Nocturne in G minor ( c.1840) Student Piece No. 4

    I needed a break after the difficulties I had with the Piano Quartet Andante, and have been getting interested in the piano rep.    I've been listening to Chopin, and found John Field in the process. His noctures were the beginnings (at least in name) for a genre that Chopin and others took up.  Lovely stuff, though after 4 or 5, you get a little weary--something that I don't find with Chopin.  Defintely worth a listen.

   Field's nocturnes aren't as elaborate or extemporaneous sounding as Chopin's, with the left hand pretty much providing arpeggiated accompaniment, and the right providing the melody.  Not that they are simple--they are not--especially the later of the set of 18.

   I thought the project was striaght forward enough and doable, as well as providing an opportunity to write something I could play.  Well, it started that way, but as will be seen/heard, by the time I worked it into a proper piece, it had quite gotten away from comfortable for me.  Maybe with much work...

 Anyhow, I like to frame this as a rondo structure with A B A1 C A2 as the basis. 

   The trick was to provide as much variety as possible with the ostenato accompaniment and sonics in general, so I raise the left hand part to treble at B, then changed the rising triplet to a broken chord pattern and left off with the pedal at C.  It seems to provide a good amount of change/variety.

  The piece gets progressively more elaborate and adds more ornamentation and dramatics before closing.    The climatic is at the melissma in the late C section--preserving the GOLDEN RATIO --CLIMAX  at 2/3rds through the piece.  I think the major key section has a bit of Chopin's improvisational sound--without his grace and perfection.   Otherwise, it sounds like Beethoven and John Field met and had a baby  (aspirationally, for me).  

   Anyhow, I actually has some FUN with this, and completed it in  7 or 8 sessions over 3 weeks.   

 I've heard some great music on the site lately, and know I owe some comments..

Now about ready for the PQ Allegro....

FINAL FORM!    😉

   I've deleted the first submission and included here only the final edit.    (Updated to v.F11R 6-28-23:  performance of closing mini cadenza)

 1.  I've made chord corrections suggested by Henry and PCC.

  2. The trill failing to register Eb and playing E nat. on the high note may  be an error, but it sounds good as the chord resolves to A.  Left as is.  (Still need to research this issue though...)

  3.  ADDED:  a dramatic fermata at the conclusion, with a unaccompanied melissima/run leading into the bass line ending.   With the pedal is is very atmospheric and stark with the triplets disappearing.    I spent a lot of time trying to get the performance right, and sounding a bit human.    

  4.  Various cleanings up.

EDIT  7-3-23    v.FR3

 1. IMPROVED anacrusis at final return of A theme.  Much better than first effort.

2. Further toning down of reverb to get a crisper treble/cleaner sound.

Alright,

Lovely piece you've got here.

I have nothing to comment on musically, but I have a few comments notation-wise

• I feel like it would be better to notate this piece in 12/8 due to the constant triplet feel created by the accompinament.
• Looking at the score, the engraving is really messy. There are dynamic markings in notes, and pedal markings all over the place. I think it would be a good idea to try and clean this up, as its a bit hard to read.

Cheers,

Arjuna

I disagree with using 12/8, it would probably limit the occasional polyrhythm and rubato. It's probably still a notation issue, great if you would hid the everlasting amount of "3"s in the piece.

Musically lovely. I am just not comfortable with the staggering amount of diminished harmonies you are using. For example, bar 3, would it not sound smoother if the arpeggio ends on a D instead of a C?

With some practice I think this piece will sound much better when played irl

Quote

Alright,

Lovely piece you've got here.

I have nothing to comment on musically, but I have a few comments notation-wise

• I feel like it would be better to notate this piece in 12/8 due to the constant triplet feel created by the accompinament.
• Looking at the score, the engraving is really messy. There are dynamic markings in notes, and pedal markings all over the place. I think it would be a good idea to try and clean this up, as its a bit hard to read.

Arjuna---

     I'm glad you like the piece!

   Regarding your comments:

1.   I considered the 12/8 when begining to formulate the piece, but realized the flexibility of using duplets to good effect would be lost.   As PCC comments, the cross rhythms/polyrhythms are an important aspect of the piece, creating a sycopation/rubato feel and disrupting the triplet flow, providing points of musical interest.

