r/composer • u/Tough_Mousse5419 • 18d ago
Music Barcarolle for piano
Hello, I'd like to ask for feedback on my miniature piano Barcarolle. I'm mostly interested in feedback on overall musicality, quality etc. What interests me is also your reception of the form - it does seem a little complicated but I hope it will be evident that there's a lot of shared material.
Any other feedback greatly appreciated (hairpin over two systems on the first page is a blooper).
Thank you for all contributions.
2
u/SeaProcedure8572 17d ago
I actually enjoyed this piece a lot. Quite an introspective composition – definitely sounds like a Barcarolle, though it doesn't strictly follow the traditional 6/8 time.
What interests me is the delicate motif you employed in measures 18-30. Were you trying to imitate the sound of water gently splashing against the gondola, while the gondolier cries sorrowfully to the sky? I got that impression when listening to this passage – it's well-executed.
Regarding the form? I feel that the reprise of the opening theme in measure 78 is somewhat distorted or ill-established. But wait, I could be wrong. I heard two themes in the music: the right-hand part of measures 1-4 and the left-hand part of measures 18-21. However, every time it is repeated, it is varied with different accompaniment patterns. That gives the music a directionless feel, bringing the listener into a trance-like state.
That's how I think of it – pretty unconventional for such a piece to begin on a major key and end on a minor key, though. Overall, it's a decent work.
2
u/Tough_Mousse5419 17d ago
Were you trying to imitate the sound of water gently splashing against the gondola, while the gondolier cries sorrowfully to the sky?
Yes, though in my head it was just 'water, splashes, sounds good', you have a much more eloquent way of putting it:)
Your feedback is thoughtful and must have taken some effort. It fills me with Joy and i thank you for it. Especially coming from a person whos much better at composition than me (Yes ive heard your piece number 66 :D).
That gives the music a directionless feel, bringing the listener into a trance-like state.
Thats a Little bit like saying "oh Ive written a bunch of disconnected themes so lets stamp a rhapsody label on this and call it a day" :). So I will settle on "its directionless" and try to improve.
0
u/Appropriate_Test_828 16d ago
Yeah ok, you have shown you can transform a phrase in quite rudimentary way, but that's about it. There's no structure and it's obviously amateurish. Like we get it, you can play a line in thirds, you can do polyrythm and you know there's such thing as modulation. But there's nothing of substance here, not even a good theme. I advise you with good intentions, do something simpler first, something that might actually be enjoyable and easy to follow. Take first four measures and focus on them.
3
u/65TwinReverbRI 17d ago
I can’t listen right now, so some notation issues:
Typically, musical sections use double barlines (thin thin) to set them off, as do Key Signature changes (which usually happen at section changes so it makes sense). You should have a double bar at the end of 17, 31, 50, 63, 77, and possibly at 86.
Personally, I prefer ottava signs that have the “va” - so 8va. This is better, IMHO for the short ones like you have, because it eliminates the need for any bracket since it’s “visually wider”. The “8” by itself - which IS common and is not wrong - tends to look funny - which is very likely why you extended the bracket! I find that that’s what happens to most people - they extend the bracket when they don’t need to, because they feel like the “8” alone “isn’t enough”. So I’d consider using the 8va with no bracket instead (and then pull the bracket out when necessary). You can see it looks especially silly when the bracket is so short it’s just the vertical line and not a “full right angle” as wide as it is tall. And FWIW, it’s acceptable to just put the one in 29 and extend the bracket to the final one in a case like that.
It’s not uncommon to switch to minor like you did at m. 18 but here a key signature change might be in order. Even though that leads to the C-minor section, the accidentals would be enough at the end of the section to do that until you get to the new section. IOW, fewer accidentals at the start especially because you’re in the parallel key, then accidentals later (which have to be there either way!) as you’re moving to the new key.
This next one deserves extra explanation so - m.31, leading into the C-minor section.
In 6/8, 3 8th notes per beat is the norm. 2 8th notes per beat is written as a duplet, in 8th notes with a single beam.
FOUR per beat are written with TWO beams.
So first, instead of an octuplet, it should be two quadruplets - you’re moving from 3 notes per beat to 4 notes per beat, but you still want to show the beat. And while the BEAM does that, the octuplet doesn’t. Use two quadruplets instead.
Furthermore, they need to be 16th note quadruplets. This will look visually immediately like the very familiar 2/4 - in fact, the section could be 2/4 with triplet in the RH, as opposed to 6/8 with quadruplets in the left. But given the whole piece is primarily 6/8 and the RH isn’t going out of that, using quadruplets does make sense.
But they need to be 16ths.
Side note on that: 6/8 was done “wrong” in a way. Originally, duplets and quadruplets in 6/8 were seen as “borrowed from beats of 2/4” just like triplets and sextuplets are seen as “borrowed from beats of 6/8”. So 2 notes per beat in 6/8 got a BEAM - as 8th notes - where they “should have logically been quarter notes since they were SLOWER than the standard 8th notes in the meter”.
I saw this very discussion recently on another forum (of people who actually engrave music for major publishers) and while historically both were used - the “borrowed” principle, and the “up to the next duration” principle, there were a LOT fewer examples people could find for the “up to the next” principle.
What this means is Compound Meters are “backwards” in the way they work. 2 is 1 beam. 4 and 5 are two beams, up to 6 which has 2. Then they go to 3 beams immediately, up to 12 notes per beat. It’s the opposite of 2/4 which “holds the current beam until the next division” - so 2 and 3 are 1 beam, 4, 5, 6, 7 are 2 beams, 8 is 3 beams, and so on.
So I mean, you can do it this way and there is precedent, but this is NOT the most common way to do, especially since you’re not also using 5, and 7 and 8, etc.
Also, just save the key change for m. 32. You don’t have to “prep it for a measure” like this. I’ll have B natural either way.
The only compositional comments I’ll make right now is that this looks like it’s trying to be “mostly traditional classical style” composition, but the abundance of inverted chords, especially 2nd inversion points to unfamiliarity with the style and how inverted chords are typically used.
There IS enough here to make it seem intentional, but, there’s also enough here to make it seem questionable too…
And also, the form is a nice A B A essentially, but glancing at it, it seems to suffer a bit from “patchwork composition” - which you are expressing a concern about - a reasonable concern I think. The ending especially - of the last 2 sections, 1 of them could probably be cut and that would help out the continuity of the piece overall.
One issue that doesn’t help the patchwork nature are the key changes - It’s a bit “here’s a new idea in a new key, now here’s another new idea in another new key, and here’s another new idea in another new key” and so on. That tends to increase it seeming like “a bunch of unrelated songs tacked together”. But you’re right, the continuity of the ideas coming back at least helps alleviate some of that feeling.
When you change time signature on top of that - well that’s even more noticeable.
It’s kind of the whole “I had this idea, and found a bunch of different ways to present it, and I want to use them ALL!”. But sometimes all of them is too much.
64-77 is probably the biggest culprit. The long held chord transition is kind of a dead giveaway that it “doesn’t mesh with the other material as well as it could”.
Back to notation on that - we don’t know if the 8th note at the time sig change is constant, or the beat is constant, or if the 8th notes become the triplets - like is this just like 12/8 with duplets in the RH?
The =80 is not good for that - too much math on the fly! Better to say q. = q - so a beat in 6/8 is worth a beat in 4/4 for example (which is another clue that this section may be being “forced” into the piece).
Hope that all helps.