Piano Workshop 2012

AleGozzo wrote:

Comment on elaboration 4 (Frank's nocturne):

here, this is exactly the piece as I would have wanted to write it: clean, regular, easily intelligible in both form and harmony.

and the beautiful thing is that this general "squareness" is not arid, but very well enhances the great taste and inspiration with which you handled the thematic idea.

i would like your opinion on how I interpret the structure, which is obviously ABA.

A (double period of 16 bars)

a - presentation in A-

b - continuation in E- (by continuation I mean the continued presence of the previous material, but with a sense of progression, fragmentation, liquidation)

a' - reprise of the theme

c - new continuation, which anyway quickly transforms into the cadential phase.

B (16 bars + 4 for the transition back)

new thematic material and new texture, more contrapuntal.

although I don't see the characteristics of a development, it has a sonority that recalls one, and this is very fascinating, also because the formal construction does not seem very different from A.

A'

reprise with 2 truly excellent touches: the change of register in the first 4 bars and the idea of repeating the subsequent 4 from the beginning of B.

very bravo !

It isn't, but the logic seems very minimalist... very beautiful Frank, I can't say anything else.

modale wrote:

Shortly I am leaving for Greece for concerts and I will be a bit absent from the forum for a few days, then I will listen to everything and give my opinion.

We await you Modale and congratulations again

AbateFaria wrote:

Comment on Jam Session's

I don't dislike it, perhaps the accompaniment being always the same gets tiring after a while; instead, I like the idea you had to vary the harmony when the melody appears between 9-12

Thanks Abate, last time I had put too many ideas in too little... now a few in much... time...

raffaeleb wrote:

For jam sessions

I like the swing you used

But I notice that the bass is too loud compared to the theme.

It would need a dynamic balance.. Or am I wrong?

In short, less weight on the left.

Of course, it's just a little piece you wrote, but pleasant nonetheless

Thank you Raffaele, actually for the bass it's the fault of the playback ... and I am really bad at those things... maybe even in the rest, but at least with computing I am aware of it

AbateFaria wrote:

Ale, I really like your .

A bit of a jazz feel, or am I wrong?

I liked it too; in some parts it has some blatant Jazz contaminations. Well done Ale

AbateFaria wrote:

Comment on Margherita1's

It seems a little bit fast to me, I'm sorry it lacks a B, but apart from a bit of harmonic staticity in the response, it flows well. The closing, however, I like very much and it works quite well.

Thank you AbateFaria, it is not easy at all to find a B for that theme, too strong for me... I see that others had no problems, even sonata form, free improvisation...

... I am looking at the proposed works, I truly have much to learn. Thank you for this opportunity and to all of you more skilled (everyone) for putting yourselves out there with these "things" ... perhaps a bit far from those who have arrived.

Great experience, thanks again

I thank Jam Session for pointing out the topic to me, it's nice to see so much Jazz crossover

Frank's composition is beautiful

I also felt the need to hear it again

Perhaps because it is too short or because it is too beautiful

AleGozzo wrote:

Comment on elaboration 4 (Frank's nocturne):

there, this is exactly the piece as I would have wanted to write it: clean, regular, easily intelligible in both form and harmony.

and the beautiful thing is that this general "squareness" is not arid, but very well enhances the great taste and inspiration with which you handled the thematic idea.

i would like your opinion on how I interpret the structure, which is obviously ABA.

A (double period of 16 bars)

a - presentation in A-

b - continuation in E- (by continuation I mean the continued presence of the previous material, but with a sense of progression, fragmentation, liquidation)

a' - reprise of the theme

c - new continuation, which anyway quickly transforms into the cadential phase.

B (16 bars + 4 for retransition)

new thematic material and new texture, more contrapuntal.

although I don't see the characteristics of a development, it has a sonority that recalls it, and this is very fascinating, also because the formal construction does not seem very different from A.

