Piano Concerto in F Sharp Minor - Movement I

This piece is my most recently completed work, and I consider it also to be my best to date. This is the first movement of a projected four movement Piano Concerto. The order of the movements will be as follows:

I - Allegro giocoso (Concerto-Allegro form)

II - Scherzo (Rondo form)

III - Adagio (Theme and Variations most likely)

IV - Finale (Prelude, Passacaglia, Cadenza, Fugue, and Coda)

The first movement is written in the classic Concerto-Allegro form. It is my attempt to write a great Romantic Piano Concerto akin to what was written in the Nineteenth Century, most likely the heyday of the Pianoforte.

If there are any troubles with the midi, please let me know and I will do my best to fix them.

Piano_Concerto_Mvt1_Allegro_giocoso.mid

This is a very complicated piece, but I am really impressed with what you did with this. I like this piece a lot! Is there perhaps some Rachmaninoff influence in this piece of writing?

I am going to comment more in detail about your piano parts at a later time. But listening once to this piece, and disregarding any possible mistakes, your overall piece was amazing and fun to listen to. Not in the least boring.

My comments will be about your piano parts. I do feel your piano sections are weaker than your orchestra. I will compose some of my "recommendations" for certain parts and resend so I just don't sound like "all talk", and can show you what I am trying to relate. Some problems with your piano have to do with lack of pedaling and expression. The main problems are with your harmonization choices. Furthermore the piano part isn't expressive/adventurous enough. You need expression in the piano, otherwise it will sound too mechanic. But I will comment and help you with the piano parts when I have more time to write and compose my recommendations!

Great job!

I know I am not the proper person to judge this... but i can only add one comment

"Wow !!! Can you teach me to writte like that ?" ;)

Awesome work!

This is a grand and very impressive piece so far. I love what you've done with the orchestra. I think the piano part is suffering more from MIDI-itis than anything else. I think a great pianist could do wonders with your materials, but the computer (with out more direction) can only do so much. I'm interested to see more of this concerto as it becomes available - and also Chopin's suggestions.

Pandelis: Thank you for the compliment! The best way to learn how to write music is to study music that you love, and thne just keep experimenting! One thing I like to do is to take the score for an orchestral work, listen to the music and follow along. And then later I'll try and arrange sectiosn of those pieces for Concert Band, giving me more familiarity with balance in the Orchestra. Those are both good practices to engage in.

Lee: Thank you! I have always lamented midi's limitations, especially when it comes to the Piano. As for more material in this Concerto, it will be some time before that becomes available. I only have sketches of the other three movements done, and the pieces still need to be put together. As it took me over a year to write the first movement, it'll likely be several months before I have the Scherzo prepared.

Chopin: If there is any Rachmaninoff in the piece, it is there unconsciously. I have loved the great Russian master for as long as I have been interested in classical music, so I suppose it wouldn't be too surprising if I absorbed more than I thought! :blink:

Some more overt influences come from Scriabin, Saint-Säens, and Franck. In later movements we'll likely hear influences from Prokofiev, Myaskovsky, and Sorabji just to name a few.

It is so thrilling that I finally have a piece here that is not boring! So much of my early work is trite and unengaging. But this piece has been my heart's focus for so long now, to have it complimented in sucha way really brings a smile to my face. Now, as far as the piano is concerned, the entrance of the second theme which is played in block chords by the piano is not quite correctly interpreted by the midi. Those chords are meant to be rolled for one, with a little bit of pedal. Aside from that, I had no special instructions for the pianist. That section with the chords is supposed to sound exaled, almost aetherial. I struggle for words to convey the precise meaning.

Any advice and suggests you could provide to help the piano sing would be GREATLY appreciated. I concur that my biggest weakness in writing this concerto has been in handling the piano parts. I cannot promise that I will adopt any recommendations, but I will defiitely listen receptively.

Thank you everyone who has commented so far! No other piece I have posted have I wished for comments on than this!

The opening kind of reminded me of Brahms (with some of his symphonies).

Anyway, as I promised, a more detailed review of your piano parts. Brilliant opening by the way. I can see how you tie in the melodies throughout your piece, its very good how you did this.

When reading my review, please keep in mind these are my opinions, and how I would approach this piece. Even if I say things like "you need to, you should" that just means I am expressing my strong beliefs due to my experience with piano writing. It doesn't mean I am right and you are wrong.

