Piano Workshop 2012

JamSession wrote:

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

I was talking about meas. 25 and following where the time pulse is present.

Ultimately, considering the response as a 2nd theme, your piece is an ABABC, so it repeats the Theme-response pattern twice... of course harmonically the two episodes change, but by leaving the theme the same, the harmonic diversity of the left hand is not felt upon first listening.

Since you harmonically varied the first two AB AB, I would have expected a third AB episode with only a quotation of the theme and then variations, which seem to you go well.

JamSession wrote:

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

You put the response back at meas. 20 and it's fine, but it is the same as before ... my personal ear would have wanted to hear variations, flourishes etc. ... let's say that on paper it's fine, but listening I would have wanted something more, which was certainly within your capabilities.

Let it be clear that regarding this piece I have nothing to say on a harmonic and technical level; my evaluations are dictated more by personal taste.

Margherita1 wrote:

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 you the truth, they don't even change texture throughout the entire piece.

However, I know I am no 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.

Question, since you wrote a prelude. But 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.

The greats have a great capacity, to say much with little... your considerations are true and tangible, it's just that it isn't that easy.

The fewer elements you have, the more valid they must be to achieve a good result... and very little is needed to make everything fail. Keep in mind that often it is only a few things that make the difference; the hardest part is finding them.

Margherita1 wrote:

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.

However, 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.

This is correct, nor have I played several of this type. It would be enough to look at the Nocturne in F minor (I don't remember the number).

In this piece, in my opinion, the first theme alone is not enough. The theme is not very rich and has a certain regularity, so just it and the response are too little.

Even if the form you used could work, in relation to the theme, I think more was needed.

Margherita1 wrote:

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.

This is also right. But for example, look at no. 1 and compare the theme with that of our workshop and you will see the abysmal difference.

Margherita1 wrote:

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

Let's just say that being able to recognize the character of a theme and realizing what is needed in the piece, how to arrange the different sections and how much to include (I am specifically talking about the 'how much'... ask Frank) is not an easy thing ... I myself in older workshops had not fully hit upon the character ...

but anyway, it's clear that you have all the necessary prerequisites.

We hope to see you again in the next workshops.

For Strauss

I am listening to your composition this morning

I always sense your style in it

I don't know what scheme you followed.

It seems like theme and variations, but then hearing some contrasts and key changes, the picture doesn't add up for me.

I saw you applying some jazz chords that don't actually give a jazz feel.

Looking at your finale, I better understand what you meant regarding my finale. Anyway, you are right, it works better.

I thank everyone for the interest, compliments, and observations regarding my piece. Haven't you all exaggerated a little bit? I have already heard the other arrangements (which I will comment on gradually) and there is indeed some good material...

For AleGozzo

It seems to me that your interpretation is clear and valid; I will only dwell on

AleGozzo wrote:

B (16 bars + 4 for the retransition)

new thematic material and new texture, more contrapuntal.

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

I confess it took me a while to make this aesthetic aspect my own (and evidently it pays off) because it has strong implications at a character level, which obviously concerns me directly... for others it may be different. In a conception like that of my nocturne, one must embrace the thematic material 100%, and when the material is not yours... you always want to add something else, something you feel is more your own, and all that's left is to work with scissors and set aside (but preserve) all the excellent ideas that arise during the elaboration of the material.

Put that way it sounds like a bad thing, but learning how to do a development of this type when the theme is actually yours... well, it's no small feat.

If we want to be completely honest, perhaps the anomaly is setting out to develop someone else's theme. However, since it is a beautiful theme, it is worth the effort.

We will see how you react to the other one... of an entirely different conception. I expect sparks

COMMENT ON PIECE 2 (JAM SESSION)

in this piece, I like how you played along with the melancholy and subdued tone of the proposal and, in fact, at the beginning of the response, you even manage to dramatize it

the fact remains that there are some flaws: the most important one is that in the response you set off for an "unknown destination," a bit like Margherita. The first 3 bars could have held up, but then you could have done a nice suspended cadence at bar 8 and taken up the theme to "conclude it."

so, as with Margherita, your structure is: 4 bars of theme / big development / 4 bars of reprise (moreover in the supertonic key) / big development....

and I say big development because in a few measures you went around sharps and flats without peace

perhaps when Strauss reproaches you for not making the theme heard at bar 16, he means in the original key (it's not a detail....)

i will also point out the difference between the bass lines to you

as far as the steadiness of the accompaniment is concerned, the piece is not long, so it might not have been a big problem if the melody had been moving enough, but there are large areas of melody with long values and not even syncopated, it's obvious that everything comes to a halt ....

