I have composed a short waltz in B Major. I tried to emulate an earlier period of music. Sadly the recording I have is not on an acoustic piano, I recorded a live performance on my Casio. I uploaded a video with the recording to youtube. Here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEce6dockgk

I am also including an Mp3 of the recording, linked to this thread.



I do not have an electronic copy of the score, but can create it if there is interest.

~Riley

Well you know the drill... if there's no score it ain't no composition

It's quite a cute little waltz, the recurring chromatic transition giving it an old-world nostalgic feeling. But the beginning bothers me. It seems to be in 4/4 meter for the first 30 seconds or so, when it slips into 3/4 almost by accident. Could be this was intentional, like a waltz that didn't know if it wanted to be a waltz at all but had no other choice. But IMO a waltz should firmly declare its intentions from the start. Unless you provide an introduction which could be in a different meter but then it would need to be clear where the intro ends and the waltz starts (typically after a cadenza and/or pause). This sounds a bit too wimpy and uncertain.

The performance could have been firmer rhythmically (it wobbles a bit) and with more schwung. The sound of the Casio is not especially appealing.

Yep. I agree. There are several measures in the beginning that need a beat amputated from the measure Mu, wha, ha, ha, ha (Ok that wasn't very good but you get my idea )

Hi Chris and Eddy,

Thanks for the feedback.

I do not have the resources to produce a score at this time.

I realize that when a composer calls his piece a waltz just about every measure except the anacrusis should have the l1l2l2l l1l2l2l motion in the bass.

This is certainly not a waltz that Frederic Chopin would write, and perhaps less a waltz and more an arabesque of sorts. If it shouldn't be reworked into a waltz format, I may be happy to call it something else. Not sure what I want to do with this piece at this point.

At any rate, thanks again for the feedback.