Piano Concerto No.1, Op.2

Hi Guys!

This is a work in progress, started three years ago.

The first movement i wrote in 2003, and the second movement in 2004 (3rd movt non-existant at present).

You can hear the change of my composition style between the two movements.

I've gone off this piece myself but will be interested to hear your comments. This is my most major work i have written so far.

Enjoy, i hope! :laugh:

1_Allegro.mid

2_Romanza.mid

As you know I love this piece. From time to time since I first heard it (when you first wrote it) it plays through my mind and then I listen to it. At that time you were 15 or 16 years old. I don't think I have ever

been so impressed with a work done so young as this one.

But... on the first movement I would make some serious changes to measure 276! You might want to look

into that. With my vast musical knowledge you might want to take this into consideration. :laugh:

O and measure 168 of movement 2... Andrew, you should have known better!

Anyways, I love truly love both of these movements very much. I very much look forward to hearing the 3rd movement. :P

Jeremy stop fawning over him he's not that amazing.

Not to get any further off topic, I really enjoyed the first movement. There are some really nice moments for piano. Great job.

Jeremy, I don't know what you're talking about, since there's only 275 measures, and measure 138 seems fine to me.

Thanks for the comments, guys.

Nico, i agree with your statement regarding the "Allegro". This was one of my first orchestral pieces and I really dived into it without actually doing any research into Piano Concertos, hence the writing being very "full" most of the time, and the piece not having any real form.

The second movement however has more balance between the soloist and orchestra... i think! :closedeyes:

Not to get any further off topic, I really enjoyed the first movement. There are some really nice moments for piano. Great job.

Jeremy, I don't know what you're talking about, since there's only 275 measures, and measure 138 seems fine to me.

I know there is no Measure 276, thats why I said that and no measure 168 of movement 2.

Naughty thing! You had me confused... :closedeyes:

Hi Guys!

This is a work in progress, started three years ago.

The first movement i wrote in 2003, and the second movement in 2004 (3rd movt non-existant at present).

You can hear the change of my composition style between the two movements.

I've gone off this piece myself but will be interested to hear your comments. This is my most major work i have written so far.

Enjoy, i hope! :P

from a musical standpoint this isn't a style I normally enjoy, so I was surprised to like this very much.

from a technical standpoint, I can give you a few cursory critiques:

orchestration:

horn too often, if not always above the trumpet

balance of woodwind against brass and strings unrealistic (only in the world of MIDI playback will a single flute stand out against a full roceshtra)

the piano writing, is, well, boring.

this has nothing to do with the thematic material itself.

it's the treatment of that material I refer to.

the opening "fanfare-ish" theme in the piano needs a bit more meat to it.

you treat the piano almost like a single voiced instrument.

then we get that lovely 2-against-3 slow theme... which works wonderfully.

but then it's back to straight chordal writing.

At first I thought "oh, a concerto for the right hand alone"... but the subsequant theme denied this.

So, don't scrap this piece, it's quite lovely.

but you need to give the left hand something to PLAY.

as a pianist, if a composer handed me this concerto, I'd refuse it off hand - it holds no interest from the performer's standpoint.

on to the second movement:

VERY lovely, considerably better writing for the piano.

it sits on that line between Rachmaninov and early Debussy, so harmonically, it's intriguing.

for the orchestra, well, you definately need lessons in orchestration.

there is no way a single flute, oboe, clarinet and bassoon can balance against a full string section AND a horn, trumpet, trombone and tuba.

come to think of it, there's really no way to balance the horn in there either.

a standard modern orchestra has 4 horns against 2 or 3 trumpets, there's a reason for that.

if you are going to use a tuba, it is expected that you have 2 or 3 trombones as well.

however, for the use you make of the tuba, you'd be better off simply using 2 or 3 trombones only, no tuba at all.

Think of the horns and of the trombone choir as a sort of orchestral harmonic backplate.

you can layer your orchestra onto a solid harmony that is sitting in the trombones for a relatively sonorous passage.

you can use the 4 horns as the basis of your harmonic passage - write a sustained passage for the horns in close harmony.

if the passage becomes loud and warrants it, you can add the trombones and trumpets... IF the passage becomes loud and warrants it.

the normal order of register however, and this is very important:

trumpets above

horns in mid range

trombones covering mid to low range

often, in orchestrating a passage, there will be overlap between the horns and trombones.

think of each group as independant.

if it's really a tutti passage, then trhink of your trumpets and trombones as one group.

think of the horns as another group.

if you MUST think of the horns as part of the brass, consider doubling them to create 2 horn parts, each played "

thanks for your comments, there's a lot i can take from them! :o

It was fairly enjoyable, though the most troublesome thing was, as Nico so wisely pointed out, the fact that the piece does not 'breathe' at all; there is virtually ALWAYS piano and orchestra; no solos, no silences, so it is on the one hand very difficult to listen to, but on the other, it makes the listener almost bored because of the lack of variation (rhythmic, not thematic). Also, (perhaps it was merely the bad quality of the MIDI) I heard little dynamic changes.

