Piano Trio

This is my complete first Piano Trio (vn, vc, pno).

This piece is a very personal piece to me and I think that clearly shows in the music itself - especially my treatment of it, which is needless to say different than most of my other work posted here on this forum. The entire piece is molded from 2 chief themes. The 3rd movement incorporates fugal technique throughout (with the exception of a short section or two). I hope you enjoy... comments would be appreciated.

MP3s:

The movements should play consecutively if you select the first link. I just realized that it did this...lol

I - Allegro Tragedioso

II. Andante con moto

III - Allegro assai, con fuoco

The rendering is with GPO.

Scores:

I. Allegro Tragedioso

II. Andante con moto

III. Allegro Assai

J

The music itself shows a lot of work and thought went into it.

The only thing I would say could help is in the presentation.

The panning could be a bit better. Hearing the violin in one ear and the cello in the other is not how it would happen in person. A little bleed thru of each instrument into the other ear always helps a piece sound its best.

Well done

Ron

J

The music itself shows a lot of work and thought went into it.

The only thing I would say could help is in the presentation.

The panning could be a bit better. Hearing the violin in one ear and the cello in the other is not how it would happen in person. A little bleed thru of each instrument into the other ear always helps a piece sound its best.

Well done

Ron

Any tips you could provide on that would be helpful. This is the first time i've posted GPO renderings - and am still very much 'newb' at that sort of thing.

Hello :)

I am almost obliged to respond to this piece because I myself am writing a piano trio and I consider myself a big fan of the genre. Be prepared for an honest review, and I respect the work and thought that you put into this work.

Well, first off, I must ask you.. how long have you been writing music and what your experience is with the genre? Also, what pieces have you listened to that already are in this genre?

First movement -

On to the piece, though... It sounds tonal. Tonal in a romantic way at points and then tonal in a classical(galante) style in other parts. Your treatment of the initial textures was very nice and gave a nice preconception of how the trio would go. As the trio continued until the introduction, I felt it to be an adequate build up to the section. However, if you look at the lines for all three instruments, they aren't particularly idiomatic of the instruments or even idiomatic for a piano trio.

For example, in many of the piano trios written, there is a true and genuine conversation from the instruments. While the violin plays one thing and the cello accompanies (or even echoes), the piano is usually playing an equally important part. For a lot of this trio, the texture was either seemingly homophonic or polyphonic in a way that yields little weight. In addition, there was a lack of timbre variety that really showed in the piece. The cello's treble and alto ranges are so beautiful, but I feel they weren't exploited enough to make the piece truly exceptional.

From how it sounds, it seems like it was in a loose sonata form of sorts, which is good. In my opinion, though, the dramatic nature of the sonata form wasn't exploited enough too. This is in direct juxtaposition with the fact that the transition between the A theme and B theme caused tension. The hidden connections between the two weren't as well pointed out as they could have.

This could be due, in some part, to the very disappointing rendering of the cello part. I could hear some humming in the background in a few parts, but it really didn't sound like a moving line at all.

The other movements are soon to come (as I have more time to comment)

Hello :)

I am almost obliged to respond to this piece because I myself am writing a piano trio and I consider myself a big fan of the genre. Be prepared for an honest review, and I respect the work and thought that you put into this work.

Well, first off, I must ask you.. how long have you been writing music and what your experience is with the genre? Also, what pieces have you listened to that already are in this genre?

First movement -

On to the piece, though... It sounds tonal. Tonal in a romantic way at points and then tonal in a classical(galante) style in other parts. Your treatment of the initial textures was very nice and gave a nice preconception of how the trio would go. As the trio continued until the introduction, I felt it to be an adequate build up to the section. However, if you look at the lines for all three instruments, they aren't particularly idiomatic of the instruments or even idiomatic for a piano trio.

For example, in many of the piano trios written, there is a true and genuine conversation from the instruments. While the violin plays one thing and the cello accompanies (or even echoes), the piano is usually playing an equally important part. For a lot of this trio, the texture was either seemingly homophonic or polyphonic in a way that yields little weight. In addition, there was a lack of timbre variety that really showed in the piece. The cello's treble and alto ranges are so beautiful, but I feel they weren't exploited enough to make the piece truly exceptional.

From how it sounds, it seems like it was in a loose sonata form of sorts, which is good. In my opinion, though, the dramatic nature of the sonata form wasn't exploited enough too. This is in direct juxtaposition with the fact that the transition between the A theme and B theme caused tension. The hidden connections between the two weren't as well pointed out as they could have.

This could be due, in some part, to the very disappointing rendering of the cello part. I could hear some humming in the background in a few parts, but it really didn't sound like a moving line at all.

The other movements are soon to come (as I have more time to comment)

Where to begin..hmm. Well, I certainly was not striving for a true 'conversational' trio. Instead, I wanted to utilize the instruments as each being soloistic - in a sense, I feel in this piece I achieved that (one could listen to the cello line, for instance, and see that it is not purely harmonic and not purely melodic..etc.) I feel the conversational mold for chamber music is virtually moot now (conversational sections are in the work - just not the prominent feature). I'm not exactly sure what you mean as idiomatic? I think one difference between my trio and others is that I give alot more material to the piano and allow it to also have a role in the work (as opposed to underpinning the violin and cello roles). Each instrument is written idiomatically too. Do you have examples from my score?

Also, I don't quite see many homophonic textures in the movement. The majority of it is polyphonic - which was intentional. Though I should clarify, to me homophonic texture is when each instrument is playing the same homogenous line at the same time (i.e. choralesque). I thought I had a nice blend of polyphonic and homophonic textures. Can you elaborate?

The higher ranges of the cello, I reserved largely for the 2nd movement. I thought this was fitting for a number of reasons:

1. In the first movement, the overall mood was not suited for the cantabile tone quality of the upper ranges. The cello's lower strings were far more suited - and, despite the poor cello sample used in rendering - more matching with the sound wanted.

2. The violin for most the first movement plays in a rather large range - as does the piano. The cello line at times reinforces the harmonic underpinning and at other times adds to the melodic portions of the movement.

Finally, the form is a very loose Sonata-Allegro. As we've gotten into discussion before in regards to the form itself, I don't feel the need to do a full-on sonata allegro (and specifically in a romantic sense.) The overall basic skeleton of the form itself (intro, exp, devel, coda) is useful in many ways. Mind you, by basic, I segregate the harmonic and modulatory portions of the form - to me they are antiquated and outdated (my own personal belief). In reference to the two themes, as I made mention each movement sees a reappearance of the thematic material itself. This was very important in the formal structure of the full trio itself.

My view of the piano trio genre is in line with my view of string quartet repertoire. I feel that both genres/forms are very intimate and personal to the composer. In each, and I think history shows this, composers experimented greatly with the various facets of composition itself - from the use of odd progressions to shattering of normal roles for voices, the repertoire is rich in this. So for me, I view it as the ultimate expression of the composers art in many ways. This piece took me 1 year to compose (the current first movement is the 8th version... the last movement is the 14th version.) I hope that gives you some insight into why I chose to do what I did in this piece.

I will take what you say to heart and see if I can tinker some more with it.

Yes, you are right, it is completely up to the composer as to how their finished work sounds. Sadly, we have all (generalization.. just me, I suppose) been conditioned to believe that you have to follow all of the common practice or none of them at all for a piece to sound "right". However, bravo to you if you know the rules that you are breaking. I was just pointing them out to you in case you didn't know. Again, from a purely common practice standpoint, the voice leading is a little bit off.

That's what initially caused me to think of the writing as slightly unidiomatic, but upon looking at the score it's become apparent that the voice leading is the issue. For example, measures 19, 20, and 21 are pretty jagged and could possibly be smoothed out (or at least have jagged preceding material). I'm definitely not asking you to change it... I'm just wondering if you were aware of that fact.

For the piano writing, there are a few spots which aren't "unidiomatic" per se, but seem a bit crude, for example measure 23 onward.. That range isn't the best for the texture and in my opinion is not useful in that location. I don't see other problems in the bass for the rest of the piece, though. However, from 146 to 151, that's pretty unidiomatic but not impossible.

Ok, the introductions of your theme A are pretty homophonic, I'd say, but that's not the point.... I also said polyphonic but in a way that doesn't give a polyphonic texture. Measures 24,25, and 26, for example, are homophonic. You have melody in the piano right hand and harmonic accompaniment in the left hand and cello. Measures 31 - 35 are also homophonic because although you have two lines, that piano right hand line isn't a melodic line in itself... it is of a harmonic origin. Measures 37 - 64 are also homophonic because there is a single melodic line with accompaniment. From 57 to 65, the cello has a harmonically sequential line in an arpeggio, which implies one chord... which to me doesn't imply a melodic line. Moreover, the piano lines and violin lines with the cello are harmonic as well. 76 - 79 is the polyphony I'm talking about. Measures 84 - 90 are also homophonic. 96 - 102 are also. The section at 126 is the polyphonic texture I'm talking about. Etc. etc..

The point isn't that that is wrong ... rather... that I truly believe that your piece would be a masterpiece with polyphony. Especially with the harmonic vocabulary you are using.

I really don't intend to be harsh.. I've had to rewrite and edit my piano trio's first movement many many many times. I know that it is not a very exciting thing to do. Good luck.

For example, measures 19, 20, and 21 are pretty jagged and could possibly be smoothed out (or at least have jagged preceding material).

For the piano writing, there are a few spots which aren't "unidiomatic" per se, but seem a bit crude, for example measure 23 onward.. That range isn't the best for the texture and in my opinion is not useful in that location. I don't see other problems in the bass for the rest of the piece, though. However, from 146 to 151, that's pretty unidiomatic but not impossible.

Ok, the introductions of your theme A are pretty homophonic, I'd say, but that's not the point.... I also said polyphonic but in a way that doesn't give a polyphonic texture. Measures 24,25, and 26, for example, are homophonic. You have melody in the piano right hand and harmonic accompaniment in the left hand and cello. Measures 31 - 35 are also homophonic because although you have two lines, that piano right hand line isn't a melodic line in itself... it is of a harmonic origin. Measures 37 - 64 are also homophonic because there is a single melodic line with accompaniment. From 57 to 65, the cello has a harmonically sequential line in an arpeggio, which implies one chord... which to me doesn't imply a melodic line. Moreover, the piano lines and violin lines with the cello are harmonic as well. 76 - 79 is the polyphony I'm talking about. Measures 84 - 90 are also homophonic. 96 - 102 are also. The section at 126 is the polyphonic texture I'm talking about. Etc. etc..

.

m. 19 - 21: Jagged? The voice leading between the violin and cello there is flawless and very idiomatic of string writing - the violin has a melodic line and the cello is with a harmonic/quasi - melodic line. The material in fact, is used in the opening of the 3rd movement (violin and cello both playing it). I figured that measure 23 would be more jagged considering the cello is doing a different rhythm than the piano itself. m 41 -51 is essentially non-melodic (unless you look at the different intervals being tossed around in the mass suspension - then you have polyphony). One interesting thing I might point out, if you've not noticed from the score... a lot of these sections of homophony are bridge sections.

i like it

coolcool

(I've only listened to the first movement.)

Where to begin..hmm. Well, I certainly was not striving for a true 'conversational' trio. Instead, I wanted to utilize the instruments as each being soloistic - in a sense, I feel in this piece I achieved that (one could listen to the cello line, for instance, and see that it is not purely harmonic and not purely melodic..etc.)...I'm not exactly sure what you mean as idiomatic? I think one difference between my trio and others is that I give a lot more material to the piano and allow it to also have a role in the work (as opposed to underpinning the violin and cello roles).

See, I view the piano writing as largely accompaniment. Whole note chords, albert-bass style chords to make it sound busy or "polyphonic". And where the piano has a part which sounds soloistic... nothing is going on in the strings. Look at 146. The right hand melody is played in constant intervals. What a pain for the poor pianist! Maybe the violin could play the top row of notes. That would be more idiomatic to the capabilities of the trio. (And look after this piano solo. Immediately after the strings come back in with melody, the piano is again relegated to square chordal accompaniment. And after the strings get their brief stint, and the piano comes in with melody, the strings are on whole notes again.)

Putting on any short sample of the piece, it sounds all right. It sounds really good, actually. Catchy melodies, cool ideas, well polished writing. But as a whole, it sounds like you wrote it in pieces, moving from one good idea to the next with no real sense of direction. It would not surprise me if your compositional process was to write out a melody, and then add some pleasant chords to fill out the non-melodic instruments, before moving on to the next melody which popped into your head.

There is a fine line between rhapsody and lazy writing. Parts of the piece are beautifully rhapsodic. I love the way the piano builds in intensity during the slow introduction. It wasn't until the suddenly cheerful interruption to this powerful solemnity, at measure 24, that I began to have my suspicions about the structure of the piece.

One of the hardest lessons to learn about composing in the English language (one in which I am far more adept than the harmonic language of music), is that editing means cutting. Since the first movement is largely piecemeal anyway, I imagine it could be trimmed down quite effectively. Keep it tighter.

(I've only listened to the first movement.)

See, I view the piano writing as largely accompaniment. Whole note chords, albert-bass style chords to make it sound busy or "polyphonic". And where the piano has a part which sounds soloistic... nothing is going on in the strings. Look at 146. The right hand melody is played in constant intervals. What a pain for the poor pianist! Maybe the violin could play the top row of notes. That would be more idiomatic to the capabilities of the trio. (And look after this piano solo. Immediately after the strings come back in with melody, the piano is again relegated to square chordal accompaniment. And after the strings get their brief stint, and the piano comes in with melody, the strings are on whole notes again.)

Putting on any short sample of the piece, it sounds all right. It sounds really good, actually. Catchy melodies, cool ideas, well polished writing. But as a whole, it sounds like you wrote it in pieces, moving from one good idea to the next with no real sense of direction. It would not surprise me if your compositional process was to write out a melody, and then add some pleasant chords to fill out the non-melodic instruments, before moving on to the next melody which popped into your head.

There is a fine line between rhapsody and lazy writing. Parts of the piece are beautifully rhapsodic. I love the way the piano builds in intensity during the slow introduction. It wasn't until the suddenly cheerful interruption to this powerful solemnity, at measure 24, that I began to have my suspicions about the structure of the piece.

One of the hardest lessons to learn about composing in the English language (one in which I am far more adept than the harmonic language of music), is that editing means cutting. Since the first movement is largely piecemeal anyway, I imagine it could be trimmed down quite effectively. Keep it tighter.

I appreciate your critique..very well rounded.

I'll start with my composition process - in particular with this piece. This piece, in all three movements, stems from 2 themes. The first is introduced at measure 13, right after the introduction. After the introduction in the violin, I begin focusing on the first themes initial developments. I was extremely picky with each bar and each part. At m 40, the development is ceased to return to the introduction material. I felt this was necessary for two reasons. 1. To allow the listener a chance to rest and structurally to show that this was still the exposition of the movement. The second themes first introduction occurs shortly after at m 65 in the piano. I showed the passages to a very good pianist - and while he said there were some challenging passages it is playable (with minute fixes, this passage was one). As for the string parts, I'm very leary of changing where and when they come in - as well as - their interplay with the piano. A lot of this piece was very well thought out prior, during, and after the composition process itself. In no parts of the piece did I write a melody out and then afterward fill in the harmony - I'm very surprised you got that feeling here (particularly since the melodic material is very clearly based both audibly and visually looking at the score on two very simple themes.) There was a great deal that I edited in this piece both on score paper and in my notation software during composition and after. Finally, in regards to the rather rapid modulations - as I said before this piece was very personal to me during composition. I'm not good with words, BUT, I will try to say what I mean by this in hopes of shedding light. One could say that there is a program behind the piece - at least for me. The opening (and reoccurring suspensions between the instruments are meant to represent the last gasps of life - the moment when one is faced at deaths door.) The main theme is that final fight that comes when you don't want to face that which you were born to do. The various glimpses of 'cheerfulness' are happier moments that one looks back upon, etc. I don't do well writing programs to pieces - but, for me every composer 'personalizes' their compositions in some way. Some do what I have done and others do other things. I hope this sheds light on my work for you. Again, thank you for your critique - it's much appreciated.

Also, as I'm listening to the score a little later after writing the above comments, I'm struck at your comments regarding the material following measure 146. The statement in particular is that the piano goes back to playing chordal material. This passage is an expansion of a previous passage in the piece and also is used again at ending of the piece.

I thoroughly enjoyed your pieces! great work!

Thank you Spence

Look, I am not going to say much about this piece other than I agree with Mael with regards to voice leading in general throughout the piece. While it isn't weak, I think it could be stronger and really i'm talking about the entire piece. Also, octaves are occasionally used arbitrarily (or at least it appears so), a perfect chance to introduce some more voice leading. I think essentially, find the piece two dimensional, rather than three dimensional. It is a piece I quite enjoy but feel as if I could enjoy it 3 times as much if it felt less..... "bare"?

First I must say I'm no expert on the piano trio genre but this has many highly dramatic moments and interesting sonorities but also an oddly rambling structure and a juxtaposition of disparate ideas (and maybe too many) as others have said.

How refreshing to come across a modern work by a young composer that is both easy on the ear and interesting. I particularly liked your idea of inserting a cadenza for the violin towards the end of the finale. This trio IMHO certainly deserves to be performed by live musicians.

Cheers,

John.

ty john. I was a little concerned about the cadenza - largely because midi playback does not capture the subtleties of live string players.. very much appreciated.

Nice set of work, may I ask you which sound libraries you were using? There is a very wide range of dynamics and the compositions are strong. I am especially fond of the quick moving piano and violin parts in some areas as well as the cello in others.

Nice set of work, may I ask you which sound libraries you were using? There is a very wide range of dynamics and the compositions are strong. I am especially fond of the quick moving piano and violin parts in some areas as well as the cello in others.

Garritan Personal Orchestra

I used the Stradivarius Solo Violin 2, Solo Cello, and Steinway lite.

Hey Jason I finally listened to your whole piece. I think it is very moving in its visceral emotional and dramatic presentation.

There are many points that have been already said here that I agree with, both the compliments and detractions.

The beginning of the first movement is very Brahms-esque and starts off very strong and passionate. It generally continues on strongly, with good writing for both instruments and very inventive modulations, very somber and slow introverted writing, a sort of self reflective, staring into the abyss type of writing.

What's slightly offputting to MY ears, is the juxtaposition of seemingly more modern writing at TIMES with what seems to be purely deep romantic writing at other times (like I said Brahmsian). But, as I said this is a personal taste because I'm not a big fan of anything past the late romantic at all, and prefer purely tonal, structured works.

The second movement in general was probably the most moving and felt the tightest to me in terms of structure, it comes around full circle nicely and the writing stays much more CONSISTENTLY idiomatic of itself so to speak.

The 3rd movement..I really like the themes, you seem to have a talent writing very moving melodies, especially that stretto/canon passage theme somewhere in the first two minutes whose theme ends up pervading the rest of the movement.

The strongest part probably about everything is the pervasiveness of the themes you use, you don't just abandon them - they seem to always be lurking somewhere within the piece, either in an outer voice or inner, low, high, etc...it makes it very interesting and cohesive.

However, the one detracting point I would have is lack of a strong structure to the outer movements. You might see it as having structure but like I said I am used to classical-esque/early romantic idiom and so that's just my opinion. I just feel often modern composers use a cop out by saying "but 17th/18th century structure is obsolete!", well if you feel that way then invent your OWN structure that has LOGIC and is natural, that's what I say to people that say that.

Your movements feel structured often by the pervasiveness of the themes, but PERSONALLY I feel that they can be tightened up more. Like someone said either in this thread or elsewhere, editing also means truncating and cutting, or re-arranging etc. Either way, all in all I think it is a very moving and mature work.

I do know the classical structures and forms very well. The first movements structure is a bit choppy, but the underlying skeleton is sonata-allegro (exposition, development, recap, coda). The parts where I move away from the classical idea's of sonata allegro are more often the modulations etc. I also start developing the thematic material I use within the exposition sometimes. The second movement is pretty much through composed; I originally had it as an ABA movement, but given the nature of the material used in it, felt that such a 'structured' sense would've ruined the context of the material - and its usage as an overlying structural unifier. The 3rd movement is my favorite in terms of structure. The original draft of the score was a fugue - a rather lose fugue, but a fugue nonetheless. When I went over the draft, however, I got the idea to incorporate a few sonata-allegro facets to the movement (namely exposition material, development, and coda). So, after the introduction, I have the initial exposition of thematic material, start of the fugue, and then during the fugue episodes - I developed more of the material. I really enjoyed composing the 3rd movement..

Thank you for your comments much appreciated.

I do know the classical structures and forms very well. The first movements structure is a bit choppy, but the underlying skeleton is sonata-allegro (exposition, development, recap, coda). The parts where I move away from the classical idea's of sonata allegro are more often the modulations etc. I also start developing the thematic material I use within the exposition sometimes. The second movement is pretty much through composed; I originally had it as an ABA movement, but given the nature of the material used in it, felt that such a 'structured' sense would've ruined the context of the material - and its usage as an overlying structural unifier. The 3rd movement is my favorite in terms of structure. The original draft of the score was a fugue - a rather lose fugue, but a fugue nonetheless. When I went over the draft, however, I got the idea to incorporate a few sonata-allegro facets to the movement (namely exposition material, development, and coda). So, after the introduction, I have the initial exposition of thematic material, start of the fugue, and then during the fugue episodes - I developed more of the material. I really enjoyed composing the 3rd movement..

Thank you for your comments much appreciated.

Yea there's nothing wrong with beginning to develop things in the exposition - in fact there's a name for it: "Developing variations" coined by Schoenberg who imputed it to Brahms music in his famous treatise on Brahms. So in essence Brahms created that technique (at least to my knowledge) of advancing sonata-allegro form by beginning to develop ideas right out of the hole in the exposition.

Still in the end, one cannot judge music purely on its theoretical merits but on how it sounds in the end. And even if you were to show me in the score, where theme B comes in, where it recapitulates, etc, etc, it didn't SOUND and didn't evoke the FEELING of structured thought and TAUT logic to me. That's not to say it was COMPLETELY unstructured, far from it, in fact I thought it's one of the most genius aspects of the whole work is how the themes are re-used and pervade the work from start to finish, but rather I should say it wasn't a satisfactory feeling of structure to ME. But, to its credit, I must admit I listened to the whole work maybe 3 times now completely (though in different orders of movements) and each time I listen (now that the themes are familiar) the underlying structure begins to surface more and more and it seems increasingly cohesive and indissoluble.

In the end though, the most important thing is that it certainly SOUNDS like and feels like a work that had great passion, enthusiasm, and heart that went into it - and to me that is all that matters.