DELETED #7

DELETED

It sounds nice and all, but I'm not sure that I would describe it as being in the form of a rondo. ABACA, I mean yes, some rondos including the very famous Fur Elise are in that form, but most are more complicated. Also, the tempo just does not suggest to me a rondo form. Usually, rondos are at a moderately fast tempo at least(so like Allegretto or Allegro Moderato). Again, Fur Elise is a moderately fast rondo, as is probably the most well known Rondo to all pianists:

And the supposed C section sounds so similar to the B section in motives and everything, that I'm not sure the key contrast is enough to justify it being a C section instead of a second B section. If we simplify things so that the C section is a second B section, we get this:

ABABA

That suggests a totally different form from the rondo. That being what I call a Double Minuet and Trio. Minuet and Trio because of the A and B sections, and Double because the B section shows up twice. One symphonic movement by Beethoven follows this form. That being the third movement of Beethoven's fourth symphony:

But, there is something unusual about what you have composed, more so than the Double Minuet and Trio form, that being the time signature. Most bagatelles and minuets are in 3/4 time. But your time signature is 4/4. Most of what you wrote seems like it would fit perfectly into 3/4, more so than it fits into 4/4. And with 3/4, you wouldn't need the anacrusis(pickup measure) to fit the notes in nicely.

2 hours ago, caters said:

It sounds nice and all, but I'm not sure that I would describe it as being in the form of a rondo. ABACA, I mean yes, some rondos including the very famous Fur Elise are in that form, but most are more complicated. Also, the tempo just does not suggest to me a rondo form. Usually, rondos are at a moderately fast tempo at least(so like Allegretto or Allegro Moderato). Again, Fur Elise is a moderately fast rondo, as is probably the most well known Rondo to all pianists:

And the supposed C section sounds so similar to the B section in motives and everything, that I'm not sure the key contrast is enough to justify it being a C section instead of a second B section. If we simplify things so that the C section is a second B section, we get this:

ABABA

That suggests a totally different form from the rondo. That being what I call a Double Minuet and Trio. Minuet and Trio because of the A and B sections, and Double because the B section shows up twice. One symphonic movement by Beethoven follows this form. That being the third movement of Beethoven's fourth symphony:

But, there is something unusual about what you have composed, more so than the Double Minuet and Trio form, that being the time signature. Most bagatelles and minuets are in 3/4 time. But your time signature is 4/4. Most of what you wrote seems like it would fit perfectly into 3/4, more so than it fits into 4/4. And with 3/4, you wouldn't need the anacrusis(pickup measure) to fit the notes in nicely.

 

A composition is note necessarily defined as the form of X composer used them mostly. That's different than an allegro-sonata form, which IS greatlt defined.

A bagatella is a rather faster piece and as the title means "losing the time" is the character of It. Meanwhile is true is not an agile piece, I used that form because I thought it feated the character of It, nonetheless. Other things you said, about the form (which i said quasi-rondo, not rondo, which makes what you said starting from a wrong POV) it's as a said, it's not definied at all for bagatella, you shoudlnt fix forma that trully are not the character of the piece.

I may call It just andante. Lastly I strongly disagree with the time signature, 3/4 doesn't even fit there at all

Call it as you like. It's just a name. And without calling it something very odd to the name, why not? I think forms are important issues to know about, but taking them in strict sense only enforces to the pieces of the classics. We are in 21st century, no longer in 18th..., so you can do whatever you want. (In fact, I think we should).

Regarding the music I think it's a balanced piece and very catchy. I like the variation in the parts, and also the modulations are very soft.

3 minutes ago, Luis Hernández said:

Call it as you like. It's just a name. And without calling it something very odd to the name, why not? I think forms are important issues to know about, but taking them in strict sense only enforces to the pieces of the classics. We are in 21st century, no longer in 18th..., so you can do whatever you want. (In fact, I think we should).

Regarding the music I think it's a balanced piece and very catchy. I like the variation in the parts, and also the modulations are very soft.

 

Thanks, but I have to agree to Caters in the fact that the piece doesnt suit the style, and I also think we should use proper names, why not calling andante cantabile, instead of Bagatella if it doesnt really suit? My opinion is a bit contrary to yours in that sense, and only i would call things as proper, or at least when the model is based. I changed It to andante cantabile in g Major, and maybe later try a real agile, short piece and call It bagatella. 

Thanks for your words, Luis

Well, that's another point of view. I'm not interested at all in copying classic forms, but in transforming them. Or using them at my convenience.

Just now, Luis Hernández said:

Well, that's another point of view. I'm not interested at all in copying classic forms, but in transforming them. Or using them at my convenience.

 

I dont disagree with that, you're mistaking me, with my answer i mean when someone takes a sonata, and doesn't makes a multi-movement work that relates them, in the actual day meaning. For example the first sonatas where a single movement work which intention was similar to Intermezzo (example, Handel sonatas or Scarlatti sonatas), then they became a multi-movement work of related material, with later baroque sonatas, and finally in classical time, they become the most common allegro sonatas. I think those changes are necessary and I don't really see bad calling It like that, at least if you're inventing a new form, but if you use other structures and go too far away you will make confusing material and the nature of a form will be deformed. There's already freeier forms, such Preludes, Études, Fantasías, etc...

OK, but you keep thining in those classic terms all the time, and that's fine.

From my point of view (not only mine, thank God) those forms have trascended from what they exactaly were into other things.

It's like if you take "the idea" or "your idea" of what a sonata is, not thinking in its exact structure and rules.

If not, how do you explain, for example, the Sonata for Cello and Piano by Webern (atonal) lasting about 2 minutes? The composers named it Sonata. Was he wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6fcALtNgIA

I agree

25 minutes ago, Luis Hernández said:

OK, but you keep thining in those classic terms all the time, and that's fine.

From my point of view (not only mine, thank God) those forms have trascended from what they exactaly were into other things.

It's like if you take "the idea" or "your idea" of what a sonata is, not thinking in its exact structure and rules.

If not, how do you explain, for example, the Sonata for Cello and Piano by Webern (atonal) lasting about 2 minutes? The composers named it Sonata. Was he wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6fcALtNgIA

 

I agree with such idea a bit, then we dont think so distintc at all. For me an example is as I said, transform of Baroque sonata to allegro, for example

I think this is a witty (elegant) stylization to the music of Viennese classics. You even score wrote as Mozart 😃 And I don't know why you have noticed the structure of this work as "quasi-rondo". As for me it is a real rondo without any "quasi". All my teachers always said that rondo must have five parts or more and the main theme must be returned three times or more. The size of composition is not important.

 P.S. I'm sorry if I understand something here incorrectly or if I said something wrong. My English is not good.

2 hours ago, Alexx said:

I think this is a witty (elegant) stylization to the music of Viennese classics. You even score wrote as Mozart 😃 And I don't know why you have noticed the structure of this work as "quasi-rondo". As for me it is a real rondo without any "quasi". All my teachers always said that rondo must have five parts or more and the main theme must be returned three times or more. The size of composition is not important.

 P.S. I'm sorry if I understand something here incorrectly or if I said something wrong. My English is not good.

 

A rondo mostly has a coda (ABABC or ABABAC) but this one doesn't, that's why I thought of it as quasi rondo. Indeed, you made a high guess on the similarities, since is kinda inspired on Diabelli's music (vienesse), but I don't think Mozart is the one that far. Thanks a lot for your kind words, they fill me with please.