# Sonata for Flute and Piano



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

In the middle of January I composed a sonata for flute and piano in three movements:

1. Moderato furtivo 
2. Largo - appassionato 
3. Allegro inquieto

It's on the grim and dramatic side for flute music I'm afraid(?) - and I keep wondering if it needs another movement before these three. The whole sonata is a bit over ten minutes long. Click below and you'll find the button to play the three movements in succession:


__
https://soundcloud.com/gwyon%2Fsets


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Jeez Edward, at least 6 Symphonies, not to mention the rest.!!!!! I've seen no indication of it until now, but I knew you just had to be a composer because no-one accrues that amount of technique without trying to write.
I'll make sure I get a good listen to the flute sonata and more when I get a little more time as I'm a bit pushed at present. Looking forward to it all immensely.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

This is very high-quality music here. The melodies and harmonies are very pleasant, and I especially like the harmonies/chord progressions in the last movement. The writing is idiomatic for the instruments without overusing any clichés.

I always try and find something to critique and give feedback on when I review a piece, and it is difficult to find something here to criticize. At first glance, I only find three things:

1.	The majority of rhythms in the piano (only sometimes in the flute) are static and could use more variety, especially in the faster sections (which seems to be the majority of the music). There should be more to writing fast music than just dat-dat-dat-dat fast series of sixteenths one after the other for long periods of time. It drags on the ear when extended over many measures. I know this because I do (did) it too. I think it comes from being subconsciously influenced by rock music too much. We are so used to “grooves” in fast music with melody riding on top of them, that we mimic it in classical thinking, but I think the more mature classical composers of the last 100 years didn’t think that way when writing fast music. There’s more variety. There are actual sections where there was briefly some variety (breaking up into triplets, for example) but I could use much more varied rhythmic values to make the music more interesting.

2.	Even though the piece is short, the flute part should be broken up more to allow more time to rest and not overtax the ear on its sound, as well as give the piano more time in the forefront. It is, after all, a sonata for flute AND piano. The piano part should take the lead much more often.

3.	Even though there was great variety in piano idioms (blocked chords, octaves, arpeggios, rolled chords, scalar patterns, etc.) I think there are many more textures and techniques to exploit in the piano that could be utilized. Always try and explore more advanced piano writing techniques. (This is more of a personal preference, of course). But it will really put the music on a higher level. I don't mean contemporary techniques like playing the strings in the piano, but I do mean modern composers piano writing (Debussy and beyond).

I don’t think it needs another movement. I believe sonatas of this type are 3 movements typically. It might be better to fatten up one of the movements already there, like the second movement (slower movements are usually longer than the others, and yours isn’t that long).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Thanks Torkelburger for listening and commenting! 

Some of the things you've cited I think reflect a general struggle I have in composing: not allowing enough breath and air (but not literally for the flutist, I hope ), making everything too concentrated and dense — a lack of patience in the music. Solo passages for the piano by way of contrast, some digression and misdirection rather than going straight from point A to point B would be good ways to counter this. A contributing issue to the lack of rhythmic variety in the first movement might be another general tendency: too much canonic writing. Instead of a strong contrast for a second theme, I wrote a triple canon on the principal motive (in the original sixteenths as well as in augmentation and double augmentation with mirror and retrograde versions all at the same time). However interesting and fun I might find this, the end result is likely to come off as a too steady stream of sixteenths overall. 

I'm probably a bit tentative in the piano writing because I'm not a great pianist myself — I started out as a guitarist. As for the rock influence, my sense of rhythm and meter owes more to King Crimson et alia than to any classical music. I was thinking of Oregon (the band, not the state) when I wrote the slow movement. 

I might tinker with this, or I might crib a response from Shostakovich: "Yes, I know. I'll try to do better next time."


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

I like the canonic ideas you explored! I hadn’t noticed them but listened again today to the first movement once you explained. Very fun.

I’ve been trying to improve my keyboard writing for years now and that’s probably why I commented on it. It’s been the focus of my attention for a long time. I can share with you and bounce some ideas of you to show you a glimpse of what I was talking about in regards to piano writing if you’d like. If you see my attachment, I’ve posted examples of a single bar of piano music written four different ways. The first one, marked A, is the original idea of four blocked chords, perhaps in a climactic setting.

Example B takes the same chords and creates a more advanced way of playing it, a little more pianistic and colorful. You see this quite a lot in difficult piano music. The hands play a “hammering”/alternating technique where they play back and forth quickly. It’s playing the same chords every beat but just as two sixteenths and an eighth (could be any sort of quick rhythm).

