Toccata for Solo Piano

Dear all,

This is a piece I wrote back then, in 2021, for a call-for-score competition of a piano performing competition.

This is meant to be a part of the repretoire performers can choose from for their programme. Unfortunately, the competition is heavily impacted by the pendemic and I cannot listen to the live/ streamed performance of this peice.

Here is my original note for this work.

"This toccata is the second work in the composer’s recent piano series which explore polyrhythmic motif development. The piece starts with a simple, tranquil theme and it evolves into a fast quasi-fugue. Later, the passionate 3-against-5 passage enters with contrasts to the first motif. After the appearance of both motives, variations follow and direct the development for the rest of the toccata. "

HoYin
 

Hi HoYin! Let's dive into it.

• A section: very carefully crafted beginning. Definitely promising.

• B section: would be not of my liking, but you seem to know your craft enough to walk in the fine line between a total mess and something surprisingly coherent for the tremendous jumps in melody done, for example, in M39. Still sounds a bit artificial to me but I suppose this is what you intended.

• C section: this is kind of difficult to follow note by note even with the score, I'm just not used to this style. I like how this section serves (in my opinion) as a bridge between B and D, having stains of both.

• D section: a very fitting pause at the beginning, just as much as the "poco a poco accel." section.

• E, F & G sections: I'm kinda sure I wouldn't be able to perform this at all. What pianist was supposed to play this work? I gotta give him my contact card! I'm not very sure of what sections mark. In any case, the last staff (starting at M237) sounds magnificent.

• H section: again I particularly get engaged with your section beginning bars, the rest of the section was as bombastic as the preceding ones but I started to lose track of it. 

• I section: the ending caught me completely off-guard; I wouldn't say that it didn't convince me, but I'm still not sure whether I fully liked how abrupt it was —it wasn't, if we compare it with the material you brought before—, or perhaps it was the final notes, I don't know.

I would say the A section was my favourite part, was well as the penultimate staff of the score. The rest might be better for some tastes, worse for others, but to be more precise there were points where I would say you walked in the border between chaos and meaning, sometimes leaning to chaos and sometimes to meaning. There were other points, specially at the beginning of each section, where the directionality of the piece arose, but there were others where the music gave the impression to be put there for the sake of showing off the (crazy) virtuosity of the performer, which isn't necessarily bad as long as you are fine with it.  

Thank you for sharing and let's hope it gets a real rendition in the near future! I know that these opinions are not very useful but it's just this is not the style I tend to work with :B.

Kind regards,
Daniel–Ømicrón.

Hi!

Well, I really liked this piece. I will say, firstly, that your command of development and themes is impressive. Section A immediately caught my attention. After that, section B felt very natural (I liked the significant contrast). I lost the sense of rhythm at C, but it was regained around m. 65. I am not sure that this is an issue- in the case of a real performance, the polyrhythms would likely not be completely mathematically exact, and I suspect they would sound quite pianistic and not confusing (almost like notated rubato?... maybe I am misinterpreting your goal). After B, the music was was often dense and complicated (and always quickly developing) The piece could have become homogenous, but the presence or absence of polyrhythms and the many different tempi provided variety; additionally, the piece was short enough to make the density work, rather than drag the piece down. I liked the abrupt ending! (On a second listen, the sections became even clearer and any remaining sense of homogeneity was lost). The only moment where I was confused was at the transition from C to D. There was a nice cadence, and then at m. 85 it went into something else. At that moment, I got the sense of a medley.

Overall, I found the piece engaging and clearly well-crafted. I wonder if you had listened to Sofia Gubaidulina's Chaconne when composing this? I was a bit reminded of that piece in your harmonic language, which felt based in tonality, yet incorporated surprising dissonances and "twists". I was reminded of that piece most clearly in the more contrapuntal sections, such as A and G (also m. 112-114, in the scalar passage).

Thank you very much for posting!