# Violin sonata



## contra7

Hi everyone!

Recently, I've been composing sonata for violin and piano. Here are 2 movements that I've wroted so far. Third movement coming soon...

1. movement

__
https://soundcloud.com/contracontra%2Fsonata-for-violin-and-piano-1m

2. movement

__
https://soundcloud.com/contracontra%2Fsonata-for-violin-and-piano-2

Thank you very much for listening!


----------



## Kopachris

If you have sheet music, could you please post it? I'd love to take a look at it.  It actually sounds very good--I think I'll enjoy it when it's finished. Might I ask, how did you choose your notes?


----------



## contra7

Kopachris said:


> If you have sheet music, could you please post it? I'd love to take a look at it.  It actually sounds very good--I think I'll enjoy it when it's finished. Might I ask, how did you choose your notes?


I can send you scores on email. Contact me on PM! 
How did I choose notes? I wrote what it sounded nice to me  No secret formula


----------



## chillowack

The challenge that I have with these pieces is that there's no strong melody, no engaging theme. It's a progression of notes and rhythms strung together (and not badly), but there's no strong "hook" that grabs me, no standout motive or melody that makes me want to listen to it.

That said: these pieces are not a bad start, and you should continue studying and practicing the art of composition.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well there was melody but,

It was very formulised, using the 300 year old alberti bass nearly constantly, having the melody alternate between each instrument. Overall kind of boring, superficial and colourless.

Not a bad start though.


----------



## chee_zee

Well, perhaps after a few more of these 'practice' pieces you'll have the facility to write something more engaging and not so 18th century, but overall it's pretty good. work on your motivic development, an aspect of serious composition much too ignored these days.


----------



## Kopachris

chee_zee said:


> Well, perhaps after a few more of these 'practice' pieces you'll have the facility to write something more engaging and not so 18th century, but overall it's pretty good. work on your motivic development, an aspect of serious composition much too ignored these days.


While the OP's music does have a few problems, it's inappropriate, especially on a classical music forum, to try to discredit someone's work for being too "18th century." The notion that modern musical expression can't be achieved with 18th century styles is inherently flawed.


----------



## chee_zee

yes but the notion that what the op is doing has been done literally thousands of times since the 18th century isn't flawed, have we really run out of music to make? there's nothing in it that can't be found in a Mozart or Bach violin sonata, that's all I'm saying. as a serious attempt at music making it leaves much to be desired, I'm not looking for the wheel to be reinvented. 

Perhaps the literally hundreds of hours I've spent listening to the likes of Bach and Mozart have made me a bit jaded and bored when it comes to music of this style, never go on a 4 month back to back Bach-Mozart binge or you'll probably end up like myself, criticizing others' work for sounding too much like the composers you've spent 350 hours in the last 4 months listening to.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Kopachris said:


> While the OP's music does have a few problems, it's inappropriate, especially on a classical music forum, to try to discredit someone's work for being too "18th century." The notion that modern musical expression can't be achieved with 18th century styles is inherently flawed.


Modern playwrights do not write in shakespearean language.


----------



## chee_zee

a pragmatic realist!
I'm not saying it's bad or unenjoyable inherently, I'm saying it can only serve as a practice piece to gain further facility in composing for violin or piano. Unless he's going to be a neo-classical or neo-baroque composer then I'm afraid outside of 'practice pieces' there's no reason to compose such things (other than personal enjoyment. I highly doubt one can make a living in today's world off such things).


----------



## Kopachris

emiellucifuge said:


> Modern playwrights do not write in shakespearean language.


Maybe not, but painters still paint in the styles of the 15th century, and a modern playwright could still write in Shakespearean language in order to create an air of seriousness, as that's what most of Shakespeare's work is associated with. The only reason why they don't is that people don't want to see serious plays--they want entertainment. They want an escape from their boring, serious, everyday lives. They want to numb their minds, not stimulate them. Why else would TV be so popular? Likewise, the only really lucrative music genres are popular music and film music, which both focus on entertainment value, rather than seriousness. There's nothing wrong with entertainment, but neither is there anything wrong with seriousness.

You're right, chee zee, in that it's unlikely that writing 18th century music could be a lucrative career, but since when has creating serious art _ever_ been a lucrative career? Serious classical and baroque music was only ever a money-maker because it was paid for by the church or the court. Churches and courts are on the decline now, and it's unlikely that serious music will be commissioned by either nowadays.

My main point here, through all this ranting, is that music is primarily an art form. Art can be created for seriousness or entertainment, and neither is any more relevant than the other. An artist will never again be able to become wealthy by discussing serious themes--themes that can usually only be exposed using techniques dated from when people preferred to stimulate their minds instead of numb them. Likewise, an artist will never be able to discuss serious themes in a work meant for entertainment.

