# Piano Concerto.



## aleazk

I'm not usually that ambitious in my compositions as to write big pieces, like a piano or violin concerto, but over the past months I have been learning a lot of new techniques and reading (particularly about contemporary music). So, after a few small pieces I decided to try these techniques at a full scale, in a piano concerto (my main instrument). It is by far my more complex piece, it cost me a lot of work.
Some comments.
The first thing is that the piece is not in the way of the traditional romantic or modern (first half of 20th century) concertos. Usually they last 30 minutes in three movements. My piece will consist in four or five movements of 4 to 5 minutes each. They will not be independent (like in the more usual concertos of this type), much of the contrast will come with the other movements, so, the piece (the entire concerto) must be understood as a whole.
There's not a consistent development of themes or things like that. Also, the piano part is fully integrated with the orchestra. The orchestra and the piano are a whole, they can't be separated, there's not hierarchy. The term concerto can be understood here in the sense that the piano part is sufficiently complex.
The piano language is highly textural and not driven by themes or similar things.
All these ideas are common to some piano concertos by contemporary composers, like Ligeti's piano concerto, for example, which is a big influence in this piece.
I have only the first movement now, which is the one I will post now.
Orchestra (for this movement):
-Flute
-Oboe
-Tuba
-Timpani
-Bass drum
-Bongos
-Gong
-Triangle
-Crotales
-Glockenspiel
-Marimba
-Vibraphone
-String orchestra

The movement can be divided in four parts. The first part serves as an introduction. It is of a very naive sound, joyful and superficial. The second part (starts at 0:50) is the central part of the piece. It should sound like some kind of mad delirium after the first part. The third part is the cadenza (starts at 3:07). The final part is the ending, which is really some kind of joke or parody of an end.


__
https://soundcloud.com/aleazk%2Fpiano-concerto-1st-mvt


----------



## Crudblud

aleazk, let me say that I think this is your finest piece to date. I'm impressed especially by your rhythmic writing here, it has a real drive and energy to it. I also like the way lines and fragments are inserted in to what you note is the main portion of the piece, in some ways it reminds me of some of the more chaotic moments in the Turangalîla-Symphonie.

I hope the rest of this concerto can be completed in good time, and look forward to hearing it.


----------



## PetrB

Congratulations, this is really engaging! I also know how much work goes into music with a lot of activity at a fast tempo, resulting in just a few minutes duration, so I'm very much acknowledging my appreciation, too, of 'your labor' on this one.

In this first movement, the piano is front and center with the other instruments being a very slight bit of additional comment, like threads coming off, or frayed, from the main 'fabric' of the piano. I think that was your intent, it is very clear, and I find it very successful as it stands. [Just before 2'40'' you have a low and 'growly' sound and texture going on, then the piano is launched in a high contrast upper register -- there, personally, I would like a little bit more extended 'growl' perhaps even with the piano doing some sort of 'tremolo' alternating hands cluster in the bass, as percussion. Only a few more seconds, I think, would 'anchor' us more there without being static or boring, and would then make the contrast and surprise of the treble piano entry that much more heightened - a little more drama, if you will.]

Your description is of a concerto, perhaps 'concertino' but with the piano in more of an obbligato role. There is no need to 'name' that in your title, 'Concerto' or 'Concertino' is adequate and accurate -- either falling under the 'concertante' category.

After this initial heat and labor, I'm sure you know how much more of a tight-rope walk it will be in coming up with the rest, continuing to sustain the listener's interest, and a sense of cohesion for the following movements while completing this piece. Whether you work with a teacher or not, or consult with other musicians, it seems you've got plenty of equipment and skill 'well down.'

Since this is so successful, I will mention this, which I've noticed in some of your other work. This is cautionary 'advice' which may or may not apply. Please take it as you will.

I invite you to contemplate that for the remaining movements, the entire piece not remain in a very similar texture, or no matter the variety of material it will become dulling to the ear. Put another way, it will not have elements of suspense or even slight surprise, enough variance to keep the music and the listener's ears, refreshed. This goes, too, for the frequency and density of the piano part itself. A bit more 'give and take' too, might be another approach to consider.

I advocate using the instruments more in one or more of the other movements, and perhaps in those, the piano less. Because if you keep that texture throughout, the ear will crave both variety and relief.

There are dozens of ways to go at it, but because this first movement is so successful, I'm hoping to keep you hyper aware of the overall texture as you work on completing the work.

In no way advocating 'write like this' (you seem very certain in your vocabulary , some other 'successful pieces,' wherein the texture overall and within the different movement has been, composer to composer and piece to piece, in a variety of ways.

I do remind you you have in the vibraphone a spectacular instrument capable of both sustain and vibrato, whether in combination with the strings, winds, used in line or vertical, I urge you to later take some good advantage of it.

You already know of the Ligeti. These pieces might give you some more ideas of 'ways to go' as per textures and roles of instruments in your following movements.... in no particular order:

Lou Harrison ~ Suite for violin, piano and small Orchestra (1988) 





Germaine Taillefaire ~ Partita ''Hommage a Rameau,'' for two pianos and percussion













Jean Françaix ~ Concertino pour piano et orchestre




Françaix's Concertino is four movements all in the course of a hair over eight minutes duration! 
In the first, Presto leggiero, the piano is often front and center, the orchestra mostly subservient to the musical soloist and that material, the piano slipping in and out of 'lead' and obbligato.
The second, Lento, the orchestra has both the melodic and harmonic load, the piano, against expectations of type, plays 'anti-virtuoso' skeletal comment, and this is very effective.
The Allegretto and Rondeau, I'll leave you to check for yourself.

Honegger ~ Concertino, in one continous play, duration, a hair under eleven minutes. The piece has a number of tempo and character changes.





Perhaps the most traditional... a true obbligato work with an extensive piano role;
Manuel de Falla ~ Noches en los jardines de españa, is an full-scale three movement work with a very full piano obbligato which runs through the entire. It is, nonetheless, understood as a solo vehicle.
here, the first of three links.





Again hearty congratulations, and thanks for the entertainment!


----------



## aleazk

@Crudblud, thanks, glad you liked it. Yes, this piece represents a "quantum jump" in my compositions. The main difference is that I've defeated my usual laziness and worked like never before. Rhythm was one of the important aspects I've been studying, I'm glad you noticed it.
I don't know how much time it will take me to finish the piece, but I think it will not be at the short term.

@PetrB, thank you very much for your kind comments, the description you made is really accurate, in fact, many of the material played by the orchestra comes from the piano section. Piano and orchestra are not separate lines that dialogue. Instead, piano and orchestra form a single line driven by the piano. The piano is the skeleton of the texture. I thought the piano part as a constant and inexorable "block" that starts to evolve and to move forward (like a big glacier approaching) until it reaches the cadenza after a continuous metamorphosis. The cadenza is the place where the piano wanted to go, and the main motivation for its necessity of metamorphosis, all the tension and energy is discharged there in a maniac way.
You are right about the tight-rope, I don't want to "ruin" the full piece and I must be very careful in order to "dissipate" some of that heat delivered in the first movement. I think it is a good idea to relax the piano and to give more protagonism to the orchestra (including a more full use of the possibilities of the instruments) in the next movement, and I was thinking in a very dark, desolated and slow mood for the contrast.
Thanks for taking the time with these remarks, they are pretty helpful and right to the point, you are a very effective teacher. I will check the examples of course. The situation is indeed "delicate".
Right now I will rest, since I'm mentally and even physically exhausted. 
Best regards and glad you liked it.


----------



## Schubussy

I can't give any good advice, because I'm not a great musician. What I can say is I like it a lot.


I like it a lot.


----------



## hreichgott

There are some astonishingly good ideas here, and the rhythm is great. You definitely met your goal there  Also, you handle the ensemble extremely well; a performance would feel like a real community of musicians all with something to say.

I do think you should give some thought to scale. If you're going to present just one or two fabulous ideas and not develop them much, you should probably cut down the length and make it a true miniature in the spirit of Shostakovich's Preludes, Takemitsu's or Starer's short pieces. That's what miniatures are for. If you want more than a minute or two of length you need to develop the material more, whether along the lines of classical thematic or motivic development, or by means of varied repetition as the minimalists do, or some other way. Here I felt like I'd heard everything this piece had to say after the first 40 seconds or so.

Keep up the creative work and I look forward to hearing more of your music!


