Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi Stephane,

 

Thank you for sharing this piece. I enjoyed and was intrigued by the play of activity and rhythm up to bar 52. t

Those changing densities of notes across the 2 piano continuum of pitches were most effective. Overall the result seems to be music for a super-piano for 4 hands rather than two distinct pianos. For me it's in Conlon Nancarrow listening territory. Reading the score (as I do) it was be good to be able to set octave transposition signs in OMN as the higher registers of the treble clef are in a stratosphere of ledger lines!! (My piano doesn't even reach that far). Maybe that's a development opportunity.

 

Rhythmically the play of movement is very arresting but the pitch content and argument doesn't always seem to complement the rhythmic play. The passages that move in and out of octave doubling are very successful. Also the use of rotation to get quasi-canonic textures (bar 92 is good!). Rotation is certainly a powerful device for developing moments of harmonic rhythm.

 

Good wishes

Nigel

 

PS: I wonder if you've seen this on my archive - a set of Projects for Two Pianos

http://www.nigel-morgan.co.uk/index.php?name=News&sid=31&file=article&pageid=1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Nigel,

Thank you for your very interesting comments.

I agree totally with you about set of octave transposition signs in OMN. We need them.

For musical advice about this piece, i think it lack a bit of direction and orientation from moments to moments, probably due to the not always good interaction between pitch content and rhythm as you said in you comment.

I considering myself as a student in progress but need to work a lot for progressing.

But rather to try to refine a piece such this piece, i prefer to concentrate on the next one and try to do it better and try to progress from piece to piece.

My principal goal is to achieve better sensation/perception by the listener of direction and goals.

I need also work on texture quality generally in my pieces.

Lot of thing to do.....

i had a look to the link you provide. It is very interesting.

"Amitiés" and thank you for your help.

Stéphane

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Stéphane,

 

I understand that you don't wish always to refine a piece but go on to the next project. But I think you may be missing an opportunity. Unless one is going to be rigorous like Pierre Barbaud and regard the computed output as the final statement, I believe the result of an algorithmic process does need a kind of critical 'massaging'. It's not just the notation but reacting to the reference recording / output. Even if you never imagine your work will reach live performance, or you prefer (as some composers do) performance from a computer driving a sampled instrument so every nuance can be under the composers control, l find that taking the piece into notation (and this could be a graphic display) and away from the tyranny of realtime playback allows you to critically reflect on what might be improved. The code is never going to construct the perfect output because it's difficult to connect the process with those areas of personal experience and intuition that inform composition. You and I both have prior experience through listening and study  of the two-piano medium - Mozart's D major sonata, Messiaen's Vision de L'Amen, Bartok's Sonata, Stockhausen's Mantra, Debussy Blanc en Noir, Stravinsky's Concerto, Ligeti 3 Pieces. Although we don't think of these pieces necessarily when we start composing they are part of the history of this medium and I'm sure we make unconscious creative decisions based on this prior knowledge - even, for example, if we think we will in a particular piece avoid what Stravinsky does (overdoes) with scales. I'm very aware that the output of a compiled program so often needs adjusting in regard to register placement of pitches. Many such adjustments lie beyond sensible programming . . . and this is why having yards of OMN as part of a program is not always helpful . . . and you, to your credit do avoid that - so the argument of the composition can be 'read' and enjoyed. I really congratulate you on this. It's my goal too. The code is a stage towards a final result and can rarely 'be' the final result. I think one learns so much - for future projects - from being critical and using one's ear and 'craft' making adjustments.

 

Nigel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Nigel, 

 

You are absolutely true, it is just a bit a lazy attitude and also the idea that this score it is not so important because i don't compose this piece for a pianist in particular and this aspect refrain me to improve my score.

But anyway, i will have a look and see how to improve it and will probably do a revision.

 

Stéphane

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • opmo unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy