# Three Abstract Preludes



## BurningDesire

This is my first time posting some of my music here, so I figured I'd post something I feel proud of for my first go ^_^

These recordings were performed by a friend of mine and fellow student, pianist Siwon Kim.

Prelude I:

__
https://soundcloud.com/burning-desire-3%2Fthree-abstract-preludes-i-les

Prelude II:

__
https://soundcloud.com/burning-desire-3%2Fthree-abstract-preludes-ii

Prelude III:

__
https://soundcloud.com/burning-desire-3%2Fthree-abstract-preludes-iii

These 3 piano preludes I wrote back in fall of 2012. They are my first complete works for solo piano (but not my first writing for piano, as I has used piano in several pieces prominently prior. They are called Three Abstract Preludes because they portray abstract concepts through visual metaphors. I see the pieces as being multi-utility: any of them could potentially be played as a prelude before other music, and they can also function as a single unit, movements in a suite.

The first prelude makes heavy use of tone clusters, many of which are built through use of the piano's sustain pedal. It is very modal in its use of harmonies, and makes heavy use of planed chords, thick walls of sound.

The second started from a set of different chords that I really liked the sound of, that evolved into more intense sonorities, influenced by the harmonies of Ives and Debussy, and other modernists.

The third is in a sort of joint form: the first section is a two part invention, and the second is a waltz. The piece is constructed from a 6-tone row, and with a couple exceptions utilizes that row fairly strictly. The prime form of the row used is F C Ab D Db A, and the end result is a harmonic climate that is a sort of twisted form of F-minor. Sergei Prokofiev was of great interest to me as I wrote this (and he remains to be). This prelude is also by far the most difficult of the three to perform.

Please let me know what you all think


----------



## moody

Always sounds good to me !


----------



## mmsbls

The second prelude is really quite lovely and does remind me strongly of Debussy. The repeated motif around 2:10 is gorgeous.

The third prelude is interesting. The two part invention struck me as rather different from your description "The third and last prelude depicts a grim figure, the titular Duke of Crows...". I felt it was fun and energetic. The waltz, on the other hand, certainly gives a sense of sadness and tragedy. 

Thanks for posting.


----------



## Yardrax

I liked them 

But the descriptions of the visual imagery you had in mind did nothing for my appreciation, maybe you could consider dropping them?


----------



## Crudblud

A note on the descriptors: it's kind of odd that you call the pieces "abstract" but go to lengths to contextualise them in extramusical terms.


----------



## BurningDesire

Crudblud said:


> A note on the descriptors: it's kind of odd that you call the pieces "abstract" but go to lengths to contextualise them in extramusical terms.


Well... I just always thought of them as being about abstract concepts. I've kinda felt that the subjects of my pieces are important to share, because most of my pieces do have subjects. Do you think it hinders the music? I understand that with an artform as abstract as music, everybody will have a different reaction, such as mmsbls's reaction to the first part of the third prelude (my composition teacher at the time thought my vision for the waltz was a comical one, because he just viewed waltzes as being fluffy, light-mood kinda pieces in general). I just thought it would be important to share what I had in mind since they are my pieces. I don't include them because I think the music can't succeed without them.


----------



## aleazk

I quite liked the pieces. I found them very effective in their own terms. The three pieces together make a quite coherent and convincing whole. 
The pieces are pretty intense in terms of emotion. 
I didn't read the notes before listening. That was intentional.


----------



## Igneous01

very nice, i really enjoyed the second prelude. Keep up the good work, hopefully you will share more works in the future here!


----------



## hreichgott

Les Murs: very moving. I think the middle section is very effective. Sometimes when evoking something large and insurmountable, contrast actually helps.

I'd love the score if available.

Congratulations to Siwon Kim for a beautiful performance.

More later.


----------



## Ukko

Thanks for this, _BD_. I have saved the links, hope to hear the music when in a more reflective mood.


----------



## Couchie

Your music is surprisingly beautiful. Evocative of mid-late Scriabin to me. Excellent.


