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)
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?
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
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! :)
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.
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.
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?)
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?
Quote from: Saul on March 18, 2008, 02:42:29 PM
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?
Quote from: Norbeone on March 18, 2008, 04:18:27 PM
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
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.
Quote from: Saul on March 18, 2008, 02:42:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on March 18, 2008, 07:17:56 PM
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,
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.
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
QuoteFirst 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.
Quote from: rappy on March 19, 2008, 01:55:55 AM
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.
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!
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.
Quote from: rappy on March 20, 2008, 07:29:56 AM
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.
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.......
Quote from: rappy on March 20, 2008, 07:29:56 AM
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.
Yes, it is certainly better (though I think there are also some things to look at there - I haven't gone through this movement much yet, though I agree with Sforzando that I think the middle section is really very good). The second movement, I must be honest, I haven't managed to get far into, even though lots of it looks exciting - it is just too thorny to read and it lies very awkwardly under my hands, so that I don't think I can give myself too much of an impression of it without intensive practice (either I get the notes right but not the spirit and speed, or vice versa!).
Quote from: rappy on March 20, 2008, 07:29:56 AM
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?
No, I don't think so. The piece itself is poised on the brink of tonality, despite its high density of dissonance. It is full of tonal gestures and implications, which lead one to hear it with a set of tonal expectations. The opening unison, indeed, is beautifully rich in suggestive, tonal potential - you have the strong fifth, the potent tritone, the triadic/diminished element - lots to draw on. What I am trying to say is that the piece operates on a kind of continuum from highly chromatic to fully atonal which, it is true, you could perhaps hone a little in places - make it part of the piece's narrative - but which is nicely done as it is. So no, you don't need to worry about the cadence part of the motive being too tonal (I don't think it is anyway). Also, if you don't want to use it elsewhere, it might be better to excise it altogether - and I don't think you should. One of my favourite bits of this movement, actually, is the music following the cadence.
This music audibly links to the cadence which has just preceded it, and the effect, to my ears, is that we move from the epigrammatic idealised world of the motive into 'the real world' of struggle and strife. I think this is very effective and suggests the beginning of a narrative for the movement which isn't quite sustained - as Sforzando said (I think), the movement could possibly do with some pruning to make it tighter and to make that narrative clearer.
Quote from: rappy on March 20, 2008, 07:29:56 AM
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.
Excellent!
Quote from: rappy on March 20, 2008, 07:29:56 AM
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 ;)
Yes, I saw some very suggestive ones in the central section of your last movement - they give a clear idea of your intentions, and as they are quite extreme, it might be worth underscoring them with some even more outré piano writing (this section reminds me both of the gorgeous and revolutionary free-wheeling piano writing in Liszt's early Apparitions - do you know them; I think you would recognise much to admire in them? - and also, in the ironic(?) use of twisted, mangled tonal gesture, of certain sections of the Berg Violin Concerto).
Re. the difficulty - the first movement is a struggle and could do with simplfying; the third movement is more managable but is basically a similar story. But the second movement is, at times, as-good-as-impossible. Some judicious pruning, prioritising and reassignment of notes would help a great deal.
Quote from: rappy on March 20, 2008, 07:29:56 AM
Again thanks a lot for the helpful and detailed remarks - I'll think over the opening statement and what to do with it.
A pleasure. :)
Wow, thanks greg, that's very pleasing. The link to the first movement is fixed now... forgot to change the file name when I re-uploaded it.
As to your questions, I'm not studying sonatas "on purpose", but I listen to many and while I'm most familiar with 18th and 19th century music, Prokofiev is my favourite composer of the 20th and certainly a role model for me :) Indeed, his sonatas are just awesome!
Quotethat's where I got a lot of my ideas- it seems like you're doing something similar maybe, but way better.
I would say thinks like that! Did you share your sonata? Can we listen to it?
I think I improved by listening to classic music a lot, reading books (about orchestration, form, harmony, etc.) and - of course - composing a lot - I don't think I have any secrets ;) Maybe the secret is listening to what certain people on this forum tell you! ;)
I just see that Luke wrote a long reply again, I'll respond to it later when I've got time - dudes, I could write so much more if my English was just a little bit better... :(
Your English is just fine! Puts my German to shame, at any rate :-[ :-[
Quote from: rappy on March 20, 2008, 08:07:05 AM
I could write so much more if my English was just a little bit better... :(
Dude, dein Englisch ist ausgezeichnet.