Example C takes the same chords and utilizes the full breadth of the piano range, raising the arms/hands after every chord and moving them quickly to the other end of the keyboard. I notice this a lot in advanced piano music as well. We often forget that wide leaps are not only idiomatic for woodwinds, but the piano can handle them quite well also. It’s also very fun to watch. There is also the double attack in this example where there is kind of a “flam”, the chords are sounded twice to accent them, which is typically pianistic as well (can also sound them multiple times quickly).

Example D takes the same chords and turns them into a phrase of multi-voice writing. This is something you also see in very advanced piano music. So often, piano music is written in two parts, but it can really handle multiple parts quite well. You can also utilize wide leaps even in the same hand as in my example as long as you make sure it is playable.

I had to write these by hand as my program is very cheap. For B, in my program I would have to notate on two staves and have the right hand as two eighths and left hand sixteenth rest dotted eighth, etc. but it sounds the same. You can notate example C differently as well, of course, putting both hands on the same staff if your program allows. I could have done D on my program, but just kept it consistent. Again, sorry for the chicken scratch.

I don’t know if any of these work in your piece, and I’m not saying they will. I was just saying there are scores out there for us to study where we can greatly improve our piano writing skills. And there are many, many more techniques than these out there. I don't know, I may be "preaching to the choir" and you already know all this. The piece you’ve written is already an A+ and I’m just trying to make conversation about composition more than anything else.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

With the piano part I was mostly — and probably overly — concerned with keeping it from stepping on the flute part — separate registers whenever possible, making the textures light, dovetailing motives with the flute part. The fact that my thinking is primarily contrapuntal, with three separate melodic lines running for much of the sonata, also affects the general texture of the piano writing.

In a while I’ll post my first major work for solo piano, where the textures are more varied — if not necessarily more typical.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Definitely an A star Edward. Unlike TorkelB, I didn't have a problem with the piano part and enjoyed the memorable and unequivocal contrapuntal lines in the first mvt. although I must confess that I didn't like the last chord on first hearing. Such are the vagaries of subjectivity. The whole washed over me as inevitable and well conceived.

The 2nd mvt felt more Poulenc, not that that is a criticism of course, just a clumsy adjective. Again the piano part seemed to accompany the lyricism nicely, but perhaps some rhythmical space here and there, an occasional lengthening of notes for some repose, might have been welcome. It felt a bit cluttered in places, but hey, this is just a subjective remark and of course YMMV - there is no right or wrong apart from what you deem there to be.

The 3rd mvt. worked for me too but what soon became apparent was the middle-ness of the piano writing. Some extremes might have enlivened the counterpoint a little more, relieved some of the insistence and added some colour and excitement.

I am going to listen to your symphonies for sure when I get more time. I'm very impressed that you composed this in the middle of January, what 2 weeks or less? That's quite fast, mind you it appears that you are very prolific. Btw, do you have perfect pitch?

I'm always up for composition talk TorkelB…..


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

mikeh375 said:


> Definitely an A star Edward. I must confess that I didn't like the last chord on first hearing.


Absolutely. That final first movement chord was unnecessary.

I listened to the first movement and the start of the second. I'll get around to the rest later. I loved the aggressiveness of the first movement and just when I was hoping for a change in came the major chord section that did the trick. Your aggressiveness in real performance situations would probably call for the piano lid to be down all the way and the flutist to be farther away from the piano to be certain that the flute is balanced.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Vasks said:


> Absolutely. *That final first movement chord was unnecessary.
> *
> I listened to the first movement and the start of the second. I'll get around to the rest later. I loved the aggressiveness of the first movement and just when I was hoping for a change in came the major chord section that did the trick. Your aggressiveness in real performance situations would probably call for the piano lid to be down all the way and the flutist to be farther away from the piano to be certain that the flute is balanced.


I think Mike meant the last chord of the sonata . If I had to pick one to dislike, it would be the last chord in the first movement. What began to bother me about it was the top note C, which was already taken by the flute - E would be better. Now I'm thinking you might be right: No chord at all might be a better solution. Thanks.



mikeh375 said:


> Definitely an A star Edward.
> 
> *I am going to listen to your symphonies for sure when I get more time*. I'm very impressed that you composed this in the middle of January, what 2 weeks or less? That's quite fast, mind you it appears that you are very prolific. Btw, do you have perfect pitch?
> 
> I'm always up for composition talk TorkelB…..


Start with the second symphony. I began to write it in New York City on September 12, 2001. That was when I felt compelled to start composing again. Then the Third, which is the only one I have heard a real (partial) performance of.

Yeah, it took about two weeks, although I haven't produced and printed a full, edited score yet.

