I need some comments on this Trio

[Marsmallos]

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.

Hmm...
I think my approach was... um...
I play the piano myself, and when i suddenly got two new amazing instruments to play around with i put more interest in them than in the piano. Still, it is most accompanimental in the "main" part, and to me it feels like its more integrated in the violins melody line in the supposed "trio" part. At least it somewhat reaches the effect i wanted there.

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

No, im not at all tired!
I think your comments are great, it was exactly what i looked for. Do comment on the third movement if you wish

[stevel]

On to movement three Leo:

Hmm. Where to begin. Ok. I got bored. Sorry. This seems to wander to me. There's a lot of little musical ideas that don't really point anywhere, lead anywhere, go anywhere, do anything other than appear and then go away, etc. I had to stop listening. I don't know how to explain this, but there's this guitar player Joe Satriani who started off in the 80s. He taught Steve Vai so that's one claim to fame, but in the "Guitar God" era of the 80s, people were so into guitarists that guitarists like Steve Vai, Eric Johnson, and Satriani (nicknamed Satch) were able to release instrumental albums that actually got radio airplay, Satch's being the most accessible. The problem I have with Satch's playing (back then, I don't know if it's still that way) is his guitar solos were basically - here's a lick for four times, now here's another lick for 2 measures, now here's yet another lick for 5 repeats, and so on. It all sounded a little too - well - too square. It lacked any "excitement" - sure they were cool licks, but it becomes this thing while listening - "OK, how many times will he do this, which lick is next". It becomes a distraction from the music.

Again, these are just my own observations, and yours may be totally different, but I feel this movement lacks that "excitement". It's like a perpetual motion thing again, but in this case, there seem to be all these little fragments that wander in and out of the landscape with no apparent point to them.

But let's go back:
You have a good set up, and the way the other two instruments enter is very effective.

I'm not so sure about the violin part though - all that chording? It's almost like you just wanted to give them something to do.

The main clarinet melody - well, it's not very melodic - more of an arpeggio. One has to always be careful of melodies that outline chords because they run the risk of being absorbed by the harmony. A few non-chord tones would be very helpful. For instance - D A D AD | F D F DF | - those last two 8th notes - D A D DE | F D F FG | A, etc. It gives it some linearity - line instead of chord (not that those note solutions are necessarily the best ones, but as an example). Just a thought.

I really like the section 18-30 with each instrument (including the piano!) taking part in the melodic trade offs - this is what I was talking about before in mvmt. II. A personal note, I like the repeated note in the middle of the melody for the clarinet and violin versions - a little unusual which makes it unexpected.

From about 30-48 this is where it loses me. Sorry. It just seems to wander - here's something, here's something else, etc. Maybe, part of it is, I don't see the material as having any "identity". You've got whole notes moving along - again, they seem disassociated - they're so far apart time wise. Seems like they're more a part of the accompaniment than a point of interest. And maybe that's it - the whole texture seems accompanimental to me. Even when you get to the 8th notes in m. 44 that "melody" seems more like a countermelody to me - it's as if this whole section (31-48) is accompanying some other line that we're not hearing! Does that make sense?

Then what happens at 49? It's like, "hey, what just happened". I like the idea (and it seems to call back something from the first movement) but it seems to just pop up out of nowhere.

Repeat. I gotta tell you Leo, once was enough for me - I'm ready to move on. No offense man, but this is one of those repeats that I'm really skeptical about. You might want or need it for balance, but the musical material here is a little weak to support it in my personal opinion.

Moving on - Violin "melody" - mostly arpeggiandi again - so it still sort of sounds like the whole texture is accompanimental. Here's a good point - you start by setting up the piano accompaniment. So now we expect a point of interest - usually a melody. But what we get is a quasi-melody - so in our mind, the violin is just an addition to the accompaniment, and we're waiting for something else to happen. In fact, that's a lot of what I'm getting in this whole piece - instead of being interested in the current music, I'm spending the whole time waiting for something to happen - but it never really does.

At 75 you've got a nice change. The change is welcome, but again, based on what we've heard, this sounds like, "hey, here's something different, and I'll do it X times now". I like the idea of the trade-off (and thank God the piano has some rests :-).

If it were Tchaikovsky, he'd give you a couple of complete alternations like you have hear, and then alternate at the half measure, then maybe even beat-by beat. As it is here, I think it goes on a but long - I realize you're trying to climb up, but maybe the Tchaikovsky idea of tossing it back and forth more quickly as you go will help provide it some direction (or other solution).

Basically you work back to the opening material and repeat the A, so comments still stand for that.

