Sonata Form Workshop 2012

AbateFaria wrote:

In my opinion, you pulled it off; it's not an easy subject.

Effectively, you seemed more minimalist than usual to me, so you gained in consistency... the path is definitely good. And besides, I wouldn't get too depressed; I am here chatting and you have climbed this mountain, and the result is appreciable from several points of view.

This was exactly the goal: to succeed in completing it despite the obstacles... the benefits in terms of enrichment are decidedly high.

Thanks for the comments.

rstrauss wrote:

we wouldn't want to be without Frank ... it's perfectly fine and as AbateFaria says, working on uncomfortable themes is good and above all, as Abate has noted as always, I have been more minimalist, which is definitely positive since this time I took things out instead of adding them ...

For the next round, still to be defined (the piece's lab for pf), you choose a theme and I will adapt

I also want to try again the bliss of working on a theme proposed by others, start thinking about it... and maybe around Christmas, make the classic proposal

I was thinking about your 3 pieces and how you treated the theme (even after the direct comparison I had with Ale), starting from the thematic material:

- Ale derived a melodic cell which he developed

- RStrauss inherited in particular the rhythmic aspect of one of the voices and developed it

- Frank seems to have developed more voices of the theme, as if the theme were not made of a single melody... moreover, I am still working on his piece, but the impression is precisely that he treated the theme in its entirety

And what I like about these workshops is that you start from a single idea and many elements emerge upon which to reflect and develop differently (very differently).

I had missed this

Zaccaria wrote:

?

"Substantial" because writing for 2 PFs is quite different from writing for PF four hands. In the first case, you have fewer difficulties managing the 2 instrumentalists who, in the second case, must not step on each other's toes, but you have greater difficulties on a musical level. That is, you have 2 soloistic and polyphonic instruments that must have autonomous and independent parts… there's no comparison, right?

So, anyone who finds themselves evaluating a four-hand piece will make different considerations compared to someone who instead finds themselves facing a piece for 2 PFs. By the way:

Talentuoso wrote:

- Frank seems to have developed more voices of the theme, as if the theme were not made of a single melody... besides, I am still working on his piece, but the impression is precisely that he has treated the theme in its entirety

I think you still have to work on it a bit… it could be true if well contextualized

Comment on the Strauss piece

It is a good job and I like how it sounds; you were able to see firsthand that economizing means not automatically having little to say.

Clearly, the bar of difficulty is raised because if you put in a lot of something, it will inevitably be liked (but the opposite is also true); instead, if you take elements of the material and develop them, you are more exposed, but the result can also be rewarding.

That said, I would still work a little bit just on the first 13 measures.

I don't find the first 31 so painful, but in this part there are a couple of flaws:

the first is at measure 10; the pause confirms that of measure 5; I read that many people didn't like it, but that clear F major chord is too banal.

the second is the seam (measures 12 and 13) with measure 14... the triplets begin; at measure 13 you made a pause... use it to launch the triplets or alternatives right then and there. That is the best point to make "anything" happen (which should then be elaborated, mind you!) ... so the worst thing is to let nothing happen.

If you refine something in these very first measures, in my opinion, the whole piece will benefit; consider that the beginning is a bit of a calling card, it's a shame that a couple of little things make it seem understated... the piece is not!

In general, having achieved this first conquest (fully utilizing the elements of the theme), I would start working on another aspect (I know you are hating me right now). The contrast for the B (or the second theme) is perfectly fine, but, aware that it is difficult to explain and make understood, it would be nice if the B were somehow related to the A. A kinship bond that can be achieved in many ways and not necessarily through melodic resemblance. I am referring to rhythmic content, harmonic content, melodic movement, texture, etc.

Something that says A and B belong to the same piece... I'm not talking about "copying" as an examiner might do to prevent a candidate from bringing the B from home, but precisely to strengthen coherence on this front as well... which doesn't mean making a coherent B, but one that is contrasting yet (let's say)... related.

If you were to have this need yourself, and tried it with your own theme, you would realize how profound this concept is... of course, working on someone else's idea is even harder, because it practically means following in the wake of a given idea (and not our own)... but in the end, what matters... when someone listens?

