Piano Workshop 2012

Commentary on Alessandro Gozzo's variations

I find it very positive that you chose variations to transfigure the starting material, also well-conducted as a succession of ideas in relation to the way of moving away from and approaching the material.

I also sense some beautiful melodic and harmonic flashes, but since you like it and I know you aren't satisfied if they tell you everything is fine, I'll try to pass along a few suggestions:

Focusing on the response, let's talk about how you arrive at the chord in measure 7.

Melodically, you certainly have the need here to prepare what comes next, and in fact, I wouldn't touch anything of the melody except at measure 5; for the first note, I would have it delayed by a B eighth note, tying it to the previous note and rhythmically inviting the melodic rhythmic connection between 5 and 6.

Give also the idea of an anacrusic response, a characteristic of the theme. A tethic response would give less of a sense of continuity.

Still within the scope of the response, harmonically I would work on it, and I think there are some isolated peaks of tension (B5b7/A comes to mind, "polluted" at measure 5) between chords that, to put it poetically, are very sober.

In short, perhaps putting it on the level of the journey would have better prepared precisely the last chord, and I'll pass along a few ideas; let me know if it sounds right to you... just by ear, speaking of the left hand:

Measure 4: for the last chord, I would put a D instead of a B

Measure 5: the flavor of the delay I proposed for the melody, combined with the use of complete chords, helps measure 6 in my opinion; and I suggest for the bass "C", "A D#", "B", "G# C D"; partly because your last chord "G# B E" is a bit of a pauper in relation to where you want to go, and above all, you hit peaks inside it immediately after a polluted B5b7/A, which, moreover, pulls towards a G in the bass... so at

Measure 6: in the last quarter, for the left hand, I would have a triplet like G F# A arrive so as to contextualize the material of Variation I, and go ahead and make that G I was telling you about heard; to avoid it being too busy in relation to the first quarter of the measure... maybe I would transform the initial C# into an eighth note, having it followed by something like an E (also an eighth note) so as to also avoid that emptying caused by the empty octave; I know that this section then becomes a bit thematic, but the last chord is dense, so the preceding part cannot be non-existent.

Try thinking about it; perhaps you don't like it, but the alternation of triads with very heavy chords, in my opinion, does not provide continuity. In reality, this is somewhat the "problem" that hits the piece in certain areas, or rather, non-homogeneous solutions coexist within the same variation, so a total mastery of the medium is not perceived.

Think of situations like measure 101... that C triad is as lovely as sunshine...

Anyway, on one hand, I find the attitude of your lyrical pieces, which you know tend toward a certain type of minimalism (precisely), but on the other, a different way of treating chords that does not carry that congenital harshness of your orchestral pieces or the previous ones you presented.

That said, some considerations variation by variation;

I find the first variation rhythmically very successful and melodically happy

The second is in your pseudo-minimalist spirit and recycles the melodic patterns a bit too much, even if happily

In the third variation, the section around measure 50 is truly very predictable, combined with the fact that we are already coming from a similar variation in terms of repetitiveness... it's a bit heavy. At 48, I would have put a double dot on the B to make an A sixteenth note at the end of the measure in the right hand. Exploit the pause device? I must say, however, that in the closing, the harmony attracts attention

Variation IV, the first part seems melodically inferior to the rest; the harmonic nuances towards the middle and end are beautiful

In general, it seems that in every variation you start from the melody, and I must say they are all introduced very well, and only after a while do you concentrate on the harmony. Clear, in broad terms.

Maybe it's an intentional play... but I suffer a bit from the fact that there is this binomial and that it isn't truly a single unit through and through.

Anyway, this is a good direction; I would continue to abuse this form, which I think does you good

CromaDiBrera wrote:

when talking about modes, we are still within a tonal context.

Let's just say that tonality is included within the mode and, by the way... I can't quite wrap my head around all this modality in the theme.

modale wrote:

What a mess.......I don't understand a damn thing anymore.

You are great bunglers but tremendously likable.

… what can I say, it may be that you are right, but first let me have my say …

modale wrote:

Frank's recording and performance style are impeccable

I thank you for giving me the opportunity to pass on my compliments to the performer, because this post of yours is not directed at the composer. TheSimon offered to record my version, so let us give unto Caesar what is Caesar's

This very first post by Modale goes hand in hand with

modale wrote:

I listened to the pieces, I didn't look at the scores, as I believe that interpretation is a fundamental aspect.

