Piano Workshop 2012

AbateFaria wrote:

Comment on Frank's Passion

I played it for myself and I must say I like them very much, this one too is very rich and well-crafted...

they are those poor souls who cannot play it themselves ????!!!!!"}

AleGozzo wrote:

e quei poveracci che non possono suonarsela ????!!!!!

... a orecchio ...

Tiro mancino questo di Frank

AleGozzo wrote:

e quei poveracci che non possono suonarsela ????!!!!!

E' vero, tu sei batterista ... magari banalmente si è dimenticato di allegare il file

CromaDiBrera wrote:

P.S. The 9th is mine.

Comment on piece 9 by CromaDiBrera

Fluid, coherent, it is a pleasure to listen to. If I may, I would revise the ending, which feels a bit "mutilated"; it might be an intended effect... but it is somewhat the usual way you conclude your pieces, certainly among those you proposed in the workshops.

I would start tackling the issue; since you are someone who votes for experimentation... try to write a great, breathtaking finale next time.

I was thinking a bit about the part at 44'' that was criticized by someone; to the ear, there might be a couple of aspects. Perhaps the continuous double repetition of the new idea (which is actually a reworking of 21'') which then, upon its second reappearance around the minute mark, even follows a somewhat progressive schema that perhaps in this type of elaboration makes it take a bit of a step backward; to the ear, it goes "si(I think B-flat) mi". However, the response at 52 contrasts very well due to how it is prepared, and perhaps this one also lacks the double re-presentation, though that leads me to say that it eventually becomes thematic.

Furthermore, it would be interesting to have the score to understand if the pianist, at this speed, would be able to articulate what is heard in the playback.

So... just my gut feeling. Regardless, it delighted me.

Frank wrote:

Furthermore, it would be interesting to have the score

Exactly, Croma.. why are you acting so precious? You remind me of Frank with the mp3

AbateFaria wrote:

Exactly, Croma.. why are you acting precious? You remind me of Frank with the mp3

I'm not acting precious, it's an experiment within an experiment. And I am already reaping the fruits

AbateFaria wrote:

Exactly, Croma.. why are you acting so precious? You remind me of Frank with the mp3

Sorry, the truth is that I consider it a somewhat unsuccessful sketch (which is why the ending is truncated), so much so that I had set it aside; then, when Frank reminded me of the deadline, I sent it off in a hurry... So I didn't even sit down to clean up the score to make it presentable. Anyway, if you are interested, I will do it as soon as I can.

As for the possibility of playing it, I had shown it to my teacher who also put his fingers on it a bit; I don't think it can cause serious problems.

Ok guys, I was joking. I know you have your reasons if you do something ... it was just meant to be a slightly original way to "insist" a little bit

AleGozzo wrote:

e quei poveracci che non possono suonarsela ????!!!!!

E' arrivato un orrido mp3:

http://www.pianoconc...rati/#entry8068

il più brutto che abbia mai prodotto, ho lasciato fare all'HP...mamma mia

Però è un periodo che non sono molto "ispirato" (non è che abbia molta voglia di smanettare sul PC), per cui fattelo bastare

Frank, it doesn't disgust me like that. The sound is pleasant and rhythmically it doesn't seem robotic to me. It is certainly better than my handful of readings I had done on the pf

AbateFaria wrote:

Frank, it doesn't disgust me like that. The sound is pleasant and rhythmically it doesn't seem robotic to me. It is certainly better than the handful of readings I had done on the pf

It might be Faria, but not having worked on it directly, I feel too much of the effect of Finale's Human Playback. To be clear, I would do it differently, but as I was saying, I don't have the energy or time at this moment to dedicate myself to it full-time. It is just a support for those who struggle with the instrument (and whose ear isn't enough).

Ok, I understand what you mean

I was asked for an opinion on Frank's piece 'Passion': first, I will give an opinion based on my taste, then I will try to make some technical notes.

In my view, the piece is a bit "over-intellectualized," in the sense that there is a noticeable search for harmonic or intervallic effects that sometimes comes at the expense of overall flow and pleasantness; it's not TOO over-intellectualized, but a little bit so. In my opinion, it would be enough to insert a few more rest chords here and there to remove this sensation and to re-establish a more natural play of tension and release, especially because continuous tensions at a certain point seem to cancel each other out, as if they no longer have an effect.

