Etude no. 8 in G# Minor

Etude no. 8

G# Minor

Length: 2:30

Tempo: Allegro Vivace (quarter = 157)

Style: Impressionistic, maybe even a little Romantic.

I wrote this as a study on scales, and also range on the keyboard. This piece covers the whole keyboard, from the extreme upper range, to the lower range, and everything in between. Other than that, it is not a very melodic piece, that isn't really what I was trying to accomplish with this, but there is a melody. I wrote this mostly to give the pianist a challenge. :wub:

MP3 (soundclick - no download or login required)

For Evan :P

the score:

Duet chal.mid

Jen, I haven't had a chance to listen yet, but just looking at the score, I think you meant this to be a study on Arpeggios... not scales. I like to see that you've covered the range of the piano, and judging from the score, this should be great fun to listen to. I'll post a review once I have a chance to look over it a few times (could be tonight, maybe tomorrow).

G Flat minor ?? I havent heard of that. lol. Why not use F# instead?

First let me tell that I liked it to some extend. It had this sound of an etude. And yes, it looks like a hell of a challange to a performer!

What I didnt like was that there were absolutely no harmonic movement. The hole piece sounded as if just "one" chord. It didnt go anywhere, modulate, or whatever. Basicly the harmony was static.

Thats all I can say right now, I think apart from that its preety good and challenging.

Jen, you've come a long way since the first pieces of yours I heard a few months ago. I don't always understand where you're going harmonically, and yet there is a wonderful flow about the piece. It's challenging to be sure, but right off I didn't see anything about it that was unplayable. I think you meant to title this "Etude in G# minor," since your key signature is 5 sharps - but it sounds to me like most of the piece is in B major. The previous poster would be correct about G-flat minor being better notated in F# minor, which has only 3 sharps, as opposed to G-flat minor having 9 flats, with both B and E flatted twice! The brief flirtations with G# minor give it character, though there are places (like right at the beginning) where you're descending on an open B major arpeggio, and then a measure later you interpolate an E into the arpeggio, and I'm not sure how well that works. The interlude starting at 1:25 is beautiful...I only wish it were a little longer; you have a good feel for when the piece needs a change of character. I like the idea of the ending very much, even if I'd personally have done something a little different with it.

Overall, this is remarkable progress in such a short time. My compliments!

Oh man.... page four.... third system.... second bar.... I don't know a pianist alive who could play octaves that fast and get back down to the lower note in the RH.

I had a teacher once tell me something very helpful. Here it is....

"When you compose a variation on something, don't just sporadically run rampant all over your theme. Figure out what you're doing with it and go in ONE DIRECTION AT A TIME."

The one direction at a time concept is the most invaluable to me so far.

As for your piece.... I tend to agree with the statement that it's hard to find the harmonic motion. However, I sense that you are on to something here. Keep at it!

Since you have such a good roadmap of this piece, it might help you to find the spots where you can "bend" the harmony to suit your needs. That is to say, try and find the spots you want to make intense and "chromatisize" those spots. There's potential here for a great piece. I hear a lot of impressionism here.... keep it up...

...oh... and feel free to disregard as I'm prettty hammered.

I think you meant to title this "Etude in G# minor," since your key signature is 5 sharps[/b]

:huh: That is correct. I made a typo :huh: I was like half asleep when I posted this :ermm: lol

Thanks for the comments!

It is a nice piece and definately a difficult etude. However, it isn't too hard, and not as hard as some of the Chopin etudes. So it is playable, but a little unpianistic in a few parts (but then again, so is Chopin sometimes).

Can you play this? I'm not sure if you are a pianist or not.

Anyways, the only real concern I have is in regards to your rhythmic and metrical structure. This piece does not use classical/baroque harmonies or melodies, and there isn't anything especially romantic either. It's definately what I would call neo-impressionist. Why then, have you chosen to give it a classical rhythmic structure? It's in common time, with no exceptions throughout, and consists solely of 16ths, 8ths, and a few long notes. It seems to be composed measure by measure, with the bar line determining the metrical prison of the work. Free yourself! This could be really something if you defied the tyranny of the barline one in a while. What I'm saying, is let the shape of the music define the phrasing, and not the bar line. Try writing a 5-beat phrase in this somewhere, in other words one and one-quarter of a bar. Use a slur line to connect the phrase. If you do this several times in a row, you've created a sort of complex hemiola, 5 beats within a 4 beat system. It's a really interesting effect and brings the rhythmic aspects of this up to the harmonic aspects of this. It could work! You should also try out polyrhythms - Debussy and Ravel were fond of these.

Anyways, just keep in mind for future stuff - be more adventurous with your rhythm and metrical phrasing. It's probably the one thing that people forget to do when writing contemporary music, but its also the most important thing to do.

I don't always understand where you're going harmonically

translation: "If the harmony of a piece isn't the language of the Classical period, then I am deaf. Bow before Mozart or die."

