Starting from a melody - 2014

Gassy wrote:

I learned more things this week than in a year of courses

...exaggerated!

Gassy wrote:

my 4 bars into something non-definitive

There are still several areas for improvement, the important thing is that you feel satisfied with the achievements you have obtained.

I like Frank's work because, as I had the chance to tell him, I remember Schumann's Des Abends because of how I perceive the rhythm.

Besides this, even if brief, not before the expected time, the sensation that a phrase is about to end but remains suspended in a balanced way, which is precisely, I imagine and think, the most difficult characteristic to imprint on a piece; because while it is doubtless that everyone or almost everyone comes up with more or less functional melodies worthy of development (according to different opinions), the difficulty lies exactly in developing them.

@Gassy for me it remains a strange sensation, not because of the length of the piece (I am speaking of mine at this moment), but perhaps simply because you don't like it and it doesn't "grab" you; I can understand that, even to myself it has an effect that is almost tiring, let alone to others (even if Bianca said she liked it).

That something which is certainly missing is compactness, a smooth profile, the ability to maintain a certain tension. It certainly reflects my "indecision" very much, not knowing where I am headed, both in life in general and in the activities I carry out (not everyone knows immediately and always what they can and want to do; let's just say I was more convinced years ago before having to do too many things that I wouldn't have wanted to, and this is mentally tiring).

Now I find myself (as almost always, and I cannot break the chain) writing another piece (I have a few in preparation), trying to be "diligent" and verify at least in which tonal area (if it is tonal) I am moving, and maintaining a rhythmic division that maintains a certain unity of development, but contrasts persist, such as having already defined passages in mind (it is often like this), and at the moment of writing finding other solutions that nonetheless lead me astray, and there the problems increase; it is a constant. So this is one of the reasons why certain pieces result in being fragmented, as if they were different sections put together, without however having and giving a sense of unity to the whole.

@Gassy

surely the 2nd version is happier and there are ideas for something very interesting. I would move forward, being very careful with the balance between staticity and movement and, also, the balance between the dissonances that create atmosphere and the melodic parts, so as not to create an incoherent patchwork.

It's coming, it's coming ... wait just a little bit longer !!!!!!

Ironically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAR-HUIfiwk&feature=youtu.be

Open content (youtube)

rstrauss: I listened twice, trying not to let myself be influenced by the violin's timbre, imagining a real performance. Regarding the piano arpeggio, I like some solutions and others a bit less, because thinking back on it, at least for me, I feel the "need" to introduce passages in certain points that I wouldn't expect, while being careful not to stray too far from the patterns; I am not saying that the arpeggio is predictable, absolutely not, because I can imagine how it might be pleasant with a real performance, but I mean, for example, the delay of the tonic for some arpeggios—at least this is a sensation I have; it would have left me a bit more in suspense. Keep in mind that I also need to see the score and I am on my phone right now. Usually (and this is, I admit, something that sometimes leads me astray) I like to use notes foreign to the chord I am using, but I am torn between the "security" provided by a succession of notes from the same chord and/or a succession of chords that flow, and notes or chords that contrast or otherwise give the impression of not getting to the point. In the central part, from 2:43" to 4:09", I "waited" (in my opinion) a long time, despite the fact that one perceives (equally) a formal structure at the base of it all. Certainly, from how I see it, I would have anticipated the reprise of the theme, risking having it too close to the second reprise, at about 1:30". The overall impression is good, even if I also perceive it as being too long too.

@Rstrauss
Aside from what Piccinesco has already said, what surprises me is that out of the many resources of the viola you only used the
bow... even in parts where, for example, the writing was more suited to pizzicati.

Okay with the jokes about violists, but given the duration of the piece, you could definitely have "dared" more in terms of timbre.

The piece I like at times and dislike at others; perhaps the form caged you a little. Perhaps alternatively one could have opted for a sectional composition.

Obviously, this is my very personal opinion

I apologize for the "violin", I had doubts about whether it was this instrument, and I did not check beforehand.

