Minuet in E Major for Guitar and Piano

Hello everyone,

I just finished composing a really short minuet for guitar and piano. I was not planning to compose it but I kinda want to practice some of my pieces in real instruments and I can only (barely) play piano and guitar. I tried to compose in a little bit more modern style than what I am used to, so the piece ended up having a much more modern sound to what I usually compose (particularly the section B). Not sure whether I pulled it off or not, though.

As always, any feedback, suggestion or comment is appreciated! Hope you like it!

nice piece. I have to admit that I don't like their duet as it is polyphonic in both instruments, but I liked your piece. You have formed a nice interaction that will make both of them stand out. The only part I doubt is the guitar playing 'ppp'. The dynamics are personal, but the guitar is already a low-sounding instrument, but you said you played the guitar, I guess you already thought about it. Thanks for sharing

14 hours ago, ClasiCompose said:

nice piece. I have to admit that I don't like their duet as it is polyphonic in both instruments, but I liked your piece. You have formed a nice interaction that will make both of them stand out. The only part I doubt is the guitar playing 'ppp'. The dynamics are personal, but the guitar is already a low-sounding instrument, but you said you played the guitar, I guess you already thought about it. Thanks for sharing

 

Thank you ClasiCompose! I am glad you enjoyed it! Yes, because of both instrument being polyphonic there is not many piano-guitar duets (with Anton Diabelli as the main exception). It seems like piano and guitar seem to be competitors in the polyphonic field and. while pairing often with other instruments, they do not pair often with each other. 

Yes, I am aware that the classical guitar is naturally a soft instrument (even though there are ways of playing quite loud, but, of course, not as loud as a piano), so all the dynamic ranges given here can be understood in relative terms (in practice, I just wrote them like that because of Sibelius playback). 

Thanks for commenting!

I found this piece to be quite nice overall. Personally, I feel that it could have improved with a little bit more variation and development of the themes you presented, although what is here is quite lovely.

13 hours ago, mercurypickles said:

I found this piece to be quite nice overall. Personally, I feel that it could have improved with a little bit more variation and development of the themes you presented, although what is here is quite lovely.

 

You are right, mercurypickles. I also feel there is somehow an stagnation of motives, particularly of rhythmic motives. I have been trying to modify some parts to improve that but I am not sure how, so I will have to leave it like that.  It is like something is off and could be improved but I cannot figure out exactly what or how to change it😅. I will try to be more aware of theme development from now on. Thank you for commenting and glad you liked it! 

Very nicely change from part A to B, so different but complementary.

Te ha quedado de fábula.

Soft creative harmony in part B.

5 hours ago, Luis Hernández said:

Very nicely change from part A to B, so different but complementary.

Te ha quedado de fábula.

Soft creative harmony in part B.

 

I am really glad you liked the piece and the harmonies, Luis! Thank you!

Muchas gracias!

That's a lovely menuet. Part A is pretty classical, but B is very colorfull and contrasting, and the more modern based harmony and modulations make the recapitulation on the last 4 measures even more satisfiying. The interplay piano-guitar also very right rythmically. I agree with Luis, nada que añadir o quitar (nothing to add there). Brilliant!

On 5/16/2021 at 10:13 AM, Guillem82 said:

That's a lovely menuet. Part A is pretty classical, but B is very colorfull and contrasting, and the more modern based harmony and modulations make the recapitulation on the last 4 measures even more satisfiying. The interplay piano-guitar also very right rythmically. I agree with Luis, nada que añadir o quitar (nothing to add there). Brilliant!

 

Thank you Guillem! I am really glad you liked it and enjoyed the harmonies of part B! 🙂

I liked the first half, very nice. Here are some random observations:

1. In measures 1-2 you have an IV chord in 2nd inversion that doesn't resolve according to 1 of the 3 typical ways. Remember that the guitar sounds an 8ve lower than notated, so that E in the bass is the real bass, not what the piano plays.
2. Im m.7 you have that E7 chord that doesn't resolve as most dominant 7th chords do.
3. In the same measure you don't resolve that F#m7 chord either.
4. In m.15 the piano moves in arpeggiated parallel chords that have parallel 5ths. That isn't consistent with the style of the first part.
5. In m.19-20 you change the harmonic style a lot. The piece began in a very classical/romantic vein and here it sounds like Shostakovich with that very unconventional, chromatic voice-leading.

Keep composing!

2 hours ago, Snake_Cake said:

I liked the first half, very nice. Here are some random observations:

1. In measures 1-2 you have an IV chord in 2nd inversion that doesn't resolve according to 1 of the 3 typical ways. Remember that the guitar sounds an 8ve lower than notated, so that E in the bass is the real bass, not what the piano plays.
2. Im m.7 you have that E7 chord that doesn't resolve as most dominant 7th chords do.
3. In the same measure you don't resolve that F#m7 chord either.
4. In m.15 the piano moves in arpeggiated parallel chords that have parallel 5ths. That isn't consistent with the style of the first part.
5. In m.19-20 you change the harmonic style a lot. The piece began in a very classical/romantic vein and here it sounds like Shostakovich with that very unconventional, chromatic voice-leading.

Keep composing!

 

 

 

Thank you Snake_Cake! And thank you for the observations! Since it is a short piece I had carefully checked every single voice leading so I was aware of all of them but, were grounded on "I like how it sounds". Particularly, in part B, I kinda guided myself by ear trying to compose in styles I am not comfortable with yet and justifying things in any way I was able to. I know you are really well versed in modern styles and jazz (all of which I know nothing yet), so I will try to explain my self-reasoning behind those parts and any kind of observation or suggestion you make is more than welcome:

1) In this one I totally agree, it was originally an F# when I composed it. But when practicing it on the guitar I just felt it more natural to play it without the finger on the F# (It is also easier, but I do not mean only that. I used to play flamenco guitar too many years ago and it might be a "bad" habit (from the lost skills) or a "good" habit from the flamenco style itself. Then I kinda liked the sound better so I left it. I guess if I try to justify it I could consider it a rootless IIm7 chord in second inversion. But well, in the end it is a IV in second inversion. It might sound better with the F#. I do think it does not sound so bad because the E is just the same note that was sounding in the bass on first first beat. 

2) 3) This time it was all done by ear. After that I saw those chord movements you point out. Since I liked it I tried to self-justify it and I just ended up considering measures 7-8 as a I7-VIIb-V (The F#m is on the weak beat so I hear more a Dmaj in third beat). Of course, the piano is arpeggiating E-G#-B in that last beat, so technically it arpeggiates the 2-4#-6. I guess in jazz it would not be uncommon, but I was not thinking that here either. It was, again, that I just liked how it sounded.

4) In my view, in the piece there are two moments in which a change in style is announced. Measure 9, in which the piece starts loosing a little bit of tonality (announced by the Fnatural in the piano). And then, m.15, which leads to the new harmonic style you comment on the last measures before the ending. Again, I just like how it sounds, so I left it, but I justify the parallel fifths, strongly used for harmonizing the doubling of the guitar notes, as a clear change that announces that something different is approaching.

5) Here I have no justifications because I actually have not studied Shostakovich (haven't heard much, either), I do not even know so much about earlier styles like romantic style :S. The romantic style from the beginning of second part was constructed, a little bit, on my limited knowledge of modes and modal harmony, but the "Shostakovich" part is not based on anything, so I have no justification. I just barely decided on a chromatic melody for the piano and the top guitar voice that I liked, and then harmonized them as well as I was able. But I ended up enjoying the contrast, especially with the simplistic diatonic ending that comes right after. This is the part I have been more self-conscious about though.