WarBorn revisited after published. Version 2 WIP piano sketch

I am trying to do what some of the late romantic composers did in their time:
Keep refining even after a work have been published to improve the piece further.

(Mahler, Liszt, Bruckner and others did this)

Any critique is welcome.

I refined and changed a few sections in the piece even re wrote some parts. While some sections stayed the same.

Thanks in advance.

revisit warborn work in progress.pdf

Why hello there,

When I was listening to your piece, I heard a compound meter and not simple meter. From the score, you have a simple meter (3/4) with triplets that gave me that me that impression. and Other triplet figures too... Switch 3/4 and replace it with 9/8. you will still have the triplet feel! You might have to adjust some bars to adjust to meter. But overall, you will be surprised...

The direct modulation from D-A was a nice surprise. It reminded how J. Williams modulates.

Thanks a lot for your comment @Kvothe

I re wrote the score with new ideas and tried to improve it with the 9/8 meter.
Others have mention it as well and I thought then why not give it a try then?
Here is the new re written version.

Warborn recomposed draft 3.pdf

Hi @Bjarke !

Good job making the score look cleaner! I think it really simplifies the look when you write it in 9/8. But you could have applied the same logic to the 5/4 bar as well! You could have written it as a 15/8 bar! Thanks for sharing.

Great, that looks better.

For the next version, I want to look through the score and look at bars repeat the same material and re think them. I am sure the piece can logically breathe with out them, yes?

After that, we will look at 5/4 section...

Thanks again @PeterthePapercomPoser and @Kvothe

Here is yet an other refined version where i tryied to re think the repetitions a bit and refined some ideas.

war born reimagned draft 5.pdf

You are one step closer, my friend @Bjarke

Now let us talk about articulation markings.

I notice in the left hand you have every note mark with a staccato mark. This is not necessary. There are several options.

Option 1: mark one group with staccato then use the expression sim.

Option 2: Sempre Staccato

Option 3: use the word staccato in the left hand.

I think in your case, where you have certain articulation pattern, the first choice would be best the choice for you.

I feel b. 95-97 is too repetitive . Do we need to hear the repeat the chord in the RH? (it is too static...)

I feel that if you allow that chord to breathe and move it will create more momentum. On the same not. b93 is a repeat of b.92...

:)