Original Composition - Night

Posted by: grandview

Original Composition - Night - 07/16/13 04:57 PM






Posted by: Polyphonist

Re: Original Composition - Night - 07/16/13 07:43 PM

First of all, there is no time signature at the beginning of your piece. This is mandatory. Your intended time signature appears to be common time, or 4/4.

Additionally, you have not put a single dynamic or phrase marking or expression of any kind anywhere throughout the entire piece. This leaves the would-be performer very little to go on when reading through the score.

When you write a fermata for one hand, you MUST put a fermata in the other staff as well. You make this error in many places throughout the work, namely bars 86, 110, and 117.

Much of your notation is confusing because you don't show where the beats are. This makes the score very difficult to read. For example, in the LH of the first bar, instead of notating it as two dotted quarters and a quarter, it should be a dotted quarter, an eighth tied to another quarter, and then the final quarter. This shows the pianist where the 3rd beat is (the most important in the bar, besides the first, when in common time). This type of notation problem continues throughout the work.

I'll leave it at that for now. Once you've corrected your score, THEN we can begin talking about the music itself.
Posted by: rada

Re: Original Composition - Night - 07/16/13 10:55 PM

Well my comments will be a bit contrasting to those posted above.....variety is the spice of life I suppose.

When I didn't see a time signature I thought maybe old rules of writing don't necessarily have to apply. It seemed obvious to figure the time. As far as writing dynamics I'll tell you why that doesn't bother me. I feel music has its' natural ebb and flow and while we all may have slightly different interpretations I like to play it as I feel rather that according to dynamics. Maybe Beethoven and Mozart wouldn't like that.

Thank-you for sharing because I always like to learn what I can from other ideas.

While I liked some of your ideas it was a bit repetitive for me. Some people really like that so I wouldn't take offense to that thought.

rada
Posted by: Nikolas

Re: Original Composition - Night - 07/17/13 01:34 AM

Originally Posted By: rada
Well my comments will be a bit contrasting to those posted above.....variety is the spice of life I suppose.
I also can't seem to agree with Polyphonist...

You see despite the "errors" in the score (to most of which I don't really agree also) the music IS there, so he could very well comment on that... wink

In any case the time signature would most probably be 8/8 and the first part goes 3+3+2 so there's no need to change that really...

For everything else, once I have some time to sit on the piano, I'll let you know ! ^_^
Posted by: Derulux

Re: Original Composition - Night - 07/17/13 03:16 AM

One of the few times I've been caught near my poor underplayed keyboard, and can I say: thank god. I found this very easy to read. The music lends itself to its own dynamics, and I had no trouble deciding what I felt was the "tone" of the piece. The lack of notation did not bother me. (If, however, you want performers to play it "your way", you may consider adding some more instructions for them.)

When I first looked at the notes, I thought it would be a very simple piece. And it was -- deceptively simple, yet elegant. In fact, I was so surprised by how much I enjoyed playing through it, I played it twice.

A couple notes:

1. The transition between key change and rhythm felt a little rough.. almost like we were switching gears without a clutch. I thought maybe a quarter - eighth note might easy that transition rhythmically--like in m24--and then "echo" with the straight quarters. (Ex: m59 quarter-eighth, m60 quarter-quarter.) But Nikolas might have better ideas when he has a chance to sit down and look through it.

2. The first fermata - have you considered a ritardando there? I didn't feel like I needed to stop completely, but just slow down a tad on the rising line before resuming.

3. m66 -- you probably intend the dissonance of the D-natural. On my first run-through, I didn't like it. On the second, I did. I thought about a D-flat, but after the second run-through, I'm not so sure.

4. Second fermata - I actually tried a fermata on the F# and thought it was a little more natural for the pickup to the return of the first theme. Maybe a rit. here, too? If you pause on the last note until the sound nearly fades, it kind of works, but I'm not a big fan (artistic preference, but by no means "wrong" or "right").

5. Last fermata - didn't like it. Played with a slight rit, but no stopping. Same reasons as #4. Just food for thought.


I did a little improvising with it, and I think you have some room for more notes/rhythms as the theme returns and develops over the course of the piece. It's nice and simple the way it is, with a great sound (especially that main theme), but if you wanted to change it up, you certainly have some room to breathe.

I'd be interested to hear more of Nikolas' thoughts on this, since my first impression was that this fell in/near his "genre"...
Posted by: Steve Chandler

Re: Original Composition - Night - 07/17/13 11:33 AM

It took me a while to get the feel for the rhythm. I found the smattering of whole rest bars detracted from that rhythm and feel some way to maintain said rhythm (in the accompaniment) would help maintain the unity of the piece. Bars such as 8, 16, 20 and 23 (and similar) also detract from the rhythm. It's definitely not in 4/4 so a time signature would certainly be more helpful, especially since at bar 55 it starts to become 4/4 and is definitely so at bar 57. The rhythm is the biggest challenge (modest as it is) of this piece and that lends character to the musical ideas which otherwise wouldn't have much. Frankly, I'd like to hear a recording.
Posted by: Polyphonist

Re: Original Composition - Night - 07/17/13 02:38 PM

This argument is proving my point that there must be a time signature - look at all the disagreement going on over what the time signature might have been intended to be!

Nikolas, I guess we're just perceiving the music in different ways - I, for one, have trouble reading in 8/8 with 3+3+2 divisions within bars, because I'm not used to it. You said you disagree with my corrections - so you don't think there should be a time signature, and you don't think that if there's a fermata in one staff there should be one in the other staves as well? wink
Posted by: Steve Chandler

Re: Original Composition - Night - 07/17/13 09:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Polyphonist
This argument is proving my point that there must be a time signature - look at all the disagreement going on over what the time signature might have been intended to be!

Nikolas, I guess we're just perceiving the music in different ways - I, for one, have trouble reading in 8/8 with 3+3+2 divisions within bars, because I'm not used to it. You said you disagree with my corrections - so you don't think there should be a time signature, and you don't think that if there's a fermata in one staff there should be one in the other staves as well? wink

I'm inclined to agree. The dichotomy between the two rhythmic sections is significant and that should be reflected in the time signature. In Finale you can specify a time signature of 3+3+2 over 8 and that would accurately reflect the rhythmic intent of the first section (and end) and draw appropriate contrast with the 4/4 section.
Posted by: grandview

Re: Original Composition - Night - 07/19/13 05:57 PM

Thank you all for your comments. Obviously my notation could use some work! Here is a clip of me playing the song, for those who are interested in knowing what I actually intended for it to sound like:

http://www.reverbnation.com/bairdmusic/song/8721693-night-in-the-woods