Quote from: rappy on March 20, 2008, 08:07:05 AM
I would say thinks like that! Did you share your sonata? Can we listen to it?
the link is on the first page of my thread, actually this one:
http://www.mediafire.com/?3nvg1zmq50d
it's called "Lighthouse of Black Light"...... feels like forever ago when i wrote it, though.....
just heard the first movement of this sonata :o
In truth, Rappy, I burned a CD for myself (also with Joshua's Rufinatascha symphony) and went through the whole thing again just as a listener. And I have a radical suggestion: scrap your relatively weak third movement and substitute an extended Adagio. Hearing this again from a larger perspective, I think it's got a lot of very impressive things but it all sounds so darned hyperactive. It's missing the contrast of repose, and I think building a monumental slow structure would be both a good technical challenge for you as well as a very effective way of rounding out the sonata as a musical experience.
Quote from: Sforzando on March 21, 2008, 07:21:01 AM
... and I think building a monumental slow structure would be be a good technical challenge for you as well as a very effective way of rounding out the sonata as a musical experience....
I think there's something to this - now I think of it, the impression your music in general has left on me is of lots of activity, lots of speed and relatively little repose. It's slightly as if you are really worried to keep things moving, keep the scene shifting, but the effect is slightly over-nervous, perhaps. The irony is that I think your slow music is really among your most effective, and I'd like to hear more of it.
Just listened to it again, without the score.
Quote from: Sforzando on March 21, 2008, 07:21:01 AM
And I have a radical suggestion: scrap your relatively weak third movement and substitute an extended Adagio.
DON'T scrap the third movement! "Weak"? ::)
But DO write an Adagio at the end. That would be perfect. Three fast movements and then a long, slow, Adagio..... (and long, i think 10 minutes would be the shortest amount of time)
a couple more thoughts:
-much of this sounds faster than what would be possible to play! But at the same time, it would sound best played as fast as possible......
-between the 1st and 2nd sections in the 3rd movement, there's a free time section where it just doesn't sound right forte. In my opinion, it'd sound better played Rubato and pianissimo.
-at the end of the 3rd movement, the last chords just aren't really satisfactory to conclude the whole sonata like that. But it'd work if an Adagio followed it. $:)
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on March 21, 2008, 07:45:24 AM
Just listened to it again, without the score.
DON'T scrap the third movement! "Weak"? ::)
I would say the faster sections of this movement are the weakest part of the composition. There is enough active music in the piece otherwise. This material can always be used elsewhere if the composer wants to preserve it.
Quote from: Sforzando on March 21, 2008, 10:25:26 AM
I would say the faster sections of this movement are the weakest part of the composition. There is enough active music in the piece otherwise. This material can always be used elsewhere if the composer wants to preserve it.
I suppose......
either used somewhere else or add an Adagio as a 4th movement, either way is alright....
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on March 21, 2008, 10:47:01 AM
I suppose......
either used somewhere else or add an Adagio as a 4th movement, either way is alright....
I'm not sure, though, Greg - it's a matter of proportioning the thing right, and I think Sforzando's suggestion has a lot to it. Personally, I think a somewhat trimmed first movement with a clear narrative line, a simplified but still eclectic second movement and a last movement focusing on the material which is presently its central portion would be very striking, more so than the work as it stands. Another movement -especially more fast material - not really necessary, I feel.
Dear Ralph: This is an impressive Opus 1 sonata! The ambition in it reminds not only of early Prokofiev sonatas, but of the Berg Opus One as well. I don't have much to add that other folks have stated constructively as far as possible items to consider. Certainly some of the notational niceties could be addressed. My concerns regard ways of managing the seemingly unrelieved density in the the progress of the first movement. Some of it could be due to a lack of voicing in the playback, although generally impressive, still is not as refined as a "live'"player could present. Maybe more liberal use of dynamics in defining the lines could help in this regard. While this could be seen as limiting different interpretations of your music, by clarifying your intent a bit further you could have more variety and sharpen the sense of direction in doing so. A further textural aspect you could consider is to have less note against note motion in some passages, maybe simplifying through using augmentation of motives in lower or middle voices, then allowing the more frenetic note against note activity point up a climax more forcefully. In the second movement i wondered if the ostinato could have outlined the motive more rather than sticking to the B - not exactly asking for modulation, but giving some shape on a larger scale. Possibly there is some referencing to the second movement of Schoenberg's {sorry that my keyboard resists umlauts here} Opus 11? Finally, in the third movement, there was a spot where the momentum stops altogether on an E in the right hand. Would an embellishment such as an appoggitura using the preceding motivic material help maintain some of the forward motion in the transition into the next section? i don't know whether these suggestions are especially helpful, but given the general technical potential of your work, i thought i would propose them. The stretto at the end of your finale was splendidly ferocious - Hindemith or any other contrapuntally-minded composer would be happy with it. Good luck - gil fray.