----------



## tdc

Very impressive! :tiphat:

Really looking forward to hearing the rest of this work.


----------



## aleazk

The second movement (Passacaglia-Canon):

__
https://soundcloud.com/aleazk%2Fpiano-concerto-2nd-mvt

(there are some errors in the rendering, like some unexpected and odd accents, in 1:48, breaks in the continuity of the color, in 1:08 the oboe disappears, or things like that, I have tried to fix it, but the problem persists; it's very odd, because when the program run the score, it sounds fine, but when I render the audio file, the problem emerges)

Description. After the first movement, this one should sound like a peaceful and passing breeze, without much weight and density.


----------



## Crudblud

aleazk said:


> The second movement (Passacaglia-Canon):
> 
> __
> https://soundcloud.com/aleazk%2Fpiano-concerto-2nd-mvt
> 
> (there are some errors in the rendering, like some unexpected and odd accents, in 1:48, breaks in the continuity of the color, in 1:08 the oboe disappears, or things like that, I have tried to fix it, but the problem persists; it's very odd, because when the program run the score, it sounds fine, but when I render the audio file, the problem emerges)
> 
> Description. After the first movement, this one should sound like a peaceful and passing breeze, without much weight and density.


If you export the file to MIDI and send it to me, I can have a look at rendering the audio for you. Let me know if that sounds like a good idea.


----------



## aleazk

Crudblud said:


> If you export the file to MIDI and send it to me, I can have a look at rendering the audio for you. Let me know if that sounds like a good idea.


Meh, nevermind, I discarded the movement anyway, I'm not satisfied. There are some nice moments, but I think it does not work. I will start a new movement, if the problem persists, I will consult with you then, thanks.


----------



## DrKilroy

Is there any progress? I like the first movement very much, reminds me of Ravel's Concerto in G in a way. 

Best regards, Dr


----------



## aleazk

The third movement, Toccata:

__
https://soundcloud.com/aleazk%2Fpiano-concerto-3rd-mvt-toccata

The idea was to do a very "percussive" movement, particularly the piano part. One of themes is taken from Reich's "clapping music". The movement is short because I don't want a "competence" between this movement and the first. This movement should sound like a last "burst" of some of the remaining adrenaline of the first movement. But it's an ephemeral one and quickly dies into a long, slow and dark movement (the fourth movement, in which I'm working right now).
In this movement I have exploited Ligeti's technique even further. Imagine a counterpoint of several voices or melodic lines. This counterpoint forms a polyphonic fabric. Superficially, what we hear is a constant change in the general texture of this fabric, a succession of different textures. But at a more deeper level, what we really have is a dense counterpoint, in which the different lines are constantly "mutating" and interweaving with each other, forming a spider web. The different ways in which these lines interact form the texture we perceive at the superficial level.


----------



## mmsbls

When I first started listening, I felt the music was a bit stark with little interest, but at roughly 0:23 when the other instruments enter, suddenly the rhythms opened up and sounded fascinating. Throughout the remainder I loved the interplay of the rhythms and timbres. When I replayed the movement, the original 23 seconds seemed to work just right. The rhythmic motif is setup and works very nicely throughout the work to act as a backbone for all the weaving voices. 

Very nicely done.


----------



## tdc

I like the Toccata a lot as well. I don't really have any advice or criticisms, other than in the other movements you will surely want to contrast the moods of these lively 1st and 3rd movements, but it sounds like that is precisely your intention. I'm really enjoying what I'm hearing so far of this Piano Concerto. Very nice work again here!


----------



## aleazk

Only a draft of the second movement with a very crappy render:

__
https://soundcloud.com/aleazk%2Fpiano-concerto-2nd-mvt-1
The core of the movement is there, but some details remain to be polished.
The idea is the same always. Independent voices whose interaction at a "microscopic" level produce a change in texture at the "macroscopic" level.
These voices, also, always start with a basic building block, a "motive" if you want to call it in that way (but it's not subject to development in the usual sense). This motive can have small mutations through the piece.
The basic building block can't be more simple here. It's simply a sustained note with a crescendo and then a decrescendo, as can be heard in the cellos at the beginning of the piece (from 0:00 to 0:18 seconds).
I avoided all percussion instruments and all kinds of "effects", since I wanted a very smooth texture, without "angular" details. Like some kind of amorphous fluid subject to a slow motion.
Also, because of this, I used only instruments with a soft timbre, like the oboe, the bassoon, etc, and not, e.g., the piccolo flute.
All this decisions were in function of achieving a high contrast with the other movements.


----------



## oogabooha

everything that I've heard from this piece is phenomenal. in the past few months I've listened a lot to everything from it you've put out, and with each addition I feel my thirst for compelling music being quenched. thanks!

how many movements will the final product have?


----------



## aleazk

oogabooha said:


> everything that I've heard from this piece is phenomenal. in the past few months I've listened a lot to everything from it you've put out, and with each addition I feel my thirst for compelling music being quenched. thanks!
> 
> how many movements will the final product have?


Thanks! . Well, a final contrast remains to be done. The first and second movements are textural. In the first movement, the piano part is very dense and the movement is fast and colorful. The second movement is dark and slow, the piano part is minimal, and the movement is smooth. The third and fourth are very melodious in contrast to the pure texture of the others. Also the orchestra is more involved. 
But I realized that in all the movements, the music never stops, there's a continuous flow. Another Intermezzo as the fifth movement is needed. This movement will have a lot of silences in the middle in order to interrupt this continuous flow (a good example may be the fourth movement of Ligeti's Piano concerto). Then a sixth and final movement, very luminous and fast. 
Or maybe I could replace the fourth movement I have now (the Passacaglia) with this second intermezzo I'm thinking, then the full piece would have five movements (the final movement also very luminous and fast).
So, five or six movements for the total piece. Three months more of work I think.


----------



## Turangalîla

How have I not stumbled upon your compositions before? 


Really, I was very impressed—great writing. And I hear the influence of Ligeti!


----------



## aleazk

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> How have I not stumbled upon your compositions before?
> 
> Really, I was very impressed-great writing. And I hear the influence of Ligeti!


Well, thanks!. Ligeti, who's that guy?.


----------



## aleazk

aleazk said:


> Thanks! . Well, a final contrast remains to be done. The first and second movements are textural. In the first movement, the piano part is very dense and the movement is fast and colorful. The second movement is dark and slow, the piano part is minimal, and the movement is smooth. The third and fourth are very melodious in contrast to the pure texture of the others. Also the orchestra is more involved.
> But I realized that in all the movements, the music never stops, there's a continuous flow. Another Intermezzo as the fifth movement is needed. This movement will have a lot of silences in the middle in order to interrupt this continuous flow (a good example may be the fourth movement of Ligeti's Piano concerto). Then a sixth and final movement, very luminous and fast.
> Or maybe I could replace the fourth movement I have now (the Passacaglia) with this second intermezzo I'm thinking, then the full piece would have five movements (the final movement also very luminous and fast).
> So, five or six movements for the total piece. Three months more of work I think.


OMG!, I remembered I have this movement already. In january I composed an attempt of the second movement after finishing the first, but I dicarded it. But now I'm listening to it and I think it may work (I remember that I almost deleted the thing from the computer! ).
So, this will be the fourth movement, "Intermezzo II":

__
https://soundcloud.com/aleazk%2Fpiano-concerto-4th-mvt

To summarize:
-1st Mvt ('Metamorphosis': Vivacissimo luminoso).
-2nd Mvt ('Intermezzo I': Largo misterioso). 
-3rd Mvt ('Toccata': Allegro percussivo).
-4th Mvt ('Intermezzo II': Largo desolato).
-5th Mvt ('Passacaglia-Canon': Andante lamentoso).
-6th Mvt (final movement; to be composed)
Playlist:

__
https://soundcloud.com/aleazk%2Fsets

I like this idea of these two Intermezzi in the middle, like some kind of pause.


----------



## DrKilroy

The second movement is quite Ligetian!

Best regards, Dr


----------



## PetrB

The toccata, short 'n' sweet. Only one comment to better it, imo.

The piano enters with the repeated pitch. the next entry (treble, above the first pitch) should be an instrument, not the piano. 

Reasoning: By now we know very well that the piano is central as concertante; the remainder of this short movement is more wholly integrated piano and instruments... as if it is a piece for everyone -- an ensemble where no one is carrying much more than a single line. Ergo, I would treat the piano in this short movement like all the other members, and not have it open in such a brief solo role. Introduce the next instrument(s) with that second pitch.

