|
#1
20-12-2006, 04:24 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Two Part Invention - thanks to Thorolf and Reith Well here it is! I'll call it a draft - no dynamics, phrasing and I haven't thoroughly proofread it but I'd love to hear what you think seeing as some of you helped me out here. I haven't been as strict as I originally intended but I think that's better because I just want it to sound nice.  Opens in D minor, modulates to A major via a weird G minor bit and finisihes with a short D minor passage. Criticise!  |
|
#2
20-12-2006, 09:04 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Just to say I've already spotted 3 wrong notes so it's definitely got a long way to go... |
|
#3
21-12-2006, 05:00 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Nice subject. The idea is good. Couple of suggestions, first, the parts need a bit more rhythmetic independence. A couple of places, both parts seem to go in similar rhythm; this is OK sounding but sounds so blatant that perhaps it would be helpful to do it at important junctures (return of subject in tonic? just before the final cadence?) The second subject (I think I heard one) to appear in both voices at once. In a baroqueish style, sometimes it's better to sneak a subject in then bring it out. Just offhand suggestions. The piece sounds pretty good. |
|
#4
21-12-2006, 09:40 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Thanks ttw I'm glad you like the piece - Just to clarify, are you suggesting that I vary the subject rhythmically at subsequent entries? I think that's a good idea, although I don't want to change the orginial subject completely. I totally see what you mean now about both parts having similar rhythms so I'll see what I can do. Thanks! |
|
#5
21-12-2006, 10:59 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Cool! I like the rhapsodic qualities. That you have semi-unison ideas, e. g. in the start of the answer, is just a good idea to my ears, and against every rule of counterpoint-ism…  I wouldn’t change the subject entries more than you already do, as there is a lot of harmonic and rhytmical energy going on, and the piece being as compact as it is, it is hard enough to spot the subject from the derivative ideas in the first place!The only thing that leaves something to be desired, to my ears, is the ending. It seems you just gave up composing it, and just stopped (I do that some times myself!). I think that the A major part is a little big-ish to be cut of by the short-ish ending d-minor. The “weird” g minor “detour” contains so much energy that you need to balance that with more energy (maybe more detours?) on the way back from A major to d minor again. Good start!  Regards Last edited by Thorolf : 21-12-2006 at 11:53 AM. Reason: Edited for better suggestions, the former was somewhat errant. |
|
#6
21-12-2006, 03:14 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| A subject can have a part with long notes (quarters, eg.) and shorter notes (eighths). Then when the subject overlaps with rhythmic displacement, the parts move slightly differently. One can also modify a subject in the middle of a piece by either playing it twice a fast (tricky) or just adding passing or neighbor notes. |
|
#7
21-12-2006, 10:24 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Aww....cheers. Yes, it is nice, lots of energy and it flows. You know what? I wonder what this would sound like on harpsichord (in which case dynamics are irrelevant*). I also like your departure from the somewhat strict contrapuntal rules and honestly, unless you intend to be an academician, that's the way forward. I won't comment about the ending as you say it's a draft though I personally found it ok. Excellent. Keep it going. *allowing for those fabulous harpsichords that have stops! Last edited by reith : 21-12-2006 at 10:27 PM. |
|
#8
21-12-2006, 10:34 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Cool thanks everyone, looks like my ending will need quite a bit of work (or "development" as teachers like to call it!) My digital piano lets me play it with a "harpsichord" sound (quite hard to do when you have to reist the pedals and the longs notes and expression...) which I quite like but I think I'll stick to it being written for piano seeing as that's what it will be mostly played on I expect! I'm glad you seem positive about my lack of strictness, I enjoyed writing it and doing what I wanted while trying to keep the basic contrapuntal idea in my head. Hopefully when I get to uni and read a few more books I'll be able to approach this kind of task more wisely, but it seems it's going ok this time around. |
|
#9
21-12-2006, 10:40 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| hehe, I listened to it several more times, and I’ve got used to this ending now… It’s ok, and there are upper limits to how “classically” laid out a piece has to be, to be just fine. This one wins a lot on freshness! And btw, I agree that a harpsichord mock-up would be cool, tho! Regards |
|
#10
21-12-2006, 10:51 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Thanks Thorolf but much as I'd like to follow Stravinsky's good fortune in having a piece finally accepted after several hearings, I think the first impressions show I need to make changes! Christmas has never been so much fun... ahem. |
