Piano Workshop 2013

There was a post by Bianca ...

anyway ... anyway ... I will finish it in time.

I am working on it, but I will arrive with quite a delay... but I will arrive

Upon a very first listen, I find Bianca's piece very pleasant (even more coherent than the fugue).

Even in advance

Comment on Bianca's piece.

I need to look at it more closely, but at first glance I don't see any major technical problems; I sense 2 or 3 known thematic ideas that are well-integrated and "transfigured." The harmonic texture is nice... it convinced me more than the fugue.

Perhaps the ending could have been stretched out a bit more... it leaves a slightly bitter taste in my mouth.

I think AleGozzo will appreciate it very much; these are the settings where he feels at home

Bianca's piece.

First, the technical things:

bars 105-106-107: are the diamonds a font error in the .pdf or do they mean something specific?

If they were harmonics, it would be impossible to play them and there would still be the pedal...

The piece.

I should preface that I don't love this type of music and find it difficult to listen to, but anyway...

Pianistically speaking, I would say it works very well and from an executive technical standpoint, there are no particular problems.

After several listens and a thorough examination of the score, I haven't found the laboratory theme...

or rather, a theme/cell exists in the first 2 bars which then returns in various ways until bar 30 and then again at 108.

I find another theme at bar 50, also subsequently transfigured in various ways where there might be some small reference to the laboratory theme.

I then find two references to the chromaticism of the 3rd bar of the theme at bars 118 and 153.

Then nothing more.

Only one remark: regarding the ending, I would have wanted it to be more "caliente": after the crescendo at 139 and the one following at 149, it seems a bit thin.

I cannot say anything else about this piece, which although it has 2 well-developed themes, regardless of its value, in my opinion should have been published in the "I made this myself" section.

I agree that you can write anything and its opposite, but the theme is given specifically so that the pieces have something in common that is at least identifiable, even if only after careful examination.

rstrauss wrote:

or rather a theme/cell that is present in the first 2 bars and then returns in various ways until bar 30 and then again at 108

So it started from there and developed the material in its own way, in my opinion, quite sufficiently. The theme is just a pretext, and several times in the past it has happened to hear only citations, modifications, syntheses, or just certain elements.

Besides, this is already how it's done in advanced courses... let alone in a free environment like a laboratory.

If you want, I can quote something or someone

I looked at the piece calmly and I find it balanced, pleasant, and playable... I also have doubts about those little notes indicated by RStrauss.

Personally speaking, I will make several changes to this theme and who knows when I will feature it in my piece. The reason is simple: I happened to modify a couple of notes by Rachmaninoff, but with this one, I see several limitations. I started with a couple of changes, but as soon as I improved one point, I felt the need to touch up another that subsequently felt weaker, and improvement after improvement, in the end, some elements remained… for completeness, especially in the first part. To put it another way, I am synthesizing and re-synthesizing the theme itself.

So let's not blame Bianca, but regardless, it seems perfectly in line with what should happen when a somewhat seasoned composer is faced with given material. If the piece was derived from the starting material, to me it is acceptable… also because quoting all the material in its entirety is one way, but it depends heavily on the processing techniques that one then wants to employ. Decontextualization, for example, is another path… I haven't had a chance to look at Bianca's work yet, but if the piece starts on those 2 bars and there are reprises of the material… why shouldn't the piece be derived from the given theme?

It's not that the Material/Processing/Processed relationship is 1 to 1

Frank wrote:

Personally speaking, I will make several changes to this theme and who knows when I will make it heard in my piece. The reason is simple: I happened to modify a couple of notes in Rachmaninoff, but with this one, I see several limitations. I started with a couple of changes, but as soon as I improved one point, I felt the need to touch up another that subsequently turned out weaker, and improvement after improvement, in the end, some elements remained… for completeness, especially in the first part. To put it another way, I am performing synthesis and re-synthesis of the theme itself.