I think that everything must have its own coherence, that one should gradually move from one point (the starting point) to another (the closing)... without "excesses". Obviously, this is a point of view, perhaps even a matter of taste, but composed pieces congenitally have this characteristic, with many nuances, but taking any B that might come to mind... if someone says

Frank wrote:

Comment on the Strauss piece

It is a good job and I like how it sounds; you were able to see firsthand that economizing means not automatically having little to say.

Clearly, the difficulty level is raised because if you put a lot of something in, people will inevitably like it (but the opposite is also true); instead, if you take elements from the material and develop them, you are more exposed, but the result can also be rewarding.

That being said, I would still work a little bit more on just the first 13 measures.

I don't find the first 31 so problematic, but in this part there are a couple of flaws:

the first is at measure 10; the pause confirms the one at 5; I read that many people didn't like it, but that clear F major chord is too banal.

the second is the seam (measures 12 and 13) with measure 14... the triplets begin; at measure 13 you made a pause... use it to launch the triplets or alternatives right there. That is the best point to make "anything" happen (which then gets elaborated, mind you!) ... so the worst thing is to let nothing happen.

If you refine something in these very first measures, in my opinion, the whole piece will benefit; consider that the beginning is a bit of a calling card—it's a shame for a couple of little things to make it seem understated... the piece is not!

I agree on both counts and let me explain:

measure 10 served me to temper the G minor tonality a bit, even if it could indeed have been done better.

the seam was placed that way more than anything else to make it clear that something was ending and something else was beginning, and indeed a hint of triplets could have worked to prepare the entrance of the second idea.

Frank wrote:

In general, having achieved this first conquest (fully exploiting the elements of the theme), I would start working on another aspect (I know you hate me right now). The contrasting B (or the second theme) is perfectly fine, but, aware that it is difficult to explain and make understood, it would be nice if the B was somehow related to the A. A kinship bond that can be achieved in many ways and not necessarily through melodic resemblance. I am referring to rhythmic content, harmonic content, melodic movement, texture, etc.

Something that says A and B belong to the same piece... I'm not talking about "copying" as an examiner might do to prevent a candidate from bringing the B from home, but precisely to strengthen coherence on this front as well... which doesn't mean making a coherent B, but a contrasting yet (let's say)... related one.

in fact, I am hating you !!!!!! :P

Jokes aside... the right phrase is: a wolf loses its hair but not its habit... meaning that I had to free myself from theme A which wasn't sitting well with me, and in B I put all the things I love most. Doing it as you say—contrasting/related—would have been almost impossible for me with an A of this type.

Frank wrote:

If you were to have this need yourself, and tried it with your own theme, you would realize how profound a thing it is... of course, on someone else's idea it is even harder, because practically it means following in the wake of a given idea (and not ours)... but in the end, what matters? ... when one listens?

I connect the phrase above and confirm that if I manage to finish it, in the quartet for chamber music I will try to do this: a theme B that is nonetheless traceable back to theme A.

Frank wrote:

I think everything must have its own coherence, that one gradually starts from one point (the starting point) and arrives at another (the closing)... without "excesses". Obviously, this is a point of view, perhaps even a matter of taste, but composed pieces congenitally have this characteristic, with many nuances, but taking any B, you would never be tempted to say... he brought this from home, to close with a measure.

In reality, this piece is not exactly the specific case, but it still suffers a little from this aspect... somewhat mitigated by this new approach you are pursuing.

A new approach which, I must say, is thanks to our workshops, highlighting once again the usefulness of what we do.

Thanks for the analysis anyway.

As soon as I can look at it properly, I will respond to yours as well.

I admire the harmonic research of both "Frank Strauss" works

From Frank, however, I notice a continuous fluctuation of sixteenth notes that is a bit tedious.

By ear, I prefer Strauss.

I am drowning in a sea of commitments. But I will manage to deliver.

raffaeleb wrote:

I admire the harmonic research of both "Frank Strauss" works.

From Frank, however, I notice a continuous fluctuation of sixteenth notes that is a bit tedious.

I was doing an in-depth analysis of Frank's piece; I can certify that the continuous sixteenth notes are present in half of the measures and less than half of the running time... I think that fantasy, in general, must overcome the homogenizing playback. Working on the score as always helps a lot; it would be different if we had a beautiful live performance.

