Jump to content

panta rei

Old Members
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

panta rei last won the day on October 30

panta rei had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

21 Excellent

About panta rei

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sweden
  • Occupation
    Scientist
  • Interests
    Music
  • Favorite Composers
    Too many to mention
  • My Compositional Styles
    Classical
  • Notation Software/Sequencers
    Sibelius
  • Instruments Played
    Piano

Recent Profile Visitors

1,454 profile views
  1. I thought that I had finally finished my 4th étude, but then I found several errors, so I will post it later. In the meantime, I am posting an earlier étude (nr2), which I revised quite a lot about two years ago. I dedicated it to a great pianist and friend, who passed away. I would like to know what you think of it.
  2. Very good work! Just right for a beginner/intermediate student. It is a simple etude but to write a simple and good piece is not always so simple. I think that your harmonic and melodic progression is excellent. Also, when listening to your other uploads, I must say that you actually have a feeling for this, which is great. The rhythmic structure of the piece is a nice choice. Of course, this structure has been used many times by other composers ( my first thought, when looking at your piece, went to the 21th prelude (in B-flat) of the first album of “ Das Wohltemperiete Klavier”) Funny to say that I have also considered writing an étude using this structure (and so, apparently, has J.Santos). But I think that this is no problem at all. There are an infinitive number of new possibilities!, Thanks a lot for uploading this little piece.
  3. OK, sorry that I misinterpreted your comment. But I think that my points about the playback are still valid. But you could be right, and a monotony could still be present, even with an improved playback or a live performance. Therefore, I will just forget about any further work with this piece, and I will put it away in my archive. In any case, it was fun to write it and it was a useful exercise for me. And thanks a lot for your valuable comments.
  4. Sounds nice, Good work! I am not too bothered by using two violins ( it gives the music a certain charm). But I would write another ending of the piece. It is a bit too abrupt for me.
  5. Thanks a lot for your comments. I listened again to the playback which I posted, and I can actually see your point. But I don´t think that the problem with the potential monotony is caused by the continuous 3/4 rhythm, but that it is due to the mechanical electronic playback (for example too much emphasis on the pha-pha of the hum-pha pha rhythm). The waltzes from Chopin also have this rhythm, but when rubato´s and small tempo changes as well as other delicate nuances of expression are added, they are far from monotonous. And this can only be achieved in a live performance. (I will try to improve the electronic playback if I find the time to do this. It means quite a lot of work)
  6. Thank you Tónskáld for your nice words. I think that the first version was basically OK, but then, a waltz goes of course in 3/4 .
  7. Thanks a lot for your comments. You are absolutey right about the fermatas ! You will see that the uploaded score is now revised. I kept the fermatas where I think they are justified. The ubiquitous fermatas were due to an accidental carry-over from another score. I usually work with two scores; one for electronic playback and a final one for real musicians. Without the fermatas in the playback version, you would get the impression of a steam engine at work. In a real performance, the pianist will of course intuitively feel where to make tempo changes, small pauses, rubatos etc.. This is very difficult to achieve with an electronic playback, but it is better than nothing. The choice of key is very important for me. If I would transpose the piece to another key, it would sound strange for me. Thanks again for your very useful feedback!
  8. Hello, Recently, I posted this waltz, but after getting some comments, I decided to make some changes. I removed the 4/4 part of the piece, and replaced it with 3/4 (as it should be). I think that this was a significant improvement, what do you think?
  9. Hello CyberPianist, I could not resist writing something about your piece. Foremost, I was very impressed by the wonderful chords you are using in your marche funèbre! There is a great potential for the things you are doing, and your talent is obvious to me. Admirable! But I have some critical remarks and suggestions as well (Please note that these are strictly my personal viewpoints), I was puzzled by the high speed beginning and the end of the prelude. What did you want to say with this? Personally, I would not be inclined to combine such fast sections with a marche funèbre (which is the core of your piece). After all, a marche funèbre is something about mourning, a deep feeling of loss and a remembrance. About the marche funèbre itself: The r.h. chords together with the l.h. bass octaves/chords are wonderful harmonies. The tempo and the rhythm is excellent and some of the short term harmonic progressions are excellent, good or OK. But when I listened again and again to the march, I got a feeling that there was somehow a lack of coherence. I actually think that the problem is a lack of a coherent melody. When I say melody, I do not only mean a single voice line, but also a melodic-harmonic chord progression. As an example, I am thinking of the marche funèbre of Beethoven (in sonata nr. 12). It has a very simple melody but the harmonic chord progression is the salient feature for the drama of this march (the same is true for Chopin´s march funèbre). Another thing I did not understand. Why did you simplify bar 44 and 45 by skipping the chords? Was the meaning of this to create a transition to the fast ending? Musically, for me it did not really make much sense. BUT! You have the right tools in your march. With another harmonic/melodic progression structure of your chords, I believe that you could actually create a masterpiece!
  10. Hello Markus, Thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate your suggestion about bar 100, but I am sorry to say that it does not appeal to me. The descending scale in bar 100 starts off with an accentuated ff, and runs in decrescendo towards p. This provides a smooth transition to the phrase in bar 103-106, which is actually a modified repetition of the initial theme in bar 1-4, (you probably have noticed this). The repetition is a kind of “echo", to suggest the approaching end of the piece. If I would adopt your idea, it would announce that something very dramatic is to be expected. I would then have to get rid of everything which comes after bar 100, and replace it with something else. In principle, this would be possible, but I am afraid that the piece may lose cohesiveness. Another thing, about doubling the octaves. I would find it very awkward to play this in (semi) legato style without pedaling (a skilled concert pianist could probably do it). Staccato would be easy, but that would not be nice. I was very pleased to read your comments, because it forced me to think a little bit more why I did the different things.
  11. Hello Camfrtt Thanks again for your comments and your compliments. The ending of the piece? Well- I just felt that a simple ending was adequate. Fine (and fun for me) if anyone has a different view on this.
  12. Hello Santos, Thanks for your comment. I am glad that you liked it.
  13. Thanks a lot Tónskáld for your comment. Mendelssohn again? His style must have been in my mind somewhere!
  14. Thanks a lot Camfrtt för your comment. Interesting that you mentioned Mendelssohn. Actually, I did not have any thoughts about Mendelssohn, when I wrote this piece. But then, the works of the great composers are always in the background of my mind. About the number of comments: Well, if a piece does receive very little or no inputs , it could be due to the fact that the piece is not interesting, or too mediocre for people to spend their time on writing comments. But then, as a consequence, this does not create an incentive for the composer to post additional pieces on the site. And I should add to this (as has been pointed out before): Of course, everyone likes positive comments! However, the main thing is to get a constructive feedback, i.e. to get an opinion on what and why you like or dislike a piece. But for many people, the overwhelming importance seems to be to collect as many "likes" as possible. This is a clever, but deceptive trap of the internet culture.
  15. Hello Camfrrt Another nice waltz. I like the exuberant theme at the beginning and its repetitions throughout the piece. Very Chopin-like (and please see this as a compliment). I have only a few comments about the harmonic progression in the left hand. In bar 26, as well as in bar 104, it sounds misplaced. Also in bar 3, it does not sound convincing. There may be room for other small improvements of the left hand short-term harmonic progression. I have no problems with the long Bb in bar 4 (as experienced by aMusicComposer ). Also, the ending is fine with me. I don´t think that there is a specific need to embellish this part (but that is my personal opinion). Altogether- Again a good piece!
×
×
  • Create New...