Great advice here, Ralph. Don't want to single any of it out, but this bit:
Quote from: GilFray on March 25, 2008, 01:28:16 PM
My concerns regard ways of managing the seemingly unrelieved density in the the progress of the first movement....Maybe more liberal use of dynamics in defining the lines could help in this regard.
and this bit:
Quote from: GilFray on March 25, 2008, 01:28:16 PMA further textural aspect you could consider is to have less note against note motion in some passages, maybe simplifying through using augmentation of motives in lower or middle voices, then allowing the more frenetic note against note activity point up a climax more forcefully.
struck me particularly, their general theme concerning the gradation of textural density both from A to B and within a texture.
Hi,
thanks for the many replies, I read them all, although I was quite busy the last days and had no time to answer.
The thing about the movements is that I wrote the last movement first as a stand alone piece. Then someone (not only someone, even a professional pianist and composer) came up with the idea that I should write a whole sonata and use it as the final movement. Well, I liked the idea and tried to do it. I didn't notice the problem of too much activity yet, since I wrote slow parts in every movement. Keep in mind that no pianist will play the outer movements as quick as the PC does. A good human player can play it much slower and still show the musical lines successfully. But ok, I will think over it.
GilFray, thanks for sharing your helpful thoughts, you're certainly right that the PC playback doesn't make much sense very often and a human player could present it in a better way. Do you think of some specific passage where you would use augmentations in the middle voices?
Referencing to Schönberg would be a coincidence, because I don't know Op. 11 (yet) ;) Should listen to it.
@greg: I listened to some of your works and I found some very good stuff, though I hate the midi sound... are you going to become a professional composer? And what style are you heading for currently?
QuoteYour English is just fine! Puts my German to shame, at any rate
If you knew how long it takes me to write a reply which is not even half as long as yours! :-\
But forums like this one helped me a lot to improve my English. Honestly, don't care about your German, German is such a difficult language, if I was English I would never want learn it.
Ralph,
The point is not to tell you what you should do - that is entirely your decision, of course - but just to suggest options that might open up other ways of looking at this. Obviously some of the options would require much more work than others. But what's the rush, really? There's nothing wrong with letting a piece gestate over a few years. You just have to decide what works best for you.
Quote from: rappy on March 27, 2008, 06:36:27 AM
@greg: I listened to some of your works and I found some very good stuff, though I hate the midi sound... are you going to become a professional composer? And what style are you heading for currently?
cool, thanks for listening. I'd say my style varies from piece to piece. Right now, I'm working on a late Romantic idiom, though I always have in mind different stuff- always thought it'd be fun to write a Baroque-style piece, then a serial work, then something that's just totally original-sounding just for the sake of being different. ;D
Quote from: rappy on March 27, 2008, 06:36:27 AM
Referencing to Schönberg would be a coincidence, because I don't know Op. 11 (yet) ;) Should listen to it.
I never thought too highly of his solo piano music...... it's okay, just not GREAT. Same with op.11..... the only absolutely great solo piano work by Schoenberg I think is the Piano Suite, when performed by Glenn Gould. He brings out the soul! :o
Dear Rappy; In the first movement exposition i think you manage the counterpoint well toward the beginning around measures 16 to 25. The place where the motoric sixteenth -note activation of the texture does not convince me as the primary means of propulsion for your argument happens in the transitional presto from about mm. 40 - 59. Maybe in this area and in the corresponding passage later you may consider referencing some of the control shown in the writing in the earlier passage. Again I would like to emphasize that you show powerful potential in this sonata. -gil fray.
Hi,
I've now finished another slow movement (as you suggested) which I will put between the first and the old 2nd movement.
http://www.dgsp-rheinland-pfalz.de/klaviersonate2satz.pdf
I don't upload a MP3 because the PC can't play it properly. It's easy to play though, so you can print it out and play yourself.