I don't have perfect pitch. However, if listening to a vinyl recording, as soon as the needle hits the groove, and not before, I can usually nail and name the first pitch.  Strange and useless trick. When composing I hear more or less clearly what comes next in my head, but finding it often requires hunting and pecking.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I had a listen to the 2nd symphony. It is incredibly hard to maintain concentration over and above the playback sound and would urge you to pay for a professional programmer who is excellent in mocking up orchestral sound using the best samples available. Your music deserves it imv because good samples can bring out so much more of the inherent expression when done well and there is much drama and music here to be revealed. (I'd offer myself but have my own stuff to be getting on with. If you decide to investigate and find someone, let me know and I'll vet their work for you to make sure they are up to the task).The scoring is clear and uncluttered and would work well in a real performance I bet. The clarity is distinctly American somehow I feel and I was sometimes put in mind of William Schumann.

Despite the playback, I could still follow the rhetoric which felt compelling at times and I particularly liked the section at 3'15 cf in the 1st mvt. 
Like the 1st, the second mvt was also very expressive and inquieto, 4'36 ish was quite magical for me and well judged.
The 3rd flowed naturally on from the second and continued the general bleak, despairing tone. The sparseness was effective.
In the 4th one could sense a glint of optimism trying to break through occasionally, finally just about affirming itself near the end.

Overall, a tough but interesting listen. I can't possibly take it in and absorb it in one hearing, however an overall impression was one of solidity, consistency, control and precision. A further general impression would be that the whole actually felt like one continuous movement despite the demarcations. 
I'd be interested to hear about your harmonic approach and practice given its complexity.

oh btw. I did mean the last chord of the 1st mvt in the sonata....


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Thanks for listening and commenting on my Second Symphony Mike.

You are right about needing a better virtual performance. I hoped the mockup I made with stock Siblelius samples would be good enough to convince astute conductors or players that the symphony would succeed in live performance. I might try to create or hire someone to make a better performance. I imagine the process would be to export the music as MIDI files and realize them with better samples. I just have no experience with DAWs. Do you have one you could recommend in case I want to try to learn one myself? Many thanks for your offer to vet potential Daw wizards. I might take you up on it. 

In response to your queries and comments: 
Harmonic approach and practice — My thinking is predominantly linear; Melodies and motives tend to suggest/invite complementary counterpoints (one or multiple). I almost never think about or analyze passages I’m writing from a harmonic perspective except maybe obliquely and secondarily. I just try to keep the lines distinct and purposeful, with the ideal of everyone playing coherent melodic lines as much as possible and the whole moving forward. It’s like subjectively managing energy flow without being consciously aware of harmonic progression. My modus operandi, writing webs of distinct lines with a sense of long-term progression, naturally seems to happen in a context of tonal and extended tonal language. I didn’t choose a harmonic language, I just use what seemed to best serve my linear-contrapuntal goals.

As for the whole symphony feeling “like one continuous movement,” that makes good sense. If I remember correctly, much of the scherzo, the part that doesn’t directly quote the second theme of the first movement, is built on retrograde versions of motives from the symphony’s opening theme, so much so that I formerly subtitled it “Backward in a Dream.” The conclusion of the finale “just about affirming” optimism is a more assertive derivative of the string theme of the second movement. The fugal writing in the finale is all built on the second theme of the first movement. And so on. I organized the whole work as a unified dramatic arc, but in the same intuitive, subjective, semi-conscious way I approached its harmony.

To the extent the work has a programmatic bent:
The first movement was composed quickly in Manhattan beginning the day after the 9/11 attack and while I was haunted by the images we all saw. The passage you cited was impressions of the smoking ruins after the collapse of the WTC towers. A musically metaphorical collapse directly precedes it. 
The second movement theme for strings is a prayer of consolation. 
The third and fourth movements have no direct real world referents, but their expression and thematic relations to the first two movements make them a coming to terms with tragic events.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Thanks for the precis of the work, it helps to give it context. I remember that day well (who wouldn't), as my producer had offices in Manhattan and she was watching the whole thing unfold from the roof of her apartment in SoHo - she watched in horror as the 2nd plane struck.

I understand your approach to writing Edward and do it myself although not exclusively. I too think as much in terms of line as I do vertically and am also always on the look out for an imitation or other contrapuntal possibility. What I like to think of as the 'long line', which allows me to compose in the horizontal with a sense of direction and shape over a time span greater than say a typical phrase, comes from my contrapuntal studies in formative years and beyond.

