Piano Concerto in F Sharp Minor - Movement I

Interesting.

At around 1:40 there is a weird change that makes sense harmonically, I just find it a bit irritating, and yes the beginning does remind me a bit of Brahms and as my name implies, Brhams is my favourite composer.

The piano does seem to play second part to the orchestra.

Also, the theme isn't the best theme, but the way you develop it is very well done.

Overall it is very nice.

Congratulations.

I will post an opinion on your concerto as well, then.

More than likely it will not be appreciated.

Scherzo IS a form, so it's not a "rondo". If you wish to do some sort of rondo-scherzando, then that's ok, but it's an awkward second movement in my opinion.

Formally, your plan for the final movement is a bit over the top. I think you would be better off sticking to a simpler form for the final movement.

"Prelude, Passacaglia, Cadenza, Fugue, and Coda" includes an awful lot of formal material. A passacaglia will take up a large chunk, as will a fugue. These are forms that, to satisfy, need concise formal structure. A passacaglia alone would be a great final movement (it can be melded into a form of rondo, which makes for lots of fun formal possibilities).

From what I see of your writing, I don't think you're ready to attack a large scale fugue at this time.

On to the first movement.

The MIDI file, as it appears in Finale, has piccolo, flutes, oboes, english horn, etc... am I to take it that there are supposed to be 2 of each woodwind, plus the auxilliary instruments? (ie: woodwinds by 2, or woodwinds by 3?)

In either case, you just about at no point make use of more than a single line for any of those instruments.

In that sense, your orchestration is far from complete. If you are orchestrating with flutes, oboes, etc.. playing unison all the way through (with a few minor exceptions) then there is a LOT of work to be done on your orchestration skills before tackling a project of this size.

There are so many weaknesses at the structural and technical level that at this time it is almost useless to give detailed comment on voice-leading or harmonic progression.

I'd like to make it clear that I am not attacking your writing, but trying to be as clear and unambiguous about the areas in your abilities at this time where you need considerably more work. I can guarantee you that if you take this concerto to any other composition teacher (and I don't mean a high-school music room teacher) you will get the same comments.

On a positive note: there are some beautiful musical ideas in this piece. Yes! you have talent, but it needs to be trained. Formal training is not a sin. I highly recommend you find a (or some) teacher(s) to start formal training in counterpoint, harmony, orchestration, and analysis.

Erm...this is much better than you make it seem. Many would probably agree it rivals your symphony...

It's funny, I left ComposersForum because you accused me of being arrogant. Now it seems the tables have turned...

at no point did I accuse you of arrogance.

and I fail to see how my critique can be viewed as "arrogance".

As far as the composer's forum is concerned, you asked for feedback, you were given it, but then turned and attacked all of those who gave you feedback not to your liking. I'd like to point out that I was not the only one to give you feedback on that forum.

You are 14, you have a LONG career ahead of you.

If you remember correctly, I told you as much, saying that your work could be so much better, that you had tremendous talent and that you should not settle for what was "easy".

I'm glad, Nico, that at 14 you've had the time to develop all the necessary technical means to properly judge the music of others.

If you are under the impression that once you hit college and university that your teachers will agree with every note you write, then you are sorely mistaken. And maybe one day, you will come to appreciate that the best teachers are often those whose opinions we find the most difficult to accept. many years ago, I had a teacher who loved everything I wrote. He was full of crap. I was writing crap. My next teacher was so critical that I nearly quit, but I stuck it out, and I believe it made me a better musician.

I really don't think it is right for you to make this thread about you, Nico. Whether or not you agree with my assessment of Matusleo's concerto is neither here nor there.

I believe I will let Matusleo decide whether or not he feels I have been unfair in my criticism.

Now, on to this piano concerto.

I stand by everything I wrote. none of it is gratuitously "mean", and it is all perfectly valid musical criticism.

I hope that the composer of this concerto takes my advice for what it is.

Hey Matusleo, I've really been wanting to give you an in-depth review of this, since you always give me great ones on my music :shifty:. Is there chance you have an mp3 and/or pdf?

Thanks,

Nico

Sadly, I do not have anything else. The only musical composition program I have is Cakewalk, which is really a sequencer. It is only capable of creating its own file type, and MIDI files. That said, there are a lot of things about the MIDI that irritate me. For instance, some of the instruments when I play them back are changed around. Any thoughts you do have, given the weakness of the MIDI would be greatly appreicated, Nico!!

Thanks!

Matusleo

Interesting.

At around 1:40 there is a weird change that makes sense harmonically, I just find it a bit irritating, and yes the beginning does remind me a bit of Brahms and as my name implies, Brhams is my favourite composer.

The piano does seem to play second part to the orchestra.

Also, the theme isn't the best theme, but the way you develop it is very well done.

Overall it is very nice.

Congratulations.

Ah, the oddity around 1:40 is that wher eI had bene progressing toa major chord only moments before I now progress to the minor chord. Mahler pulled that trick several times, so I figure I can get away with it. :w00t:

I will confess that I am learning as I write this piece. I think what I have written of the Scherzo shows a much more dominant piano than the first movement so far. I confess that most of my ideas are fairly orchestral.

The theme isn'tt he best theme but I develop it well? What about the theme seems weak?

Thanks for the comments, Brahms! I won't deny that a part of me was thinking of the opening to Barhms 3rd Symphony when I started this. :shifty:

I only have a few minutes before I need to get to bed, so I'm only going to address your first few comments. I'll reply in depth tomorrow or Friday when I have some time.

I will post an opinion on your concerto as well, then.

More than likely it will not be appreciated.[/b]

I'm not that sort of guy. I know I have weaknesses as a composer, and do like to hear what others have thought. 'chopin' posted several suggestions on this work, and you will note I incorporated some of them into my revisions. Do I like my own work? You bet! Do I think they can be improved? Absolutely!