It will be fundamental, but if you have to evaluate a piece by Chopin … you don't say, well done Pollini. And if Pollini were a goat at playing, maybe he would take away from Chopin's music; just to say that I take it as a compliment if you imply that the music is valid (and that is what I seem to have sensed from your following considerations) so that you can concentrate on the interpretation.

I highlight this because if everything were based on this approach, it would mean (but I don't believe it) that you wouldn't be in a position to evaluate an orchestral piece on a compositional level because, for example, the composer himself would be unable to perform it for obvious reasons (I'll get back to that), do you see him playing an entire orchestra?

Returning to

modale wrote:

What a mess.......I don't understand a damn thing anymore...

I recognize Modale's effort in condensing the considerations in a cross-way across all the pieces; I also tried it once, perhaps a couple of years ago, and the results were not exemplary.

I am writing this because here we are talking about evaluating proposals within the framework of choices, and this is what I mean...

When a Musician is faced with given musical material, they can approach it in different ways; in this composition workshop, I can identify 3 macro-categories:

( A ) Adherence to the material

( B ) Transfiguration

( C ) Valorization of characteristic traits

In A, I put the elaborations by Margherita, Frank (Notturno), RStrauss

In B, I put the elaborations by Alessandro Gozzo, CromaDiBrera, Jam Session, Frank (Passion)

In C, I put Modale

Raffaele, in the end, I tend to put him in A for simplicity, even though he could also figure in B... but I think he aims more for A.

The two points discussed, in my opinion, should be categorized within the perspective described above, and indeed:

modale wrote:

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

I don't quite agree in general because it seems that the evaluation is based only on the greater complexity of the chords used and not on how they were actually dosed, which is what makes the difference and makes something truly interesting.

For example, the harmony used by Jam Session is basically for those who want to start understanding substitutions... it's the classic IV V I, which becomes II V I, which becomes V/V V I, basic for someone approaching classical harmony.

Without taking anything away from them, it is how one brings themselves into this situation that should be the object of evaluation. I say this because Modale, you oriented yourself towards approach C; you removed the problem of deviating from the material, you simplified your work, you played on your home turf, and I don't attribute this to a deficiency but to your choice, no more, no less, than what I might have done in the nocturne.

In my choice (I can only speak for myself), which is Adherence, the beauty lies in doing something interesting precisely within the characteristics of the theme, the structure of which we all know how it is harmonically constructed. I don't hear much modality, I don't hear great harmonic feats; a harmonic path as clear and bright as day.

However, I recognize the effectiveness of transfiguration, and so it is interesting to make cross-considerations between pieces that are homogeneous in approach; when you hear Passion, you will realize that here it is about making a choice and sticking to it... as far as I am concerned.

The other point:

modale wrote:

I have 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, in my view, must not prevail over other compositional elements, risking suffocating them.

I suppose Modale is referring to the written agogics, which are different from those applied by the performer; personally, I often like to understand it between the notes and dose it with rhythmic values, harmonic pace, etc., and this is what I would evaluate in a composer's work. Perhaps it is the word 'performance' that introduces confusion and, in this regard, in the next round, we will also publish the data relating to the mp3. That is, whether there is truly a performer or a playback (providing any references) so as to better refine the opinion and make comments like: well done to the choir, well-curated playback.

I hope I haven't contributed to making a mess...

Frank wrote:

Comment on Alessandro Gozzo's variations

Legendary Frank, you know I love meticulous criticism and even better if accompanied by practical suggestions

then I'll tell you ....

modale wrote:

You are great bunglers but tremendously likable.

Frank wrote:

For example, the harmony used by Jam Session is fundamental for those who want to start understanding substitutions …

You won't miss a thing Frank, I had actually even admitted it to Gozzo a few days ago

Legendary Frank, you are a tireless moderator.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

P.S. The 9th is mine.

Is it a playback?

Response for Frank.

I consider the music to be valid, so the difference lies in the interpretation.

I do not evaluate based on the complexity of the chords used, as it is true that I often play pieces in a single mode.

My evaluation of chords is based on the harmonic interval that connects these chords with the central chordal element which, in tonal terms, is called "tonality". I believe that both excessive horizontality and verticality are cacophonous.

Margherita1 wrote:

Is it a playback?

