# Trio for Flute, Clarinet, and Piano



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

This is a short piece (about 3 1/2 minutes) that I just completed. I've been trying to write slightly simpler music lately, fine-tuning my composition skills. I think it works as a standalone piece, but if I find inspiration, I might expand it further. I appreciate any and all comments on my piece, what you liked, what could be improved... Please let me know!

An mp3 and pdf are attached.

_Also, if you're interested, I posted another of my pieces a while back but got no response, if you want please check it out and leave a comment: http://www.talkclassical.com/48628-three-winter-pictures.html_


----------



## johnfkingmatrix (Nov 16, 2016)

i think the melody is great, and you're able to do a lot with it. it goes on for a long time and never really feels like its looping, so good job developing it. for some reason the clarinet part sounds out of tune/key to me in places, or maybe its the flute. like at 16 seconds where it jumps in it sounds like some kid with a clarinet (or flute) just joined the band and decided to solo at random points. this might be a dynamics thing? like maybe it should start a little softer then crescendo to full volume? 

I love the way harmonic minor sounds, i see the G#, arent you supposed to have the F# on ascending, as well, though?

So yeah, nice job, good development, maybe use dynamics more

ps. dont worry ill look at your other piece too


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

johnfkingmatrix said:


> i think the melody is great, and you're able to do a lot with it. it goes on for a long time and never really feels like its looping, so good job developing it. for some reason the clarinet part sounds out of tune/key to me in places, or maybe its the flute. like at 16 seconds where it jumps in it sounds like some kid with a clarinet (or flute) just joined the band and decided to solo at random points. this might be a dynamics thing? like maybe it should start a little softer then crescendo to full volume?
> 
> I love the way harmonic minor sounds, i see the G#, arent you supposed to have the F# on ascending, as well, though?
> 
> ...


Thanks for the response!

One problem I noticed in my earlier compositions is that there was little thematic unity, and it would sometimes sound like stream-of-consciousness, because it basically was. I've tried to rein that in a bit, but I was worried that there might not be enough contrast, and that it might be too repetitive, so I'm glad to hear you didn't think it dragged on too long.

I don't really hear anything @16s that sounds particularly off. That's measure 9, right? There's a 3 against 2 rhythm between flute and clarinet, but all of the instruments are playing concert E. I suppose it could be the dynamics. There was another part later on where I _purposely _added a note that was a little bit off - I like to do that sometimes as a small surprise and to prevent homogeneity. I'm not sure it actually worked though.

Regarding the harmonic minor scale, I'm not sure. My knowledge of music theory is very low, but my understanding is that it's the same ascending and descending. Could be wrong though.


----------



## johnfkingmatrix (Nov 16, 2016)

i know what you mean @ too repetitive vs stream of consciousness. my football coach always says: theres a golden medium between predictability and surprise and thats where state championships are won.

check out mozart symphony 25 in G minor and look at how much ( to nice effect ) it repeats. its almost like a modern pop song bridge chorus verse aaba or whatever

modern pop songs tend to just loop it verbatim, classical the repeat is generally altered more (modulated, rhythm changed, 
inverted etc. but it IS a repeat. sometimes id never guess it without looking at the score, since aurally its such a difference)

heres an amazing example of how you can take your 4 bar melody and just "mathematically" alter it and milk a whole song out of it!






obviously theres an artistic touch (what sounds good/whimsical decisions) but, even bach isnt a meandering stream of consciousness, you just have to decode the underlying principals behind whats happening. 
In practice, it gives you good tools to come up with new ideas in your writing. (now ill invert it, now ill modulate it, i rolled a dice it says 5 so ill reverse the notes !)


----------



## childed (Jul 15, 2017)

it's a plesant piece of music with cute coda, that make me smile.
i think the fluite is too static in most.
have fun )))


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

childed said:


> it's a plesant piece of music with cute coda, that make me smile.
> i think the fluite is too static in most.
> have fun )))


I'm happy to hear that. 

I see what you mean regarding the flute - this is always a challenge for me. For example, I was reviewing the first movement of my first symphony, and I was pretty happy with how it sounded, but then when I looked at the individual parts, they seemed mostly boring and sometimes random. For what it's worth, here's what the flute part alone looks like - better than in my symphony, but perhaps still not interesting enough.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

It's a nice piece - definitely more complex than anything I could begin to compose. I would love to hear a performance on "real" instruments.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

It's always a wise idea to examine parts individually before being fully done. You get to figuratively "walk in their shoes" and if it's not enough playing or not very interesting or too hard or not logical, you can then go back and improve that part.

As to the whole work, the weakest area is the fact that it stubbornly clings to almost everything in A minor. Just a few chords suggest you may move away but then seconds later tonic A minor snaps back. And on a notational/theory note, don't use A-flats in A minor, use only G#s. You bounce around between the two accidentals, but that's not correct.


----------



## childed (Jul 15, 2017)

Vasks said:


> It's always a wise idea to examine parts individually before being fully done. You get to figuratively "walk in their shoes" and if it's not enough playing or not very interesting or too hard or not logical, you can then go back and improve that part.


i sign it. it's my second rule. 
when i have main idea i do start new theme with melody and harmonical functionality.
when bass line will balanced with soprano, i go thinking abt other voices.
if it not interesting for play it is the reason for some changes in main lines.


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

brianvds said:


> It's a nice piece - definitely more complex than anything I could begin to compose. I would love to hear a performance on "real" instruments.


Thanks, but if I can do it, you can too! It just takes some practice and some effort. I don't have any formal training in composition, and don't know much if any music theory. I've played viola and piano for a while, but mostly without lessons, and that's about it. I would love to hear a performance on real instruments too, but I don't know if that will ever happen.



Vasks said:


> It's always a wise idea to examine parts individually before being fully done. You get to figuratively "walk in their shoes" and if it's not enough playing or not very interesting or too hard or not logical, you can then go back and improve that part.
> 
> As to the whole work, the weakest area is the fact that it stubbornly clings to almost everything in A minor. Just a few chords suggest you may move away but then seconds later tonic A minor snaps back. And on a notational/theory note, don't use A-flats in A minor, use only G#s. You bounce around between the two accidentals, but that's not correct.


Yes, this is a good idea. The challenge is to change the parts to be more interesting without completely changing the actual music.

Regarding the A minor thing, yeah that's something I should look into as well. I'm sometimes irrationally scared to change the key, and in fact there was at least one spot where I tried to switch to C major, but that only lasted 4 measures until I went back. :lol: I think in my next piece, I will try to experiment more with this.

Good point about not using A-flat and G-sharp, for some reason it seems as though I was compelled to use G# when ascending and Ab when descending. But yeah, A-flat shouldn't be used when in A minor.


----------

