# My Solo Piano Compositions



## SergeOfArniVillage

Hi  I actually had a thread long ago that was meant to show my compositions, but by the time I'd uploaded only a couple, I didn't have any time to do more. That was about 5 years ago, so I figure I'll start fresh.

Instead of having multiple posts, I'll just update this one from time to time. I'll start with my so-called "2nd Opus", which is a series of etudes. The only reason it's an "opus" is so I can decide when it's reaching an end, name it as the last in the series, and move on to something else. I like the sense of finality it gives.

Here's the first one:

https://app.box.com/s/5k3r0t1kz301bebvpmi8v8dw28exks2g ("The Silver Forest" WAV File)
https://app.box.com/s/xtg2qhq8qpse2gbmaq04u71qcrw0omvn (PDF File) Note: it says "Holloway Forest, but I renamed it to "Silver Forest" Op. 2 No. 1 afterward, and haven't updated the PDF yet.

Any thoughts/comments/criticisms are welcome. Whether you tear the music to shreds (it won't hurt my feelings), or sing it's praises as loud as possible, it doesn't matter. Just be honest, and judge fairly.

I look forward to seeing what other people have come up with on the forum. :tiphat:


----------



## Captainnumber36

I enjoy it and think it could be a heroic theme in a movie. It works on its own as well, however! Cheers, !


----------



## SergeOfArniVillage

Well thank you, I appreciate your taking time to listen to it


----------



## Phil loves classical

I think it's good you have a certain melody in mind to go with the accompaniment. I find a few of the progressions of keys really hard to swallow, like the opening chords. C-A-F-?-G. I think the F coming after A in the opposite direction (more flattening) without some chromatic progression in between really bewildering. Also the progression to bar 20 coming after 19. More a notation thing but I don't see the first part with key signature really being in Eb, except for the last chord. I have to say you kept my attention throughout.


----------



## SergeOfArniVillage

Thank you for your response, Phil, I appreciate it  (Still got your jazz song on my mind!) I do have a question though, because I’m confused.

I looked at the score for the opening chords, and I can’t find C-A-F-?-G, either in chords or notes. Can you say which measures? Because the opening chords are C, E7/B, Bbmaj7/F, Amin6, and G. (I realize it’s a little strange sounding, I felt like doing something different.) If anything, I thought the Locrian scales at mss. 52-56 would be the hardest part to swallow xD (I’ve never used Locrian since, I’ve decided I’m not crazy about it).

I do see what you mean about mss. 19-20. But the reason it’s there is because the arpeggios at mss. 2-5 are essentially exactly the same as mss. 19-22. (And that poor, lonely C major in ms. 1 gets its whole developed section starting on ms. 67.) Those opening chords are intended to be a foundation upon which ideas are developed. If you find the progressions hard to swallow, I understand, but if I change them, I’ll have to overhaul the whole piece 

I do appreciate your perspective on things, it gives me something to consider. Thanks for taking time to listen


----------



## Phil loves classical

SergeOfArniVillage said:


> Thank you for your response, Phil, I appreciate it  (Still got your jazz song on my mind!) I do have a question though, because I'm confused.
> 
> I looked at the score for the opening chords, and I can't find C-A-F-?-G, either in chords or notes. Can you say which measures? Because the opening chords are C, E7/B, Bbmaj7/F, Amin6, and G. (I realize it's a little strange sounding, I felt like doing something different.) If anything, I thought the Locrian scales at mss. 52-56 would be the hardest part to swallow xD (I've never used Locrian since, I've decided I'm not crazy about it).
> 
> I do see what you mean about mss. 19-20. But the reason it's there is because the arpeggios at mss. 2-5 are essentially exactly the same as mss. 19-22. (And that poor, lonely C major in ms. 1 gets its whole developed section starting on ms. 67.) Those opening chords are intended to be a foundation upon which ideas are developed. If you find the progressions hard to swallow, I understand, but if I change them, I'll have to overhaul the whole piece
> 
> I do appreciate your perspective on things, it gives me something to consider. Thanks for taking time to listen


E7 is the dominant 7th of A major. The change to Bb (or even F) scale is quite a stretch. For an opening it sounds too bold a move to me. If it was a direct modulation after a passage that would be ok in later parts. Bars 52-56 was quite easy to take for me. The major 2nd in bar 38 was also a bit hard to swallow, because following the top and bottom notes of the right hand dyads, they suddenly collapse when you've maintained a 6th apart previously. Nothing wrong with a major 2nd, but in the context it was used, it was a bit rough.


----------



## SergeOfArniVillage

"E7 is the dominant 7th of A major. The change to Bb (or even F) scale is quite a stretch."

Ohhhh, I understand where those letters came from, now. I don't look at music that way normally, so I didn't understand. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm honestly really surprised you found those progressions too bold! I actually sometimes feel like my writing is too _tame_, so it's interesting to hear that you found it too rough. That gives me some insight into another perspective. Absolutely fascinating.

Again, thanks!


