# Beginning of piano sonata



## zvioliny

Hi. I am currently in the process of writing a piano sonata. I just finished the exposition, and I was wondering if someone could play it and tell me what they think ( I don't play piano), how hard it is, and if it is even possible to play. And how it sounds so far... (it is a pdf) 
View attachment c sharp minor sonata.pdf

I would like to hear any building criticism, or any comments. Even better if someone can play it. 
Thanks a lot!


----------



## Ian Moore

Slightly off the point; I love using lilypond to notate my work. But because my notation is quite 'involved', it can take more time working out the code than it does writing the music. I wish I could use it more often.

No offence is intended but why are you writing a quasi-classical period sonata?
If you want to hear the sound of a piece of music written in lilypond, then use the code... \midi { } ... inside the \score{} part of your code and it will produce a midi output file.

Eventually, you can make a wav file like this one:

C sharp minor sonata.wav


----------



## Kazaman

I just read through it. It's nice to play, fits the hands very nicely, very idiomatic. It's also rather playful.

There are some problems with the writing, though. You have a bunch of parallel fifths that I don't think were intentional, and which are very alien to the style you're employing. The phrase structure also doesn't seem as carefully planned as it should be; in measure 12 you cut the ending of the phrase half a bar short, and it's not altogether clear what effect you're aiming toward.


----------



## Torkelburger

> No offence is intended but why are you writing a quasi-classical period sonata?


I see you are new to the forums. Welcome.


----------



## Ian Moore

There is nothing wrong with writing in any style - it's just a question.


----------



## Torkelburger

Ian Moore said:


> There is nothing wrong with writing in any style - it's just a question.


The style of choice for composers on these forums is, by far, quasi-classical (not mine, though). The only reason you'll get from them are going to have to do with utility, of course. I don't see anything wrong with writing in any style either as long as it's just a hobby for kicks in your little home studio, but I don't envy their efforts trying to get beyond that and good luck to them trying to get a professional seeing any originality in it.


----------



## Vasks

Torkelburger said:


> The style of choice for composers on these forums is, by far, quasi-classical (not mine, though). The only reason you'll get from them are going to have to do with utility, of course. I don't see anything wrong with writing in any style either as long as it's just a hobby for kicks in your little home studio, but I don't envy their efforts trying to get beyond that and good luck to them trying to get a professional seeing any originality in it.


Nice summation of my impression.


----------



## Ian Moore

Then my first piece of advice would be to practise your musical language in as many styles as possible. Oddly enough this may improve your classical style. It's like a writer reading as many books as he/she can before they write their first book. 
If you want to stick to strict classical structure, your exposition should contain two contrasting themes. The second is traditionally slower and in the dominant key (or a different related key). In-between, there are usually bridging passages - music that joins the themes together. I don't know how much of this you already know. Obviously, there simply aren't enough bars to fit in all of these ideas. Of course, you don't need to stick to a strict classical structure if you don't want to. My Flute Sonatine sticks to many aspects of sonata form but it is cleverly* hidden in a quasi-improvised structure. This can be seen by analysing the first movement. The last movement is really a canonic rondo; a b c c' d e | f f' f'' | g(d') e' |. The first section is A group; the second the B group and the last is back to A group. A traditional form can be used in a very modern settings, especially if it is given a new approach.


*How else could I put it!


----------



## Vasks

Ian Moore said:


> The second is traditionally slower


I hope you meant less livelier feeling than a perky principal theme and not literally a slower tempo


----------



## Ian Moore

Yes, I mean longer durations(a more relaxed feeling) for the second theme and *not* a slower tempo. Of course, although it would be unconventional, a slower tempo would have exactly the same effect as correspondingly longer note values.

However, the intention is to 'feel' less lively and *not* slow down.


----------



## The Pianist

From what I see of the score, you have already done the majority of the work required in a movement of the sonata, in measures 1 - 3, you have created a pattern that is identifiable and easy to remember as it is the basic i - iv - i - V pattern. What puzzles me is that you stop after that and immediately go into another pattern without ever returning to it. You could modulate it into another key, change it into its parallel major, etc., etc. That way the listener can remember it through repetition (the ballet Scheherazade as an example) and you could even increase the difficulty with every repetition, thus gaining more than just repetition, but also richness (The last half of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 6 as an example). But as a sonata, the form can be strict and if you go for these suggestions, this could be the 3rd movement, the Rondo-form. I would suggest a look at Beethoven's Pathetique sonata 3rd movement, the same form could be used in making this one page sonata into an eight page sonata with just a little work. The patterns and basic melodies are all there, they would only need to be expanded and enriched.


----------



## zvioliny

Thanks for all the comments... If it wasn't clear from what I wrote, this is just the beginning. I am still working on the rest. I am also going to change this bit now that I see some of the problems.... I am happy to hear any other comments.


----------



## PetrB

Ian Moore said:


> No offence is intended but why are you writing a quasi-classical period sonata?


The more you drop in on the Today's Composers area, the more of this you will see.

Many of those who post their works or works in progress here are autodidact, or a program like or similar to ABRSM, which requires writing as model of a particular style, i.e. a typical semester-by-semester sequence parallel to how harmony is studied and learned.

Many here are but ardent hobbyists, simply showing what they've made, and looking for some constructive criticism -- or simply sharing, hoping others like what they've written.

I'm an advocate of students writing _exercises_ in model period style, but believe, as it was in my studies, that any excursion in that arena should be but a brief piece, maybe several done, and then to move on. I mean a brevity unlike what we often find on TC. (Brief investigations and exercises _should_ be all that is needed to learn the working principles.) I swear some folk become totally impressed and enamored of the fact they can write anything remotely sounding like a classical or romantic period piece, and though I think some get stuck there, it is for others 'their kind of fun' and that is all they are looking to get out of it.

_Of course, if you want to say something and sound more like a composer than a mimic, you would want to 'go forward' and find your own more distinct musical vocabulary._ This too, is not always a real concern for some of the contributors, ergo, we see 'classical concerto' or 'classical sonata' one after another from quite a few of the contributors.

Perhaps I am too lazy to want to spend more than a little time in period model writing, but others seem to love it so much they do it again and again


----------



## Ian Moore

When I was a student, I did similar exercises. All composers should write in the style that they enjoy.


----------



## zvioliny

Kazaman said:


> You have a bunch of parallel fifths that I don't think were intentional, and which are very alien to the style you're employing.


Do you mind pointing out a few of them to me?


----------



## Kazaman

zvioliny said:


> Do you mind pointing out a few of them to me?


Sure. They're all in the bass part. Measure 4 is the first one (A-E to G-sharp-D-sharp). The others are hidden by arpeggiation, like measure 9 (C-sharp-G-sharp to D-sharp-A-sharp). Each change in the bass note in measures 12-16 has a parallel fifth, too.

Measure 5 is a similar example, although technically it is permissible (because you go from a perfect fifth to a diminished fifth).


----------

