Willibald

The slowly moving bass chords sound like they would tell a wondrous, but very sad tale. It feels like you mix a more modern handling of dissonances etc with romantic traditions, and this makes the prelude very colourful. At least many shades of grey. The build-up to m.27 is especially nice. The form also works well for this short piece. Thanks for sharing!

@Wieland Handke, thanks for your gracious words and the extensive review. Regarding the second theme in the Allegro, I have composed a version with a more independent bass line in m. 13, 15 and 19 (not 23); it hasn't the same drive as the quasi-Fauxbourdon, but it is something I will revisit as, yes, it is a bit repetitive. The score has to be reformatted for playing, no question about it. This is especially true for the Rondo which I produced rather quickly. Thanks for looking at the bass line in the Andante; I will have a look. While I am no productive Lilypond user anymore (which I am still fond of), I have indeed a separate file for audio output for all movements. As it was customary to ornament the repetitions, I added some plausible ornaments in the audio file for the minuet, and some other small modifications which an experienced cembalist would add.

Thanks for sharing this prelude and fugue, both of them a joy to listen to. The beginning of the prelude is especially very charming. However, the passage in m. 12 and 13 (and similar ones) with those notes of different length tied to semidemiquavers in both hands running in parallel seems difficult to play, especially to get the timing right, but I am a rather bad pianist. After the cadence in m. 14/15, the verbatim repetition in m. 15-27 is not that unusual, but would have been easier to notate with a repeat sign. The following passage brings finally the modulation everyone is waiting for (you could try and modulate already in the first part of the prelude; it increases momentum as the prelude then has to find a way back) 😉 , and with it some harsh harmonies which you handle tastefully. At the end, for a short moment it sounds like the opening phrase would come back in d minor, but in a clever move, we are disappointed; the return of g minor is, however, a bit too surprising for my taste; a e.g. "motivo di cadenza" or a similar adapted cadence could be used to flesh this more out. The fugue has a good and versatile subject and I just identified three full instances of the subject (m. 65, m. 69, m. 73) and two partial ones (m. 77, m. 93); it would have been nice to have fewer instances of the sequences and more instances of the subject. But of course this is a well composed fugue, so this is more a matter of one's preferences.

Thanks, @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu, for your kind words. I took up your suggestion and tried to compose a fitting end for this set. So without further ado: a draft for a fast-paced 2/4-Presto with the basic structure |: A :| b1 b2 b3 |: A : |: c1 : | c2 |: A :| The audio file needs some polishing. Any comments welcome.

This is a rather short and concise exercise in writing a sonata for cembalo that is playable even for me. It started with a minuet I wrote for a wedding; some improvising on the piano generated the idea for the allegro, and then only a slow movement was missing to have a three movement sonata, a basic structure popular in the 18th century. The allegro flows happily in 6/8, composed in sonata form; the reprise is slightly shortened so it is not too tedious, but also to have a balanced feel (Exposition: 32 bars; development + reprise 36 bars). The andante (binary form) provides some contrast by starting out in d minor, modulating to a minor and going back via g minor and F Major to d minor. The concluding minuet returns to more joyful music with a lively dialogue of left and right hand. I am considering adding a fast rondo, or composing another sonata concluding with a rondo; not sure about that.

Thanks for the kind feedback and positive words. More variety was such a frequent advice that I have looked at numerous trio sonatas again to study others' strategies for variety. And there are indeed examples for extremely varied sonatas, but also others where the various movements follow very similar blueprints. But what the composers would do then is make sure that the pieces as a whole differ in structure, mood etc. Like in Telemanns Tafelmusik. So, I will surely strive for more variety in future sonatas, but the structure of this trio sonata is not that uncommon. @Markus Boyd Indeed, I use MuseSounds, but I am still experimenting with the various settings e.g. for the violin and still have much to learn. For the 1st movement, I would now definitly choose a different sound. @Rich Thanks for the suggestion. This would nicely fit with the imitative passages in the other three movements. I will look into it. @FILMSCORE Yes, I tried to keep the movements rather concise; Corelli's trio sonatas are often that short, and this makes it necessary to be precise and to the point.

