J.Br.

I really enjoyed it. Well done. I did like the octave idea it had a cool texture and I think it did work. Congratulations: really a fantastic piece!

I don't know enough about orchestration to comment. But from a purely musical standpoint, I think that the rhythm of the theme is overused. You repeat the same ryhthm for the entire piece: you don't really elaborate on it, you don't introduce any new theme with a new rhythm. So it gets a little boring. Structurally, I might have ended it after that first really big climax after the Gb major section. The section in A major isn't really necessary and the redo of the climax is much less effective than the first. So basically, I would elaborate on the melody and shorten the piece. I did like it though, so keep up the good work.

I think you mean the D# minor etude, and that whole set is really, really good. No. 10 in Db uses some chromaticism, some of Scriabin's middle-period piano pieces (around op.40) have some "Wagnerisms" and stuff in them, before he went semi-atonal. The late Brahms pieces: the sets of intermezzi and the op. 119 4 piano pieces are absolutely brilliant, Scriabin and Chopin miniatures are fanatastic: preludes, etudes, poems, etc. These aren't romantic but the second set of Beethoven Bagatelles are really ingenius, inventive and beautiful pieces. Rachmaninoff's best pieces are his short pieces: his preludes, his etudes-tableux etc.

I haven't posted anything in a long time so I figured I'd do so now. I don't have any way of turning the score into a pdf file and I don't have a midi so I don't expect many responses. This is a very short fugue (21 bars) in d minor using extended tonality and lot of chromaticism. The first four bars are more firmly in d minor, the next four transition to F major (though there is no cadence). An F major chord is never really heard although it is suggested in part by the theme. The theme is played in retrograde, in augmentation and slowly chromatically moves upward until it breaks into an episode based on the countertheme when the space between the countertheme diminishes in both hands and leads to a climax in a suggested a flat minor: F flat Major -> Eb major. From there, the music slinks downward until it reaches d minor for a short coda and a pretty standard cadence in d minor. This doesn't follow all the rules of fugue writing. I tried to condense everything: the theme is one bar long and includes only 4 notes. The theme and countertheme are the backbone of the piece, it is played in augmentation, retrograde and in many different keys although it is mostly played in closely related keys to d minor: d minor, a minor, eb minor, F, Db Major etc. Hope you enjoy Fughetta in d minor.MUS

I'll comment if there's a score, but just so you know: my dad's a lawyer (here in Canada) and I'm pretty sure no matter where you are if you live in the Western World, as soon as you set down a piece of music or write a poem or anything, its automatically "copyrighted". If someone steals what you've written you can sue you don't actually have to get the little c in the circle and your name and all that.

Hello. This is certainly a passionate piece of music but I feel there are two main things lacking. The first and most important is a middle section with a new tonality, texture and mood. By staying in a the same a minor and the same angry mood the entire piece, the audience gets bored and the piece isn't really complete in and of itself. A more lyrical middle section in C or A or any major key, or even a wistful middle section in a minor key would add to the piece. I also think that developing your idea a little more would add although you do develop the melody and in that respect your piece was well done. Your piece also accomplished very well the passionate, romantic even Beethovenesque feeling. My last criticism is that I think the piano part could have been written more intricately. For the most part its just runs and big chords and you often double the melody. Maybe giving the piano a larger role would allow for more dialogue between the two instruments and would allow for different textures. I dont like doubling the melody because there are so many more interesting things you can do: add a counterpoint in the right hand to the violin. A lot of the left hand is octave and this particular texture is striking but does get tiresome which is again why a middle section is needed. Most of your piece is f or ff. Just add a lyrical, wistful middle section and you'll be on your way. Good job though, you certainly know what you're doing.

Interesting piece and certainly ambitious. I found it to be a little poppish in terms of its harmony. I also think that it could be made a little shorter, the piece drags a little from the 5-8 middle mark. Also, as some people said the variation isn't enough. Perhaps instead of just ornamentation you could develop your ideas into more dramatic climaxes because at times the piece does sound repetitious and lost. But, the orchestration was good and your melodies aren't bad. With a little work this could be even better. Oh, and don't mind Justin Tokke, (whisper) I think he's retarded.

Hello. Your clarinet trio wasn't bad. I just have a bit of criticism. I know this is a short piece which is fine but i would maybe add a middle section where you change the texture tonality and melody just because the same eighth notes, the same c minor-ish feel gets a little boring a needs a change to keep the interest. I know you intuitively felt this because you added a short section with triplets but by adding an even different middle section I think the piece would be greatly improved. Good job though.

