Revision of d minor Moderato

This is the same piece I posted with my introduction (last year?). However, I have since changed it.

I modified a literal repeat and the last half is now much better weighted I think.

It was the way it was by a combination of haste and actually thinking a literal repeat might be best at that point. I was never quite sure of it though so when a few other people commented that they started to lose interest after the midpoint and that it seemed too long, I decided to write the variation I had it mind. I am more statisfied with it now.

I hope it's also better for those who liked the original. :)

Final: http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/revision-d-minor-moderato-11655-2.html#post194584

allegro_moderato_e_cantabile.mid

first thing, around 0:50 seconds where the mood changes, i really enjoyed that 30 seconds odd especially. 'cantabile'...hmm if i had wrote this and were to label it i would have chosen 'allegro appasionata' thats not too say i tihnk you are off, on the contrary, if i were to to play it, i would play an impassioned 3 minutes (ok the midi doesn't do it justice). also the ending is too abrupt for my liking and i tihnk you should consider playing around with more ideas and expanding this into a more ambitious work, longer work. this piece has massive potential and i'd love to see you fulfill it, best of luck, btw i really enjoyed this (apart from the ending really) cheers

ljoekelsoey

I liked it back then and I like it now!

Cheers!

Thanks for commenting manossg and ljoekelsoey.

You're right Ljoekelsoey, some parts are intended to be rather impassioned. However, when choosing 'cantabile' as the main aspect, my mind was on the frequent need for the melody to soar over the bass and the need to sustain long notes in the face of the piano's natural tone decay. But, I think 'appasionata' is quite appropriate as well.

It's interesting that you wouldn't mind it developed more.

I think some people find three minutes to be already a lot to ask!

Especially since the nature of the music is exploring different shades of a single emotion rather than one of extreme contrast. I've probably said all I want with this piece, but I'll keep some things in mind for the future.

Thanks for listening and leaving a few words.

i dont spose i could have the music for this piece? i've been taken by quite a few pieces on this site, but this and 'A Simple Thank You' are ones i intend to learn (with your permission of course)

Actually, I'd be honoured if you were to learn it and I'd love to hear if possible. Give me a little while to put together a more statisfactory score (the current one is anything but neat). I'll post it here when I'm finished.

The score as I promised.

Dynamics and articulation marks are scarce. I just put a few marks in places I was particularly interested in or to set a pattern. Same for the pedal. There is one unlikely stretch (bar 90), which I left to indicate intent. Also. there are a few notes near the end that weren't in the midi I posted.

Affect_no_1.pdf

Just saw this one so I thought I'd comment. A very enjoyable piece, and surprisingly 'happy' for a piece written in a minor key. I really liked your rhythmic variation in the melody - it's something which I am having trouble introducing into my pieces. Especially thought that the 16th note run at bar 82 was very impressive. One thing which bugged me though was the sudden use of G-flat major at bar 55 - compared to everything else in the piece I think it seemed out of place (It could be just me - don't take too much notice - I'm just a novice anyhow). Apart from that minor criticism - great work!

I'm having some trouble opening the pdf...

Thanks finrod.

I'm having some trouble opening the pdf...

Hmm...I don't know what could be the matter.

I don't have any problem opening it, but I'm using acrobat reader 8 to view pdf files. If you have an older version and can't upgrade, I can try regenerating the pdf with another program.

Let me know.

Ok, I did it! Well, you have a beautiful score, there! Congratulations! It is something I crave in YC! There are some minor issues:

1) Some minor collisions (m.1, the tenuto mark with the tempo, m.16&90, the mp with the beam)

2) Grace notes need slurring (e.g. m.9)

3) m. 35&79&83, needs a double barline before the modulation!

4) m.68 LH is quite clear, but you could notate the low A in the bass clef, maybe? Or lengthen the beam?

There you have it! Hope this helps!

Cheers!

Thanks for the review manossg.

I should be able to address those quite easily.

Bump when you do!

Well, I finally updated the score manossg.

It didn't take me very long but I was working on something else so I put off coming back to it. :P

In addition to what you suggested, there were a few wrong notes which I corrected.

Also, I generated a midi that is more in sync with the score. I use two different programs so that's why the score and midi diverge sometimes. Granted, the differences from the previous midi aren't huge, just a few notes at the end where the theme continues in the pdf score.

I tried getting the end to die away in tempo and volume but it wasn't working out with the program I am using. The tempo mark was slowing down the music before it so I just had to leave it as it is.

Affect1.pdf

Affect1.mid

ohhhhhhhh soooooooooo gooood!!! that was fantastic, i cant remmber if you've changed it, i tihnk you have a lot, but its brilliant, i really really like it, ill try to make time to learn it and get a recording up for you to hear

Oh wow! Great work! You have some great developmental talent and clearly skill going on here. The whole piece is very well balanced: clear phrasing, clean harmonies and an overall unity. At one point i started to feel like there wasn't quite enough variety, but then i heard the bars 47-60 which is very beautiful and i felt very interested again and wanted to hear the rest of it. Your melody is interesting and has lot of flexibility, that's what i loved the most about it. Harmonically it seems to be just a little static...but it definitely doesn't sound boring or out of style. It's just that i prefer the sharper harmonic contrasts for pleasure listening (e.g. Ravel).

The question is though...is there a reason why you don't try a more adventurous style of music? Impressionistic perhaps? Did you just do this as an exercise?

Thanks Ljoekelsoey, you're too kind.

Jannokas:

Thanks for taking the time to comment even though it's not quite your cup of tea.

Feedback is relatively rare around here much more one so detailed.

It wasn't really written as an exercise but I had a goal of finishing it.

I have a habit of leaving sketches hanging so I selected this one to complete.

As for stylistic explorations, the future holds possibilities!.

Mostly, I want it to be a kind of organic evolution; going where the imagination takes me.

Good job!

Some issues:

1) m. 9-11. Grace notes should be slurred...

2) m. 90. The beam collides with the dynamic.

3) m. 93. That's a bit onorthodox, there. Are you sure you want such a thing and nut notate it as one voice?

4) m.128. The beam collides with the crescendo marking.

Apart from that, the score is truly beautiful! It invites the player to start rocking!

I listened to it again, but couldn't remember any differences.

Hey, get it performed! :)

Cheers!

Thanks manoss, you sure have an eye for this stuff...lol

The only change to the midi was that the ending wasn't quite as scored.

At 9-11 I thought I slurred the grace notes or maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.

At 93, and those like it, I didn't want it as one voice.

The upper melody begins with the g at 93.

The descending c g e at 92-93 is a new accompanimental figure.

(Compare its analogue at bars 25-31)

In other words, the leap of a 6th at 93, an octave at 95, a ninth at 103 etc are parts of the melody so the first note of the interval should not be linked to the last note of the previous descending figure. It should be set apart from it (by a slight accent and louder dynamics) and linked to the following note a 6th, 8ve etc away.

That's what I was trying to show in the score anyway.

The midi doesn't really bring this out either.

Maybe there's a better way to show it?

Slur marks could probaby work but I wouldn't want that to be taken as legato for the detached quavers.

I dunno, whatever is clearer is best.

Hah!

Getting it performed is probably unlikely.

I wouldn't know where to begin.

May be I'll play it myself for a roomful of friends! :)

I have been scolded on such errors many times! :S

About point 3. Your intention is clear. Leave it as is.

Play it for them. And record it for us! :)

I'd love to record it but getting a piano to sound decent (especially one that isn't too decent..lol) is no easy task especially with few tools and limited know-how. It's something I planned to work on though, so maybe one day!