Here's a small piece for piano four hands. It's the first of a set. (The reason for the discrepancy in difficulty between the parts is that it needs to be played by two students of very different skill levels.)

Midi, please.

LOL!

I love it. It's happening every single time! Polyphonist will post one of his scores, in image form, Joel will kick in to ask for a recording and polyphonist will comply...

It seems very interesting, but, Polyphonist, I'm wondering if this format (two staves, on top of another two) is ideal for a 4 hand work. I prefer much more the portrait format, and each page on their own respective performer... ?

I'm just not an excellent sight-reader yet. It would take me 5 minutes per page.

Oh no, I agree. A recording would be most useful. After all, while I can roughly understand what's going on in a score (not Boulez, thank you) I still won't sit on the piano, or print the pages to have a try on the piano, just like that...

Can you literally hear the music when reading it?

Think about it.

Literally NO. It's impossible.

But I can understand roughly, as I said, what's going on. It's not unlike reading an English text. You don't have to read this text aloud, you can just understand what it's saying and how it sounds roughly...

But this is not the place for this discussion I think. Let's not derail this thread any further.

Yes, of course when I print it I use that format. However, I write it like this, and then convert it to normal format at the end. I thought it would be easier to read with all 4 together, so I posted this score.

Now the long-awaited MIDI: http://picosong.com/qJfa
(Disclaimer: The quality is rather bad; I'm having a problem with the audio in Sibelius 7 and have had to use Sibelius 6 for it.)

Thanks for the midi. I think it's a great little piece I can only imagine the lesser student being thrilled to be sitting next to the pianist playing the hard part. That could prove very motivational. Fun piece, I liked it.

I like this. Really enjoyed the progression at around 47s. You must have known that spot would get a reaction.

Very creative. I wish there was more. I would like for the end run to have proceeded all the way down the keyboard and then do some sort of scale all the way back up.

If you don't mind the suggestion, this is what I mean: http://picosong.com/qJQe/

Something along those lines.

Interesting. Not quite the effect I'm going for here (it seems like a little too big of a coda for such a short piece) but might be an option at the end of a longer, 4 or 5 minute work.

It's just a couple seconds longer..

It's not about the length of the piece, it's about the length of the coda. It's 3 times longer, and very dramatic.

Yes, I like that part as well. There's also a nice similar passage at 14s that sounds not-too-good with MIDI, but I also like that one.

Actually, it's not even twice as long. Your coda is 3 measures. Mine is 4.

That too, but 47s is better.

You know what I mean. The running chords going all the way up the piano. It's a bit cheesy to tell you the truth.

Maybe true.

That's the idea - it's supposed to leave you wanting more.

Compose a 3 minute piece.

Why don't you compose a 3 minute piece if you want one so badly?

I'm working on one but I'm stuck. I have a B section, but no A section.. feels like crap.

Is this the Eric piece from the other thread?

No no, that piece is completed in my head already. Just need to get it on (virtual) paper. This is a different piece. I quite like what I have, but it is not A section material. I'm having a hard time working backwards to make an A section.

Let's see it.

Are you able to play piano at this hour?

I can hear it from the score.

I believe you.. but try to run through it once. http://s23.postimg.org/42arv88az/sdfijsidjfdfs.png

Very bare score right now, sorry.

Why is it marked 1/4? And please fix bar 4.

It's 4/4. It just looks like a 1 for some reason.

I edited my post. Could you go back and read the rest of it?

I'm not fixing anything right now. It's a project I'm currently not working on. You'll be fine.

No I won't. Joel, you need to learn that pianists don't read six leger lines above the bass clef. A simple switch to treble does the trick.

Also, you should notate bar 2 and similar passages in two voices. The ties are confusing.

Your B naturals in bar 6 and 8 should be Cb.

Oops haha, I didn't even see that. I wasn't even looking. Yes, totally, I will fix that. I thought you meant the accidentals.

http://s8.postimg.org/x1zkplb6d/dfffffffff.png

By the way, I can't run through it on the piano; I can't play at 12:30 in the morning. I'll get thrown out of my building.

I think it has some promising ideas, but your transitions are very abrupt and it doesn't yet flow in the way that I think you envision.

http://picosong.com/qJDr/

I won't go pedantic on you about accidentals right now, but it does annoy me.

About the music: Most disappointing for me is the transition from bar 10 to 11. It kills all the great possibilities you set up with the modulation (which I like a lot) in the previous few measures.

But that's what I wanted.

What is?

What I wrote, I wanted.

You very much like to modulate a lot, which is fine, but there's nothing wrong with my music just for holding one key for a few measures.

Where did I say I wanted it to modulate again?

Well, you didn't but I sort of got the impression that's what you meant, since you are a very modulation-happy composer. I don't understand what's so disappointing about measures 10 through 11. It's a melody with an accompaniment, and I like it.

Modulation-happy? Not very much. Your favorite of my compositions, the etude, only contains two real modulations in the entire piece.

And the disappointment is that you return in a rather banal fashion to an open tonic when you had a whole plethora of harmonic possibilities coming out of the modulation. The doubled F in the bass of 10 is also rather disappointing. In my opinion, of course.

Improve measure 11 and post it.

At least have an A minor chord and bring it around to the tonic in bar 13 with a half note harmonic rhythm. Or prolong it even longer. You can still retain a similar melody and it is more in the jazz spirit of the piece.

I don't even know why I am discussing this. I'm confident in my musicality. I don't need anyone's opinions.

That's a very close-minded way of thinking about it. Listening to and understanding other opinions is a key aspect of maturing musically.

By the way everyone, the original topic is still up for discussion. Please do not refrain from posting about it.

Beethoven was 10x worse about it. It means nothing. In fact, I'm willing to bet every major composer in history has been this way. When something innate is forcing it's way out organically, there is no room for opinion-based changes.

I'm not going to listen to someone calling one little sliver of my work banal for having a double F. It just doesn't help me. Those F's happen to have been very deliberate. Everything I do is, including keeping measure 11 in the tonic.

I'm not trying to appear standoffish, honestly, but I know myself. I know my music. I have a very strong musical personality. I welcome you to post your own examples of what you think it should sound like. Then I will consider your advice.

Note the straw men that you constantly insert into your posts. I did not say that it was banal solely because of the double F. I was saying that the fact that the bass note was an F contributed to my perception of the passage.

That's a waste of my time, because you will just ignore it with a circular statement like "That's not how I wanted it to sound."

Which is exactly what you're doing.

As I feared, this discussion, which I hoped would be constructive, has devolved into an argument about nothing.

Let's get back to the original topic please.

Correct, because your advice isn't actual advice. The 11 bar segment I posted is completely competent music. Anything regarding changing it would be a clash of opinions, nothing more.

When you post your music, I don't narrow in on little spots that I would 'improve'. I take it for what it is and realize that this is not my creation, and even though I may disagree with certain things, I understand that what I'm hearing is completely competent and in no need of 'fixing'. I also focus on the parts I like most. You should do the same. Unless something is a glaringly immature and beginner-esque flaw, there isn't a need to nit-pick.

Okay?

I think not knowing how to notate accidentals would qualify, don't you? Yet I said nothing about it.

That's theory. Very different than the actual music. Correct my theory mistakes until the cows come home, I would be nothing but thankful. But don't try to correct the music itself. Just doesn't work!

That's what I thought of your version.