Impromptu? or Theme with Variations?

[PeterG]

Greetings everyone,

Attached a piece I think is either an impromptu (whatever that may be exactly) or a theme with 4 variations and a coda as it's a returning set of chords, 2x 8 bars long with an 8 bar coda.

As usual I'm hoping you can may be listen and comment?

the soundfile is on soundclick:
Theme and Variations in A minor
lo-fi URL: http://www.soundclick.com/util/getpl...d=6031445&q=lo
hi-fi URL: http://www.soundclick.com/util/getpl...d=6031445&q=hi

The score is attached.

Regards,

Peter

[stevel]

Originally Posted by PeterG

Greetings everyone,

Attached a piece I think is either an impromptu (whatever that may be exactly) or a theme with 4 variations and a coda as it's a returning set of chords, 2x 8 bars long with an 8 bar coda.

As usual I'm hoping you can may be listen and comment?

the soundfile is on soundclick:
Theme and Variations in A minor
lo-fi URL: http://www.soundclick.com/util/getpl...d=6031445&q=lo
hi-fi URL: http://www.soundclick.com/util/getpl...d=6031445&q=hi

The score is attached.

Regards,

Peter

Peter,

Look up the words Passamezzo and Passacaglia and see what you think :-)

Steve

[stevel]

Originally Posted by PeterG

Greetings everyone,


As usual I'm hoping you can may be listen and comment?


Peter

OK, first off Peter, this is in C Major and "ends wrong". Traditionally-speaking, pieces end and begin in the same key. They might begin on a V chord, or as in Beethoven's 1st symphony, a V7/IV, but the mian key is established pretty quickly and we return to that by the end. The only typical exceptions are pieces that are part of a larger set or connect other material (so a bridging piece might begin in C and end in G if it connected two pieces in those keys).

If you say "X in A minor" and it starts in C, everyone is going to think you really don't know what you're doing.

Now, that said, you can certainly do something that's NOT traditional. However, if so, don't use a traditional naming scheme for a piece that uses a non traditional key scheme. Simply call it "Improptu" or whatever.

Now, musically-speaking, it's kind of refreshing to cadence in A minor at the end of the first section then go on to C major. It "works".

I'm going to stop here Peter though and ask you something:

What are you trying to write?

If you're trying to write derivative schlock, then, you've got it. No need for anyone's comments. I don't mean that as an insult. Read on please...

If you're trying to write "classical" style, you don't have it. If you're trying to have "your own voice" you don't have that either.

I'm going to explain to you why:

There are thousands of people who have taken some piano lessons and who do a little writing. What they do is basically take the piano music they've learned - which is all they typically know - and write pieces using that as a model. The problem is - and this is perpetuated by music teachers, theory texts, academic musical instruction, and so on - is that they do not really understand the style which they are trying to emulate.

Look on the internet - you'll see all of these discussions about "how do I write a chord progression" discussing classical style music. The problem is, since classical music is archaic, most people come to it through a different route - piano lessons, from popular music or jazz, etc. And Pianists don't learn MUSIC, they learn to PLAY music - for them, it's about reading notes and reproducing them (don't be insulted pianists, I'm exaggerating to make a point). For those coming from the pop music world, they learned to strum chords on guitar, etc. so they approach music from a chord progression standpoint. Thus we end up with "composers" who simply write an Alberti accompaniment under a melody and call it "Sonatina in C" (and usually they attach "Opus 1" or some other such ridiculously grandiose and archaic term to it). Or, they come up with a chord progression and "score" it for Strings and put a melody on top, calling it a "String Quartet" or "Symphony".

Now, if these people are trying to emulate the REAL music, then they are doing a piss-poor job.

I will grant that, some people will say "I'm not trying to copy that style exactly - this is my own take on it". That's all well and good but there's thousands (if not millions) of "my own take" that all have the exact same "take" - it's because "their take" is based on a lack of comprehension of the style not their actually trying to be different (granted, a few are so totally clueless and inexperienced that it really is their own take).

Now, even if you master your own "take" on the style Peter (which it seems like where you are heading) what you end up with is something that will basically be unfavorable compared to the original, and, which will get lumped in with the rest of the "cheap imitators" (whether yours is the best of that heap will make no difference to people).