'iao

Ah, for Raffaele

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

I assure you that in this piece, aside from looking for the second theme where the improvisational touch played its part, there is only a lot of design ... remember the discussion about the table we had a couple of years ago

Clear RStrauss

Thanks to you too, Ale

AleGozzo wrote:

the fact remains that there are some flaws

... it seemed strange to me

AleGozzo wrote:

the most important thing is that in the response you set off for "unknown destination", a bit like Margherita; the first 3 bars could have held up, but then you could have made a nice suspended cadence at bar 8 and resumed the theme to "conclude it".

so, as with margherita, your structure is: 4 bars of theme / big development / 4 bars of recapitulation (furthermore in the supertonic key) / big development....

i say big development because in a few measures you went around sharps and flats without peace

In reality, they are simple substitutions, practically as RStrauss says, basically there is an ab, where the two melodic patterns are harmonically varied.

In short, if I had written 20 variations, I would have changed the pianistic module, added flourishes, etc.

But in such a short piece... even changing the harmony is no small feat.

I agree that

AleGozzo wrote:

as far as the fixedness of the accompaniment is concerned, the piece is not long, so it might not have been a big problem if the melody had been moving enough, but there are wide areas of melody with long values and not even syncopated, it's obvious that everything comes to a halt ....

Effectively I should have found a different pattern, but it contrasted well with the theme

AleGozzo wrote:

perhaps when strauss reproaches you for not making the theme heard at bar 16, he means in the original key (it's not a detail....)

... well, let's say that once the initial harmonization is abandoned, you see the response, one can only go further ... otherwise it turns into a "potpourri". That is, la- might work, but once you change everything and have seen where I was coming from, la- becomes a detail

rstrauss wrote:

to be able to recognize the character of a theme and realize what is needed in the piece, how to arrange the different sections and how much to include (I am specifically talking about the 'how much'... ask Frank) is not an easy thing ...

... message received, perhaps it is also a matter of experience

Thanks for the long post Frank

Frank wrote:

Anyway, I sense good premises

You are all telling me this, then I'll start to believe it

Margherita1 wrote:

... message received, perhaps it is also an issue of experience

Try taking the 1st beat of Mozart's sonata K.332, mm. 19-20-21

You will notice that there are three V°-I° cadences; the third is an octave lower and identical to the 2nd ... why?

Wasn't the one in m. 20 enough to then move into D minor?

If Haydn or Hummel had written it, they would have closed with the second; instead, Mozart adds a third cadence ... I tried playing it both ways and what WAM wrote is still better.

It has a different breath, lightens the modulation to the relative minor, and creates greater tension, making you long for the D minor that follows.

And yet it is merely a repetition an octave lower of the same cadence ... add to this what Frank says about finding the details that make the difference, and you will have your answer.

Another example: sonata K.457 mm. 30-31-32-33.

Contrasting example, same sonata, mm. 21-22-23

To move into E-flat, it uses only a single Bb V° chord with position changes.

This should clarify the concept of 'proportions' that I meant.

Of course, getting there is a long road, but the only way is to write, write, and write.

Comment on RStrauss's

I feel a lot of the Lied, one of your best works (among those I have heard).

I like it very much; in my opinion, the most beautiful thing is the idea at measure 21 that is then heard throughout the entire piece. There is always a lot going on, but it seems much more cohesive to me compared to other works. You can tell you are working on the subject matter.

It feels pianistic inside, meaning it fully utilizes the instrument; you see arpeggios, etc.

raffaeleb wrote:

For Strauss

I am listening to your composition this morning

I can always sense your style

I don't know what scheme you followed.

It seems like a theme and variations, but then hearing some contrasts and key changes, the picture doesn't quite add up for me.

I saw you applying some jazz chords that don't actually provide a jazz feel.

Looking at your finale, I better understand what you meant regarding my finale. Anyway, you are right, it works better.