@Frank

In this piece, there is everything about Frank, whose main characteristic is taking little material and making it perform at its best ...illustrious predecessor Brahms.

I have nothing to say in a technical sense ... the piece flows technically, it isn't even too difficult to play, and this time the piano was utilized very well.

The second theme is clearly derived from the first, which makes the piece almost monothematic, though the tripartite structure is understood immediately.

I should preface that I was not familiar with Fauré's original piece, so I am judging without bias. The only thing I feel like saying is that I would have greatly appreciated a second voice in the left hand to accompany the solo voice from within. Then in the concluding episode where the theme ends in the bass and it sounds good there alone.

After listening to the original, apart from the obvious similarity of the right-hand accompaniment with 1/8 rests and notes, I find Frank's piece much more intimate even if harmonically more elaborate. I played it a couple of times and I must say that I really liked it.

As always, compliments Frank.

Destroyed wrote:

@Rstrauss

Aside from what Piccinesco has already said, what surprises me is that out of the many resources of the viola you only used the bow... even in parts where, for example, the writing was more suited to pizzicati.

Ok for the jokes about violists, but given the duration of the piece, you could definitely have "dared" more in terms of timbre.

I like the piece at times and less so at others; perhaps the form caged you a little. Perhaps alternatively one could have opted for a panel composition.

Obviously, this is my very personal opinion.

Regarding the viola, I promise to have a colleague of mine play it and ask her where it performs less well... I would have seen the pizzicato working well at bars 72-75 ... I will come back to this.

Regarding the form ... I chose the classical form of the romance, with the theme returning, a contrasting second theme, and an episode with more climaxes towards the three-quarters mark of the piece.

Panel form is still unknown to me; perhaps I will try it with the next one.

Anyway, thanks for the review.

rstrauss wrote:

The panel form is still unknown to me; perhaps I will try it with the next one.

It could be simpler than expected, also by evaluating how this piece of yours is structured. Since you liked Frank's romance, think about how he managed the tripartite structure. On one hand, it is an ABA', but on the other, it consists of exactly 3 panels; despite the suspensions, even between B and A', one chapter closes and another opens. Of course, to make it a unified piece, you need skill, but the difference between the two approaches is not that great.

rstrauss wrote:

@Frank

In this piece, there is everything Frank, whose main characteristic is taking little material and making it perform at its best ...illustrious predecessor Brahms.

I have nothing to say in a technical sense ... the piece flows technically, it isn't even too difficult to play, and this time the piano was utilized very well.

The second theme is clearly derived from the first, which makes the piece almost monothematic, though the tripartite structure is immediately understandable.

I should preface that I was not familiar with Fauré's original piece, so I am judging without bias. The only thing I feel like saying is that I would have very much appreciated a second voice in the left hand to accompany the solo voice from within. Then in the concluding episode where the theme ends in the bass and it sounds good there alone.

After listening to the original, apart from the obvious similarity of the right-hand accompaniment with 1/8 rests and notes, I find Frank's piece much more intimate even if harmonically more elaborate. I played it a couple of times and I must say that I really liked it.

As always, compliments Frank.

Thank you RStrauss for the comment and the compliments... alluding to Brahms and being more intimate than Fauré in a laboratory specifically focused on melody might be excessive, but I understand the intentions; let's get to the points:

Instinctively, I have always avoided this type of texture in Fauré's piece; I was wrong not to have ever tested myself with it... confirming that testing oneself with masterworks is always precious and, knowing myself, counterpointing a counter-melody (a solution not chosen by Fauré) would have only made my work easier. Regarding the theme alone in the bass, let's just say I had an attack of "Horror vacui".

The ease of execution was sought because I wanted to compose this piece for young pianists who can technically handle 3 targeted difficulties: namely the texture of the A in off-beat, the melodic leaps of the left hand in the B which also accompany the reappearance of the theme in the original texture, and the agogics, which in the proposed interpretation are optimally managed. Well done Simone! I will take this opportunity to thank him for the work he has done.

