Saul's Music Space

[Saul]

Actually, I think it does somewhat, a kind of recently discovered Song without Words. But I'll go out on a limb this time and say I think this is a pretty good piece, Saul. It has direction and resolution, and you do some nice things distributing the figurations between the hands and varying the bass line between dotted halves and dotted quarters.

Since this is evidently a computer performance, one thing I would strongly urge is converting the 16ths to triplets. At this tempo, I truly doubt a living pianist could handle all those repeated 16ths, and triplet figurations would make this much more playable while keeping the agitated effect you want.

Thank you very much.

About the playability of this piece, there is no problem playing this piece at this tempi.
Eliran Avni played this piece in front of me.

Best Wishes and Thanks again for your fine comments,

Cheers,

Saul

[karlhenning]

This brings to mind the Borges essay "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote.".  The idea was that an imaginary 20th Century author (Menard), would rewrite Cervante's Don Quixote exactly word for word- -but that the entire meaning of the novel would differ based on the time it was written.   A side by side analysis was particularly interesting:

It is a revelation to compare Menard's Don Quixote with Cervantes'. The latter, for example, wrote (part one, chapter nine):
. . . truth, whose mother is history, rival of time, depository of deeds, witness of the past, exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future's counselor. Written in the seventeenth century, written by the "lay genius" Cervantes, this enumeration is a mere rhetorical praise of history.

Menard, on the other hand, writes:
. . . truth, whose mother is history, rival of time, depository of deeds, witness of the past, exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future's counselor.

History, the mother of truth: the idea is astounding. Menard, a contemporary of William James, does not define history as an inquiry into reality but as its origin. Historical truth, for him, is not what has happened; it is what we judge to have happened. The final phrases—exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future's counselor —are brazenly pragmatic.

The contrast in style is also vivid. The archaic style of Menard—quite foreign, after all—suffers from a certain affectation. Not so that of his forerunner, who handles with ease the current Spanish of his time.

Of course, Borges' idea was not encourage more Menards, and when 20th century composers did adopt neo-classical forms, (Pulcinella, anyone?) the looked at the classical tradition as more of a tool box than a cook book.

All artists live in a context. Even if Saul succeeded in composing (say) the Mendelssohn Octet, it doesn't have the same artistic meaning, as a piece composed by Saul in 2010, that it has as a piece composed by an 16-year-old in 1825.

Additionally, no one in 2010 trying to write note-for-note music as Mendelssohn might conceivably have composed a piece . . . the effort to produce that speculative piece (merely compositionally) were great (and in some ways, anti-artistic).  Realistically, I don't see that it is even possible; a composer in our day is informed by a wealth of culture and history (including Mendelssohn, himself) to which Mendelssohn had no recourse.

The fine violinist Fritz Kreisler was a famous fraud in exactly this way, concertizing with pieces he himself had written, but attributing to 19^th-century composers.  In Saul's shoes, Kreisler would have pointed in pride to the audiences who, in good faith and without looking too closely, took them for "originals."

[karlhenning]

That quote I sought out in light of Andrei's remarks:

That's almost a copy-paste from Beethoven. You still don't get the idea, do you? I'll restate it: You, Saul Dzorelashvili, living in 2010, cannot pretend to be taken seriously as a composer if you compose in the style of infinitely superior composers who lived 200 to 100 years ago. Their music sounds genuine and heartfelt even on the thousandth listening. Your music, ear-pleasing at a very basic level as it is, sounds on a second listening contrived and false, because out of its time. It conveys the urgent feeling of "been there, done that".

Now with regard to the poll you added: I think neither Karl nor Luke nor Greg want to reflect the Classical Era. The Classical Era is gone and the only one here who dreams of reviving it is you Their music aims at reflecting their (and our) era and their own feelings and reflections about it. The poll is meaningless.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Thank you very much.

About the playability of this piece, there is no problem playing this piece at this tempi.
Eliran Avni played this piece in front of me.

Best Wishes and Thanks again for your fine comments,

Cheers,

Saul

I knew it! if he gets praise, it's only his due. If he gets criticism, it's to be dismissed or ignored. But I'd like to hear from the other pianists here about the playability of those semiquavers.

[Scarpia]

I knew it! if he gets praise, it's only his due. If he gets criticism, it's to be dismissed or ignored. But I'd like to hear from the other pianists here about the playability of those semiquavers.

Plus, 10 years from now he'll still be bragging on web sites that you praised his music to the high heavens.

[Saul]

karl,

Why does it matter when the music was composed, isn't music timeless and isn't good art timeless?
In my opinion enjoying music shouldn't be tackled with the question of time.
Good music that speak to people should be enjoyed and appreciated regardless when it was written.
Let's say Karl lived for 300 years since the time of Bach and he composed in the Baroque style  back then, and as time went by and he reached the imaginary age of 300, he still composed in the same style lacking any modernization that reflects the present age.

Should we then appreciate all the beauty of Karl's music that he composed back then, and reject his music today just because it doesn't reflect the present?

I think this is futile. Composers who compose today in the style of the past, shouldn't be 'rejected' and 'cornered' for music in a sense doesn't become better or worse if it doesn't reflect the present time.

If it would be then what's the whole point of listening to the great past composers?

They don't speak to us in our current mental environment. We have nothing in common with them culturally and philosophically, per say. They lived in a forgotten age, which will never return, what was then will never reappear.

So should be give up on classical music all together?


I sense a certain hypocrisy here.

Which is it?