The scheme in brief is:

From 5 to 15 briefly elaborated response.

from 16 to 18 quotation of the theme in the left hand upper voice

from 22 to 25 2nd theme with the harmony of the 1st theme developed from 32 onwards.

from 37 to 39 climax peak

from 40 to 47 lightening episode to move into C minor

from 48 to 56 quotation of the 1st theme + response in C minor

from 57 to 60 transition episode to return to the home key

from 61 to 63 quotation of the 1st theme dramatized by repeated chords in the left hand

from 64 onwards coda on tonic pedal with a major ending.

The jazz chords were not intended as jazz, but simply as harmonic enrichment.

AbateFaria wrote:

Comment on RStrauss's

I feel a lot of Lied in it, one of your best works (among those I have heard).

It seems pianistic inside to me, meaning it fully utilizes the instrument, you see arpeggios, etc.

It is my instrument, so I always put a particular care into it... and the lied is one of the things I do best, in the sense that I look for cantability everywhere, perhaps even too much.

AbateFaria wrote:

There is always a lot of stuff, but it seems much more cohesive to me compared to other works. You can tell you are working on the subject.

in reality, when playing it, the challenging part is making the middle theme come out, but the playback should sound good.

... and just think, I am making inhuman efforts not to put 10 themes in the same piece, and since you notice it, I would say it's working.

Thanks for the comment.

Comment on Modale's Kyrie

I really like how you used the material; the spectrum of the theme can still be heard, and in some points it is tangible despite the enrichments.

Then you go a bit your own way, in the sense that you use the initial idea as a pretext and cyclically transform the material.

Beautiful journey.

Honored

modale wrote:

I went free by instinct, it is an extemporaneous composition and with regret I cannot even provide the score.

It is clear that I express through my music my own conception of harmony and perhaps also a way of being in a broad sense.

Keep in mind that my piano is tuned to 432 Hz.

this type of tuning inspires me much more.

Dovresti provare a improvvisare su una tastiera collegata al PC, faresti utile e dilettevole. Ovviamente scordati i 432 H

Piece 5 - Modal

The lack of a score does not allow me to perform an analysis/commentary on the piece, so for this piece I will refrain, for now.

Piece 6 - AleGozzo

So ...

i like the harmonies that permeate the entire piece and the variations are sufficiently different from each other to create good variety.

what doesn't entirely convince me is the response ... let me explain :

since you had variations in mind, I would have treated the response as a B theme and therefore made it completely different ...

then in the variations, no one was stopping you from simplifying it and writing it as you eventually laid it down ... I am talking about measures 8 to 13.

another point I would make is that when you repeat the varied theme, you shouldn't maintain the left hand with the same rhythmic pattern as the main one, as you rightly did from bar 61 onwards.

Anyway, overall a good job.

Piece 4 - Frank

I finally get to it ... I left it for last because I had to think about it a bit and listen to it several times.

I like the mood that permeates the entire piece; you remind me a bit of my composition teacher.

In effect, I don't have much to say, just a few notes:

meas. 21 in the left hand, I would have preferred it in the re-re octave below to have the same rhythm as measures 3 and 4

Then, from meas. 21 to 24, I don't know if it was your intention, but I would have seen a progression with a bit more pathos, perhaps with a bit more in the left hand, since you then pick up the rhythm of meas. 17, which works perfectly.

meas. 33

the two mi's in the octave of the left hand seem a bit little to me ... 4 quarter notes mi-la-do would have created continuity with the following measure, and by letting the pedal ring through even at 35, you could have always maintained the initial 1/4 pause.

These are, however, details dictated by my incurable pianist's taste.

It remains an excellent piece that I had a lot of fun playing.

Compliments.

thanks for the comment strauss, I accept your objections, especially the 2nd

i am not a pianist and I always have difficulty with his writing, especially when starting with a rigid accompaniment from which it is difficult to loosen up naturally (should I leave it like this? repetitive .... should I shift the accents? too emphatic.... etc)

on the first objection I am less sure, because I feel that this theme needs to be accommodated rather than contrasted.

that I haven't succeeded in the attempt is the first to say so, but I reiterate that my model was that of frank, who built part A on 16 measures without real contrasts within it.

bye