Thank you to those who donated to Piano Society in 2017.

Scherzo in C Minor (second piano composition)

Discussion in 'Composing' started by edharris99, Jul 19, 2012.

  1. edharris99

    edharris99 New Member

    Nov 8, 2011
    Likes Received:
    This is the first public viewing of the complete version of my new work for solo piano. I have attached links to the score and the Sibelius rendering in mp3 format.

    This is a much more complex work, both technically and structurally, than my first composition Prelude in C Minor, which is also on this forum with the topic title of "First Piano Composition".

    This is not a final version since I am just starting to get reviews and comments in order to improve the work before I release it. I believe I have someone lined up who will premier the work later this year but that is not finalized yet.

    One interesting note about the work: I actually consider this a piano reduction. Early in the composition process, I decided that I will try to orchestrate this work when done. I realize this is a piano oriented forum but I thought I would mention it. (The opening 16 measures at rehearsal E begs to be played by a brass choir...).

    Comments are very welcome.

  2. Affinity

    Affinity Member

    Jun 12, 2010
    Likes Received:
    I personally feel that in this piece you have milked the melodic figurations for more than they are worth. The leap, followed by the triplet figuration in the opening, is certainly very effective and colourful, and you extended it progressively and logically up till the Vivace, which is very commendable. But then, from b.21-36 (around half of the work thus far), you repeat the same figurations while roving through the keys, dulling its effect, especially with the harmonic rhythm staying at one harmony per measure. From b.37-42 there is a change in the harmonic rhythm, but it is counteracted by the descending superstrong diatonic progression (by b.41 it becomes tiresome). In my opinion this plagues the A section of the work (even Czeny in his technical exercises managed to vary his melodic figurations to make it slightly interesting), though I have to say that b.103-116's modulation to the minor was pretty great (I suggest that you add a D on the second beat of 116).

    The same can be said for the B section of the work, the dabbling in the pentatonic scale doesn't seem to mesh in well with the work, and the eighths in the right hand were fairly banal as well. The return was particularly egregious as it was a 100 bars of the same melodic material. The ending was a rousing and exciting finish, however, though it was dulled by all the preceding repetition.

    I think you need to vary your melodic figurations a bit more creatively, introducing a bit more things to play with throughout the composition, with more opportunities for localized contrast between measures. You have to find a B section that links with the rest of the work as well I think, and I trust that you have the musical sense to do so, given your works so far.
  3. pianoman342

    pianoman342 Member Piano Society Artist Trusted Member

    Sep 6, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Carbondale, IL
    Last Name:
    First Name:
    Hi Ed,

    I had a listen to your new composition. I like it, it has a wild careless feel to it that to me characterizes the “scherzo” genre. Some parts need to be ironed out, IMO, but overall good work here.

    The digital piano sound is not especially appealing to me, but the expression is rather good considering it was played by Sibelius--is that right? I didn’t even know that composition programs could program ritardandos :lol:

    Sounds nice as a piano piece. It would be fun to hear this voiced by an orchestra, once you arrange it, I would approach a university orchestra if not a professional philharmonic. 8)


Share This Page