I was about to ask you a few days ago, then I forgot to do it, it seemed really executed to me.

I listened to the piece by RStrauss but I haven't looked at the score yet. I liked the different episodes, but that is exactly the point. By ear, some of them seemed a bit "different" or otherwise a bit distant. I'm not saying everything has to be consequential, we talked about this, but it's as if I feel they are not in a row. For example, the episodes that arrive at 1:12, at 2:12.
Maybe it's just a problem of stitching, material extinction, or preparation. Who knows?

The idea of the duo is interesting; am I wrong, or did I not hear much dialogue between the two instruments? I would have exploited this more.

Overall, however, it is a pleasant work that is easy to listen to.

Congratulations to everyone! In my opinion, the greatest merit is that listening to them in a row really gives an idea of variety.

Frank wrote:

Thank you Bianca for your input, clearly the B of the piece is entirely mine and it can be heard, but my melody is derived from A (always as in my style). As for the part after 26, on one hand I think the play is good when it doesn't last long (and another round would have irritated me) and it would have been too predictable... on the other hand at 29 I want to hear the reprise.

Unfortunately, I didn't understand which Ab with the G in the bass you are referring to.

If by after 34 you mean the preparation for the reprise of A (34-37), I think the tempo rubato has nothing to do with it; it was chosen [intentionally]. In a simple piece like this (as I was saying, aimed at young pianists) even the change in harmonic progression makes a difference and actually always makes a difference. In this case, with the help of agogics, it is also a very refined solution that creates much anticipation compared to the Eb of the first theme (which is re-proposed in the cello register) but also alludes to a hypothetical closure of the arpeggio that closes the B. At least, that is how I heard and sought it.

Sorry for the delay Frank, but I accompanied some friends to Lourdes and only returned last night after about ten days without technology.
The Ab I am referring to is the chord on the downbeat of 28. I re-read the discussion and saw that you also have some doubts about that passage. You can see it as Ab or G#, but (to my ear) it doesn't sound quite like a dominant chord (which anyway I wouldn't like at that point either - as I told you, I like the idea of the chord scheme - incomplete chord); at most it could be a G# with a major seventh and a lowered fifth (I don't know what that is called). The reason why I told you that at that point I would rather expect a C in second inversion (whether major or minor) is precisely because I interpreted the Ab7 as an augmented sixth (I said that the ear expects it - not that I would have put it there). Obviously, it is just a personal opinion and another way is to not go through the Ab7...

Thank you Bianca for the clarification, I actually know why I don't like the chord I wrote

Not so much because it is obvious or incorrect (as I was saying) but because in the harmonic context I chose, the German sixth arrives like silently "digesting" (but digesting) during an intimate moment between two fiancés. As a corollary to all this, from an in-depth study I did a few years ago on Fauré's harmony, it turned out that he very rarely uses the German sixth. Everyone has their own needs.

In general, for the workshop, I haven't yet shared my own comments on the pieces; this depends on the absolute lack of time at this moment which prevents me from orderly formulating my opinion, assuming it is of interest. I have listened and taken some notes.

Anyway, I am happy that there was good sharing from everyone and let's hope for the next workshop at the end of October.

Gassy wrote:

@Bianca

sorry for the late reply, but it had slipped my mind

>Despite the alternation of points that are too dissonant compared to others that are very consonant, in general I find it pleasant..

The coexistence of these different aspects is a characteristic that I almost always seek in what I write (even if in this case it is very mitigated): it is generally quite difficult to digest, both from a "formal" and a "perceptual" point of view, especially for a very trained ear, and it can easily confuse one's ideas

>I didn't understand what the VI at the beginning indicates.

the VI at the beginning indicates the degree. The title of the piece refers to the circle of fifths. As you may have noticed, the Roman numeral appears at the beginning of each section. For example, on the first measure it tells you that you started in G minor (of which Eb is the sixth degree) and not Bb. Furthermore, I tried to set the different sections (almost) always on the sixth degree.

Anyway, thank you for the appreciation.