Jump to content

panta rei

Old Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


panta rei last won the day on January 17

panta rei had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

About panta rei

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Occupation
  • Interests
  • Favorite Composers
    Too many to mention
  • My Compositional Styles
    Mainly classical
  • Notation Software/Sequencers
  • Instruments Played
    Piano, starting with clarinet

Recent Profile Visitors

1,629 profile views
  1. Thanks a lot for your comments! I have to say that I was not really sure about this piece, particularly the transition from bar 78-81. But in retrospect, I think that it is OK, and I am glad that you like it.
  2. Thank you very much, Pateceramics for your feedback. Of course, there would be many other possibilities to construct the ending, but I decided to wind down the piece the way I did, after the preceeding vigorous parts. Maybe the piece feels a bit strange with its many odd harmonics. It is rather different from my usual style of writing. But it was quite fun to put it together.
  3. Hello, I am working on a new piece, but this seems to take longer time than I expected. I am re-writing most of it. In the meantime, I am posting an older piece, which I dusted off a bit. It is a fantasy about Russia. I have never been there, but I love Russian music. Maybe, it is not Russian style at all. But on the other hand, it is a fantasy! I would be glad if you tell me what you think of it. Best regards
  4. Hello Tortualex I really enjoyed this piece. The rhythm is rather unusual, and fits perfectly well with your motif and its variations. I recall that I have heard this rhythm before (but no idea when and where). Somehow, I got an association of early music (pre-baroque or renaissance, I don´t know). But it is certainly compelling. A-minor (and A-major in the trio) is just the perfect key. The modulations are fine and I also experience some drama in some of the phrasings. Occasionally, some of the harmonic transitions (like in ms 8 or 16) felt a bit odd. I would have used a more common practice half-cadenza transition. I would also have sculpted the dynamics a bit different. And here and there, the melody is a bit jumpy. But…. that´s just my personal opinion. Otherwise, I think that the piece is coherently structured, including the nice recurring to the original motif. There is only one more thing: I think that this piece is a wonderful platform for further development. To me, it is just begging for an additional set of free-standing variations. Thanks for uploading this piece. It is a source of inspiration for me.
  5. Well spoken! It is really useless to continue this discussion. And I wish Donethur all the best with his composing. Your suggestion about discussing predicability and musicality is definitely worthwhile. These are extremely complex issues, but very interesting!
  6. I never said, nor anticipated in any way that you don´t want feedback! When I look at your reactions above on some of the feedback from Louis and Tónskáld, I think it is more a question about how you deal with negative feedback.
  7. To be able to critically validate your own work is probably one of the most important (and difficult) things for a composer to learn. And in this context, it is important to be able to validate and learn from negative comments. A lot of people seem to be only looking for praise, which is a kind of self-deception. A good rule is: Take your work seriously but don´t take yourself seriously.
  8. Hello Jean, Thank you very much for your comments! You are right about the engraving. Adding these rests separates the melody from the accompaniment in a more obvious way. I will add them in the score. (Usually, I am afraid to mess up my scores with too many rests). I am glad that you like the piece. Personally, I like a lot of styles, but my preference for a particular one comes and goes periodically. Thanks again for your feedback ! (And I wish you a prosperous 2020)
  9. I really enjoyed this. But I did not perceive this piece as relaxing. On the contrary, I thought that there is a lot of drama in it. Apart fröm Pärt and Barber, I associated some of the highlights with Mahler. As already pointed out in other comments, there is not so much basic melody, but that does not bother me at all. Instead, the seamless and continuous flow of small transitions provides new expectations and surprises all the time, and therefore the piece does never get boring. I was particularly impressed by the fantastic interplay between the strings. All together.. great work!
  10. Thank you very much Tónskáld for those nice words. It would be really exhilarating if I could persuade a good pianist to play the piece! Although I tried to adjust the MIDI playback as much as I could, it can never compete with a live performance. Sadly enough, it is not realistic for me to try playing this myself (after a hand injury and a loss of agility for about 10 years ago). Your remark about the mind being ahead of the music made me very curious about the actual process of composition. What is the actual way of working of different composers? This could perhaps be an interesting discussion topic for the YC members. One more.. thanks a lot for your stimulating feedback! Thank you aMusicComposer, for your reply! I was very glad after reading your opinion about this piece. It seems that the time, I spent to write this piece was well worth the effort. I agree with you that the piece it not very Chopin-esque, at least I did not have Chopin in mind, when I worked with it. I will leave the title “ Étude “. As you said, many other études include various types of challenges , for example Schumann´s Études Symphoniques ( incredibly beautiful, but really tough!)
  11. Finally, I finished my 4th étude. The piece has two basic melodic sections. After the intro, the first one starts at bar 12, and the second one starts at bar 37, while a roundup (the “finale”) starts at bar 69. It took me a while to produce a decent (I hope ) score. There may still be some errors in it, but I am fairly satisfied for the moment. The only doubtful issue is the actual title. I am not sure whether this piece can be called an étude. Perhaps a simple title like “Piece in F-sharp minor for piano” would be more adequate. I would be grateful for your comments about this (and of course also what you think about this piece in general).
  12. The pieces are fine and could be useful. Thanks for sharing them. However, I would like to see more coherent melodies as well as more harmonic variations , possibly with some purposeful dissonances ( there is some of it in your second piece).
  13. Thanks a lot for your feedback, and I am glad that you like the piece. In fact, Schumann/Schubert are some of my favourite composers, and a lot of my inspiration comes from their style. My new étude is now ready, and I will post it very soon.
  14. 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.
  • Create New...