    Chopin, I note (I just finished a biography), used cross rhythms quite a bit---11 against 7, 7 against 4---very difficult figurations!  The simple note values I use are a small challenge, and worth the effort for the effect.

2.  Yes!  the score is a trainwreck!!    I hate to fuss with spacings, as I usually destroy my score.  I will make a new file name and try to make some room and rearange things, because you are right!  It is a mess.  The process might help reveal opportunities for a few refinements.

    One note---there is a sublte rubato in the playback as a result of Finale/print musics' "human playback: Romantic style" setting.  While not perfect, it does provide a nice touch and break the strict triplet tempo.  Sort of amazing to me.   I can't detect any other salient effects of this setting.

    Thank you for the comments and listen!

Quote

I disagree with using 12/8, it would probably limit the occasional polyrhythm and rubato. It's probably still a notation issue, great if you would hid the everlasting amount of "3"s in the piece.

Musically lovely. I am just not comfortable with the staggering amount of diminished harmonies you are using. For example, bar 3, would it not sound smoother if the arpeggio ends on a D instead of a C?

With some practice I think this piece will sound much better when played irl

PCC---

     I agree about the 12/8 --and for the reasons you give.  Particuarly in the C section and final A2  section the cross rhythms add a lot of drama and interest.

   Regarding the diminshed chords--and diminished 7th--these provide disonance/a dark sonic hue, and because of their more "rootless" quality, make it easier for more flexible progressions.  Their use is tied to these reasons.    The basic compositional challenge, to me, is to provide LESS smooth/gentle progressions, as the lullaby/cantabile nature of these types of pieces can put you right to sleep if you aren't careful--the ostenato left hand, the melodic line (vs. motif develpment/countepoint, etc..) can be a friend or an enemy.

   So, generically, that is my reasoning looking broadly at the piece.   THAT SAID, I want to run through you suggestion  at the keyboard, and conisder what I'm hearing.    I'm "off duty" tonight, but will update my post and comment, maybe include an audio clip to support my opinion.

   These are asthetic issues, of course, and I am learning to be very cautious about them.   Once we no longer trust our instincts/ear, this whole endeavor becomes almost pointlessly difficult...

   I'm glad you found  it pleasing and  thank you for the listen and  comments!

On 6/22/2023 at 5:16 AM, PCC said:

Musically lovely. I am just not comfortable with the staggering amount of diminished harmonies you are using. For example, bar 3, would it not sound smoother if the arpeggio ends on a D instead of a C?

Finally sat down to look at bar 3.

  Looking at it, this is an IDEAL example of  what I am talking about regarding tonal ambiquity/flexibility using diminshed/7th chords in harmony.

    The chromatic anacrusis is leading into a G minor chord repeating the primary melodic minor key phrase.  It is in itself playing on key indeterminancy to make its effect  (moody/brooding).  I SUPPORT it with an IMPLIED D7 (v7 with the root omitted)  leading it G minor, ENHANCING the indeterminancy that this phrase is intended to induce.

  A clear D major hear would undermine to some extent the intended overall effect.  I should note the D whole note undergirding the whole bar!

    Subtle, but important.  Everything here (at least) is working in harmony (har har har).  Every now and again I get it right. 😉

   Along  with a prior 1st inversion kerfluffle, I don't understand objections to any number of diminshed chords is they serve the needs of a piece.  A minor key romantic adagio seems a likely place to find them.  There are plenty of major, minor, and one or two augmented chords as well, and plenty of 7thd of all stripes, for those who are counting!

  Myself, I am against quotas!

Lovely piece. I liked it very much.

36 minutes ago, bored_comedy said:

Lovely piece. I liked it very much.

  I'm glad you liked it!   I had a great time writing it.

    This piece is a boiler plate simple example very close to the form of what John Field wrote.  I highly recommend listening to his nocturnes. They are exceptional, and influenced Chopin in his noctures and Mendelssohn in many of his "Songs Without Words" as well!

It's your piece, I'm not here to dictate your moves, but it repeated diminished chords in a slow tempo can be very boring to me. I think you modified it a bit later? In any case things probably sound better in a real performance with appropriate voicing and such. I suppose that's why I insisted playing my own pieces.

