The 3rd prelude is far more convincing now, without that strange lump in the middle. I'm not too sure of the ending now - it sounds vaguely silly to me, but maybe that was the intention.

The Bartok's are not bad but I must nitpick them a bit I'm afraid. What edition are you playing from ?

In Sweet as Sugar Pillow Dance you seem to be ignoring all dynamic directives, the sempre legato at the beginning, and the two-bar rit. at the end (which must surely mean ritardando here). There are two dodgy RH notes (accidentally hitting an extra key which should have been corrected).

In the Pillow Dance you also largely ignore all directives, it sounds very monochrome and metronomic.
You leave out bars 16 and 25.
In bar 30 (a tempo) the LH C should not be played, it's tied over from the previous bar.
In bar 40, you play C in the RH instead of G.
I thought at first you missed the top note in the closing chord. It's there, but very weak. IMO the two notes should be of equal strength.

Sorry to be critical, but easy pieces like this must really be played perfectly and be of demonstration quality. You can do that with a bit more attention to the score (and maybe not playing from memory).

Hi again, Riley. First to answer your question from before....Carbondale.

Now to your music...

I hate to say this, but I agree about the ending of your Prelude sounding silly. It sounds so contrived and really comes out of nowhere. I don't think it fits that well with the rest of the composition. It's your baby, though, and if that's what you like, then I feel badly about telling you this. It's just that listening to original compositions is so highly subjective, which is why I rarely do it.

Regarding your other pieces; I don't know those two Bartok pieces so I can't offer anything useful. Except, I did hear a couple awkward edits in the Pillow Dance. Specifically at :17. That's something you will have to eliminate in order for a recording to go up on the site. I did like your Reverie very much! The only negative thing here is the sound. Yes, you said that it calls for the una chorda pedal to be pressed down for the entire piece. But this sounds so much different from your other recordings; like you are playing in a long tunnel. It's not worse than a couple recordings we (should not) have on the site, but I dunno...What's your set up on this one?

Ah yes, I failed to notice that. It is quote obnoxious.

And I now listened to the Strauss Reverie too. The performance is not bad at all - but how do you manage to get such a muffled and recessed sound ? If that is due to to your Una Corda pedal, I'd say do not use it - ever.

Hi Chris,



I agree the Bartok pieces do not sound as good as they could. My recording session was cut short because I had a class to go to before I could get a clean take. To answer your question, "what edition?" I memorized it and looking at the score I realize I did not add any of slurs in the score that seem to make the 1st sound somewhat syncopated.

I have been practicing Schumann's Kinderszenen Op. 15 more so than the Bartok and decided to record my progress this morning. I wasn't able to get the grand piano but a Baldwin upright. I think it is more worth the while to record Schumann than Bartok as honestly I haven't worked on in a while. I am submitting no.2 no.3 and no.4., for your consideration. the no.2 has a little snag at the end but this was a note that did not sound completely, I was trying to play as piano as I could. Let me know if these are recordings you can accept.

About Strauss's Traumerei, I agree it does make the frequency sound a little strange. I realize its a lot different than Mr. Kautsch's version here on PS.

About you not knowing if i was swedish, I am american but of irish and swedish descent. Kind of the same thing, right?

@ Monica



Very cool. I don't know anyone by your last name here, but then again there are so many people who I go to school with that its hard to keep track of everyones first name nevermind both first and last



Thanks for the feedback, it's no offense to me, and I did mean to make it kind of "showy" at the end. Though I can see what you mean -it is an ending unlike the 1st two pieces but because it's the last piece I thought i'd end the set with a bang . It's interesting how someone can hear a piece and be repulsed by it and another person can look at the same piece and shrug and say "it sounds ok, not great, but ok"

To answer your question about the Reverie: "What's your set up on this one?"

I used a zoom h4 recorder. Baldwin upright piano, I believe it was about 2-3 feet from the keyboard.

~Riley

Riley,

This version of Prelude #3 is much more convincing and cohesive than your first version. You have started to explore development of an idea, which is an important tool for the composer. In this case, you have kept the basic rhythmic motive throughout. You took the initial chromatically descending melodic line and altered it in such ways that, while creating that feeling of chromatic descent, you allow it to also ascend -- measure 6, you begin the descent, move up a major third and then descend again. Then at measure 14, you begin a rising sequence, related by minor 3rds that descends in each measure and yet rises higher and higher. (If you will work on being more careful with your selection of enharmonic note choices, the relationship by those minor thirds would be more obvious.)

