Invention A 3 Voices No. 1

I find it very pleasant.

I note that at the beginning, perhaps too many "stops" become a bit predictable...

On one hand yes, I wanted to write it exactly this way a little bit, on the other hand a bit of insecurity in playing it (because while playing for some time now

i have needed a touch that gives me a bit of peace, and so this can be heard in the interpretation; I want a part one way but I'm thinking of two, so

in the end I try to make things a bit "homogeneous", the agogics are a mess, and for someone who is not familiar with the technique, this stands out even more).

I am glad that the effect you had was that; it is what I myself look for when I write, but some lively pieces are missing; they come to mind, but

the lack of technique and the need for peace mean that it is not yet "the moment.".

I like it, but I must admit that I am hard to please ... so I don't know how reliable it is

In my opinion, it shows musicality, but I think it could be improved in some areas. It certainly has great potential... when is number 2 coming?

having heard your other things, I find this one a little bit lackluster. It might be the execution and especially the slow tempo: a bit more verve wouldn't have hurt, also because the melodic invention is not particularly rich and therefore a faster tempo would have focused more attention on the interplay of voices.

in addition to noting the pauses myself, I didn't understand the reason for the Picardy third 30'' from the end. There, you either finish or you create a substantial new section .... that coda after such a sense of closure seems a bit tacked on to me

that being said, overall it is an enjoyable listen

AleGozzo wrote:

having heard your other things, I find this one a little bit lackluster. It might be the execution and especially the slow tempo: a bit more verve wouldn't have hurt, also because the melodic invention is not particularly rich and therefore a faster tempo would have focused more attention on the interplay of voices.

in addition to noting the pauses myself, I didn't understand the reason for the Picardy third 30'' from the end. There, you either finish or you create a substantial new section .... that coda after such a sense of closure seems a bit tacked on to me.

that being said, overall it is an enjoyable listen.

Let me explain: I wrote it up to the end of the piece, meaning where it really seems to terminate; then on the score, I specified that in effect the piece could indeed end there, but one can also continue with that added part, which doesn't serve to increase its length but is an even simpler part that I played immediately after, always using the initial rhythmic fragment, and not wanting to "ruin" it with other material, perhaps contrasting with the tranquil sense of the piece up to that point, I decided to stop after a few measures. Imagine, I also tried other solutions for the ending; I even tried the last 3 chords with a modal passage, major-minor, and it doesn't sound bad, but it is precisely the need for simple parts that leads me to write like this right now.

I also have more lively pieces in mind, but I have a greater need for peace and this prevails over everything; when I try to play (what I am able to play) pieces like these, I am looking for exactly a calm that I practically never experience in daily life—it is like therapy for me. But that is logical, and it doesn't change the fact that this could be improved like other pieces, and especially made more articulated and of greater duration.

I decided to keep the speed constant because, while it's true the beginning would gain more if played faster, when I move to the 3 voices, I want to punctuate the passages quite clearly; otherwise, everything escapes due to the speed, and what I want is comprehension—even the way of playing certain chords at certain points, in pp for example, is for this reason: the contrast and the search for peace.

Natan wrote:

In my opinion, it shows musicality, but I think it could be improved in some areas. It certainly has great potential... when is number 2 coming?

I don't know about the 2nd one; these still seem to me like attempts to find a personal way of making music, which is not yet well-defined.

This one here, for example, would be the 2-voice invention no. 6 with the addition of a voice; I will have to rewrite the 6th one from scratch or starting from a fragment of this one

( first version ).

With the same rhythmic pattern and the same inciso (which varies at a certain point), I have written two: the 9th for 2 voices and this one for 3.

Beautiful listen. I really liked it, including the way you played it.

Thank you Marco.

I'm the one who has 300 mood swings a day, but there are moments when I would rewrite it, I always feel like something is missing.

Thank you anyway.

It's normal that you think you have to rewrite it. However, I notice that a salient trait (and fascinating, in my opinion) of your way of making music consists of an impression of a certain extemporaneity which, when balanced with your skills, creates an extremely pleasant "mix": a kind of spontaneous but meditated flow that I, for example, wouldn't know how to imitate. And which therefore I find exciting, in its own way.

By rewriting, you might rationalize the whole thing, but perhaps it would lose something.

I can only confirm what you are saying, it is true. When I start a composition, I almost always write the melodic line that comes to mind, then while listening to see if it "works" for what I need to express, I check the harmonic succession; but lately, in 99% of cases, I focus more on the use of fragments or the entire phrase, without checking the harmony as it forms, and this is the detail that, besides the form (which is lacking), makes me perceive a lack of something—that sense of being slightly disjointed, inextricably linked to insecurity and uncertainty; this is why I always speak of a lack of foundations, both in life and in music. You say that at the same time you wouldn't know how to write in a way that is spontaneous yet meditated; in pieces you have written, I have sensed a spontaneous and personal approach, and if you have (as I suspect) used your skills, then all the better.

By skills, I mean what you have studied, being able to apply it at a higher percentage compared to me and others, pursuing and nonetheless achieving a personal result.

By skills, I mean what you are able to apply effectively after having studied for a while, managing to apply it at a higher percentage than me and others, pursuing and ultimately achieving a personal result.