A dim7 chord does not need to be fulfilled only by the left hand. For example, bar 5, the C is supplemented by the melody. Of course there are a few ways you can go about for bar 5 as well.

I will use Henry's magic against you here. Bar 7 C --> Bb caused a parallel from the arpeggio and the melody.

After some thoughts 12/8 time signature wouldn't necessarily be limiting the polyrhythm potential if you do quadtuplets right, etc. then again I see these more as flourishes than true polyrhythms.

Anyway, many good things said. And I have yet to get through nocturnes in general.

1 hour ago, PCC said:

It's your piece, I'm not here to dictate your moves, but it repeated diminished chords in a slow tempo can be very boring to me.

   Oh, thats what you meant!  I can't argue with that!--thank  God!  You find slow temp dim 7th boring,sometimes!  I thought I did something wrong.

  I haven't modified anything since my first post--and trust me here --it is a first!🙂

1 hour ago, PCC said:

A dim7 chord does not need to be fulfilled only by the left hand. For example, bar 5, the C is supplemented by the melody. Of course there are a few ways you can go about for bar 5 as well.

      It's formally a D7 there!  Like Bar 3.  Keeping the left hand accompaniment consistent  on a repeat...  I would tend to make any changes reflected in both measures (3 and 5).

1 hour ago, PCC said:

I will use Henry's magic against you here. Bar 7 C --> Bb caused a parallel from the arpeggio and the melody.

   My rule is if the issue is parallel 5th or ocataves, I am doing pretty darn good.  That said, I could make the bass D a C and make the arpeggio note the d.  I took pains to keep the spans in the left hand at an octave as much as possible, but with the pedal you can hit the C and let it ride...

1 hour ago, PCC said:

After some thoughts 12/8 time signature wouldn't necessarily be limiting the polyrhythm potential if you do quadtuplets right, etc. then again I see these more as flourishes than true polyrhythms.

                                Yes, there are ways to accomplish the same relative values in 12/8.   I chose the most direct and flexible way to solve a practical issue.  And yes, they are isolated cross rhythms for a rubato/stutter effect, not protracted polyrhythmic sequences.

   You've got me thinking!   Thank you for your comments!

Hi @Rich,

For me it's indeed early romantic. Maybe this is closer to Field's nocturne and it's less fascinating as Chopin's ones. But it reminds me the Moonlight Sonata as well with the constant triplets, though less colourful and emotional.

I do think the harmony in general is less colourful, but since it has the early romantic Field as the model it's fine with this. But I think it will be great to invite the Naepolitan chord though.

13 hours ago, Rich said:

It's formally a D7 there!  Like Bar 3.  Keeping the left hand accompaniment consistent  on a repeat...  I would tend to make any changes reflected in both measures (3 and 5).

Yup but for a D7 chord usually the seventh will not be doubled since they both resolve to Bb which cause a paralle 8ve, and the resolution will be too strong, so I think @PCC's suggestion to change the C to D a good one actually, even tho his suggestion is on b.3. I would suggest it in b.7.

For me I think the register of the melody is limited and not idiomatic to piano, esp. for a piano character piece! You should definitely visit more registers of the piano instead of limiting the RH to the middle to middle high register. That makes the melodic part less interesting without change of register.

I like your use of decorations and they really embellish the melody.

For b.6 the diminished chord usually the first inversion is suggested rather than the second inversion here, and doubling the third will be better sounding.

Using first inversion for Bb chord in b.29 and subsequent places makes it weak and less established, but if it's your intention is fine.

Thx for sharing.

Henry

27 minutes ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

For me it's indeed early romantic. Maybe this is closer to Field's nocturne and it's less fascinating as Chopin's ones. But it reminds me the Moonlight Sonata as well with the constant triplets, though less colourful and emotional.

   Henry!

     My 4th student piece is NOT as fascinating as Chopin or moving as Beethoven???  Whaaa?    Thank you!  I needed to hear this.  i wil adjust my expectations.  Also, I AGREE!!!!    All three were fantastic pianists, and two were titanic geniuses!  I am an amateur hack!

