Sonata no. 2 in Des Major - movement one

A new piece: This is the first movement of my second piano sonata in Des Major. This piece is very different from my first piano sonata which was very classical in style; this new sonata is much more romantically. The other three movements will probably follow next year, December is going to be a very busy month for me; no time for composing more music.

Sonata no. 2 in D flat Major - movement one.

Hope you like it,

Andr

this is one of the most emotional pieces ive heard here....any chance of a score?

Yes please... a score. I would gladly give you a couple of critiques if I could look at some notes!

Hi! The score is now at the same page as the music: Have a look at Online Composer and Writer | Keep on Writing

Andr

Well, this is quite something, as I have come to expect from you, Andre.

Hugely dramatic and virtuosic in places, yet also tender and thoughtful when it wants to be. Lovely two part counterpoint at the start. The little recurring motif first heard in bars 31-32 is my favourite idea of the piece, and I greatly enjoyed the later development.

Of course, it owes quite a lot to the 19th century, but you'll hear no complaints whatsoever from me on this - it's wonderful music, period.

A closing question: who is performing?

Hi Mike, thanks for the nice words. And it's me who is playing the piece.

Andr

You said this is more 'romantic' but comparing it to your previous sonata, I'd say this is 'all you'. You have a definite style, and this was enjoyable as well. The fact that the audio is of you playing is great.

I have one potential nitpick.

Don't view this as an imposition (you are free to ignore me :P) but I just felt that the exposition repeat was unecessary.

Your ideas are relatively compact and economical. Even in the exposition the music kind of grows organically from the original ideas. Then in the development the themes are further varied.

The whole piece is building from a foundation and when the repeat occurs it just feels like the building was demolished before completion and we have to sit through the construction again. Even before I looked at the score this made me uneasy. It made everything that came before feel like a false start.

I tested my theory by listening it through after the first repeat and I liked the effect.

If I were playing it I'd probably skip the exposition repeat. :)

I really did like it though.

The above is in the best possible spirit since I think your writing is inspirational.

Thanks for posting and I look forward to the finished work!

You said this is more 'romantic' but comparing it to your previous sonata, I'd say this is 'all you'. You have a definite style, and this was enjoyable as well. The fact that the audio is of you playing is great.

I have one potential nitpick.

Don't view this as an imposition (you are free to ignore me :P) but I just felt that the exposition repeat was unecessary.

Your ideas are relatively compact and economical. Even in the exposition the music kind of grows organically from the original ideas. Then in the development the themes are further varied.

The whole piece is building from a foundation and when the repeat occurs it just feels like the building was demolished before completion and we have to sit through the construction again. Even before I looked at the score this made me uneasy. It made everything that came before feel like a false start.

I tested my theory by listening it through after the first repeat and I liked the effect.

If I were playing it I'd probably skip the exposition repeat. :)

I really did like it though.

The above is in the best possible spirit since I think your writing is inspirational.

Thanks for posting and I look forward to the finished work!

Thanks for the input, and especially for telling me that I have an own definite style, I believe that's the greatest compliment anybody can get. For me, it's often difficult to say where my own style starts and where it still sounds like another composer, probably because I'm too close to the process.

I tried it without the repetition of the exposition and it does sound very different. The thing is that the piece becomes very short if I leave it out, another thing is that somehow for me, it does feel correct to hear the repetition. Maybe it's because I'm so very much used to hear this in sonata's I heard my whole life. Also, stopping the piece from going into the development at once gives me a feeling of setting up something that is going to come, like a tease for the listener. I like that tension. Without the repetition, I would give it away to fast.

Of course, everyone is free in how to play it, with or without the repetition. I believe that some pianists changed the repetitions of some Beethoven sonata's because it didn't feel right to them, I think this should be no problem. Glenn Gould said that one of the Beethoven sonata's was too long and not written in a good balance. There is always room for change and comments.

I hope to finished the other movements next year, I look forward to work on them. I made some notes yesterday for the second movement, not sure yet if I'm going to use them. On my website, I have a blog now where I give some journal like descriptions of what I'm doing while writing the sonata. I don't know yet if this will work out, but I believed it was an interesting idea when I started it. I will see how long I can keep it up.

greetings!

