Piano Workshop 2012

Great! Well done, guys!

Frank's work was perfect and it was also played well.

Bringing the melody to the bass was a very good idea!

I was also particularly amazed by RaffaeleB with that nice feel in 2.

I probably would have thought the same, perhaps with some Bud Powell-style voicings in the left hand.

You've lost me now... I'm immersing myself too much in Jazz and it's doing "terrible" for my classical composition studies, to say the least.

Let's talk soon!

Damn, Rachmaninoff wrote us a poem ...

... you are giving me an X-ray, thanks for the suggestions.

How does Rachmaninoff's seem to you?

It seems very poetic and meditative to me, perhaps even too much ... let's say a bit "slow".

The episode at 2'14'' is very particular, can I say that it doesn't drive me crazy?

I found something very good in everyone, each in their own way. I didn't listen to anything that bored me, as I read has happened to others; the "old-timers" of the labs have their own path, from which they don't seem to have moved much, however. That is to say, few dare to step outside a path that is certainly respectable, but already widely declared, and they do not seem tempted to dare something foreign to their own dimension (if not here, when?).

The newcomers intrigued and even surprised me; in particular margherita1, because in the very few bars I heard, I felt they might have been too intimidated by the certamen, while there are some interesting and personal flashes that are still too "compressed". In my opinion, they must step out of the "task" and put a light backpack on their shoulders to allow for agile movement: music is art, one must gain fluency and have confidence in the personality one is able to express, without useless "shyness"; in short, it seems to me that there is something here with considerable room for improvement, and I like to add that, for once, perhaps it is not just a matter of studying harmony but, instead, of understanding the phrase, the period, and form in general (but its spirit, not dry patterns!) just enough to loosen the reins and let go with artistic vigor.

P.S. I have launched myself here into a complete mess, completely out of style and with patched-up skills (bossa nova); excuse me, but I was interested in experimenting, so seeing whether it might be liked or not ...

I am of the opinion, which I have always reiterated here, that labs should serve more for experimenting than for "competing": I wish nothing worse for Frank's effort than for these labs to become parodies of exams... Long live art, down with exams!

JamSession wrote:

... you are giving me an X-ray, thanks for the suggestions.

How does Rachmaninoff's seem to you?

It seems very poetic and meditative to me, perhaps even too much ... let's say a bit "slow".

The episode at 2'14'' is very particular, can I say that it doesn't drive me crazy?

Well, if he wanted to be slow and meditative, why should we, a century later, come along and say that "it was too much"...?!? Oh, mother...!

It might be that I like to cultivate the romantic illusion that through music one can express the spontaneity of a state of mind... After all, between the time of Freud and that of Voltaire there are some differences, and it's not as if good Sergei cared about leaving behind for posterity, with the piece in question, a mere little harmony exercise...

rstrauss wrote:

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 little notes in the left hand: a # 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 gone well in an 18th-century sonata, and I must say that the voice leading works, but it is not in the character of the piece.

As 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 a few examples. certainly finishing with the second theme on the 1st inversion of the fundamental chord doesn't work.

You are improving, so keep it up.

As far as the little notes are concerned, I forgot to slur them; in short, it's not a debate but a slight anticipation on the first beat to give it a swing feel

Then as far as the transformation of character is concerned, it was a Dixieland idea

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Well, but if he wanted to be slow and meditative, why should we come along, a century later, to say that "it was too much"...?!? Oh, mother...!

Since time immemorial, the audience can say whatever they want whenever they want... they are not subject to the time parameter, especially since:

CromaDiBrera wrote:

it's not that good Sergeji wanted to leave for posterity, with the piece in question, a mere little harmony exercise...

But others of his level didn't want to leave us a mere little harmony exercise either (oh god, let's talk about it) and yet the effect can be different. I didn't say it wasn't valid, but I can certainly get bored and say so, can't I?

and frankly, some pieces here by complete strangers have bored me less, using the same starting material... perhaps less valid, but less boring

CromaDiBrera wrote:

I found something very good in everyone, each in their own way.