So, sorry to have so many negative comments on this one, but it's the weakest for me overall. Again though, I want to commend you for your efforts - I mean, overall, this is really good, even for someone not your age! Many people don't even have the kernels of ideas that you have and they write page after page of C Major droll modeled on some Beethoven they've heard. I see some real diamonds in the rough here, you just gotta dig 'em out (then after you learn to do that, you have to learn to polish them, then you learn to facet them to make the most of the stone, then you learn to set them in a complimentary setting, etc.). It's so good that you're working on this now.

Ok, so I hope that this doesn't get you down or anything - again, I'm just one dude who you don't know - I could be making all this stuff up for all you know (I'm not though :-). And everyone has their own opinions. But, as I said before, you asked :-).

Best,
Steve

[stevel]

the third movement in particular was crying out for somewhat more virtuoso lines for the clarinet and violin. Some runs, arpeggio figures, interlinking counterpoint etc would have been far more in keeping with the style of the piece (listen to Mozart clarinet concerto and the two Weber concertos to see what I mean). In other words, the clarinet and violin parts are simply too easy in this context.

Leo, I agree.

Steve

[stevel]

The thing is, my composition teacher said that this already was quite hard and that i in later multi-instrument composition should aim for even easier parts. Chords for the Violin and some simple passagework directly after the main theme was all i dared in the last movement. And i have even switched place between some violin and piano parts to make it easier.

Too bad. Again, not to insult your teacher, and I know they're trying to help you out, but screw that. Make it what YOU want it to be. We can all make suggestions, but in the end, YOU are the ultimate critic.

I would say this Leo:

One error I see in a lot of compositions is that a person may write music that is playable by a 10 year old piano student, and then in two measure put in chords that require a reach of a 10th. Now the problem becomes, the 10 year old's hands are too small to play the entire work, and it's too simplistic for anyone whose hands are large enough to play it. So the piece never gets played.

For me, consistency is very important - you don't want one really hard movement, and one simple one (by that I mean, there are simple Beethoven movements compared to others, but you still have to be at a pretty high level to play even the simple B movements, I'm talking about coupling a Beethoven complex movement with "I am C, I am D" - piano lesson 1!). You also don't want passages within a work that are drastically difficult - you don't want someone to not play your piece because one stupid measure is too hard!

So in a sense, you need to consider your potential performers and try to write at a level they can perform well.

An example - I wrote a little Violin and Piano Duet for my Niece to play when she was taking violin lessons. Now, she was taking lessons, and wasn't super good, but she had covered the basics well enough to play some tunes. So in this piece, I specifically made the violin part as easy, and as consistently easy as I could without sacrificing the music I wanted (it was a bluesy variation of Happy Birthday, a tune she could already play). But I made the piano part such that, an intermediate piano student (i.e. someone her age but who had been studying since age 6) could play it, and better players, like even teachers or accompanists wouldn't be bored by it (though it's nothing like concert level or anything).

So the two parts are at different levels on purpose, but ultimately, it restricts the number of people who would be interested in playing it.

Your teacher may have been recommending simple other-than-piano parts because 1. It's new to you from a composing standpoint, and 2. If you were able to get it performed, violinists and clarinetists your age are likely to not be virtuosi yet. But the best thing to do is actually get with a violinist and clarinetist and have them read through it, and see if you can get a couple of read-throughs. Then you can see what kind of problems creep up. That's a hugely worthwhile experience!

Best,
Steve

[stevel]

Oh, Leo, something I forgot to mention about mvmt III:

The piano pedalling marks - the "ped" and "*" are a bit old-fashioned. There's nothing wrong with using them, though if you do, you should move the marks so they're all on the same horizontal plane - in some places you've got your "ped" and then the "*" that goes with it is kind of higher up (closer to the notes at that point) - it makes it a little harder to see - you should lower those down so they're on the same line as the ped - and the whole thing looks neater if the markings for one system are on the same plane -- where possible.

I much prefer the |__^____^____^__| type modern markings. They look much neater and are unlikely to be missed.

Best,
Steve

[Marsmallos]

So, sorry to have so many negative comments on this one, but it's the weakest for me overall.

Ok, so I hope that this doesn't get you down or anything - again, I'm just one dude who you don't know - I could be making all this stuff up for all you know (I'm not though :-). And everyone has their own opinions. But, as I said before, you asked :-).

Haha, thats really interesting...My piano teacher has listened to this, and she thought Movement (alright, then) III was the "strongest" movement and movement II was the "weakest"! Seems like people can be quite different! But i was prepared to take some critique, you have to get used to it if you are trying to compose at my age! I like that you are honest, i rather prefer that to someone who lies or doesnt dare to be honest because they are afraid that a person they dont know might burst into tears if they tell their real opinion about the piece . If people cant take critique i have a hard time understanding what they are doing on this sort of board... But thats just me!

