Valse nr 4

Hello everybody,

I am posting a waltz, which I wrote earlier.    I actually had some (moderate) success with this piece.

I polished it somewhat, and I include the score as well.

I think that it might be suitable as a nice exercise for the intermediate-level pianist.

I would be grateful to learn what you think of it (including your critical viewpoints).

I think it’s beautiful! The melody is solid, the harmonies tasteful with just the right amount of spice, and the intermediate difficulty is approachable and will let the pianist really enjoy playing it. There’s loads of room for personal interpretation and subtlety. How much staccato do I add? Ms. 32, do I pass by on the C to B as a tiny harmonic lick, or do I call attention to it by emphasizing the note and a tiny amount of rit.? (Same on ms. 70) Mss. 90 - 98 do I follow the scores slur marks precisely and let the first two beats flow with the 3rd beat being a “mini-cadence” with an inferred accent, or do I accent the 2nd beat? (Both options will achieve a different effect and “feel”) I think it’s great that you’ve made your intentions really clear with the piece, but there’s also room to play around with it.

On a side note, is that piano Ivory VST? It sounds really nice. I’m being hypocritical to say this, because I hate working with DAWs, but I wanted to mention that, because I think with some alterations to panning, just a touch of reverb, and a few velocity changes, this performance would be almost indistinguishable from a live performance. Just throwing that out there.

Thanks for sharing!

I felt like your harmonic adventurousness in this piece is very well thought out!  However, I did feel like that A natural in the melody in measure 24 was just a little too surprising.  It is so cool that in a very short amount of time you managed to go from A minor to Ab major just prior to that but then you seem to rush to return A minor again and I think you could have delayed that.  Although later in the piece you do linger a bit longer on the Ab major and B major tonalities.  You use sequencing quite effectively in measures 109 - 123 and just when it starts to get predictable you manage to change things up.  Ending in D minor is also a nice touch as it makes the whole piece sound like a big authentic cadence in its motion from A to D.  Great job!

so beautiful!

I agree with the others in this thread. A very catchy and easy to follow melody. :3

On 11/12/2020 at 7:49 PM, SergeOfArniVillage said:

I think it’s beautiful! The melody is solid, the harmonies tasteful with just the right amount of spice, and the intermediate difficulty is approachable and will let the pianist really enjoy playing it. There’s loads of room for personal interpretation and subtlety. How much staccato do I add? Ms. 32, do I pass by on the C to B as a tiny harmonic lick, or do I call attention to it by emphasizing the note and a tiny amount of rit.? (Same on ms. 70) Mss. 90 - 98 do I follow the scores slur marks precisely and let the first two beats flow with the 3rd beat being a “mini-cadence” with an inferred accent, or do I accent the 2nd beat? (Both options will achieve a different effect and “feel”) I think it’s great that you’ve made your intentions really clear with the piece, but there’s also room to play around with it.

On a side note, is that piano Ivory VST? It sounds really nice. I’m being hypocritical to say this, because I hate working with DAWs, but I wanted to mention that, because I think with some alterations to panning, just a touch of reverb, and a few velocity changes, this performance would be almost indistinguishable from a live performance. Just throwing that out there.

Thanks for sharing!

Hello Serge

Thank you very much for your feedback. I am really pleased that you enjoyed the piece. But I am even more pleased with your comments about interpretation! This is something which people do not seem to bring up very often. The current interpretation is just according to my first sketch, but there are of course numerous other ways of playing this piece, and some of these interpretations could be better (you made some interesting suggestions).

This is exactly what accomplished musicians do, even with very famous pieces. Some of the greatest musicians do seldom follow all the expressions as these were written out by the composer. Staccato’s are not emphasized (or even disregarded), pp´s are disregarded etc.  But the results of these different interpretations can all be great.

Indeed, the piano was Ivory: I am impressed that you noticed this.

Unfortunately, my knowledge of electronic playback is still insufficient. I try to do a reasonable job with it, but I always seem to make elementary mistakes. And to be honest, I probably lack sufficient motivation for a deeper engagement, it takes too much of my time!

 

On 11/13/2020 at 3:59 AM, PaperComposer said:

I felt like your harmonic adventurousness in this piece is very well thought out!  However, I did feel like that A natural in the melody in measure 24 was just a little too surprising.  It is so cool that in a very short amount of time you managed to go from A minor to Ab major just prior to that but then you seem to rush to return A minor again and I think you could have delayed that.  Although later in the piece you do linger a bit longer on the Ab major and B major tonalities.  You use sequencing quite effectively in measures 109 - 123 and just when it starts to get predictable you manage to change things up.  Ending in D minor is also a nice touch as it makes the whole piece sound like a big authentic cadence in its motion from A to D.  Great job!

 

Hello PaperComposer

Thank you very much for your comments. Yes, the A-natural in measure 24 can be considered as a bit odd (I can agree with you). But now, I recall how I was thinking:

Another (third) repetition of ms 1-4 (the motif) after the second repetition in ms 16 would have been misplaced and boring. But at the same time, I really wanted this repetition. So I constructed a solution by inserting a quick segment, starting at ms 17, including a short climax at ms 25, followed by a rapid relaxation. Then I returned to the initial motif of ms 1-4 ( starting in ms 33). The odd A-natural in ms 24 was put there on purpose. I thought that it sort of adds to “divert the memory of the listener” away from the initial A-minor motif for a moment. At the end the segment, the motif does not sound “worn out” anymore, when I repeat it again (twice!) in ms 37-48. Of course other solutions would have been possible, including an increased delay, but I wanted to keep up a strong focus on the motif and not lose momentum of this rather short piece.  