I think that everyone despises certain faculties they possess and would like to compensate for them with others that, instead, are more foreign to them. Which is logical, after all. In reality, I think you make "the music that you are," in a very consistent way. Personally, as far as I am concerned, compared to you I think I am very schematic and unable to be just as respectful of my nature and my way of being, which is not as rational as I fear my music might suggest (even if, perhaps, I try to adopt original patterns; but they are always patterns).

I mean that, in the end, what matters is being able to express one's own dimension effectively; and you do it very well, in my opinion.

You are "approaching" that phrase that is often spoken and read, "accepting oneself for who one is and not wanting to be anything else"; I think you express it with the beginning of your comment above.

Sometimes I feel satisfied even by a single sequence of notes or a specific harmonization, because in effect, as you say, it expresses exactly what I am at that moment, which is nothing more than a photograph of what I always am.

I also perceive the same difficulty in relating to others in music; it is practically identical. There is always a moment when I feel good with others—it depends on the person or people I speak with or otherwise interact with. The difficulty lies in the fact that, just as I perceive a person who expresses a sense of security in daily life (which I think is partly, not always, but certainly sometimes, due to purely material elements), or perhaps those same elements are merely a decoy and the person themselves is aware that the security they express, bestow, or emanate is a reflection of their own perception and interaction with others, even before what they possess—which is an addition to the whole; in music, I sense the same thing listening to even very simple pieces that nonetheless give that sensation of compactness, precision, and concreteness that is still unknown to me. And so, in this regard, I define them as such: the two dimensions, that of "real" life and that of creativity, do not diverge, even if the latter is more important to me because, by reflecting itself in the former, it moves it; otherwise, it would be a constant reasoning.

I remember 3 pieces in particular: Toccata Andalusa (for piano, very lively as a piece, that is what I remember), am I wrong?

Here it is, I am listening to it now (but around the 58-second mark, another piece with myspace starts).

Chamber Concertino (I didn't remember "rococo" in the finale), the beginning of the fugue that you did not continue (and which showed great promise),

your approach might be schematic, but in everything you have written and I have heard, you have added a touch of an alternative, albeit personal, point of view.

Keep in mind that I am not telling you this because you complimented me on the piece; I have always thought so, I have always liked the Concertino, and rereading what you wrote

back in the days on edumus, you wrote it with full knowledge; I mean that you described practically every detail of the development of the piece, so in this, the schematic nature is noticeable, but if
the result were something that "doesn't make an impact," that wasn't pleasing, it would remain sterile, which is not what happens instead.

I must make a clarification, a necessary clarification (when one notices certain things, for me it would be right to say them):

sometime ago I listened to Brahms' Intermezzi op. 117 practically for the first time (a pianist friend recorded two of them, the 1st and the 3rd);

yesterday evening I was listening to exactly these two pieces and while I was on the "3rd", I heard a descending sequence of chords, exactly

I am at measure 15 (I saw the score for the first time yesterday), and I immediately connected this part to the 1:32" mark of this three-voice invention, so

even if it is a short passage, Brahms wrote it beforehand anyway; I think I will leave it because in the piece it follows well what comes

before and anticipates what comes after, but if I were to find an alternative solution, I will modify it.

Something similar has "happened" in the past, and when I am aware of it (because I know what a specific part I am writing refers to) I modify

what I am writing; correctness is one of the most important things among composers (who is better, who is good, who is less so, I am in the 3rd category), even more so,

rather than rejoicing in what has been written knowing that it is not entirely your own.

I have also thought that there is no way out, because maybe in 10 years I will discover that the modified part, as with every piece I write, or anyone who writes (perhaps even more so for those who do it properly, in style), has already been written, and then we would be back at the starting point.

This is an example of the many nuances that exist in music and in which it is possible to "crash".

Obviously, having heard these pieces before writing them, I "will have made my own" some passages without realizing it; then over time the mind processes and acquires

certain things as if they were "new", only that in that moment memory comes back first, and consciousness after, fortunately, because given how I am made,

it is certainly not a positive thing to use parts belonging to others.

It's just a thought like this; it's not that I'm making a big deal out of it now (if mine had been a masterpiece and that passage were decisive, I would have been in a different mood), but it's just to state things as they are.

Well... Everything has already been written, I wouldn't whip myself. In the Baroque era, you find the exact same minor progression thousands of times (I - IV - V of III - III....); I also correct my own work a lot, then you reach the point where you realize that something can be corrected infinitely (a bit like in chess: there is no "best move," except at the start of the game). And so the trick is knowing when to leave things as they are, otherwise you'll never finish. It's like having to hand in school homework.

But excuse me, Maurizio: if you feel the need to be more "square," why don't you try following some harmonic patterns? Even measures, degrees, inversions... You know how to do these things, you must have done many harmony exercises.

P.S. Since we are on the subject of inventions, a little thing written for two voices when I had my teacher (so with a bit more awareness) is in this same session. I had also included the sheet music (and it seems to me that I don't have it on my computer anymore, whereas...!).

Yes, I have done exercises, but when I start writing I tend to abandon the harmonic successions I know shortly after (if not right at the beginning) (anyway, normally I do the opposite: I write and then check). Sometimes I try to establish how I am moving, but this attitude doesn't last long. As for corrections like "destructive editing," I haven't practiced that for a long time; now I am more attentive to "correct" writing (undoubtedly with errors). I remember your piece; you had prepared a video with photos of a monastery in Subiaco and I have the printed score, it was an "exercise" on suspensions and appoggiaturas (I remembered that you spoke about suspensions but not about appoggiaturas, I just checked)