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

[PeterG]

Hello again,

As said I think there may be not enough happy tunes around to make everyone smile all day. Soooo, why not make another one? This one is called "Fantasy in 3" as I did not have a specific story in mind and used a lot of triplets.

I could not make up my mind whether to use 3 or 5 sharps (Fsharp major or minor so to speak) and switched back and forth several times. This may have caused some uglyness in the score; I did not clean it up (yet), so forgive me for that.

Here's the mp3: http://www.soundclick.com/util/getpl...d=5834914&q=hi

and the (rough print..) pdf (attached).

Enjoy and let me learn from you please !

Peter

P.S. I wondered if I should make it a piece for two piano's in stead of one, so the parts can be simpler (beginners like me can play the parts or at least one part) and the total can have a bit more voice and/or body. What do you think?

[stevel]

Hello again,

As said I think there may be not enough happy tunes around to make everyone smile all day. Soooo, why not make another one? This one is called "Fantasy in 3" as I did not have a specific story in mind and used a lot of triplets.

Peter, this one's definitely happy. It made me smile in two ways - one because it's happy, and two because it's clever. Good job.

I have some comments but first one broad observation: You seem to be at that point in your compositional growth where you've got good ideas and execute them well, but formally, you have what I would call a "patchwork" approach. To explain - many composer "stick together" ideas that don't really belong together in an effort to make their piece longer because they feel the need to (kind of like using repeat bars). I think you're beyond that point because your sections do seem related - but what stands out to me is the transition from one section to the next. It's a little like here's a section, cadence. Here's a new section, cadence, etc. (for the earlier stage of this, the "section" is "here's an unrelated section..."). I'll go into this in more detail as I address some specific points:

1. To intro or not to intro. Intros are like Repeats - people think they need them and just write them, without any thought a lot of time as to whether or not the piece actually demands them. I have to admit that I was shocked when I heard the triplets enter in m.9! In other words, your set-up didn't prepare me for the coming triplets. Now, you may want something "abrupt" like that. But for my money, I think it might be a good idea to look at your intro and see if you can eliminate it, or revise it to include "premonitions" of the triplet figure - that is again if you don't want the "surprise". For example, you bass line might go: F# C# D D C# A-G#-Gn- with the A-G#-Gn being a triplet. Or measure 8 might go F# C# F# C#-E-E# again with the last three being a triplet (though I do like the "bluesiness of m.8 the way it is).

2. I love it when you add the inner voices at 17 - nice change of texture with a maintenance of consistency.

3. I love what happens at m.29 - a great spot to introduce some change, and the long notes help balance out all the "book-chick" we've been hearing.

4. In m. 33 you have the intor here again. Too long. We don't need all 8 bars again - especially if you either keep all 8 bars at the top, or you don't change this spot. I'd eliminate 35-40 or have 34 go directly to 39. Think about it.

5. I really love the way you start having triplets that pick up on the upbeat (or the last of the group of three) in the section beginning m. 56. It adds a welcome change and even the truncated versions at m. 61.

Here's a thought - could you use three different sections - one where the triplets begin on the first of the groups of three, one where they pick up on the last of the group three, and one where they pick up on the 2nd of the group of three?

Anyway, back to the point - I would again maybe like to see this idea of a "pickup triplet" occur a little earlier - kind of a teaser. It's like "hey, new section, new mode, new rhytmic motive". That only serves to separate one section from the next. You may want this (and many works are like this too) but making sections "flow" into each other is usually a desirable trait.

By the way, what you do in the LH in m. 64 is what I'm talking about including a similar thing of in the intro.

6. It's kind of funny that you have 8th notes in m.68 but I think it works because of the ritard and pause.

7. The moderato section is nice - nice change of pace and texture - but, it's too short for my taste. It sounds as if you're going to embark on this developmental section where you're going to treat this wonderful triplet motive contrapuntally to (similar to mm. 41-46) but then you let us down.

8. I've got to say I'm not crazy about the whole quarter-note triplet section. This one sounds the most "hmm, what do I do now" section. It's probably got the least to do with the other sections. Furthermore, I don't feel like you've got an ABA thing happening because we've already had the minor section which is more like the B. I'd scrap it and continue to develop the Moderato - and maybe contrapuntal idea.

Now, the section itself is nice. It would work well in another piece. It doesn't seem to belong in this piece. OR, you're not setting us up for it well, and that goes back to my initial comments and comments about transitions. It's like, all of the sudden, out of nowhere, we've got quarter note triplets. Now, it's kind of clever and sneaky for us savvy listeners - Oh, I get it, he's giving us another version of triplets - sneaky. But, I don't feel it's implemented in quite the right way.