From about 30-48 this is where it loses me. Sorry. It just seems to wander - here's something, here's something else, etc. Maybe, part of it is, I don't see the material as having any "identity". You've got whole notes moving along - again, they seem disassociated - they're so far apart time wise. Seems like they're more a part of the accompaniment than a point of interest. And maybe that's it - the whole texture seems accompanimental to me. Even when you get to the 8th notes in m. 44 that "melody" seems more like a countermelody to me - it's as if this whole section (31-48) is accompanying some other line that we're not hearing! Does that make sense?

Hmm... you could say its a "countermelody" to the phrase heard in, um, m. 35 in the "side" theme (you know, sonata form, first "main" theme, then "side" theme, have no idea what its called in english ). Whole part m. 31-48 is the movements "side" theme and variation.

Maybe, part of it is, I don't see the material as having any "identity". You've got whole notes moving along - again, they seem disassociated - they're so far apart time wise. Seems like they're more a part of the accompaniment than a point of interest.

Uum, i assume you are talking about the whole notes in the clarinet? But they are accompaniement, sort of. The melody [F C C C Db Db (p) Db Bb Bb Bb Bb Db C C -] is in the piano in the first phrase (although i dont think the sampled sounds puts it forward enough, you can barely hear that its a phrased melody ), then the violin takes the second phrase, while the piano acts more of accompaniement. Then in the variation of the "side" theme i wanted to switch a bit and let the clarinet take the pianos melody line in the first phrase, while the piano was accompaniement and so i let it be until the side theme ends at m. 48-49.

Hope that didnt sound like a defence speech or anything
Your comments are always appreciated!
L.G.

Oh, by the way, I have tried to develop the development section in the first movement after what fundrazor said, but im not sure whether i should upload it here in this topic or start in a new... I am starting to feel quite embarrased that there are so many posts in this one ...

[reith]

Sounds best to start a new thread.

Keeping it short, my personal feelings are that, given your age and experience, you should not be too hard on yourself. Unless you happen to be a "Mozart" (in which case you won't need a composition teacher), composing takes time and experience and it might be an idea to concentrate on smaller scale works that together in time might form a multi-movement suite; even symphonic movements if you like.

We are different people (obviously) in that we'll have different working methods. You may like doing lots of work on a long, fairly involved piece, in which case, fine, carry on. But I quickly realised it was easier to write shorter pieces then, if I did 'make discoveries' causing me to revise a lot of what I'd already done, it wasn't too much work.

Main thing is, as Steve says, write from your heart; leave your 'finished' pieces to settle for a month maybe two while you work on something else; and only then revisit it and revise if you think it worthwhile. Try to study your own work (aided by instruments if you have and play them) until you can honestly hear the piece in your mind. And of course, try to have it played, even in a different arrangement - like, if you've written for piano, violin and cello, but you only have piano flute and clarinet available, arrange them for those. Sure, it won't sound the same (and you'd have to revise notes falling outside the compass of flute and clarinet) but you'll definitely find out if it hangs together. Better still, of course, write for the resources you have. If just a piano and recorder, see what you can do with those.

Anyway, I'll try to find time (after Tuesday - my Monday and Tuesday are written off this week) to listen to your revision if you post it.

good luck,
reith

[stevel]

Haha, thats really interesting...My piano teacher has listened to this, and she thought Movement (alright, then) III was the "strongest" movement and movement II was the "weakest"! Seems like people can be quite different! But i was prepared to take some critique, you have to get used to it if you are trying to compose at my age!

Don't get too excited - the criticism never goes away :-).

Yes, I thought I remembered it mentioned that someone thought this was the strongest - but I think we need to clarify - structurally, and maybe technically, it may be stronger. Interest-wise, it might not be. Compositions can be strong in some areas and weak in others, and of course the key is to try to make it as strong as possible on all levels.

Hmm... you could say its a "countermelody" to the phrase heard in, um, m. 35 in the "side" theme (you know, sonata form, first "main" theme, then "side" theme, have no idea what its called in english ). Whole part m. 31-48 is the movements "side" theme and variation.

In sonata form usually it's Primary and Secondary Theme, or, often Principal and Secondary (or Subsidiary) theme. In other languages you'll often see P.T. or, T.P (for like thema principia or whatever). So even in your native tongue, "first" and "second" are usually descriptive enough.

Hope that didnt sound like a defence speech or anything
Your comments are always appreciated!

No. But you should always stand your ground if you believe in something. I try to point out areas that I think are weak, and then, if the person with whom I'm discussing also thinks it's weak, then it's a pretty good chance it is.

Oh, by the way, I have tried to develop the development section in the first movement after what fundrazor said, but im not sure whether i should upload it here in this topic or start in a new... I am starting to feel quite embarrased that there are so many posts in this one

It might be more effective to repost the entire thing in a new thread just to avoid confusion.

Peace,
Steve