ANYWAY...

at 1:30 has some nice melodies in it. Also around :52 there's a rising part of the bassline which is cool. My favorite passage begins at 1:40. This produces a strong sense of urgency (one of my favorite feelings to create in music!) and I love how the bassline moves here (and in many places in the piece). I know melody wasn't what you were primarily trying to accomplish but the bassline does pop out as melodic to me! Also, I notice a greater emphasis on dynamics in many places! Very cool. I don't think I would attempt playing this piece yet, it sounds technically out of my ball park! As far as reccommendations for what to add, I second Nightscape's suggestions as they are excellent ones.

Does this just happen to me?

I can never download anything from soundclick. The page I get is blank except for this text :

"This window starts the SoundClick player. If you have enabled a pop-up blocker, you can click the link here: play the song"

Pop up blocker isn't on and the link is dead.

Thank you for the comments and suggestions!

Nightscape, I am pretty new to composing, so I really don't know the technicalities of each style. I just write what I think. I am sort of trying to make up my own style, but I would like it to be related to the Impressionistic style. No, I can't play it. 4 years ago, I might have been able to make a decent attempt at it, but both of my wrists are bad (carpal/ulnar tunnel syndrome). I do not play much anymore.

Derek, yes the little bit of a melody I had was nearly all in the bassline. I wanted to try something different :) Most of my melodies are usually right-hand. I bet you could play this easily :) Some of your improvs sound much more difficult than this!

Paul, some people have trouble with soundclick because of popup blockers. When you click the link, if a little bar comes up at the top of the screen (it is usually yellow for me), back click it and click "temporarily allow popups from this site". If that doesn't work, then I have no idea! lol :)

Oh, but you can hear this piece on my myspace music page.

Thanks again!

translation: "If the harmony of a piece isn't the language of the Classical period, then I am deaf. Bow before Mozart or die."

Derek, that comment is completely uncalled-for and unfair. I'll remember that, believe me. You can be a real jerk.

Derek, that comment is completely uncalled-for and unfair. I'll remember that, believe me. You can be a real jerk.

Don't take yourself so seriously man I was just teasing. Sheesh

Yeah, I knew it was obviously a joke too or I would have said something :) Guys, please don't argue in my thread :) I hate when that happens

There was no way for me to know Derek was joking. Joking or not, he still disparaged my musical sensibilities, and then when I objected, it was my fault for "taking myself too seriously?" How does that work? Sorry, but I'm onto that little game.

I'm backing away, but there was no way in hell I was going to let that go. I'm only sorry it happened in your thread, Jen.

I think Derek is also missing the fact that harmonic direction is a seperate thing to harmonic language. Whether or not music sounds like Mozart, with poor harmonic direction, music begins to sounds aimless.

I agree with Lee that sometimes there is a lack of direction to this piece, Jen, or a certain vagueness to it. I understand that's part of an impressionist style, but you can have a certain amount of both I think.

Another lovely piece, and a good

I think Derek is also missing the fact that harmonic direction is a seperate thing to harmonic language. Whether or not music sounds like Mozart, with poor harmonic direction, music begins to sounds aimless.

Define "poor" harmonic direction. I've never quite understood the use of terms "strong" and "weak" with regards to harmony. What makes one sound stronger than another? It seems to me all possible chord changes have different effects. How they are articulated rhythmically and melodically it seems to me has far more to do with the subjective musical effect they have.

I guess what irritates me about J. Lee Graham's (and others) views is you seem to try to assert (either by implication or directly) that your favorite pet harmonic rules should be used by anyone and everyone, as though Classical harmony is the be all and end all of all musical aesthetics. If that's Jen's eventual preferred language then so be it, but I sense that she has her own independent mind and wants to explore harmony after her own fashion. In which case, it is not incorrect or "poor" for her to use any harmony at all.

Define "poor" harmonic direction. I've never quite understood the use of terms "strong" and "weak" with regards to harmony. What makes one sound stronger than another? It seems to me all possible chord changes have different effects. How they are articulated rhythmically and melodically it seems to me has far more to do with the subjective musical effect they have.

I guess what irritates me about J. Lee Graham's (and others) views is you seem to try to assert (either by implication or directly) that your favorite pet harmonic rules should be used by anyone and everyone, as though Classical harmony is the be all and end all of all musical aesthetics. If that's Jen's eventual preferred language then so be it, but I sense that she has her own independent mind and wants to explore harmony after her own fashion. In which case, it is not incorrect or "poor" for her to use any harmony at all.

"Poor" harmonic direction is harmonic direction that makes no sense by either defining a key, or making a recognizable pattern of the harmony. "Poor" could also be another term for "random". In listening to this peice, I didn't find any "poor" harmonys on initial listening. I rather enjoyed it.