Take _Harry Potter_, for example. Entertaining? Yes (to most people). Serious? Not really. How about _Les Misérables_? Not entertaining at all, but very serious. Pink Floyd's _The Final Cut_ and _The Division Bell_ had very serious themes, but attracted few new fans. _The Wall_, on the other hand, attracted new fans by the thousands--its storyline was more fantastic and unreal, which is exactly what people wanted. _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ was a ridiculous fantasy and _Romeo and Juliet_ was your average "summer blockbuster" love story. _Hamlet_ was extremely serious and realistic. An artist can create serious art and entertaining art, and just because one isn't as lucrative as the other, it shouldn't be seen as less important, or as only capable of being a "practice piece."


----------



## emiellucifuge

Youve hit something here, a modern playwright may use Shakespeares style in order to create some association with Shakespeare, his plays, the time during which he lived, yet I doubt there are many who would use Shakespeare's language as their own. 
There are many 'serious' playwrights who have a distinct and individual style, creating serious works of art without resorting to recycling Shakespeare.

The same goes for music, you can hardly expect an accomplished composer to use a voice that is 300 hundred years old, yet composers may still summon a 'chorale' or 'fugue' because it is associated with old music and can create impressions of age.


----------



## chee_zee

Never said it wasn't important, God knows I'd rather listen to it than a Potter score. perhaps to suggest the times in a film or game, as incidental music, would be the most fitting place for these kinds of works. I make plenty of this 'old' stuff myself.


----------



## Kopachris

Kopachris said:


> Maybe not, but painters still paint in the styles of the 15th century, and a modern playwright could still write in Shakespearean language in order to create an air of seriousness, as that's what most of Shakespeare's work is associated with. The only reason why they don't is that people don't want to see serious plays--they want entertainment. They want an escape from their boring, serious, everyday lives. They want to numb their minds, not stimulate them. Why else would TV be so popular? Likewise, the only really lucrative music genres are popular music and film music, which both focus on entertainment value, rather than seriousness. There's nothing wrong with entertainment, but neither is there anything wrong with seriousness.
> 
> You're right, chee zee, in that it's unlikely that writing 18th century music could be a lucrative career, but since when has creating serious art _ever_ been a lucrative career? Serious classical and baroque music was only ever a money-maker because it was paid for by the church or the court. Churches and courts are on the decline now, and it's unlikely that serious music will be commissioned by either nowadays.
> 
> My main point here, through all this ranting, is that music is primarily an art form. Art can be created for seriousness or entertainment, and neither is any more relevant than the other. An artist will never again be able to become wealthy by discussing serious themes--themes that can usually only be exposed using techniques dated from when people preferred to stimulate their minds instead of numb them. Likewise, an artist will never be able to discuss serious themes in a work meant for entertainment.
> 
> Take _Harry Potter_, for example. Entertaining? Yes (to most people). Serious? Not really. How about _Les Misérables_? Not entertaining at all, but very serious. Pink Floyd's _The Final Cut_ and _The Division Bell_ had very serious themes, but attracted few new fans. _The Wall_, on the other hand, attracted new fans by the thousands--its storyline was more fantastic and unreal, which is exactly what people wanted. _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ was a ridiculous fantasy and _Romeo and Juliet_ was your average "summer blockbuster" love story. _Hamlet_ was extremely serious and realistic. An artist can create serious art and entertaining art, and just because one isn't as lucrative as the other, it shouldn't be seen as less important, or as only capable of being a "practice piece."


Ignore this rubbish. I realize now that it doesn't answer any questions or properly support my position.

You say that Contra's piece will never be more than a practice piece because it sounds too "18th century."

I ask why.

You answer that the style and figurings that were used in it have been used thousands of times; the music is old, over-used, and boring.

I say boring is a matter of opinion. Does all new art necessarily have to use a modern voice? You mentioned a provision for using old styles in order to create the mood of a period setting. I will go one further: _an artist may use whichever styles he or she wishes, and it is nonetheless art for using styles that are old and have been used any number of times before._

You say that because there is nothing in it that can't be found in a Mozart or Bach sonata, it leaves much to be desired as a serious attempt at making music. You say that unless he intends to become a neoclassical or neobaroque composer, then outside of "practice pieces," there is no reason to compose such things.

I say: does an artist need a reason? An artist creates what seems good and right _to the artist_ primarily, and right and good to others second. What is a "serious" attempt at making music? How do you define it? When the artist fills himself with the urge to compose, when he puts all his creative efforts into it? Then the result of such efforts are irrelevant for a "serious attempt" to have been made. I mentioned creative efforts. Let me clarify: music composition has very little to do with creativity. Expression of any sort has little to do with creativity. Expression may result in creativity, but creativity is not the source of expression. "Creative efforts" is merely the phrase I chose to represent something inside the composer that cannot be expressed in any few words.

In summary, I recommend you write what you think is good and proper, and let others write what they think is good and proper. If Mozart and Bach's styles suit the OP, he shouldn't be made to feel that he's doing something wrong because the styles are ancient.