Sooner or later I will finish it (the analysis)... how are you doing, Raffaele? Have you already understood what the sixteenth notes are for in the development?

Have you already understood what sixteenth notes are for in development?

Look, I have expressed my opinion. I know very well what a development is.

And do you know it?

Raffaele, I expressed myself poorly ... not that you don't know what a development is. "Meaningful" in the sense that those sixteenth notes are based on distinct formal elements, therefore significant in this sense

Frank wrote:

"Substantial" because writing for 2 pianos is quite different from writing for piano 4 hands. In the first case, you have fewer difficulties managing the 2 instrumentalists (who, in the second case, must not step on each other's toes), but you have greater difficulties on a musical level. That is, you have 2 soloistic and polyphonic instruments that must have autonomous and independent parts… there's no comparison.

So, anyone who finds themselves evaluating a 4-hands piece will make different considerations compared to someone who instead finds themselves facing a piece for 2 pianos. By the way:

Ok.

I took a look at your piece, I liked it very much ... I don't think I understood everything and I don't know what Talentuoso is referring to regarding the development.

It seems to me like a single-movement sonata rather than just one movement of a sonata, but I am not an expert in this field, and I wouldn't want to say something stupid.

Compliments again.

Ok.

Anyway, in my opinion it was precisely the choice of this element, it seems to me like the "tail" that has been widely exploited.

My thought is nonetheless the same as before, namely that in my opinion it's a bit tiring.

raffaeleb wrote:

this element seems to me like the "tail"

... the tail of the piece?

I am glad that the topic is heating up a bit. Let's begin

In my opinion, this is the most fun part of forums, precisely that of peaceful-constructive comparison

I foresee an afternoon of writing and analyzing Frank's piece.

That will mean I will delay the composition of my sonata even further.

In any case, my impression was a bit rushed upon a quick reading.

It will be up to Frank anyway to explain his piece better.

Frank, don't reveal everything all at once, please. Otherwise, you'll ruin the controversy

I fear I haven't understood Raffaele; I hear a background of sixteenth notes in several places (often harmonic filler, see pedal area) but the eighth notes are clear and decisive.

When the sixteenth notes become important, it is easy to tell because they are important formal elements of the piece.

I don't want to express an opinion yet because the specific development could be the key to interpreting the entire piece. Therefore, I don't understand in the sense that I cannot place the coda within the discourse (is it the coda of the first part, the second theme, or of the piece?)

There is little reason to get worked up and much to understand... I think.

raffaeleb wrote:

I foresee an afternoon of writing and analyzing Frank's piece.

That will mean I will delay the composition of my sonata even further.

In any case, my impression was a bit rushed upon a quick reading.

It will be up to Frank anyway to explain his piece better.

Frank, don't reveal everything all at once, please. Otherwise, you'll ruin the controversy.

Ok, we overlapped....

Thanks Zaccaria and anyway to those who are taking an interest in my piece.

raffaeleb wrote:

Frank don't reveal everything all at once, please. Otherwise you'll ruin the controversy

You aren't taking any risks (assuming there is actually something to reveal), anyway don't "slaughter each other" over my piece which, moreover, I haven't had the chance to refine 100%, for time reasons, as I would have actually liked. It will surely have a future because it has good premises

I am trying to analyze Frank's piece

Bars 0/24 Introduction G -

Bars 25/32 Theme A G -

Bars 33 /41 Theme A repeated and enriched

Bars 42/ 48 Coda or transition

Bars 49/56 Theme B Bb major

Bars 57/82 Theme B repeated and enriched

Bars 83 99 Coda

Bars 100 104 Development of theme A

Bars 105 116 development of theme B

Bars 117

Resting pause What a struggle

From this point, so many sixteenth notes begin that it's almost overwhelming

As I expressed previously, I appreciate the harmonic research but

I return to saying that the sixteenth notes were a bit hard for me to digest, so it seems like nothing new is happening, as it seems to me that someone before me has already noticed.

I am also trying to analyze Strauss

Bar. 0/31 Theme A G-

Bar. 32/58 Theme B C-

Bar. 59/74 Development of theme A

Bar. 75 / 78 Development of theme B

Bar. 79 /88 Development of theme A

Bar. 89/99 Recapitulation of theme A G-