A'

reprise with 2 truly excellent touches: the change of register in the first 4 bars and the idea of repeating the subsequent 4 from the beginning of B.

very bravo !

Hi Ale

I didn't understand if what you did as an analysis corresponds to a "Nocturne Form"

Or if by nocturne the character of the composition is intended.

I think more the second... can you confirm, Frank?

Is it a very precise form or did you also go freely like Modale?

The nocturne form does not exist Raffaele At most a tripartite type like ABA that suits various genres including the nocturne

raffaeleb wrote:

I also felt the need to hear it again

Perhaps because it is too short or because it is too beautiful

Don't you agree that we wouldn't want beautiful things to ever end?

Fortunately, they invented "recording"

COMMENT ON PIECE 1 (MARGHERITA)

I find it positive that you tried to respect the character of the theme, and for the most part you succeeded because what you wrote is a coherent whole in itself.

The misstep is not having found an adequate response, an error in which I think we have all fallen except for Frank (on modal, the problem does not arise).

In your specific case, you went too far, because those first 4 bars are not already a complete theme to be followed by a development, but only the presentation of the theme, whether as an antecedent or however you want to call it.

You say you weren't able to find a B, but my impression is that you unconsciously conceived this piece as an ABA, where the first 4 are A, the next 8 a developmental B, and then the last 6 are A'.

Unfortunately, those 4 measures are not sufficient as an A, and you find yourself developing before even having finished the theme.

I hope I have been clear, but I am not sure....

Another thing I wanted to invite you to observe is the difference between the basses of the given fragment and yours: the former are melodic and varied, while yours are rather static and made only of chromatic movements.

This type of texture involves 3 layers to which one must pay attention: melody, inner accompaniment layer, and basses. And the basses are not even the last in importance.

A big hello, and I hope to see something at the next lab too

You know AleGozzo, you are really good, you've put your finger on all the sore spots. In short, you have just given me a great lesson in composition.

> I hope to see something at the next lab too

Until next time

Piece 1 Margherita1 - Comment

so ...

The answer, from bars 5 to 12, is there and is sufficiently different from the theme, so it works.

What is missing is a development and especially a contrasting second theme ... if you didn't have a good second theme, you could even have developed the answer with the proper variations and it would have worked.

Harmonically it works quite well, but instead the accompaniment is too monotonous; in fact, it has the same pattern throughout the whole piece.

If you intended to make such a short piece, at least in bars 5/12 you should have varied the left hand a bit to avoid repetitiveness. This problem wouldn't have existed if there had been a second theme ... you could have inserted new things there to give variety to the piece.

Just an example: in the penultimate bar, the E in the left hand of the second movement is a bit sparse like that. By simply adding two eighth notes (A-G#) to the left hand, you would have created a beautiful 13th interval with the right hand and the sound would have gained from it.

If I had to sum everything up in a single word, I would say: a pity, an excellent piece could have come of it!

Track 2 - JamSession

The elaborate and varied harmonies make this track pleasant to listen to, but our (I am speaking of us musicians) hearing goes deeper ... so ...

The accompaniment is too static ... it was necessary to vary it at least in the central part and especially in measures 9/10/11 and 13/14/15 where the theme is static.

I feel the lack of a proper reprise of the theme, given that in terms of timing the rhythm of the beginning is there, but not the theme.

Listening, one reaches the end of the track but you can feel that something is missing; the premises of the response were not then maintained and developed, and at least the quotation of the theme that one expects does not arrive.

I would say the same thing I said to Margherita: a pity, working on it would surely result in a good track!

rstrauss wrote:

The accompaniment is too static ...

I thought so, Abate pointed it out to me as well

rstrauss wrote:

I feel the lack of a true reprise of the theme, since in terms of tempo the rhythm of the beginning is there, but not the theme.

...no sorry, but at measure 16 the theme is there

rstrauss wrote:

Listening, one reaches the end of the piece but you can feel that something is missing; the premises of the response were not then maintained and developed, and at least the quotation of the theme that one expects does not arrive.