Regarding DAW's, they are a complex beast and require (like music) quite a bit of study and practise to get to grips with, The learning curve is steep and takes in not only midi and sample manipulation, but the complicated skill of music mixing and Production. There are also many differing types of in-house software to get to grips with along with 3rd party software. I don't wish to put you off, but you should be aware that in order to master it, a lot of time and effort will have to be put in. I mention this because it can also be very, very expensive to have an all singing and dancing set-up and didn't want you to be under any allusions. The two software programmes most used in a DAW for pro production are LogicX and Cubase, but remember, you need a computer with a good enough spec to run them and will have to also purchase 3rd party software and sample sets. You will also probably need external kit too, the bare minimum being decent monitors. There are other programmes available, software called Reaper comes to mind, but I have no knowledge of it.
That said, there are differing and cheaper options you might want to explore. I think Vasks will know more about NotePerformer, which is well regarded, but limited, so hopefully he'll chime in on that. I would also recommend you look at https://www.staffpad.net.
I use it just for sketching as I have a fully loaded DAW. It has just had a major upgrade which can now incorporate high quality samples, which are reasonably priced. You would need an iPad or laptop with pen facility and the handwriting needs to be done in a certain way, but it is easy to get the hang of it and the playback is, as a result of the very recent upgrade, impressive. The samples themselves are a separate purchase and a full orchestral template might set you back around $500 as opposed to many thousands if you go the DAW route. The good news is that the samples themselves are high end, the bad news is that some articulations will inevitably be missing. Check out some videos on youtube. The real joy is that StaffPad is sort of old school, the digital equivalent of pen, paper and rubber.
If you pay someone to programme for you, then I expect they would use midi files. however, it's not what I'd do. I would ask for a score and manually input each part to avoid over-quantising which often robs the playback of some musicality. That's just me though, It'd take a lot longer to do and probably cost more too.

I've attached a link to two mp3's so you can hear the potential efficacy of samples. I did the mock-up here in order to calibrate my template (that is the combination, mix and production of samples in my DAW), in order to obtain a convincing sound. Listen with headphones rather than through laptop speakers in order to hear the depth of sound...it's only a brief extract but I'm sure the piece needs no introduction. I've posted the original recording (real band) and the programmed version. My version is not meant to be a precise copy but was intended to assess internal balance between the differing samples. That said it's a good idea to listen to a few bars of the original and the the same bars in the programmed version and you will hear that a very good approximation of real sound is possible with appropriate programming.

https://we.tl/t-R2WZzVYfGn

You can always PM me if you want any advice regarding samples and DAW's. Next, the 3rd Symphony.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Nice work, Edward. It was overall an enjoyable listen and you obviously have a good idea of what you're doing as a composer. I'm impressed by how much rich counterpoint you managed to fit in without disrupting the balance between the two instruments. I have a few comments (and this is just off of 1.5 listens, so take it all with a grain of salt):

First, I agree with Torkelburger's comment above that there is no need for another movement (I'm assuming you were thinking about inserting a slow movement before what is now the first?), but rather you should lengthen the second movement if you feel that the work is too short considering, say, its tonal and textural expression / variety. IMO you could make the second movement 7 minutes long and the work would still hold together well. I also agree with his observations and suggestions about the rhythm of the piano part, and would add that, while there was a lot of variety in texture, the transitions / juxtapositions of textures were often a bit abrupt for my taste, though admittedly I think a lot of that is just due to the computer generated performance.

Oftentimes I felt as if the flute's melodies could used a bit more ambitus, and I particular felt like you could have made more use of the "low (C4-C5) register of the flute. In line with that, I would have liked to hear more emphasis on the flute and less on the piano (perhaps even some brief solo flute passages?). I think you did a great job of balances _voices_, but the problem is of course such a balance inherently emphasizes the piano. I think one thing you could do is include more extended passages where the flute is playing "faster" (finer subdivisions) than any line in the piano. Adding more variety the piano's (and flute's) rhythms as Torkelburger mentioned could also help a lot with balancing. The harmonic language was interesting, and I thought your comment explaining your approach to harmony was not only insightful but actually helpful as a listener. Still, I think there were at times too many sudden transitions unrelated major / minor triads (or similarly stable chords) for my liking, and that the harmonic progressions could have been smoother and more functionally or at least chromatically driven. I also thought the harmonic rhythm could have been a bit more varied at times and that you could have lingered on some chords for a bit longer (esp. in the third movement), but that's mostly just personal preference (really, all these "critiques" are). The piece is well written and truly was an enjoyable listen. Sampling through some of your other works it is clear you have skill, talent, and a vast amount of musical knowledge (and the ability to apply it). I hope you continue composing and sharing your work with us.


----------

