Minuet and Trio

Hello,

First of all, I personally think that this has little to do with a minuet. I see neither the form, nor the typical note figures for a minuet. They would be dancing a very long time. Somewhere near 3:30 there is even a contrapunctial episode which as far as I know has little or nothing to do with minuets and trios.
Secondly, when I first started listening to it, I liked the piece but found it to be lacking in dialog. You scored it for an orchestra but the keep the answer being played by the strings, I would use the winds in that case. Your orchestration from that point of view could be better.
Thirdly, you start your piece in C which is just fine, Page 17 you change into F which is also fine, yet... while keeping it in F you decide that your last bar should be a C which is not fine. When you decided to modulate to C again, you also should have changed the key signatures.
Fourthly, although I liked the opening motif, by the time I got around to the X-ed time hearing it, I got a bit bored. By a piece of about 320 measures you need a lot more rythmical and/or musical variation to keep your listener interested, I guess.

As Frederic II, King of Prussia said to Mozart on the premiere of one of Mozart's opera's: "Very nice, but just ... too many notes. Perhaps you have to delete a few".

Kind regards,

W.S.

Just a quick review:

• The stolen motif is repeated way too much.
  
• Using that rhythm without any harmonic movement (just repeating the tones) sounded crap.
  
• Having answers that are exact repeats (there's a 'question' and 'answer' between the flute bassoon in there, somewhere) doesn't sound too hot, either.
  
• Too many unnecessary accidentals, with a key sig. change, for some reason, that doesn't change back - now that I think about it, there's something slightly suspicious about that whole area of the score, that I'm sure points to some kind of experiment on your part regarding seeing who notices what it is.
  
• Some bow markings seem to be missing from places where they probably could or should be.
  
• Some of it seems to be a bit dazy - the part before the woodwinds enter, is what I have in mind.
  
• Too obviously ripped off, for my liking, and I'm not even convinced that you actually wrote it.

I agree that there is too much repetition. As in the almost baroque tutti soli (low strings echo), which works for a short time. But every phrase is too much. This is possibly what you meant with "however lacking musically" in the opening post. But you do not need all the repetition to make something "substantial"

Whats new for me is your orchestration. Good to see that appearantly Daniels lessons bear fruit. Clearly the result (not only harmonicly, but orchestrational) sounds classical, of not baroque. Most striking moment was around ms 90, which sounded exaclty like the Bachs st Matthews Passion, although he had resolved in ms 91 to the G7, where you keep on F. Anyway

In general the use of woodwinds and horns and timp is ok. mainly because you use the woods incidental as a melodic line, which works really well. But around 85 it gets somewhat messy. Make up your mind here: do all parts need to be involved in some counterpointal texture? I think it is not working here. Because you have the strings doing the general thing, and then 1 flute a melody, which becomes melody in 3rds (ok), oboe entry (...mkay), 2nd oboe, and cla+bsn, totaling at least 4 countermelodies, whith alternating doublings...

One final thing. The cbass does not have to play all the time 8va below the cello. I notice you wisely give a tenor voice to a cello too. But in general I felt that the strings played too low for a long time. Leave the Contrabass out, only cello, or even violas as bass. Go up high!

ok, my 2ct.