----------



## mediumaevum

I'm a bit hesitating to go to a website I do not know, but if I may, I will comment on your latest piece I found on your youtube-channel:

Op. 4, "Ruins" -- No. 1





From the beginning to about 1:30 it certainly describes ruins very well. But I'm not sure how to interpret the later half of the piece.

But it does sound good, and very advanced. You seem to manage dissonances and harmony and arpeggio very well.

Did you play it yourself, or is it written in MIDI? In any case, it sounds good, but I'm having difficulties interpreting the later half of that piece.


----------



## Captainnumber36

On a second listen, it feels like there are two intros to the song at the beginning and that you don't really pick up until about 1:25. Just food for thought!


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

I have to strongly disagree with phil on the opening. I adore the progression you used.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

The rest of it seems a bit monotonous. 
The comparative consonance of the rest of piece compared to the initial chord motif makes it a bit dull I think.


----------



## SergeOfArniVillage

@medium: It's written on software, I use Sibelius 7. I have a serious love-hate relationship with the piano sound, but it pleases me you couldn't tell!

Since the whole Opus is titled "Ruins", different pieces in the set will focus on different aspects of the inherent loneliness, desolation, and emptiness that are meant to be the inspiration for the set. This one ends a more positive note than most will, by the time I've finished writing it. You could interpret the piece from 1:30 as being a remembrance of the glory days, or perhaps a stubborn denial of one's "ruination," or something to that effect.

@captain: I've never seen it like that, but I see where you're coming from.

@Cristobal: I happen to like the opening progression as well. As for when you say "monotonous", ... I half-way agree. As I posted to Phil above, I feel like the piece is on the tame side, in some respects. But I don't think monotonous is the right word, because I don't think the piece is _dull_ just because some sections are more consonant than others.

Thank you all for your comments!


----------



## SergeOfArniVillage

Here's another piece. It's Op. 2 No. 2, and I nicknamed it "Jackhammer" :lol: Lemme know what you think!

https://app.box.com/s/72tss0fn4c5mryphvobd8gb3iu2hmusr ("Jackhammer" WAV File)

https://app.box.com/s/6cdgmo4886mu82dyq10szqlzvshz77u9 (PDF Score)


----------



## Captainnumber36

SergeOfArniVillage said:


> Here's another piece. It's Op. 2 No. 2, and I nicknamed it "Jackhammer" :lol: Lemme know what you think!
> 
> https://app.box.com/s/72tss0fn4c5mryphvobd8gb3iu2hmusr ("Jackhammer" WAV File)
> 
> https://app.box.com/s/6cdgmo4886mu82dyq10szqlzvshz77u9 (PDF Score)


Well, that was fun! Great work. I think it's a lot stronger than your first.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Agree with the Capt'n. I thought the development was great. I felt bars 3-6 wasn't worthy of the rest of the piece, it sounded it was going to be some cheap pop tune on right hand with chords. I think it's just because I've heard other pieces that led me to that sort of mindset. For those bars I'm thinking of switching the triplets to the right hand and play the melody in the bass, I'm not sure if you can just have the melody deeper in the bass with the same chord position or after extending the intro to move the chords up to the treble staff. I'd be interested in hearing the results of that experiment.


----------



## Swosh

I like those chords! The intro of the first one reminds me of a Rachmaninoff concerto. The soft melancholic swaying after that has very nice harmonies.


----------



## SergeOfArniVillage

Thank you all for your comments!


----------



## MarkMcD

Hi Serge,
I'm on the side of loving the opening, it's not expected and that's what makes it interesting. There are also some really nice pianistic moments scattered throughout the piece. However, I just finished listening to "Jackhammer", I thought at first we were going a bit Mephisto, but I soon forgot about that, and this piece really has some spirit, I like it more than the first.
I'm not qualified to give any technical critique, but I know what I like, and I think both pieces are great, in different ways.
One thing I did notice is that your melodies can be a little rhythmically static, not all the time, but if they were mine, I would have varied them a little earlier, although I'm sure you wrote exactly what you intended, so probably a mute point.


----------



## SergeOfArniVillage

Hi Mark, thanks for leaving your thoughts here  It's funny you mention that the melodies can be rhythmically stale, because I actually just finished a piece a few days ago on which an entire melodic phrase circles around falling just off the beat. It takes some extra work to make melodies falling off the beat to sound good, but it's definitely worth it!


----------



## MarkMcD

Hi Serge,
I believe I said static, and only in the sense that they took a little longer on occasion to vary the rhythms than I would have done. But that's just a personal opinion and I'm no expert by any means. Perhaps it's a bit pedantic, but I didn't mean to suggest that they were in any way stale. My idea of that word is to mean tired and uninteresting, things that your work is certainly not.
Yes I will have to have a look at the off beat piece, it really is hard to do, I've tried and failed at it quite a bit lol.


----------



## SergeOfArniVillage

"My idea of that word is to mean tired and uninteresting, things that your work is certainly not."

Aw shucks, that's really nice of you to say ^_^ But regardless, just know I wasn't offended by what I thought you meant. I thank you for the clarification, though.

Anyway, here's the piece I was referring to.


----------

