Piano Workshop 2013

the idea was to do an exercise but a bit more free than usual..... something slipped out..... ahahahhahaha

Strauss piece:

I agree with Faria regarding the positive aspects, but I also emphasize that I find too much rigidity in the contrast between sections: too many, of too different character and above all, too brutally opposed.

So even though there are happy ideas and a very pleasant listening experience, I also see a return to old "defects"

AleGozzo wrote:

Strauss piece:

I join Faria in the positive aspects, but I also emphasize that I find too much rigidity in the contrast between sections: too many, of too different character and above all, too brutally opposed.

So even though there are happy ideas and a very pleasant listening experience, I also see a return to old "defects"

This time, however, I really cannot agree with your analysis.

The piece is practically monothematic (there is no real second theme) and in all the episodes the reference to the theme is there and can be heard ... I wanted to write it in a hybrid form

which is a halfway point between variations on a theme and ABA form.

It is clear that the sections are contrasting and different from each other; there is always the same theme even if transformed, but still the same one.

I wanted it exactly like this, mindful of the criticisms I received on various pieces, where I was told there was too much ... certainly in those pieces there were also just as many themes that often had no connection to each other.

Perhaps the episode in A major is a bit anomalous, I admit this, and the brutal successions, although intentional, I can accept that they might also be "too" brutal ...

but it all falls within the initial objective I set for myself:

not to lapse into boredom while always treating the same theme.

I liked rstrauss's piece. I must say that given the theme "tel quel", I too had thought of a prelude. The "monothematicism" seems quite evident to me, and I fully agree with rstrauss in his previous response. Even the fact that the successions appear "brutal" seems to me evidently to be a conscious choice. More than anything, it seems to me that some "demonstrative" "transition" is missing between these successions, and I think that such a choice is not entirely spontaneous but was indeed "forced" by previous observations regarding his previous pieces (although it is only a supposition - I am new to the forum and do not know his history).

Bianca wrote:

I liked rstrauss's piece. I must say that given the "tel quel" theme, I had also thought of a prelude. The "monothematicism" seems quite evident to me and I fully agree with rstrauss in his previous response. Also, the fact that the successions appear "brutal" seems to me evidently to be a conscious choice. More than anything, it seems to me that some "demonstrative" "transition" is missing between these successions, and I think that such a choice is not entirely spontaneous but was indeed "forced" by previous observations regarding his previous pieces (although it is only a supposition - I am new to the forum and do not know his history).

Let's just say that one of my biggest flaws was putting too much into my pieces... so much so that from one piece, material for 3 pieces could easily be extracted. This had been noted more or less by everyone and they were 100% right. So I have tried to take measures.

Regarding the "demonstrative" transitions as you call them, I had thought about it and probably at mm. 16-30 two short episodes to stitch them together would have worked to give a little respite... at some point, one must choose what to do.

Anyway, thanks for the comment.

P.S. when everyone has submitted, I will also reveal where the theme comes from.

rstrauss wrote:

The piece is practically monothematic (there is no real second theme) and in all the episodes the reference to the theme is there and can be heard ... I wanted to write it in a hybrid form

which is a halfway point between variations on a theme and ABA form.

I would find it helpful to have some sort of listening guide (formal aspects and harmonic progressions).

Thank you, and compliments on the piece, which I enjoyed listening to very much.

antares86 wrote:

the idea was to do an exercise but a bit more free than usual..... something slipped out..... ahahahhahaha

... so you weren't thinking of doing fifths and octaves?

I'm asking because if it wasn't a conscious choice... it's a bit of a mess

AbateFaria wrote:

... so you weren't thinking of doing fifths and octaves?

I am asking because if it wasn't a conscious choice... it's a bit of a mess

i would have to go back over the score..... those parallels probably escaped me.... that direct one not necessarily....

Zaccaria wrote:

A sort of listening guide (formal aspects and harmonic paths) would be useful to me.

Thank you, and compliments on the piece, which I enjoyed listening to very much.

I am on vacation, but as soon as I return, I will publish the listening guide.

antares86 wrote:

i should go back to the score..... those parallels probably escaped me.... that direct one not necessarily....

In fact, I think Ludovica is right

rstrauss wrote:

P.S. when everyone has submitted, I will also reveal where the theme comes from.

...in effect, I would be curious.

I am now reading AleGozzo's comment

AleGozzo wrote:

I agree with Faria

So even though there are happy ideas and a very pleasant listening experience, I also see a return to the old "defects"

Just to clarify, when I wrote

AbateFaria wrote:

Very beautiful at 3' 15'', I find the Strauss of the Lied in it.

I meant it in a positive sense and therefore an analogy to beauty and not to a "defect"

... I'm a bit behind

rstrauss wrote:

P.S. once everyone has submitted, I will also reveal where the theme comes from.

I will submit, but quite late; I have a few commitments that won't stop me from finishing the piece, but they will significantly slow down the production times.

