Sonata for piano, Op. 1

[rappy]

Just enjoy listening! Maybe time will even allow you to give a brief comment.

MP3:
http://www.dgsp-rheinland-pfalz.de/sonate_satz1.mp3
http://www.dgsp-rheinland-pfalz.de/sonate2satz.mp3
http://www.dgsp-rheinland-pfalz.de/sonate_satz2.mp3 (now third movement)
http://www.dgsp-rheinland-pfalz.de/sonate_satz3.mp3 (now fourth movement)

PDF:
http://www.dgsp-rheinland-pfalz.de/sonate_satz1.pdf
http://www.dgsp-rheinland-pfalz.de/klaviersonate2satz.pdf
http://www.dgsp-rheinland-pfalz.de/sonate_satz2.pdf (now third movement)
http://www.dgsp-rheinland-pfalz.de/sonate_satz3.pdf (now fourth movement)

[lukeottevanger]

Ralph, I've only looked at the score briefly, so I won't pretend to be able to give it the justice it deserves just yet (I'd rather play through it than listen, if possible) but first impressions are really excellent - it looks very fine indeed. I'm looking forward to getting to grips with it.

Am I right that you've posted the last movement in a previous incarnation, under a previous name, before?

[rappy]

Hi luke,

you're perfectly right, I had posted the last movement as "atonal piano piece" a long time ago, but later decided to compose a whole sonata and use it as the final movement (the name was shit, anyway, since it's not really atonal and you get associations with Schoenberg, with whom it has nothing to do at all). I am glad about your positive impressions! IMO it's different to play through it because it's technically very challenging, but I won't prevent you from trying (while I think the PC is doing very well on performing, apart from the slower sections).

Thanks!

Ralph

[lukeottevanger]

I've got to say, Ralph, you are a shining example of what dedication, hard work and openness to new ways of working can achieve. I think your progress in the last few years - from the first pieces of yours that I saw - has been both admirable and impressive - magnificent!

[Saul]

Though the begining was of some interest later on it turned into banal.

It may be considered by others such as Luke as a magnificent work, but I think it lacks meaning, direction and order.

Thanks for posting.

[lukeottevanger]

Well, now, Saul, I didn't say it was magnificent, as I haven't played or heard it yet, only seen it. I said that Ralph's patient, hard work with his compositions has really paid off magnificently. He has fairly often over the last few years posted his scores here and asked for opinions, and, among others, Larry Rinkel and I have been happy to go through the pieces and give our own responses. And I notice that the things I found problematic before in Ralph's music are less and less evident - I doubt very much that this is down to my own comments as much as it is down to Ralph's own progress and will to refine his music. This impresses me very much.

It must be at least 8, possibly 9 years since I sent recordings of some of my music by post across the Atlantic to Larry, Al and Utah Bill. And I still remember the comments they had to make, mostly positive and sometimes more negative. And whilst the positives are always pleasing, it is the negatives which were useful - I took them on board and they gave me a fresh, outsider's perspective on my own music, for which I am grateful. In some respects, they certainly helped to make my music stronger. Ralph is only doing the same, and it is exactly the right course of action.

I've never commented on your music, Saul. I prefer to work from scores so that comment can be more precise, and you tend not to provide scores, though I have seen some of them at your (old?) website. But I have noticed, seeing your responses to the comments made by others here and on other boards, that you are less willing to take criticism (and so learn from it) than Ralph is (and that is understandable, as one's composing is always very close to the heart), I certainly have things I would recommend to you, but, as I say, not having scores, and knowing your likely response I have never attempted to do so. My recommendations to you would include, among other things, suggestions about tightening up form and 'direction' in your pieces, so it strikes me somewhat ironic that you've criticised these things in Ralph's piece.

[rappy]

Hi,

thanks a lot, Luke, for that reply. It's exactly the way you describe. The best motivation to post my works here is to get useful criticism from experienced composers, and I always got it and appreciate it very much. I have no need to get any affirmation my compositions being perfect, because they aren't. And that's not astonishing, as I'm 19 and have not even begun studying. The most important thing as a composers, I think, is that you have ideas. How to use and combine them - that's what you have to learn and where others can help you.

Luke, I admire your willingness to spend your time helping young composers - even more admirable here, since you don't really know me and have never seen me. I also have to mention Larry Rinkel, who also did awesome helpful comments on my works. And Saul, you could still be more precise. What exactly is banal and where is the lack of meaning, direction, order? Which movement are you referring to? (to all?)

[Norbeone]

Rappy, I have heard some of your older compositions from, say, 2 years ago? And wow, I am very very impressed by your progress. I missed the thread that you posted the final movement in, so I had no idea what to expect, except maybe some of the same (your older pieces, in other words). But it definately isn't some of the same, but rather I was immediately struck by the relentless rhythmic drive of your opening movement, and interesting tonal soundworld you create, or perhaps more correctly, the pitch materials you use.

I won't make any further comments yet, rappy, as I would genuinely like to spend a while looking through the scores you provided. Thanks for posting!