29 minutes ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

Yup but for a D7 chord usually the seventh will not be doubled since they both resolve to Bb which cause a paralle 8ve, and the resolution will be too strong, so I think @PCC's suggestion to change the C to D a good one actually, even tho his suggestion is on b.3. I would suggest it in b.7.

   Yes, I am going to make this change.

31 minutes ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

For me I think the register of the melody is limited and not idiomatic to piano, esp. for a piano character piece! You should definitely visit more registers of the piano instead of limiting the RH to the middle to middle high register. That makes the melodic part less interesting without change of register.

             I am currently reading Charels Rosen's "Piano Notes".  He talks about how a piano wears/ages, and how technicians need to tune/adjust the piano.    The area where it gets bright soonest?   The 2nd octave above middle C!   Where the major melodic activity usually happens!     I literally just read this last night.       I think the piece hangs together well, and works on its own terms, as subdued/bland as it is.   I do change registers after 50 seconds for the B section--realizing it was necessary--but the general subdued nature of the piece--this piece's character- is consistent within itself.  It is conceived as a whole, and I know from recent past experience that if I start monkeying with segments without an overarching plan, its BAD, BAD news.

   I do plan to write another piece, major key, with a different accompaniment and general tone.  I certainly aim for a more rangey melodic line and more variety.  Again, this is my first stab at the genre and I only started to listen to Field/Chopin instensely a few months ago!  Its all new!  I'm learning the ropes and how a nocturne works out compostionally.      

   I consider this a "successful failure", if you get my drift.     I wasn't attempting to rival Field, Chopin, or Beethoven (if you could imagine!), just jump in get a feel for it.  Which I did.

44 minutes ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

For b.6 the diminished chord usually the first inversion is suggested rather than the second inversion here, and doubling the third will be better sounding.

    Ok.  I can make that change.   I read that doubling thirds in a 1st inversion for the bass is not ideal.  So with diminshed chords this is the exception?       

   As for the other 1st inversion stuff, gotta pass.    It seems, after the fact, to be a personal preference.

   Thank you for the listen and analysis.  I will make changes as indicated.     With a little distance now, I think I could jazz up some segments melodically and ornament-wise, and might consider making some adjustments.  Nothing radical, but musical interest is the aim.   I have a hankering for a full stop on a fermata and a unaccompanied run on the left hand...hmmm....

    I've made the changes recommended by Henry and PCC.

     I lifted the C in the bass in b.3,5 and 7 and where they occur in returns of the A theme.  the 7th as a bass won't do.    I like the dim 7 in 1st inversion in bar 6.  Defintely better.   The other changes appease the rules.

  I have added a dramatic unaccompanied run at the conclusion, before the left hand takes up the melodic line ends the piece.  I like it, but it may need some tweeking.

     My ritardando stopped working!  I've made patches based on online recommendations and it is serviceable.  Don't know what happened. It has made completing thsi last flourish a real pain.

I cleaned up the score, made more space and adjusted things.  Looks better.  

Other than that, only a few minor changes.

  The F5 file is corrections + run

  The F3 file is just corrections.  The rit. works in this file, so something in the score of f5 is messing up Print Music.  Gotta hunt it down...

   Final version!

  Fixed my ritardando!  Whew!

   Also, corrected final unaccompanied flourish--extended one bar and let it take its time---like the pedal effect with the single voice.

   Sorry, but my OCD takes over...Aint' right until its right.  Cant' sleep....

I haven't been keeping track of all the changes you've been making to the piece but I listened to the latest version and it seems much better to me than when I heard it originally so great job!  I hear the trill on D in measure 12 beat 4 as trilling to an E natural even though you have an Eb in the key signature though.  Also you might want to edit your original post at the top of the thread to include the final version of the piece so people understand that the piece has gone through some revisions when they first open the topic.  Thanks for sharing!

9 minutes ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

I haven't been keeping track of all the changes you've been making to the piece but I listened to the latest version and it seems much better to me than when I heard it originally so great job!  I hear the trill on D in measure 12 beat 4 as trilling to an E natural even though you have an Eb in the key signature though.  Also you might want to edit your original post at the top of the thread to include the final version of the piece so people understand that the piece has gone through some revisions when they first open the topic.  Thanks for sharing!

 

 Thanks Peter---  I added it to the top of the thread.    Gonna look into the trill.