I didn't listen to anything that bored me ...

and this is already positive in itself.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

the "old" gods of the labs have their own path, from which they don't seem to have moved much, however. That is, there are few who dare to step outside a certainly respectable, but already widely declared, path, and who do not seem tempted to dare something foreign to their own dimension (if not here, when?).

this is a rather controversial point ... let me explain ... each of us has a style that emerges naturally in compositions and this is inevitable ... or rather ... one cannot avoid it without falling into the ridiculous ... I could even write something totally outside my usual patterns, but I probably wouldn't feel it was mine anymore, my points of reference would be missing ... maybe I will try, but I cannot guarantee the result ... and besides, a composer must write what comes out of their head.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

The new ones have intrigued and even surprised me; in particular margherita1, because in the very few bars I heard, I felt that they might have been too intimidated by the certamen, while there are some interesting and personal flashes that are still too "compressed". They must step out of the "task," in my opinion, and put a light backpack on their shoulders to allow for agile movement: music is art, one must gain fluency and have confidence in the personality they are able to express, without useless "shyness"; in short, it seems to me that there is something here with considerable room for improvement and I like to add that, for once, perhaps it is not just a case of studying harmony but, instead, of understanding the phrase, the period, and form in general (but its spirit, not dry patterns!) just enough to loosen the reins and let go with artistic vigor.

signed

CromaDiBrera wrote:

the “ovens” of the labs have their own path, from which however I don't think they have moved much

I find something has evidently changed in Ale

CromaDiBrera wrote:

The new ones

In reality, Margherita is the only new one; perhaps you missed some previous editions... be patient, as at the end of June you will have the chance to catch up on some listening

But I would be curious to hear this bossa ....

Regarding the issue of the approach to workshops, let's say they have the advantage of allowing choices that are more oriented towards creativity or teaching, or both.

I always find the educational aspect useful because it allows you to clearly compare others' choices and receive useful opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of your own work.

Going too far off track is not a problem, but you risk reducing comments to a simple like/dislike, as I imagine I might do if I listened to your bossa.

Comment on Raffaele's 3rd piece

So, compared to the first piano piece I had listened to, there is an abyss of improvement and this is a decidedly positive thing; joking aside, if you teamed up with JazzSession, a little masterpiece would come out because you complement each other quite well.

You have put many good ideas into play, melodically it pulls (even if it can be improved in some points), but I still find some deficiencies on the level of harmony.

As far as the much-discussed character of the second theme is concerned, I also find it a bit "exuberant"; without going overboard, it would have been enough to propose it in E minor, but if you wanted to, without touching anything and only eliminating the accidentals, your notes would go perfectly with an E Phrygian.

Do some experiments in this direction; you will see that just by changing the character of the second theme, the entire composition will benefit in terms of coherence.

If instead you did not want to touch the B, which seems to work better than the A anyway, change its nature by proposing it in major.

Anyway, the signs of improvement are visible, so keep going like this... after a year, I am curious to see you tackling the choral piece where you can choose the starting material.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Well, but if he wanted to be slow and meditative, why should we come along, a century later, to say that "it was too much"...?!? Oh, mother...!

Well, when Grieg was thrown down the toilet and practically the incompetent one was given to Scriabin ... no one complained

It's a pity they thought they were common forum users and this time I didn't play any strange tricks on you.

But I invite you to look for some other recording, there is also another one on YouTube, and indeed the performer in that version gives it another interpretation, I have to find the link

I have no way of verifying, it should be this one

Claudette Sorel: Nocturne in A minor, Op. 10, No. 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbSCTdqvi1Y

Let me know.

