Sonata for Trombone and Piano; Molto allegro

Originally Posted by ralphb

Thanks for the comments!

@robinjessome: Concerning the notation points:

m151: well, it's in g sharp minor and you need a f## instead of a g - or does the interval on the fourth beat sound like an argumented fifth?

The live performance will follow, I'll play it with a tromboist from school!

F## may be more accurate from a theoretical standpoint, but your trombonist will not likely care. In his part all he'll see is an ugly double-sharp...but that's just my opinion - he may have no problem with it or prefer knowing which degree he's on (for tuning perhaps?).

Will your performance be recorded? I look forward to hearing it!

Great piece! The main theme is great and I love that kind of dancy piano part, I think the first instance is at bar 49. The accelerando is brilliant aswell, very effective, and it led into a brilliant ending section.
The tone row does seem rather abrupt...
I'd love to hear a live recording

This piano part looks like a lot of fun to play. If I knew a trombone player good enough to play this score I'd offer to lay it down for you. Sadly finding an awesome trombone player in Spokane is like trying to find a cow in L.A.

But all the same, you've absolutely gained my respect as a composer.

Hi,

I've uploaded a new score - some minor musical changes but mostly score-cleaning. Thanks hopper, the D natural worked.

I think we will record it, maybe not live at that concert but at home.
@Berklee: Thanks for offering ;-) I have luck that we have a good tromboist at school - but on the other hand, otherwise I would not have composed a trombone sonata ;-)

As a trombonist, I tend to disagree with Robin on one key point: This trombone part is nearly impossible to play. If it were written for the top of the top, I would say they might be able to play it, but you would certainly have to be a virtuoso. 16th notes are certainly doable, but 16th note runs in this key at this speed are incredibly cumbersome. Not to say that they are impossible, but I have never seen a trombone part that expected that kind of flexibility from a horn. It could probably be done on a euphonium, but not likely on a trombone.

I agree that the switch to treble cleff is entirely unneccessary. Especially since you have high A's dispersed through out the part in bass clef. Trombonists aren't exactly comfortable with treble clef. If you were to change clefs, you might consider the tenor clef before the treble.

The range is all very playable, but the tessatura remains exceedingly high, and a player would have to show remarkable stamina to remain that high for that long with hardly any time for breaks between the beats. You have the horn above middle C almost all the time, which is somewhat of a sweet-spot for great trombone players, but still exceedingly taxing on the emboucher.

Range aside, the sudden drops below the staff are awkward and unneccesary. You can get the same effect by dropping half the distance. The middle range of the trombone is not explored very much in this piece at all. You seem to marvel at the extreme high and low registers. Be aware that low e's, though not at all impossible to play, are typically difficult to approach. Likewise, high A's are not entirely difficult to play, but I think you'll find they sound much different in the settings you have given them.

Also, your slides are sometimes overused. Trombones love to gliss, but to give them too many in one song just makes it sound sloppy. It's better to focus on some of the other techniques a trombone can offer (peddle tones, flutter tongue, lip trills, lip slurs, etc.) Getting caught up in the one effect is pretty trite and detracts from the over all greatness of the piece.

In my opinion, this is a great work that has been vey well written, but will never stand alone in a live performance. The trombone part is simply too hard and too fast to be played with the precision you are requiring.

Thanks for your very detailed review concerning the point I'm weakest in: writing a playable and idiomatic trombone part - because I have no experience with wind instruments at all (I play the violin and piano).

It would be VERY helpful if you could tell me which passages are especially difficult and could be simplified. Maybe some semiquaver runs which are too difficult? Some passages I could enhance by using the techniques you mentioned? Some gliss. that could be replaced by other techniques to obtain greater variety?

Of course the tempo of the piece can be reduced. It should not be too slow, so I want to improve the parts being to difficult - but it need not be 125 bpm.

Thanks
ralph

I took a second, in-depth look at the trombone part. I totally disagree with Nightingale - the part, though quite challenging and a long blow is completely playable. A good undergrad trombonist should have little trouble with it. I know I certainly wouldn't, and I'm a jazz player.

Re: exceedingly high tessitura : The highest note is a Bb (right?) and perhaps I've spent too much time reading jazz ensemble lead parts, but anything lower than a D doesn't warrant a second glance. Stamina may be a problem, but again - where you're not hanging out constantly in mid treble-clef range, I doubt it'll be an issue. Perhaps a bit more space somewhere - it will be a long, hard blow, but that's for the trombonist to deal with.

Re: clefs, he's right. I suppose. Personally, I'm more comfortable with treble (that's just me with a jazzers training - never learned alto/tenor clef). I don't feel A's, Bb's really need a clef change anyway. I wouldn't be upset to see it all in bass clef. But, whatever.

I just don't feel it needs any simplification...

Well, as a classically trained trombonist, I simply must disagree with you in this matter. The fact is that it all can be played, and with a lot of practice, it could even be played fairly well. But given certain circumstances, it proves to be exceedingly challenging to a non-virtuosic player.

For instance, the 16th note runs wouldn't be nearly as hard if they were in a different key. To go from gaba twice requires the trombonist to go from 4th to 2nd to 5th to second, which is not an easy exchange at that speed. I suppose it the part were down one half step, it would simplify things (5th 3rd 1st 3rd is an easier transition).

In regards to the heavy use of glissando toward the end, just doesn't allow much time to reset the emboucher to begin the next slide. However, to simplify it, one could write it as a lip slur, or a drop off of sorts, which most trombonists could probabably handle.

The issue with range is not necessarily one of comfort, as most trombonists should be able to approach Bbs, but the fact is that it doesn't make adequate use of the trombones middle to low range, which is what a trombone is most commonly recognized for. I don't think you would want a jazz lead trombone sound on this piece.

Then the sudden drops, usually to low gs, is simply a much larger leap than it needs to be. I would suggest taking the lowest notes up an octave unless they are being approached by a descending line. Other than that, the range is quite good, and the melody is exceptional.

In my opinion, it certainly can be played, but unless it is being played by Christian Lindberg, it will never sound as nice as you want it.

Short question: how do you notate a lip slur? I'm not familiar with that technique.

The low drops are most the time used as a special effect. E.g. measure 141: I don't think you would reach the same effect if you'd play the G# an octave higher. But then again, I'm really not familiar enough with the trombone.

With the Glissandos, are you referring to m. 170/171? That should be the only passage with a real accumulation of glissandos. Would you replace the glissandos by lip slurs?

For measure 267, is there a more creative way to modulate? Then we'd have a gliss less.

Another question, which range exactly do you mean with the middle range?
I don't see any underrepresented range (in fact, I tried to use all possibilities of the trombone range equally). Maybe you could give some examples which parts you'd like to have an octave higher or lower?

Overall, I thank you VERY much for your feedback, it helps me incredibly!

The low drops are most the time used as a special effect. E.g. measure 141: I don't think you would reach the same effect if you'd play the G# an octave higher.

You're exactly right. Do not change these leaps. Unless your trombonist is incompetent, these will be fine.

I agree with robin about leaving the piece the way it is. From a purely trombonistic point of view, you'd be making the piece less than it is for no good reason.