Scherzo IS a form, so it's not a "rondo". If you wish to do some sort of rondo-scherzando, then that's ok, but it's an awkward second movement in my opinion.

The Scherzo form is often an ABA form. However, closer analysis of many Scherzos shows that they hae a 'rondo' like character. For instance, the Scherzo of Bruckner's 4th Symphony has a repeated brass theme that shows up three times in the A portion of the piece with a quasi-B material between each utterance. The Scherzo I am working on is in this vein.

Formally, your plan for the final movement is a bit over the top. I think you would be better off sticking to a simpler form for the final movement.

"Prelude, Passacaglia, Cadenza, Fugue, and Coda" includes an awful lot of formal material. A passacaglia will take up a large chunk, as will a fugue. These are forms that, to satisfy, need concise formal structure. A passacaglia alone would be a great final movement (it can be melded into a form of rondo, which makes for lots of fun formal possibilities).[/b]

The format was inspired by Sorabji, who manage dtoemploy it in several large scale works, but also several smaller ones. I am clearly not going to attempt anything on the scale of Sorabji's larger works. But I may pare things down if it does not work out. This was a plan, not necessarily how things will end up. For instance, I've already decided to alter the third movements structure from when I originally began writing this.

From what I see of your writing, I don't think you're ready to attack a large scale fugue at this time.

I will not argue with you here (as I feel I need more practice with fugue form before starting on one in this Concerto), however, I do bleieve that for your point to be helpful, you need to state WHY you feel this way.

I'll reply to the rest when I have more time. I fear the MIDI for my piece is far from ideal.

Matusleo

Well, I think everybody said a bit of what I'd say... Nice piece!! :)

On to the first movement.

The MIDI file, as it appears in Finale, has piccolo, flutes, oboes, english horn, etc... am I to take it that there are supposed to be 2 of each woodwind, plus the auxilliary instruments? (ie: woodwinds by 2, or woodwinds by 3?)

In either case, you just about at no point make use of more than a single line for any of those instruments.

In that sense, your orchestration is far from complete. If you are orchestrating with flutes, oboes, etc.. playing unison all the way through (with a few minor exceptions) then there is a LOT of work to be done on your orchestration skills before tackling a project of this size.

This comment honestly surprised me, because I knew I had been judicious in alloting melodic and harmonic lines in the instruments. Heck, the opening is exceptionally dense in terms of the counterpoint in the brass!

However, in reviewing the woodwind section, I see that you are right. There are only a few places where I utilize two clarinets, or two oboes, or two flutes. While there are many passages where the unison playing is exactly what should happen, there are also many passages (especially the tutti chords) where giving both woodwind players a different note would help. Thank you for spotting that.

That said, I think I am perfectly capable of tackling this project. Why? It is the piece I want to compose. We all learn by doing; me especially! I have learned a ton while writing this work, and will continue to do so. If one of those things I learn is better orchestration, GREAT!

There are so many weaknesses at the structural and technical level that at this time it is almost useless to give detailed comment on voice-leading or harmonic progression.

This sort of comment in a review is completely unhelpful. Talk to me about where you find weaknesses. Unless I know where to look, I'll never improve. And if you can see them, then you ought to state at least a few. You don't have to point out every instance, but by not pointing out any you have done me no favours.

So, I will ask some specific questions:

1) This piece holds to Concerto-allegro form. What are the structural weaknesses? I am assuming it is not in the form of the work, so where are they?

2) Technical is too broad a word. Pick a subject under that category (i.e. voice-leading or harmonic progression) and be more detailed in where you feel I can improve.

I'd like to make it clear that I am not attacking your writing, but trying to be as clear and unambiguous about the areas in your abilities at this time where you need considerably more work. I can guarantee you that if you take this concerto to any other composition teacher (and I don't mean a high-school music room teacher) you will get the same comments.

Thank you for your candor in that regard. But unless you are willing to cite examples of where my technique suffers, you will have not been clear or unambiguous. In fact, the line "There are so many weaknesses at the structural and technical level" is completely ambiguous!

Also, when you say, "other composition teacher", are you implying that you are a composition teacher at the university level? If so, then I would definitely like more detailed feedback above and beyond what I have already stressed.

On a positive note: there are some beautiful musical ideas in this piece. Yes! you have talent, but it needs to be trained. Formal training is not a sin. I highly recommend you find a (or some) teacher(s) to start formal training in counterpoint, harmony, orchestration, and analysis.

Sadly, given my current situation in life, further formal training is not possible. When I was in college I was one or two courses shy of a Bachelor of Arts in Music. The college I attended did not offer classes in Counterpoint or Orchestration much to my regret. However, I have had quite a bit of experience in harmony and analysis, and one class on arranging for the Concert Band. The latter led to writing music for my Concert Band (one piece we actually performed in my Senior year).

In the years since then, my musical training has all been self-taught. Most of my orchestration I have read from books or learned by studying the orchestral scores of my favourite compositions. But at present I have a full time job and need to support my family. I do not have time for any more formal training. So I do what I can; I learn as I compose.

Thus, any insights and help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Please, if you can help, do so. Do not leave me to wallow in my unknowing mistakes.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my work and provide me your impressions. I hope that more thoughts and suggestions will be forthcoming.

Erm...this is much better than you make it seem. Many would probably agree it rivals your symphony...

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Nico! :)

Well, I think everybody said a bit of what I'd say... Nice piece!! :)

Thank you, Berlioz! Was there anything in particular you enjoyed about the work?

Matusleo

This piece hypnotized me..I was in awe...

wow..that was a great work to listen to..