Open content (youtube)

Thank you Valchiria, Cristiank83 and CromaDiBrera for your attention

CromaDiBrera wrote:

in particular margherita1, because in the very few bars I heard, it felt like they might have been too intimidated by the certamen, while there are some interesting and personal flashes that are still too "compressed". They must step out of the "task," in my opinion, and put a light backpack on their shoulders to allow for agile movement: music is art, one must gain fluency and have confidence in the personality they are able to express, without useless "shyness"; in short, it seems to me that there is something here with considerable room for improvement and I like to add that, for once, perhaps it is not just a case of studying harmony but, instead, of understanding the phrase, the period, and form in general (but its spirit, not dry patterns!) just enough to loosen the reins and let go with artistic vigor.

But I am already playing with loose reins, with all my limitations (I haven't studied for 10 years), a theme with such a linear or at least late-Romantic tonal harmonic context, a singable melody and perfect meter—wherever you go with it, how can it not turn out messy?

I mean, proposing something like what I heard Geppino do in the last workshop is not for everyone; developing material is a craft, not an experiment. I want to get to writing something beautiful; when something is beautiful, it transcends language, otherwise Schubert would be discarded... don't you think?

In short, it depends on what one seeks in life and how one feels fulfilled... I don't have all this mania for experimenting; on the contrary, I would like to learn to fully exploit the contents of the theme... otherwise, I'll end up messing up even my own ideas, and I wouldn't study if I were interested in messes.

I hope I have clarified my idea better and I reiterate, I know I only have learning to do and that I am light-years behind you who are much more skilled... but a theme already contains the essence of the piece.

I'm joining the discussion ...

Margherita1 wrote:

... a theme with such a linear or otherwise late-Romantic tonal harmonic context, a cantabile melody and perfect meter, where do you want it to lead without it turning out messy?

in fact, this is exactly the problem we posed ourselves at the beginning ... let's all write on the same theme and see what can be produced ... by June, the workshop on the Scriabin theme (October 2011) will be republished, and you'll see that you will find several interesting little things there as well.

This is exactly the challenge ... staying within a tonal framework, being coherent with the theme, but writing something new and listenable, and I assure you it is harder than writing on a new theme.

Margherita1 wrote:

I mean, proposing something like what I heard Geppino do in the last workshop is not for everyone; developing the material is a craft, not an experiment. I want to get to the point of writing something beautiful; when something is beautiful, it transcends language, otherwise Schubert would have to be discarded... don't you think?

But if you notice, Geppino's pieces are nonetheless well-structured, coherent, and flow smoothly upon listening ... whether they are liked or not doesn't matter ...

If you insist on wanting to write something that pleases the listener and you seek superficiality, then you are finished before you even begin.

Write what you feel following your instinct and always remembering what you have studied ... then maybe you'll produce a sacrilegious piece like RaffaeleB's and we will criticize you ... amen ... look at Frank's comment on RaffaeleB's piece and you will understand.

Margherita1 wrote:

I hope I have clarified my idea better and I reiterate, I know that I only have to learn and that I am light-years away from you who are much more skilled ... but a theme already contains the essence of the piece.

let's take this Rachmaninoff theme and put it in the hands of Brahms, Chopin, and Debussy ... shall we bet that three completely different pieces will emerge?

rstrauss wrote:

... then maybe you'll come out with a sacrilegious piece like RaffaeleB's and we'll criticize you ... amen ... look at Frank's comment on RaffaeleB's piece and you'll understand.

But I didn't criticize the fact that it is sacrilegious; I highlighted some technical aspects and a reflection on coherence... which cannot be achieved through harmony alone.

Frank wrote:

But I didn't criticize the fact that it is sacrilegious; I highlighted some technical aspects and a reflection on coherence... which cannot be achieved through harmony alone.

You know perfectly well that I am talking about constructive criticism ... anyway, you spoke of E minor, and this in itself is already a strong comment ... I tried to play the "dixieland" part, as RaffaeleB calls it, in E minor and the piece takes on a completely different atmosphere, which personally I like more and find more suitable to the theme.