This is an example of creating variety and contrast using only a few basic materials. You do not always need a completely contrasting section in a piece of music. There are whole sonata form movements built out of just a very few pieces of motivic raw material. One old artists adage is "creativity comes within restrictions." When you try limiting your materials, you will often find more creative and interesting ideas than allowing yourself everything and the kitchen sink. Good job.

I hate to say it, but I have to agree that the ending does not work at all. Not a single thing is related to anything that preceeds it.

First, from measure 14, through your sequence, you have an ascending line. The first note of that next to last measure needs to be the highest note of that ascent.

Second, that B major chord comes out of nowhere, as does the B - Em (V - I). The piece has not had a single B natural in it. You do have the key signature for E minor (one sharp) and I believe that you may have chosen this because of your initial chord in measure 2 (the first full measure -- it appears that the incomplete measure is being counted as one by your softwares numbering) on the surface appears to be an E minor chord, when in reality its ambiguous -- E minor or E diminshed or even an A something (the first eighth note G being an incomplete neighbor resolving to the A). This measure acts as prepartion for the Bb major chord of measure 3, which has 4 beats, and the Ab major chord of measures 4 & 5, which is 8 counts. The harmonic strength of these two chords would deny E as being the actual key, and by extension, that B major chord acting as V of E minor. I believe that if you experiment more, you will find that the key of the piece is F (major or minor is not clear since it contains both A nat. and Ab throughout, but the overall minor feel of the piece is F minor)

Third, the texture throughout has been 3 part (the momentary division of beats 1 and 3 in some measures does not affect that feeling substantially). All of a sudden in your next to last measure, you technically have up to 11 voices -- the half-note B chord is six of them, and since they hold through the measure, the bass B and the "fanfare" add another 4 or 5. (OK, I may have gone a little overboard in my voice counting, there are other ways it could be done. Also, piano music is not strictly beholden to keep exactly a certain number of voices at all times -- just like you added a part in those few measures in the main body of the piece. But my point is that, what is essentially a trio for, say, a woodwind trio, has an ending that would require the full forces of the New York Phil.) It is jarring and completely out of character. The simplicity, and austerity of the piece needs an ending that is equally simple and austere -- a single note, an octave or so apart

I understand your concern about how it finishes the set, and that is good, but first keep the needs of the piece itself in mind. Not all sets need to have a grandiose ending. Some can actually end in a whisper to good effect. If you do not feel that a particular piece serves your purpose in a set, change the order, or add another that does or replace the current one and use it elsewhere. You will be in very good company. In any case, I'm not sure that that ending has any relationship to the set in full.

Now, as I stated above, I believe the piece to actually be in F. As far as the keynote being F, measures 14 - 17 are doing everything they can to lead to an F. The relationship of the first bass note of each of those measures is minor 3rd, spelling an E dim 7 - the vii of F, (some theory sources would consider it to be a Vb9 without root -- therefore the E dim 7 represents a C7b9).

As for mode, even though the piece contains both A nat. and Ab throughout, the prominance of the Ab harmony -- the longest held harmony in the piece, would make me lean toward F minor, since Ab represents the III of F minor.

As far as notation, the mixture of sharps and flats, particularly with enharmonic notes at the same time or changing from one to the other in mid measure (and not even at consistent points in parallel measures), is really obscuring what is happening harmonically. The only # that could possibly be justified in this piece is the D# in the pickup at the very beginning, and that in the key signature for F minor could be fully debated and shown to be unnecessary. All of the rest should be flats. Also, the only time that you change from one note to its enharmonic spelling in close proximity to each other is in the case of an "enharmonic modulation".

Sorry to be so long-winded, but I hope that I have given you some things to consider. I know that at times it can sound like the composing process is all about rules and how can you be creative with "rules" that go against what you are trying to do. Don't think of them as rules, but rather as principals. You follow the principals unless you have a good reason to do something else. There are even some principals in the arts for violating the "rules". The main one would be that whenever you chose to do something unusual, out of the norm, totally unheard of before...make sure your music show that you intended it to be that way -- make it a new norm.

Scott

@ Scott,



Thanks for the praise, I think the first was missing some development and I tried to fix the first version with this in mind.



If you don't like the ending that is one thing, but I do not understand your claim that not a single thing is related to anything that precedes it.

In measure 17 you will notice that on beat 4 in the right hand there is a C. This note is the main idea of of the beat, the g in the left hand adds a fifth for strength. Consider the [and e] as nothing more than an ornament. So from C we go to a strong B in measure 18. The distance between a C and a B is a m2. think of it as a small part of a descending two note scale in C major. To me it is quite well related, in a stepwise way.