Meanwhile, here is the result of my sketches on a "symphony for kids". I compose this for fun and to learn orchestration.
http://www.dgsp-rheinland-pfalz.de/sinfonie1satz.mp3
It's the exposition and the beginning of the development.
Hi rappy,
Would you be able to elaborate on this movement? I'm curious as to its inspiration and development. What compositional methods did you use?
Cheers Rappy... Maybe someone else will record it for you? I really enjoyed listening to your piece last time (and my pianistic skills won't stretch to giving anywhere like a recorgnisable rendition of this new movement!)
Hi Guido, JCampbell,
here's a first try. It's full of mistakes (mostly rhythmical), but if you follow the score, you can imagine how it should sound if well-played. 0:)
http://www.dgsp-rheinland-pfalz.de/sonate2satz.mp3
Quote from: Guido on September 18, 2008, 03:49:47 AM
Cheers Rappy... Maybe someone else will record it for you? I really enjoyed listening to your piece last time (and my pianistic skills won't stretch to giving anywhere like a recorgnisable rendition of this new movement!)
Same here. I could probably do the first page, but but I don't think I stand a chance for the rest of it.
After listening to that, as expected, I very VERY much like it! It isn't the most original sounding piece ever (reminds me a lot of the slow movement of Bartok's 1st PC), but it sure hits the spot for me. At first, when I looked at the opening bars being all whole notes, i thought ::), but that went away as soon as I listened. The only part I'm not sure I liked was at the end, bars 54-56. I could imagine more rests in there to break it up, but, then again, I'm not the composer. $:) (and that could screw up the following bars).
I want to see the score all in one big pdf, eventually.....
I could probably play it...though that section in the middle wear the melody appears to swap between hands might be tricky! Problem is, I have no recording equipment, and no piano close to my computer :(
My first suggestion (before I even take it to the piano) is that on page 2 you could provide m.d and m.s. indications to help the player know where to cross hands. Until I play it I can't be sure, but I think it's all practicable. Nonetheless I suspect I'll be bouncing all over the piano bench to get some of those hand-crossings in!
Quote from: JCampbell on September 18, 2008, 01:47:40 PM
I could probably play it...though that section in the middle wear the melody appears to swap between hands might be tricky! Problem is, I have no recording equipment, and no piano close to my computer :(
err... rappy just posted a recording of it two posts above yours... its good!
I really like this, and it feels very much a part of the same piece that you composed the movements for before. I would be interested to see other people's comments - Luke's and Sforzando's mainly.
Hi,
thanks for the feedback!
QuoteThe only part I'm not sure I liked was at the end, bars 54-56. I could imagine more rests in there to break it up
I'll think over that 0:) Dunno if the ending is good, too. It should be a logical transition to the Allegretto-movement (previous middle movement).
@Sforzando: Yes, that could help. Though I don't think the hand-crossings are difficult at that tempo. I guess measures 26-28 and 49-51 are the most difficult parts if you play it at sight.
Quote from: rappy on September 18, 2008, 03:09:50 PM
Hi,
thanks for the feedback!
I'll think over that 0:) Dunno if the ending is good, too. It should be a logical transition to the Allegretto-movement (previous middle movement).
@Sforzando: Yes, that could help. Though I don't think the hand-crossings are difficult at that tempo. I guess measures 26-28 and 49-51 are the most difficult parts if you play it at sight.
Not necessarily difficult, but a courtesy to the performer. Remember that pianists often sight-read through a mound of material to decide what they want to study seriously. They don't need stumbling blocks, and such indications are a proof from you to them that you understand the instrument and have laid out your textures in a practical manner.
Quote from: Guido on September 18, 2008, 02:05:44 PM
err... rappy just posted a recording of it two posts above yours... its good!
I really like this, and it feels very much a part of the same piece that you composed the movements for before. I would be interested to see other people's comments - Luke's and Sforzando's mainly.
Oh yea...whoops...
Still, I still might give it a try. Some of the more, shall we say, "in your face" sonorities didn't come through in the recording like I'm sure rappy would have wanted them to.
a bump...or perhaps just a mild nudge. I, too, am curious to see what the resident composers will offer as insights into this music.
This resident composer is at present having enough trouble with his own music! But I'll try to comment on Ralph's latest movement at some point... :)