----------



## hreichgott

About the title: It is odd that you have very concrete visual imagery in mind and yet you call the pieces "abstract." You clearly have symbolic meaning attached to your imagery, but it is not abstract. Walls are a concrete image, not an abstract concept. Dancing entities in a realm of light are a concrete image, not an abstract concept. This Duke of Crows character: totally fascinating concrete image. If the pieces were only about the idea of being closed to new ideas, or the idea of transfiguration, or misfortune in general, without the concrete images, then they would be about abstract concepts. Once you have concrete imagery, the word "abstract" looks rather foolish in the title. I say eliminate it. If you want to call attention to the symbolic meaning then you could always say "Three symbolic preludes" instead. Or "Three fantasy preludes" if you want to call attention to the fact that these images are from the imagination, not necessarily a real-life wall etc.

I listened to the other two preludes and enjoyed them very much also. I hear some Prokofiev in that waltz! And I do quite like the link between the theme in the invention section and the theme in the waltz section. It seems to me like it could have a little more of a conclusion; right now it seems like that character just sort of gets bored and wanders off. Maybe a third, more resolute section using the same theme? or if you want it to end quietly after the waltz, perhaps draw things out a little more with some slower measures at the end.

Again, would love to see the score if it is available.


----------



## Ukko

^ ^ I think I understand your point re abstract, Heather, but don't really see how the titles affect the music significantly. The most they can do is offer a 'way in'. Without words or much stronger associations (a la Ferde Grofe) the guidance is appropriately unpersuasive. Unless the works are published with the 'story lines' included, they remain 'pure' music.


----------



## hreichgott

This is true. BD did choose to publish them on soundcloud with the stories included.


----------



## tdc

Glad you decided to share these BD. You are a very talented composer, all of the pieces I've heard from you are very good, so there is more where this came from.

As you may recall my one piece of constructive criticism on these particular works is similar to hreichgott's - the ending doesn't feel conclusive, or fully convincing to me, that is why I suggested ending maybe with another faster movement or a fugue. Heather's suggestions also seem like possibilities that could work. Regardless they are very impressive pieces - keep up the great work!


----------



## Ukko

hreichgott said:


> This is true. BD did choose to publish them on soundcloud with the stories included.


Aha! Makes my post an example of truth contaminated with ignorance. Hah, so what's new, eh?


----------



## Aramis

I generally did like the pieces. The already mentioned waltz not so much - I feel that despite the dissonant harmony, it has something of insipid waltzness. I like the beginning of 3rd piece much more and I must say that the program association works for me here, this music and the idea of "duc" harmonized in my imagination. The title, though, is very weird linguistically and I wonder if you didn't mean "Raben".


----------



## PetrB

BurningDesire said:


> Well... I've kinda felt that the subjects of my pieces are important to share, because most of my pieces do have subjects.


Just read the dozens of comments on program music... and how many times it comes up that the only good program music is that which the listener needs no program to enjoy 

If I told anyone of the multitude of analogous associations I get along the way during the comp process -- which for me always starts out with "just some notes" and no idea of story, "meaning," -- I would either be carted away for institutional care or lauded for a wide ranging and colorful imagination. (My music, to date, has no 'subjects.'  That said, unless I can name a piece by form, I name it because if I do not someone else will!

One more 'colorful' title option for a piece I'm now working on is "Nostalgia for Sunlight," that via some random and highly tangential associations by the time I was well into what started out as a 'bunch of notes.' It is a gigue, or "Gigesque" (working title option No.2) but the more colorful title may, or may not, have something to do with the music written. I'm not being at all coy to say that wherever the more colorful title came from, it probably has nothing, at all, to do with the piece.

You may not always write 'music with meaning,' i.e. younger composers often go to meaning, narrative, etc. as some analogy in order to stimulate ideas, give some idea of form, where later, you may need none, or veer more toward my M.O. of 'just notes.'