If you don't believe that classical music written today has any beneficial quality for the listeners because it doesn't reflect our present era, then why not forget about classical music, and leave this music to the past from where is came from?

Best,

Saul

[Saul]

By the way this is the most Atonal piece I have composed as of yet...

http://www.youtube.com/v/a5qLSgj5IJM

[Brian]

Hmm, that actually sounds like what would happen if Scriabin were hired for a gig in a jazz club. Pretty cool!

[jowcol]

Saul thanks for the suggestions.  Are there any free programs for Mac?  Money is a problem now, especially big-time money like $600-$700.

Melody Assistant (at www.myriad-online.com) is not free, but very feature rich, and supports Mac and Windows.  I haven't checked the pricing lately, but the basic program is 20$, and you may wish to spend another 50$ or so for "Gold Base" if you plan on generating listenable audio files.

[Teresa]

Melody Assistant (at www.myriad-online.com) is not free, but very feature rich, and supports Mac and Windows.  I haven't checked the pricing lately, but the basic program is 20$, and you may wish to spend another 50$ or so for "Gold Base" if you plan on generating listenable audio files.

Thanks, I'll check it out. 

[Saul]

Hmm, that actually sounds like what would happen if Scriabin were hired for a gig in a jazz club. Pretty cool!

Glad you enjoyed it, Brian. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Thank you very much.

About the playability of this piece, there is no problem playing this piece at this tempi.
Eliran Avni played this piece in front of me.

Best Wishes and Thanks again for your fine comments,

Cheers,

Saul

I could not play this full volume at work a few hours ago, but played at home it sure sounds like triplets throughout to me. Anyone else?

[Saul]

I dont know where you heard triplets there...the score is right there, there are no triplets.

[greg]

I could not play this full volume at work a few hours ago, but played at home it sure sounds like triplets throughout to me. Anyone else?

Yeah, I noticed that before I even read any posts commenting about it.
It should be in 12/8 time.

[Saul]

Yeah, I noticed that before I even read any posts commenting about it.
It should be in 12/8 time.

I see, I will check it out...thank you...

[(poco) Sforzando]

Yeah, I noticed that before I even read any posts commenting about it.
It should be in 12/8 time.

Or 4/4 with triplets. Greg is exactly right. The notation threw me. The reason is that the highest note in the figuration is always the seventh note of the bar; therefore instead of it sounding like the "and" of 2, it sounds like the 3rd beat in a 4/4 measure. A live pianist might follow the beaming and play it in 3, but from the computer file it sounds absolutely like triplets. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, as the repeated notes are more secure for the player this way.

[Mirror Image]

Actually if you read the threads, I clearly stated that I listen to criticism. You can't mess with facts, the facts are that plenty of people have listened and gave me compliments. If you can't handle it, that's pretty sad.

Please lighten up...

...I've also read plenty of posts that give your music a lot of criticism. My own observation is anyone who likes what you currently composed aren't experienced listeners and/or are just trying to be nice to you and don't know how to give you a valid suggestion. I didn't sugarcoat my criticism of your music.

[Saul]

Or 4/4 with triplets. Greg is exactly right. The notation threw me. The reason is that the highest note in the figuration is always the seventh note of the bar; therefore instead of it sounding like the "and" of 2, it sounds like the 3rd beat in a 4/4 measure. A live pianist might follow the beaming and play it in 3, but from the computer file it sounds absolutely like triplets. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, as the repeated notes are more secure for the player this way.

Either way, your choice of notation would force me to change the speed from 140 to 250 to achieve what I want.
But I guess that its ok. I will change the notation to 4/4...

Cheers,

Saul

[(poco) Sforzando]

Actually if you read the threads, I clearly stated that I listen to criticism. You can't mess with facts, the facts are that plenty of people have listened and gave me compliments. If you can't handle it, that's pretty sad.

Please lighten up...

No, Saul, this attitude will never get you anywhere, the fact that I thought you achieved a modest success with your G minor piece notwithstanding. You may say you listen to criticism, but in reality you absorb none of it and you only believe the compliments. You say some pianist six years ago told you to study with a teacher; you obviously never followed through. Since you dismiss all comments intended to help you see your weak points, and you only believe the fawning praise, I don't see how you will ever develop as a composer.

Sorry, can't waste my time on this further.

[Mirror Image]

I accepted some of the criticism of Luke and Greg about my music, things like notation and also looking for new avenues of expression that are more modern then what I'm used to.

You have accepted criticism from nobody. When somebody gives you their honest opinion and that opinion happens to be a criticism, it simply goes in one ear and out the other. Nothing sticks with you. Is your ego really that large? Can you not see that people are giving you honest criiticism with the sole purpose of helping you compose more meaningful music?

I mean it's as if anyone that goes against your music is wrong and has no idea about what he/she is talking about. I have heard more classical music probably than you have your entire life. I have surveyed almost the full history of classical from Monteverdi to Handel to Haydn to Schubert to Brahms to Mahler to Schoenberg to Part and so on. I have a collection of more than 6,000 classical recordings at my disposal on a daily basis. For you to simply not take what I'm telling you seriously is ignoring what I have learned, heard, and researched, but, also, anybody else who comes to you with intent not to demonize your music, but offer you guidance on ways you could improve it.

I'm sorry, but I think if you can't keep an open-mind, then you will never mature as a composer and you will continue to compose one stagnant work after another, but if this is the direction you want to take with your music, then that's fine, but don't expect any serious classical listener to take you seriously.