Piano Workshop 2012

Frank wrote:

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

I think he chose E+ 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.

as soon as I have a moment I'll try it and I agree ... he felt caged by the "sonata" form.

Frank wrote:

Who said that the traditional scheme of the classical sonata form is suitable for a Rachmaninoff theme? Okay, start from a formal setup, 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.

This is Chopin's least "sonata" sonata; in fact, with no. 3 in B minor, he returned a bit more "traditionally," if one can say that of Chopin.

Not to mention the enigmatic 4th movement ...

Frank wrote:

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

correct.

rstrauss wrote:

This is Chopin's least "sonata" sonata

...exactly

I didn't think I would spark a debate.

I only want to add that while writing the piece, I attempted to subvert it a little.

But as I was saying some time ago, pieces in minor keys make me a bit sad.

I must say the truth, I appreciate Rachmaninoff's original piece.

I understand that it is steeped in much melancholy which, to tell the truth, sticks to me when listening to it.

A few pages ago, I said with conviction that I had sought an atmosphere that Strauss defined as sacrilegious.

It may well be sacrilegious, and I realize this while listening to Rach's piece.

I had started with an andante tempo, but funeral and melancholy images were coming to mind.

Perhaps it is just a phase of mine, this avoiding those sensations.

For the moment, I am seeking a bit of peace and fun.

Anyway, thank you for your constructive criticism; they are truly enlightening!!!!

Anyway, compliments to everyone. You have done an excellent job.

I like your music!!

Sorry CromaDiBrera, I wrote something stupid... I was also forgetting about Modale, whose piece I am commenting on

Comment on Modale's Kyrie

I really like how it sounds; I have listened to several of your proposals over the last few months, and the traces of your style can be found in this work as well, which is a sign of maturity (but there is no need for me to come and tell you so, though I think it's nice to hear it).

After a brief introduction, I perceive the reminiscence of the theme being used during the elaboration based on "expansion," in the flow of the music, its characteristics, or what you liked to "fish" for; clearly the most interesting traits such as the harmonic content of the third measure plus the prepared appoggiaturas characteristic of the melodic conduction of the theme (which, by expanding, become repeated and increasingly frequently reiterated with other melodic fragments) ... fused with elements of the introduction itself.

There are evident points of tension and release, a piece that works well upon listening and is also played with decisiveness, ease, passion ... in short, one can feel that you improvise by profession, and that is what I expect from someone who has made your choice.

Compliments; I would be curious and I publicly invite you to participate in the chamber music workshop at the end of October, if you were to find a couple of musicians with whom you have good fair play ... it is a Trio for violin, cello, and piano.

I'm just putting it out there, there's time ...

I'll take this opportunity to ask

Frank wrote:

the theme of the next LAB for the pf (of which I haven't named names yet, but I think it contains a flaw and not one of writing)

Now we know that the theme is by Rachmaninoff, what was the problem?

Here I am, I'm home.

I listened to the pieces; I did not look at the scores, as I believe that interpretation is a fundamental aspect.

I noticed the passion and love with which the musicians of this forum have committed themselves, and this certainly represents a factor of cohesion for our category. Never more than now does the proverb hold true: “per aspera ad astra”. Of course, results are obtained through love for music and through 360-degree commitment in the field of music study, without neglecting any aspect of it... the melodic line... the harmonic base... the rhythm... the interpretation...

Precisely on the basis of the concept just expressed, I have developed my comments.

I will try to set aside my natural inclination towards modal harmony to give a "tonal" judgment. However, I am convinced that, even if unconsciously, underneath... underneath the opinion will still be tainted, so please consider it marginal.

I will start with what I did not like.

In general, I noticed a tendency from many towards a rather pronounced and repeated alternation of bass-chord that, in my opinion, creates a rhythmic delimitation incompatible with the reception of harmonic variations and the melodic line.

Tale arrangement is less noticeable in the piece by Anonimo and Frank, who knew how to well dose the rhythmic aspect by often using very graceful and barely perceptible decelerations and accelerations.

From a strictly harmonic point of view, I found the pieces by Gozzo and Jamsession interesting, which—and especially the first one—went beyond the typical harmonic modulations that characterize much of the classical repertoire.

From the point of view of the line, I enjoyed Frank's melodic construction.

From the point of view of interpretation, of "feeling" or "sensuality," Frank's performance is undoubtedly, in my opinion, the least delimited one.

I noticed positive aspects in all the performances that should be cultivated and negative aspects that, in my opinion, should be revised, particularly the rhythmic aspect which, I believe, must not prevail over the other compositional elements, risking suffocating them.

Thanks Modale for the opinion, after all a jazz musician likes Jazz harmony ... it's clear that you liked my harmonization and Gozzo's contaminations.

I have an idea that Rachmaninoff might have disappointed you and I didn't quite understand what you mean by rhythmic aspect.

Thanks Modale for the suggestions, perhaps you mean harmonic rhythm? Because if you were referring to mere rhythmic scanning, you know that for example mine is produced by a PC... good luck explaining agogics to it

If instead you were referring to the harmonic one, however, I just can't stand all this irregularity in the theme, nor in the original development.

What do you think?

Response for Jamsession and Margherita 1

I do not believe that seeing and composing from a 360-degree perspective, or nearly so, from the point of view of harmony is a prerogative of jazz alone. Jazz—and I am not talking about swing—has this characteristic, but many classical musicians possess it as well. So, compliments to you; do not relegate yourself to a stylistic niche.

By rhythmic aspect, I mean rhythmic scanning and not harmonic rhythm, which, for that matter, I did not mention in my comment.

