Caprice

[Saul Gefen]

My latest work

 

Caprice

 

Regards,

 

Saul

 

Saul Gefen · Caprice

[David]

Certainly lives up to the name of being capricious. One of the most inventive and beautiful of all your piano pieces, I would say. And very nicely played/rendered.

[Saul Gefen]

Thank you David. Even though it is me performing at the piano, I did change the tempi to fit my preference for this piece. Glad you liked it.

[David]

Yes, I assumed you had modified the tempi to taste.

[Rowy]

Is there a reason why you kept the harmony a bit bland? I know I sometimes do, like a piece in major or minor without any alterations, just to see if I can get the harmony interesting enough. It might be the structure of the melodic lines though. As you probably know repeating the top notes isn't always a good idea. But if you're not interested in answering me, it's okay. I'm just a bit curious.

[Saul Gefen]

Hi Rowy, Thank you fornyour comments.

I don't know if I made the harmony sound a bit bland as you suggested. I simply played the piano and chose the best harmony that works for this piece. If you believe that it is a bit bland, that's a criticism that I can accept, thought I think that maybe you can suggest what you mean by getting the harmony more interesting, do you have some suggestions and examples?

Thanks

Saul

[David]

to me, your harmony in general matches your general musical language. This is certainly old fashioned and I could never restrict myself to (at latest) mid-19th century harmony but for what you try to express, I don't see it being inappropriate and of course we can all write the way we want to. But it may be Rowy has specific examples of suggested improvements?

[Saul Gefen]

Thanks

[Rowy]

David has already mentioned that there's nothing wrong with 19th-century harmony. However, I would like to add that it specifically reflects mostly early 19th-century harmony. If that was your intention, then you've done a nice job.

Nevertheless, there's a possibility that you're employing this type of harmony due to a lack of profound knowledge (up to the early 20th century), and you're still progressing, but need some time to reach that level. In that case, I should refrain from commenting.

However, a potential issue arises if you believe you've already mastered early 20th-century harmony. If this wasn't intentional, I regret to inform you that you haven't (in this piece). Now, we face another problem.

Perhaps you're composing music purely for the fun of it. Your music exudes enthusiasm, and if you are an amateur, you have achieved a commendable level. My compliments. No need to study harmony.

In essence, what I'm trying to convey is that if you appreciate your music and are aware of the steps needed to progress, then my comments may be redundant—except for the aspect of melodic lines. If you wish to emphasize a particular note, it's advisable to avoid using that note shortly before. However, delving into the intricacies of melodic lines and voice-leading would require more time than I have. And maybe you did all that, but this is your present style.

I really should have kept my mouth shut. Merry Christmas everyone!

[David Lilly]

Merry Christmas, Rowy.
I believe your general observations here are appropriate and presented in a thoughtful manner, avoiding ambiguous criticisms.

Saul, to me, the piece is enjoyable to listen to. However, it presents itself more as a fantasy to me, sounding improvisational without formal regard for organizational structure or pre-planned melodic development. I perceive it as a lush, spontaneous expression rather than a predetermined and calculated piece. While this is perfectly fine, it's not my preferred aesthetic ideal. But that's just me-it works well here in a somewhat free-form sense.

The performance sounds truly played, with detectable rubato, phrasing, and nuances in expression typically found in a human performance. Despite your acknowledgment of altering the tempo and perhaps correcting some issues in the initial MIDI, it still comes across as relatively human and expressive.

Many of the concepts Rowy alludes to regarding melody are rooted in good practices for developing a strong cantus firmus and melodic fluency. Having one 'high point' that your melody touches only once is a good practice, but I don't sense that melody is the primary focus here. Instead, it appears to be a whirl of harmonic shifts and brief, spontaneous flurries of runs.

[Saul Gefen]

Thanks David, please refer to the lengthy reply that I wrote to Rowy, it also addresses some of your comments.

Glad you liked it,

Regards