Can we have the QNTriplet earlier? Again to "get us in the mood" for it? Can we do something like play 8th note triplets but start to highlight every other one making QNTrips "rise from" 8th note trips?

Here's another thought - what about 3 forms of triplets in the piece? 16th, 8th, and Quarter (or other values)? 3 sections, 3 types of 3-note groups - damn Peter, now you have to go back and write it in 3/4 :-). But seriously, you might consider the different types of triplets (in addition to the rehymic versions mentioned above).

9. 99-106 is beautiful. This is exactly the kind of thing I mean when I'm talking about making transitions and preparing us for what's to come - you set up the accompaniment - 2 measures only, you set up quarters then triplets (sneak them in). Though it would be a bit much for an intro, and the layered triplet voices are only good because we've heard them before, this would make a great way to intro the main theme - except with the wonderful D chord you've got at the beginning (which I feel you should also consider using here as well).

10. The Allegro is nice and is a good "synopsis" of what we've heard before.

So overall, getting from section to section is a little "weak" or "rough" or something, and the middle section (QNtrips) seems out of place - good ideas though.

As for making a two piano version - I didn't check the whole thing but it looks reasonable. Two people who could play at the skill level it demands would probably be bored with a "watered down" version of each part or something. I think a one piano version is fine, unless you need to make a kids version or can really make a two piano version that contributes to the work.

Yeah - you've got a few notation points to clear up :-).

But Peter, I'm happy, so you accomplished at least one of your musical goals!

Best,
Steve

[stevel]

Oh, I forgot to mention Peter -

Fantasy "IN" 3 makes it sound like it's "IN 3/4".

Older pieces would be Fantasy "a" 3 which means in 3 parts.

Maybe Triplet Fantasy, Triple Fantasy, Triple Play, etc. would be nice kind of "happy" titles :-)

Steve

[PeterG]

Hi Steve,

First things first: on the title...

I had it called "Fantasy for 3" and "Triplets Fantasy" and even a very nice Dutch version "Fis Fantasie met 3" (Fis = F sharp in Dutch and sounds like the Dutch word "vies" = dirty) but got some questions on what my intentions where when I "showed" it (well; let her listen to it) to my wife....("are you thinking kinky stuff here, Peter?").... lol.

I will admit that I also associate "in 3" with 3/4 time but it isn't and yet sometimes it is or at least feels like it and, well, it's meant to be a bit puzzling. I succeeded apparently.

I will sit down and go through all the other stuff now (try some things you suggested)....

One thing I can already tell you now : THANK YOU for all that!

Peter

P.S. I love this forum....

[PeterG]

Ok, a promise is a promise so here we go:

Originally Posted by stevel

I have to admit that I was shocked when I heard the triplets enter in m.9! In other words, your set-up didn't prepare me for the coming triplets. Now, you may want something "abrupt" like that. But for my money, I think it might be a good idea to look at your intro and see if you can eliminate it, or revise it to include "premonitions" of the triplet figure - that is again if you don't want the "surprise". For example, you bass line might go: F# C# D D C# A-G#-Gn- with the A-G#-Gn being a triplet. Or measure 8 might go F# C# F# C#-E-E# again with the last three being a triplet (though I do like the "bluesiness of m.8 the way it is).

You may be right here Steve although I did like the surprise as well. How’s this:
In m.2 and 5 in the left hand to D D (A G# C#)tripet (G# rest A)triplet, leave the rest as they were (for contrast)? This kills the “drama” of the D chord a bit but maybe

Originally Posted by stevel

4. In m. 33 you have the intro here again. Too long. We don't need all 8 bars again

I agree. The intro was repeated here to give some rest from all the triplets dancing around your head before they come again, but it may be somewhat shorter as the whole repeat (this part) is shorter overall anyway. How’s this:
m.34 and 35 as (new) m.1 and 2, then m. 36 and 37 as m.7 and 8, then hit the theme?

Originally Posted by stevel

7. The moderato section is nice - nice change of pace and texture - but, it's too short for my taste. It sounds as if you're going to embark on this developmental section where you're going to treat this wonderful triplet motive contrapuntally to (similar to mm. 41-46) but then you let us down.

Again right on the mark. I loved going into the moderato section and was on my way developing it when the QN-triplets-walz /-float sneaked into my head and I wanted that to be part of it too and worked on that. I lost the counter-melodies in my head for a while and then sort of gave up / forgot about it altogether. A big thank you for you Steve for reminding me; I’ll sit down and give it another go…. I won’t let you down again (I hope)

Originally Posted by stevel

8. I've got to say I'm not crazy about the whole quarter-note triplet section. This one sounds the most "hmm, what do I do now" section. It's probably got the least to do with the other sections. Furthermore, I don't feel like you've got an ABA thing happening because we've already had the minor section which is more like the B. I'd scrap it and continue to develop the Moderato - and maybe contrapuntal idea.

Originally Posted by stevel

Now, the section itself is nice. It would work well in another piece. It doesn't seem to belong in this piece. OR, you're not setting us up for it well, and that goes back to my initial comments and comments about transitions. It's like, all of the sudden, out of nowhere; we've got quarter note triplets. Now, it's kind of clever and sneaky for us savvy listeners - Oh, I get it, he's giving us another version of triplets - sneaky. But, I don't feel it's implemented in quite the right way.

Well, I see why you feel this way and indeed I must have not set you up properly for it I guess. The first 4 bars were intended as an “intro” for it but they do not work well enough to set you up enough.
I like this part in it as it gives rest and floats you a bit. You have been happy-hopping along part A, still hopping but a bit more serious in part B so now time for R&R in this part C before hopping home. At least that was the intent and, as said above, this part sneaked in before I knew it. The melody is based on the main theme (at least I thought so) but I guess it’s not very recognizable as the part B version.
As I will rewrite part B I will also give the transition to C some more thought.

Originally Posted by stevel

As for making a two piano version - I didn't check the whole thing but it looks reasonable. Two people who could play at the skill level it demands would probably be bored with a "watered down" version of each part or something. I think a one piano version is fine, unless you need to make a kids version or can really make a two piano version that contributes to the work.

For the moment I’m not so confident that I will embark on a second, grown up, piano part because I feel the second part, like this one, should be able to stand on its own too. The thought is there in my mind to stay I think, so perhaps later, when I grow up…….

Steve, Thanks so much for the comments and the help!

Kind regards,

Peter

[stevel]

You may be right here Steve although I did like the surprise as well.

Me too - so I think that's ultimately a decision you need to make - I say try it both ways and see which works best. But let's assume you're going to try my suggestions...

How’s this:
In m.2 and 5 in the left hand to D D (A G# C#)tripet (G# rest A)triplet, leave the rest as they were (for contrast)? This kills the “drama” of the D chord a bit but maybe

I think this is a viable solution - and I don't think it messes up the D chord at all - the "drama" from the D is in the RH held notes and really the LH stuff is just filler after you've played the Root - by beat 2 we really understand this chord and introducing your motive (which is what I'd hoped you'd try :-) seems very logical - you can fool around with the pitch order to get what you want.

I agree. The intro was repeated here to give some rest from all the triplets dancing around your head before they come again, but it may be somewhat shorter as the whole repeat (this part) is shorter overall anyway. How’s this:
m.34 and 35 as (new) m.1 and 2, then m. 36 and 37 as m.7 and 8, then hit the theme?

Yes, that's the kind of logic I think I"m missing in those parts. I think is will solve two problems at once.

Again right on the mark. I loved going into the moderato section and was on my way developing it when the QN-triplets-walz /-float sneaked into my head and I wanted that to be part of it too and worked on that.

I'll tell you that happens to me CONSTANTLY. It's annoying. I've had to really discipline to really question everything because sometimes I start on something and then suddenly get 1000 ideas pouring in. It's hard sometimes to say that just because the idea was "inspired" at the time that it's really not the right time or place for it.

What I would suggest is maybe considering the QNtrips as a second Movement?

I had the reverse happen to me - I had what I thought was going to be two movements, then, after trying forever to come up with a B section I suddenly realized the A section of mvmt II would make a perfect idea (with some adjustment) to be my B section of mvmt I. The worst thing for me is, I'll come up with some idea, and then start "looking for" things about it - hey, it's 3, so why don't I make this a trio, and 3 movement, in triplets, in 3/4, with three sections in each movement, with 3 note motives based on the interval of a 3rd - and so on - I get over-excited and end basically carried away. I have to at some point step back and say - no, what I've got is good enough. Use those other ideas on another piece.

I lost the counter-melodies in my head for a while and then sort of gave up / forgot about it altogether. A big thank you for you Steve for reminding me; I’ll sit down and give it another go…. I won’t let you down again (I hope)

You're not letting me down. The reason I point these things out Peter is I've found over the years that often composers have things they think are weak about their work. When I make suggestions, my goal is to pinpoint what I think is weak so a composer can either confirm that they have the same concerns, or can figure out how to narrow down a broader concern. Your saying "I agree" and "hit the mark" lets me know I've still got it :-).

And I do the same thing - I can't think of a single piece I haven't shown to anyone and asked for critiques on to help me - basically justify - what I've done. If I think it's weak, and someone agrees, then it's probably weak.

Well, I see why you feel this way and indeed I must have not set you up properly for it I guess. The first 4 bars were intended as an “intro” for it but they do not work well enough to set you up enough.