Please, do not consider mine to be advice; I refrain from giving it; mine is simply a personal comment. The harmonic rhythm that I heard in the pieces presented, from a tonal point of view, is excellent.

I'll play devil's advocate

modale wrote:

From a strictly harmonic point of view, I found Gozzo's piece interesting and also Jamsession's, which, especially the former, went beyond the typical harmonic modulations that characterize much of classical music.

modale wrote:

I do not believe that seeing and composing from a 360-degree perspective, or almost so, from the point of view of harmony is a prerogative of jazz alone

Ergo, I understood correctly.

You find classical harmony uninteresting and therefore you also suffer through Rachmaninoff

Nothing wrong with that, of course... but that seems to be what your words are saying.

modale wrote:

By rhythmic aspect, I mean the rhythmic scanning

Ok, as with everyone, you don't think the PC is a good performer... I don't know how useful that information is, but I take note of it and the idea of taking playback more seriously is among my priorities; a lot of music now circulates in digital form and I cannot afford to play an orchestra

Therefore, I must take care of the agogics, thanks again for the Modal insights.

Also, I haven't quite hit the mark yet regarding the comment on harmony in relation to modulations, which are a tonal prerogative that in the classical world existed until a certain date. So, jazz musicians aside (for those who are tonal), for those moving outside of tonality, it is essentially in the sea of atonality... therefore, introducing the concept of modulation into this field seems a bit forced to me. Am I wrong?

Every now and then, when I read certain discussions of yours, I feel like I'm "de coccio" [thick-headed], as they say in Rome... That is, I don't understand. Regardless of the fact that the rhythmic scanning (but also the harmonic rhythm) is determined by the notation, and not by how the computer plays it (I'm talking to Margherita), I can't follow you on the discussion regarding classical, jazz, tonal, atonal, and so on; what is "classical"? From what I know, a seventh chord of the second species without preparation is already "non-classical," without that being "jazz" or "atonal." As for the modal, it's not as if it were a prerogative of jazz—on the contrary! Bartók's Microcosmos is all modal, without having anything to do with jazz; the same goes for Rachmaninoff and all the Russians before and after him (Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Mussorgsky...); our Respighi even wrote a "Dorian concerto," in addition to many works recovering ancient modality; even Bach uses, by the way, "bitonal" cadences... Classical music is full of modal episodes, even if one cannot say that they were as frequent in the 1700s as in later times (or even much earlier).

I mean that there isn't really a musical element capable of making labels stick: instead, it depends on the overall context: Kapustin, for example, uses many musical elements of jazz, but no one classifies him in that genre...

P.S. The 9th is mine.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Every now and then, when I read certain discussions of yours, I feel like I'm "de coccio" [thick-headed], as they say in Rome... That is, I don't understand. Regardless of the fact that the rhythmic scanning (but also the harmonic rhythm) is determined by the notation, and not by how the computer plays it (I'm talking to Margherita), I can't follow you on the discussion regarding classical, jazz, tonal, atonal, and so on; what is "classical"? From what I know, a seventh chord of the second species without preparation is already "non-classical," without that being "jazz" or "atonal." As for modal, it's not as if it were a prerogative of jazz—on the contrary! Bartók's Microcosmos is all modal, without having anything to do with jazz; the same goes for Rachmaninoff and all the Russians before and after him (Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Mussorgsky...); our Respighi even wrote a "Dorian concerto," in addition to many works recovering ancient modality; even Bach uses, by the way, "bitonal" cadences... Classical music is full of modal episodes, even if one cannot say that they were as frequent in the 1700s as in later times (or even much earlier).

I mean that there isn't really a musical element capable of making labels stick: instead, it depends on the overall context: Kapustin, for example, uses many musical elements of jazz, but no one classifies him in that genre...

But besides agreeing, how do you fit a modulation into a modal piece? Ah... I threw modality into the SEA of atonality; in fact, here we were talking about 70% tonal pieces, where modality is the key element, and the others where the word "modality" doesn't quite fit.

In short, applying the same criterion to two different containers... it's not applicable

Margherita1 wrote:

But besides being in agreement, how do you fit a modulation into a modal piece?

It also depends on the modes you use (and the genre in which you practice them), but it is often done with progressions.

Margherita1 wrote:

Ah.. I threw modality into the SEA of atonality; in fact, here we were talking about 70% tonal pieces, where modality is the key element, and the others where the word modality doesn't quite fit.

In short, the same criterion for two different containers... not applicable

You see I'm stubborn? I didn't understand... Anyway, it doesn't matter... We just need to agree, however, that when talking about modality, we are still within a tonal context.

JamSession wrote:

You find classical harmony uninteresting and therefore you also suffer through Rachmaninoff

Nothing wrong with that, of course ... but this is what your words seem to say.

To me, it doesn't seem to say that at all, sincerely.

What a mess.......I don't understand a f" ck anymore

You are such a bunch of bunglers but tremendously likable.

I would only like to say that (in my opinion, obviously) music is: "a wild weed and not a garden plant".

Even if it is not relevant to the workshop we are discussing, I take this opportunity to give you the link to the only score in my possession obtained by connecting a digital piano to a PC; the operation was done in a studio by a technician because I am a bit clumsy with computers, then I didn't think about the possibility of making scores anymore, perhaps because I don't see the utility in relation to their possible users.

I am curious to know your opinions. Who knows if from you I will get the stimulus to make others......

thanks to everyone

http://www.pianoconc...n-k1-partitura/

Zaccaria wrote:

Now we know that the theme is by Rachmaninoff, what was the problem?

At measure 2, the original version at measure 10 of my nocturne, the one I prefer