Rather than changing the theme, I would focus on development, reprise, transfiguration, etc. ... carving out a piece that stands on its own from a "poor" theme is perhaps even more difficult.

Frank wrote:

So let's not blame Bianca, but regardless, it seems perfectly in line with what should happen when a somewhat savvy composer finds themselves facing given material. If the piece was derived from the starting material, to me it is acceptable… also because quoting all the material in its entirety is one way, but it depends heavily on the processing techniques that one then wants to employ. Decontextualization, for example, is another path… I haven't had a chance yet to look at Bianca's work, but if the piece starts on those 2 measures and there are reprises of the material… why shouldn't the piece be derived from the given theme?

To clarify the first 2 measures, which are then reprised, "they would" have in common with the last measure of the theme only the first 2 notes: a dotted minim + an ascending quaver that we might find in Bianca's piece but only at the level of time scanning, since hers descends.

For example, at m. 1, if instead of taking the highest note D which goes to C, we took the Bb that rises to C, it would fit with m. 6 of the theme... but this solution seems too forced to me.

The similarity of the theme that I found at m. 50 is only for the descending 5th which recalls m. 2 of the theme but only for 2 notes: mi-la ... but then it rises again by a 5th ... well, if this second interval had been a 4th, it might have worked. A descending 5th can be anywhere and taken alone like that, it says nothing.

At 118 and 153 as well, we find a fragment, but it is so isolated and occasional that without an in-depth examination, it would go completely unnoticed.

In plain words: I don't consider the first one to be a fragment of the theme, while the other two pass... but... taking only two fragments from a 4-measure theme, which on their own do not lead us back to the theme itself and could be anywhere, it becomes useless to provide the theme. Perhaps it would be better to allow total freedom.

Of course, decontextualizing can be a solution, but when you decontextualize so much that you no longer recognize the given theme, we are back to the above: what is the point of the theme?

To give an example, I would look at Geppino's piece from the laboratory just republished on Grieg's theme. An excellent example of processing that, despite deviating deeply from the theme, still maintains a common thread.

Let me be clear... I am not objecting to the piece itself, but only to the yes/no of the processing and how much of the given material must remain in order to be able to say: it is an "elaboration."."}

rstrauss wrote:

... carving out a piece that holds together from a "poor" theme is perhaps even more difficult.

And who said I added anything? To modify means many things

Frank wrote:

And who said that I added? To modify means many things

You know that I am more for "adding", while you are more for "removing" ... we shall see.

I always find it stimulating to nitpick masterpieces; I can't remember anymore what you had touched upon regarding the Rachmaninoff theme... but since I was writing

AbateFaria wrote:

... I will give it some thought, but I will probably do something a bit crazy, the need to extract from the theme is prevailing

you (Frank) wrote

Frank wrote:

i see several limitations in this.

i think you found some little flaw in it. I wonder why RStrauss didn't get curious, seeing as he had somewhat downgraded Scriabin's original... not to mention AleGozzo who called Grieg an incompetent, etc. etc.

What do you feel is wrong with it?

rstrauss wrote:

To clarify the first 2 measures, which are then taken up "would have" in common with the last measure of the theme only for the first 2 notes: dotted minim + ascending quaver that we might find in Bianca's piece but only at the level of time scanning, as hers descends.

Two reflections on this sentence by RStrauss:

- it seems to me that precisely a development is being described, starting from the rhythmic component.

- with 3 notes someone named Beethoven wrote a symphony for us, so even if it may seem like little, I am thinking that surely if the element was taken from the theme... it is a development from the theme itself.

I am sure that if the theme had been another one... Bianca's piece would have been different

rstrauss wrote:

You know that I am more for "adding", while you are more for "removing" ... we shall see.

Aside from the fact that I believe I am putting in what is necessary, this specific sentence does not pair well with the consideration

rstrauss wrote:

extracting a piece that holds together from a "poor" theme might perhaps even be more difficult.

…so by removing, in your view, I would be more in line with expectations … what objection is that?

