Oddity

Using some non standard progressions...

ODDITY - SCORE.pdf

I really like the main chord progression.
Sometimes not pointing out extraneous spellings in your chords makes them jarring when looking along, like: m. 14/32 doesn't really fit into the outline you provided, resulting in something that isn't the most harmonious, even with your established progression. m. 23 was also really jarring with the augmented tonic in the left hand. It also wasn't market as such (b9) in the chord spelling above. 

Thanks, the issue in m. 23 is a mistake, I fix it.

On the other hand, I don't understand very well, the melody corresponds with the scale of the chords. I don't intend to notate exactly the chords, in fact, I usually erase that part of the notation. If it sounds odd, that was the title of the piece....

Well, I'm not saying the chords are wrong or anything, but there is a reason why you would bother spelling out a chord on top of the measures, that being to relay to the audience or players what kind of sound you're getting harmonically before actually playing it. So when notes clash with that that aren't simply non-harmonic tones, it's a little confusing. That's all I meant. 

At :1:00 something beautifull begins here, melody goes in unpredictable direction. I like how it developes more strange and strange. :)

Very nice! To be honest, I didn't expect this kind of music from you.
In general the melody and accompaniment are lovely and go fluently, but then there are some places where this flow is broken by going in 'unpredicatable directions,' as Annabel calls it. This is what this piece makes so strong. Playing with the unpredictable and setting the audience on the wrong path.
This keeps the music fresh and for me it feels like I am on adventure.

¡Bien hecho!

I really like the atmosphere and chord progression in this piece. However, although the progression might not be standard it doesn't sound that odd to me in this day and age so I am not sure about the title. 

13 hours ago, Timothy Speer said:

I really like the atmosphere and chord progression in this piece. However, although the progression might not be standard it doesn't sound that odd to me in this day and age so I am not sure about the title. 

 

Thanks, the title is symbolic......

To me, that progression has nothing odd.

Overall, I like this piece. It is very much in the vein of Debussy, which is a win. However, my one concern is that unpredictable nature that Annabel pointed out (and I disagree with her on). The progression itself already has an unpredictable nature to it -changing up thematic material and motivic units doesn't really do much but to leave the listener taken further aback. I think the strongest section of this piece -and the one that I'd work with most- is the arpeggio section (mm. 10 - 18). This section really captivated me and, personally, I think more could've been done with this material in relation to the chordal nature of the work. 

All in all though, I applaud experimentation -and I think you did well. Keep up the good work!

1 hour ago, jawoodruff said:

Overall, I like this piece. It is very much in the vein of Debussy, which is a win. However, my one concern is that unpredictable nature that Annabel pointed out (and I disagree with her on). The progression itself already has an unpredictable nature to it -changing up thematic material and motivic units doesn't really do much but to leave the listener taken further aback. I think the strongest section of this piece -and the one that I'd work with most- is the arpeggio section (mm. 10 - 18). This section really captivated me and, personally, I think more could've been done with this material in relation to the chordal nature of the work. 

All in all though, I applaud experimentation -and I think you did well. Keep up the good work!

 

Thanks.

The first part (chords) are just an introduction, the same chords in the arpeggio part. And also the same chords in the final part or coda, but in reverse order.

The arpeggio parts are built on progressions that are not functional changing minor to major, or going up a third, etc...

The middle part in D maj (m. 19-27) is an "experiment" using the tritone. Abmaj7 is a tritona away from D (the tonality), and even more, Abmaj7(#11) is a tritone away with a tritone inside.

That was the "architecture" of the piece.

On the other hand I'm not in the mood of writing longer pieces. When I tell what I want, that's all. At least, in these days.... I prefer to work on more new ideas than to work more time in less pieces.

Understandable. Doesn't have to be a long piece. And this very much has an etude or prelude feel to it - I wouldn't expect such a long piece out of such a delicate thematic material. 

I think its interesting that you say the arpeggios are not functional -yet, you then state that there was an experimental functionality that you were going for. This brings up a good topic in modern music: functionality. I'm very fond of hypnotic textures that begin in one harmonic area and -through stasis- slowly shift into another (mind you, this isn't the same harmony that is characteristic of the common practice period, lol). This is very much in line with what you are trying to do -and you succeed. 

My comments earlier, however, had nothing to do with that -but instead are mainly concerning your use of thematic material. I think pairing it down to the motivic units that overscore the arpeggiations would greatly benefit the work. Let those themes evolve naturally, with brevity, over the overall structure and architecture. The harmonic structure is awesome, the melodic structure could use some work. Sorry if I didn't make that clearer. 

Its a shame you don't go back and work more with your ideas. You have a lot of potential in this work. It'd be nice to see how you improve it -after all, that's what composition is about: producing a final work.