Jump to content

panta rei

Old Members
  • Content Count

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by panta rei

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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!
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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)
  8. 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!
  9. 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!)
  10. 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).
  11. 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).
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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)
  18. 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 .
  19. 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!
  20. 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?
  21. 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!
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Hello Santos, Thanks for your comment. I am glad that you liked it.
×
×
  • Create New...