It sounds like the instruments were thought of a moment too late, vs. here's the piano and then ancillary instrumental comment.
Those first couple of bars piano solo sound like a mistake


----------



## aleazk

Yes, to some degree that was the idea. A "micropolyphony" second movement. I thought that the contrast would sound cool.
All the movement is constructed with that simple block I mentioned. At the "micro" scale, the motif in the different lines weaves with himself. Sometimes the lines pile up forming chromatic (and microtonal) cluster chords.


----------



## aleazk

PetrB said:


> The toccata, short 'n' sweet. Only one comment to better it, imo.
> 
> The piano enters with the repeated pitch. the next entry (treble, above the first pitch) should be an instrument, not the piano.
> 
> Reasoning: By now we know very well that the piano is central as concertante; the remainder of this short movement is more wholly integrated piano and instruments... as if it is a piece for everyone -- an ensemble where no one is carrying much more than a single line. Ergo, I would treat the piano in this short movement like all the other members, and not have it open in such a brief solo role. Introduce the next instrument(s) with that second pitch.
> 
> It sounds like the instruments were thought of a moment too late, vs. here's the piano and then ancillary instrumental comment.
> Those first couple of bars piano solo sound like a mistake


Yes, makes sense. Indeed, I thought the movement in the lines of an integration between the instruments. I hadn't planned the details of the movement, I just started writing, maybe that's the reason why that introduction sounds somewhat "out of place", only some time later I realized the proper direction and then the writing flowed easily.
I will check. Maybe not the elimination of those notes from the piano, but adding some color to them with another instrument playing the same notes or something, otherwise the piano part would be just that rhythmic pattern in one single pitch of the first bar during 13 bars!.


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> Yes, makes sense. Indeed, I thought the movement in the lines of an integration between the instruments. I hadn't planned the details of the movement, I just started writing, maybe that's the reason why that introduction sounds somewhat "out of place", only some time later I realized the proper direction and then the writing flowed easily.
> I will check. Maybe not the elimination of those notes from the piano, but adding some color to them with another instrument playing the same notes or something, otherwise the piano part would be just that rhythmic pattern in one single pitch of the first bar during 13 bars!.


To me, the piano could start with the isolated repeated pitch; but the very next "new" pitch we hear should be an instrument, or the piano with an instrument. Still, overall more than just a little successful, imo.


----------



## aleazk

Sorry for bumping this again. I discarded all of the previous middle movements I posted before and I have composed a _new_ second movement. The full piece will consist just on these three movements.
This is the new second movement:

__
https://soundcloud.com/aleazk%2Fpiano-concerto-2nd-mvt
And here's the full piece:

-1st Mvt ('Metamorphosis': Vivacissimo luminoso).
-2nd Mvt ('Intermezzo'). 
-3rd Mvt ('Toccata': Allegro percussivo)


__
https://soundcloud.com/aleazk%2Fsets


----------



## ptr

Nice, it's growing!

/ptr


----------



## Musician

This is not an etude rite? where is the melody? theme? meaning? something?
Are we going to compose something these days that actually has some feeling, meaning and point, or are we going to cave in to the excuse called 'modern music' to compose pointless things?

I'm still waiting to hear a solid , serious piece of music here.


----------



## PetrB

Musician said:


> This is not an etude rite? where is the melody? theme? meaning? something?
> Are we going to compose something these days that actually has some feeling, meaning and point, or are we going to cave in to the excuse called 'modern music' to compose pointless things?
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear a solid , serious piece of music here.


While you were waiting, it seems you missed it, sitting there with a very limited idea of "what is music" and a mind cluttered with preconceptions about music.

A melody or theme is not always something you can hum, sing or whistle. Those may be on your list of criteria _as per your definition_, which does not cover it all (doesn't cover a lot of classical music, either, really.)

Get with the times, or don't. If you don't, safer not to comment at all on that which you don't get. Or just be honest and say, "I don't get it."

Meanwhile, those who do get it, even a little, probably think you're missing out on a fun piece.
I think you're missing out on a fun piece, anyway.


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

Musician said:


> This is not an etude rite? where is the melody? theme? meaning? something?
> Are we going to compose something these days that actually has some feeling, meaning and point, or are we going to cave in to the excuse called 'modern music' to compose pointless things?
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear a solid , serious piece of music here.


Dear Saul,

I know your experience here in the forum before you got banned was harsh, but why? I liked this Piano Concerto very much. Where is your argument here?

Your argument in this precise moment, is null and pointless.

*'This is not an etude rite? where is the melody? theme? meaning? something?' *

First of all. This is a 'Piano concerto'. How can it be an Étude...? A Melody doesn't properly mean it needs to be present... you know? This piano concerto reminds me a lot of Gyorgi Ligeti. A great and fenomenal composer like John Cage. Theme is posth-modern, in this case close to avant-garde type like posth world war II, but it is great anyway. Meaning, a piece can have and not have a proper meaning, I've a few songs where I didn't explained a meaning...

*'Are we going to compose something these days that actually has some feeling, meaning and point, or are we going to cave in to the excuse called 'modern music' to compose pointless things?'*

My only question is... what are you trying to accomplish from this? Modern music is great and you live in it for no doubt. Your music is considered to be contemporary, because you live in nowadays. So your music like it or not will always sound 'modern'. But you can differ in the style you want. Also Modern Music expresses a meaning, Experimentation. We go for experiments. We try new things over and over. This is what happened with music. Music evolved, do you want to be a caveman? I surely don't...

*'I'm still waiting to hear a solid , serious piece of music here.' *

This commentary is pherhaps the most blatant, ignorance based and idiotic type. Every music is serious (if you are a professional or you studied music). You are stating all those composers who put a surely ammount of time of work... and they are doing it for an amateur purpose? You really need to get out more... (-.-')


----------



## Aramis

Musician said:


> I'm still waiting to hear a solid , serious piece of music here.


This is, like, the most serious piece of music posted here in a long time. I don't like it much (only certain passaged and only a little bit), but if there's a piece in this section that you wouldn't be surprised to hear premiered in professional concert, this might be it. I recall these discussions before you were banned and from these I remember that your arguments against modern music fall entirely into most common and popular attitude towards it. There's no need to write these things about soul, theme and meaning because every classical music person, especially composer, knows that many people feel this way. You're being painfully obvious and the only thing you can win is mess similiar to what happened before.


----------



## Musician

When I'm comparing this piece and others that are posted here, I am astonished at the low level of personal expectations. Why not set a certain standard? One can look at the great melodists of the past to draw some inspiration, but why must every piece sound the same, or like 'the other'? why cant composers develop unique styles that will set them aside and will bring to our musical world something new and distinct?

The easiest thing to do is to come here and tell you guys that all of you are amazing and are composing some serious and great music, but I dont want to say something that doesnt reflect reality. I want to see some serious composers, some great and melodious music composed, I really want to hear this.

What can I do? I compare this music to the music I love, those who mastered the melody, and next to them, this piece is on a very low level. It would be nice to divert the attention from sounding 'modern' into sounding melodious, poetic, unique, and with feeling. 

For me personally, Ligeti and Cage, are some of the worst composers in the history of music, but that's just my personal opinion. 
So I don't judge or compare this music through the lens of these composers, but through the composers that I admire.


----------



## Musician

There is no mess, and stop bringing the word 'ban' into the discussion.
I am perfectly allowed to express my feelings about this and any other work.
I just can't comprehend, for the love of goodness, how can anyone like this piece?
I just don't get it. Chopin would have made jokes, Bach wouldnt even comment, and Mendelssohn wouldnt even give the time and day...

Are today's composers interested to give compliments to each other? or are they ready to hear some real critic that may guide them into writing some quality music?


----------



## PetrB

Musician said:


> When I'm comparing this piece and others that are posted here, I am astonished at the low level of personal expectations. Why not set a certain standard? One can look at the great melodists of the past to draw some inspiration, but why must every piece sound the same, or like 'the other'? why cant composers develop unique styles that will set them aside and will bring to our musical world something new and distinct?
> 
> The easiest thing to do is to come here and tell you guys that all of you are amazing and are composing some serious and great music, but I dont want to say something that doesnt reflect reality. I want to see some serious composers, some great and melodious music composed, I really want to hear this.
> 
> What can I do? I compare this music to the music I love, those who mastered the melody, and next to them, this piece is on a very low level. It would be nice to divert the attention from sounding 'modern' into sounding melodious, poetic, unique, and with feeling.
> 
> For me personally, Ligeti and Cage, are some of the worst composers in the history of music, but that's just my personal opinion.
> So I don't judge or compare this music through the lens of these composers, but through the composers that I admire.