Then we are always there ... where is the limit?

Evidently I explained myself poorly

rstrauss wrote:

However, if you notice, Geppino's pieces are nonetheless well-structured, coherent, and flow smoothly upon listening ...

In fact, mine was a tribute to his work and shifted the concept from experiment toward craftsmanship. An experiment always has the flavor of an attempt.

rstrauss wrote:

If you insist on wanting to write something that pleases the listener and seek exteriority, then you are finished before you even begin.

But I didn't write this, where do you read that? And in fact

rstrauss wrote:

Write what you feel following your instinct

Of course I followed my instinct and my own choice.

rstrauss wrote:

let's take this theme by Rachmaninoff and give it to Brahms, Chopin, and Debussy ... shall we bet that three completely different pieces will emerge?

But with "a theme already contains the essence of the piece", I didn't mean that there is only one version, but if you choose to respect it (a legitimate CHOICE, right?), then the elaborations will be different but within the same intentions as the theme itself.

I haven't commented on any piece, but having heard the original, I feel compelled to say that few have truly respected it and the only one who has done so seriously has produced, in my opinion, a very credible piece and, to tell you the truth, one that I like more than the original... certainly in part B, there is no contest.

I hope to reach the point of writing my own ideas and respecting them. In this view, I want to be faithful to the idea itself .. even if it belongs to others.

Margherita1 wrote:

But I didn't write this, where do you read it? And indeed

If you say "I would like to write something beautiful," I understand perhaps that you would like to write something that pleases those who listen.

Maybe I am misunderstanding...

Margherita1 wrote:

But with "a theme already contains the essence of the piece," I didn't mean that there is only one version, but if you choose to respect it (a legitimate CHOICE, right?), then the elaborations will be different but within the same intentions of the theme itself.

it seems to me that this has been noted more or less by everyone, including you, which makes me think that in any case a certain type of analysis and reasoning has been done by all participants/commentators.

Margherita1 wrote:

I haven't commented on any piece, but having heard the original, I feel compelled to say that few have truly respected it and the only one who has done so seriously has produced, in my opinion, a very credible piece and, to tell you the truth, one that I like more than the original...

you can also take a stand and calmly say which is the piece you consider most credible (I have some suspicions) ... no one here will ever criticize you for expressing your opinion.

Margherita1 wrote:

I hope to reach the point of writing my own ideas and respecting them. In this view, I want to be faithful to the idea itself... even if it belongs to others.

you're saying very little...

rstrauss wrote:

you spoke of E minor and this in itself is already a strong comment ... I tried playing the "dixieland" part in E minor, as RaffaeleB calls it, and the piece takes on a completely different atmosphere, which personally I like more and find more suitable to the theme.

...and you should try removing even the F#, with some necessary adjustments to the accompaniment; what comes out?

I think he chose E major only because he "had to" present the theme in the key of the dominant, but his instinct goes against this rational intention ... it would have been better to follow it, given the harmony he used, and give more cohesion to everything.

Who said that the traditional schema of the classical sonata form is suitable for a Rachmaninoff theme? Okay, start from a formal structure, but then shape it to the material.

It would be interesting to study Chopin's sonatas in relation to this aspect, perhaps no. 2 op. 35.

rstrauss wrote:

Then we are always there ... where is the limit?

Well, taste is formed, and if one day Raffaele were to have an idea like Rachmaninoff's, he would feel the weight of the choice more heavily because he wouldn't have the "alibi" that the theme is not his

rstrauss wrote:

If you say "I would like to write something beautiful," I understand perhaps that you would like to write something that pleases the listener.

Maybe I am misunderstanding ...

Beauty is subjective; if I say beautiful, I automatically mean something that pleases me first and foremost. If it pleases me, I have the presumption (allow me this) that it will also please others. But I come first.

Mine doesn't actually please me 100% as a result, but as a direction, yes, so I just have work to do.