I truly didn't understand it, and in reality, the issue is quite different. You write

rstrauss wrote:

To give an example, I would look at Geppino's piece from the workshop just republished on the theme of Grieg. An excellent example of elaboration that, despite deviating deeply from the theme, still maintains a common thread.

Given that Grieg's theme cannot be improved, you touch one note and you've ruined it. A melody is only remotely a context… much less so is a closing triad, which can be enriched in its development by passing through sevenths, ninths, elevenths, etc.

Therefore, good old Geppino did not deviate from the theme at all; he simply conducted it with his harmonic signature.

The theme of this workshop is quite the opposite of Grieg's; do you call it poor?

I would gladly answer Faria's question, but I won't… I wouldn't want to influence anyone; for me, there are several areas for improvement. And I must say that one of the advantages of not knowing the author of the piece is precisely being able to evaluate it for what it is without prejudice (sooner or later it had to happen to me too). Despite knowing the authors of the themes proposed in the past, I encountered a problem regarding the subject of the 2012 fugue (in his response); on Rachmaninoff (even though I knew it was his), it was about using a first inversion instead of the tonic and in this, some little things…

And to finish

rstrauss wrote:

Let me be clear ... I am not objecting to the piece itself, but only to the elaboration yes/no and to how much of the given material must remain in order to be able to say: it is an elaboration.

I am very open on the matter; the proposed fragment could also be the end of a development. Therefore, for me, it can arrive at the beginning, middle, or end of a piece.

It's not that what comes after certain material is worth more than what comes before.

For me, one could even play the theme, capture the audio, and do an audio elaboration. Where does it say that wouldn't be a development?

To return to Bianca's piece, which I must now listen to, otherwise how can one discuss it … from your words, it seems to me to be nothing more or less an elaboration that good old Wagner could have done. I don't have this great need to hear the theme in its entirety and how her mother did it. In my (and Ale's, obviously) fugue of this year, the 2 subjects and CS are such because a given subject existed… otherwise our free fugue would have been different. The given subject is not heard, but the entire fugue (and even the chorale) depends on it.

Zaccaria wrote:

I am sure that if the theme had been another... Bianca's piece would have been different

And that is a discussion that can have value.

Therefore, it is not the fact that a fragment is heard or not that determines the relationship to certain starting material. It is the fact that a composer was truly free and instead acted responsibly towards the given material.

I ask Bianca, when she returns from vacation, to make explicit the correlations between the theme and the elaboration… I am certain that if I proposed an audio elaboration, someone would need support, and others who were more savvy with electronic music would take 2 seconds while listening to the eventual elaboration to identify the terms of development."}

Frank wrote:

The part where I believe I am putting in what is necessary, this very phrase does not pair with the consideration

…so by removing [it], from your perspective, I would be more in line with expectations … what objection is that?

I truly didn't understand it and actually the issue is quite different.

I didn't intend to set any expectations... this was simply a consideration regarding our ways of writing...

I only said it to focus the issue on the fact that the final results will be very different, but I am not saying one is better than the other.

Frank wrote:

Given that Grieg's theme cannot be improved, you touch one note and you've ruined it. A melody is only remotely a context... much less so is a closing triad which can be enriched in its development by passing through sevenths, ninths, elevenths, etc.

Therefore, good old Geppino did not deviate from the theme at all; he simply conducted it with his harmonic signature.

In fact, when you say "his harmonic signature," that is sufficient for me.

Frank wrote:

The theme of this workshop is exactly the opposite of Grieg's; are you saying it's poor?

harmonically, this theme is certainly less rich and if we exclude the passage in D-flat, it is quite traditional.

Melodically, it is certainly more articulated.

Frank wrote:

I would gladly answer Faria's question, but I won't... I wouldn't want to influence anyone; for me, there are several areas for improvement. And I must say that one of the advantages of not knowing the author of the piece is precisely being able to evaluate it for what it is without prejudice (sooner or later it had to happen to me too). Despite knowing the authors of the themes proposed in the past, I encountered a problem with the subject of the 2012 fugue (in his response), regarding Rachmaninoff (even though I knew it was his) it was about using a first inversion instead of the tonic and in this case some little things...

we will evaluate at the end and reveal the author's name.

