"Sonata of a Murder" - for Solo Piano

This piece has some fantastic moments, specially when you get "going" in the faster sections and when you're stressing the use of the piano beyond simple octave jumping.

I'll address first the music stuff, and then the technical stuff since I think this is a good enough piece that you may want to improve it/fix some of the stuff. It definitely should see a performance.

---

1) First of all, I want to call attention to moments like measure 21 with the low vs high bit at the end. The piece is riddled with such moments in different aspects, such as dynamic variation that is very obvious to follow as well as segments that so to speak blow their load early on in terms of telling you what they're about.

Sure the piece isn't THAT obvious, but there's a lot of it that is. For example the rather large crescendo/accel bit that culminates in the clusters in measure 178 is pretty powerful but considering you've already by then done the exact same thing in terms of overall structure (even if your details are different) it feels like it "well here it goes again." I mean I understand that you're working with tempo and large crescendo/dynamic structures as your overall way of distinguishing form segments one from the other, but it really seems that it dictates what you write more than it should.

In a sense, because of that, you exhaust the potential for the attack/violent areas early on and later it feels like you've just run out of juice near the end and just ended the piece there. Take for example the clusters in 178. Yes, clusters sound impressive but by then it seems you're just almost out of things to throw at the listener and resorted to that. They aren't worked into the overall structure of the piece and used only for effect there, which is a shame.

It's this problem that shows up again and again, you have material that you're throwing left and right trying to make the overall structures sound different even if they have the same intention. It would've been much more coherent if that was the intention to focus on specific aspects of what you wanted to outline. A good example is the very beginning and the very end, which I found to be the most well balanced areas and they had also a very focused direction and intention; you're carefully weighting the material you use since you have more room to work with and a slower progression.

This lack of conservation/economy of material is what makes it look like "too obvious" to me in many of the areas. New material always draws attention to details, such as the fact you're again speeding up/altering dynamic, etc when it seems to me that you may have wanted those increases to be more subtle or a sort of backdrop.

2) Second is that throughout the piece I heard a lot of extended harmony used in various ways. I noticed that you were using specific constellations of intervals to outline your structures but, because of the above, some of the detail gets lost in the drive to make the same intentions different from one another (both of the large crescendo/accel segments are guilty of this.) It's very difficult to work with harmony or particular interval formations when you're at the same time working with very loud dynamics in the piano, which means that you'd have to put more effort into establishing those connections during the mf/p areas, so that the attacking segments sound part of the whole in a more consequent way.

Another thing is that certain elements you're using for effect, like the "echo" bits at the beginning are, because of the way you use them, less dependent on the particular harmonic formations you establish. The fact that those echo bits have seemingly no consequence to the piece as a whole (not unlike the clusters) makes them stand out against what you're trying to establish with the previous sections. I'm not sure if that was the intention, but like I said in my previous point, it's just too "in your face" to be effective for me.

3) I would have to say that rhythm is also an element you could have worked with in a little more depth. There are very rhythmic segments where you take some of the Bartok/Ligeti etude vibe, which is perfectly fine, but as a whole it feels like you're relying on very simple rhythmic models to get across complicated ideas. This obviously ties into how you wrote it, which I think complicates things beyond what they really need to be to get the same idea across.

---

So on the score.

1) OK first you have to explain to me what was the point of splitting the piano into three or even four staffs. I can understand it when the music being played is very dense and you may want to stress out particular individual lines (Stockhausen) but you here it seems only to complicate the areas you are using it in, while in others where it would have been more helpful (some of the bits near the last crescendo/accel part.)

I really would like to see the same areas written more traditionally, because I doubt that what you're doing really necessitates that kind of writing.

2) Second, there are measures like 138 to 140. First that it looks hopelessly cluttered and second let's remember that a human being is supposed to play this. Unless you have a very specific reason for writing it the way you did, I would've much rather have the entire section have "Sempre attacca" and make the difference using only accents, rather than writing Sffz every time. You get the exact same music as a result without all the clutter, since a person playing it will understand right away what you want to do with the accents and the sffz, without having to actually write them every time. Even in the case where you want three levels of "forte" there you could of course write accents AND Sffz as the highest dynamic (only then would I justify even using Sffz in a section like this.)

Another thing is the "back of the hand" glissando bit, does every note really need the accent? I mean, everyone already got it already what you're going for, it's not necessary and is visually tiring to see a lot of articulations that are almost irrelevant. There's only so much you can stress a point before it gets annoying and unless you have a very specific reason for doing so, I would recommend rewriting areas like those.

3) Dynamic markings. I really look at a lot of scores people write and one of the things that really bugs me is often extreme (pppp/ffff) dynamic stuff where the range itself is context-sensitive. Your loudest and softest dynamic are entirely dependent on the middle dynamic range (p has to be THAT much louder than pppp, etc) and since we're not talking about a machine that can count decibel levels, using this type of thing is only really justifiable if you want to stress the point something must be "as soft as possible," for example.

