# Piano Concerto No. 1 in Bb Minor



## E Cristobal Poveda (Jul 12, 2017)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kL9IcQ5Iv57CpPmP2E1HTm-FEeMHLhCl/view?usp=sharing

I started drafting my idea for my first Piano Concerto. I have about 2 minutes of the first movement done so far. Musescore sucks at articulations and phrasing and the like... if I had my piano I'd use that to provide a tentative recording.

The first movement is going to be Allegretto con Affetto, and I plan on developing the two themes (Powerful theme about 20 seconds in and the softer, more tender theme later on.) throughout the entire concerto, with variations and recapitulations throughout.

I'm going to enjoy writing this immensely, and I think I'll try and push the ceiling in terms of the level the pianist would require.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Some interesting ideas, but I'm not sure it all flows together very nicely to my ears at least. It's a bit disjointed.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda (Jul 12, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Some interesting ideas, but I'm not sure it all flows together very nicely to my ears at least. It's a bit disjointed.


I'll probably lengthen the transitions a bit.


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

Some of the harmonic progressions of the main theme are a tad off. Also, the tonic is emphasized far too much. You had a promising secondary theme section in the relative major, but you tug the music right back into b flat minor right after that. Unless you consider this an introduction, you ought to have solidly modulated by the point you are at in what you've given us. 

A lot of it was coherent music, which is saying a lot for what gets posted around here. Good for you on that. It just lacks subtlety. I'd also take out those flurries of upward runs on the piano, at least at this point in the piece. 

Have you looked at the piano concerto repetoire? Take a look at Mozart's, and then Beethoven's and then Brahms'. Listen to them and study the score and notice their simple yet compelling form. Almost always, there will be an orchestral introduction considered the first of two expositions, this first one establishing the main thematic and closing materials all tied up in the tonic. Then, the soloist becomes the agent of musical movement and the music modulates. You might consider this for your piece. The material would lend itself to an orchestral exposition that remains in the tonic.

This is just the standard form, and there are many exceptions in each piece. But if you are going to take on the difficult task of writing a piano concerto, you must first study the great ones of the past and hear what made them work with such integrity. 

Good luck


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda (Jul 12, 2017)

dzc4627 said:


> Some of the harmonic progressions of the main theme are a tad off. Also, the tonic is emphasized far too much. You had a promising secondary theme section in the relative major, but you tug the music right back into b flat minor right after that. Unless you consider this an introduction, you ought to have solidly modulated by the point you are at in what you've given us.
> 
> A lot of it was coherent music, which is saying a lot for what gets posted around here. Good for you on that. It just lacks subtlety. I'd also take out those flurries of upward runs on the piano, at least at this point in the piece.
> 
> ...


The problem I have with earlier Piano Concerti is the relative lack of difficulty in them compared to later concerti. I think first and foremost a Piano Concerto should showcase a pianist's abilities and skill, while also having a great deal of musical content.

And yeah, this beginning is more of an introduction.

(In case it isn't obvious, I myself am primarily a pianist.)


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda (Jul 12, 2017)

The relative major theme is going to be used later on in the piece more extensively.


----------



## Sekhar (May 30, 2016)

Nice set of harmonies, but I feel it's overall a tad too simple and repetitive with little variation to add interest. Also, IMO the 32nd note gestures (e.g., at 0:09 and 0:30) make it a bit cheesy, for lack of a better word, and are best taken out. I presume you will be expanding on the (modulated) major section.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

It sounds like a Russian style theme to me like Rachmaninov, or the Warsaw concerto. I would have the theme come later and keep the first part more mysterious but hint at the melody or chords. It sounds like you're showing your ace card at the start.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda (Jul 12, 2017)

Did some work a while back. Kinda stuck at the moment since I have a lot of ideas right now and in the middle of the production process of my 4th symphony.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e854gufjWgaiBZhGLctL9YYc4VIj5CK2/view?usp=sharing

Reworked the entire piece and wrote more of the middle section.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

There were some parts I liked with the arpeggios or scales and orchestra together, but I feel the melody or theme should be longer or more complex to have more interesting variations. The last part where the piano is subdued behind the orchestra I'm at a loss with what it is about, seems everything is suspended.


----------



## MarkMcD (Mar 31, 2014)

Hi,

There are some nice ideas here. At the moment it is a sketch of the beginning of your finished piece as you said more or less yourself. It's hard to comment on what you've presented as I suspect the finished article will be quite different to what you have here. Having said that, there is some good material to work with.

You also said that you dislike earlier concertos as they tend to have a lack of difficulty. The three examples that dzc has given of Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms are jam packed full of difficulty believe me and you really should give them a chance. Also, don't fall into the trap of believing that technical difficulty equals musical excellence. More often than not, the opposite is true. We all like a few fireworks, but without the quieter, simpler moments, there is nothing to measure the drama against and ultimately, it is lost. As with all things, the key is balance.

It will be interesting to hear what you finally do with this, I'll look out for it.

Best regards
Mark


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think this music is clearly in the late Romantic vein, and would think looking up Rachmaninov would serve better than Mozart, Beethoven or Brahms whicb would change the character of the piece.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda (Jul 12, 2017)

MarkMcD said:


> Hi,
> 
> There are some nice ideas here. At the moment it is a sketch of the beginning of your finished piece as you said more or less yourself. It's hard to comment on what you've presented as I suspect the finished article will be quite different to what you have here. Having said that, there is some good material to work with.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying at all that I think technical difficulty equals musical excellence, as I very well know that to be untrue. I'm simply saying that I'm going for a more technically demanding piece, as I believe concerti should showcase the very best of a player's ability. I'm familliar with earlier concerti, but i feel that trying to emulate them would betray my own style.

I will consult a few theory textbooks on the matter.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda (Jul 12, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think this music is clearly in the late Romantic vein, and would think looking up Rachmaninov would serve better than Mozart, Beethoven or Brahms whicb would change the character of the piece.


Late Romantic to early impressionistic is where I'd place myself.


----------