Frank wrote:

I am very open on the matter; the proposed fragment could also be the end of a development. Therefore, for me, it could come at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of a piece.

It's not that what comes after certain material is worth more than what comes before.

For me, one could even play the theme, capture the audio, and do an audio processing. Where does it say that it wouldn't be a development?

Returning to Bianca's piece, which I must listen to now, otherwise how can we discuss it... from your words, it seems to me like nothing more or less than a processing that good old Wagner could have done. I don't have this great need to hear the theme in its entirety and how her mother did it. In my (and Ale's, obviously) fugue of this year, the 2 subjects and CS are such because there was a given subject... otherwise our free fugue would have been different. The given subject is not heard, but the entire fugue (and even the chorale) depends on it.

Here perhaps I think in a more restrictive way... for me, to speak of development, one should perceive it somehow, even regardless of the score, relying

on listening alone, which was perceptible with your/Ale's fugue... perhaps on the 5th/6th listen by listening to the inner parts.

Frank wrote:

Therefore, it is not the fact that a fragment is heard or not that determines the relationship to certain starting material. It is the fact that a composer has been truly free and instead has positioned themselves responsibly towards the given material.

so you are claiming that if I take inspiration from a theme using only a fragment of it, which would never lead me back to the theme itself, one can speak of development.

The basic condition is therefore that one manages to understand where this reference lies, however small, otherwise how can I understand that it is a development and not an original piece?

It's possible that I hear a theme and this inspires a piece that then turns out completely different; it has happened to me, but I wouldn't call it development.

Frank wrote:

I ask Bianca, when she returns from vacation, to explicitly state the correlations between the theme and the elaborated work... I am certain that if I proposed an audio processing, someone would need support and others who were more savvy with electronic music would take 2 seconds listening to the eventual processing to identify the terms of development.

Even by listening alone in this piece, the thematic ideas are perceived very well... on the first page they are quite evident, but also further on, after a few listens

it becomes clear. With the score, for example, the chromaticism I was talking about stands out, which would be difficult to perceive through listening alone.

Let's say that from a "development" I expect certain things that you and perhaps even Ale do not expect, but this seems completely natural to me, given the type of music that comes out of my head... the"}

know.

We will see the others.

i am really curious.

For starters, I liked Bianca's piece! Well done.

Interesting discussion Abate/Frank/RStrauss.

I think RStrauss's last post contains doubt, a question, and an answer

Question

rstrauss wrote:

so you are claiming that if I take inspiration from a theme using only a fragment of it, which would never lead me back to the theme itself, one can speak of elaboration.

The basic condition is therefore that one manages to understand where this reference lies, however small, otherwise how do I understand that it is an elaboration and not an original piece?

Answer

rstrauss wrote:

Even upon just listening, the thematic cues in this piece are perceived very well ... on the first page they are quite evident, but also further on, after a few listens

it becomes clear. With the score, for example, the chromaticism I was talking about stands out, which would be difficult to perceive by listening alone.

For the composition diploma, they give a theme and from that the candidate must derive a piece of music. Not shamelessly quoting the material but using it intelligently in one's own composition is evaluated as a sign of maturity.

And never more than in that setting do they have the need to understand if someone brought a finished piece from home ... aside from the fact that, apart from the cadences, you write the pieces at home... obviously it is possible to tell if someone cheated or not. And indeed, I repeat

rstrauss wrote:

Even upon just listening, the thematic cues in this piece are perceived very well ... on the first page they are quite evident, but also further on, after a few listens

it becomes clear. With the score, for example, the chromaticism I was talking about stands out, which would be difficult to perceive by listening alone.

So we are in agreement:

>> how do I understand that it is an elaboration and not an original piece?

> Even upon just listening, the thematic cues in this piece are perceived very well

elaboration, development

Comment on Bianca's piece.

I deliberately did not look at the score to avoid being told that it was written for a sequencer; I want to comment on it just as I hear it.

I have listened to it several times and it can be characterized as a cyclic piece; although the first section is relatively contracted compared to the others, there isn't a real sense of disproportion, even if I suffer a little around the fourth minute—it seems to me that it's just barely getting by. Despite this, there are other interesting points that make one forgive about fifteen seconds of stagnation. Therefore, I find it listenable and pleasant. I sense musicality and the stylistic characteristics that you are passionate about, and the thematic ideas are very evident, developed, and elaborated.

Given the discussion just held, I would add that the thematic ideas were somehow derived from the given theme; even certain textures are evidently taken from the theme... however, more emphasis could have been given to this by choosing a strategic point in the piece to better explicitate this "provenance." I think my position on the matter is clear; I have discussed it with others declaring much openness... I think it would be nice to confirm, even through a concomitance of characteristics, to those who do not know the given theme which served as the starting point; perhaps not only at a theoretical level... but not properly for listening either; I mean: if the material is cited/declared/partially (in an explicit way) "recalled" somewhere, the substance would not be very different, but the elaborative work would be more evident.... a couple of examples:

- quite simply, even if transposed, the same bass movement could have gone somewhere

- or one could have foreseen the construction of a significant fragment of the melody

- a new melody could have been carved out from the starting material

- taking the rhythmic pattern... but all or a good part of it

- diminution/augmentation always make a good impression (also retrograde/inversion motion of significant melodic elements, even if they are the hardest to perceive by ear)

- etc.

Since I deliberately did not look at the score, I hope Bianca tells me that this is indeed the case but I didn't catch it by ear

Definitely a positive feeling

Frank wrote:

Given the previous discussion, I would add that the thematic ideas were somehow derived from the given theme; even certain textures are evidently taken from the theme… however, more emphasis could have been given to this by choosing a strategic point in the piece where this “provenance” could be better made explicit. I think my position on the matter is clear; I have discussed it with others declaring much openness… I think it would be nice to confirm, perhaps through a concomitance of characteristics, for those who do not know the given theme which served as the starting point; perhaps not only at a theoretical level… but not properly through listening either; I mean: if the material is cited/declared/partially (in an explicit way) "recalled" somewhere, the substance would not be very different, but the elaborative work would be more evident….a couple of examples:

Certainly positive as a feeling

In the end then we are in agreement ... it is the same thing I wanted to say ... the references are there but they are not very evident or should be highlighted.

Here is why I have doubts about whether one can speak of an original piece/elaboration.

We weren't that far off, and this also applies to the last statement, even though it is not my favorite genre.

Talentuoso wrote:

For the composition diploma, they give a theme and from that the candidate must derive a piece of music. Not shamelessly quoting the material but using it intelligently in one's own composition is evaluated as a sign of maturity.

And so far we agree.

Talentuoso wrote:

And never more than in that setting do they have the need to understand if someone has brought a piece from home already finished... aside from the fact that then, apart from the codas, you write the pieces at home... evidently it is possible to tell if someone cheated or not. And in effect, I propose again

So we are there:

>> how do I understand that it is an elaboration and not an original piece?

>> Just by listening, the thematic ideas in this piece are perceived very clearly

elaboration, development

Here lies the point.

Even in an exam, if you don't make it clear that you are starting from "that" theme by highlighting something, everyone will believe that you wrote it beforehand without caring about the given material.

Frank above, with whom I agree, hit the nail on the head regarding the issue, which was my original question:

how much of the given theme must be present in an elaboration to make us understand that it is "truly" an elaboration?

rstrauss wrote:

It is certainly less rich, and if we exclude the passage in Eb, it is quite traditional.

Melodically, it is certainly more articulated.

I took a look at Grieg's theme; I will repeat myself, but the use of the pedal makes the harmonic texture very rich... certainly more so than a melody.