Coda

1. Bortkiewicz - PC No. 3. "Per aspera ad astra", what better subtitle could there be for such a dramatic work. Really a contrast from his first two PC's, which were frivolous and bland (2 is almost cheesy, no forgiveness for its one-hand nature, 1 is typical Romantic but shallow). 2. Lyapunov - PC No. 2. Lyapunov anything. What else do I have to say? 3. Rautavaara - PC No. 1. What a great piece, modern but still passionate. The kinetic final movement leaves me feeling like I just ran the Iditarod. 4. Arensky - Fantasia on a Russian Theme (not strictly PC but hey). Great short little piece with just enough drama and brilliance. 5. Rach - 2, of course. The heartthrob of all pc literature. I find Chopin and Liszt's orchestral/concerto works lacking.

Paganini gets credit for intuitively redefining how the violin was supposed to be played, with violence and screeching sforzandos. Chopin lasts because he introduced the romantic touch and found a new sonority in the modern piano. I suppose both were technically brilliant, but Chopin wrote music that people would actually listen to. I am sure you meant 'infinitely,' mate.

I really enjoy listening to this one, because the variations in the middle are unique and exciting. However, when I view the score I am forced to look elsewhere for intrigue. The only thing that I find funny in your notatition is, of course, the ubiquity of the accent mark. Many others have said it, but perhaps I can reword their complaints - it is not commonly used as articulation indicative of melody. What I am familiar with as Chopin is a style of music combing different layers and contrapuntal lines to bring out the melody, which you have skillfully done. I cite his Polonaise in Ab (Op 53). Take a look at the sostenuto section before the final recapitulation and coda. He has a long gauntlet of sixteenth notes with no clear melody, unless you pay attention to the accents. He separates the melody not only with these accents but a clear indication on a seperate layer (a half note under the harmonic texture). This more cleanly defines your melody. I see why using short notes is optimal in this fast-paced piece, but it seems a little like an excuse to overwhelm the accents.

Yes, I've played this for concert band. The Dargason is a form of a dance that repeats that motive over and over, just like Holst does. What's really ingenious isn't the harmonic structure, but the rhythm, in how he can have half the band playing 9/8 while the other continues in two.

Well, I like it very much. And thank you for providing us with a larger vocabulary. :] I will take some time out to listen to these.

Is 'getting your attention' a good thing? ;] Thanks for listening. I've updated the links. I wasn't up to date with payments for my server so it's suspended for the month. I'm trying out this eSnips thing, but I'm not sure how it works, so if you still can't see it, message me, okay?

Chris, I try not to make excuses. I try not to compose for show. But I also try not to make mistakes, and Lord knows how bad I'm doing at that. The tuplets are there to keep time, while the right hand executes the cadenza figure at its own pace. I haven't written the introduction in order to pass off all my shortcomings as intentional, merely to explain my MO in composing may not agree with yours. If it sounds good to you, then I thank you. Actually, "Greecian" is the second piece in this set, Letehn. I don't think pieces in a histrionic group such as this Rhapsody suite should be totally isolated from each other, so I hope you find something in common between the four of them.

Aha! Letehn, you are back with these awesome pieces. Starting off with Scherzo, I really like this opening motive. It's jumpy and 'cute', for lack of a better term, and it returns later at about 1:41. The middle section, to me, doesn't seem to go anywhere, and I am trying to recall it, but all I remember is that you pedaled. Though I can distinctly remember the A section. I like the staccato feel. For Reverie, I like the opening. For that, I like the whole piece. The opening has deep chords and clearly defines this melodic structure. Something that I've noticed, 2 pieces in to the collection is that you need more force. This is found occasionally in the first piece, but harmonic 'oomph' is found by more than simple dynamic change. I really like the ending ten seconds, and that is full of body, although it lacks bass notes a little. Elegy might work better orchestrated for strings, or a wind instrument solo. Held out, or even embellished chords must keep moving when placed on the non-resonating soundboard of the piano. Once you hit a note, it immediately decays, and when an entire piece is full of these notes, there must be either cascading or different notes. I see you opted for the latter, since this piece clearly lacks motion (only the best can compose like this, so congratulations), but when doing it like this, you need to add more significant melodic change. Try radical accidentals you don't usually use, or try to semi-modulate. I hear the tonic too much in this piece, and that isn't good for the listener's attention. The Passipied is great. After the drones of Reverie and Elegy, the ear needs a rest with lighter music. You provide this in full with accelerating rhythms and a unique motive opening the first sequence. I feel that your Waltz was a bit of an anti-climactic ending, but that is because I am used to endings being huge and bombastic. Perhaps you were going for the calm-after-the-storm feel, and if it is interpreted like that, then great. I don't have much to say about these last two, because they seem so similar to pieces already mentioned. Well, to me, your pieces are great. You've arranged them in complementing order, with just enough of each. I know you are just a never-ending conglomeration of new and improved ideas, so I can't wait until the next Opus comes up for publishing.

