PCC

The whole movement sounds very "safe", almost too much for my taste. But I like the harmonic territories you explored. The 2/4 section feels like it doesn't create enough contrast with the outer parts of the movement (perhaps it's part of the "safe"ness I was talking about). The score notations are a bit off imo so i had to rely on your computer generated playback instead of imagining the sound with my reading of your score, and you know playback has its limitations in delivery compared to live performance, so I don't think my comments here are the fairest, but here we go. Indeed there are issues with enharmonics (e.g. as early as bars 3-4) but I won't go into detail. I have a problem with visually essential rests being removed (compared bars 16 to 24). Bars 44 (and similar places), if, according to the playback audio, I feel like in the lower staff the fourth and eighth quaver "belongs" to the lower voice instead of the upper voice, to mirror the melody, but feel free to disagree. Overall I feel like this is something you can potentially work on to become a multimovement piece, I am eager to see the progress.

It's always nice to have more sonatas on YCF. And I don't really find any huge flaws here, good work. I think all the movements have good structure and form helped balancing things. The first movement definitely shares more than one thing with Mozart's A minor Piano sonata first movement though. I think a few places could do more harmonising, for example the staccato diminish chords in the first movement felt dry. That being said there a few places here and there that frustrates me. The first theme of the first movement reoccurs too frequently for my liking. Especially without variations. Perhaps it's something the performer can trump on, but it's helpful for the composer to inject variations to maintain his/her sense of authorship, I think. Perhaps out of my own inability to play really difficult things, I feel like many runs are difficult without contributing much musically. Like mvmt 1 mm 61-65, those left hand semiquavers felt needlessly unpatterned. bar 134 of mvmt 3, 15th jump on the left hand, La Campenella 2.0? Can't hear it anyway. But do feel free to rebut on this point, I might be missing on something. but overall I think this work is a positive for YCF EDIT: oh my, a neurologist... and your works date back so much too! Oh and also sorry I kinda skipped your second movement here.

Yeah I myself couldn't write or play at this level when I was 16

We are all busy people. So even if there is a negative comment, at least the work sparked some interest intriguing enough. To be honest there are a lot of posts on YCF I ignore, I just don't have the time and effort to listen and analyse every work here. It might sound arrogant, but as much as music being a crucial part of my life, it isn't the only thing. I simply am not obligated to use my work and study and family time to scroll through YCF. If I ever comment I always try to find things to appreciate and praise before pointing out how I feel it may have problems. If I can't even think of a single positive thing to say, I don't comment (this was not always the way I am, I learnt to be like this with time as I get slightly less immature than my past self) And the way I use web browsers, I am not always privileged to play the voice files on the forum, and I "listen" through reading scores. If your post does not contain a score it immediately reduces the chance I would even touch the composition by that much. I can't speak for others, so I'd be interested if there are other positions.

The problem with octaves on right hand is you don’t have the sustain pedal and it would sound choppy especially the octave leap… possibly mitigated somewhat but left hand sharing some notes but seems not possible for a lot of areas for this piece the pedal octaves are actually doable (not me lmao) but you might want to play with different stops first (like adding 16’ (or in big organs 32’) or reed or coupling) before doing the double foot thing but don’t take my word for it lol, i have so far meaningfully used the pedal for like less than 5 notes so far

I didn't learn this too long ago either but generally there is no incentive to write in octaves because this is done when selecting the voices you want on a particular manual (referring to bars 7-11, but also the pedal sometimes in general) and you don't have the sustain pedal on the piano to do the legato for you. Do you intend the whole movement to be played by flute or is it a software limitation lol What do you want to do after this? a few more movements? or a fugue? or both?

btw the g natural and g flat on the first fugue kinda clashes imo bar 4 other than that, you motivated me to write a fugue, so ty

I think the tritone leap can work if the other voices can work around it, and I think the first answer was harmonised well Actually the first answer is easy to change into a tonal answer, just use CDCBbA instead of DEbDCBb, the rest of the answer can stay the same and I think @chopin might still actually be interested in this if you are to submit it, but it's up to him

Those kind of doublestops can start to sound better at at least mp dynamic imo though still technically quite difficult (edit: and personally only I don’t feel like it’s worth the trouble but I’m not authoritative in this regard by any means) its just in your last version I saw them in pp lol

getting some technical stuff out of the way I don't like the bariolage like passage on the cello with the syncopated double stops, I just dont think it is very effective on the cello bar 75 the double stops on the cello will sound very thick (and also very difficult technically) doesnt work in pianissimo imo bar 68 cello not meant to have an A is it I guess for the musical feedback I'll have to spend a bit more time and listening to the work as a whole but ty for sharing

I like how the preview totally disregards my spoiler tag

despite multiple files it is basically the same fugue, one is piano/no pedal version, one is organ/pedal version. some formatting issues but the whole soundtrack seems fine except bar 12 Thematic materials used in the fugue: My fugue chart: edit: added MS versions which contains fixes/changes including modifying a parallel unison pcc short fugue piano:no pedal.mp3 "Short Fugue" Challenge (pedal version).mp3 "Short Fugue" Challenge (pedal version).pdf short fugue( pedal organ.mid short fugue mj np.mid pcc short fugue piano:no pedal.mid pcc short fugue organ:pedal.mid short fugue( pedal organ.mid short fugue mj np.mid pcc short fugue piano:no pedal.mid pcc short fugue organ:pedal.mid short fugue( pedal organ.mid short fugue mj np.mid pcc short fugue piano:no pedal.mid pcc short fugue organ:pedal.mid short fugue( pedal organ.mid short fugue mj np.mid pcc short fugue piano:no pedal.mid pcc short fugue organ:pedal.mid short fugue( pedal organ.mid short fugue mj np.mid pcc short fugue piano:no pedal.mid pcc short fugue organ:pedal.mid

Imo this piece benefits from a much faster tempo

The handling of form of this movement is something I aspire to. Slow movements are more nemesis, but this one doesn’t make me lose attention! nothing to complain about from musicality aspect Some practical personal preferences as a string player: bar 6: does the sF mean forte for the whole bar, same for the tremolos as well? Personally I think an F with a tenuto would be more intuitive Bar 95: not a string problem per se but with the triplets with dashes you mean 6 notes per beat right? I personally would write out the first two to three beams literally first before simplifying bar 168: each tremolando group is meant to be slurred (one bow) right? Helps to add a slur line As you may have noticed these are mostly just QoL opinions

@ComposaBoi as well understood the beginning yet still gives a sense of the unknown, slightly unsettling, then the music breaks out I also liked the use of the different degrees of tonality and suspensions