Leaderboard

Wow! I actually think this piece has many qualities that make it a convincing imitation of this french baroque style, so overall, very well done. Some things I want to praise is your use of ornamentation, the tempo and time signature changes in the Passacailles, solid structure, your use of the same dotted rhythmic motive throughout both movements, and occasional, but functional dissonance. There are some sections in your piece where I think that, despite this "lute" style of French Baroque you are going for, even in the non lute sections, some of the intervals are too wide (like E4 to Bb5), to the point that even if they could be rolled, or even shared by both hands, they could be slightly unidiomatic, especially with all of the ornaments going on and the different voices, so just something to think about. Another thing I want to mention, is the lack of articulation. Sure, you have ornaments, but surprisingly, as opposed to Bach's music and other baroque composers, this is actually pretty common for the French Baroque tradition, leaving it up to the performers. Overall, I think this is a great imitation, I think you did a wonderful job on this experiment, and I look forward to see where you take this piece moving on!

Hi everyone! I'm currently working on a 4 movement Piano Sonata in E minor, and I've already written the first movement, at around a little over 10 minutes in length alone. Im 15 years old, and although I'm a classically trained pianist studying at the peabody preparatory, I'm a self taught composer, so I'd appreciate any feedback on notation, structure, and really anything else that could benefit the piece, which could help me refine further. The piece is in sonata form, with the A and B themes in the exposition both lasting from m.1-163 (A - m.1-82, B - m.83-163), a development section (with a brief 24 measure Fugato on the main theme from m.21-37) lasting from m.164-219, and then the recap from m.220-293. The piece goes through many modulations, occasional complex polyrhythms, chromaticism, complex late-romantic/impressionist harmonies, cross-staff textures, delayed resolutions, distant key relationships, using "deceptive" major keys, and it ends the exposition in B major, the dominant, rather than G major the relative major. The development begins with the fugato in D# minor, and then after going through A# minor, G# minor, Ab major, breaking the fugato, and E major, it begins the recap back in E minor, moving through a few more keys to finally reach E major in the end. For this sonata, I'm very inspired by liszt (both his more virtuosic showpieces and his more introspective late works), especially with how he uses thematic development and combines "mephisto" drama with lyrical spirituality. In the beginning of my piece, you have the main motive of the entire piece, what I call the "B octave motive", since it's just octaves in both hands repeating the note B, but this single motive (both rhythmically and melodically) can be found in almost every section of the piece, from the tempestuous A theme, to the spiritual, watery and flowing B theme. The polar opposite contrast between the A and B themes creates both immense technical and musical demands for the performer, while still being idiomatic. Additionally, many of the ideas in this sonata, come from my own improvisations over the years, which I think helps give me a little bit of a distinct voice, but I'd like to know the perspectives of others. As I already mentioned, all feedback is appreciated! Note: the first link is me playing a slightly cut version of the exposition, and links 2 and 3 show me playing the parts I cut out from the first link. Links: https://youtu.be/MyptBsYMNiw https://youtube.com/shorts/-kIa8oVrUg4 https://youtube.com/shorts/_eLFRSilBzs https://youtube.com/shorts/_lOHz4Nz5qE https://youtu.be/qlEPGqwAq64 Piano Sonata in E Minor - Full Score.pdf

Yes, reviewing sketches or “unfinished works” is easy—you start by taking a quick look to spot obvious “mistakes” or answer the author’s questions. But I think one should be honest. Reviewing compositions—as is the case here in the forum—is inherently somewhat “unfair” due to the unequal conditions: On one side is the reviewer, who generally spends no more than an hour on a review (in most cases, even less). On the other side is the composer, who has literally spent dozens of days or even weeks working on its piece and therefore knows it in incomparably greater detail than someone who has only listened to it once or twice. That is why it is much more difficult to provide feedback on “finished” works if one tries not to look for mistakes and does not want to suggest changing anything fundamental about the piece as a whole. A review can therefore only be a kind of analysis (and that is exactly what I did when I went through the fugue and identified the expositions and fugue entries, etc.) or a description of the impression the listener had. Thanks. I compared it to the original recording of your actual YouTube video. Yes, they do differ (slightly). But to make an substantial judgment about which “improvements” I’d welcome and which changes I wouldn’t like, I need more time to listen to them. Since the nuances are usually subtle and not noticeable the first time around, I’d add both versions to my playlist and listen to them repeatedly while out for a walk (that is always my method to proof my compositions if there is something „rattling“ …) Thank you for your permission. I can’t promise to work on it in the near future, so let’s see whenever I’ll have the time.