So, just your personal opinion and your personal criteria? "great melodists" -- and _like of the past_???

The best comment on a piece of music is another piece of music.

Awaiting _your_ new contemporary classical piece, replete with "great melodies," posted on TC, in the "Today's Composers" category, soon 

ADD: I retract that last sentence, I have heard a number of your pieces as lately you have posted... they are contemporary pop genre of a sort the pop marketers would call 'neoclassical' or as many in classical call it, _pseudo-classical_. They are well played, forgettable, neither pretty or beautiful but rather insipid, expressing if anything the most superficial of sentiments. I would expect something like that to be heard, perhaps improvised, in a hotel lobby as unobtrusive background music. Some of those pieces are not much "melodic" either.

This tells me your aesthetic and preference is completely bound by the older styles, it is where your sentiments and recognition factors reside, and that leaves you with no interest, let alone a capacity, to hear what is going on in anything much beyond Rachmaninov or Debussy (and I'm thinking that may already be a bit generous.) We all have some limits, and I believe those are yours.

Your most valid comment on this concerto was, "I don't get it." "I don't get it," no matter how wordy you get about it, does not merit much listener time or column space.


----------



## Aramis

Musician said:


> Are today's composers interested to give compliments to each other? or are they ready to hear some real critic that may guide them into writing some quality music?


This seem very funny when one remembers how YOU enjoyed your share of criticism. But forget it - I want to ask you to do something.

In my view, it seems ridiculous that you may - it seems that you do - think that these soul/melody/etc. comments may in any way affect composer with strongly estabilished inspirations and goals. It's like you would assume that aleazk never heard of your beloved Mendelssohn and that things like classical developement, form and aesthetics would be like revelations to him and by pointing these concepts to him you can actually make him switch his style back to XIXth century-like. Do you REALLY belive that you can be "some real critic that may guide into writing some quality music" here?

If so, please elaborate - I would like you to abandon every digression we're having here, turn yourself back to aleazk and his concerto (the proper subject of this thread) and by adressing him, not anybody else of those who disagree with you here, give him this "some real critic that may guide him into writing some quality music". Explain to him what exactly is wrong with what he does now and what exactly you think he should do about it. Something that in you opinion could be considered really valueable, serious advice, possible eye-opener for modern composer.


----------



## PetrB

Aramis said:


> This seem very funny when one remembers how YOU enjoyed your share of criticism. But forget it - I want to ask you to do something.
> 
> In my view, it seems ridiculous that you may - it seems that you do - think that these soul/melody/etc. comments may in any way affect composer with strongly estabilished inspirations and goals. It's like you would assume that aleazk never heard of your beloved Mendelssohn and that things like classical developement, form and aesthetics would be like revelations to him and by pointing these concepts to him you can actually make him switch his style back to XIXth century-like. Do you REALLY belive that you can be "some real critic that may guide into writing some quality music" here?
> 
> If so, please elaborate - I would like you to abandon every digression we're having here, turn yourself back to aleazk and his concerto (the proper subject of this thread) and by adressing him, not anybody else of those who disagree with you here, give him this "some real critic that may guide him into writing some quality music". Explain to him what exactly is wrong with what he does now and what exactly you think he should do about it. Something that in you opinion could be considered really valueable, serious advice, possible eye-opener for modern composer.


"I don't get It." the ultimate and most honest four word critique, is all I'll ever believe in instances like this. I've read the comments, heard the comps, and think both make for one totally unqualified to say anything but, "I don't get it."

Hey, _nobody_ "gets" everything


----------



## Praeludium

I like this. A lot 
That's a great piece, and very accessible (whatever some may think), even though it's very serious in all the meanings of the world. It just sounds great. You should try to get it premiered by real pro musicians


----------



## aleazk

wow, I feel like if I were a dangerous and radical avant-gardist!. :lol:... which, sadly, I'm not...
Of course, Saul, you are entitled to your own opinion. And I'm not going to say more than what has already been said.
In any case, I want to make clear just a little thing.
I have been studying piano for more than ten years. I'm very familiar with the traditional repertoire. I have played a lot of pieces by Bach (the WTC, die kunst der fuge, partitas, even the italian concerto!), Mozart of course, Beethoven (a couple of piano sonatas of course), Chopin (polonaises, I still play the Op.26, No.1, one of my favorite pieces, preludes, waltzes), Brahms (Intermezzi, piano sonata No.3, the second Rhapsody of the Op.79), Debussy (preludes, children's corner), Ravel (some movements from Miroirs and LTdC), etc. Those are just some of the pieces I have played and studied in the past and which still remain as my favorite pieces. At the same time, I have been exposed to music theory, musical analysis, etc. I simply didn't pursue more formal training and maybe a degree because my main career is theoretical physics and therefore I don't have the time. But, of course, I still try to expand my knowledge of the formal part of music.
I listen to all periods of western classical music, from medieval, to 21st century. 
And, I can assure you, all of the compositional decisions on this piece have been taken on the base of intense thinking, study and labor from my part. I have invested an immense amount of labor and thinking on this piece. And I take it quite seriously. As seriously as the review on the singularity theorems of general relativity on which I'm working on now, to give you an idea.
The composers you mentioned, Cage and Ligeti, took their work even more seriously.
When I began to compose, I made a couple of "melodious" pieces, and even tonal/modal. But I'm not interested in that anymore. Not because I can't do it (since I actually did it!, you can ask some of the members of this forum, possibly some of them are familiar with those pieces, since I posted them here a couple of years ago, when I joined the forum). Of course, they were just composition exercises, but they are evidence that I actually can compose a "tune". In fact, most of the so called avant-garde composers made pieces like that at some moments of their lives. And some of these pieces were quite good. For example, Ligeti: 



. I would say that's quite "melodious". Cage: 



, quite "pretty".
Anyway, that's all. Thanks to those who liked the piece and shared their thoughts on this matter.


----------



## nadavgreenhut

First of all, I think the name "Metamorphosis" fits like a glove  I really enjoyed the non stop movement of the piano, and the non tonalic textures in the orchestra. I also find the orchestration to be very interesting, particulary the use of both the marimba and the vibraphone. 

Good Job! waiting for the rest of the concerto.


----------



## Musician

PetrB said:


> So, just your personal opinion and your personal criteria? "great melodists" -- and _like of the past_???
> 
> The best comment on a piece of music is another piece of music.
> 
> Awaiting _your_ new contemporary classical piece, replete with "great melodies," posted on TC, in the "Today's Composers" category, soon
> 
> ADD: I retract that last sentence, I have heard a number of your pieces as lately you have posted... they are contemporary pop genre of a sort the pop marketers would call 'neoclassical' or as many in classical call it, _pseudo-classical_. They are well played, forgettable, neither pretty or beautiful but rather insipid, expressing if anything the most superficial of sentiments. I would expect something like that to be heard, perhaps improvised, in a hotel lobby as unobtrusive background music. Some of those pieces are not much "melodic" either.
> 
> This tells me your aesthetic and preference is completely bound by the older styles, it is where your sentiments and recognition factors reside, and that leaves you with no interest, let alone a capacity, to hear what is going on in anything much beyond Rachmaninov or Debussy (and I'm thinking that may already be a bit generous.) We all have some limits, and I believe those are yours.
> 
> Your most valid comment on this concerto was, "I don't get it." "I don't get it," no matter how wordy you get about it, does not merit much listener time or column space.


Awesome, I can be proud to have my music help people relax and enjoy while they are having stressful days in their work going up and down in an elevator.

That's way better then people forcing themselves to like something they never really enjoy and appreciate while all along even traveling and pay to hear it.

Some of the best things in life are free, like good quality music, love and fun...

I guess all the 301 subscribers I have on my YouTube page are all dedicated 'elevator music' fans...


----------



## PetrB

Musician said:


> Awesome, I can be proud to have my music help people relax and enjoy while they are having stressful days in their work going up and down in an elevator.
> 
> That's way better then people forcing themselves to like something they never really enjoy and appreciate while all along even traveling and pay to hear it.
> 
> Some of the best things in life are free, like good quality music, love and fun...
> 
> I guess all the 301 subscribers I have on my YouTube page are all dedicated 'elevator music' fans...


