# Sonata for Viola and Piano



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I wrote a viola sonata in three movements. The first (_Feroce_) is very short and frenetic, the second (_Largo_) slow and dark, the finale (_Allegro_) a rondo in C major. The whole thing is a little over 8 minutes long:


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

Comments welcome! Thanks for listening.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

I admire all "today's composers" for even post music on the site.:tiphat:

Having said that, I do think the second and third movement are easier for my ears.


----------



## Samuel Kristopher (Nov 4, 2015)

Loved the whole thing! Very inspiring, thanks Ed


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

While I will be listening to the last two movements again, I can say that the first movement is a blast. I don't know if the violist's fingers can move that fast as there's a some jumping around involved, but it's gripping. My only beef is that the first movement is so short I don't know if I'd call the entire piece a sonata. I think you could flesh out another minute or two to make it feel more balanced out with the other two. However, if I divorce it from the rest of the piece, it feels complete. Which is why I want to listen again to the other two movements because it might be that you could leave it alone & just cut out some material from each of the remaining and wind up with a set of three miniatures.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

This is very competent, mature, and professional writing. It is a shame it is not recorded with real players, although the realization is good (wish the dynamics were realized better though). I especially like how one idea flows naturally into the next so seamlessly, creating one long continuous line of musical expression. That is extremely hard to do and is the sign of a master. I love the long lines especially in the second movement.

That said, I do have a few helpful comments. The endings in the first and third movements are too abrupt, un-musical, and just die out. There is more to an ending than just a short crescendo and loud chord at the end. Try re-writing the ending by drawing it out musically by excessively repeating figures, pedal points, extreme ranges of the instruments, rapid scales, trills, make note lengths shorter or longer, long crescendo or decrescendo, ritard or accel,…these are just a few ideas, but you need to prepare the audience more in a musical way for the ending instead of what you have.

I really like the contrasting second legato motif in the first movement. It is very distinct but sounds like an antecedent phrase without a “final” consequence phrase. I think the movement would sound more final as well if you put in a consequent phrase to answer the antecedent.

The sound of the piece starts to wear on the ear after a while, due to the incessant chords and two-part writing of the piano, I think. Vary the technique for both instruments more. Especially the piano. Even in such a short piece, you can explore more of what the instruments can do. If you have a chord progression, think to yourself, how can I write this in 3 part writing, in 4 part writing? Instead of just blocked chords and two-part writing. Or how would Debussy get through these chords? Stravinsky? Etc.

Well, that’s my 2 cents. Excellent work.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Torkelburger said:


> I really like the contrasting second legato motif in the first movement.


Yes, that jumped out at me too


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Vasks said:


> While I will be listening to the last two movements again, I can say that the first movement is a blast. I don't know if the violist's fingers can move that fast as there's a some jumping around involved, but it's gripping. My only beef is that the first movement is so short I don't know if I'd call the entire piece a sonata. I think you could flesh out another minute or two to make it feel more balanced out with the other two. However, if I divorce it from the rest of the piece, it feels complete. Which is why I want to listen again to the other two movements because it might be that you could leave it alone & just cut out some material from each of the remaining and wind up with a set of three miniatures.


I thought of calling it a sonatina, but that usually implies modest technical difficulty and so, I thought, would be misleading.

I ran the piece by a violist who plays in a major orchestra and in a well-known chamber orchestra. He said it was challenging but not excessively so. In the most difficult sounding passages of the first movement, those crossing strings in fast 16th notes, about a third of the notes are open strings, so the left hand fingering isn't difficult. There is a lot of similar writing in the finale, where fast 16 notes alternate open strings with fingered notes. Once again, sounds difficult but isn't.

As for the proportions, I agree it is odd. The way I explain (rationalize?  ) it to myself is hearing the first movement as like a sudden whirlwind crisis, over before one catches ones breath, overwhelming because there isn't time to think or react. In fact, that movement was originally preceded by an introductory passage of a minute's length that used some of the same motives in a slower tempo. Reinstating it would create more balanced proportions. I'm still up in the air on that and your comments have persuaded me to reconsider it.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to listen and comment on my work.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Torkelburger said:


> This is very competent, mature, and professional writing. It is a shame it is not recorded with real players, although the realization is good (wish the dynamics were realized better though). I especially like how one idea flows naturally into the next so seamlessly, creating one long continuous line of musical expression. That is extremely hard to do and is the sign of a master. I love the long lines especially in the second movement.
> 
> That said, I do have a few helpful comments. The endings in the first and third movements are too abrupt, un-musical, and just die out. There is more to an ending than just a short crescendo and loud chord at the end. Try re-writing the ending by drawing it out musically by excessively repeating figures, pedal points, extreme ranges of the instruments, rapid scales, trills, make note lengths shorter or longer, long crescendo or decrescendo, ritard or accel,…these are just a few ideas, but you need to prepare the audience more in a musical way for the ending instead of what you have.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your kind words and for taking the time to think about it.

Your last paragraph brings up something I struggle with in my writing. I think you are right that more variety of texture, especially in the piano, would be a good idea. And the too often chordal texture tends to make things heavy. A related causal factor is that the piano, especially in the finale, spends so much time in the low register, in part trying to stay out of the viola's way. Too much density is how I would summarize the general problem. Perhaps I will do some pruning. Thanks for that observation!

As for the endings of the first and last movements: The ending of the first movement is exactly the way I want it and I wouldn't dream of changing it. That is one thing about the first movement I am absolutely sure about.

The last few measures of the finale are probably too conventional, especially the technical fireworks. The modus operandi for the preceding passage is to summarize the central thematic conflicts of the last two movements into a single continuous statement. It probably _is_ too dense and concentrated and it is possible an audience might find it too sudden. I'll think about this and whether there is something that ought and can be done about it. Once again, your comments have been thoughtful and helpful. Thanks again!


----------

