# my nocturne



## samsibar

Hi,

been composing this for 3 years now. Given up, then restarted working & expanding sections again. You can hear that. I went through a lot. Have died many times in the last 5 years.

It's four movements and I consider it my opus 1. Going about 15 minutes! If you don't want to listen that long I'd suggest mov. 2 or 4.

I know it's technically flawed but I yet can't do better. It's my best. I'd like to be critiqued nontheless. I'm composing for fun since 10 years. Especially mov. 3 needs some work.

What is to say about it? I guess you can call it jazzy. Especially mov. 2. There is or should i say was? no picture or idea associated with it. I'm no picture man - just going what I think sound good by ear.

The big fault I acknownledge is that during composing I didn't take into account whether a human one with barely 10 fingers can play this on piano. Parts of mov. 4 are an overly complex mess which sounds for me admittedly well.

Yet I am satisfied how it turned out. Wow, 15 minutes of music. I can't believe it.

mov 1: 3:22
mov 2: 3:30
mov 3: 3:28 (attaca)
mov 4: 6:37

Well, please tell what you think. Thanks!


----------



## MJTTOMB

I haven't yet listened to the work in full, but just skimming over it I feel no need to ask you the standard question "how did you choose your notes" that I find myself asking people constantly. Whether it's transcendental music or not, or whether it may or may not fit the tastes of listeners is entirely subjective. But I can state for a fact that by listening to this I can see very clearly that this piece is exceptionally well-structured.

Congratulations on such an accomplishment, I'll be listening to these a bit more in-depth for the next few days.

However, I do have to criticize you for not taking into account the possibilities of the instrument you were writing for.


----------



## samsibar

Yeah, originally I composed it for four hands. I soon found out that I at that time didn't know enough about piano to separate tracks e.g. arrange it for 4 hands properly. So again my undertaking was dismissed. I didn't care and tried to go on composing. 

Some more background:
The middle from mov. 1, some parts of mov 2, the end of mov. 3 and the finale partly (beginning and end) was sketched out first, counting just maybe 2 minutes. Some of these passages are the heavier which require 2 players. The rest could probably be easily rewritten, some effects gone, to be playable by one guy. But I won't do it. Actually I'd try to learn more piano playing and get back to it in future, if I think it's worth it, to seriously arrange it as needed.

Originally the first mov. and finale was planned to be short. Really short. 1st mov. hardly more than about 1 minute, finale counting less than 3 minutes. Movement 3 didn't exist back than. It was just 3 movements. Mov. 2 and the end of mov. 3 made the 2nd movement.

Acknowledging MJTTOMB's opinion that it is structured very well makes a great compliment. I literally took some alcohol to celebrate. Enough. Not too much.  
Structure is very important in music. Personally I'd say taste is an additionally important factor when judging music. But objectively, is there anything else than structure?

I see there have been some downloads. But just one comment. I'd like to get some more input about my work. I have been waiting some time now. 
Is it because it is soo bad noone boothers complaining? Or is it because MJTTOMB said all what's to be said about it. Yeah I don't know. Guys, enlighten me!


----------



## samsibar

Yeah, 15+ minutes it way to long for you guys. I see. As I thought.

So I'm gonna make this list of what I think it's best to guide you.
Mov 1: 2:20 - 3:22
Mov 2: 1:35 - 2:33
Mov 3: 2:48 - 3:28
Mov 4: 0:00 - 0:32 and 5:57 - 6:37

Maybe this will help to gather more opinions.


----------



## soundandfury

Well, I've only listened to the first mvmt, so take this with a pinch of salt, but it does seem _very_, uh, 'modern'. By which I mean, it's not exactly _tonal_, is it? xD
I think perhaps some of us (myself included) don't really know how to critique this sort of music, as it evidently takes a great deal of effort to understand. Maybe that's why there are so few comments - far easier just to go and find something simple and comment on that!


----------



## samsibar

Thanks for the reply. I don't agree with you that it sounds _very_ modern. It actually is modern, just modern, but you can't compare it with Arnold Schönbergs music for instance.

