Sonata for Trombone and Piano; Molto allegro

Hello guys,

I want to present you my newest composition, a sonata for trombone and piano in b minor which lasts about 33 minutes. It is in three movements:

MOVEMENT 1 - MOLTO ALLEGRO

The first movement roughly follows the sonata form .

Two remarks for the listener:

- at 10:45, the tromboist will play a solo cadanza
- at 11:42, there should be a deep pedal tone, whole note (B flat), but Finale unfortunately doesn't play it

Download: First Movement

MOVEMENT 2 - PRESTO - ANDANTE AMABILE

Being a little bit shorter than the first, the second movement still lasts about 9 1/2 minutes. It is actually a symbiosis of a Scherzo and a slow movement. It begins with a Presto (c# minor) which suddenly breaks off and an Andante amabile in the parallel key E major follows. The Andante consists of 2 themes. The second theme begins in B minor, which can be seen as a reminiscence of the first movement, but gets back to c# sharp minor after a while, and soon the Presto comes again. And last but not least, there's the first Andante theme again.
Thus the form is pretty simple: A - B - C - A' - B'

Download: Second Movement

MOVEMENT 3 - GRAVE - ALLEGRO MOLTO MODERATO E GRAZIOSO - ALLEGRO ANIMATO

The third movement is a rondo with a slow introduction and a long coda. The introduction in B minor (although the tonic never appears) is based on the tritone interval. It leads into the Rondo which is in B major. At the end of the rondo, the tone row of the first movement appears again and leads into the coda, which presents a new theme and a part where nearly all of the themes of all movements are combined. At the very end, there's the tranquillo part of the developement of the first movement again which finishes the sonata quietly.

Download: Third movement

Some comments would be very kind!

Greetings,
ralphb

a few comments:

notation, notation, notation.
if you are using Finale then there is no reason for notational elements to overlap - slurs, dynamics, hairpics, etc.. also off-centre notes should be fixed.

musically, this is arch-romantic, it would fit quite well smack dab in the middle of the 19th century. So why is there a tone row in it? It's rather gratuitous.

At around measure 100 there are harmonic movements by augmented fourth that just don't jibe with the rest of the music. They don't serve to place the music in a modern context, rather what they do is underline the fact that the majority of the score is harmonically very traditional and "romantic".

At measure 250, and again at 378 (if memory serves), there's that annoying tone-row. It just comes across as a gratuitous element, it is unrelated to the rest of the piece, and brings nothing to it.

At measure 334 or there abouts, there is more dissonance in the piano part than in the rest of the score, yet it ends up sounding cartoonish. More like vaudeville than anything serious. I don't think that works at all.

Overall, this is a very strong score, if dated in language. The piano part is certainly quite playable, although I can't vouch for the ease of the trombone part, it certainly looks difficult.

Still, an enjoyable romp.

First, thank you very much for your review.

This piece was my first try on mixing styles in order to write a tonal piece in a classical form which still shows that it is a contemporary composition.

It's sort of a parody. There's a trivial diatonic run which ends in a tone-row. The tone-row is repeated by the trombone, while the piano plays a dancy rag-time rhythm with tonic and dominant chords.
This CANNOT be taken serious and it is not what it should be.

At measure 334 or there abouts, there is more dissonance in the piano part than in the rest of the score, yet it ends up sounding cartoonish. More like vaudeville than anything serious.

On purpose - see above. This part first appears in the exposition after second theme, when the piano suddenly starts with a weird fugue which ends sounding burlesque. Whether it works, I cannot say. That's why I want you to review it. You say it doesn't. Maybe it doesn't. I of course fully understand what you mean.
The only thing I want to tell you is that what I did was on purpose and not because I didn't know what I was doing.

Nevertheless I appreciate your criticism! This was a try and I want to know from you whether it works or not. But do not try to take the tone-rows serious ;-)

Greetings
ralph

I think that for the styles to be effectively mixed, you would need to tighten the score a bit.

One would need to focus more on the "vaudevillian" elements, for example to understand that they are not incidental.

For the contrast between the arch-tonal elements and the tone-row to be noticeable, they need to be juxtaposed.

Like dissonance, parody is a thing which needs preparation and resolution. I suggest you listen to Schostakowitch's 1st piano concerto, where there is an abundance of parody. You will notice in that piece that particularly humorous moments are brought in with preparations, as though he were dealing with a strong dissonance.

I certainly can't comment on stylistic or compositional aspects of it - out of my league, and I actually liked it very much. Reminds me somewhat of trombonist Christian Lindberg's rendition of the Šulek Sonata: Vox Gabrieli.

I can comment trombonistically, and must say it all looks to lay quite well on the horn. Quite a challenging part, but nothing impossible! Bits like the 16ths in m102 etc, seem especially well placed on the instrument. Beware of large interval leaps - especially ones you want smooth, and quiet (m11, m142). They can be tricky and would require a skilled performer...

A couple notational points:

m97 - why the sudden switch to treble clef? The A is only a half step away from the G#'s preceding it; the switch seems (to me) more confusing than it's worth. Personally, I'd prefer to see it written in bass clef. See also m142.

m132 - assuming this is an error, in the piano part, I think the measure would benefit from a bass clef before beat 2.

m151 - Just a personal thing, odd accidentals (double #'s etc) are cumbersome to read. If you want, spell it differently...if not, no big deal.

...
I like the piece a lot - would love to hear it performed live.

I didn't get a chance to listen to the entire piece but what I heard I really liked! It was very energetic and kept my interest. I loved the huge leaps in the trombone part! Seems like you've created a piece that a good trombonist would love it sink their chops into!

Nice work!

Thanks for the comments!

@robinjessome: Concerning the notation points:

m97: well ok, as a trombonist usually prefers the bass clef, I should change that indeed ;-)

m132: This is an error, you're right. I had already noticed that but was to lazy to re-upload the score but I think beat 1 should not be in a bass clef - the f#2 would be too high, wouldn't it?

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!

One more minor notational thing: I think it would be a good idea to include a cautionary natural at the beginning of measure 26, on the D natural. Just for ease of reading.

I'd have already done that if I knew how ;-) can you tell me? I'm using Finale.

Go to speedy entry, select the note you want and press the asterisk key (*). Or, if you prefer them parenthesized (I don't), press P.