Two Pieces for Three Strings (for Guitar)

[stevel]

Hello All,

I just finished this little ditty for Guitar (one would generally assume Classical guitar, though acoustic or electric could be fine - fingerpicking is definitely indicated for the first piece but I bet there's some people who could do it with a pick).

Here's what I'm looking for comments on:

Accidentals: The first piece is all minor triads, and the second all major triads. I want to make sure I didn't leave off any accidentals (so I'm asking you to proofread for free for me :-). I also want to make sure there's no more cautionary accidentals necessary - in other words, is it clear what the notes are supposed to be.

Along these same lines, I chose to spell chords "more simply" in some cases rather than the traditional "direction" selection of accidentals. So in some cases I chose an enharmonic spelling of a chord that would have either double flats or sharps, or an E#, Fb, B#, Cb. Please let me know if my having done that causes anything that looks out of the ordinary.

Performance Notes: Do the two performance notes make sense to you? Do you know what they mean? Are they clear? etc.

You can also comment on the piece if you like. I'm happy with it, so that's all that really matters. It may or may not be your cup of tea, but of course, I'd be happy to hear positive comments, constructive criticism.

Enjoy (or not),
Steve

[reith]

The performance notes make sense to me. As I've come to live with accidentals (haven't used a key sig in years) I didn't look too closely at how "appropriate" the accidentals might be. It's clear what you mean.

The pieces don't seem too difficult beyond a couple of changes that would have to be nifty.

No criticsm really...they're your style, consistent. I haven't looked at every note to check! In the first piece I doubt I'd have bothered to bracket the 1/16 notes???? semiquavers? as triplets but that's a minor technical preference.

Great

[stevel]

Originally Posted by reith

The performance notes make sense to me. As I've come to live with accidentals (haven't used a key sig in years) I didn't look too closely at how "appropriate" the accidentals might be. It's clear what you mean.

The pieces don't seem too difficult beyond a couple of changes that would have to be nifty.

No criticsm really...they're your style, consistent. I haven't looked at every note to check! In the first piece I doubt I'd have bothered to bracket the 1/16 notes???? semiquavers? as triplets but that's a minor technical preference.

Great

Thanks Reith. I forgot about the triplet deal - yes - I could have grouped them as sextuplets (6 16th notes beamed together) but that whole constantly changing from 6 to 3 has always bothered me. I decided to break the beam and make two groups of triplets. I could break the other beam too but if I did, I really should be making it 4/8 instead of 2/4 or something.

Best,
Steve

[reith]

I think I got used to not having the '3' or '4' written over triplets/quads because of two pieces: in my early days one of the variations from Mozart's Sonata No 11 in A maj which had 4 against 3. (I think it was the 2nd variation, the first slow one) and later, when bravely I tried Chopins Fantasie Impromptu. If Chopin and Mozart could dispense with this way of notating why need I? I thought.....until others had to play from my parts!