Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

Hello friends,

I realize, that every  of my topics starts with the same words: It has been a while. 5 Months to be precise. Lately - due to the fact that I've nearly finished my master degree in economics - I was able to write some music. 

The result of these efforts can be found beneath: Nocturne Nr.2, in Am Op.6

I hope you like it and kindly appreciate your comments.
Dr. Eam
P.S.: I tried to bear in mind what Al Johnston said to me the last time. This especially takes coherency into consideration.

Views: 144

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Dr. Eam,

It seems you get a nice flow going …  and the chords are closely related...  then at around 1:25 you have a transition which employes  chord relationships same seem to not relate at all to the previous section… It just hit my ear as odd, as there seem to be no set up at the beginning, even in the slightest for that kind of modulation… Not that that is inherently 'bad' but, it hit my ear as off… 

Then it seems to arrive at another theme, where the chords are again closely related… 

Also, there is much perpetual motion with this piece, and felt that there could be more of an ebb and flow to the rhythmic density.

This is just my first impression..  

Hi Gregorio,

thank you for your comment. I get your thoughts regarding 1:25 and you are perfectly right, that there is lack of harmonic relationship. I chose not to follow a harmonic pattern to underline the rapid changing transition to the next motif.

Mhhh... you're right regarding to this. I usually imply a rather complex rhythmic structure, this piece is therefore an exception regarding to this. This is on my list for the next piece. 

Best regards

I especially like 1:25 -- where you take the theme harmonically.  Nice to my ears.

I would spend some revision time with the section beginning at 2:10 (a little too repetitive for me); and at 2:30 it doesn't seem to know what to do for a few seconds. 

And I really like how it opens up around the 3:00 mark.  I would kick it into forte at 3:24.

Overall, nicely done.



Nice piece of work. It sounds good, easygoing. Well set up in my opinion. Like it.

This piece for me was a bit of a puzzle, and I don't mean that in a negative way at all. I enjoyed listening to it all the way through.

It's difficult for me to be "objective" about this work, because the traditional nocturne is not the type of music I have found myself often attracted to (if we are speaking about nocturnes by Czerny, Robert Schumann, Clara Schumann, Mendelsohn, Liszt, Grieg, Glinka, Bizet or Fauré). This isn't to say at all that I don't think you have written something good, praiseworthy, even beautiful and deserving of notice. You have.

It's simply that I have only my own subjective impression to go on, my own individual taste, which clashes a bit with my ability to make a more objective aesthetic judgment.

There is also the matter of the relationship of this work (theoretical, or otherwise) to more modern nocturne type works, written by people like Poulenc, Satie, Shostakovich, Barber and Arnold Bax. It's difficult for me to understand and place your work in an historical music context. Perhaps that need not matter.

As it is—and this is positive—I have snatches of feeling that resemble some works by Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Liszt and occasionally (even early in the beginning), harmonic modes that in my mind suggest some of the jazz pianists who are strongly influenced by, and close to classical pianists and composers. (I won't name names here, though you might possibly be able to guess to whom I am referring).

So there is something like a series of transitions from style to style (just within the space of any given ten bars or so), and this lends interest (though some people might call it an incongruity of styles—personally, I have no real problem with that).

Gregorio, who set a nice tone in the discussion of your work with his comments, said,

"... then at around 1:25 you have a transition which employes chord relationships same seem to not relate at all to the previous section… It just hit my ear as odd, as there seem to be no set up at the beginning, even in the slightest for that kind of modulation… Not that that is inherently 'bad' but, it hit my ear as off… "

I sensed this, and a number of occurrences that were similar. To my own mind, these were not necessarily problematic, but rather increased my interest in the procession of the work.

I wouldn't know whether to recommend more experimental uses of harmony, or a tighter reign on the modulations, pushing them into a more "traditional" direction, in line with the prescriptions of Fux or Tchaikovsky, with regard to the harmonics of earlier centuries (especially the 19th, of course). The piece obviously has an internal logic of its own, and you say you have revised this taking into account previous suggestions.

So I think it might be best for me to say, work, work, work on it, until you reach that point where the piece, as it is in its essence, expresses its unique internal logic. Work until your mind is satisfied that this is what the piece is meant to be. Or, if you grow tired, then put the piece aside and come back to it, after listening to other nocturnes, or other solo piano works, that may inspire you to "solve" any remaining musical problem that you feel remains in the piece.

Here's a nocturne for piano by Debussy, offered not a "corrective," but merely as inspiration.

Perhaps there is something here that is useful or suggestive, as regards tempo alterations, and momentum (though I do like the "perpetual motion" feel of your piece—I have always liked the "perpetual motion" impetus, especially as I have heard it in Prokofiev keyboard sonatas, and other pieces for solo piano. Yours works well).

Won't get deep. Me like! There was nothing too odd that stood out in my ears. Good job!

Reply to Discussion


Sign up info

Read before you sign up to find out what the requirements are!


© 2021   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service