Can't help myself.... another happy tune

[PeterG]

Originally Posted by sawscape

I don't know. I really liked the piece. I think it is fun and clever. But the more directed and comprehensive criticism of Stevel and Student make me realize that I still have a lot to learn about (writing) music.

Hi sawscape,
Thank you and I know how you feel; I also have a lot to learn and you guys in here help me achive that.
The only thing I can do in return is to try to write something that you will enjoy and/or move and post it here.

Thanks,

Peter

[PeterG]

Originally Posted by Student

Your introduction is nice, but it seems unrelated to the rest of the piece.

Hi Student,
This remark kept sticking in my mind as I wondered why that is actually. I know that there are a lot of 3's and 3-feelings in there, but I tried to keep the 2/4 beat in it as well......which is why I used triplets in the first place. I liked the combination of square and triangle in it. The intro is square, the theme (and lot's of other stuff and decorations) triangular but the accompianement / backbone still square... Of course that changes in the QN-triplet section where it is a walz and could have been a 3/4 time signature as well.

Question for all of you: Does everyone see it the way Student (and Steve) see it?

kind regards,

Peter

[PeterG]

Greetings everyone,

I've been working through it all and made a quite new version of this tune.

In summary the changes:
- the intro introduce the theme now (I will be honest, I can't really decide between the original version and this one. This one is more, uhm, obvious I think, but then again the comment about the original were quite clear..... but I miss the element of surprise and the forceful 4/4 beat that will stay in your head).
- the moderato part is a lot bigger now. I put two different melody lines in it and a transition like the one from part A to B to get to:
- the new part C; it has doubled in size (with a repeat; I did not want a nother variation and without the repeat it's simple too short compared to the rest) and (hopefully) is introduced better now.
The transition to the end part has not been touched as is the end part itself.

Originally Posted by stevel

Good - I'm just suggesting you think about it. Just make sure it is what you want when you're done.

Well, Steve, I think I could write on this for another 5 weeks or so, but I think I'm pretty close to what I had in mind in the first place.

Some links that you will need:

The new, updated, version replaced the original version in soundclick so that the download count will not be messed up (heck, you may get me up in the charts now....lol)
Follow this link for it. The score is attached as version1

The original version I put in a different spot. Follow this one. The score can be found by scrolling down to my original post.

Now, I did the unthinkable as well, I deleted the entire section C (I hate to scrap notes that I liked; this was a first / new experience). See if you like this better and follow this link
The score is attached as version2.

Can't wait to hear what you think of it!

Have a good weekend,

Peter

[stevel]

- the intro introduce the theme now (I will be honest, I can't really decide between the original version and this one. This one is more, uhm, obvious I think, but then again the comment about the original were quite clear..... but I miss the element of surprise and the forceful 4/4 beat that will stay in your head)

.

Well you went from not having the rhythmic motive at all, to having it 3 times - maybe there's a middle ground?

- the moderato part is a lot bigger now. I put two different melody lines in it and a transition like the one from part A to B to get to:
- the new part C; it has doubled in size (with a repeat; I did not want a nother variation and without the repeat it's simple too short compared to the rest) and (hopefully) is introduced better now.

I think it's definitely improved. One concern is the octaves in the LH in mm. 90 and 92 - you might consider breaking them up between the hands as you did in m. 91 (though some revoicing would be necessary). Really it's a pianist question, but often those can come out a little ponderous.

Well, Steve, I think I could write on this for another 5 weeks or so, but I think I'm pretty close to what I had in mind in the first place.

Ha, ha - yes that's true - I think one major skill a composer must have is to know when it's done! What I would normally do at this point - assuming I was happy with the pacing, form, length, etc. - the larger elements - I would go in and tidy up the notation and check everything as I went. If I found a chord that didn't work, I might revoice it, etc. I really do go over my pieces with a fine-tooth comb and make sure every single note is what I want it to be. Sometimes I'll play something and say, "no, It should go up here" and change it to accomdate - so it's kind of like filling in the blanks. But there is a point of diminishing returns (which is why you always save every version of your file!!!!) - I think one of the things experience has taught me is to know when to stop messing with it. Fortunately, I tend to have a clearer vision of what I want going in, and it's easier to meet that vision (or a modified version of it) than it is when I don't have any idea.

Some links that you will need:

The new, updated, version replaced the original version in soundclick so that the download count will not be messed up (heck, you may get me up in the charts now....lol)
Follow this link for it. The score is attached as version1

Couldn't load the page - maybe Soundclick is just down for a while. I'll try back.

Now, I did the unthinkable as well, I deleted the entire section C (I hate to scrap notes that I liked; this was a first / new experience).

Not unthinkable! Plus, you kept your original file didn't you :-). As Student echoed my comments - make it another piece. Make it another movement. My composition instructor said "oh, I never throw away anything - I keep it in case I need that idea some time - but I don't mind cutting something out of a piece". Professional composers working in Film/Video always have to cut stuff, so you kind of should expect it at some point. I think the key is identifying the weak parts (which may only be weak in the existing context, and may be fine in some other) and culling them.

I'd like to be able to listen to it (for flow) before picking a version. But you can probably guess which I'm leaning towards :-).

Best,
Steve

[VicDiesel]

Fun piece. The first 1/3 or so sounds like a modern take on a classical ragtime, so the quick alternation of themes is entirely appropriate. But then at some point I start agreeing with Steve that you're just stringing things together, and the slow middle section is too long for balance, if you ask me. And the recap of the faster material is a bit short.

But in all very nice.

Victor.

[PeterG]

Hi Steve and Victor,

Thanks for the comments and the compliments.

Originally Posted by stevel

.
Well you went from not having the rhythmic motive at all, to having it 3 times - maybe there's a middle ground?

well, I like extremes I guess. But seriously, I'm leaning towards my original intro as the surprise was nice... I'll keep the theme part in the little intro in the middle of part A though..

Originally Posted by stevel

I think it's definitely improved. One concern is the octaves in the LH in mm. 90 and 92 - you might consider breaking them up between the hands as you did in m. 91 (though some revoicing would be necessary). Really it's a pianist question, but often those can come out a little ponderous.

On that particular spot it was the idea to have the basses pompously step in, have the harmony deal with it (as in m.91) and then contrast it with part two of the melody played soft and fragile. I did try to break up between the hands in m.90 as done in m.91 but that killed the strong base statement and made it more, uhm, "flat" (don't know how else to express it actually),

Originally Posted by stevel

Couldn't load the page - maybe Soundclick is just down for a while. I'll try back.

I hope you had more luck in the mean time?

Originally Posted by VicDiesel

The first 1/3 or so sounds like a modern take on a classical ragtime, so the quick alternation of themes is entirely appropriate.

You're right Victor and to be honest I didn't see it like a modern classical ragtime until you mentioned it, but you're right, it does sounds like that and perhaps that's the reason why you guys think the part C is out of place as this clearly is not anywhere close to a ragtime.

Victor, as you are a pianist and had a read through; did you spot any difficult / impossible-to-play spots? (I'm aware of the limitations caused by the size on the hand but there may be ways around that and/or other limitations I did not allow for) ?

Kind regards,

Peter

[PeterG]

Ok, one more thing,

Did anyone try to play through it? I wasn't sure everything could be played well. For example m.82 (in version1). I wondered if that was possible to play at all (I tried but couldn't, but that doesn't say much; I'm a beginner).

Any other comments on playability?

Thanks for the help,

Peter

[PeterG]

FYI.

I've deleted the extra band on soudnclick I made to be able to show you the old and the new version next to each other, so not all links provided in the posts below will work anymore.

Thanks for the feedback I've gotten!

Peter