Sonata opus 35 (for clarinet and piano)

Well, Congrats

Part 1
1. Nice begening.
2. Scherzo, "Playfully, Fun...Literally a "joke" " it did not seem like that so far.

Part 2
1. I like the Chalumeu sound of the clarinet
2. I like this part a lot
3. not much of a march, but a nocturne yes
Part 3
1. Entry is good no clarinet...why?

all together
It does not match. unless it stopped like Gregorious. other wise nice song.

_____________________

Originally Posted by RM Clarinet

Well, Congrats
2. Scherzo, "Playfully, Fun...Literally a "joke" " it did not seem like that so far.

Oh yeah, Chopin's scherzo no. 1 in B minor is a hoot.

This is a great piece. I love the underlying 1-5 / 2-4 motive that concludes the second movement and underlays the third. I have been dabbling with the same motive on a composition for some time now - guess you beat me to it!

Originally Posted by RM Clarinet

Well, Congrats

Part 1
1. Nice begening.
2. Scherzo, "Playfully, Fun...Literally a "joke" " it did not seem like that so far.

Part 2
1. I like the Chalumeu sound of the clarinet
2. I like this part a lot
3. not much of a march, but a nocturne yes
Part 3
1. Entry is good no clarinet...why?

all together
It does not match. unless it stopped like Gregorious. other wise nice song.

_____________________

I'm afraid I don't understand your comment regarding the scherzo. (A complete sentence would actually be helpful in understanding here)
Are you saying that my scherzo is not "joke-ish" in character?
If so, I'd recommend you listen to the scherzo of Schostakowitch's 10th symphony. What defines a scherzo is the form, not the character.

nor your comment about part 2, regarding the "not much of a march".

why is there no clarinet for the entry of the Arioso? because I figured the poor clarinetist deserved a brief break.

What "does not match"?

may I comment on your comments?

it's not a "song". it's a "piece of music". a "song" has lyrics. just thought I'd mention that.

Hi again Qccowboy - Have to say I really enjoyed the Arioso - the extended piano intro is a good idea - heightens the expressivity of the Clarinet's entry and gives a nice but brief change in timbre/texture for the listener. I found the Ronde much more varied than the first two sections as well (I imagine that was in part dictated in part by the Rondo form), but I enjoyed that aspect of it. I agree with manossq, I felt like you could have built up to some kind of greater climax before the end - and then I think the codetta would have made more sense - it seems a little purposeless, as it is right now.

I did think the harmonic language was much more effective in these last two sections - and just the whole construction/syntax seemed to make more sense to me.

First two sections and to some extent the Nocturne (although I like the impressionistic harmonies in the piano part), in my opinion, could have benefited from a greater sense of direction, and perhaps the thematic material could have been developed a little more aggressively once it got going - there were several moments where I felt like you were forcing the opening motivic material over and over.

But there are many good ideas and moments in the piece, and I would be interested in hearing a live performance/seeing the score to get a better idea of the piece of what you've done and the expressive potential of the work etc.

I promised QC, that I would give a more thorough relisten to his work, along with the score, which he kindly gave me to look at (thanks M.)

I will have to say that I'm amazingly surprised at something: I don't see the things I posted in my first post here!!!! I see a clear direction actually and I enjoyed thoroughly both the preludium and the scherzo. Maybe having the score helped a lot here. But I see the amazing potentil of the music, in the score. I am trained and used to seeing score, even without the music, which can sometimes be bad as well... :-/ (that's why the comments on GPO...)

I just feel that I have wronged Michel somehow, with my remarks, which are now proven to have been wronged! Especially for the preludium which is the base to everything else (and now with the 3rd listening it is more than apparent).



so scrap my first post, which I will leave as a refference and lets take it again:

PART I.

The preludium is a great piece of music! It has certain very etheral moments (where the piano plays the highs), and works great in every way! The 2 themes interleave between them at points, and the counterpoint between the piano and the clarinet works in all possible ways and combinations.

The scherzo is a very energetic piece of music (I especially enjoyed the moments between 4/4 and 6/8, with that doted 8th! What a nice idea!) The whole movement has some resemblance to Prokofiev, but it needs to be said that it is Michelian (as I said in my previous post QCian) as much as everything else I've heard of you!

Part II

Nocturne: Brilliant piece, and I think that I am covered by my previous post (at least I didn't change my mind to everything!)

The march is brilliant! I don't understand how RC Clarinet does not see it! From start to finish it is a great march! A great dynamic march (not the American way of course, but it is never the less the march, from the very first 4 notes in the piano left hand!)

PART III

Arioso:

quite lovely (once again repeating myself here).