The "rules" of classical harmony are there for a reason. They describe in language what most people find offensive or awkward, harmony wise, in music. You, as an individual and creative person, can write any harmonies you like, but the fact of the matter is, if you do certain things, people will say "that doesn't sound good" or "that doesn't sound right". That's fine if you don't care what people think - but most of us write music to be enjoyed by other people, not to make them cringe.

I'm willing to wager that in your own music, you use "classical harmony" as you put it, without even knowing it. How often do you use the mediant chord followed by a chord containing the subdominant note?

How often do you leap to second inversion chords from other chords that are in inversions? Do you like parrellel fifths in your playing? Do you use them regularly? What about the leading note? Do you let it fall regularly when not in a sequence, and not following the tonic? I've listened to your piano improve - and I'm not finding alot of augmented intervals. Why the heck not?

My guess is you know "by ear" what you can't describe by "rules".

I'm willing to wager that in your own music, you use "classical harmony" as you put it, without even knowing it. How often do you use the mediant chord followed by a chord containing the subdominant note?

How often do you leap to second inversion chords from other chords that are in inversions? Do you like parrellel fifths in your playing? Do you use them regularly? What about the leading note? Do you let it fall regularly when not in a sequence, and not following the tonic? I've listened to your piano improve - and I'm not finding alot of augmented intervals. Why the heck not?

My guess is you know "by ear" what you can't describe by "rules".

If I'm using all those classical rules in my playing that's news to me! What sort of augmented intervals? Do you mean augmented chords? I use those all the time... And..yes I do like parallel fifths. they have an interesting atmosphere to them in a particular musical context...just like any other harmonic or musical possibility.

Anyway, I guess if I really am using those rules and am unaware of it I should quit ripping on people who are so into those rules eh?

sorry again for all this discussion in jen's thread, it is my fault originally. feel free to delete these posts

If I'm using all those classical rules in my playing that's news to me! What sort of augmented intervals? Do you mean augmented chords? I use those all the time... And..yes I do like parallel fifths. they have an interesting atmosphere to them in a particular musical context...just like any other harmonic or musical possibility.

Anyway, I guess if I really am using those rules and am unaware of it I should quit ripping on people who are so into those rules eh?

sorry again for all this discussion in jen's thread, it is my fault originally. feel free to delete these posts

1. No, I mean augmented intervals within a melody. Not Augmented chords.

2. That's interesting, because from what I've listened to in your music, they aren't a regular feature. Granted, sometimes composers use them to special effect - but this is the exception, not the common practice.

3. Yes, you should quit ripping on people who are into the rules since it is a part of musical understaning that you use yourself by feel.

1. No, I mean augmented intervals within a melody. Not Augmented chords.

2. That's interesting, because from what I've listened to in your music, they aren't a regular feature. Granted, sometimes composers use them to special effect - but this is the exception, not the common practice.

3. Yes, you should quit ripping on people who are into the rules since it is a part of musical understaning that you use yourself by feel.

Then I owe J. Lee Graham and Daniel and anyone else who I might have offended, an apology! Sorry guys! Haha. Maybe I shall start reading up on classical harmony more and learn what i've been doing all along, lol!

Another friend many months earlier noticed the presence of the golden ratio in some of my works, also. How ODD! I never ever tried to follow any organization or rules and they're all over the place. Maybe there really is something to it! haha.

I shall try to be more humble henceforth.

As far as parallel fifths go, I can think of two places right off the bat where I used them quite deliberately. One is the intro to May 23rd (I called it epic jazz adventure somewhere on this board) and the other is in a descending chord progression in "comprovisation in everything minajor" (man i'm a dork). Maybe you're right... oh well.

I'm going to ask a question in another thread

Wow. :)

Any more comments on my music? :P

.

When I wrote it, I knew it would be impossible for most people to play, this was meant to be a very difficult piece to play. I know 2 people who can play the Rach 3, if they find this piece impossible, I will revise it :P lol

actually i don't think that this piece is quite as unplayble a you all make it seem, although the jump for the right hand at the end of bar four from the E to the A# might be a toughie. it is true for one that many etudes composed by romantic composers (chopin and especially franz liszt) are much harder. look at the scores and listen to recordings of liszt's transcendental etudes 1, 2, 4, 6, and 11 :w00t: , and you will notice some similarities between them and your etudes. Also, you might try looking at chopin's etude op. 10 no 1. and oh yes, for some really freaking big jumps :wacko: look at liszt's paganini etude no 3. (la campanella).

these are the websites where you can get the scores and recordings all for free.

http://www.sheetmusicarchive.net/single_li...?composer_id=24

http://www.sheetmusicarchive.net/single_li...m?composer_id=4

http://www.classicalarchives.com/ (you have to get a free membership for this.)

I think that this etude has planty of potential and i really think that you could learn a lot from these pieces. Just my humble suggestions. :whistling: