Sahil Sidhu

This is a small fugue for three voices that I have written for the piano. I would love to hear what you have to say about it. Any small piece of advice will be invaluable to my improvement of this work. Thank you for your time and efforts.

Thanks so much for listening to my work and thank you for your compliments. Now, on to your criticisms. That is a very good point; thanks for bringing it to my attention. I think that, in order to create a better sense of form, I should perhaps vary the complexity at times. I think I should write a section such as the Poco adagio in the actual contrapuntal sections with proper strict counterpoint again; perhaps, exploring some of the themes in various other manipulations. I will definitely seriously consider implementing your advice. Thank you so much! Your advice is invaluable.

What an impressive work! I don't listen to much minimalism (I did a single semester of it in highschool, and that's about it); so therefore, take my advice with a grain of salt. First of all, two months ago, I was studying the Debussy's orchestration in La Mer and Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune; and I noticed many interesting similarities between his orchestration and yours. So, that again is another job well done! One particular moment that caught my ear was the texture from 1:40 onwards (I can't read the bar numbers, I'm sorry). Your treatment of the lower brass and lower woodwinds to add depth in your soundscape does occasionally remind me of Debussy's style (or in fact an impressionist's style for that matter) of orchestration. Your rhythmic and harmonic language does seem reminiscent of Stravinsky, which is again good; it sometimes works, but sometimes it does not; and I'll get to that below. Lastly, I really appreciated the idea of building tension and releasing tension. It worked well in this piece, and I would not be surprised were it to work in others as well. Now, on the topic of your rhythmic language, I exhort you to take a closer look at movement two and the ideals it represents. I could only understand the purpose once you had described them to me; for the rhythmic language was not reminiscent of the ocean (at least for me). It was far too rhythmical. Perhaps you could consider further subdivisions (especially in the piano) or polyrhythms. Obviously, this type of texture and rhythms worked splendidly for the third movement (in which I would have appreciated a wider usage of percussion to add to your palette). Another thing you should look at, is that I believe your last page is missing... Other than that, I commend you on your efforts. Well done and I look forward to more!

I don't usually reply a second time to someone, but I thought this was interesting. I can only assume you're referring to m. 669 to m. 673. This is actually where I signed my name. In the second violin section, that actually spells out my name (each set of six notes corresponds to one letter). The E-flat pedal is used because the first letter of all my three names begin with the letter 'S' (Es = S); and also this is 42 semitones away (the sum of my birth date 13+06+20+03=42) from an A, which has an integer frequency (a more natural choice given the prominence of numbers and integers in this section). This is also the reason I ended the work in E-flat minor The second violin part has to do with my perspective on how the entire universe operates on the shape of a circle (cycle of life, the approximate shape of planetary bodies, gravitational pull, a symbol of unity and infinity; which makes a reference to time, wholeness, and etc.). Take the distance (in semitones) from each individual note and the nearest E-flat below it and this will yield a number for each packet of six as demonstrated below: This will yield a number. If one considers this 6 digit number as a decimal (because otherwise the 0 at the start will be redundant), then you get 0.16534. Divide pi (the number pertaining to the concept of circles) by this decimal and you will get a number very close to an integer (in this case 19). Once each packet of six has been attributed an integer, one can see the corresponding letter of the English alphabet to find my name. My name is again signed in various spots such as m. 674 to m. 676 (S-A-H S-D-H) and m. 323 to m. 324 (same concept as before). I don't know if you noticed that; but still, I am writing this here for anyone else viewing the work in the future.

Thank you so much for listening! Wow! That is a very astute observation. The study score of Beethoven's Op. 133 recently arrived at my doorstep and so I have been studying it with great assiduity. I can absolutely understand your point about the retrogrades and inversions. The theme that is introduced in m. 363 was deliberately written to be rhythmically and melodically confusing (both in inversion and proper form). However, other than that, I tried my best to make the manipulations sound convincing. I will perhaps go back and listen to each voice individually again to make sure it sounds natural. Well, a new style I am acquainting myself with is that of using polytonality (not exactly atonality) to create a sense of musical conflict. Later on, I simply use the whole tone scale. As the music progresses (much like a waltz I wrote not too long ago), I tend to degrade the sense of tonality and allow each voice to have its own unique idea. The only difference is that in the beginning all voices were in harmony with their own lines; however, they soon lost that in due time which hopefully creates a sense of madness or confusion (an idea I got from the coda of Chopin's Ballade No. 4). Well, if I can even be 10% as good as he was, I'd be happy. Thanks for your criticisms, it was most helpful!

Well, I had m. 6 in mind. For me, I tend to think of the simplicity of textures in the same way as I think of build ups to climaxes. I think (this is very personal), that this bar had a sudden complexity to the texture which left the soundscape almost as abruptly as it came. If it was either explored for a little longer or simplified, it would (in my honest opinion) come across as a more effective change in mood. That being said, I think you could model this upon the excellent build up to m. 21, which I thought was extremely effective.

Well, this is certainly a very refreshing work! I must say, your understanding of the textures on the piano is very commendable; only an accomplished pianist or a very good composer would have this level of understanding. The musescore soundfont does not do these textures justice! Also, I will commend your use of harmony; it also emphasizes the 'freshness' of the work. Now, I am a little confused at times in regards to the subtle changes in writing style that occurs throughout; obviously, if this was your intention then my previous comment will be negated. This confuses the musical direction at times (not always). Another small problem is that the music feels slightly 'imbalanced'. It needs to explore more within its own constraints. An example that might hopefully illustrate my above point will be the climax at m. 21. You voiced your affection for this portion of the music (a sentiment that I share); however, I think that it might need to go on for slightly longer to help 'balance' the music a little more. On a side (non-musical) note, I must comment on how good your engraving is! Your command over musescore is certainly great; and I should take lessons from you one day! I think that will be all for now. Feel free to neglect these comments; music is certainly very subjective. Congratulations on this work and thanks for sharing!

