March 30, 201115 yr I'd love to hear more of these. The C#-G#-D# ostinato is ONE of my favorite quintile harmonies. Something about it on the piano really works. On strings not as much but piano with the dampers - very beautiful.. I also like the economy of material, the arpeggio figure. I'd love to hear it on a piano which you can adjust the D#. You may like this - fluid microtonal piano, recent invention.
March 30, 201115 yr Another fantastic ambience piece from you! I think you've perfected the art of slow, unmeasured textures :happy: . Though I don't think submerging a piano would do it much good, honestly... :lol:
March 30, 201115 yr That is the perfect title for this piece! Remarkable. My only question is can this truly be played? I'm not a piano player but it seems that the right hand part overlaps the left hand part a bit making it very tricky..but again I don't play the piano, either way I love the piece!
March 30, 201115 yr Author Thank you all for listening! Composerorganist, surely you must have meant C#-G#-B# or D nat. as there is only one instance of C#-G#-D#. Interesting instrument, by the way, but to my ears it doesn't really sound like a modern piano; its sound is closer to that of a pianoforte, but still not that much. Paranoidfreak, that I cannot tell with certainty. The piece still is to be performed as I have written in the directions. I admit, though, if the piece will ever be performed as directed, the floating piano version will probably be preferred. However, I am still not sure about whether the piano is to be submerged or just be underwater, meaning inside a structure. Bedner1, yes, it is perfectly playable. I was playing it at the piano while composing it, so if I can play it, then anyone can play it... :) Thanks again!
March 30, 201115 yr Alexander - Pardon the mistake - that D# sticks so much and so nicely, listening to it again, I barely or practically do not hear the C#, Yet the G# and notes above are more at pp to p. Do you want to mark a cresc or leave the degree of barely audible to audible up to the performer? To me it is still based on quintile harmony - C#-G#-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#, with the tertial harmony finally establishing itself with the final C# min 79 chord. Note that after you reach F# you state the C#-G#-D# in this chord - thus making the D natural acting as a leading tone to D#. Finally you were able to create your final chord from combining with the prior set this set of ascending 5th: C#-G#-D#-A#-E#-B#-Fx-Cx. Your ear was very very smart to treat the Cx as a leading tone to D # as if you didn't you would spiral more and more sharp. So combining it with the other set of ascending fifths (again using the G#-d as a diminished fifth, allows you to return to where you are started) you were able to come up with a tertial chord ending which establishes the tonic. So, thanks for the correction because it got me to analyze this piece as an excellent handling of the limitations and possibilities of the well tempered scale. As a postscript the excellent pedaling offers the pianist a great way to make subtle emphasis on certain overtones too - if the piano is really good, like a grand. A big bravo. I hope you get this performed. If you have all three ready, please post them. I could always ask an pianist acquaintance if they'd be interested in them. PS. One correction to my analysis, on the piano you would return to your starting part because of enharmonic equivalencies, but I dunno you treat the quintile sequence as if the enharmonics were not truly equal -- plus you have to for a piece of the duration at this tempo.
March 30, 201115 yr Author Hello composerorganist, Wow, interesting analysis! The performer is to follow the general direction below the tempo signature and establish his or her own dynamics based on it. I did the same thing with the second piece of the collection, because I wanted to give more freedom of expression to the performer within certain specific boundaries of course. It also adds more variability to the performances which I think is interesting. All three pieces of the collection which is currently a work in progress, meaning more pieces are to be added to it in the future, are posted on the site. You can find them below my avatar. If any of your acquaintances is willing to perform them, please let me know to review the scores once more. There are some things, especially with the second piece, which I think need correction. Thank you for your interest and your great feedback! :) Alexander
March 30, 201115 yr WOW! This is such a cool atmosphere created... I love the harmonies too. That ostinato, when I first saw the score, I thought would be a bit much, but it really isn't. It just works with the piece and ties everything together. Only thing is: UNDER WATER???? Wait, do you mean like in an aquarium or something? Having that there is going to get your chances of a performance to very small. It doesn't deserve that :sadtears: Great work here! I love it! Heckel
March 31, 201115 yr Author Hello HeckelphoneNYC! Well, the piece is relatively short so the ostinato doesn't become tiresome. Apart from that, some other things that make the repetitiveness of the ostinato less obvious are the time signature changes, the irregular pedalling, the variation in harmony and the ocassional position of the "melody" at the same range as the ostinato. Also mm. 9-11 have melodic interest in the ostinato as well and break the monotony of repetition. Only thing is: UNDER WATER???? Wait, do you mean like in an aquarium or something? Having that there is going to get your chances of a performance to very small. It doesn't deserve that :sadtears: No, not an aquarium. The extension of the aquarium, meaning beyond the glass or even the whole structure is not water-related which is not desirable, except if we talk of an underwater aquarium where beyond the structure lies the water mass. I don't want the whole performance look the way a goldfish in a fish bowl looks which looks and is unnatural. Alternatively, there is the floating version which isn't easier to be realised either, as I forgot to write in the directions that there should be no visible floating or other medium for the piano and the performer. Again, levitation as in the other pieces might be needed... Anyway, it goes without saying that I won't refuse any proposals for performance of the piece if it doesn't need the requirements set forth in the directions, but I would kindly request that they should be made known to the auditorium since the spatial and visual ambience are also part of the piece. Thank you for your comments! Alexander
March 31, 201115 yr I honestly was looking for this to be slower, more pensive and methodical. I love what's going on, but maybe at two-third- or half-speed, the notes would hang a little more instead of feeling a little rushed. Don't get me wrong, great, simple work. As for the directions, you might be able to use lighting and visual tricks to make it seem that way. I'm starting to get what you mean
March 31, 201115 yr Author Thanks for the suggestion, Ferkungamabooboo! I tried it at quarter = 60 and I liked the way it sounded. It was as you said more pensive and quiet different from the faster version. I think I' ll change the tempo marking from quarter = 74 to 60-74. As for the directions, no lighting or visual tricks. If the directions are to be followed, they should be followed to the letter; otherwise it should be left to the imagination and the free will of the auditorium.