Andr

Cool, it's fine if you like it as is.

It's your piece after all!

And you had a reason for writing as you did.

Not all sonata expositions have written repeats though.

I don't think the Beethoven's appasionata 1st movement does.

It also produces a long exposition spun from compact ideas and a subdued beginning.

Repeating it all would probably have resulted in a retrogressive effect.

He created suspense in the development by a using hiccoughing, false starting, version of the theme that resembles its first exposition before busting forth with the theme's new setting against arpeggios and tremolos.

In your case, the return of the opening counterpoint after the first exposition was quite nice. However, when I realised this was the beginning of a whole exposition repeat, my mind wanted to get on with it and I lost some interest. One alternative would be to begin the development with the opening counterpoint but instead of repeating the whole exposition, segue into the development material you have already written. This teases, but doesn't repeat the eloquent argument you have already made for your opening motives so soon. Sure the piece becomes shorter but it might be listened through more times so that cancels out. :P

Also, the exposition repeat front-weights your piece a great deal and makes the development seem rather insignificant especially since the recap follows (which is essentially the exposition again). Remember, the traditional sonata form repeats the exposition and the development-recapitulation. As it is, we hear the exposition twice in succession followed by an interlude (the development), followed by what is essentially a third exposition repeat. It all seems a bit repetitous especially since the exposition is internally repetitous (no negative connotation on this 'repetitous', just meaning 'consisting of motives varied through repetition' rather than stretches of unrelated lyrical melodies). The development gets lost in the exposition's ubiquity.

I'm just thinking out loud how this would have been an even better listening experience for me.

I often do this for pieces I like and that 'grip' me but let me off the hook sometimes.

It gives me things to think about in my own future writing since I want to grip the listener and never let go.

Hopefully this composer won't mind hearing my musings too. :)

With respect, as always.

Hi! Thanks for posting this piece, I like the main theme played forte very much! I must say that your performance is also excellent, very impressive! I think its well balanced as it is, good work!

lol..I keep humming parts of this thing.

Listened it too much methinks.

Cool, it's fine if you like it as is.

It's your piece after all!

And you had a reason for writing as you did.

Not all sonata expositions have written repeats though.

I don't think the Beethoven's appasionata 1st movement does.

It also produces a long exposition spun from compact ideas and a subdued beginning.

Repeating it all would probably have resulted in a retrogressive effect.

He created suspense in the development by a using hiccoughing, false starting, version of the theme that resembles its first exposition before busting forth with the theme's new setting against arpeggios and tremolos.

In your case, the return of the opening counterpoint after the first exposition was quite nice. However, when I realised this was the beginning of a whole exposition repeat, my mind wanted to get on with it and I lost some interest. One alternative would be to begin the development with the opening counterpoint but instead of repeating the whole exposition, segue into the development material you have already written. This teases, but doesn't repeat the eloquent argument you have already made for your opening motives so soon. Sure the piece becomes shorter but it might be listened through more times so that cancels out. :P

Also, the exposition repeat front-weights your piece a great deal and makes the development seem rather insignificant especially since the recap follows (which is essentially the exposition again). Remember, the traditional sonata form repeats the exposition and the development-recapitulation. As it is, we hear the exposition twice in succession followed by an interlude (the development), followed by what is essentially a third exposition repeat. It all seems a bit repetitous especially since the exposition is internally repetitous (no negative connotation on this 'repetitous', just meaning 'consisting of motives varied through repetition' rather than stretches of unrelated lyrical melodies). The development gets lost in the exposition's ubiquity.

I'm just thinking out loud how this would have been an even better listening experience for me.

I often do this for pieces I like and that 'grip' me but let me off the hook sometimes.

It gives me things to think about in my own future writing since I want to grip the listener and never let go.

Hopefully this composer won't mind hearing my musings too. :)

With respect, as always.

Thanks that you put so much thought into it, I really respect that, I can see that you are a music lover!