I think for a younger generation, "sharing" has become both buzzword and a mentality; old coot that I am, I think it better to show your work, post an audio clip, and leave off the sharing, leave out anything "about the meaning of the work." (How will you know it communicates anything if you spoon-feed 'the meaning' to the audience prior their hearing it?)

I am especially big on lobbying against, (All the Muses forbid,) "the artist's statement" in the program or hung on the wall of the gallery where the paintings are on exhibit -- where the actual "Artist's Statements" are actually hanging on the wall!

So too, with music. Let it speak for itself. It is very typical (zOMG you're 'average') for young artists to want to explain the meaning of their works, rather than let the works speak for themselves.

Let your works speak for themselves, then you will really know better what they 'do' to people.



BurningDesire said:


> with an artform as abstract as music, everybody will have a different reaction


...et voila, and BINGO -- which is why you don't color the listener's perceptions with your own 

P.s. I'm with Crudblud, they're 'abstract' or they're not... I'd re-title them "Three Preludes" if you intend to present them with the 'story lines' -- or "Three Abstract Preludes" without any story lines, not both.


----------



## BurningDesire

PetrB said:


> Just read the dozens of comments on program music... and how many times it comes up that the only good program music is that which the listener needs no program to enjoy
> 
> If I told anyone of the multitude of analogous associations I get along the way during the comp process -- which for me always starts out with "just some notes" and no idea of story, "meaning," -- I would either be carted away for institutional care or lauded for a wide ranging and colorful imagination. (My music, to date, has no 'subjects.'  That said, unless I can name a piece by form, I name it because if I do not someone else will!
> 
> One more 'colorful' title option for a piece I'm now working on is "Nostalgia for Sunlight," that via some random and highly tangential associations by the time I was well into what started out as a 'bunch of notes.' It is a gigue, or "Gigesque" (working title option No.2) but the more colorful title may, or may not, have something to do with the music written. I'm not being at all coy to say that wherever the more colorful title came from, it probably has nothing, at all, to do with the piece.
> 
> You may not always write 'music with meaning,' i.e. younger composers often go to meaning, narrative, etc. as some analogy in order to stimulate ideas, give some idea of form, where later, you may need none, or veer more toward my M.O. of 'just notes.'
> 
> I think for a younger generation, "sharing" has become both buzzword and a mentality; old coot that I am, I think it better to show your work, post an audio clip, and leave off the sharing, leave out anything "about the meaning of the work." (How will you know it communicates anything if you spoon-feed 'the meaning' to the audience prior even their hearing it?)
> 
> I am especially big on lobbying against, (All the Muses forbid,) "the artist's statement" in the program or hung on the wall of the gallery where the paintings are on exhibit -- where the actual "Artist's Statements" are actually hanging on the wall!
> 
> So too, with music. Let it speak for itself. It is very typical (zOMG you're 'average') for young artists to want to explain the meaning of their works, rather than let the works speak for themselves.
> 
> Let your works speak for themselves, then you will really know better what they 'do' to people.
> 
> ...et voila, and BINGO -- which is why you don't color the listener's perceptions with your own
> 
> P.s. I'm with Crudblud, they're 'abstract' or they're not... I'd re-title them "Three Preludes" if you intend to present them with the 'story lines' -- or "Three Abstract Preludes" without any story lines, not both.


Well I do enjoy and write music that isn't "about" anything, other than itself. I don't view the use of subjects as a need. It is artistic desire. I love stories. I love images. I love concepts. As I am an artist, and my preferred medium is sounds, I wish to compose stories and paintings and poems of sound. As a writer often has a subject for their work, as a painter often has a subject for their work, I like to work from subjects sometimes. Nobody begrudges composers heavily discussing their techniques and the tools they craft pieces from, so why should I be begrudged for this?


----------



## PetrB

"Nobody begrudges composers heavily discussing their techniques and the tools they craft pieces from, so why should I be begrudged for this?"