Yes, from my aesthetic viewpoint, they are. Music like that annoys the hell out of me, so it produces the anti-effect of "relax."

"Relax," for classical music is the equivalent of a soak in a hot tub with scented candles burning, not exactly what the great composers either intended or achieved. To me, if someone's primary "use" of classical music is "to relax," I pretty much discount them as anything like earnest about classical music, since they are using it like medicine or a fan vs. food.

All fine and good.

While you're in that spa soaking in the hot tub with those three-hundred and one fans, all amid the ambiance of those scented candles, its kind of hard for those of us in the kitchen preparing real and vital food to hear your: grunts; groans; moans; and sighs of "relax" while you're sitting in that hot tub.


----------



## Pennypacker

That was very interesting listening to. This field is still pretty foreign to me, but my general impression was that every movement has a great build up (the second movement was amazing at this) but the climax didn't quite deliver what I was expecting, leaving the last section a bit meaningless. Anyway, really enjoyed the rhythms of the first and third movements, and the very dark and engaging second movement.


----------



## Musician

PetrB said:


> "Relax," for classical music is the equivalent of a soak in a hot tub with scented candles burning, not exactly what the great composers either intended or achieved. To me, if someone's primary "use" of classical music is "to relax," I pretty much discount them as anything like earnest about classical music, since they are using it like medicine or a fan vs. food.


I think if you made a poll asking random people in the street or anywhere else for that matter, what is the main reason they listen or like classical music chances are that the word relax will come out at the very top of their 'reasons'.

Beautiful classical melodic music is relaxing, this is what many people mean why they say that Bach is a balancer of their mood, music has the power to make people relax and forget about the hassles of everyday life, such as job, bills, noise, arguments etc, and I believe this is a great gift, the ability to have something that is so spiritually capable and appealing that it can cause you if not for a brief moment to just reflect and enjoy and yes relax.

If you want the opposite effect of relax, and you want music to 'jump-start' you like a smooth shot of caffeine, there are plenty of heavy-metal rubbish that anyone can listen for that purpose, we don't need to turn classical music to take the route towards that, we need classical music to stay beautiful, lovely and inspiriting and yes also Relaxing, and not let it be turned to something that doesnt really suit it...


----------



## Pennypacker

This is some of the most sophisticated trolling I've seen on the internet.


----------



## Musician

Pennypacker said:


> This is some of the most sophisticated trolling I've seen on the internet.


If this is directed at me, Penny, then I'm sorry you feel this way. I have some strong views on this subject, I can't be the only one...

Cheers


----------



## Pennypacker

I'll comment on what you've written before you edited it. You were saying that it's just a discussion. I don't think you know what a discussion is. Your entire statement is "I don't get it" and you spread this agenda on the entire forum. You go on every topic here with your meaningless ideas about soul and how music should be written according to you. This is a classical music forum. These are not random people in the street that need classical music to "relax", but people who take it very seriously and come here to listen, share, analyze and explore new things. Your comments add absolutely nothing to the discussion, AKA trolling.


----------



## Musician

Of course they are, I'm trying to point to the composers here what I believe as a composer, that they should explore and entertain the notion to compose more melodic music, that is rooted in classical music. That's all, this is an opinion, and I have stated it on this thread and on other threads, take it or leave it, anyone is free to do what they want, but there's nothing wrong with having an alternative point of view. I personally dislike atonal and modern music, that has no melody, the best I can describe this music is as 'I don't get it' and if anyone has any way to explain to me so I could get it, then let them please explain it to me, because for me this kind of music is obscure. What I'm stating here is not a lone opinion, but rather an opinion shared by many traditional composers who appreciate and love the music of the Classical/Romantic era, and are not so happy about the state of music nowadays. Now you could either agree or disagree with these statements, that's entirely your choice, or you can call it 'trolling', and by calling it 'trolling' in fact what you're doing is expressing your view that only certain opinions are welcomed here, but let me remind you, that the world of music is great and vast, and you will find multitude of opinions, statements, and sentiments, and there is no need to resort to personal attacks if what you hear doesnt suit your world view.

So if you could apologize to me that would be wonderful, if not then I forgive you either way...



Pennypacker said:


> I'll comment on what you've written before you edited it. You were saying that it's just a discussion. I don't think you know what a discussion is. Your entire statement is "I don't get it" and you spread this agenda on the entire forum. You go on every topic here with your meaningless ideas about soul and how music should be written according to you. This is a classical music forum. These are not random people in the street that need classical music to "relax", but people who take it very seriously and come here to listen, share, analyze and explore new things. Your comments add absolutely nothing to the discussion, AKA trolling.


----------



## Yardrax

I listened to the whole thing.

It is not a very forbidding sound world. It isn't a piece that my Grandmother would enjoy ('Musician' sounds a lot like my Grandmother), but it is easy enough to hear and understand what's going on. Sometimes it's a bit too easy, as a personal thing the persistence of the rhythmic pulse in the outer movements can be slightly grating at times. I will have a listen again later.


----------



## Musician

Yardrax said:


> I listened to the whole thing.
> 
> It is not a very forbidding sound world. It isn't a piece that my Grandmother would enjoy ('Musician' sounds a lot like my Grandmother), but it is easy enough to hear and understand what's going on. Sometimes it's a bit too easy, as a personal thing the persistence of the rhythmic pulse in the outer movements can be slightly grating at times. I will have a listen again later.


I sound like your grandmother?

:lol: That's Hilarious!!!


----------



## Yardrax

The resemblance is uncanny. My Grandmother also insists that everything be light and pretty, 'not too heavy', in music as well as in other Arts. She was very vocal about her disdain for books with a point and how much she preferred feel-good human interest stories once. I could believe it was intentional parody if she wasn't so old. Enough to make a blood vessel burst. I like to think old Ludwig Van would also have reached boiling point if anyone told him that the point of music was to be a soporific


----------



## Pennypacker

Musician said:


> Of course they are, I'm trying to point to the composers here what I believe as a composer, that they should explore and entertain the notion to compose more melodic music, that is rooted in classical music. That's all, this is an opinion, and I have stated it on this thread and on other threads, take it or leave it, anyone is free to do what they want, but there's nothing wrong with having an alternative point of view. I personally dislike atonal and modern music, that has no melody, the best I can describe this music is as 'I don't get it' and if anyone has any way to explain to me so I could get it, then let them please explain it to me, because for me this kind of music is obscure. What I'm stating here is not a lone opinion, but rather an opinion shared by many traditional composers who appreciate and love the music of the Classical/Romantic era, and are not so happy about the state of music nowadays. Now you could either agree or disagree with these statements, that's entirely your choice, or you can call it 'trolling', and by calling it 'trolling' in fact what you're doing is expressing your view that only certain opinions are welcomed here, but let me remind you, that the world of music is great and vast, and you will find multitude of opinions, statements, and sentiments, and there is no need to resort to personal attacks if what you hear doesnt suit your world view.


Nobody said you're not entitled to your own opinion, that wasn't ever the point, and the fact that you don't get it is almost as annoying as your "opinions". Opinions alone don't add anything to the discussion, you need to find a way to apply them by making specific arguments that others can address. You don't see people here go "I love Bach and Mozart, I kindda like Beethoven and ooh Brahms is interesting. The rest is garbage" and then just C&P all over the forum.

Your need to point others towards your views is arrogant. Can you imagine yourself this scenario? 
Composer: Hello everyone, here's a composition I've wrote that took a lot of time and effort. It's atonal and is very influenced by the works of Ligeti.
Saul / Soul: Ligeti sucks. Have you ever heard of this thing called melody? It's pretty awesome. You should probably use that. And maybe apply some soul. 
Composer: Holy ****!!! I was only listening to atonal music since the day I was born. I've just looked up this melody thing you've mentioned and you're absolutely right, it's amazing! Thanks Saul!

Didn't think so. You have a bunch of works you post here that get no comments. Is there a point in writing "this sounds like elevator music. Have you considered writing something interesting for once?" in each one of them?


