|
|
Post by fuguestate on Jul 25, 2018 23:03:59 GMT
Alright. I'm posting this here 'cos gx and Mike Hewer asked for it. Score: Gm4_4.3.pdf (299.22 KB) To be honest, the score needs work, even though I consider the music itself to be more-or-less finished as of Jan 2015. Unfortunately, I have not been able to record this myself thus far, due to various reasons, so the score is all you have right now. But perhaps gx can make something of it, and I trust Mike Hewer can hear it in his head anyway.  Sorry, the rest of you will have to wait for the audio. Can't promise when it will actually happen, but it's on my todo list... for 3 years.  This piece holds a special place for me, because it was what got me started on composing again after having abandoned composition for years for various reasons. But the composition bug merely lay dormant, and one day a little rhythm came to my head, tempting me to play around with it a little. Then it gradually revealed itself as being related to a motif that had been sitting in my head since many years ago, from an abandoned symphony sketch. One thing led to another, and before I knew it, I had composed large portions of this piece in my head. I won't bore you further with the dreary story, but in a nutshell, I ended up composing again, found the Ning forum, met you guys, and ... the rest is history, as they say. On another uninteresting side note, I mentally hear many passages in this piece as being played by an orchestra. So far, however, I haven't dared attempt to orchestrate it. Yet. Perhaps one day... This does mean, however, that a lot of the LH accompaniment is just "pianistic filler" in my mind, and can probably be substituted for more elaborate material should you feel like taking some creative liberties in playing it. (Hint, hint, gx ). Oh, also, I tend to play this piece with a truckload of rubatos, sudden tempo/dynamic changes, dramatic pauses, and diverse interpretations (which is why it's so hard to get a tolerable computer performance). So feel free to go wild with it. |
|
|
|
Post by gx on Jul 26, 2018 2:01:22 GMT
Hey HS.. Just taking a look.. … I was noticing that m151 seemed redundant, and threw the proportion of that section off.
I thought it worked better just to skip it, and it seemed to make more sense. Just thought I'd ask.. It being 8 pages, w some big leaps near the end, a bit challenging to get w/o memorization…
(little touches of Rach and Ludwig?)
It has a nice flow to it.. The extended sequences are fun. I like where it goes into Gb major.
ps..
What do you think of the idea - in m89. the last 3 eighths in the bass being descending octaves - C, Bb A ?
|
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Jul 26, 2018 3:22:39 GMT
Hey HS.. Just taking a look.. … I was noticing that m151 seemed redundant, and threw the proportion of that section off. [...] Hmm, funny you find that bar awkward. I see it as a transitional bar with a subtle harmonic shift to segue into the next bar. Though it's entirely possible the harmonic shift is too subtle and needs to be written differently. Yeah, it is a bit on the long side. The way I remember the leaps at the end is by thinking of it as separate bass line and chords. Definitely Ludwig.  Especially mm.76-78. Don't know about Rach. Perhaps subconsciously? I do hear the passage building up to the G minor climax as having orchestral high wind trills, Shostakovich 8th style, though. And the ending chords are a shameless adaptation of the ending of Sibelius 5th. Thanks! I was afraid the Gb major section would be seen as redundant, too long, or extraneous to the overall sonata structure. Very glad you liked it! |
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Jul 26, 2018 3:29:00 GMT
Re: m.89: excellent idea! In fact, I wanted to write mm.88-89 with a more intense LH part. But your idea is simpler. |
|
|
|
Post by gx on Jul 26, 2018 4:01:59 GMT
"Hmm, funny you find that bar awkward. I see it as a transitional bar with a subtle harmonic shift to segue into the next bar. Though it's entirely possible the harmonic shift is too subtle and needs to be written differently. "
I don't find bar 151 awkward harmonically, but w that bar, the section beginning w a pick up to 146 is 8 bars long, where the next section begins at 154.. I found that if shortened by one bar, (m151 being a good candidate to 'sacrifice' :)The Bb major -' tranquil' bar could serve 2 purposes - (if the section before were 7 bars) -the end of previous section, and the beginning of the next..
Otherwise to my mind it feels like were waiting for the 8 bars to finish.. maybe it's just me, but try it and see..
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Jul 26, 2018 9:06:39 GMT
Teoh..fantasiaIn the light of recent talk about interpretation, try this Teoh......... It's not absolutely perfect, but that's life and it was calling me. Hope you like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Jul 26, 2018 11:04:14 GMT
Teoh..fantasiaIn the light of recent talk about interpretation, try this Teoh......... It's not absolutely perfect, but that's life and it was calling me. Hope you like it. Blimey and applause at the composer and performer equally. |
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Jul 26, 2018 14:15:34 GMT
Teoh..fantasiaIn the light of recent talk about interpretation, try this Teoh......... It's not absolutely perfect, but that's life and it was calling me. Hope you like it. Wow. That's amazing!! Thanks a ton for taking the time to record this! You have some interesting interpretations of certain passages that made them sound differently from what I have in mind. But that's the nature of interpretation, and I like it. It casts the notes in an interesting new light. Now I'm curious how gx would interpret it. I really should try to get my own playing of this recorded, for comparison. I don't know which version I'll end up recording -- I play it differently almost every time -- but it may lead to some fun discussions, maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Jul 26, 2018 14:27:48 GMT
P.S. Now I'm wondering if I should delete some indications from the score, to allow for even more diverse interpretations. Like the rit's and the acceleration / deceleration / tempo change marks. While they sort-of reflect the way I sometimes play it, I wonder how things would turn out if I left it all to the performer's discretion.
One thing I've always found curious about this piece is how it lends itself to quite different playing styles and still "works". Unlike most of my other pieces where I have a very specific sound in mind, this one seems to resist being pinned down to a particular interpretation. I always felt, if I myself play it so differently each time, who am I to arbitrarily decide on one narrow interpretation?
|
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Jul 26, 2018 16:30:31 GMT
[...] I don't find bar 151 awkward harmonically, but w that bar, the section beginning w a pick up to 146 is 8 bars long, where the next section begins at 154.. I found that if shortened by one bar, (m151 being a good candidate to 'sacrifice' :)The Bb major -' tranquil' bar could serve 2 purposes - (if the section before were 7 bars) -the end of previous section, and the beginning of the next.. Otherwise to my mind it feels like were waiting for the 8 bars to finish.. maybe it's just me, but try it and see.. Hmm. I'm trying to hear what it would sound like in my head, and I'm having a hard time "getting" what you're saying. I'll have to find some time to sit down and actually play it that way to see. Maybe I'm missing something obvious... but I've always thought of that passage as flowing naturally from one bar to another. Didn't think anybody would find fault with it. When I first read your comment I thought you were referring to passages with actual repetition, like mm.52-54 or mm.96-98, or the long sequence of chords in mm.99-105. Or perhaps the length of the adagio cantabile section.  But it's perfectly possible that I've just gotten so used to the way it is, that I'm missing an obvious flaw. So I'm gonna hafta try it out sometime to see. Thanks for taking the time to engage with my piece! |
|
|
|
Post by gx on Jul 26, 2018 17:23:04 GMT
" that I'm missing an obvious flaw." No, I don't see it as a flaw per se . Though foreshortening creates the illusion that m154 is the last measure of the section,,, but also as one continues listening, realizes that is is also the 1st measure of the next section… Kind of overlapping sections (and somewhat thwarting expectations) giving a touch of propulsion to the next section, as it begins 'early'. This proportion idea of a section is a crucial aspect to my composing… One that pulls back the lens on the surrounding sections.. Perhaps I am not being clear enough. Also i realize that this aspect in particular is one I'm constantly musing over. And it sounded just fine, listening to Mike's rendering. Mike's rendering was wonderful. He employed a lot of that rubato and especially that molt rit. as you had mentioned.. Personally, I would hear it moving a bit quicker, w somewhat less motion sickness  But I have to hand it to him - he took your suggestion to heart! Great job, Mike! |
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Jul 26, 2018 17:59:04 GMT
gx Ahh, I think I'm finally getting what you're trying to say. By compressing the progression in that passage you sorta "troll" the listener into thinking the passage is still continuing when in fact it has already segued into the next passage. Very, very interesting idea indeed! Now I really need to actually play it out this way at the piano to hear what it sounds like. I'm not 100% sure this fits in with the kind of mood I'm going for in this particular case, but it's such an intriguing idea that I really must try it out, just to see for myself how it would work. Much thanks for the tip! Re: Mike's rendering: yeah it was really amazing, and done on such a short order too! Though, like you, I would have done the pacing a little differently, perhaps with a little less "motion sickness" -- and this is not meant as criticism, but just how I would have done things differently: in mm.17-18 I'd only hold the "rit" for about 1-1.5 beats, then plunge headlong into m.19. (Perhaps the "rit" is misleading in this case and in the parallel passage in m.125 -- I threw it in just for kicks last minute, and in retrospect perhaps shouldn't have.) OTOH, I tend to play mm.90-98 extremely slowly, almost exaggeratedly so, perhaps even with decelerando throughout, then after holding the last 3 8ths in m.98 I'd plunge straight into m.99 with the tempo suddenly jolting back to where it was. Then in m.102-103 I'd suddenly pull the tempo back again, and then revert back to a gradual decel in mm.104-105. And mm.106-114 I tend to play with the melody in quasi-soloistic style, and at a dramatically slower, drawn-out tempo. (I sorta hear it as where, if I were to orchestrate this, I'd have a clarinet or english horn solo, kinda like the oboe solo in Beethoven's 5th, 1st mvmt. Sometimes I also add an ornamental note or two to the last 2 bars, though I didn't end up notating this in the score.) Similarly, I tend to take mm.166-189 very slowly, maybe as slow as 60bpm or thereabouts (and I was actually pondering last night whether to write the accom in 16ths instead of 8ths, if I were to play it at ≤60bpm), then the last beat of m.189 onwards quite briskly, in a decisive, wrapping-up kind of way, until m.200 where I tend to draw out the ff chords almost to quarter note lengths. The final chords I tend to play as staccato, rather than sustained. I did like the way Mike drew them out, though, and let the final chord ring on. It's a different kind of ending than I usually hear it, but I think it works very well too. Hooray for different interpretations! Other times, I've played mm.166 to the end at a slightly less exaggeratedly slow tempo, but maintain the tempo unchanged at m.190 (disregarding the "piu mosso") until the fermatas. It gives a somewhat different feeling to the ending, a bit less "wrapping up" and somewhat heavier and thicker. But it all depends on my mood when playing it. As I mentioned, I tend to play this piece in rather different ways at different times.
|
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Jul 26, 2018 18:08:33 GMT
P.S., sometimes I play triplets instead of 32nds in the LH chords in mm.90-91, if I decide to pull the tempo back far enough. Sometimes I omit the 32nds in m.92. But other times I play mm.90-98 only slightly slower than the preceding passage, and then I'd just stick to the 32nds, or maybe even sneakily play them as single 16ths instead. Artistic liberties, and all that, y'know. |
|
Especially mm.76-78. Don't know about Rach. Perhaps subconsciously? I do hear the passage building up to the G minor climax as having orchestral high wind trills, Shostakovich 8th style, though. And the ending chords are a shameless adaptation of the ending of Sibelius 5th.
But I have to hand it to him - he took your suggestion to heart! Great job, Mike!