Maestro Sapphire

Hmm.. Well Nico and Sapphire you are both, unsurprisingly, wrong. I was just listening to a Tanglewood Broadcast yesterday of Brahms's Second Piano concerto, and it was described as a Symphony with a Piano obligato. This Piano concerto really reminds me of the Brahm's Second, for that reason. The lack of solos in the piano part is okay, it works. This is one of the most beautiful pieces I have ever heard, I kid you not. It is so beautiful. I felt this weight in my heart listening to it. A real physical emotion was evoked in me that I could feel. This is spectacular. Wow this is making me teary eyed. I honestly must sound like a fool right now, but Andrew, oh my god. :glare:

Watch my mouth? Nico....I am having a hard time understaning what you found offending about what I said.

i don't know how long it will be until i write a third movement.... or if i do at all. My style has changed so much since i began this piece!

While there are certianly enjoyable tunes and melodies, and everything does seem to flow very nicely from one section to another, there are a lot of weaknesses in this piece that makes it uninteresting to me. I speak as a pianist primarily in this regard, and as an unabashed Romantic.

I'm going to concur with QCcowboy on the weaknesses in the orchestration and piano writing. While QC goes on to state that you prove to him it is not a Concerto for th eright hand, I would like to point out that it is only barely not a concerto for Right Hand (and if you will note, I do not believe there are any Piano Concertos for the Right Hand). Except for the final chord in the second movement, at no point does the left hand have to simultaneously play more than one note. And in many instances, the left hand can just hang limply at the pianist's side.

That is the primary weakness in this Concerto (both movements). Yes, the 3v2 section is a good way to break this up, it is still quite dull for the left hand. And the right hand section isn't really that interesting either.

Keep in mind, you have some good themes and the material does work (your opening to the Romance is particularly lovely). You just need to keep in mind that the Piano line should be multilayered. Thundering homophonic chords can work great, but not in the right hand alone.

Good luck with this and with the rest of the work. I did enjoy listening to this.

Hi Guys!

This is a work in progress, started three years ago.

The first movement i wrote in 2003, and the second movement in 2004 (3rd movt non-existant at present).

You can hear the change of my composition style between the two movements.

I've gone off this piece myself but will be interested to hear your comments. This is my most major work i have written so far.

Enjoy, i hope! :)

The major problem in this work is that it sounds like typical music that some known composer would have written but its missing the most important thing and that is its missing Andrew Baldwin. I demand more originality and I dont want to hear debussy and Rachmaninov in the background.

The piece also sounds like a romance with little conflict between the piano and the orchestra. Afterall this is supposed to be a concerto.

A very nice piece for a composer of his age but he still has to develop his originality.

Best Wishes,

Saul

sure, there may be influences of Rachmaninoff & Debussy. But i would hesitate to say that these influences "consume" the piece & make it unoriginal! There are harmonies in this piece which would not be found in Debussy or Rach. However, i do agree with your thoughts about it being more of a "romance with little conflict between the piano and the orchestra". And, i'm happy with that. In fact, that may be what this concerto becomes eventually.

sure, there may be influences of Rachmaninoff & Debussy. But i would hesitate to say that these influences "consume" the piece & make it unoriginal! .

Can you explain whats original in this work?

I agree, while the piece is orginal, it has a taste of unoriginality

I do like the baroque feel and the romantic feel that you write, its gives it a very good blend, one that I like (and this is comin from a person who HATES baroque music)(mostly hates, not totally hates baroque actually)

EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DONE.

Music is limitless. You missed out the whole point.

Can you explain whats original in this work?

I'd argue that combining the influences of Rachmaninoff and Debussy isn't that easy - their approaches to music were widely contrasting. Takes some originality to do it.

I like the romanticism of this music.

Please continue!

If you've gone off this piece, then I'd love to hear what you're writing now! For me the first movement has a totally unforgettable melodic invention and vitality - I can see that a pianist might not find it very interesting to play but to listen to the piano line is generally Ok if a bit monotonous. The quality of the music more than makes up for any lack of sophistication in the orchestration. Interestingly enough I find the first movement better than the second, not technically, but the all important invention is much fresher.

very enjoyable, exquisite and even. What do I mean by even?. Your writing is very symetric and stable as to the oposite where there are surprises and irregular countermelodies. Is that good or bad? well it depends, 30 years from now you will aquire enough skills to give yourself the liberty to break the monotony of the style. However, if experimenting is not what you love the most then convensional harmony will be there for you all the time.

Thanks for sharing

greetings

Music has an infinite amount of possibilities within a finite framework.

I concur

This piece sounds professional to say the least. Sounds a bit like beethoven sonatas in parts. I like it!