Thank you again PaperComposer for your constructive feedback!

I like the vibe this has, but there are some things that bother me slightly. The first is why is the motive in measure 17 introduced and then immediately dropped? The way I see it, most of the piece is very much working on the idea of Beethoven-like development throughout, so it's weird that something like that shows up and then nothing happens. You'd expect of course a sequence based on that motive (as a kind of variation, which you do end up doing later anyway), possibly as a modulation or bridge to some other material. Instead it just wonders off into a segment that is pretty detached from everything and eventually just cadences into the theme.

The way I see it, you did a very minimal exposition followed by a longer development segment that's more traditional (both in harmonic rhythm and sequence/variation.) However, I still can't help but feel you could've done more with the bit in measure 17 onwards, specially considering what you do later. It could've been a good place to foreshadow the intention of the form right from the start.

Also, why the general pause in measure 120? It's weird and just a thinner texture would have done the job instead of stopping. It sounds like a mistake. As does measure 153, as you aren't using that kind of harmony throughout most of the piece (G major with a major 9th suspension out of nowhere,) I wonder why not employ just a more common altered 5th chord, or maybe a chromatic step. Would be more in style.

On 11/13/2020 at 7:11 AM, Left Unexplained said:

so beautiful!

 

On 11/13/2020 at 9:37 PM, BC345 said:

I agree with the others in this thread. A very catchy and easy to follow melody. :3

 

Thanks a lot Left Unexplained and BC345 for your feedback. I am very glad that you like the piece.

On 11/16/2020 at 1:16 PM, SSC said:

I like the vibe this has, but there are some things that bother me slightly. The first is why is the motive in measure 17 introduced and then immediately dropped? The way I see it, most of the piece is very much working on the idea of Beethoven-like development throughout, so it's weird that something like that shows up and then nothing happens. You'd expect of course a sequence based on that motive (as a kind of variation, which you do end up doing later anyway), possibly as a modulation or bridge to some other material. Instead it just wonders off into a segment that is pretty detached from everything and eventually just cadences into the theme.

 

The way I see it, you did a very minimal exposition followed by a longer development segment that's more traditional (both in harmonic rhythm and sequence/variation.) However, I still can't help but feel you could've done more with the bit in measure 17 onwards, specially considering what you do later. It could've been a good place to foreshadow the intention of the form right from the start.

 

Also, why the general pause in measure 120? It's weird and just a thinner texture would have done the job instead of stopping. It sounds like a mistake. As does measure 153, as you aren't using that kind of harmony throughout most of the piece (G major with a major 9th suspension out of nowhere,) I wonder why not employ just a more common altered 5th chord, or maybe a chromatic step. Would be more in style.

 

Hello SSC

Thanks a lot for your valuable feedback!  It took me a while to digest your comments, but here is my reply.

I actually understand your concern about the short motif after ms 17. I could have been a good idea to write a longer development (e.g. a variation of the main theme, or something related). Yesterday, I made some attempts, but I am not yet happy with it. It seems that I start losing the pace of the piece (that would be serious). But.. I think I will be able to do it. I will end the new, extended part with something like ms 17-32, and including a cresc.- decresc. part like  ms 21-28 in order to obtain a transition to ms 33.

I don´t remember how I came to the stop in ms 120. It could simply be fixed by for example repeating the chord in the l.h. in the second beat once more in the third beat. Or maybe something else. I will look at it again.  

Ms 153: This sound rather OK to me, ( although you could say that G -major with the major 9^th suspension is not following the rules) but I am also looking at it for an improvement. First, I considered to change the A in the right hand to an F (followed by two B-D diads). Then, there are of course other possibilities, but the ending should not be too “lame”, if you understand what I mean. Actually, it will be great fun to work a bit on this.

I must say that your comments where great and very useful! I just wrote this piece in a very short time, and was quite pleased with the result. But of course, I should not have relaxed, and should have done a more thorough analysis.

Thanks again, and best regards.

2 hours ago, panta rei said:

although you could say that G -major with the major 9^th suspension is not following the rules

No, not "The Rules," just the rest of the stuff you did in the music. That's why it sounded out of place to me. If you had used that more often, it would not stand out as much.

12 hours ago, SSC said:

No, not "The Rules," just the rest of the stuff you did in the music. That's why it sounded out of place to me. If you had used that more often, it would not stand out as much.

 

I agree, it cannot be considered as a "rule", I should say "unexpected"

I don't have much to add, but I think this piece is great.  I love the primary melody and the harmonic language.

1) never EVER post something and not put your name on it.  Fix this immediately

2) Great piece.  You have room to expand this for maybe at least two more minutes.  

3) When you ave your recapitulations, I would vary the melody even more; just add more color to the music.

My $0.02

On 11/20/2020 at 9:10 PM, Aiwendil said:

I don't have much to add, but I think this piece is great.  I love the primary melody and the harmonic language.

Thank you for your feedback, it is a pleasure for me that you like the piece.

On 11/21/2020 at 12:39 AM, maestrowick said:

1) never EVER post something and not put your name on it.  Fix this immediately

OK, I fixed it ( Actually  my name was also on the copyright info at the bottom of the first page)

 

2) Great piece.  You have room to expand this for maybe at least two more minutes.  

It would certainly be possible to extend the piece. Maybe I should have done this.

 

3) When you ave your recapitulations, I would vary the melody even more; just add more color to the music.

I would probably have done this in an expanded version of the piece. With the current (short) version, I  would be hesitant to make such changes.

 

Thanks a lot for your valuable comments!