Incidentally, what did you use to get that rather acceptable piano sound?

[Norbeone]

Though the begining was of some interest later on it turned into banal.

It may be considered by others such as Luke as a magnificent work, but I think it lacks meaning, direction and order.

Thanks for posting.

Is that all you can say, Saul? If there is any ground in your allegations, maybe it would be helpful to provide musical reasons as to why it 'lacks meaning, direction and order'?




jealous, are we?

[Saul]

Is that all you can say, Saul? If there is any ground in your allegations, maybe it would be helpful to provide musical reasons as to why it 'lacks meaning, direction and order'?




jealous, are we?

First of all I would like to know how dear Rappy composed this work. Did he sit down at the piano and thought the piece through or took a pen and paper and decided to write the music away from the piano.

Secondly, I have listened only to the first movement and viewed the score, I think that the different ideas in this work are not linked through a logical order, they are not grown out of each other in a natural way. These are ideas detached from each other. Would love to grasp why at one moment its all nice and quiet and the next moment its all fire and power. When I listen to Beethoven's sonatas I can understand the calm and passionate moments for even though they are complete opposite they form a complete interconnected unit, and that is pleasing to the ear and intrigues the mind to listen further.

Saul

[(poco) Sforzando]

Rappy, I've only listened/followed along once but I think there is a lot of talent showing here. Of the three movements, I think the second is the best. The first has a lot of good moments especially in the slower music but it seems like it needs cutting and shaping. The accusation of "banality" is not unjustified from time to time; the tendency to use trite rhythmic structures and then repeat them (as in the Presto, movement 1, page 08) gets in your way here and also in the faster sections of the third movement. Curiously, the slower music in the third movement seems also to me the most successful element in it. But the Shostakovich-like fast parts of the finale don't impress me as much. It's all too circus-y and trite, and I like it no more in Shostakovich than in Bernardy. The overall design of the movement is good, but the faster material doesn't work for me.

Why the second movement is so much better is hard to say until I sit down and study it some more. The contrast between the ostinato rhythms and the outbursts make more sense somehow. The whole piece seems to have a momentum and direction, while on first hearing at least the first movement sounds more like a collection of mosaics. The ending is excellent. You could vary the even quarter/crotchet motion, and instead of a ritardando at 44 I think an accelerando would be stronger.

A real problem, especially in the first two movements (which I understand are the more recent ones), is the use of the piano. You've got left-hand leaps in very fast tempo and octaves, among other things, that are probably physically impossible or close to it. It's one thing to write difficult or challenging music, quite another not to use the instrument idiomatically, and I think you cross that line at times. I really doubt 22-23 in the second movement - rapid left-hand octaves with right-hand crossovers - is possible at all as written. Again, diffiicult is fine - but you want your pianist to believe you know the instrument.

I will try to spend more time with this to clarify these impressions and report back. But you definitely show promise, and with that second movement, more than that.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Though the begining was of some interest later on it turned into banal.

It may be considered by others such as Luke as a magnificent work, but I think it lacks meaning, direction and order.

Thanks for posting.

I hope you are as receptive to comments on your music as you are free with criticism of someone else's.

[Saul]

I hope you are as receptive to comments on your music as you are free with criticism of someone else's.

Why don't you post a critic , and you'll see.

Regards,

[Guido]

I am not a composer and so am probably not that able to help, so I'll just say that I really like this piece, and the second movement especially I think is fantastic. I look forward to reading other people's comments, as well as future pieces of yours.

[rappy]

Hi,

thanks for your comments. I've shortened the first movement a bit, as Sforzando suggested. Saul, the link between the different ideas of movement 1 is the opening motif d-a-g#-b (later e-b-a#-c#). Concerning the playability, I think the last movement is very well playable, the second has got some difficulties but only for a few measures (22-23 e.g., but they should still be playable, tried them out). As to the first movement, could you show some examples of what passages you mean (being physically close to impossible)?
I agree with the tendency to use trite rhythmic structures, I'll try to avoid that in further compositions. Thanks again for your helpful review.


@Norbeone: The piano sound was produced by Finale GPO

First of all I would like to know how dear Rappy composed this work. Did he sit down at the piano and thought the piece through or took a pen and paper and decided to write the music away from the piano.

Both. I usualy prefer the latter method, but since it's a piano sonata, I also composed and checked passages at the piano.

[(poco) Sforzando]

As to the first movement, could you show some examples of what passages you mean (being physically close to impossible)?

At the desired tempo, the left hand at 68-69 would be pushing the limits I think. I agree the third movement is much more playable. I still have doubts about 22-23 in the second movement.

[lukeottevanger]

Ralph

I've had a chance to play through the first movement, but only once so far. I have lots of thoughts and no time to get them into any order just yet, so forgive me if I splurge them down in a messy fashion. I will probably post this before I've had to time to get all my thoughts down, so I will follow it up with another post or more later.