Another aspect to clarify is the placement of the piece, which has a swing eighth note but uses jazz stylings only in some points and partially. In my opinion, the piece works better WITHOUT the swing eighth note and with fewer metronome clicks, also because in the second part, when the triplets begin, the swing eighth note is no longer felt because there are very few actual eighth notes. In my judgment, the piece is more comparable to a sort of post-impressionism than to an actual jazz ballad, even from a harmonic point of view; the harmonies are often colors, intervallic combinations that disregard proper harmonic logic, especially in the second part, whereas in the first part one notices a desire to adhere to harmonic logics assimilable to jazz, both in terms of the harmonies used, the type of accompaniment, and the use of the descending chromatic bass which strongly recalls tonal logic with substitutions, commonly used in jazz. To make the accompaniment more incisive during the stride phase (i.e., bass...chord....bass ...chord..) there is a need for some sixteenth notes to support the bass note; otherwise, it's a bit static.

The second part is based mostly on the rhythmic element, with the introduction of new figurations such as eighth-note triplets, sixteenth-note quadruplets, and quintuplets; the whole thing is well-conducted, but it's as if something is missing to me—this part is more in the head than in the "belly," I miss the emotional element a bit, in my personal opinion... Also, I would have extended the ending with a more significant coda because the last theme is presented in a very varied way compared to the original theme; therefore, one feels the need for something that leads back more decisively to the main theme. This is an objective fact unless a rhapsodic effect is sought, which I don't see as very suitable for a piece of this type, which finds its best placement in cyclicity... In general, I would have lengthened all the sections slightly; they seem a bit "compressed" to me relative to the density of the figurations and harmonic tensions. Therefore, in my opinion, more breathing room was needed even in the proportions, but I think that by introducing some rest chords, a relaxing effect would have been obtained that would have benefited not only the harmonies but also the dimensions.

In conclusion, I would say that I do not know what Frank's intentions were with this piece; if the piece was intended to be an approach to the jazz world with its flavors and colors, it is still a bit "immature" (forgive the term...), because the piece lacks the immediacy of jazz and suffers a bit from a certain "severity" of approach (to give a trivial example, the octaves in the left hand are not very jazzy...), whereas the harmonic exploration is appreciable, though it must be skillfully dosed in such a context; otherwise, too many dissonances close together in time and space cancel each other out.

Then, if I may offer one last piece of advice, which perhaps encompasses them all: in my opinion, you have the maturity to start working on taking things away, rather than putting them in....

I hope I haven't treated you too harshly; in other circumstances, you showed nostalgia for my scoldings... there you go... eheh

I would like to thank Geppino for his rich and interesting comment; I find it perfect and not a single comma should be touched because it is the response of someone who has taste (and his own taste) and who, rightly, in the context of formulating an evaluation, travels in perfect coherence across all its elements and with his sense of understanding music.

At one point, a very important sentence arrives: “I do not know what Frank's intentions were with this piece”

Dico importante because the response I am about to write is absolutely not aimed at justifying myself or dismantling Geppino's writing, but at bringing all his considerations back precisely to my intentions and to why Passion is the way it is.

The premise is that the ear is a nasty beast, and when you do full immersions into authors like Berg, Stockhausen, Ligeti, etc., this presumed braininess melts away in an instant, and above all, the dissonances I used are not even remotely comparable to the limits of self-annihilation that one can aspire to and reach.

Even in the A [section], the ear is influenced by people like Dobbins, despite me saying in this topic:

http://www.pianoconc...ione-accordale/

“In terms of taste, there are things I like very much and things a bit less, perhaps too cerebral..”

Incredible, DrJellyfish says: “I absolutely agree with you: Dobbins is an excellent theorist but in certain examples he loses a bit of musicality.”

This confirms that the ear is a sponge and we are the product of our listening.

During that period, I was delving deeper into the Ballad that I proposed in the topic; you will find many analogies in the more intense part of the A.

The intentions were to reach that B and that A'; I used a progressive detachment from the starting material, also passing through Dobbins' “perverse” procedures, which opened many doors to the B.

Given that I had already written a Nocturne instinctively, where sturm und drang played its part, this is a conceptual work, as you have found, and in this category I would like it to be classified.

Clearly, there are choices that create a different expectation, and these are mainly in the tempo indication “Ballad” (which I will remove) and in some movements of the A, unfortunately linked to another of my aesthetic traits: adhering to the starting material. In fact, swing can be perceived from the fusion of the theme's syncopation and exquisitely tonal jazz harmonizations, even if very advanced. Even in my nocturne, one could speak of swing if the harmonic fabric were different.