Measures 84-86: When writing fast passages, I normally like to keep the patterns the same. There is slight difference between measures 84, 85 and 86. They all sound similar, so they should contain the same pattern if possible. Sometimes this is not easy to do if you want to portray a specific mood, but in this case, I think it could have been manageable. The key to writing good piano music is to make the music memorable to play. If you change your pattern even a little bit, the pianist is not going to remember the piece as easily. Not to mention, you create disorder. I know this may be nitpicking, but lets look at Chopin's Winter Wind Etude. He has flying 16th notes, however he wrote in a specific pattern. Even if there was a different melody in the left hand, the right hand contained a strict right hand pattern, and this is what makes his etudes easy to play and remember (for a decent pianist). Writing music without some kind of pattern is just not practical. I hope you can see where I am coming from.

You need pedaling! I know midi is hard to program, but in the real life, this piece would need pedaling to bring it to life, and also expression. Measures 84-86 are very robotic indeed, but its the midis fault.

Lets go to measure 104. Left hand. Again, when you are going up the scale, I see no pattern. It is too random. You can create the same effect if you take the pattern of the first 4 16th notes, and stick to that pattern. Why change it? Or, you can take the pattern of the first 8 16th notes, and copy that pattern. But each group of 4's in the one measure is different. Again, disorderly and too hard to remember. Also, it would sound much better if you had a distinct pattern. You may not think so, but believe me, you can be creative with each group of "4's or 8's" and keep the same pattern.

Measures 118 - 120 you follow this rule. You have groups of 8's that contain the same pattern. This is what we pianists want! Even if the notes are different, pianists follow patterns and if the patterns are evident, is it much smoother to play, and even to listen to.

I also noticed some of your piano sections seem like "filler music" instead of being dominant. In my opinion, in a piano concerto, the piano should take the role and dominate. You want to avoid creating filler music. But again, that is my opinion.

***Measures 128 - 140 I rewrote my suggestions to you. I will put the link at the bottom of this post. It's just a suggestion on how I would approached the section. My rewrite is the first 10 or so measures, then what follows is what you wrote just so you can compare, and see how pedaling and expression can really effect the way a piano sounds. My only comments for those measures is your harmonization. It seems like it could have just been touched up a little. Excellent melody though, now that is something memorable.

Measures 174-184, again, you followed the rule of keeping the same pattern. That is good! One concern is when two of the same notes are being played in succession. It kind of breaks up the flow of the music.

198-213 is another example where you use patterns, and listen to how good that part sounds! It sounds very smooth and logical. Using specific patterns makes music sound better, smoother, logical, than when choosing random patterns, and you can hear this in your own music! You proved this yourself.

Measures 273-298 really don't agree with me. I think I actually know what you were trying to do though. Were you trying to do variations of measures similiar to (174-178, 250, 254). Or am I completely wrong? Anyway, I can't really comment on this part too much because I think it was intentional, not to mention I think I got what you were trying to say.

I really liked 460 to 470. I like how you incorporate your theme into this. The parallel octaves and block chords you can probably do away with in this section. It takes away from the musicality that this section has. Maybe I will rewrite my recommendation for this part as well, just so you can see that piano music can sound good without excessive parallel octaves! :)

484-494, the left hand is needs to be touched up. Maybe I will compose my recommendation there too.

503-505, left hand really needs to change. For that matter, so does the right hand. Take a look, your hands overlap in measure 503. This is ok if it is easy to play and notes don't overlap, but it really looks like notes overlap as well. You gotta lose these big chords, especially in the left hand.

505-515, you again use the block chords, but it does work in this passage.

516 to 535 looks really hard to play!

However, 516-535 is excellent musically (the orchestra). Very good job indeed.

Your piano parts in general

It's tough writing for this instrument! You need to make sure the piano is a bit more dominant, and not used as fillers. It should be the opposite in a piano concerto, the strings, and woodwinds should sometimes be the fillers.

Work on your patterns, limiting parallel octaves and block chords.

I said this before, I usually use parallel octaves to emphase something. If you use too many of these, you will lose that emphasis. Also those big block chords can dilute your harmonization, especially if you use those chords in both hands. This is because you can have up to 4 of the same notes being played at the same time. All you really need is 3 notes to make a chord. The other 4 notes will dilute these 3 notes that make the chord, you see what I am saying?