I could sit here all day and tell you what's "wrong" with this piece of music from a traditional standpoint. I could also tell you what's "wrong" with it from a viewpoint which still values some of the traditional concepts even in a modernistic setting (for example, having the doubled G on beat 2 of measure 5 approached in similar motion and the parallel octaves following).

But you, like many, might say, in defense, "but I'm not writing *that* style, I'm writing my own style". OK, but *your* style then is so close to the original that no matter how many times you say "but it's *my* style", people will still hear it as yet another imitation of pre-existing music.

Now, imitating pre-existing music is not bad in itself - one of the most famous modern works is the music from Star Wars (you young-uns know this as Episode IV). An astute listener will hear Brahms, Holst, Stravinsky, and so on - in some cases not only imitated, but aped. But even though it imitates, it does so well - I'm sure you've heard plenty of cheesy imitations of Star Wars haven't you? Star Wars, while imitating, does so in a highly professional and astute manner - in other words, Williams knew exactly what he was doing. But those cheesy imitators simply copied the things they could grasp, and tried to "fake it" - they got the Trumpet Fanfares, but they certainly couldn't do the accompaniment like Elgar or Williams (Vaughn Williams for that matter).

So when people hear a piano piece like that I'm describing, they know that you "got the chords", and you "got the accompinament pattern", and you "got how to do 4/4" and you "got how to make each "variation" busier", but they also know that you did NOT GET: understanding keys, modulation, voicing and doubling, a good sense of harmonic progression and so on.

It's similar to understanding I - vi - ii - V and writing a Jazz piece. Yes, that progression is stylistically appropriate for Jazz. But it's not all there is. In fact, that progression appears in Mozart, Jazz, and Rock and Roll - and what makes each one different is the elements of the style that are DIFFERENT, not the same. So all these people out here understand that classical music is made up of "chords", "keys", "notes", "meters" and things like that, but what they don't understand are the elements of the style that really make the piece sound like what it's supposed to be.

Go on Sibelius.com Peter and look at the hundreds of pieces that are "contemporary classical" for solo piano that just plain suck. It's no different from the amount of crap you hear on the radio that sucks. The reason is, you got one band that comes out and is good, then you get record companies pushing (or even creating) 100 sound-alikes - that are all cheesy imitations. Even if the imitators are good, they still end up being compared to the original - unfavorably usually.

So what are you trying to write Peter? Do you want to learn how to write this style of music correctly, or, do you want to chart your own course?

Continuing to do what you're doing is neither path, and, it does your talent and desire an injustice. Yes, people will politely applaud and say "nice work Peter". But is that what you want? If so, you're on track. But if you want something more, then I think you need to start doing a little self-evaluation and see in what direction you want to take your music.

As a side note, it doesn't really matter which direction you take because the skills you learn in one are readily transferable to the other. The problem with what you're doing now is, you're not really gaining any skills other than trial and error discovery of what you feel comfortable with. That's not bad of course, but there's a lot more out there.

Peace,
Steve

[PeterG]

Originally Posted by stevel

What are you trying to write?
....
....
Peace,
Steve

Gosh Steve,

This is some serious food for thought. Which in itself will mean no internal peace for me until I can answer that question..

Thanks for being honest, you should know by now I really appreciate that.

Peter

P.S. trial and error is about the only thing available to me. There were times when I wanted to have composition classes, but with a full time job and kids it's sort of impossible to fit in. Learning online consumes so much time reading stuff that's really not teaching you anything that I decided the time was better spend writing (trial and error so to speak). And my piano teacher really doesn't want to help out in this field because she wants to focus on my play (which I like beause that's way behind the writing....). And finally I'm not sure I want to write things that I don't like (the style of) for the sake of learning. It's a hobby....

[stevel]

[quote=PeterG;12783]

P.S. trial and error is about the only thing available to me. There were times when I wanted to have composition classes, but with a full time job and kids it's sort of impossible to fit in. Learning online consumes so much time reading stuff that's really not teaching you anything that I decided the time was better spend writing (trial and error so to speak). /quote]

I went through this period Peter - and going off a quote from the movie "Throe Momma from the Train" where the characters - as budding novelists - kept saying "a writer writes". I thought "a composer composes" and I had heard people say things like "you should write something everyday".