----------



## Musician

I have 760 members on my site, about 301 subscribers on my youtube page, and I get fan mail often from all over the world, they all can't be followers of 'elevator' music, you need to do a better job proving that. As for stating my opinion about modern music, I am totally lost of words at how can anyone like this kind of music, I can't elaborate too much about it, because its just too arcane. So for the second time, if you can explain to me what is so interesting about Atonal Music, and why I should like it, please state so, maybe with your explanation you will get my attention on a few points, but calling my sentiments 'Trolling' is out of line. I just don't like this kind of music, and no where does it say that I can't express it here as many times as I wish.



Musician said:


> I think if you made a poll asking random people in the street or anywhere else for that matter, what is the main reason they listen or like classical music chances are that the word relax will come out at the very top of their 'reasons'.
> 
> Beautiful classical melodic music is relaxing, this is what many people mean why they say that Bach is a balancer of their mood, music has the power to make people relax and forget about the hassles of everyday life, such as job, bills, noise, arguments etc, and I believe this is a great gift, the ability to have something that is so spiritually capable and appealing that it can cause you if not for a brief moment to just reflect and enjoy and yes relax.
> 
> If you want the opposite effect of relax, and you want music to 'jump-start' you like a smooth shot of caffeine, there are plenty of heavy-metal rubbish that anyone can listen for that purpose, we don't need to turn classical music to take the route towards that, we need classical music to stay beautiful, lovely and inspiriting and yes also Relaxing, and not let it be turned to something that doesnt really suit it...


----------



## aleazk

I can't believe the guy just inserted a link to his own webpage in the thread about my piece...


----------



## Musician

aleazk said:


> I can't believe the guy just inserted a link to his own webpage in the thread about my piece...


It was done to prove a point, does it really offend you, its not to my main page, but to a specific area of my site.

If you really don't like it, tell me and I will remove it. And you are more then welcome to post your site on my threads anyway.


----------



## aleazk

Musician said:


> It was done to prove a point, does it really offend you, its not to my main page, but to a specific area of my site.
> 
> If you really don't like it, tell me and I will remove it. And you are more then welcome to post your site on my threads anyway.


You have already said that you don't like the piece. Fine. That's the only relevant thing for this thread. The rest is just a personal rant against modern music, this thread is not the place for that. There are several threads on this topic in the main forum. 
Also, you can discuss your own music personally (PM or VM) with the members who made comments about it, or in the respective threads. This thread is not the place for that either.


----------



## Musician

Ok, point taken, will discuss this on the other threads.



aleazk said:


> You have already said that you don't like the piece. Fine. That's the only relevant thing for this thread. The rest is just a personal rant against modern music, this thread is not the place for that. There are several threads on this topic in the main forum.
> Also, you can discuss your own music personally (PM or VM) with the members who made comments about it, or in the respective threads. This thread is not the place for that either.


----------



## aleazk

Pennypacker said:


> That was very interesting listening to. This field is still pretty foreign to me, but my general impression was that every movement has a great build up (the second movement was amazing at this) but the climax didn't quite deliver what I was expecting, leaving the last section a bit meaningless. Anyway, really enjoyed the rhythms of the first and third movements, and the very dark and engaging second movement.


Thank you, glad you found it interesting. And also glad you noticed the "build up", because that was one of my main goals when composing this piece. My way of thinking is constructivist, i.e., from small seeds, the big form is developed consistently. And in this kind of music, it's one of the most effective ways of achieving a sense of cohesion and transition between the different textures, even when, at the end, you arrive to a completely different texture in relation to that of the beginning of the piece (that's the interesting thing of this). Probably that's the big and most important lesson I learnt from Ligeti's music, most of his pieces are in this form.
The climax in the second movement, yes, I somewhat avoided a big drama, mainly because I wanted the whole thing to be like a breeze. Just a passing moment between the outer movements. It disappears in the same way it appeared, but leaving that very dark sensation. Possibly in a live performance, it would sound a little more intense. It's a delicate equilibrium, not too intense, but also not too bland.
edit: Oh, I noticed that your critique was in general. Well, I already commented about the second movement. In the first movement, there's not really one single big, big climax, but many build ups ending in their own climax, followed by other build ups ending in their own climax. There are at least three. I found that "episodic" treatment more interesting for this kind of piece (in the third movement of Ligeti's Piano Concerto, the piece starts with a build up over Ligeti's lamento motif; that's followed by a first "african" episode; then another lamento bulid up, followed by another african episode). The same can be said about the third movement. Anyway, keep in mind that, again, all this things can be improved in a live performance.


----------



## PetrB

Pennypacker said:


> I'll comment on what you've written before you edited it. You were saying that it's just a discussion. I don't think you know what a discussion is. Your entire statement is "I don't get it" and you spread this agenda on the entire forum. You go on every topic here with your meaningless ideas about soul and how music should be written according to you. This is a classical music forum. These are not random people in the street that need classical music to "relax", but people who take it very seriously and come here to listen, share, analyze and explore new things. Your comments add absolutely nothing to the discussion, AKA trolling.


OF COURSE, for all concerned, _it is your opinion_ that the fellow is trolling, n'est pas?
But I do think it is utterly sincere, making it all that much less surprising that anyone would just continue to go at it as has been done... so pops melodorelax quasi-classical it is: THIS is what the people want, a soporific, a waft of something akin to a bit of a warm oil rub, something to remind them of the simple and treacle sweet sentiments, etc.

There is already a pop genre which often fits that bill: it is called Newage Music ("Newage" rhymes with sewage.)


----------



## aleazk

Yardrax said:


> I listened to the whole thing.
> 
> It is not a very forbidding sound world. It isn't a piece that my Grandmother would enjoy ('Musician' sounds a lot like my Grandmother), but it is easy enough to hear and understand what's going on. Sometimes it's a bit too easy, as a personal thing the persistence of the rhythmic pulse in the outer movements can be slightly grating at times. I will have a listen again later.


Yes, I think the piece is definitely quite accessible. I mean, you can dislike the piece, of course; but in the 21st century, to find this piece inaccessible, I find that rather surprising. 
The persistent fast pulse is the core of the piano part. It's based on the principles of african music. Over the grid formed by these fast pulsations, rhythmic accentuations, layers, and developments are constructed. Without these pulsations, the rhythms would be unplayable.


----------



## PetrB

Musician said:


> I have 760 members on my site, about 301 subscribers on my youtube page, and I get fan mail often from all over the world, they all can't be followers of 'elevator' music....


Actually, yes they can all be fans of elevator music, or at least in the case of liking your comps I would say for that moment they like similar.

To some it might seem INCONCEIVABLE that some people find something like Aleazk's piano concerto "melodic, harmonic, pleasant, etc."

But it goes against your very set and strong opinion about melody, harmony, and how you think of them, hear them. That is why you cannot hear the forest -- you are staring at your one and only favorite tree.

You can not possibly have anything to say about a piece like this other than it is not at all to your taste. We get that.

Asking any composer to write a completely different way shows your lack of range. It is also an astonishingly presumptuous rudeness I would expect more from sociopath than anyone more emotionally well-rounded.

It leaves you with nothing at all constructive to say about anything beyond the boundaries of your taste.

"Harmony. Melody. Melodious." Sorry, dude, I hear all that in Aleazk's piano concerto, _"... and it was good."_


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> I can't believe the guy just inserted a link to his own webpage in the thread about my piece...


As a family friend told me about the sibling, "There is just no stopping some people."

Look at it this way, maybe it is like a leech on the body of your OP -- it is a sucking straw which will draw the humors of those who think your music noise to another region.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Musician has agreed to take the discussion regarding modern music somewhere else. Please let us return to discussing the piece which the OP posted.


----------



## PetrB

woops. .......................


----------



## BurningDesire

Pretty cool concerto aleazk. :3 Do you have any affinity for the minimalist school?


----------



## hreichgott

Great work. I still think the first movement either needs some new ideas or needs to be cut down in length. There's great music there though. And the other movements are more engaging throughout, and provide a good contrast. I loved the spooky intermezzo. Maybe you were improving as a composer over the time you spent working on this.


----------



## aleazk

hreichgott said:


> Great work. I still think the first movement either needs some new ideas or needs to be cut down in length. There's great music there though. And the other movements are more engaging throughout, and provide a good contrast. I loved the spooky intermezzo. Maybe you were improving as a composer over the time you spent working on this.


Well, thanks. 