Your orchestration

Absolutely beautiful. Your orchestration definitly overshadows your piano. Don't let my comments get you down, the piece as a whole shows signs of a really good composer. The structure is absolutely amazing, and the way you merge your melodies is very well done. Your themes were great and memorable, and the one thing that strikes me is that the piece is not only well written, but creative as well. This is why I chose to write such a detailed review, because this piece really got my interest.

Awesome job.

REVISE.MID

I also noticed some of your piano sections seem like "filler music" instead of being dominant.

very impressive... nice harmonization.. altough I think the piano should be more harmonic.. so it fits the music... just my personal opinion.. other than that it´s a beautyful piece.

The opening kind of reminded me of Brahms (with some of his symphonies).

I have been having a lvoe affari with Brahms's 3rd Symphony for some time, so that might be why that is the case. I wanted to have a big brass fnafare to open the work, and Brahms's 3rd sort of does the same thing.

Anyway, as I promised, a more detailed review of your piano parts. Brilliant opening by the way. I can see how you tie in the melodies throughout your piece, its very good how you did this.

I think the nineteenth century composers were right about using a lietmotif. I always have a couple of themes which reoccur in various guises all throughout the work. Everything must be based on them. This may also be part of the reason I take so long to write anything of consequence.

When reading my review, please keep in mind these are my opinions, and how I would approach this piece. Even if I say things like "you need to, you should" that just means I am expressing my strong beliefs due to my experience with piano writing. It doesn't mean I am right and you are wrong.

Oh, I perfectly understand that. :)

Measures 84-86: When writing fast passages, I normally like to keep the patterns the same. There is slight difference between measures 84, 85 and 86. They all sound similar, so they should contain the same pattern if possible.

Hmmm, I had not noticed tihs before, but you are correct. I'll fiddle with it, see if it sounds appreciably different with a more well-defined pattern.

You need pedaling! I know midi is hard to program, but in the real life, this piece would need pedaling to bring it to life, and also expression. Measures 84-86 are very robotic indeed, but its the midis fault.

Sadly, I've become so disenchanted with midi, I don't even bother to try forcing it to have more expression because I just chalk it up to the midi. That's a bad habit I need to get out of.

Measures 118 - 120 you follow this rule. You have groups of 8's that contain the same pattern. This is what we pianists want! Even if the notes are different, pianists follow patterns and if the patterns are evident, is it much smoother to play, and even to listen to.

I also noticed some of your piano sections seem like "filler music" instead of being dominant. In my opinion, in a piano concerto, the piano should take the role and dominate. You want to avoid creating filler music. But again, that is my opinion.

In the sections where there is a full orchestral tutti, the piano music I wrote was meant to be kind of a virtuoso improvisation. If you can suggest a better course of action in those places I'd be glad to hear it!

***Measures 128 - 140 I rewrote my suggestions to you. I will put the link at the bottom of this post. It's just a suggestion on how I would approached the section. My rewrite is the first 10 or so measures, then what follows is what you wrote just so you can compare, and see how pedaling and expression can really effect the way a piano sounds. My only comments for those measures is your harmonization. It seems like it could have just been touched up a little. Excellent melody though, now that is something memorable.

In listening to your suggestion, I rather like some of the effects you have, most especially in the left hand. I am not sure I like all of your harmonic choices, but that is as always a matter of taste. I will likely incorporate some of the elements of these suggestions into the work at sections such as in measures 128-140. Thank you very much for making them. :P

Measures 174-184, again, you followed the rule of keeping the same pattern. That is good! One concern is when two of the same notes are being played in succession. It kind of breaks up the flow of the music.

It can also give more weight to the root note in the chord if played as I do. I recall my old piano teacher playing a similar passage with repeats and without repeats. It was remarkable to hear how weak the passage without repeats sounded. Comparatively at least.

198-213 is another example where you use patterns, and listen to how good that part sounds! It sounds very smooth and logical. Using specific patterns makes music sound better, smoother, logical, than when choosing random patterns, and you can hear this in your own music! You proved this yourself.

*chuckles* Ah, that's one of my favorite parts too. I do concur with your assessment though. I especially like this section for another reason. I managed to pull off a stack of fourths at one point and it sounds perfectly natural. :D

Measures 273-298 really don't agree with me. I think I actually know what you were trying to do though. Were you trying to do variations of measures similiar to (174-178, 250, 254). Or am I completely wrong? Anyway, I can't really comment on this part too much because I think it was intentional, not to mention I think I got what you were trying to say.