The rondo now! Another movement that I had trouble initially. Well I'll blame it all to me again, cause this 3rd time it worked! You are not copy pasting (simplified term of course), but are using material to create new stuff, which sound familiar though! And it works, it worked this time!



I am ready to admit that certain parts of my first review where wrong (or initial impressions if you will). I would urge people who have posted here, Matt, Mano, etc, to have a quite, calm relisten and see if they change the way they feel about this work. I will be quite honest to say that I'm really looking forward to the live recording, and how I wish that I was in Canada on the premier! (maybe a video? along with the recording?)




I think that there are some occasions, that the first listen (never mind 2 minutes of a work, Saul, who are gone now though), is not enuogh to review a piece. I just found out that now, no matter how well educated or experienced, or whatever you are. There are some thing that are higher than others, and higher than us! It takes effort and energy to enjoy some things, but the rewards are just great!



Michel, this sonata, for me, stands next to the cello sonata! Good luck with the live premier!

Sure, let's give it another shot.

Gave it a second (& third listen). At least for the first and third part.

My initial post still stands, unchallenged, at least aurally. Especially for the first part, I have a stronger feeling that the music is going around in circles, not actually leading anywhere but chasing its tail. It would be great if it had some direction, but, with disappointment, I have to re-state my opinion that it does not.

Nikola, I won't invest any more of my time in this work (except for the second part), looking for more insights, at least not without a score. Maybe that made the difference for you, but I still don't have one at my disposal.

I agree that sometimes (sometimes? All the time!), music can be re-approached and felt differently than the initial listen, but this isn't the case, unfortunately.

The cello sonata stands unrivaled (for me). And it is beautiful, score or no score.

And I am sorry if I sound harsh, but I don't like to mince words, either.

well, I'm glad some people can take a second look and find something there the second time that they hadn't noticed the first time.

however, there's not much one can do about personal taste. it's exactly that - personal. So if some people don't care for this piece, so be it.

At least I feel I am in good company: I read on this forum someone say that Sibelius was a second rate composer who would be soon forgotten.

It's the same with all music, in the end. I keep reading people exclaim how wonderful such and such a score by Hans Zimmer is. And anyone who knows me knows I hold his music in the LOWEST regard possible. But that's my taste. Thankfully, Mr. Zimmer has his audience. The lesson here is that I guess my audience isn't on this forum, at least, not for this particular piece.

While I love all my musical children dearly, I think my clarinet sonata is a much stronger work than the cello sonata. I guess only time will tell.

Everyone loves Rachmaninov's 2nd piano concerto, and 2nd Symphony (I think that's the one at least)... yet I always marvel at how few people know or appreciate his true masterpiece: The Symphonic Dances.

I guess I won't be sending Manossg tickets to the premiere of the sonata then.

All these are just opinions and I don't think even time can tell who is right or who is wrong.
It's just personal taste, and I'd be happy if I changed my opinion after studying the score or hearing the live performance, none of which are available at the moment.

It is nice talking with people that don't take negative feedback defensively. The not-so-young part of YC, mostly...

My friend QC, Nikolas' suggestion of a video of the premiere is excellent.

Manossg, I don't even think it's a question of "right/wrong".

so while I might have been a little hurt at first by the rather harsh reception my sonata received on this forum, I'm aware that this is a few people's opinions. My cello sonata likewise was badly received in some quarters, but see how it was received here?

Even firmly established composers have favourite works of their own, that the public seems to shun. My favourite Puccini opera is Suor Angelica (also Puccini's favourite among his oeuvre) yet it is his opera that gets the fewest performances and probably the most luke-warm reception in performance.


I can think of so many composers who have a "most popular work" and what I think are far superior yet ignored works. There's the Rachmaninov example I gave in a previous post, and I could cite a few here:

Ravel: Bolero, Daphnis, Concerto in G... and I think L'Enfant et les Sortilèges and the Concerto pour la main gauche FAR outshine those pieces

Barber: Adagio for strings, Violin concerto... and I think much more highly of his cello concerto and Prayers of Kierkegaard.

Sibelius: Violin concerto, 5th symphony, Finlandia... and I think his 7th symphony is a FAAAR superiour work.

Hindemith: Symphonic Metamorphosis and the Mathis symphony... and I think Die Harmonie der Welt and Symphonia Serena are so much more worthy of attention.


evn in filmscores:

Williams: Star Wars... and I think Close Encounters is light years ahead (excuse the space metaphore)
Horner: Titanic, Braveheart, Apollo 13... and I think his earliest work is his best - Brainstorm, Testament

so, taste. personal. nothing more. unless one can actually find "errors" in a score that can justify a more objective criticism.