If you have time listen to mvt. 2. Its less 'rough' for the ears. Actually in my first post I mentioned that I'd like you guys to listen to mtv. 2, then mvt. 4 if you don't want to listen to it in full. You don't have to But there's some reason behind that.

About the tonality issue: Yes, I guess it's not. But then, that's what you get if you don't have any music background and just go by ear. Uh, no, i have to correct myself: some works I have done earlier don't have these striking disharmonies and chords (the first chords of the first movement is present or modified sparely in mov 1, 3 and 4). But they are not piano pieces, not even purely classical.

I understand now. You're right. It is complex. Maybe that's why there are few comments. Maybe it's not bad (I still don't know). But if it's _really_ the case some of you don't know how to critique this kind of music, then I at least expected something like this... saying you can't. You did it which I deeply appreciate.

Actually I can't believe that on a classical music forum those people lurking here which downloaded some of the movements can't say a word or two. *I never expected some deeply analyzed critique*. (I for one don't understand Arnold Schönbergs music or the like. There is not beauty in it. It's totally inaccessible.)

About the beginning of the first mvt... there's a reason for its sound: it depicts the death


----------



## skrjablin

Ok, let me try to say just what I hear here. I hear small bits of music that seem "chopped off" rhythmically all the time. Then comes the next bit of music. Of course, I can also hear that there are thematic concordances between those small bits of music which provide a kind of unity to the pieces. Nonetheless, I can't say whether I really can hear the "big picture" in this music. But there may be better listeners out there. I also hear bits of good musical humour in those small bits of music. (Although you said that one moment depicts death, it is the humour that strikes me personally as a listener). The movements don't really become boring to me, there is always something new and exiting happening which keeps my interest to some extent, but the "chopped off rhythms" seem to me to give some little feeling of monotony nonetheless. 

I also get the feeling "this is some kind of really organized music according to a system that I don't understand". But you say that they were composed in an intuitive manner, so I guess I am permitted to answer as an intuitive listener too.


----------



## samsibar

skrjablin, a bit late but nevertheless: thank you for your balanced comment!


----------



## chillowack

soundandfury said:


> Well, I've only listened to the first mvmt, so take this with a pinch of salt, but it does seem _very_, uh, 'modern'. By which I mean, it's not exactly _tonal_, is it? xD
> I think perhaps some of us (myself included) don't really know how to critique this sort of music, as it evidently takes a great deal of effort to understand. Maybe that's why there are so few comments - far easier just to go and find something simple and comment on that!


This is my opinion as well.

I simply don't understand this kind of music, so whenever someone posts it, I'm at a loss. I don't want to say something negative out of ignorance, so I tend rather to pass it over in silence.

Sorry...that's probably not the most encouraging feedback! The main thing, though, is that you're doing what you love.


----------



## samsibar

@chillowack 
if you dislike the first movement, then your in companionship. I don't like it much too.
Really.


Alright. I have got enough opinions about this piece.

Thank you all.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well now lets not making grand judgement on the music of Schoenberg. If you would like anything close to a proper critique here you would need to post a score.

On the positive side the previous comments have filled me with excitement and i highly look forward to listening!


----------



## MJTTOMB

Since apparently i spoke too soon, it's now apparent that what seemed to be overarching form was in fact a lucky coincidence, i recant all of my former praise. I thought this was supposed to be modern, when in fact it's simply strange because you have no idea what you're doing.


----------



## soundandfury

*/me provokes the modernists*



MJTTOMB said:


> Since apparently i spoke too soon, it's now apparent that what seemed to be overarching form was in fact a lucky coincidence, i recant all of my former praise. I thought this was supposed to be modern, when in fact it's simply strange because you have no idea what you're doing.


To me this says so much about 'modern' music in general - people only say they like it because they think they're supposed to. Or something. The Emperor's New Nocturne, in fact.


----------



## LarsikComposer

I liked the first movement. Usually Im not a very big fan of so called "contemporary" music, but I really liked this first movement, especially from 1.00 to 2.10. Keep up the good work


----------