You notice that one of the opening themes is a downward motif in a 3-1-3-1 rhythm? Couple that with the chords that the pianist plays in the right hand from measures 176-184 and you'll see what I was trying to do here. The orchestra is developing the former theme, while th epiano is playing the latter insistently in the upper registers. What about this section did you not like?

I really liked 460 to 470. I like how you incorporate your theme into this. The parallel octaves and block chords you can probably do away with in this section. It takes away from the musicality that this section has. Maybe I will rewrite my recommendation for this part as well, just so you can see that piano music can sound good without excessive parallel octaves!

Rewrite away! Personally, I'd love to hav ebeen able to hear Dreyshock play Chopin's Revolutionary Etude with parallel octaves in the left hand as he was reported to have done. :D

484-494, the left hand is needs to be touched up. Maybe I will compose my recommendation there too.

I am always interested in hearing your suggestions!

503-505, left hand really needs to change. For that matter, so does the right hand. Take a look, your hands overlap in measure 503. This is ok if it is easy to play and notes don't overlap, but it really looks like notes overlap as well. You gotta lose these big chords, especially in the left hand.

Hmm, this is what I get for treating the hands like independent manuals. Thanks for picking up on it!

505-515, you again use the block chords, but it does work in this passage.

There is no place more important in the piece for block chords than that. That can be my Rachmaninoff moment. :)

516 to 535 looks really hard to play!

However, 516-535 is excellent musically (the orchestra). Very good job indeed.

Actually, Rachmaninoff wrote stuff like that too, Prelude in C# Minor for instance. I just do it for a bit longer than he did. Musically, it's one of the most satisfying parts of the piece for me.

Your piano parts in general

It's tough writing for this instrument! You need to make sure the piano is a bit more dominant, and not used as fillers. It should be the opposite in a piano concerto, the strings, and woodwinds should sometimes be the fillers.

Work on your patterns, limiting parallel octaves and block chords.

I said this before, I usually use parallel octaves to emphase something. If you use too many of these, you will lose that emphasis. Also those big block chords can dilute your harmonization, especially if you use those chords in both hands. This is because you can have up to 4 of the same notes being played at the same time. All you really need is 3 notes to make a chord. The other 4 notes will dilute these 3 notes that make the chord, you see what I am saying?

Yes, I do. The tendency to drop big chords in there is one that I definitely need to resist. Thank you for your comments! I would love your suggestions on how to make the piano a bit less filler in a few places.

Your orchestration

Absolutely beautiful. Your orchestration definitly overshadows your piano. Don't let my comments get you down, the piece as a whole shows signs of a really good composer. The structure is absolutely amazing, and the way you merge your melodies is very well done. Your themes were great and memorable, and the one thing that strikes me is that the piece is not only well written, but creative as well. This is why I chose to write such a detailed review, because this piece really got my interest.

Awesome job.

6947[/snapback]

Thank you so much, Chopin! I have been in love with the genre of Piano COncerto for years now, and I have always wanted to write one of my own. That I've managed this much of it fills me with joy. Now if I can spruce this up and get to work on the Scherzo I'd be in great shape!

Originally posted by Maestro Akhil Gardner@Nov 6 2005, 12:13 AM

Fact - The concerto form Matusleo has chosen here is the Classical Piano Concerto - that of Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms even thought Matusleo's style may be invariably not from this period hence I think it is highly inappropriate to analyse the piece from A Chopin - Liszt - Rachmaninov perpective where The Piano is the dominant instrument in their piano concerto - Filler Works should'nt be mentioned in a work of this scope ............. In the concerto form chosen (Classical Concerto) - THERE IS NO DOMINANT INSTRUMENT, There is a soloist !! Fimiliarity with form is quite clear in Matusleo's writing .... I would love to go into detail but I have not the time.

Great Work Matusleo !!

Akhil G.

Ironically, Akhil, my intent was not to write a Concerto in the style of Beethoven or Mozart, but more in the style of the late Romantic Piano Concerto. I was thinking more of Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Dohnányi, Scharwenka, and Medtner.

That said, my vision for the orchestra was also more along the lines of a Busoni, playing a great role and having its own integral function. So, while I had wanted to have a very dominant piano, I wanted the piano to get some serious competition. ;)

And I very much want you to go into detail with this piece. It is the reason I posted it here in the first place. :)

Hey Matusleo,

Hm............... :) Funny my Analysis bought up The Classical Concerto and I'm willing to stand my ground.............. ;) .............Your style may be that of "Busoni" but the form is certainly that of the Classical Concerto.(Look into it ;) )

Sometimes a composer may want something and it ends up being something completely different. :D

Thanks

Akhil G.

Will post a full analysis in a month - My holidays have just begun

very impressive... nice harmonization.. altough I think the piano should be more harmonic.. so it fits the music... just my personal opinion.. other than that it´s a beautyful piece.

I'm not sure what you mean that the piano should be more harmonic? What was I missing that you think the piece could benefit from?

Thank you for taking the time to listen to this work!

Originally posted by Maestro Akhil Gardner@Nov 15 2005, 09:34 PM

Hey Matusleo,

Hm............... :(

Well, if that is the case here, then I claim that it is because of my natural lack of talent when it comes to creating music. :laugh:

Aw, Don't be so harsh on yourself. - Or your probably being sarcastic. Your concerto is fabulous - we just don't agree on the form. What I meant was that stylisticly you have created something along the lines of Medtner-Busoni (like you said) yet the form you've used here is'nt something seen very often in the late Romantic Period, it is much more reminiscent of Beethoven - Chopin - Brahms.

Yes Indeed, I will post my analysis, although it's not going to be Brilliantly crafted :D.

Akhil G.

Aw, Don't be so harsh on yourself. - Or your probably being sarcastic. Your concerto is fabulous - we just don't agree on the form. What I meant was that stylisticly you have created something along the lines of Medtner-Busoni (like you said) yet the form you've used here is'nt something seen very often in the late Romantic Period, it is much more reminiscent of Beethoven - Chopin - Brahms.

Yes Indeed, I will post my analysis, although it's not going to be Brilliantly crafted :glare:.

Akhil G.

Well, I guess I cannot complain too much of using the same sort of form that Beethoven, Chopin and Brahms used, while using the language of a Medtner or Busoni. :blink:

I will nevertheless lookf orward to your analysis oh sneaky one!

Ok, well first off, very good piece of work.

I like it alot, even though my preferred era is earlier romantic / late classical.

One of the qualities I admire most about this concerto is the way in which a sense of drama is created.

It's quite dramatic - especially at the start, and this is very effective in setting up a tension which can carry on through the concerto (perhaps by the return of the themes later), which can be resolved.

That actually brings to mind one of the themes from the exposition which you use, which in itself, helps bring about this sense of drama.This theme is originally in the minor, but later on, it is returned, but in a major key, but with some underlying dissonance. I liked that alot, and like Chopin mentioned, I like in general the way you handle your themes.

In terms of suggestions or criticisms, because I'm not so familiar with the Later Romanic style, my comments / suggests are limited.

But I can still suggest how I might change some things in it.

For one thing, near the start (about 0:37), when the violin starts playing the pizzicato dotted rhythm line, i feel these lines should continue into the first beat of the next bar so they feel complete, if you know what i mean?

There are some progressions in here that I would disagree with in this, but thats just what I feel.

There seem to be a few harmonisation errors in this as well, but they're maybe intentional. One or two roughly around the 3 minute mark.

One thing I dont like is when the piano first plays with the glockenspiel.

I'm not sure if that's what it is, because I'm listening with an audio player, but at the first entry, the gaiety of its sound doesn't lend well to the atmosphere it's surrounded in.

It's at roughly 5:38.

It just seems out of place. The second time the piano plays with the same instrument though, it's fine.

The only other main thing I can think of is that that chord sequence is repeated maybe too many times.

The one im referring to is the one from just before the 5:38 bit I mentioned.

(Edit: I just read the intruments on your profile... is it xylophone maybe? :P )

Apart from those things, there isnt much I can find wrong with this piece - its very well written. You manage the contrasts within it very well. This keeps it interesting to listen even at 17 minutes long.

I also think you handle the development well, Keeping the interest up with a whole variety of material.

Good work!

I will not comment at length about the music because others have, however I will point out several things that I loved: The method in which the piano enters, in the middle of an orchestral passage, is simply amazing in my opinion. Two single notes leading into a torrent of beautiful music and emotional strength. Bloody brillant! The passage starting roughly around 5:10 was also great! Then passages such as that around 5:50 really struck me heard with their emotional power. The way you play instruments off of each other is very mature and learned. Congratulations on that.