This crab tastes very good. 😉 Really pleasant to listen to, especially as it is short enough that e.g. the steady staccato still doesn't exhaust the listener. Just one comment: It is your composition, so you can certainly do as you see fit, but many textbooks advise against realising a basso continuo as a piano reduction of the score. It is more about harmony than melody. This should help to avoid the wide intervals you mentioned.

Thanks a lot for your kind words! Indeed, the 2nd movement is my favourite movement as well. Thanks also for your comment regarding variety; this is an area I have to think more about. I wanted to avoid duplicating my trio sonata in C Major (Trio Sonata in C Major), and also to avoid repeating a section. But now, the second half mirrors the first one: Both slow movements are 24 measures long and are structured as A - B - A' (not as clear in the 3rd movement, but still). The fast movements are both fugues with about fifty measures that touch the usual keys. There are differences, for sure, and one could claim it's all on purpose. What I hope for is that as all four movements are rather short, the similarities are not too bothersome.

Like many trio sonatas, this work consists of four movements: slow - fast - slow - fast. It starts with a three-partite Grave with a slight hint of French ouvertures, though then developing in a different direction. The second movement is a fugue. I am rather fond of a moment where all voices stop and the recorder and violin start the conversation of voices anew, and more lucid than before. The third movement is a through-composed Adagio, followed by a fugal finale in 12/8. This trio sonata is written for alto recorder, violin, cello and harpsichord, but a variety of instruments would fit too, though it leads to interesting changes in the character of the individual movements. I am not sure if the Grave and the Adagio shouldn't be swapped to increase the coherence of the music. Any suggestions welcome.

I took up your suggestion, @PeterthePapercomPoser, and produced four new mp3s.

Thanks for your feedback! Yes, one problem of my renditions is that they simply reflect the score (except for the added basso continuo realization), but a baroque score leaves plenty of room for the musicians to add ornaments, articulations, etc.. So no musician would play it like it sounds in the mp3. But I will try to improve the score that the audio file is based on for a more realistic feel.

I liked it very much. Indeed, I listened a few times. Just two things: The Adagio part shifts in m. 20 to a rhythm similar to a 6/4 time signature. Have you tried simplifying the score by switching the time signature? And the change from the Adagio to the refrain is really abrupt. One possibility to connect two parts is to have a dominant - tonic relationship between the end of one part and the beginning of the other. Funnily enough, I hear the form different than @Rich: Refrain m. 1-6, first couplet m. 6-15; refrain m.16-m.19; second couplet m.20-32; third refrain m33-40. More like ritornello form: a - b - a' - c - a''.

Thanks for sharing! Like @Nicholas Schuman, I listened a few times to it as it is so pleasant and engaging. Would be nice if you would pair it with a quick lively movement if you ever feel like it.

Very dramatic piece with nice twists. Bar 43 and following could have been cliché, but worked out well. Just two comments: What @Luis Hernández said; I just think it because of a different reason: In a typical fugue, you have blocs with the soggetto and episodes in between, often a bit formulaic, but they provide on one hand relief after the rigorous entries of the soggetto, and on the other hand creates tension: When will the next entry arrive? Your episodes are rather eventful and densely packed. Sometimes, it is ok to take some predictable phrases and be a bit formulaic to provide contrast. And the final cadence is an interesting experiment, I just think for many listeners it wont sound like it really closes the piece. In bar 70, you start with a g minor chord over a tonic pedal (plus a resolution of a 4 to a 3), changing to a D Major chord (f# + a over the pedal), which will invariably sound like the dominant chord for g, especially as you use a g - f# - g, a typical cantizans. Briefly, something like a diminished c# chord emerges, but you could probably make it all clearer by using f instead of f# in measure 70, and just touch f# in the last bar.

This was really fun to listen to! The soggetto is very easy to remember and to spot which is very helpful in hearing the structure of the fugue. The texture is well designed, with parts frequently dropping out so that it becomes especially meaningful to the listener when a voice comes back. A litte bit less conversation of the soggetto and a litte bit more episodic action could increase variety in the piece if so desired. Thanks for sharing!