if still some of the writing is awkward for a flutist, since I am not a flute player. I do not think that there is much of a problem for the piano. The arpeggio´s do not require huge jumps and are comparatively slow, and the pianist should therefore be able to adjust the dynamics to a level, where the flute is not getting overpowered. But it remains to be seen how it all will work out in a live playback. I really appreciate Maestrowick´s suggestion of the alto flute. I do not know very much about that instrument, but it would be highly interesting to test. A clarinet or alto-sax would also be interesting, but I am not sure if the timbre of those instruments would fit this piece. I could test it electronically, and see what comes out of it, and let you know! A three movement piece? I have not considered it, but it´s a perfect idea. (Already getting ideas for a scherzo-type movement) . But then (ha-ha)…I just have to find the time to write it. Thanks again everyone for your valuable comments. Best regards, Johan
  • Create New...