I actually liked it quite a bit. The scherzo had a cool frenzied quality to it, the nocturn was quite well written and the march was also nice. My only criticism is maybe to a lower pitch area (if that means anything) sometimes. Most of the melodic and thematic material is stated in the flute or oboe (although the beginning of the nocturne is stated with the bassoon) but maybe just a little more because the texture gets a little boring after a while. But good job: well done!

Well, your piece certainly had some very beautiful moments. In terms of criticism: I think that maybe the piece was a little schmaltzy for me: the exposition section was quite good, but the more propulsive middle section with its bombastic triplets in the piano part and the conventional harmony starting around bar 44, to me doesn't sound quite as passionate, melancholic and frantic as you might have wanted. The repeated triplets, reminiscent of the energy in Scriabin, to me seems a little unimaginative. Yes, the triplets do give the propulsive power and energy, to an extent, but, coupled with the uninteresting base octaves your piano part generally is quite boring. My other biggest complaint was the lack of development of your material. You start off with an interesting main theme and harmonization, but the themes in the middle section (at least as far as I have reviewed) have nothing to do with this opening idea so the piece doesn't have quite as much unity as hoped. The middle section just sort of seems stuck in there: it's not a natural, organic development of your opening material, it's just some other mood. This along with the less interesting middle harmony and piano part are probably what is contributing to my feeling of "schmaltz". And as someone mentioned earlier, a varied recapitulation of your opening material would make it seem fresher and different: remember your piece has gone through strife so the opening tranquil material would have to have been transformed somehow: this could mean changing harmonies, changing melodic lines, adding and transforming ideas from your middle section or ornamenting your melody. That out of the way I do want to say that this piece had some very enjoyable moments. Your opening is very good and the harmony is really very well done. Just remember what I said and I think that if you incorporate just some of these ideas, your next piece will work even better and with less schmaltz.

This piece had an interesting structure and was full of interesting effects and interesting melodies. I think there is one problem with it and that is that the piece gets a little boring because you stay within the same basic tonal framework for the full five minutes. There isnt a whole lot of tension created. I think adding a developmental section in the middle of the piece where you explore your material in different tonal areas. Your three main ideas (that I see), the opening idea, the Tempo II scherzando idea and the third idea in 5/4 are all very interesting and are quite different. But you can explore them more and make the music feel like its really going somewhere in this developmental section because right now the piece, for me, sort of just meanders around these three different ideas. Still, the piece has a lot of potential and your part writing and knowledge of effects as well as your interesting melodies are quite well-done. Just make sure your music leads somewhere and make sure to develop all your material! Good job and keep working!

I listened to the first movement and I found it quite enjoyable up until around the cadenza. I think the music got a bit lost: it was moving forward quite well, I felt like it was being propelled forward and the introduction worked quite well, but when the cadenza hit the music sort of came to a stop and I found that the cadenza wasn't shaped very well, at least in my opinion. It sort of stayed in the same mood without really going in any particular direction: it didn't, to my ears, really develop your material, it didn't grow, it didn't bring us back to anything, it was sort of just stuck in there: it sounded more like accompaniment to me than "foreground" music. But, the music had a very interesting atmosphere, there was feeling in your music, I liked the orchestration (especially the bell at the end!). I'll listen to the next two movements when I have the chance. Good job so far!

Very well done. There is nice contrast between sections, the exciting parts are very ecstatic and fun to listen to. I think that this piece would be difficult to play well, but you've certainly done a good job here writing it and I look forward to the next movements if there will be any.

Exactly: Major does not have to be happy and minor does not have to be sad. Examples: The Cavatina from Beethoven's Op 130 String Quartet in Bb is not a happy movement even though it is in Eb Major. Another example from the same piece: the Bb minor "Scherzo" second movement isn't really sad - it's a little mysterious and a little dance-like.

Most of Liszt's output is pretty "bad". It is amazing what he can do on the piano, but there's no depth, no thinking, no structure and only "cheap showmanship" (I'm not even a big fan of the Sonata). Later on, as he started to forget about showmanship, his music got better by leaps and bounds, but he's still nothing compared to Brahms, Scriabin, some Rachmaninoff, Ravel and others.