I need some comments on this Trio

[Marsmallos]

Isnt there anyone else who has anything to say about this? Anyone who has any comments? Please, post them, i would be very happy if you did

[Marsmallos]

Um, its been 24 days since anyone else than me posted in this topic. Yet there has been lots of active users online who has been posting in other topics.
Im starting to feel a bit ignored.
Please, I am only asking for a short amount of your time!

[reith]

I think it's that people who review have to share time between several pieces.

You aren't being ignored or anything!
Your pieces add up to about 18 minutes x a couple of listens plus looking at the scores. I noticed you'd had a couple of comments so concentrated on those who hadn't received any comments. I'll try to have a look later on but a bit busy at the moment.


cheers
reith

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Marsmallos

Isnt there anyone else who has anything to say about this? Anyone who has any comments? Please, post them, i would be very happy if you did

Leo,

I think the difficulty is, it's hard to be constructive and criticize at the same time. For instance, a couple of people have said this is nice and pointed out some paritcularly interesting qualities, and that's true.

Anything beyond that seems to start to nitpick at what's going on. You're 14. You've got a good start here. I don't think anyone would want to say anything too negative to you in fear of crushing your hopes - it's hard to tell how people - especially younger people - will take criticism (and by the way, there's nothing horrible in this or anything).

I'll be a little "meaner" and give you a couple of examples of comments that I hope you'll take constructively. In regards to the first movement:

LH Piano part. Can you do anything besides octaves! There's almost octaves the whole way through!!! This is a common "fledgeling composer" mistake because they either think it makes it sound "bigger" or they see it in Beethoven so they thing it's necessary. Nowadays, with software playback, it seems people listen through headphones or teensy speakers, so they add the lower octave to make the sound fuller. But when you actually play it on a real piano, it starts to sound plodding instead. Removing some of the octave doublings in places could really lighten up the texture.

Now obviously, you certainly can have octaves throughout, and you may want that - but I'm just pointing out that it's a trap that many people fall into and take it as a given the bass will be doubled at the octave (I notice you didn't do anywhere near as much in the other movements, which is good). In other words, what I'm saying is, you should carefully consider whether it should be octaves or if just one of those notes will suffice. If you decide you really do want the octave sound, fine, but it's unwise to just automatically put the LH in octaves "because you can", etc.

Clarinet - mm. 31-37 - when are they going to breathe? You don't have a rest from m.26 back through the first ending up to measure 13! For example, in m. 30, you could make the last half a quarter followed by a quarter rest. The violin is coming in with its anacrusis notes and that's where the interest is anyway, so give the clarinet a break and get them out of the way for a second. Now they might be able to do mm. 31-37 a pianissimo, but you should consult with a couple of players and see what they think. But otherwise, wind parts usually demand (or at least deserve) frequent rests. Like m.8 0 give the violin and clarinet a quarter rest (instead of a whole note). This A. gives them a break, and B. gives the entrance of the next phrase a little more "oomph".

m. 43 and 45 - two octave leaps? Not impossible, but dangerous! Wind players have a hard time skipping more than an octave - it depends on the skill of the player of course. Again, a reast between the notes - or maybe staggering them between the two instruments - or even adding "filler" notes (C-c-c' instead of C--c') might make it less dangerous.

m. 96 also has another big leap in the clarinet. Is the D on the downbeat the final note of one phrase, and the low A the pickup to the next (your earlier phrase don't indicate so, but a jump like this within a phrase is kind of funky)? Again, it wouldn't hurt to have rests in places like this (or other solution).

m. 9 Vn. - Slur lines for Strings indicate bowing direction. While the violinist might understand you indend this to be a phrase mark rather than bowing indication, someone could easily mistake them. This means the two Gs beginning m. 9 would be under the same bow direction, meaning of course you don't really re-articulate the second G. You CAN, but usually some other indication is given.

That brings up the issue of whether you understand bowing and slurring marks for violin and clarinet, and whether you've indicate that here, or just what you have used as piano phrasing. You may, and this may be intentional, but again Leo I'm just pointing out that these are the kinds of things that if you haven't investigated already, you should probably start looking into.

Along those same lines, something that's notation specific: The notation here is fabulous, especially for someone of your age - good job!!! One quick thing I wanted to point out though (and this may be the program you're using, I don't know) - slurs go to the last of a group of tied notes, so in m. 7 to m. 8, the slur on the clarinet's A should attach to the B whole note, not the B it is connected to currently. Same thing for the violin part and throughout obviously.