Other than that, the overall piece certainly did remind me of a Romantic concerto - I didn't hear any classical influence in this piece. In this sense, I believe that you accomplished your goal with the concerto. On a side note, I was also rather surprised by the piece, as it is far more tonal than anything else of yours that I have heard. For me, that was a pleasant surprise, because I have expecting atonal music.

Cheers!

Ok, well first off, very good piece of work.

I like it alot, even though my preferred era is earlier romantic / late classical.

One of the qualities I admire most about this concerto is the way in which a sense of drama is created.

It's quite dramatic - especially at the start, and this is very effective in setting up a tension which can carry on through the concerto (perhaps by the return of the themes later), which can be resolved.

That actually brings to mind one of the themes from the exposition which you use, which in itself, helps bring about this sense of drama.This theme is originally in the minor, but later on, it is returned, but in a major key, but with some underlying dissonance. I liked that alot, and like Chopin mentioned, I like in general the way you handle your themes.[/b]

Thank you, Daniel. I have always felt that it is the care and development of themes that can give a piece its soul. The way we play them and treat them determines how the piece will sound and effect others. That you could hear my themes come back in that way pleases me. It is not easy to do effectively.

In terms of suggestions or criticisms, because I'm not so familiar with the Later Romanic style, my comments / suggests are limited.

But I can still suggest how I might change some things in it.

For one thing, near the start (about 0:37), when the violin starts playing the pizzicato dotted rhythm line, i feel these lines should continue into the first beat of the next bar so they feel complete, if you know what i mean?[/b]

Yes, I know what you mean. At one point I actually tried that, but for some reason, it did not sound right to me. I may try them again, or in the reprise of this theme have them sound. I haven't decided but I'll look at it once more.

There are some progressions in here that I would disagree with in this, but thats just what I feel.

There seem to be a few harmonisation errors in this as well, but they're maybe intentional. One or two roughly around the 3 minute mark.[/b]

I relistened to that section, and it does not appear that there is anything untoward. Is there any specific harmonic difficulties you could point out? It's always possible I've got some wrong notes in there that I missed.

One thing I dont like is when the piano first plays with the glockenspiel.

I'm not sure if that's what it is, because I'm listening with an audio player, but at the first entry, the gaiety of its sound doesn't lend well to the atmosphere it's surrounded in.

It's at roughly 5:38.

It just seems out of place. The second time the piano plays with the same instrument though, it's fine.[/b]

That's a Celeste. In a real performance, it would be more subdued. That section of the piece is supposed to be quietly majestic. I meant for it to be a touch of gentleness.

The only other main thing I can think of is that that chord sequence is repeated maybe too many times.

The one im referring to is the one from just before the 5:38 bit I mentioned.

(Edit: I just read the intruments on your profile... is it xylophone maybe? :P )[/b]

I have resisted sticking a Xylophonein this piece. Believe me, it was tempting. ;)

Apart from those things, there isnt much I can find wrong with this piece - its very well written. You manage the contrasts within it very well. This keeps it interesting to listen even at 17 minutes long.

That's probably one of the best compliments a work on this site could obtain! THANK YOU!

I also think you handle the development well, Keeping the interest up with a whole variety of material.

Good work!

Again, thank you, Daniel! I hope that the rest of the movmeents, whenever I can get them written, will be just as good!

I will not comment at length about the music because others have, however I will point out several things that I loved: The method in which the piano enters, in the middle of an orchestral passage, is simply amazing in my opinion. Two single notes leading into a torrent of beautiful music and emotional strength. Bloody brillant![/b]

I was inspired by Scriabin's First Piano Sonata that starts in a similar fashion. I am not the best of pianists, but I worked out that torrent of music until I felt I had it right. :P

The passage starting roughly around 5:10 was also great! Then passages such as that around 5:50 really struck me heard with their emotional power. The way you play instruments off of each other is very mature and learned. Congratulations on that.

Thank you, Cavatina! I have had a really hard time in the past with handling orchestral scores. I tend to have all the insutrments playing in blocks, and that reduces the ability of each instrument to sing with thier own voice. Studying the scores of the masters has shown me a few techniques that I employed greedily here!

And the section starting at 5:50 is one of my proudest moments in this work.

Other than that, the overall piece certainly did remind me of a Romantic concerto - I didn't hear any classical influence in this piece. In this sense, I believe that you accomplished your goal with the concerto. On a side note, I was also rather surprised by the piece, as it is far more tonal than anything else of yours that I have heard. For me, that was a pleasant surprise, because I have expecting atonal music.