I don't know what piece you are referencing this from, or if you are referencing a piece, but I am having trouble understanding what you mean.



I have trouble understanding your mode of analysis. Is V - I not the most common closing in classical music? Excepting IV-I? What do you make of the term "perfect authentic cadence? Though it would be V-I in e minor I would rather think of it as IV-I. The B chord is actually above the preceding e minor so it has the sound of a IV-I chord progression. I originally wrote this piece in c major so it would be VII-iii, in any case, its basically IV-I.



The key signature of f minor is ab major and the key of this piece is either g major or f minor, so I don't see your reasoning on this point. I wrote an alternative version of this piece that ends in e major but I don't like it as much as this version.



I think, and I may be wrong, but I imagine the reason you don't like the ending is because you heard the performance and I admit the ending is lacking in that 1. it is not at tempo-- admittedly it sounds kind of flabby, and 2. measure 16 sounds louder than 17, ideally measure 17 is the loudest, for a building crescendo effect. I'd record it again, but I don't think I'd get it much better.



There are some nice pieces that end in a whisper. Some of Chopin's preludes but I wrote the piece "allegro agitato" because it is supposed to sound like someone agitated as if by an itch that can never quite seem to ebb away.



One way to think of a mixture of sharps and flats is that the piece was written by a beginning composer, another way is to say it was written by the composer to give the performer a challenge But in all seriousness, take a look at literature by Bartok. His pieces, at least most of those I have seen are written in a minor/c major with a jumble of sharps and flats in odd places. Not that I am as good a composer as Bartok, but I don't think your analogy that writing two as too is quite the same as a composer writing for piano writing an a# and a few measures later writing a Bb. I would say it would be different for instruments other than the piano, but that is not who I am writing for in this set.



Thanks for your input here. Sorry if I have given you the impression I have taken you down a peg or two, though I have taken music theory at the college level last year, and I feel like I can teach it, nevermind just understand it. I feel I still have a lot to learn, but that I have been given a solid foundation on the music theory dos and don'ts. If you can imagine, there would be days in the class when my teacher would go around the room and ask us to spell a diminished 7th chord in all of the different keys with about 3 seconds to get all four notes right, or he would move on to the next student. This was for points! It gets hard when you have to think about spelling a note in double sharps and flats..

Look forward to more theory discussions,

~Riley

Riley,
Please allow me to recommend a few concepts to think about when you're writing music.
1. The names of the notes selected have nothing to do with an instrument (except for matter of key for transposing instruments); music transcends the instrument(s) itself. The fact that a piano can't inflect the difference between enharmonic pitches, has nothing to do with the fact that the scale 3rd degree of Beethoven's Concerto No. 3 in C Minor MUST be Eb, not D#; or that when he wants to modulate to the Dominant, he MUST use the raised 4th degree, not a lowered 5th degree.
2. Tonal-Modal scales, can have only one representative for each line/space of the staff. I.e., a tonal/modal scale can't have two kinds of any note (can't have E and Eb, or F and F#, etc., Neither can it have enharmonic equivalents: can't have BOTH F# and Gb.
3. Try to understand the difference between a chromatic half-step versus a diatonic half-step. The first always uses only ONE line or space on the staff to represent BOTH notes (and this is a larger half-step from pure acoustics); the second always uses adjacent line AND space to represent the pitches (and is a smaller half-step from pure acoustics). For a limited analogy, it's like stealing bases in baseball. If you lead off of 1st base just a few steps (diatonic half-step) you'll return to 1st base. If you lead off with great distance (chromatic half-step), then you'll go to second! If you want to pass through an intermediate pitch to go from C to D, you'll use C#, not Db (that wants to return to C).
4. These are some of the facts that govern the proper writing of tonal/modal music. This is why a German Augmented 6th chord behaves differently than a V7 chord, though they sound the same.

Good luck with your music education.

Eddy

Hi again, Riley. I just listened to your three Schumann pieces. I think you play them just fine, but again the sound is something that we need to talk about. First off, that piano is doing you no favors. It's tinny, not totally in tune, and the middle range sticks out too much. If you could re-record these on a better piano I'm sure we would be able to accept the recordings. Can you find a way to use one of the music department's grand pianos? Second, when you record, you should make about two or three seconds blank time before the playing starts and then also at the end before you cut off the file.

As for the Schumanns, the sound must definitely be improved, and a couple seconds silence added before and after the music.