I know about some sonata's in which the development and reprise are repeated as well, but never liked that. It's like seeing seeing the same battle twice. Hearing however an exposition twice doesn't feel so strange to me, as long it's really just that: an exposition that only shows the main characters in the play without going to deep into their problems yet.

Are you sure that Beethoven doesn't repeat the exposition in his appasionata? I can't check it because I don't have that sonata in my house at the moment. The false start, yes I know about that, works perfectly! I discover more and more little things myself during my own writing and listening at works of others in the meantime and always see where I can use things that hit me, like interesting phrase structures, chord progressions, the way someone goes back to the reprise.

Funny enough, I was thinking some days ago about this 3 times repeating of the exposition material, it's a lot really. I already break here and then with the tradition form by not repeating whole sections where Mozart f.e. did, and I'm sure this will happen in my music more and more the moment I feel bored with hearing parts to often.

Same for phrase structures: the classics and romantics uses the same structures all the time, I did it myself as well but are getting bored with it and try to find my own now. I don't want to go so far however as Wagner with his unendlich melody structure where nothing gets repeated; I believe that for music to work, there has to be repetition, otherwise the listener will turn away. This works for movies as well. If you would see a new character coming into the story over and over agan during the movie, you would get lost in the story and feel disorientated and probably hit the stop button.

thanks for your thoughts!

Best wishes,

Andr

lol..I keep humming parts of this thing.

Listened it too much methinks.

Nothing wrong with that... :thumbsup:

Thanks for your responses.

I know about some sonata's in which the development and reprise are repeated as well, but never liked that. It's like seeing seeing the same battle twice. Hearing however an exposition twice doesn't feel so strange to me, as long it's really just that: an exposition that only shows the main characters in the play without going to deep into their problems yet.

Yes, I don't usually like the development-recap repeat either but I can see where it can help balance the form. The exposition repeat doesn't always bother me either.

Mozart sometimes throws so many themes at you (I think in his k332 sonata first movement, up to seven) that you sense little thematic growth in the exposition and you don't mind hearing it again to assimilate all the material.

In your case (and in some beethoven) the developmental drama begins right away. Your whole exposition derives from two short themes and it's very well done. However, it creates such a trajectory in my mind that hearing it all again right after it finished the first time does feel like repeating a battle. It doesn't kill the movement for me, just makes it a little less than ideal.

Are you sure that Beethoven doesn't repeat the exposition in his appasionata?

Yeah, at bar 65, the exposition ends in the high treble and the development commences in the same bar. I think the first few bars of the development takes the place of an exposition repeat in terms of creating suspense. Appasionata's exposition is long and thematically compact. In the Walstein he does repeat the first movement's exposition but that exposition is more thematically rich.

I already break here and then with the tradition form by not repeating whole sections where Mozart f.e. did, and I'm sure this will happen in my music more and more the moment I feel bored with hearing parts to often.

Yeah, music is a personal journey and each person's style will evolve as he writes. Mozart had some interesting ideas too for the recap. He sometimes inverts the order so the themes reoccur back to front after the development. The whole form then becomes symetrical about the development. He was also fond of changing the mode in the recap, varying the melodies or interjecting new material somewhere.

Same for phrase structures: the classics and romantics uses the same structures all the time, I did it myself as well but are getting bored with it and try to find my own now. I don't want to go so far however as Wagner with his unendlich melody structure where nothing gets repeated; I believe that for music to work, there has to be repetition, otherwise the listener will turn away. This works for movies as well. If you would see a new character coming into the story over and over agan during the movie, you would get lost in the story and feel disorientated and probably hit the stop button.

I absolutely agree!

It's all about balance.

If you go too far on the repetition axis or too far on the variety axis you might fail.

In one case because it gets boring, in the other case because it's incoherent. It's the same as in speech or oratory.

In my own attempts at composition, I don't care too much about pursuing unfamiliar harmonies but I'm always thinking about form. That's one's primary means of guiding the listener.

Anyway, great reading your posts and keep up the awesome musical writing.