First off, this whole comment should be read under the basic premise that I am very impressed with the piece in general. It shows some really sophisticated and mature thinking, and there were passages I found really exciting and rewarding to play.

1) Accidental notation - quite often you use more complex accidentals than is necessary, making certain sections harder to read than they need to be. This was one of the things I found most distrubing when playing through your piece - it is technically difficult, but the notation often made it more so. I will provide examples of the sort of thing I mean if you want, but one (of many) would be bars 70-3, left hand, where (among other alterations) I would use F and Gb instead of E# and F#. Bar 221 looks to have some mistakes in it too - but it is also hard to read because....

2) I think in such complex dissonant counterpoint you ought to consider using warning accidentals. I often found myself wondering if a note was still # or not, because whilst the general textures and gestures are reminiscent of tonal music, the harmonies themselves are 'skewed' away from this. The player never knows quite what to expect, so as much clarity as you can give them will help.

3) Also under the heading of notation, but I think this must be to do with your software - often when a single note is serving two functions, in two voices, it has a doubled accidental - e.g. if C# is both a half note and a quarter note (say), there will be 2 # signs, which looks like a double #. I suppose this may be necessary for correct playback (though if you are using Sibelius it needn't be). But it makes the score trickier to read again - one needs to decipher and follow the clues to see what is going on and work out your true intentions. If it really is a playback thing, you might consider making two copies of the score - one for generating MIDI, one for printing out.

4) This is something I've said to you more than once, and I think it is the area where your music has caused me most thought before - the issue of balancing style with style and with the technical demands of the music. I think this piece marks a big step forward for you, I must say. But there are still some issues. The music is hard, no doubt about it, but not impossibly so. You might consider thinning out some of the thornier passages, or at least building in some concessions to the pianist! Also, simplifying the accidentals as I've already suggested will help. Sometimes I found some of the stylistic juxtapositions a little jarring - they seem undigested - but they could work if they were presented 'within inverted commas'. For instance, sometimes, at points of climax, you let the left hand veer into Alberti bass figurations which seem bizarrely neutral and classical in the context - but which, played with a little sense of irony and knowingness, could be extremely effective. You could indicate this - with expression markings ('ironic'; etc); with tempo emphasis and rhetorical pauses, with dynamic reinforcment and also, possibly, with a thinning down and classicizing of the texture. So I don't think these are as big a problem as they have been before.

My main problem, I suppose, is the intergation of your opening two bars into the rest of the movement. Those two bars look to me to be some kind of motto theme, like the opening of the Chopin 2nd Sonata or the Liszt Sonata, and I really like it - the opening unison and the mysterious, answering cadence. I think you could do with setting it off slightly from the rest of the movement - by a pause, or a double bar, or by repeating the cadence or extending/repeating the whole passage. The unison phrase is evident in the main body of the music, and you've treated it resourcefully and well, but if you used the cadence motif anywhere, I missed it - and I wanted to hear it in some kind of apotheosis! I think you ought to - it's a strong idea, and it seems odd to let it drop.

Anyway, more later! Must go!

[rappy]

Hi Luke,

thanks for sharing your thoughts on the first movement. I agree with the notational problems, of course, I'll clean the score before giving it somebody to play. If you look at the third movement (which should already be cleaned up), that score should be easier to read.

Concerning the opening statement - you're right, it doesn't appear again in the way it is at the beginning. You can find it in the lowest register at the end of the first sostenuto, and the second slow part shall be an extended version of it. But only of the unisono, of course. Of the latter part, i did only use the motif in the upper voice... Honestly, I love the answering cadence, but I thought it did not fit too well being used more often because it's too obiously tonal, isn't it?

I'll add warning accidentals as soon as possible. On 3), yeah, I dunno why Finale keeps doing that. There must be a possibility to turn it off, I'll try to find out.

Concerning 4) - I promise I will go through the whole sonata on the piano again and check every passage whether it's (well) playable or not. Expression marks are also things I like to add when cleaning up the score

Again thanks a lot for the helpful and detailed remarks - I'll think over the opening statement and what to do with it.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I'll add warning accidentals as soon as possible. On 3), yeah, I dunno why Finale keeps doing that. There must be a possibility to turn it off, I'll try to find out.

I suspect that with Finale, if you're working in multiple layers, one layer doesn't know what the other is doing. You may have to hide the duplicate accidentals manually.

[greg]

did you just take off the first movement? Are you putting it back up? I wanna listen.


Just listened to the last two movements...... to be honest, I'm just speechless. Couldn't tell you how much I enjoyed them both.
Reminds me of when I wrote my op.1, which was also a Piano Sonata, and I had been studying the Prokofiev sonatas and that's where I got a lot of my ideas- it seems like you're doing something similar maybe, but way better. (whose sonatas are you studying?)

And I have to agree, huge improvement. It's been a long time since I listened to your music last time, and I don't remember being impressed at all. But this sonata just blew me away..... you have to tell me, what are your secrets, how did you improve so much? I have to do the same.......