You decide how much to keep the forum friends on edge

@Antares

I listened to your chorale; it contains a certain cantability. Since it is for voices, I would tie the equal notes without too many repetitions in order to give further emphasis to the harmonic pedals (besides, there is no text to justify a repetition and it doesn't seem so precious as to leave it).

For the rest, I indeed feel the desire to break away from the rules, although perhaps the rules themselves have not yet been fully internalized and, in any case, I still see you very anchored to them.

In this case, one risks criticism related to stylistic references.

I am glad that you accepted my suggestion to participate by proposing a modest piece, inheriting something from the given theme.

Until next time.

PS

Dimenticavo, ricordati sempre che le pause hanno bisogno del loro spazio

@RStrauss

Finally, I managed to listen to RStrauss's piece. For a while now, I haven't heard you in top form... I like the piece, I sense a lot of musicality and the reprise at 71 works very well (but I'll come back to that later...).

A few little things that deserve reflection:

From 23 to 26, in my opinion, is the weakest part of the piece; there is too much gap from what came before. For example, it might have been enough to continue the announced dyad (which was immediately abandoned) at 23 with some interesting notes to give it a character different from a somewhat baroque 2-voice invention (without making it become 3-voice, though).

The pleasant andante at 56 arrives without adequate preparation. The strong change in texture might have been sought after for the sake of an effect, but ultimately, even if this section is later conducted coherently, it doesn't allow time to be desired.

Having heard 71, the second reprise at 79 as per the original seems too weak to me (a re-presentation in minor or a variation wouldn't have hurt); perhaps one could also have fused the two parts by starting like 71 and then, at a certain point, proceeding like the original, touching upon something.

The coda does not fully satisfy me... obviously in relation to what happened before.

In general, the theme works better at measure 71; I would have made it the beginning of the piece or at least the subject of the workshop: besides capturing attention, it has greater merits compared to the starting material despite maintaining its connotation... (and perhaps at 71 directly in major as a variation) it is more communicative; probably, returning to the coda, a little flourish of its own (excuse the pun), somewhat like Chopin, would have made one want to listen to the whole piece again immediately.

In general, the material has been well utilized and elaborated; the juxtaposition of some panel(s) could improve the piece. I don't know what you think or if you already had hesitations about the points I am flagging... if they satisfy you, the piece is yours, of course. If it were mine, I would work on it a little more to dose and refine those points as best as possible.

What can I say, until next time... and sooner or later my turn will come

PS

... in this case too, some pauses...

Frank wrote:

@RStrauss

I finally managed to listen to RStrauss's piece. For a while, I hadn't heard you in top form... I like the piece, I sense a lot of musicality and the reprise at 71 works very well (but I'll come back to that later...).

Let's just say I am in my element here!

Frank wrote:

Some little things that deserve reflection:

From 23 to 26, in my opinion, is the weakest part of the piece; too much gap between what came before. For example, it might have been enough to continue the announced (and immediately abandoned) dyad at 23 with some interesting notes to give it a character different from a somewhat baroque 2-voice invention (without making it a 3-voice one, though).

The pleasant andante at 56 arrives without adequate preparation. The strong change in texture might have been sought after for the sake of an effect, but ultimately, even if this section is later conducted coherently, it doesn't give one time to desire it.

I agree on these two. I am reluctant to rework pieces too much, but here I will probably change something.

Frank wrote:

Having heard 71, the second reprise at 79 as per the original seems too weak to me (a re-presentation in minor or a variation wouldn't have hurt); perhaps one could also have fused the two parts by starting like 71 and then at a certain point proceeding like the original, touching upon something.

The coda does not fully satisfy me... obviously in relation to what happened before.

I had thought about it, but I felt more secure leaving the last appearance of the theme in its original guise.

Frank wrote:

In general, the theme works better at measure 71; I would have made it the beginning of the piece or at least the subject of the laboratory: besides capturing attention, it has greater merits compared to the starting material despite maintaining its connotation... (and maybe at 71 directly in major as a variation) it is more communicative; probably, returning to the coda, a little 'tail-end' [pun intended] of it, somewhat like Chopin, would have made one want to listen to the whole piece again immediately.

Here I preferred to make only a small reference in the left hand so as not to overinflate the matter and use the theme too many times.

If I wanted to do it Chopin-style, I would have had to do the opposite... keep it original at 71, then repeat it in minor, and then call it back in the coda again in major or in both ways.

Frank wrote:

What can I say, until next time... and sooner or later my turn will come.

PS

... even in this case, a few pauses...

I look forward to it with anticipation!

Pleasant Strauss, a few touch-ups are needed... Frank's analysis is surgical.

Zaccaria wrote:

A sort of listening guide (formal aspects and harmonic progressions) would be useful to me.

Thank you, and compliments on the piece, which I enjoyed listening to very much.

I have posted a version with a listening guide in the 'works' section.

I did not include the harmonic part, so those who wish can try it themselves.

It could be good practice.

Thanks RStrauss, for which they are variations

Zaccaria wrote:

Thank you RStrauss, for which they are variations

Not exactly in pure form ... the subsequent elaborated response and the episode of contrast make the form a hybrid.