Of course, but it wasn't polished at all. If you are interested in listening to a more expressive playback, you can listen to this: http://www.myspace.c...84055905&ac=now . Then here, in the "I made this" section, there is also a little two-voice invention of mine with a YT video, for which I also polished the playback quite well. What did you use to play the sheet music? The piano sample, anyway, seemed very good to me!

Frank wrote:

to put it bluntly... I can't stand all this mode stuff in the theme.

But indeed, it was a "perfectly normal" melodic minor...

modale wrote:

I find the music valid

Thanks for the pat on the back .. it might be that I have a lot of ambition and perceive the greater depth of the other pieces compared to mine...

modale wrote:

which is why the difference is made by the interpretation.

Ok, in your opinion, as a flautist, will I never have hope for the piece for pf? I am convinced that Debussy does not need the pianist to be told that one of his pieces makes a difference

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Sure, but it wasn't cared for at all

... well, perhaps not everyone is aware of what can be achieved with a PC.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

What did you use to play the sheet music?

I don't know, a tech-savvy friend of mine helped me... yes, he lost a quarter of an hour ... but it's better than basic Finale

CromaDiBrera wrote:

it is a "very normal" melodic minor...

Oh... and let's face it...

Comment on the RStrauss piece

What can I say, so much material but used throughout the piece … I really like the episode from measure 22, it seems to me the most successful. Excellent how you prepare the reprise. In general, there are no points where attention is not kept alive. Honestly, I suffer a bit between measures 15 and 21, more in the first measures perhaps because the intensity of the material has a strong decay.

Anyway, it seems like a good job … improving or at least the rhapsodic aspect is more under control

hi Frank, I can finally respond to your observations

measure 5, for the first one I would make it delayed by an eighth note by tying it to the previous note and rhythmically inviting the melodic-rhythmic connection between 5 and 6.

great idea, it works very well, it gives a nice sense of openness whereas before it was rhythmically rigid.

Still within the scope of the response, harmonically I would work on it and I think there are some isolated peaks of tension between chords—to put it poetically, very sober.

In short, perhaps putting it on the level of the progression would have better prepared precisely the last chord [etc]

The notes you suggest convey the idea of the progressive intensification of dissonance well, but the fact is that I cannot hear that chord at m. 7 as being so terrible: to me, it gives a very strong and not particularly harsh sense of E dominant. Of course, visually it looks quite clumsy....

In the third variation, the section around measure 50 is truly very predictable.

Are you perhaps referring to the beginning of the variation (44-48)?

In general, it seems that in every variation you start from the melody and I must say they are all introduced very well, and only after a while do you concentrate on the harmony.

Maybe it is an intentional choice... but I struggle a bit with the fact that there is this binomial relationship and that it isn't truly a single unit through and through.

The only thing somewhat intentional is the alternation of variations that begin by highlighting a characteristic element of the previous part (evident in the first, less so in the third, which takes up the dotted rhythm from just before but diminished into 16ths) and those that start by taking up the theme (II and IV).

Thanks again for your attention and suggestions

...it's up to you Ale, mine were just suggestions

AleGozzo wrote:

but the fact is that I can't hear that chord on beat 7 as being so terrible: to me it gives a very strong and not particularly harsh sense of E dominant. Of course, looking at it, it seems quite clumsy ....

... but compare the characteristics of that chord to some empty octaves and triads; there is nothing absolutely terrible, perhaps "terrible" (what a bad term) compared to what happens before

Frank wrote:

Comment on the RStrauss piece

What can I say, so much material but used throughout the course of the piece

I'm working on it ...

Frank wrote:

Honestly, I struggle a bit between bars 15 and 21, more in the first measures perhaps because the intensity of the material has a strong decay.

if you only knew how much I suffered ... I've changed this passage so many times ... actually I wanted to quote the theme again by moving it to the left hand, but probably in the middle it is heard too little ... I also wanted to bring up the timbre by moving everything higher ... but the effect of rarefaction was felt too much ... you are right about that.

Frank wrote:

Anyway, it seems like a good job to me … the rhapsodic aspect is improving or at least more under control

it's thanks to your advice.

Thank you Frank for the analysis.

Comment on Frank's Passion

I played it for myself and I must say I like it very much, this one too is very rich and well-crafted... I didn't think you were so sick for Jazz, even if in reality it is treated with a more classical approach (in short, with little swing)