So Leo, I'm not trying to poo-poo your work you've done a great job here - - you asked for comments. I think it's far easier for people to make comments on things that are objectively right or wrong (like, you have too many beats in that measure for example) rather than things that are subjective (like, I would probably not have chosen that chord) and that's why you don't usually get a lot of comments. For instance, we could sit here and nit-pick about the parallelism of the last two chords, but artistically, if you want that sound, then it's fine to do it.

One final question - why doesn't the Clarinet participate in the final notes?

Hope that helps,

Steve

[Marsmallos]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU stevel
This was excactly the kind of comment i was looking for, and that i have missed each day i logged on to this site since i posted this until today
Ill take a serious look-through to these comments when i have more time. These things are exactly the kind of things i need to know and by some reason my composition teacher (he is a he ) didnt supply me with this knowledge when i first showed this to him.
I play the piano myself, and well about the octaves, i added them in the main theme because i thought it sounded nice and then it seems like i have continued through the rest of the piece without giving it much thought

I am currently working on a small rework of the first movement (mostly the development section) and well, maybe i should look through the rest of it as well...

The phrasing: yes, its piano phrasing, or some sort of a hybrid :S its a bit messed up, because when i took this to my composition teacher long phrases were marked up, like piano phrases, and then my composition teacher pointed out the thing about bowing, so we changed all the phrases so they where shorter (no-one would like to take a 4 measure phrase into one "bowing" or what now its called!).

Thanks again stevel!

P.S. Is it too much to ask for the same kind of comment on the other movements as well?

[stevel]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU stevel
This was excactly the kind of comment i was looking for,

Good, I'm glad you took it in the spirit in which it was intended.

These things are exactly the kind of things i need to know and by some reason my composition teacher (he is a he ) didnt supply me with this knowledge when i first showed this to him.

Well, he might not know better, or might not want to say anything too negative, etc. BUt it's good you're seeking second (and third, etc.) opinions).

I play the piano myself, and well about the octaves, i adde
d them in the main theme because i thought it sounded nice and then it seems like i have continued through the rest of the piece without giving it much thought

Leo, this statement is something that rings true to me personally: "without much thought". Personally, I try to question everything I put in - I say to myself - "is this really what I want". Now, I always go in with the understanding that my skill level may be such that I can't know every possibility, or that I might be writing for a level where I can't include every possibility, but I do try to make sure I've tried out, or at least seriously considered - and I know it sounds corny, but - every single note in the piece. I justify every note. The reasons for justification can be quite simple, or quite complex, but I (and again, personally) can't stand not giving something much thought. So, something to think about :-)

I am currently working on a small rework of the first movement (mostly the development section) and well, maybe i should look through the rest of it as well...

Well, I say, make it what you want it to be, with the understanding of youre limitations. I mean, you don't want to rework this piece every time you think to yourself - "aw man, I should have included some pizzicato". There does need to be - in my opinion - a point where you call it "done", but I personally believe again that that you need to actively work it up to that point, and make sure it's what you want it to be and that you are happy with it.

The phrasing: yes, its piano phrasing, or some sort of a hybrid :S its a bit messed up, because when i took this to my composition teacher long phrases were marked up, like piano phrases, and then my composition teacher pointed out the thing about bowing, so we changed all the phrases so they where shorter (no-one would like to take a 4 measure phrase into one "bowing" or what now its called!).

Yeah, I'd just look into that a bit. If you can find some orchestration books, that would be helpful. I've even seen a site where a violinist performs a bunch of various bowings on video where you can see the notation, and hear and see him play it. Pretty cool but I've forgotten the site. I found it by googling something like "violin bowings" or - and I think this was it "loure violin bowing".

P.S. Is it too much to ask for the same kind of comment on the other movements as well?

No, not too much. I just finished teaching my summer MIDI class today, so I need to listen to and grade their final projects, so I'll be a little tied up, but I'll try and take a look at them throughout the weekend.

By the way Leo - remember, I'm just one guy on the internet, and you don't know me from Adam, so always take my (and others) comments with a grain of salt. I think the more responses you can get, the better, but I hope my comments were of use.

Talk Soon,
Steve

[Marsmallos]

Your comments were of use
Maybe i should write "post comments like stevel" next time i post a piece

And i think it needs the rework. I have listened to it quite a lot and i am really starting to feel that the development section needs to be improved. So thats what im working on

Thanks again
L.G.

[stevel]

Your comments were of use
Maybe i should write "post comments like stevel" next time i post a piece

Well, only if people understand what it means, and it's not making me sound too presumptuous :-)

OK, Mvmt. 2.

By the way, usually movements are given Roman Numeral titles:

II.

II. Adagio-Cantabile

etc.

There's nothing wrong with "2", but since your piece has a lot of tradition present, it might be well to keep to the RN.

Ok, first off:

One thing I'd like to see is the piano taking a more active part in the dialogue. There are a few places where it has a brief melodic statement, or quasi-melodic interest, but otherwise it's pretty much accompanimental. I would say, just because the piano *can be* accompaniment, doesn't mean it *needs to be*. This is a very strong movement and it would be really nice to see the piano break out and interact with the violin and clarinet lines. So in a sense, you really have a quartet here - clarinet, violin, and piano that can do melody, accompaniment, or both. I'll point out some specific places where I see this as we go.

At the beginning (and subsequent places where this happens) I would consider making the clarinet's second note longer - either overlap into the beginning of the violin phrase (you could dim. as soon as the violin enters if you wanted, or do a slow dim. so the violin kind of "emerges") or have the Bb sound until the violin reaches it's half note Bb (or wherever you feel the concert Ab in the clarinet becomes unusable against the violin's notes).

Otherwise it makes the clarinet's two notes sound irrelevant. "Here's two notes". Then there's a "melody" proper. I think people will begin to wonder "what were those first two notes? A mistake? Was the clarinettist still tuning and the violinist started too early?" etc. Some overlap will make the two parts more "a part of each other". Just a suggestion.

When the piano echoes what the cl and vn just did (nice touch BTW) I'm a little unsure of what's important. Why the octaves? Why not just Eb up to Ab in both hands, for a more forceful restatment of the clarinet's idea, or even just one hand for a simple restatement. I think the LH falls into the "now I'm accompaniment" on beat 2 of measure 6. It kind of takes the glory away from the Eb to Ab motive. I don't know if you want that, but to me, it's "butting into the conversation".

I might try something like mirroring the opening - just two lines in the piano, and have the accompaniment come in on beat 4 of 6, or the downbeat of 7, etc. In other words, it seems like this is one of those places where the accompaniment should "sneak in" or at worst "come in" rather than "interrupt" if you understand what I mean.

I think the piano's repeated chords that then double as activity picks up and then moves into the 8th note arpeggiandi (by m. 16) is very effective, especially with what the other two instruments are doing. Nice.

A word about the notation in m.16. This is a point of debate among scholars. There are plenty of examples in the piano literature where a long note is written but that note is struck again before the original note is over. It's obvious that you can't do both and the intention is to somehow "give importance" to the longer note, but I've always been wary of doing this and will choose any other option before it. I know you want to show the Eb to Ab motion again, so I would get rid of the Ab on the last 16th of beat 1 in m. 16 if it were me. If it were me. It's not me, it's you, so you can decide. I'd either shorten the long note, or avoid restriking it in any pattern until it was done sounding. Sorry, it's just me. The solution in m.18 is preferable to me. By the way, if you keep it as is, the rest in m 16 is not needed in the "lower part" - in piano music it's an acceptable short cut to leave it out. Same is true back in m. 9 LH - that first rest doesn't have to be there. In piano music, notes can sort of "float in and out " of the texture as long as it's obvious where they fall.

There's something I find "weak" about mm. 18-23. First off, I REALLY like the way that you've got what come across as three measure phrases - or rather, it seems like the clarinet melody which leads, becomes the follower but with the same idea that's been "shifted behind" the violin. It may have been an accident or it may have been intentional, but either way it's cool. But what I think I don't like about this little bit is it seems to be screaming "hey look at me, I'm an ascending sequence". It's so, I don't know - "obvious". In the next section you have this really nice descent, and then an ascent again which is very effectively accomplished. But in this section, it seems "so" I - IV - II (V/V) - V. It just seems out of character to me compared to what's happened previously, and what happens immediately after.

The piano does a really nice thing in m.25 LF 2nd half of the measure - stepwise instead of arpeggio! This is one of those things that I was mentioning above that give it some melodic interest - in this case it's subtle and "connective" and note really a "melody" per se, but it works very nicely. I think in many ways it's more effective than the big RH arpeggio back in m. 23. I think you need a first and second ending there, like you do next time, but there's issuse there too so I'll try to catch them all together.