To be honest, I think the first movement is the best movement of the piece, and the most inspired. 
I guess it is true that the final part can be a little repetitive, but overall, it's not something that bothers me very much.
While composing the piece, I tried a lot of different variants. The problem is the following. I noticed that, for example, PetrB used the word "engaging". And I think that's somewhat related to the way in which I composed the piece. Almost all of the second part is developed from the material presented at the beginning of this part in question. That's what gives the feeling of continuity to the piece, and I guess one can find it "engaging" because of the curiosity and anxiety about where all this constant development will end.
If I add something alien to the main material, this continuity, which is evidently the most interesting aspect of the piece, can be lost. And I know this because I tried it, in fact.
So, I had to search for an equilibrium between new ideas, but also maintaining the continuity. The final version of the movement is the best solution I found. Of course, it may not be perfect, but it's effective for my purpose, I think. 
I don't think I'm going to touch the movement in the near future. If I do it, probably would be on the lines of shortening the cadenza and the part before the cadenza, instead of adding new things, considering what I said before.
Thanks for your observation and sure I will keep it in mind for my new compositions.


----------



## mmsbls

Here's a very difficult question. When do you know that you are finished? Obviously in the early stages one can generally make major improvements. After awhile improvements become more difficult and time consuming. When I was finishing my doctorate, one of the professors I worked with told me, "Get it done. Don't get it right." Of course he didn't mean to leave it wrong, but he knew that I could spend many months improving minor details and fine tuning results that were essentially correct. His view was that after doing good work, one should move on to do more good work.

Music composition is not scientific analysis, but the idea is similar. When do you feel you should move on?


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> Music composition is not scientific analysis, but the idea is similar. When do you feel you should move on?


Obviously it varies. Beethoven would sometimes (rarely) revisit a work finished and even published. Grieg futzed with his piano concerto to the end of his life. Shostakovich never looked back, even though we might occasionally wish he had!


----------



## aleazk

mmsbls said:


> Here's a very difficult question. When do you know that you are finished? Obviously in the early stages one can generally make major improvements. After awhile improvements become more difficult and time consuming. When I was finishing my doctorate, one of the professors I worked with told me, "Get it done. Don't get it right." Of course he didn't mean to leave it wrong, but he knew that I could spend many months improving minor details and fine tuning results that were essentially correct. His view was that after doing good work, one should move on to do more good work.
> 
> Music composition is not scientific analysis, but the idea is similar. When do you feel you should move on?


That's a very interesting question. Basically, I stop when I feel really tired. Both in music and science.
One can be a perfectionist, but there's a limit: physical and mental exhaustion.
In physics, I tend to be quite formal and rigorous with the mathematical details. But sometimes you reach points in which if you don't move, you will get stuck in a sea of details.
In this Piano Concerto, there are some places in which I'm not fully satisfied, but I simply can't work more since I'm tired of it. So I try to make an equilibrium. In this piece, the moments in which I'm satisfied outnumber the moments in which I'm not satisfied. And that's enough for me. Maybe a professional composer can do it better than me. But I have reached my limit here.


----------



## SottoVoce

aleazk said:


> That's a very interesting question. Basically, I stop when I feel really tired. Both in music and science.
> One can be a perfectionist, but there's a limit: physical and mental exhaustion.
> In physics, I tend to be quite formal and rigorous with the mathematical details. But sometimes you reach points in which if you don't move, you will get stuck in a sea of details.
> In this Piano Concerto, there are some places in which I'm not fully satisfied, but I simply can't work more since I'm tired of it. So I try to make an equilibrium. In this piece, the moments in which I'm satisfied outnumber the moments in which I'm not satisfied. And that's enough for me. Maybe a professional composer can do it better than me. But I have reached my limit here.


Paul Valery comes to mind - "A piece of art is not finished, it is abandoned"


----------



## PetrB

mmsbls said:


> Here's a very difficult question. When do you know that you are finished?


This is a classic!

I bet if you asked seasoned professional writers, painters, sculptors, composers, architects, etc... i.e. anyone who '_makes stuff up_,' you will find that even they are not more sure, but have learned by experience to sooner rather than later know when it is better to call it a day, or at the least recognize when no more fussing, revisions, tweaking, are going to improve the work at all.

It is, even with experience, one of the larger mystery-not-ever-to-be-satisfactorily-answered questions in the creative arena.


----------



## Aramis

Anybody interested in "when it's finished" issue should read Balzac's short story, _Le Chef-d'œuvre Inconnu_ aka _Unknown Masterpiece_.

JUST SAYIN' I AIN'T NO SPAMMIN'


----------



## Guest

Aramis said:


> Anybody interested in "when it's finished" issue should read Balzac's short story, _Le Chef-d'œuvre Inconnu_ aka _Unknown Masterpiece_.
> JUST SAYIN' I AIN'T NO SPAMMIN'


I might add that Georges Perec's _La Vie mode d'emploi_ (Life : A User's Manual) also presents 'issues' as to when a work is considered to be finished. Does this have anything to do with Stockhausen's take on the 'open work'?


----------



## hpowders

Have to concur. This is a very impressive piece!


----------



## DrKilroy

Yes, that's probably the best piece published on this forum.

Best regards, Dr


----------



## Eviticus

I'm out of touch with contemporary 'classical' but it's by far the most modern sounding piano concerto i think i've ever heard and some really interesting ideas you use here. 

I normally prefer to hear and write distinct melodies/motifs that are more 'hummable', but the unstable rhythms and keys held my attention even if for the pretence that i may hear something stabilize. Following the opening of the first movement (my favourite part this movement) i felt your application of winds and strings was great and made the music sound backwards - a pretty compelling metamorphosis. I'm not sure what to make of the eerie 2nd movement but was again interested in how you created some of the sounds for example 4 minutes in and we get the strange vibrato which sounded electronic (possibly using the oboe accompanied by the high pitch of the flute resembling guitar feedback). The highlight up to now is definately the percussive 3rd movement though.

This is thought provoking stuff Aleazk and challenges the way i think of music. To me it's music like this that makes 'Todays composers' the most interesting section of the forum.


----------



## Piwikiwi

F#$%^&g awesome!


----------



## aleazk

Eviticus said:


> I'm out of touch with contemporary 'classical' but it's by far the most modern sounding piano concerto i think i've ever heard and some really interesting ideas you use here.
> 
> I normally prefer to hear and write distinct melodies/motifs that are more 'hummable', but the unstable rhythms and keys held my attention even if for the pretence that i may hear something stabilize. Following the opening of the first movement (my favourite part this movement) i felt your application of winds and strings was great and made the music sound backwards - a pretty compelling metamorphosis. I'm not sure what to make of the eerie 2nd movement but was again interested in how you created some of the sounds for example 4 minutes in and we get the strange vibrato which sounded electronic (possibly using the oboe accompanied by the high pitch of the flute resembling guitar feedback). The highlight up to now is definately the percussive 3rd movement though.
> 
> This is thought provoking stuff Aleazk and challenges the way i think of music. To me it's music like this that makes 'Todays composers' the most interesting section of the forum.


Hi, Eviticus, thanks for your comments. This piece is a mixture of influences from some of my favorite modern composers. In that sense, there's really nothing "new" or "original" in it. All the techniques I used can be heard in Ligeti for instance, which was the main influence. If you liked this piece, I recommend you then Ligeti's Piano and Violin concertos. Also Beat Furrer's Piano Concerto. The second movement was influenced by spectralism. In particular, Grisey's Partiels, Ligeti's Lontano, and Haas' limited approximations. The third movement is based on Reich's clapping music. I use that "shifting" technique in several places (also in the first movement). Check Ligeti's piano etudes too. In this piece, I was influenced by Desordre (the shifting technique again and devilishly difficult!) and Fem. Most of those pieces (as well as my piece) use a rhythm technique which can be traced to african music, and also to gamelan music, in which rhythmic accentuations are constructed by "adding" "fundamental fast pulses".

A friend of mine told me, in the same line of your thoughts, that the opening sounded like a painting hanging in a wall and that the rest sounded like if that painting started to "melt down", like the clocks in Dalí's la persistencia de la memoria. He pointed out to the woodwinds as the responsibles of the effect. I found his description quite amusing and interesting.