Speaking of this, this part of your comment comes to mind: “to make a trivial example, the octaves in the left hand are not very jazzy...)”. The deep basses of the theme must be amplified at a certain point (let's say developed) and, even if not very jazzy, as a classical man, I feel the need not to pretend nothing is happening.

Scanning your comment, I find the emphasis on speed and coda very important, important because they confirm that instinct is always right, but in a piece with a conceptual setup (you speak of post-impressionism and it's no coincidence), reason wins.

The fact that a coda was needed is confirmed precisely between 15 and 17; the last chord of 14 was transformed into that of 52, precisely to open a door to resolve one of its tensions on the initial theme, which I would have brought back equal, equal (or almost, let's say in terms of texture, also harmonic). In fact, to the given theme, I placed an chord specifically aimed at it, obviously more “Light” given the starting point.

Then reason said no, so what am I supposed to do?!

Same for the metronome; let's say that here, complicit with the playback, it led me to raise it by a couple of notches... the original tempo indication was slower.

And in relation to this part of yours:

“Then I would have lengthened the ending with a more important coda because the last theme is exposed in a very varied way compared to the original theme, so one feels the need for something that leads back more forcefully; this is an objective fact unless a rhapsodic effect is sought, which I don't see as very suitable for a piece of this type which finds its best placement in cyclicity”

Anyway, I don't see a rhapsodic effect; in the end, we are talking about 2 elements managed with the procedure of variation in the A. Even the last bars are part of the A; the presentation of the theme at 35 and 43 is an approach to 47 (passing from the “original” B, not re-heard, at the end of 38). Respectively, the first time as a link carrying the flourish of the B, and the second time on an F pedal with an arpeggio in false polyphony of the B. Of course, the original is missing... but it would have been predictable, even if I understand that in terms of pleasantness it would have brought it home... but after thinking about it... I removed it.

Last two [parts]

little things

geppino12575 wrote:

in the first part, one notices a desire to adhere to harmonic logics similar to jazz, both for the harmonies used, both for the type of accompaniment, and for the use of the descending chromatic bass which strongly recalls tonal logics with substitutions, very commonly used in jazz.

That is true, but they are also characteristics of the theme itself. I used those harmonies as a pretext to detach myself from the starting material which was obviously very tonal. What better way, giving up on variations and using a tripartite structure?

geppino12575 wrote:

To make the accompaniment more incisive during the stride phase (that is, bass...chord....bass ...chord..) some sixteenth notes are needed to support the bass note, otherwise it is a bit static.

Believe it or not, I had combed through your 3 LAB pieces, and the first one (the one on the Brahms theme) has many similarities with this one.

The harmonic textures we used are different, but the bass movements, the idea of substitutions, etc., have many common traits.

In your piece, for the first 19 bars, no sixteenth notes are seen in the bass. What didn't make you feel the need for sixteenth notes? Just to have a few more elements for reflection.

geppino12575 wrote:

I hope I didn't treat you too badly; in other circumstances, you showed nostalgia for my scoldings... here you go... eheh

Fortunately, you are back in shape. I must say that apart from the punctual responses, in short, I used a "vaguely" jazzy harmony in the A section to detach myself from exquisitely tonal material. Perhaps the initial intention was to continue along that line... but the path taken in the second part of the A led me to create a more intense B, and I wanted to exploit its contents in the A'.

I think I would have been better off removing the

Frank said: In your piece, for the first 19 measures, there are no sixteenth notes visible in the bass. Why didn't you feel the need for sixteenth notes? Just to have a few more elements for reflection.

In that case, the sixteenth notes are in the right hand and create an uninterrupted flow distributed among the voices; in fact, sometimes they pass to the middle voice, and when the right hand stops with a held chord, the sixteenth notes pass to the left. Anyway, in B, some sixteenth notes wouldn't have gone amiss, even in my romance, to create greater rhythmic drive; this is precisely what I realized upon reviewing that score. In reality, it's not even about sixteenth notes; it would have required tuplets, a matter of prevailing figuration, which in that case is indeed the sixteenth note, so a submultiple was needed, an even shorter figure to create the sense of syncopation...

It's a bit like when in classical harmony it is said that passing notes must be shorter than the unit of movement...

I was wandering around the forum, I really like the approach of the anonymous piece which I seem to have understood is by CromaDiBrera. Very musical and fresh.