M. 34 - here's a good example - how about reorchestration: Switch the Cl. and Vn parts. Drop the insane 16th note motion in the piano RH and give the piano the Cl or Vn part. Let the clarinet do the 8th note lines (in range) as accompaniment, give the violin the main melody and the piano the violin's part - with no other notes! - again, just because you *can* play 10 notes at a time on the piano doesn't mean you *have* to!

Ok, I'll talk about what I was going to talk about before now: Repeats. My advice Leo is consider them very, very carefully - written out or with repeat bars. Make sure the material really deserves to be repeated. Make sure, if it does, that it can support an EXACT repeat if that's what you do. Never, never, never, (IMHO) strap repeat bars around something "just to make it longer". And when you do repeat, really, really, really consider if it should be exact, or there should be different endings, or if a varied repetition is in order. With an ensemble like this, re-orchestrating is a very simple way to maintain interest in material the listener has already heard. I would strongly consider your repeats throughout this piece (and in any piece you write for that matter). I'm not saying exact repeats are bad mind you, I'm just saying one should carefully consider 1. whether the material needs to be repeated at all here, and 2. if so, is an exact repeat contributing something to the piece overall.

Ok, moving on: Before 43. I really like the way you echo the beginning with the Eb - Ab, but then "trick" us and morph it into Eb Minor. But I've got to say Leo, I feel your 2nd ending, or the transition to get us to that Clarinet pick up is weak. It seems like, in your repeat bar section way back, and in this 1/2 ending section, you have trouble getting back for the repeat of the material and getting it to move on to the next section. Don't worry, this is a common issue - it's very hard!!! But I think in all of those spots there are probably some more effective solutions. In this case, I feel like you just "gave up" on the previous material and said, "OK, new section". It's a little abrupt in that regard to me. I might consider trying to get the previous section (2nd ending) to "wind down" a little bit before this clarinet part starts. Just a suggestion.

Oh, by the way, you don't need the nartual signs in the key sig when going from 4 flats to 6 flats. All you need is the 6 flats (going the other way you'd want two naturals). And usually there's a double bar at a key sig change (and this is a new section too).

I really like the next "duo" section. I especially like when the vn and cl start trading off rhythmically.

Now, m.51. We just had this fairly busy piano section. Now you've got an even more busy section. And once again, it really falls into "just accompaniment". This is one of those things that when I do it, I go back and ask myself, is all this activity, or all this density really necessary. Many times, less is more. Here's a good part where I think less can be more. I like the fact that you're giving the Cl a break. But I also see this as a good section for reorchestrating and giving the piano some melody. Even if you left it as is, I hear the clarinet punctuating the viloin's melody with one or two notes, sprinkled here and there - almost as sort of an expansion of the trade off they just did back in mm. 48-49.

But again, at. m. 52 you've got repeats. Why not give the Cl the melody on the 2nd pass and give the violin the break. Or again, if you "less is more" the piano part, the piano can actually play the melody (I sort of hear a simpler accompaniment in the piano, with a counter melody to the violin like you've done earlier with the violin and clarinet in places, but that's just me).

Guess what - next section - repeats! Again, this means you could do the whole first repeated section for violin, and the whole second repeated section clarinet. Now I understand that you may want the violin to play the starring role here and let the clarinet lay out which is fine - it's good that you did that to begin with. It's a nice change of texture. I think though with your piano being so busy and mainly accompanimental, that there are a lot of extra opportunities here for textural change - more if if you want or feel the need for more.

m. 65 - it's nice that the piano final gets a "melody" and that the clarinet re-enters and the violin drops out. But the 16th note accompaniment? It's a little much for me. I think you can do a couple of things Leo: you can keep 16th note activity, but reduce the density of the chords - you'd be surprised what simply alternating C-D in 16ths with mothing else can do for an accompaniment (Mozart does it all the time). You could also lessen the rhytmic activity instead.

What I'll say is, it seems when you get going - you geep going. I'd have to look back at the first movement but it seems like your accompaniments generally tend to be 1. In the piano, and 2. rhtymically active and regular, like "perpetual motion". As always, I'm not saying that's bad and if you think that's what this peice deserves, then fine. I also want to point out that while I'm making all these comments about reorchestrating repeated sections and really checking your repeats, again, just because a repeat *can* be different, doesn't mean it *has* to be different! That's the trick - unity and variety. I think this movement leans a little more toward the unity side, which is fine, but I personally could stand a little more variety (in texture, not musical material - you've done really well there IMHO).