But the way you're using it, say measure 129, is very jarring. Unless, again, you have a very specific reason for using it like this, you should as well know that that decrescendo is practically inaudible and if it's important the pianist will not play it as ppp (contrasting to how loud his p is) but as simple p or at most pp. Don't forget the piano is a percussive instrument and dynamic control is limited to the note attacks; a violin may be able to make a much more controlled dynamic decrescendo, but a piano must weight in each note attack.

Likewise measure 131, where the bass melody there has to be played as quietly as possible. In instances like that I might as well either make a new symbol for it if you use it often, or simply write it. Look at Cage's isorhythmic string quartet for how he does dynamics in the extreme quiet regions. This is particularly annoying because take measure 102 to 106. The pppp there has to be THAT much softer than the single f that comes later. And that f has to be THAT much softer than the ffff that show up near the end.

Remember, you can get the same dynamic range from using simple pp or ff so long as your context tells the player how soft and how loud those dynamics are. In some pieces, pp can be almost inaudible and ff can be very, very loud.

4) I really have to ask, is measure 103 REALLY 8/8? There are two main reasons why you would use measure changes, first is to change the pulse (and accents) and second is to organize your material. A lot of the stuff I see you do could as well be written in 4/4, and unless you have a very specific reason to have stuff like that lone 8/8 measure I would simplify a lot of the rhythm writing.

Changes like those are needlessly confusing and don't provide a visual cue to the organization of the piece (Stravinsky, Messiaen, Bartok,) nor do they seem to work with pulse or accents (as you're writing them anyway and your measures are written outside of pulse considerations.) Unless you have very specific reasons for keeping them like they are, I would advise revising the entire piece for simplicity. Measure 97 is also another example; why not just add a fermata? Or do you really need the precision of those pauses? From the score it's hard to tell.

5) Clean up your details. Tell me, is there a specific reason why in measure 112 the D# An jump in the 8th notes has the stems tied and in the following measure the same jump does not? There are tons of instances where I kept wondering if you meant that as signaling legato or simply that it should be taken as a motive union. This needs to be clear, as note stems are a way to signal a lot of articulation and phrasing nuances, specially in this kind of music. The way a lot of it is written seems sloppy.

Likewise with your pauses. Measure 109 on the left hand is a particularly bad example. Why the clutter? Clean this up.

----

So there you go. I've spent already a good time looking over the score and so on and to be honest if this really was for your final exam I would've flunked you because of the score (though if your answers are good enough to justify some of the stuff, I guess not) but not becuase of the music. There's a lot to like in this piece which is sadly overshadowed by many things which I think could've been avoided, both in the way the score is written and in the way the piece itself plays out aurally.

But having said all that, it's still good and my harsh criticism shouldn't discourage you in the least. In fact, I VERY rarely take my time to comment on anyone's work like this so there you go.

SSC: This is one of the best posts I've seen in ages in YC! :) Thanks for that!

SSC: This is one of the best posts I've seen in ages in YC! :) Thanks for that!

Why thank you. I figured I might as well show how a decent review looks like, and have to say I slacked off on some stuff there's a lot more I could say but honestly I already spent a good hour looking at it and I think it's good enough.

But y'know I think I'll do a couple of other serious reviews if I have more time this week, I'm just deciding what to look at right now.

this sonata is very dark, very well achieved murderous effect ,,i liked, ...rhythmic tension spectacular ... good job.

This piece is so far out of my realm of experience that it's not even funny, but with a name like that, I couldn't refuse. I love the story of Crime and Punishment, and I love a lot of the ideas and themes in the book, so when I found that this piece was in some way based on Raskolnikov's world, I was very excited. Fortunately, I was not even slightly disappointed with the result! I cannot even begin to imagine how someone would go about performing this (but then again I am not a pianist), but it is an awesome idea with some great concepts. I love all the little motives that appear within the piece so much; I wonder, did you assign each motive from the piece a motif from the book? If not, it's OK, I just wouldn't be at all surprised considering how well thought out this piece appears to be.

Sorry, I don't mean to just cheerlead, and I would love to criticize, but alas, I have no expertise in this particular type of composition (at least as of yet, but I'm only in my first year of real composition instruction), so my high praises will have to suffice. :P

You know, I usually don't listen to atonal music. I've never really been fond of the whole concept of atonality, at all. But this piece... is different. I could actually listen to this one, and not only that, but I found it to be quite intriguing. It's very nice!

I really liked that more tonal section in the middle, needless to say. XD

I found it to be very descriptive, and just downright creepy overall. lol I love how it conveyed so much, despite being mostly atonal. Great job! :)

I would like to play the piece... but I dote Chopin and Liszt more! And... I'm preparing for National Competition, so I'm not taking any time playing this piece.

Good luck!

Jesus, you must love Ornstein. :)

I wish to learn piano in this fashion. Any tips? Also, once you had the skills to play something like this on piano, how insane was it to notate this? There's plenty of 13/8, 11/8, 7/8 time signatures.