Wow! This is an amazing piece that really gets the point across. I feel like this should premiere with some sort of Fantasia visualization. You are eager to use those strange effects (someone called it avant-garde), aren't you? Well, they fit in. Usually I would not listen to anything classified 'Atonal' because I really do not enough to say constructively about such pieces. You have just enough melodic interest to keep my own going. I like the deep contrasts between the high string and low from about :10 to about 1:14, and the deep tones that come after that are evocative and full of passion. I would invite you next time to withhold the title until such a piece has been reviewed sufficiently, because when it is hard to mesh the title with your piece, and that makes it harder to enjoy. You are very fortunate to have the means to record such pieces at a whim. I don't leave for post-secondary education till next fall, and until then I have to drive 1.5 hours to the nearest Steinway... (It's really pathetic how culturally anemic my city is)

This is the first in a series of four rhapsodic pieces; a extraneous term used by me to describe music that usually seems to have nothing to do with itself. The Introduction is logically the first, and it serves to open up the ears of the listener to the full sound of the piano in a concert setting. This particular piece took about a week to fully develop. I don't have much else to say, and I hope the music will explain more. Introduction - A large piece in sound, not length. MP3 PDF MIDI Btw, the PDF isn't blank, you have to scroll down a little bit. PS. The second piece is done. I need to consolidate and clean up the manuscript though, and it will be posted in a couple of days.

When naming your compositions it is always best to name it what it most closely resembles in terms of structure. You're going to have to determine exactly what that is on your own, but I'd suggest going with some sort of Dance or Invention name since it seems to be in quick time. (I'm not sure what meter you intended. What I see when in Finale is Common, but my ear really wants to listen to it in 3.) The most striking difficulty I have with understanding this piece is the busy accompaniment. To me it sounds like rambling subdivisions placed merely in accordance with the chord structure, clearly defined with your block chords. To others, it may seem reminiscent of Bach's hardcore left hand work in his Sinfonias and Partitas. I'm not too fond of that sort of polyphony, but to each his own. Following this nice gliss, I hear about thirty seconds of seemingly similar rhythmic motives, that don't really seem to go anywhere. The cadential phrase endings aren't strong enough, and I don't get a clear sense of structure or phrasing anywhere, since they seem to vary. Perhaps you could develop more. I'm well aware Bach dove right in to the meat with some of his Preludes, but I can't really enjoy this random staccato transition to another busy phrase. Now, I really like how you aren't afraid to bring out the sound of the piano. This is evident in your variety of both runs and chords within the piece, but the problem with this is that you don't mesh them correctly. You need to explore more integration, with chords and nonharmonic tones suspended between cadential figures. (Because you say this is incomplete, I take that to mean you are unfinished. I will suggest some edits you can do to finish it.) An example of this would be to revise the ending. After the small cadenza passage 10 or so seconds before the end, use the standard I - V7 - I cadence to end the piece. One measure each, and clearly define it with block chords in the left hand. Check the ending.MUS attachment to see what I mean. Other things people do to extend a piece while still keeping the audience attention factor (very important, unless you're John Cage) is to modulate. Don't be obvious about it, but slowly merge into a minor or c minor. Both are awesome complements to the Tonic, being Relative and Parallel, and it is easy to merge into a minor. I have more suggestions, but I feel that this advice should suffice for now. Revise, edit, and rewrite, then repost and I want to see what you do with it. ending.MUS

Oh okay. :D The demo sort of turned me off with its murky dull sound, but if you say so then I'll go ahead and upgrade.

It must have been the errant fp I put in there during that edit then. But I agree, crescendos and the like aren't really emphasized by HP. I've been working with 2005 since.. uh, 2005, and it's strange how it just showed up this time though. Thanks for the help, and I'll Trade-up as soon as I can. (From the demo though, I don't really like the Piano sound in 06; is that what it is like in the real thing or do they use a substitute for demo purposes?)

I was editing a piece today. I saved. Ready for playback? No, it stopped at 57% on the message "Processing Hairpins" and crashes. Then it struck me that I have absolutely no idea what a hairpin is. But seriously, what could cause this to happen? More importantly, how do I fix it? Is there a debug filter or something? It still does this, and till now I still cannot hear it through playback.

Ah, it does remind me of Satie. He wrote those strange Gnomissiens (sp) and Gymnopiedes, no? However, I think there is too much motion to be aptly called ambience. If you put this notion beside you and really put work into this being a solo piece, I can see ane awesome polonaise or scherzo manifesting. For example, around 1:26 you have an interesting motive in the upper register with an accompanying melody that is deep and sensual. This commands the attention of the listener and puts your music in the hotspot, so you can't be lazy on rhythm and harmonies. I am interested in the name. What is that R word? And how do you think it applies?