Interestingly, leading up to 75 for the repeat of the opening, I think this transition "works" better than the other previous ones. I don't know if it's because we've heard it enough already. I once wrote this wind quintet and had sections like A B A C A B A I kept trying to transistion back into my A sections and it wasn't working. I found out that, I needed to transistion to the first B, and the first C, but when going back to material we had already heard, a transition (or a transition of the same type) was no longer needed - seems like because the material was already familiar it was easier to "jump in" rather than having to "work back to it". It varies from work to work though, but it's something to keep in mind.

The rest of the material is basically a repeat of the opening, so same comments apply. Again, I think you should strongly consider (at least consider it, it doesn't mean you have to decide to do it) reorchestrating the material. Here I'd say it's less important because you do want the A material to return, and we haven't heard it in its original form for a while, but it kind of depends on what you choose to do earlier - maybe if there's a lit of constantly changing orchestration/texture in the middle, the beginning and ends should be the "constants", etc. Again, just something to consider.

I like the ending here. I might consider eliminating the final piano note altogether! It's kind of a welcome change not having it. Gotta tell you a funny (to me) story - yesterday I was editing some recordings and they were Shubert songs or something and virtually every single piece ended with this long piano note - pedal down. It wasn't originally recorded (not by me!) at a good level and it became very difficult to hear when the piano note stopped ringing (I have to make breaks between pieces for CD tracks). It got to the point that I was saying "halaujah" everytime I got a note that was like a quater or half note instead of some whole note tied over three bars with fermata on them! So I'm definitely prejudiced at this point, but I'll go back to what I was saying earlier and about the first movement - make sure every note needs to be there. Does the piano get the final say? If so, leave it. If not, is the violin and clarinet "conclusive" enough - after all, you do have another movement coming. This is something important not often addressed. Not only should one look at their movements, but they should also look at how they work together and flow. How does ending this with just the vn and cl work going into the next movement? Does it add, does it detract? Is the final piano note a better choice when thinking about going into the next movement, etc. I wrote a piece with three movements once and didn't think about this and later, I decided that the 1st and 3rd movement should be reversed, and I'm much happier with it now.

Ok, hope that helps again Leo. I know I was a bit more nit-picky on this one but to sum it up - music is nice - I think the things to consider are texture (business, density, etc.) and reorchestration (presentation of repeated material in different arrangements or not). Oh, and obviously comments about bowing and breathing, and notation carry over from what I said previously, I won't revisit all that.

Best,
Steve

[Marsmallos]

Gee, that was a lot... Thanks, Steve!

Hmm... about the repeats...
I didnt put them to make the piece longer, i can assure you. I always try to strip down and edit so i wont make the piece im working on to long. The reason i put them was because it didnt really feel complete without them.
So this movement is following some kind of slightly modified minuet form (i didnt realise that before it was done, though):

(main part) Intro, AA BA BA, ("trio") Intro1, A1A1, B1A1, B1A1, small coda (main part comes again) Intro, A B A, coda.

So it is following some quite traditional manners... But i shall consider the reorchestration tip you gave me! Thanks again

L.G.

[stevel]

I didnt put them to make the piece longer, i can assure you.

I didn't get that feeling either.

I always try to strip down and edit so i wont make the piece im working on to long. The reason i put them was because it didnt really feel complete without them

Agreed. From a pacing standpoint, and musical material stanpoint, it's the "right" length. It balances all the material nicely. My comments were not only to this specific piece, but in general as well.

But i shall consider the reorchestration tip you gave me!

Yes - I think with the amount of repeated material, that becomes a nice way to keep famaliarity while adding interest (if you feel it needs that of course).

Still the most serious thing to me, which you didn't address here, is the piano's largely accompanimental role - unless you considered that as part of reorchestrating. I would say, even if you don't reorchestrate the repeated material, it would still be nice for the piano to interact more with the material itself, and the other instruments. Now, that might be something you feel this piece needs (because it might take it out of character with the other two movements for instance), and that's fine, but it's something to consider in the future.

Would you like me to comment on the third movement, or are you tired of me picking apart your work yet ?!?

Best,
Steve