Well, I tried that. I wrote something little every day. Then, a year later, I realised I had 365 short, very similar pieces, that, while they had improved through my learning from error, they were still not what I wanted to be writing.

I decided then that it was better to do focused experiments or pieces with a particular goal in mind. For example, rather than just writing "a sonatina" on Monday because I could accomplish that in a day, I set down and said, ooh, check this out: If I go from B D F# A to A D F# B, even though they're the exact same chord, they sound totally different SIMPLY because of the voicing. This spawned two things - a simple experiment with those two harmonies and a melody which I tried to enhance the differences in those two (or one) chords, and another piece that was an experiment in voicings (which while very simple, I was very happy with).

I feel like this "focused experimentation" was much more valuable than "trial and error". I think with focused experimentation, I could take away something useful. With trial and error, I tended to take away either "well here's an error, how do I fix it" or just total frustration.

So I understand your position. But I have a suggestions based on what you've "errored" with with this piece, and maybe you can do some focused experimentation. Look up Passacaglia and Passamezzo like I said. Then see if you can write one. Rather than writing something that you're not even sure what it is (T&E) start with something you already know the form for, and work from there (F.E.). This gives you a working frame of reference, and some fixed variables, and then you can concentrate on filling in the blanks.

So keep writing - just try and concentrate on a particular aspect, rather than trying to write "a piece" necessarily.

Best,
Steve

[PeterG]

Hi Steve,

You might have noticed already that my tunes do tend to highlight a certain aspect more than others; a piece with lot's of trills as an example, a tune based on a theme and variations now. This is my way of experimenting and, yes, I usually have little clue about the form of them.
Having said that, I don't like experimental compositions that have no definite end form; I don't want to write down a little piece of something that will not have heads and tails in the end... I can story them for a whil until I know what head to put on, but other than that, just leave them be as training?... Nah.

Most so far (if not all come to think of it) were written as a song I guess; verse, verse, intermediate varying the theme and the mood, then reprise to the original theme or thought. Or other variations to that. I have a tendency to always switch between major and minor mode in my pieces (I can't keep that minor mode out of my pieces even if I write a happy tune, it sneaks in before I notice it) and want to go back to the opening statement for proper closure.

This one in essence too, but, maybe Schuberts Impromptu Op.142, No3 in Bflat (theme with variations) did influence the form (I liked that when I heard it) as it is the same theme but also had a story developing over it. I tried to put a bigger story line over the variations.

I know you and I are worlds apart; a professor in Music Theory versus an amateur with a great love for music and only little knowledge on music theory (and even little clue on my own talent I guess; my oboe teacher always advised to "find a proper paying job in stead of going into music" and I so far assumed it was a lack of talent that triggered him).

I'm driven by the need to give musical form to moods and thoughts and in the process learn from others by listening and remembering and, if I can, reading the scores with it to understand how it was written and what's possible at all.

I still have no good answer on your previous question, but I do know I want to write for piano so that I can play them myself eventually.

Thanks for all that I can learn from you,

Peter

[VicDiesel]

Originally Posted by stevel

.....

Brutal, but highly entertaining and oh-so true....

Victor.

[PeterG]

Originally Posted by VicDiesel

Brutal, but highly entertaining and oh-so true....

Victor.

But what about the music? Did you like it at all? If not, why?

[VicDiesel]

Originally Posted by PeterG

But what about the music? Did you like it at all? If not, why?

Oh, it was pleasant enough to listen to. 1/ I didn't catch a clear enough melody or otherwise unifying idea. It was the same mood, but not much deeper than that. There were some motifs, but not really a theme. 2/ As Steve remarked, your variations "get busier", but the material essentially stays the same. Take a look at some variations by Mozart and later composers: you really need to make big differences between variation and another otherwise it just runs together.

Victor.

[PeterG]

Ok, thank you Victor!

Peter

P.S. did you ever get around to play one of my tunes?