# Rhapsody in A minor



## Pennypacker

This is my first and only composition (so far), Which I wrote recently. For those who are interested, here's the score. I hope you'll enjoy it, and any feedback is welcome.


----------



## kv466

I _did_ enjoy it, Pack! Work on strengthening that left hand  And try not to climb to that peak so many times. Explore a little more in between highs. I liked it, though. And your playing as well!


----------



## Ravndal

I liked it as well! Quite enjoyable...


----------



## Pennypacker

Thank you gentlemen, glad you enjoyed it. Rest assured, the left hand will be dealt with.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

beautiful. it started off a little shaking but it got stronger and beautiful.


----------



## Pennypacker

Thanks man. At the beginning I also didn't really like the opening I wrote, so I could either toss it or use the motifs and develop them. I'm glad I chose the latter, the development is the beauty of this piece for me.


----------



## hreichgott

I think the development is quite strong as well. The beginning was a bit boring, honestly -- sort of "here's one chord, now here's another chord" -- in inventive combinations now and then, but still that isn't enough to hold my interest. The development and later sections on the other hand are very interesting and engaging. For one thing there is more of a line over and around the chords, which helps the chords actually mean something. Also, I'm just a fan of anyone who can pull off decent thematic development, so hats off.


I really think it would be worth your time to revise the beginning. Consider giving it some sort of a line, something that works well with that great propulsive rhythm, but still melodic to be in keeping with the rest of the piece? (also, it wouldn't have to have the same rhythm as the bass, if that frees up your imagination more)

Food for thought -- do you think the "theme" you are developing is the RH triplets, or the LH bass line?


----------



## Pennypacker

First of all, thanks a lot for the review! To be perfectly honest, I wrote the opening somewhere in the age of 16. The current me kicks in 6 years later in measure 15 (00:25). Revising it would be hard though. The whole piece is based largely on it. I left nothing untouched, every motif recurs at least once. So it would mean revising more than just the opening. 

As for the thematic development, LH only has one motif and it's mostly RH's bitch in this piece.  There are three themes here, each of them appears first in an atonal version, varies (or variates? not sure about this), and then has a "clean" tonal version. The first one is, well, the first one. It sets the engine for the whole piece, varies in all sorts of ways, then has its clean version in the end (m. 129, 4:37). The second and main theme appears and passes unnoticed in measures 16-17 (0:25-0:30, switching between RH and LH), then in measures 45-49 (1:25-1:45), and ends with its clean version in the culmination (m. 74-81, 2:48-3:05). Third theme appears right after the second (m. 18, 0:30). It has a variation in measures 31-34 (0:52-0:58), then the variation has its clean version in measures 50-53 (1:46-1:55).

So I'm not sure about revising it, but it was a great experience and I learned a lot in the process. My lesson here would be less themes, and let each theme really sink in before moving on, so when I bring it up again the listener will actually remember that he had already heard it. My next piece (a sonata) will be in a completely different style, far more motivic, and also using counterpoint.


----------



## StevenOBrien

This is fantastic! It's also certainly nice to hear someone who plays their own music .

I have to agree with Heather, I felt that the beginning section dragged on a little too much. Personally, I'd try to get rid about 25% of it.

I've only had a chance to listen through once, so I'm not sure about this feedback I'm about to give, but; How do you feel about the constant reuse of the triplet chord pattern? I think it serves to make things feel a little monotonous from time to time (It makes it feel like a virtuosic etude, essentially ). It's all very much about harmonic movement, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of thought given to the melodic side of things.

Excellent work, nonetheless.
-Steven


----------



## Pennypacker

I can always tell software music (when it's written for piano), so I wish not to write anything I can't play. Although I fear one day my composition skills will refuse to be held back by my mediocre piano skills anymore. 
You're right about the oscillating figure, it was intended as an etude at first, but soon I knew I wanted it to be more than that. I still kept it as the core of the piece.
The melodic side doesn't bother me too much, it's more about the motifs and their development. For example, my favorite part is the modulating build-up in measures 67-72 (2:32-2:47), since the writing is the most effective here (especially the chromatic inner voicing).
As I've written above, the problem is that the themes change too rapidly, so it's hard to get everything on the first listen. 

Thank you for you comment, I'm glad you enjoyed it.


----------



## aleazk

I thought it was pretty good for being your first piece.
I don't think the introduction was that bad. As you say, the piece is about motifs, not melodic. In motifs compositions, the form used is usually of a slow build up of increasing complexity. I think that the motif was thoroughly used for this build up in the first minute of the piece. The motif is quite catchy and well chosen.
Listening to it again, I think I know what the problem may be, and why others found it somewhat "boring". The build up is achieved in terms of complexity and motif treatment, but not in terms of tension. The direction is somewhat too irregular; a nice general up (i.e., more and more tension), with some minor ups and downs in the middle, would have achieved the effect. Followed by a high textural contrast, a relief (you do that at the end of the introduction). Some examples can be the following piano etudes by Ligeti: 



, 



.
The harmony was somewhat too romantic for my taste.
Anyway, keep working, you have a lot of talent.


----------



## Pennypacker

Thanks! I appreciate your review. Of all the notes given to me, this one hasn't really crossed my mind. I felt like the middle section is the most rich and complex, but doesn't quite work as I want it to. It's a very important point.
I'm not familiar with your taste yet, but I can assure you the next one will be far from romantic.


----------



## Ramako

I'm afraid I'm going to have to be contrary and say I liked the first half best. I found it harder to concentrate after about 3:00 in (which is not harsh criticism, given that I would say similar things of sections of very good compositions by the greats).

Like aleazk, the harmonies are not to my taste, however the whole thing I think is very well done, especially for a first composition, so well done!


----------



## Pennypacker

Nothing wrong with harsh criticism, the greatest ones got plenty of that, why shouldn't I? Certainly it's more important than friends who don't even listen to classical music telling you how they liked it just because it's you. 
Clearly romanticism fans will find the second half better, and vice versa. Thank you for listening and commenting!


----------



## Tomposer

Very good! 

Things I like: 
All the cool modulations.
Playing it yourself keeps it real. (don't worry about advancing beyond your skill... just keep practicing. Good enough for Stravinsky, who wasn't the world's greatest pianist, by contemporary accounts).
I didn't mind the simple/naive beginning. There's nothing wrong with simplicity, per se. Don't let anyone ever tell you different. Music in the 20th century sometimes got a little pretentious in its complexity, and as a result not too many people listen to contemporary classical. We live in a new century now. Let's move on.

Things I think you should work on:
* Keep the "Romantic" thing if you like, but make it your own. It's not really here or there at the moment... sounds like you've got lots of excellent talent but still need to find your own sound.
* Texture. It's an underrated part of composing. In this piece, at least, it's a little relentless. You need occasional solo voices or unison (monophony), or call/response (antiphony), etc. Don't underestimate stripping something back to almost nothing. Leave more blank space. Then you can involve more surprises, which is something else you could use more of.
* Harmonic direction. You've got a great ear for modulation, but you need a clearer overall harmonic plan. It seems to get lost. If you want rapidfire modulations, have some sections where the harmony is less dynamic, to offset.

Pretty great though.


----------



## Pennypacker

Thanks a lot for the review! These are excellent points. I did notice the texture issue while writing it, but was just too "scared" to make any changes in the pattern. Hopefully I did a better job at this in my soon to be posted second work.


----------

