# Sonata for Violin and Piano, Mvt. 1 Sketch



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Hello, everybody.

This will be my second composition I have posted (the first being a Prelude in G-flat Major). The piece is a sketch for my sonata for violin and piano. I say sketch because I have the final piece planned to be about 8-12 minutes in length, and right now I have about 3 minutes of it. I will describe the sketch. There is an introduction for piano, which leads up to Measure 8. Then the violin enters with a continuous scale, the piano entering later to build the piece up to a climax at Measure 32. Now the first melody comes in, with the violin. The piano comes in a fifth higher later, and then the left hand of the piano later still. Yes, I know this is not a real fugue, but almost a sad imitation of one :lol: . Anyways, these 53 measures that begin the sketch I have planned to begin the final piece with as well. After this, though, I cut out some parts for my sketch. The fugue-but-not-a-fugue is intended to go on for longer after that, but I decided to cut it short. Also I didn't add a second melody because all my second melodies have been terrible. The B melody and it's development I will add in later. So between Measures 53 and 54 a lot more goes on. But at Measure 54 a strange version of the original melody with lots of trills comes in, finishing with a call and response with the piano and violin. I don't know if I'll add something in between Measures 76 and 77, but eventually the piano enters with a "motif" almost from the introduction. At Measure 84 a development begins, with the piano playing a version of the original theme. The development will go on longer and there will be material between Measures 90 and 91, but I skipped that and went to the final climax before the ending of the movement- the violin playing the passage that the piano opened the piece with. Forgive all the empty measures at the end, I didn't know how to delete them. Also, before the end, I am planning to bring back the original "fugue-like" melody before ending it with the solo violin "cadenza."

Anyways, I'd just like to say as long as you aren't actually insulting me, feel free to say whatever you feel about the piece. If this is the worst piece you've heard on TC, go ahead and say that- but please say why. I do want to make my piece better, and I'm looking for critiques _and_ tips.

Here is the link:

https://musescore.com/user/6039841/scores/4353751?showoptions=true


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

It was definitely not boring, probably the most dramatic pieces I heard on this subforum, which was only since a few weeks ago (felt a lot longer). Like the dissonance (I'm a real sucker for it). A lot of moments of tension. I thought the intro of the violin sounded too much like a scale, without enough variation. The middle part with the trills sounds funny and is extended maybe too long. integration between the violin and piano sounds strange sometimes, and sometimes one of the instruments is not doing anything for maybe too long.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> It was definitely not boring, probably the most dramatic pieces I heard on this subforum, which was only since a few weeks ago (felt a lot longer). Like the dissonance (I'm a real sucker for it). A lot of moments of tension. I thought the intro of the violin sounded too much like a scale, without enough variation. The middle part with the trills sounds funny and is extended maybe too long. integration between the violin and piano sounds strange sometimes, and sometimes one of the instruments is not doing anything for maybe too long.


Yeah, I was relistening to the scale and it sounds a bit bland. I'll probably change that up. Thank you for the advice on the trills, I think I will change that up a bit as well, although I might find something that can contrast enough with it that it will work. What do you mean by the "integration between the violin..." comment? Like, specifically what parts? And yes, I think I might have a soft piano accompanying part during the violin solo at the end.

Thank you so much for your advice, I really need tips like these for this piece!


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

Honestly it sounds very square in its rhythms and very arbitrary and amateur in harmony. I can't say I liked it and I encourage you to pursue a direction that relies less on surprise. The empty space and copious solo-time gives the work a feeling of emptiness and incoherence. It feels like there isn't any fabric holding the music together, creative though the ideas may be. The music also generally lacked beauty. 

That being said, the fugue-like section was nice and I think you should focus more on that part of your imagination than the parts that sound obnoxiously sporadic and clumsy. Or, synthesize the two into something more palatable. If I have insulted what you consider now your artistic voice, know that it is so that I can help you. You need to temper that voice with a more coherent and smooth sense of writing that invites the listener to give themselves over to the music, as opposed to a sense of writing that screams in their face and laughs. 

P.S. Consider changing the 180 section to minim=90, and change it to cut time.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

dzc4627 said:


> Honestly it sounds very square in its rhythms and very arbitrary and amateur in harmony. I can't say I liked it and I encourage you to pursue a direction that relies less on surprise. The empty space and copious solo-time gives the work a feeling of emptiness and incoherence. It feels like there isn't any fabric holding the music together, creative though the ideas may be. The music also generally lacked beauty.
> 
> That being said, the fugue-like section was nice and I think you should focus more on that part of your imagination than the parts that sound obnoxiously sporadic and clumsy. Or, synthesize the two into something more palatable. If I have insulted what you consider now your artistic voice, know that it is so that I can help you. You need to temper that voice with a more coherent and smooth sense of writing that invites the listener to give themselves over to the music, as opposed to a sense of writing that screams in their face and laughs.
> 
> P.S. Consider changing the 180 section to minim=90, and change it to cut time.


My artistic voice is not insulted. I expected, and encouraged, feedback lack this. Thank you for taking the time to listen to it and respond. I wanted to make it something personal and add something of my own compositional touch, so some of the more "clumsy" parts of it might be because of that. I will definitely and rework many parts of the sonata while reading it in full.

I wasn't actually looking to write "beautiful" music for this sonata, I am trying a lot of new things out with this piece.

And of course there isn't any fabric holding the music together because it's just a three-minute sketch of a projected 10 minute piece.

Anyways, thank you, I will change the 180 to 90 cut time. I've only been composing for a couple of years, completely self-taught, so I know perhaps for someone that seems quite learned like you my pieces would sound very messy, unorganized, and rough. I appreciate that you took the time to let me know if it- in a couple of weeks or so I will probably be re-posting the final product, and perhaps I can make the music have a better flow and less sporadic and clumsy.


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

Tchaikov6 said:


> My artistic voice is not insulted. I expected, and encouraged, feedback lack this. Thank you for taking the time to listen to it and respond. I wanted to make it something personal and add something of my own compositional touch, so some of the more "clumsy" parts of it might be because of that. I will definitely and rework many parts of the sonata while reading it in full.
> 
> I wasn't actually looking to write "beautiful" music for this sonata, I am trying a lot of new things out with this piece.
> 
> ...


I appreciate the response.

I'm not inside your head, but I'd hope that the clumsiness is not your inspired personal touch, but rather an obstacle for you to overcome.

I am also completely self taught. I've been at it for around three years, and it has been an arduous journey overcoming the clumsiness. I am speaking out of experience. Check this out: 




Listen to how thematically schizoid it is. It doesn't know what it is doing. The voice leading is awkward if at all existent, and much of it is bereft of beauty. It sounds like I was trying to write confusing music, which I don't think was my intention at the time. I hear this kind of clumsiness in your music. A kind of avoidance of beauty for I don't know what reason, but evidenced by my earlier compositions, I had a similar reason a few years back. I blame Stravinsky. This is the weird thing: before I fell into the Modernists' grasps, I was writing tonal music that, while amateurish and shallow, was miles better sounding than anything I would compose for a year or so: 




I apologize for making this about me in some ways, but I wanted to show that I was not speaking from an elevated level. I can only speak for myself, and I can tell you that I was god damned confused after I got into Modernism, and that's when my work started going downhill. I don't know if this is similar to your case, but looking back I see how much sticking with the common ground of Western tonality would have sped up my progress. Once I realized that Beauty was the primary goal, 2 and a half years into writing, it felt like starting from square one.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

dzc4627 said:


> Honestly it sounds very square in its rhythms and very arbitrary and amateur in harmony. I can't say I liked it and I encourage you to pursue a direction that relies less on surprise. The empty space and copious solo-time gives the work a feeling of emptiness and incoherence. It feels like there isn't any fabric holding the music together, creative though the ideas may be. The music also generally lacked beauty.
> 
> That being said, the fugue-like section was nice and I think you should focus more on that part of your imagination than the parts that sound obnoxiously sporadic and clumsy. Or, synthesize the two into something more palatable. If I have insulted what you consider now your artistic voice, know that it is so that I can help you. You need to temper that voice with a more coherent and smooth sense of writing that invites the listener to give themselves over to the music, as opposed to a sense of writing that screams in their face and laughs.
> 
> P.S. Consider changing the 180 section to minim=90, and change it to cut time.


A critique of a critique  I liked the individuality of Tchaikov's piece, and its goal of creating drama rather than beauty. I listened to it 3 times, the first time I listened, I did feel the shaping was off, focusing on certain features while ignoring the overall germ of the music. 2nd and 3rd times made more sense, since I got to know what he/she was presenting. I don't think it is in the wrong direction, just needs some ironing out. I think you are right in the sporadic and clumsy. I couldn't put my finger on it before, I think now the changes in speed were too extreme, or there wasn't enough buildup, it was like inserting portions of music that belonged in different pieces together. But there is nothing wrong with that stream of conciousness approach, I think. If the tempo or note values of the individual parts were normalized, then the distasteful, amateurish sensation would go away I think, and the music would be still highly original and still retain it's brute force.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

dzc4627 said:


> I appreciate the response.
> 
> I'm not inside your head, but I'd hope that the clumsiness is not your inspired personal touch, but rather an obstacle for you to overcome.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I guess, that a lot of times people (me and you) think they can pretty much slap dissonance chords on a page and expect it to sound like Stravinsky or Shostakovich. Modern music really is a lot harder to write than it might seem. I definitely agree that before delving into this I should probably right some more basic music- I am also taking a music theory class next year, so that should really help. Thank you for taking the time to write this and show me examples about your thoughts! It has actually really helped.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> A critique of a critique  I liked the individuality of Tchaikov's piece, and its goal of creating drama rather than beauty. I listened to it 3 times, the first time I listened, I did feel the shaping was off, focusing on certain features while ignoring the overall germ of the music. 2nd and 3rd times made more sense, since I got to know what he/she was presenting. I don't think it is in the wrong direction, just needs some ironing out. I think you are right in the sporadic and clumsy. I couldn't put my finger on it before, I think now the changes in speed were too extreme, or there wasn't enough buildup, it was like inserting portions of music that belonged in different pieces together. But there is nothing wrong with that stream of conciousness approach, I think. If the tempo or note values of the individual parts were normalized, then the distasteful, amateurish sensation would go away I think, and the music would be still highly original and still retain it's brute force.


Thank you Phil! To some extent I agree with both of you for this piece. I think a lot of it is very clumsy and non-directional, but I found part of it to be my own originality as well. I know a lot of it (including tempo changes) is very amateur and will need a work, but I feel that this piece has some promise.


----------