Cheers!

Writing Romantic music has always been my goal. It is not that I don't enjoy the occasional atonal work, and I expect I'll write more of that too, it is just that I'd rather compose in the Romantic style. But the ROmantic style is HARD! I have to push myself to emulate it for years.

To hear you say that this is a Romantic Concerto is msuic to my ears. :-)

haha my cousin Jonathan lives in toronto...interestingly enough... lol.

So did you have a chance to lsiten to the Concerto? I'd be very interested in your take on the work.

Okay, I've sat down with this piece and made a few modifications here and there. Overall, it is roughly the same as it was before. There have been no changes in theorchestral line. But I have attempted to adopt some of Chopin's suggestions in the piano parts.

I tried listening to just the piano line with all the other instruments muted and was surprised to find that several sections were just filler music. But then there were passages that I felt worked just as I had hoped.

Chopin, you said you might have some recommendations on a few other sections. I have not touched those sections and would very much like to hear your recomendations. I took some of the ones you made before, but I did not take them all because some of the harmonies you elected for clashed dissonantly with the orchestra (they sounded great on just the piano though).

I have begun working on the second movement to this piece finally. It took me four attempts to find an opening that I remotely liked. I hope to have that completed sometime later this year.

Piano_Concerto_Mvt1_Allegro_giocosoR1.mid

This is great stuff, i like your orchestration! its top notch, my views are generally similar to the other comments, great work :(

Great piece. Good job with your corrections to the piano. Not that they had errors, but you made it so that the piece contains more patterns, and so it is much easier to read and play. You can see my point that with, or without patterns (as long as the scale is the same) you can't even hear a difference. Your problem was very much related to this situation, regarding sight:

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to rscheearch taem at Cmabrigde Uinevtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Such a cdonition is arppoiately cllaed Typoglycemia.

As you can see, the above phrase is readable, however you don't want to put that on your resume! Both will produce the same basic outputs, however, one is more professional and refined. This is analygous to your original "more disorderly" piece sounding similar to your "corrected piece with the patterns".

Chopin, you said you might have some recommendations on a few other sections. I have not touched those sections and would very much like to hear your recomendations. I took some of the ones you made before, but I did not take them all because some of the harmonies you elected for clashed dissonantly with the orchestra (they sounded great on just the piano though).

Which is why I stick to piano. Maybe one day I will attempt, or at least finish my symphony. But since you and I have different composing styles, I have no other recommendations. I don't think there is really much more you can do to correct the piece, it is wonderful. I think the only thing that concerned me was your excessive use of parallel octaves and block chords, but again, I am more of an intimate composer, and would not prefer the extra force if I don't have to, so that is more of a personal preference.

This is great stuff, i like your orchestration! its top notch, my views are generally similar to the other comments, great work ;)

Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it! I do seem to have the orchestra down. Now if I can just get the Piano part to be up there a well!

Thanks for listening, Maestrox!

Great piece. Good job with your corrections to the piano. Not that they had errors, but you made it so that the piece contains more patterns, and so it is much easier to read and play. You can see my point that with, or without patterns (as long as the scale is the same) you can't even hear a difference. Your problem was very much related to this situation, regarding sight:

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to rscheearch taem at Cmabrigde Uinevtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Such a cdonition is arppoiately cllaed Typoglycemia.

As you can see, the above phrase is readable, however you don't want to put that on your resume! Both will produce the same basic outputs, however, one is more professional and refined. This is analygous to your original "more disorderly" piece sounding similar to your "corrected piece with the patterns".[/b]

Hmmm, that kind of looks like my typing. ;)

But yes, I do see what you mean about the ordering sounds just as good and it is easier to play. I will adhere to such a standard from now on! Thank you for showing me th elight, Chopin!

Which is why I stick to piano. Maybe one day I will attempt, or at least finish my symphony. But since you and I have different composing styles, I have no other recommendations. I don't think there is really much more you can do to correct the piece, it is wonderful. I think the only thing that concerned me was your excessive use of parallel octaves and block chords, but again, I am more of an intimate composer, and would not prefer the extra force if I don't have to, so that is more of a personal preference.

There are probably a few places I can tone them down still, no doubt. But I will do what I can to avoid them in the Scherzo (of which I have all of 40 seconds complete). Thank you once again for your thoughful and extensive comments, Chopin. I greatly appreciate the help you've given me in this work!