Yeah, I don't think so. And again, that's OK, and you may want something like that (a surprise again), but given the context of what we've heard so far, I don't think it works the way it is. That's not to say it can't be made to work, or that it can't be eliminated - that's your job :-)

I like this part in it as it gives rest and floats you a bit. You have been happy-hopping along part A, still hopping but a bit more serious in part B so now time for R&R in this part C before hopping home. At least that was the intent and, as said above, this part sneaked in before I knew it. The melody is based on the main theme (at least I thought so) but I guess it’s not very recognizable as the part B version.

I think your philosophy is great here Peter - I just don't know that it was executed in the most effective way possible. Maybe, an extended Moderato will be sufficient for the "serious" part. And then maybe, as another movement, the Rock and Roll part would make a nice contrast. And maybe that's a chance to play with the main theme from the first movement (ancient dance pairs used to do this all the time - use the same basic melodic material in two different versions, usually called "dance" and "after dance" in whatever language). You could try some of those rhythmic alterations I was talking about, or simply "hint at" the melody from movment I, etc.

As I will rewrite part B I will also give the transition to C some more thought.

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

For the moment I’m not so confident that I will embark on a second, grown up, piano part because I feel the second part, like this one, should be able to stand on its own too. The thought is there in my mind to stay I think, so perhaps later, when I grow up…….

Well, I didn't want to poo-poo your ambition, but I agree that it's something that is basically unnecessary. I think 2 piano works should have to complimentary parts that are each a significant part of the whole - in other words, it should BE WRITTEN for 2 pianos from the outset. Otherwise, 2 piano stuff should be reserved for reductions of orchestral music. "Arrangements" for two pianos of other works only tend to be successful if there's a bona fide reason for arranging them.

Keep up the good work Peter!

Steve

[PeterG]

Steve,

As we speak (or more rightfully so : type) I'm all over the Moderato part and taking a small break to see what's new in the forum....

One thing that demanded a reply right away: I always thought R&R = rest & recuperation (as in "you must go on extended R&R now...." ; from movies so to speak). You get that with foreigners like me..
But you got me a new idea as wel; rock 'n roll part? I like that thought... let's see what the 'ole grey cells come up with..

Thanks and have a good one Steve !

[Student]

First I want to congratulate you. You write very melodically and enjoy the natural exuberance of your music. I also want you to know, that the comments I'm going to leave are primarily critical. I always notice things that stick out first, but I want you to know that I enjoyed listening to your piece even if I don't say another positive thing (I'll try to, there are definitely positive things to say).


Most of my comment I'm going to essentially repeat everything Steve has said. The "patchwork" feeling of your work is very noticeable and I don't think it really lends much to the piece. My teacher in college told me that I had a lot of ideas, but I should try to save a few other pieces. With so many ideas in one piece you don't have time to develop them and it seems like you're sticking pieces together. They fit, but they lack a defined whole or an overall structure. You try to solve this by repeating certain sections, which helps a lot, but I think your music would be enjoyable if you chose a couple ideas before you started and said that you would only use those ideas. Either that or try using a classical form (sonata or rondo for example), that always helps to provide unity.

Your introduction is nice, but it seems unrelated to the rest of the piece. If you can find a way to do it and maintain integrity, try and scrap it or tie it into the A section.

Out of curiosity, is there any reason for some of the strong dissonances (m10 b3 {G#A#C#D#}, for example)? I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest with them.

Strong bass with quite a bit of movement throughout the piece, it gives a sense of direction.

Actually, maybe I should wait to review it until after it's rewritten since you're probably fixing everything I could say, I went into automatic review mode. Sorry about that.

[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.

[PeterG]

Originally Posted by Student

First I want to congratulate you. You write very melodically and enjoy the natural exuberance of your music.

Thank you Student. I appreciate that.

Originally Posted by Student

Out of curiosity, is there any reason for some of the strong dissonances (m10 b3 {G#A#C#D#}, for example)? I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest with them.

Uhm, which one(s)? m10 b3 (mesure 10, bar 3, right?) shows a D chord in my version. But to answer in general sense I don't think in details normally. Well, at work I do; I'm an engineer and good in analyzing things, but when it comes to music I'm no engineer at all. I take on music woth the gut feel. When I'm writing I just listen to what I hear in my mind, what I have written down and what sounds "right" in that place. There are some less usual chords in there to, let's say, create some contrast with the tonal ones and create some uneasyness that I can then resolve.
In short; I can't give you a specific reason, 9 out of 10 times I just do what seems good to me...

Originally Posted by Student

Actually, maybe I should wait to review it until after it's rewritten since you're probably fixing everything I could say, I went into automatic review mode. Sorry about that.

That quite alright; all reviews are good as I learn from all that I hear. Please do some more with the re-write...

Thanks for the time to listen and comment !

Peter