But even then, I'd not want to put these on the site like this. In the Curious Story, your dotted rhythm is
mostly wrong and the pulse unsteady, and you don't really have Blindman's Buff in the fingers yet (this
one is not at all easy). There are assorted fumbles and misreadings, some minor and some embarrassing. Also
your touch is not always under control, causing some notes to be far softer or louder than (I guess was) intended.

I realize we are giving new submitters a hard time.... Sorry about that. Some years ago it was rather easy to get your recordings on the site, but these days we feel that a certain quality standard must be met before we can admit stuff. You're not making things easier on yourself by choosing such well-known pieces which are already well-represented on the site. But keep going, you'll get there.

I prefer your previous version of the 3rd prelude.

@ Richard

Thanks for the feedback, looking back I do not think it was a legitimate piece, as underdeveloped as it was..

@ Eddy



The future theory discussion came faster than I thought it would!

Thanks for these points and I realize I cannot argue with them. These are rules that you have learned, though I was told by my theory teacher the rules are guidelines and for most rules there are some exceptions. I like your analogy to baseball, it is sequential and logical. Though if you were to say, "music writing is like driving," I would have to say they are not the same, as it would prove there is patently one way or one one way in a gradient of ways to respond to any number of driving situations. Maybe that is a bad analogy, and I'm full of them

@ Monica,



Thanks for the feedback on the recordings. I agree the sound of the upright leaves a lot to be desired, and the instruments tone is a little on the sharp side. I don't know why the pianos are not tuned, as typically they are at the beginning of the year. There should be a way of getting access to the better pianos, it would make sense to ask. About making another recording, I don't think I will be able to devote time to recording and re-recording pieces till they mimic the professional ones that are featured on the major labels. I have taken on a grueling workload this semester and the consequence of this would seem to be little time free to perfect recordings in order for me to do the best I can as a student.

@ Chris,



Thanks for the feedback, I agree the tempo maybe unsteady, though I thought I played the dotted rhythms ok? I detect one error in the left hand in measure 21 (the and d) but that is all of the Kuriose Geschichte. About Blindman's buff, I don't know how you can snap back to the beginning in measure 5. I guess, as you say, you have to have it in the fingers.. .

I know you have high standards for potential site candidates (artists and composers), though when I first posted this thread I hope I made it clear I was only interested in becoming a composer for the site. I appreciate your interest in me not only becoming a site composer but also a pianist, but I'm facing the reality that after so many hours of practice, a fine grand piano, with a top-of-the-line setup of recording equipment, submitting my best Schumann, I still won't quite be able to cut the mustard ! though I appreciate your encouragement.

~Riley

Not so. It is a common error to play a dotted figure as if it were a triplet where the last note comes on the third. It sounds really flabby. I used to do that too, but saw the light after my teacher repeatedly pounded on me for it. Dotted rhythms generally should be sharp and snappy.


If you're interested (and actually want to do something with the feedback) I can give you the details in a PM.


I had to work pretty darn hard to get that one on record halfway decent It is no kid piece at all.


Ah yes good point



We require neither professional sound quality or professional playing. Or else I would not dare put up my own stuff
A clean and pleasant sound, and reasonably error-free and artistic playing is good enough. It takes a while to get there but it's by no means a too lofty goal.

I asked the question mostly because the the names of the pieces, which are different, partly from both of my editions. What we have for these two pieces is



I seem to remember you used Schirmer ?
Also I wondered whether you edition actually has all the finicky dynamic directives I see in mine.

@ Chris,



Interesting how a dotted rhythm could sound like it was playing on 1 and 3 instead of the original. It would be correct in a sense, but the tempo would be the variable, not an unchanging consistent.



Sure, please shoot me a PM. I'm open to feedback if you are willing to give it. And if you say it, I will probably be hearing it again from my piano teacher



It's interesting that everybody plays it so lightnin' fast, my edition says nothing on the top of the pieces in the way of a tempo indication.



I agree, it is a goal that isn't too lofty but getting there requires a lot of patience and concentration and I think it's the reason playing the piano is for some people, and for others, well, it's just not their bag.



wow. This is a fancy graphic! The title "let's bake something," is worth a laugh! To answer your question, no- my edition isn't G. Schirmer, it's the original ed. from 1909. Strangely, it is missing a cover page. And the no. 4 is soft tears, not pillow dance. Also, my edition is pretty conservative about dynamic directives. About one per piece, though some it is more like 4 or 5 which is strange considering these are short pieces.

~Riley

Yours is the unrevised, edition of the Bartok. He revised them, if memory serves me well, in the 1940s, eliminating some which turned out not to be folk-songs, changing their order and making other corrections.