I have written a quartet for strings on which I would like the honour of some of your criticisms. This work has sprouted from almost a year and a half of counterpoint study. It is similar to a fugue; that is, it does tend to have fugal aspects; however on the whole, this is mostly a work of counterpoint with many interesting hidden ideas embedded within it. I can understand if you are unable to listen to the entire work, as it is almost 16 minutes long; however, if you give me some feedback on even a single contrapuntal passage, I would be greatly indebted to you. Thank you for your time and I dearly hope you enjoy this work. On a side note, this recording that I have here does not take into consideration single note dynamics which is indeed frustrating; however, it is the only soundfont I could find that effectively does some of the counterpoint justice (that is, so it is not too muddy sounding).

@Thatguy v2.0 Thank you so much for your helpful criticisms! I am very glad that you liked the style. I must say, now that you pointed out the disappointing lack of rests, I am starting to feel like perhaps you are right. I have been looking through the work for places where I can implement your criticisms. I wouldn't take out a whole lot, since most of the driving energy stems from the lack of rests. However, I agree that to some extent, there needs to be less notes and more contemplation of what was just heard. I am not sure if you will see this comment but if it is not too much to ask, can you give me an example of one or two bars where the notes overwhelm you. Just so that I can have a starting point to begin considering. I thank you very much for your comments! They are invaluable for improvement!

@U238 Absolutely agree with you on that one. I wrote a deliberately clichéd melody. You see, music is all about contrasts in my opinion. Perfect balance is achieved through perfectly contrasted sections, whether they choose to resolve or not. I wrote that opening to directly contrast and subvert the dance: an elegant waltz. I still dislike the melody I wrote in the opening (which is actually a good sign). Well, again here it is all about contrasts. The work is balanced, in my humble opinion, due to the fact that most of its musical direction stems from its increasing use of dissonance and contrapuntal passages. Pace and tone is just one simple side of music that would affect the music for brief moments. As you can see, I did alter the tone and pace as per your critique towards the end (it would probably be a better rendition of that if it was performed by a human being). The return of the hackneyed melody towards the end is not so much of contrast per se, but of perhaps a sudden jarring change of musical direction, which would again throw the listener off. However, there is only so much I can do in less than 4 minutes All in all, this piece is not here to charm but instead is here to provide a glimpse into reality. The dark and unfortunate reality of life, hence why I chose to disfigure a commonly known dance associated with charm and beauty. Thank you for your critique. It was very helpful.

PaperComposer, thank you so much for your kind review. I use musescore and so in the intensely contrapuntal sections (e.g. m.117 where all the voices are in different keys that are major 3rds from each other) I would usually place an invisible accent on the theme introduced in either m.107 (which is an alteration of m.49) or the opening theme. This way the counterpoint is not sounding too messy without sounding too clean either? Not sure if that makes sense. About the bashing thing, well it depends on where you are. From m.117 to m.122 I would like the 'bashing' sound but only on the left hand. At m. 123 onwards I would probably not want such a sound. Here instead I would like to to 'try' to sound elegant (hence my marking of dolce e espress. which of course is almost impossible to pull off. This passage would then come off as quite sarcastic or mocking). I am curious as to what you mean by the chromaticism being wacky. I'm not defending my use of chromaticism, but if something doesn't go with the rest of the work, I would like to do something about it. Thank you so much for your comments! I am always glad when someone points out a way that I can improve upon my works.

A very interesting piece indeed! A tad on the long side for a waltz (which I honestly don't mind, since I have listened to Mahler's Ländlers, which are mostly really long). I will not restate PaperComposer's comments (which I believe are all valid). However, there are some things I think you could take a look at; mostly very picky things, nothing too major. - The descending sequences (from m.9 and from m.170) take up too much time, to the point that they lose their effect. Parallel fifths work well here though. - M.25, fff is too much? Your call. - M.142, a very harsh change from the thickness of the texture before. - M.160, ff and leggiero? Not sure how that works. - M.282, not sure if this is the performer or the music, but I don't really hear a scherzando effect on this particular passage. - M.332 3rd beat, harmony doesn't fit. Sounds a little awkward. This happens quite often in your work which causes sudden dissonances that seem out of context. This is just my (very) humble opinion. It's just some things you could think about, perhaps even change. Ultimately, the work is yours and you can do with it whatever you please. If you have some time, I would be very grateful if you could perhaps take a look at a waltz I wrote as well. It's probably a different style to yours. My Piano Waltz in G major Hope I helped! Sahil Sidhu

@bkho Hahaha, I am very glad that the changes in character that I wanted the listener to perceive was effective. I am also very glad you enjoyed it. It means a lot. Thank you for your time!

I have written a small classical waltz for the piano in G major. It goes through a few minor changes throughout the duration of the work. Please feel free to give me any criticism at all. I am looking to improving the work (possibly posting on this thread an improved version later). I will not describe my intentions because then it tells you what to imagine (same reason to why I do not name my compositions). Thank you for your time.

Sorry everyone! I just edited it for the 4 mvts. It's just that my computer is very very slow and it takes a while to export, that's why I figured i could get away with just a shareable link (to the .wav file which isn't supported here). Thank you!