Because for the most general audiences, it is either boring or may as well be in an unknown foreign language 

Other than that, you and I have found via PM's that we are at opposite ends of the polarity of music = story, picture, etc. vs. music = 'just music.'

_*In sixty years of being in and around classical music*, ecepting of course those works with sung or spoken text and the occasional story ballet, *I have yet to see or hear any music which is a poem, a picture, or a story.*_ 'Struth. And your music, story or imagery appended _in the medium of text,_ has not changed my mind about that... yet


----------



## hreichgott

tdc said:


> You are a very talented composer, all of the pieces I've heard from you are very good, so there is more where this came from.


Yes, we demand more! :clap::cheers:


----------



## PetrB

hreichgott said:


> Yes, we demand more! :clap::cheers:


Indeed.

Mush! Back to that desk, and make it snappy


----------



## Pennypacker

I'm on Petr's polarity here, but I think it is more a question of definitions than an actual difference in approach. I think everyone would agree that the idea or meaning don't actually add anything to the value of the writing itself. On the other hand, everyone will probably agree that this 'image' can add something to the whole listening experience. So it's really about defining what the "music itself" is - the listening experience as whole, or just the craft itself? For me, especially in a composition board, it's the later. But I can see how the story of a fellow member might be of an interest for some. 
It might also be a matter of confusing cause and effect. You have an image in your head, so you write music to express it. It seems right, and so you're thinking that this image is essential to the music. But it's the other way around, the music helps you get a better perception of that image. For this to go both ways, the other 'end' should also be an art form. For example, film soundtracks have a great effect, but they usually won't stand alone. This is why I do get your definition for 'abstract' here, these images are not actual pictures or paintings, and they can't be evaluated. 

Anyway, I enjoyed these a lot. Scores will definitely be nice.


----------



## Forte

PetrB said:


> _*In sixty years of being in and around classical music*, ecepting of course those works with sung or spoken text and the occasional story ballet, *I have yet to see or hear any music which is a poem, a picture, or a story.*_ 'Struth. And your music, story or imagery appended _in the medium of text,_ has not changed my mind about that... yet


I think there sometimes must be a big difference sometimes between what the composer thinks about their own work and what they intend it to mean (or even what they don't intend it to mean) vs. what a listener thinks of it. If you take these three preludes, abstract or not, and view them without any sense of "meaning", it's just notes. There's nothing about them that absolutely _must_ be true in terms of what it's "about", because at the end of the day they're just a collection of notes.

If you look at a Renaissance painting which people often insist already has a concrete meaning behind it, portraying one thing or another, but with eyes that don't see meaning or resemblance or anything but material existence, it doesn't matter if the paint comes together to form faces, or expressions, or actions, or nature, or anything that you might possibly be able to interpret from looking at the painting if your eyes could remind you about the world at large. Because it's just paint, different colors of paint with different textures skillfully combined together of course, but even such an image does not have to be an image.

I don't agree with the labeling of music as abstract if you're going to put some program onto it, but at the same time I would completely respect the composer or artist to do whatever the hell they want so long as a definite picture or story _is not forced_ onto the listener, because you are absolutely right when you say that music = music, it is precisely the subjectivity of a story that can be different for whichever mind that encounters it that makes it durable.

There shouldn't be a problem with the composer having in mind some image and trying to "abstractly" represent it by some method using sounds, and at the end of the day it's up to them and whatever they do as individuals should certainly not be discouraged. The only exception is if the listeners are forced to agree upon what those collections of sounds _are_ - that takes the imagination part of art out of it! Remember that you write for yourself and others are not obliged to agree with you on extramusical items that are not… musical, just don't let it stop you either way


----------



## Anterix

Very good music.

Abtract or not is an interesting point. But what matters more is that you are able to produce very good music.


----------



## Mahlerian

I'm sorry I never gave any specific comments. I enjoyed these pieces a lot. Good job, BD.


----------



## BurningDesire

Thanks guys  I'm glad that you liked them ^^


----------