:tiphat:


----------



## chee_zee

agreed, but your ideals of 'art' and 'artists' is outdated by 2 centuries, you seem to be clinging to the 19th century romantic german ideas of what it means to be an artist.


----------



## Kopachris

chee_zee said:


> agreed, but your ideals of 'art' and 'artists' is outdated by 2 centuries, you seem to be clinging to the 19th century romantic german ideas of what it means to be an artist.


Bah!

I suppose we'll simply have to agree to hold differing philosophies, then. :tiphat:



chee_zee said:


> Well, perhaps after a few more of these 'practice' pieces you'll have the facility to write something more engaging and not so 18th century, but overall it's pretty good. work on your motivic development, an aspect of serious composition much too ignored these days.


P.S. One last thing: perhaps you might wish to listen to some of the OP's other compositions?


----------



## chee_zee

Kopachris said:


> Bah!
> perhaps you might wish to listen to some of the OP's other compositions?


believe it or not, the thought never crossed my mind  heh heh, live and learn :tiphat:


----------



## chillowack

Kopachris said:


> Maybe not, but painters still paint in the styles of the 15th century, and a modern playwright could still write in Shakespearean language in order to create an air of seriousness, as that's what most of Shakespeare's work is associated with. The only reason why they don't is that people don't want to see serious plays--they want entertainment. They want an escape from their boring, serious, everyday lives. They want to numb their minds, not stimulate them. Why else would TV be so popular? Likewise, the only really lucrative music genres are popular music and film music, which both focus on entertainment value, rather than seriousness. There's nothing wrong with entertainment, but neither is there anything wrong with seriousness.
> 
> You're right, chee zee, in that it's unlikely that writing 18th century music could be a lucrative career, but since when has creating serious art _ever_ been a lucrative career? Serious classical and baroque music was only ever a money-maker because it was paid for by the church or the court. Churches and courts are on the decline now, and it's unlikely that serious music will be commissioned by either nowadays.
> 
> My main point here, through all this ranting, is that music is primarily an art form. Art can be created for seriousness or entertainment, and neither is any more relevant than the other. An artist will never again be able to become wealthy by discussing serious themes--themes that can usually only be exposed using techniques dated from when people preferred to stimulate their minds instead of numb them. Likewise, an artist will never be able to discuss serious themes in a work meant for entertainment.
> 
> Take _Harry Potter_, for example. Entertaining? Yes (to most people). Serious? Not really. How about _Les Misérables_? Not entertaining at all, but very serious. Pink Floyd's _The Final Cut_ and _The Division Bell_ had very serious themes, but attracted few new fans. _The Wall_, on the other hand, attracted new fans by the thousands--its storyline was more fantastic and unreal, which is exactly what people wanted. _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ was a ridiculous fantasy and _Romeo and Juliet_ was your average "summer blockbuster" love story. _Hamlet_ was extremely serious and realistic. An artist can create serious art and entertaining art, and just because one isn't as lucrative as the other, it shouldn't be seen as less important, or as only capable of being a "practice piece."


Regarding your claim that "most of Shakespeare's work is associated with seriousness," I would point out that the Bard wrote 16 comedies, but only 12 tragedies.

Nor would I go so far as to call _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ "ridiculous." "Fantastic," perhaps: but "ridiculous" seems more like a subjective judgment than a stylistic description.

Other than that though, I agree with the spirit of what you say (though for some reason you subsequently recanted it as "rubbish"). I especially agree with the part about art being of value, not merely for how "lucrative" it is, but in and of itself. Art (as some in our money-obsessed society have forgotten) is about the creation of beauty, of something worthwhile and inspiring, something that stirs the soul and kindles a flame in the spirit. The preoccupation with "whether it sells" is sadly beside the point, and to use that criterion to judge its _worth _is even sadder.

There is still plenty of room left to explore the beautiful sounds and ideas of the 18th and 19th centuries: if a composer finds joy in going there, let them! There's no harm in revisiting older paths, and to many of us there's real benefit in it.

That said: I also agree with Chee Zee that, pragmatically speaking, the _chief _benefit to the composer in mimicking older styles lies in the practice value (and also the enjoyment, but that's not a pragmatic consideration). My own forays into older styles of composing, poetry, etc., while enjoyable in themselves, will no doubt lead me, one day, to a more contemporary style of my own, which incorporates lessons and infuences gleaned from the masters of yore along the way, just as (for instance) we can hear the unmistakable echo of Wagner in the work of John Williams.


----------



## hovenmoz

nothing wrong with that


----------



## Johannes V

emiellucifuge said:


> Modern playwrights do not write in shakespearean language.


Yes, but they could surely write a verse drama had they the skill. Perhaps they might even use blank verse.

I do not see the harm also if one were to revive the structure of classical Greek drama. Neither of these things I find too hard to believe.


----------