The part that arrives, and it's not just a quotation, is presented in full...

Question: what are the expectations that my response gave rise to... because I caused them unconsciously and I would like to know what they are

rstrauss wrote:

I would say the same thing I said to Margherita: a pity, working on it would surely result in a good piece!

Surely everything can be improved, thanks for the interest and suggestions... let me know about those things I just asked you about

First of all, thanks to you too RStrauss

rstrauss wrote:

What is missing is a development and above all a second contrasting theme ... s

Sorry, but from what I know, it is not mandatory to use a contrasting theme... in fact, many like Mendelssohn do not use one and to tell the truth they don't even change texture throughout the entire piece.

But I know I am not Mendelssohn, so I certainly still have a long way to go before I can afford not to vary texture and not use a contrasting theme.

A question, since you wrote a prelude. But when does Chopin use a contrasting idea in his preludes? Let's talk for example about no. 4, no. 1, no. 7... it is evident that I am missing something

rstrauss wrote:

it's a shame, an excellent piece could have come out!

Given yours, for sure ... the most important thing is to understand why something isn't working.

Piece 3 - RaffaeleB

Pianistically it is easily playable, since you asked.

Let's go in order:

I don't want to repeat myself, but the care of the score would also be important: you put mp at bar 1 and then?

Bar. 11

a G# is missing somewhere to understand where we are.

Bar. 20

the 4 small notes in the left hand: an # is missing on the second E (I don't think you want to repeat it.

The second theme: well, it seems too cheerful and jovial to me, given the pathetic character of the main theme. Let's say that your second theme would have been fine in a 1700s sonata and I must say that the voice leading works, but it is not in the character of the piece.

For the end, instead of closing with the second theme, I would have written a different coda. If you really wanted to keep your material, you could have very well taken the first theme and varied it, or gone with an intensification and embellished the left hand... just to give some examples. certainly ending with the second theme on the 1st inversion of the fundamental chord doesn't work.

You are improving, so keep it up.

Comment on Margherita's piece, trying to take into account the comments already made by AleGozzo and RStrauss in the sense that generally a discordance of opinions does not help.

You must have realized that something certainly did not work as you expected.

The fact that the first period is binary or ternary changes little; clearly, the second period must be proportioned and take its predecessor into account.

It seems to me that you structured the piece in the 4+8+4 form (plus a 3-measure coda), an acceptable solution with many examples in the repertoire.

Alternatives could have been, for example:

8(4+4)+8(4+4)+coda

12 (4+4+4)+8 (4+4)+coda

Regarding my last proposal, even though 4+8 mathematically makes 12 (4+4+4), the musical content of your elaboration restricts it to the 4+8+4 case.

The fact that the bass changed pattern in the response might not be a problem; the fact is that the pattern is not effectively supported by the harmony, even if it works at a syntactic level.

That is, you could have descended to B chromatically (as you did, but without stopping on C, "blocking" the descent) and, for example, created a true dominant of the dominant pedal... and from there decide how to proceed.

Perhaps part of the responsibility for weakening everything also lies with the melody, which is less effective than that of the theme.

To be clear, taken individually, the elements (form, harmony, melody, etc.) might work, but their combination in the response is not very effective, especially in relation to the preceding context... which is much more intense.

Anyway, I sense some good premises.

thanks strauss for your opinion.

I am glad that the piece is playable on the piano.

As far as the second theme is concerned, it is a deliberately contrasting theme precisely to feel the break.

In fact, I have never worked on the second theme.

Let's just say that melody was going around in my head and I just wrote it down immediately

But what characteristics should the Second theme have?

As far as the recapitulation and finale are concerned, I thought I had stayed within the theme of sonata form for the recapitulation

Perhaps it is true that it should be a bit more varied ABA'

Anyway, thanks again