That was indeed an intended sense of "metamorphosis". I chose that name because of Escher's famous drawings: Metamorphosis I and Metamorphosis II.
I used those drawings as an explicit model for the _form_ of the piece. In tonal music, the form is usually related to the rules of the tonal system. But in this kind of chromatic music, you have to invent the form.
In the Escher drawings different lines evolve and weave with each other, this is the "microscopic" level. At the "macroscopic" level, we perceive an image which starts to change to another image. The image at the "macroscopic" level is composed of those atoms at the "microscopic" level, and the change and evolution of the atoms produce a change in the general image.
In all the three movements, I applied this idea. The sound texture (the macroscopic level) is in fact composed of different lines in polyphony. The constant change and weaving of these lines produce the evolution and change of the sound texture. The advantage of this is that gives to the pieces a sense of cohesion and of continuous development.
This technique was used by Ligeti in his micropolyphony pieces (like Lontano), as well as in his later pieces (the concertos). The difference is that in the micropolyphony pieces yo can't hear the "microscopic" level, while in the concertos, you can, you hear both levels.

I must admit that the closing section of the second movement needs a slight revision. I will do it if I have the time, but this year will be very busy to me in my career (I'm a mathematical physicist).

If my little piece awakes in you an interest in modern music, then I would feel very satisfied.


----------



## Mahlerian

Aleazk, I think I speak for much of the Talk Classical community when I say we want more music from you! Silly things like careers can wait.


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> Aleazk, I think I speak for much of the Talk Classical community when I say we want more music from you! Silly things like careers can wait.



'If you only have enough money to buy a loaf of bread, think again. Buy half a loaf and a chrysanthemum. They will both feed you.'' ~ Chinese maxim

a.k.a.

"Half a loaf, and flowers."


----------



## Aramis

PetrB said:


> 'If you only have enough money to buy a loaf of bread, think again. Buy half a loaf and a chrysanthemum. They will both feed you.'' ~ Chinese maxim




I didn't know there is Chinese edition of Maxim and they're printing philosophical aphorisms. What a culture.


----------



## PetrB

Aramis said:


> I didn't know there is Chinese edition of Maxim and they're printing philosophical aphorisms. What a culture.


Is there a game called "Adage?" Even though it is not a tidy one-word palindrome, maybe I should have used that!

Hard to believe the Chinese own that restaurant in Paris, too, that one with the long-standing world-wide reputation which has the highest of ratings from the Cordon Bleu, isn't it?


----------



## lupinix

I really like the piece a lot! 
I have just read the whole thread (mostly hoping there would be more movements already)
And as theres already talked about a lot, I don't have much to say other than: keep it up! I can't wait to hear your next composition


----------



## SergeOfArniVillage

I think this piece's existence is already justified by the juicy trolling.

But seriously.

This really is phenomenal. The awful MIDI portrayal doesn't do it justice; it's no wonder you got a comment on the Soundcloud saying that this desperately needs a live performance. I can kind of hear what you're actually going for in the first movement, and the blossoming of rich colors at :50 after the ascending parallel major 2nds (?) is wonderful ... Hearing it in my head how it should sound like ;-) I also think the piano is unrealistically quiet, coming across as scratchy rather than rich in timbre. 

In fact, this kind of reminds me of a mix between something Ravel would write, and Stravinsky. It's actually pretty accessible due to the strong sense of rhythm, especially at the "cadenza" toward the end.

The second movement ... Is strange. Honestly, the beginning sounds like a traffic jam. (4:06 even sounds like the swirling fan of a helicopter!) But this is not an ordinary traffic jam .... This is a horrifying traffic jam in the mind, a shutting down of all the senses, all emotions ... All that is left is a deep chasm of agony, like a knife in my stomach.

O_O

This is a great idea, in fact, it gives me goosebumps at how dark and appalling it is, ... but I have trouble seeing how it relates to the first movement, which thematically, seems very far removed from a tale of tragedy. (Perhaps my interpretation is mistaken?) Or perhaps its sheer contrast in mood, from exuberance and vivid colors, to deadpan grief, an inability to appreciate those colors ... I suppose this must be along the lines of what you're trying to say.

Actually, the third movement seems to be a gradual coming alive from this state of death. A static, monotonous beat on the piano returns to the colorful landscape you had created in the first movement. The remembrance of the "death state" continues throughout the whole piece with that repeated piano beat, but is strengthened, braced by the continual, much-welcome development of the accompanying instruments, which give the desired life it is so craving. The piece ends with a question.

I would suggest you finish this striking suite by answering the question: does life win out over the abyss? Or does death claim the piece once and for all?

I think this is a truly excellent composition, and I too think it is really calling out for a live performance.

Thank you for sharing such a complete, interesting work with us, I really enjoyed it ^_~


----------



## aleazk

SergeOfArniVillage said:


> I think this piece's existence is already justified by the juicy trolling.
> 
> But seriously.
> 
> This really is phenomenal. The awful MIDI portrayal doesn't do it justice; it's no wonder you got a comment on the Soundcloud saying that this desperately needs a live performance. I can kind of hear what you're actually going for in the first movement, and the blossoming of rich colors at :50 after the ascending parallel major 2nds (?) is wonderful ... Hearing it in my head how it should sound like ;-) I also think the piano is unrealistically quiet, coming across as scratchy rather than rich in timbre.
> 
> In fact, this kind of reminds me of a mix between something Ravel would write, and Stravinsky. It's actually pretty accessible due to the strong sense of rhythm, especially at the "cadenza" toward the end.


Hi, SergeOfArniVillage, thanks for listen, and I'm very glad you enjoyed it. The audio realization was actually made with the sound library of Sibelius, the sounds are sampled, not midi. But, yes, can be very limited sometimes. Some sections sound quite unrealistic. The percussion instruments sound more or less good. The strings are always a problem. Some winds sound good, like the clarinet. The flutes often have a really awful vibrato.

Yes, Ravel is one of my favorite composers, as well as Stravinsky.



SergeOfArniVillage said:


> The second movement ... Is strange. Honestly, the beginning sounds like a traffic jam. (4:06 even sounds like the swirling fan of a helicopter!) But this is not an ordinary traffic jam .... This is a horrifying traffic jam in the mind, a shutting down of all the senses, all emotions ... All that is left is a deep chasm of agony, like a knife in my stomach.
> 
> O_O
> 
> This is a great idea, in fact, it gives me goosebumps at how dark and appalling it is, ... but I have trouble seeing how it relates to the first movement, which thematically, seems very far removed from a tale of tragedy. (Perhaps my interpretation is mistaken?) Or perhaps its sheer contrast in mood, from exuberance and vivid colors, to deadpan grief, an inability to appreciate those colors ... I suppose this must be along the lines of what you're trying to say.


haha, I must say I enjoyed your imaginery, certainly that's the kind of things I was trying to evoke. The idea was to make a very intense and dark movement.

The beginning, all the movement in fact, was inspired by spectralism, in which sound masses of timbre evolve, change, and develop.

Now, let me explain how it fits in the piece. I think that when a composer presents a piece, he's actually inviting you to enter a world, an imaginary world. The piece is a journey through this world. Different and contrasting facets of human nature are presented through the piece, if you want. I called the movement "Intermezzo", like some kind of pause in our happy lives (the first movement) to realize the misery in the world. After that, we continue our happy lives (the third movement), but more wise, we now know what's just around the corner.

This sense of pause, for later to continue, was the idea.

This movement needs a live performance, since it's all about timbral subtlety.



SergeOfArniVillage said:


> Actually, the third movement seems to be a gradual coming alive from this state of death. A static, monotonous beat on the piano returns to the colorful landscape you had created in the first movement. The remembrance of the "death state" continues throughout the whole piece with that repeated piano beat, but is strengthened, braced by the continual, much-welcome development of the accompanying instruments, which give the desired life it is so craving. The piece ends with a question.
> 
> I would suggest you finish this striking suite by answering the question: does life win out over the abyss? Or does death claim the piece once and for all?
> 
> I think this is a truly excellent composition, and I too think it is really calling out for a live performance.
> 
> Thank you for sharing such a complete, interesting work with us, I really enjoyed it ^_~


Indeed, this question is a sense of emotional ambiguity after all the things we saw during the journey.

Right now, I like that ambiguity. But who knows, maybe I can add another movement. I plan to revise the piece at some moment in order to write the definitive score. Right now, the score is a mess, since I write without worrying about the "visual aspect", I leave those things for later. Also, I need to add a lot of indications.

I don't see many chances of having this played by an orchestra. I guess I would have to submit it to some composition competition or something like that... and also win!. The piano part is ridiculously difficult in the first movement (but playable!, I'm a pianist  ). Only a professional pianist can play it. But, a professional pianist will only play it if the composer has won something or is well known, is not going to spend time in the piece of a nobody.


----------

