The Baroque sonata

Hello again! Oh, I know, haven't been here for ages...This is my attempt in composing something barocco-like...Any comments are welcome!

Sonata.mid

Sonata.pdf

Sonata_revised.pdf

Not bad!

Cheerful and a bit funny.

Yes, I agree, fairly cheerful and a touch of funny.

I like everything about this piece on the large scale, nice simple straight forward form, very solid thematic material, a decent development. The only problem is... it's not baroque. It's close, but I would say it's more of early classical. Pre-Haydn, pre-Mozart, Clementi... those folks. Somewhere right in the beginning of the classical era is where I feel this fits.

Okay, a few specific things I think you could improve.......

Use slurs, they help the pianist understand the phrases better. You have of lot of suspended appoggiaturas such as the right hand in beat 3, measure 1 (could be wrong on the term, "appoggiatura") that should typically be slurred. Of course, you don't have to use them, but don't be afraid to. If you're not sure how to use them appropriately study some piano scores, especially baroque and early classical, you'll see how they work with the phrasing added by the editors.

Stylistically, measures 6-8 could be taken up an octave. In the early classical style you took to, this seems wrong to me as low as it is. Same thing right after the 2/4 bar on page 3. Of course, you're the composer, you can do whatever you want. :P

The extra low notes from measure 10 and on I'm not going to complain about though, because it sounds cooler to me. It is a decently wide leap for the left hand though.

Page 2 of the .pdf, 10th measure thereof, you have those triplet in the right and dotted-eight and sixteenths in the left hand. In this second measure of that pattern, you'll notice the right hand is playing a D minor arpeggio. Left hand should reflect this... instead of the C# in the left hand here, I would suggest a D instead, it makes more sense. Same thing two measure later.

Small detail... 15th measure of page 2, where is the upper A in the left hand? The previous measure includes the upper octave, this one doesn't. I think it would help (even if very little) to clear up the harmony by accentuating the octave here like you did in the previous measure and maintain the balance.

Same measure, last beat, left hand... does this D belong to the descending part in the right hand? If it does, fine, but if you consider it not to be, then that's a rather wide jump in the left hand into the next measure intervallically. Well, it seems so to me, maybe it really doesn't matter. :P But you know that last beat in the right hand here? It's the triplet F, E, C right before an extra wide jump all the way up to a G and Bb over an octave above. You could have the left hand play this, that eliminates the dangerous leap the right hand has to manage and the leap for the left hand isn't all that hard.

Really charming piece, melikes, been listening over and over, not getting of tired of it yet. Keep it up! :thumbsup:

very charming a piece! very well fashioned and with appealing effect. nice job!!!:thumbsup:

Thank you all for your comments! :D EnigmusJ4, special thanks for so comprehensive and solid analysis of my piece, I'll think of improving it.

EnigmusJ4, special thanks for so comprehensive and solid analysis of my piece...

Avec plaisir. Or, if you don't speak French.... "my pleasure!" :P;)

I really like all the trills and ornamentation (although it wouldn't be the easiest to play, especially the left hand trills :whistling:). Also like your use of rhythm in certain sections. eg- contrasting quavers or doted quavers against triplet quavers in the other hand. And the overall structure of the piece is pretty good too... I like nearly all your choices of melody, cadences and harmony.

... all the trills and ornamentation (although it wouldn't be the easiest to play, especially the left hand trills :whistling:). Also like your use of rhythm in certain sections. eg- contrasting quavers or doted quavers against triplet quavers in the other hand...

Trills in the left hand? Shouldn't be a problem for anybody with some experience and decent technique. A beginner might not manage it, but we're not interested in writing specifically for beginners, are we?

Those conflicting rhythms between the hands that you brought up here, that is one of the reasons I thought this was more of an early classical sonata movement than a baroque one, as I've never seen anything like that in a baroque sonata before.

Ascold, ever consider writing two more movements? I think you could, so far you've followed after Kuhlau and particularly Clementi sonatinas rather closely. With a slight baroque feel of course, but it's only in my personal opinion that it is slight. I say go for two more movements. :thumbsup:

Trills in the left hand? Shouldn't be a problem for anybody with some experience and decent technique. A beginner might not manage it, but we're not interested in writing specifically for beginners, are we?

Well I got to 7th grade piano (and have played 8th grade and higher pieces) and trills in the right hand were never a problem for me.... but with my left hand.... bah!! I could only manage about half the rate of my right hand. :angry:

Ascold, ever consider writing two more movements? I think you could, so far you've followed after Kuhlau and particularly Clementi sonatinas rather closely. With a slight baroque feel of course, but it's only in my personal opinion that it is slight. I say go for two more movements.

EnigmusJ4, thank you a lot, yes, I'll think about two more movenments, again thank you for your advices! A strange thing, when writing this piece I didn't think of Kuhlau or Clementi in fact! Their music is much more "classical" and easy (not all, surely) than this sonata, and they did never use such technics as far as I know. Pre-Haydn, pre-Mozart? Maybe, but what was before Haydn in the field of sonata? Mainly piano works that sounds nowadays as a real baroque music, especially by Scarlatti, Wagenseil, Cimarosa, Galuppi, Paradisi and so on - if you listen to them, i'll find how similar are they to my piece, much more than so-called "pre-classics", I think. But, of course, this is my personal opininon and each your advice and commment is very helpful and interesting for me.

About technique: yes, it is not a piece for a beginner, you're wright and your words about pianist's experience and "decent technique" are true, I think it is very playable, especially with some changes, which your adviced me to bring in it.:)

The matter is that I'm more a specialist in the history of music, than in composition, and so in fact my music, I suppose, is not as original as, for example yours. Maybe it is strange, but I feel that the concepts of my own music are so out-of-date, so old-fashioned...I think I simply have not yet found my own, original way in music, and so this is my main problem now. And there is one question which disturbs me for a long time, it's not an easy question - whether the modern composer can write music, as old composers, using their musical language, their olden forms and some ideas, but to make in result of the process something new and original? Wouldn't it be just a simple recurrence of something, that has already been many years ago? What do you think?

Anyway, thank you for the comments, they're so encouraging for me!

Not bad at all ,but I think some parts need to be improved.

Thank you, Kruler, and can I ask you what parts exactly need improving?

Mainly piano works that sounds nowadays as a real baroque music, especially by Scarlatti, Wagenseil, Cimarosa, Galuppi, Paradisi and so on - if you listen to them, i'll find how similar are they to my piece, much more than so-called "pre-classics", I think. But, of course, this is my personal opininon and each your advice and commment is very helpful and interesting for me.

I think your composition is great :) and I really like your choice of keys and modulations (but maybe it's little unusual to end composition in B flat if you begin in C?) It definitly reminds me on Scarlatti (kk 384 for example).

Very good I loved it

Thank you all!

Well I have nothing much, but solely some things which (In my opinion) need to be improved.

Well, trills in the left hand. Roger. Wide leaps with the left hand. Roger that. Trills and a wide leap RIght after that..... A little challenging, not to say almost impossible to execute for the normal average pianist (I talking about amateur, not professionals, but yeah, you are the composer and you certainly do have the perogative to write solely for professionals?) I suggest you drop the leap or the tril. =)

( I think the trill is what that is pivotal to the effect of the piece, and the leap is well, just for 'showing off'?)

Well second point i would like to point out. erm maybe I am wrong, but in your motiff, i hear a few major sevenths? (erm if dissonance is your aim then I have nothing to say... =X)

Well, on the whole, a very light hearted piece, but i CANT imagine your third movement.... breaking the fingers and lol. just joking!

Well, I look forward to your second and third movements! =)

Finally, I revised the piece and did some important changes in it.

A strange thing, when writing this piece I didn't think of Kuhlau or Clementi in fact! Their music is much more "classical" and easy (not all, surely) than this sonata, and they did never use such technics as far as I know. Pre-Haydn, pre-Mozart? Maybe, but what was before Haydn in the field of sonata? Mainly piano works that sounds nowadays as a real baroque music, especially by Scarlatti, Wagenseil, Cimarosa, Galuppi, Paradisi and so on - if you listen to them, i'll find how similar are they to my piece, much more than so-called "pre-classics", I think.

Nice, fresh-sounding piece. I think it falls squarely into the "Scarlatti Baroque" area. In fact, your melody structure in the opening, with the repeats of closing material, and "vamping" sections is very Scarlatti, as are the rapid repeated notes. Trills and leaps for both hands are standard Scarlatti... the most virtuosic harpsichordist in history; only a relatively small number of his over 500 sonatas are playable by the average amateur pianist. Dual keyboards sometimes helps harpsichordists.

At :18, and elsewhere, you use for your second thematic idea (unconsciously?) the theme of Scarlatti's famous E major sonata K. 20, even using, as Scarlatti does, a trill (dislocated to the other hand) on the last of the 3 notes. Your use of sequences also recalls Scarlatti, as does your clear binary form. Of course your harmonies sometimes stray far from Domenico! (1:28-1:32) But that's you, though you may want to give yourself a second opinion at that spot.

I like the flow... nice work.

camaysar, thank you for your comments on my piece!

... the most virtuosic harpsichordist in history; only a relatively small number of his over 500 sonatas are playable by the average amateur pianist.

yes, I completely agree with you, Scarlatti was a genius of harpsichord, for me his sonatas are like amazing gems, it is wonderfull both to listen and play them.

Nice piece. Only 554 more to go, and you'll enter the Immortal Music Hall of Fame with Scarlatti.

'the most virtuosic harpsichordist in history'

errrm. . . how do we know this?

Hi,

Granted, there are likely players today who have equal or greater technical mastery, considering the advances of technical expectations since Scarlatti's time. And admittedly, no one has heard every single harpsichordist in history. But Scarlatti's music tells us in no uncertain terms that he was by far the most virtuosic in his writing for his or any other time. We assume he could play his sonatas perfectly.

Bear in mind that "virtuosic" is an approach, not only a physical characteristic. No one to my knowledge has approached composition for the harpsichord in such a manner, so continuously, since Scarlatti. Surely not the likes of Vincent Persichetti or even Poulenc.

And no classicist outdid him, during the harpsichord's last period. His sonatas are often written almost as etudes, with athleticism a primary concern, while maintaining a solid structure and intellectual control. Bach, for example, may have difficult passages, and some of his preludes in the WTC are etude-like. But he never utilised the keyboard(s) as extensively as Scarlatti. Ditto for Handel, whose "Harmonious Blacksmith" variations (a form which normally showcases virtuosity) are quite simple to perform.

We also have ear-witness accounts of his playing, including an alleged victory over Handel in a harpsichord duel (Handel is said to have won in the organ-playing contest).

Scarlatti, like Chopin, set new boundaries in keyboard technique, and he must have been an incredible technician (as well as his long-time pupil Maria Barbara, if she could handle his works!). Do Kirkpatrick, Landowska, Valenti, Leonhardt, Pinnock, etc. play as well as Scarlatti? Probably. But none of them deserves to be called the most virtuosic, in the wider sense, as they are only players.