Minuet (For String Trio)

This is a basic minuet with short, repeated trio for String Trio.

Form with notes:

Introduction: The introduction takes the traditional rhythm of the minuet and presents it imitatively in 4ths among the trio. This, I hope, sets the foundation for the harmony of the movement.

A section: This section features 3 distinct layers, played on each instrument. The rhythmic pizzicato in the viola should be loud and predominant. The cello part should be resonant. The theme in the violin, should be lyrical and flowing. The second statement of the theme in the violin is ornamented to provide interest. After the statement in the violin, the theme appears in the high range of the cello.

B section: This section should be fast and loud, in stark contrast to the flowing nature of the A section. The tempo marking is just a suggestion - something around that time would be ideal. (section repeated).

A': This section repeats the opening bars of the first A section but then moves to close. I wanted a short movement here - just a practice of formalistic writing within my current harmonic language.

Comments and critiques are always welcome! If you listen... PLEASE opine!

Minuet (For String Trio)

My comments could be summed up thus: "Meh."

Your intro was unnecessary for the reasons you give. It didn't establish any harmonic foundation in my ears since your "harmonic language" lacks any foundation or at least one that isn't obvious. This may be your aesthetic choice, but don't bother trying to pull out a foundation if you don't have one.

Section A: That viola pizz. was the most annoying thing in the world. I was waiting for you to do something signifigant with that qausi-idée fixe but you didn't. That disappointed me. I didn't find the melodies that memorable either since they were relatively square.

Section B: In my mind: "What? Now were in quasi-scherzo land? Now we're talking! Oh wait? It's over?! :angry:" There's a couple time signature things that should be re-written for clarity. Why did you make this so short? I liked this, but it died off way too quickly.

Section A': Same as the first A except the ending made no sense. If you're going to end something, then end it! Don't just let it fizzle out and hope it works. Regardless of your intentions, that's how it sounds to the listener.

To sum up: Meh.

My comments could be summed up thus: "Meh."

Your intro was unnecessary for the reasons you give. It didn't establish any harmonic foundation in my ears since your "harmonic language" lacks any foundation or at least one that isn't obvious. This may be your aesthetic choice, but don't bother trying to pull out a foundation if you don't have one.

Wow, kind of harsh already. I'll this slide though as I really don't want to get into a discussion on harmonic foundation. It's there though.

Section A: That viola pizz. was the most annoying thing in the world. I was waiting for you to do something signifigant with that qausi-idée fixe but you didn't. That disappointed me. I didn't find the melodies that memorable either since they were relatively square.

The viola pizz there wasn't meant to be any sort of melodic notion or idea - and thus wasn't used as such. It was meant to serve as a rhythmic constant within the changing violin and cello lines. Playing that passage without it... leaves it very, very empty. This was meant as a simple piece NOT a gargantuan develop everything like Mahler epic.

Section B: In my mind: "What? Now were in quasi-scherzo land? Now we're talking! Oh wait? It's over?! :angry:" There's a couple time signature things that should be re-written for clarity. Why did you make this so short? I liked this, but it died off way too quickly.

I don't see anything wrong with the time signatures. Given that I made the suggested metronome marking eighth = 240, should give reason enough for the time sigs in the main part. Are you referring to the change to 4/4 and then 4/1? If so, I'd advise you look at what i'm doing with the thematic material there. This is one reason that I tend not to use changing time sigs much because noone on this site ever looks at my reasoning for doing it. Instead, they just see it as odd and comment. I changed the meter in this section due to the change in the length of the motive there. I'll change it all back to 3/4 instead so it looks 10x more confusing to the performers.

Section A': Same as the first A except the ending made no sense. If you're going to end something, then end it! Don't just let it fizzle out and hope it works. Regardless of your intentions, that's how it sounds to the listener.

So I don't provide an "Ending" that you like? Well, I'm sorry... I see no reason to alter the ending. That's exactly how I want it. I wanted it to fizzle out - NOT- be punctuated by pomp and circumstance.

To sum up: Meh.

I'm actually quite offended at your reply, Justin. I wasn't expecting it to be so harsh without any sort of backing. I know that my music is not your cup of tea - yours isn't mine either. Generally, when i review your music -however- I tend to respect your aesthetical choices. I find lots of things I feel can be fixed or changed in your work all the time. Instead, I try to look at it from an open eye and consider the possibilities for what I deem as mistakes in your work. Only when I can't bare to let a mistake go by will I comment - and when i do, I try to be civil about it. That's all I'm going to say on this. Thanks for listening, Sorry my work didn't please your ears.

Let me say this first: I like this quite a bit, and I don't think the harmony is unclear in any way. It's quite simple and direct actually, the only thing that is strange is some stretching in the harmonic rhythm.

You should put a 4/2 for that measure (now it's two 4/4s) before the 4/1 then, it'll clear that little bit up. I think he was referring to the section before that with the triplets followed by dotted eighths, which is a very unusual, and difficult to understand/perform rhythm, because the two values are so close. I was going to suggest you change it that it's only one value, but after several listens, I like it how it is. I do think you should make that section longer though (B).

I usually don't like stuff that uses this kind of augmented second-based mode, because it has a tendency to sound like horrible exoticising "arabian" music, which usually very cheesy. I think you managed to avoid the cheesiness somewhat with an interesting violin melody, but I have a bias against this kind of sound which prevents me from enjoying it fully.

The ending seems fine to me, if this is one movement in a full piece for string trio. Last page looks pretty funny though, with that systems at the bottom of the page like that.

Also you should submit this to the "modern string trio competition" if you decide to write more movements, it's a chance to get it recorded.

Let me say this first: I like this quite a bit, and I don't think the harmony is unclear in any way. It's quite simple and direct actually, the only thing that is strange is some stretching in the harmonic rhythm.

You should put a 4/2 for that measure (now it's two 4/4s) before the 4/1 then, it'll clear that little bit up. I think he was referring to the section before that with the triplets followed by dotted eighths, which is a very unusual, and difficult to understand/perform rhythm, because the two values are so close. I was going to suggest you change it that it's only one value, but after several listens, I like it how it is. I do think you should make that section longer though (B).

I usually don't like stuff that uses this kind of augmented second-based mode, because it has a tendency to sound like horrible exoticising "arabian" music, which usually very cheesy. I think you managed to avoid the cheesiness somewhat with an interesting violin melody, but I have a bias against this kind of sound which prevents me from enjoying it fully.

The ending seems fine to me, if this is one movement in a full piece for string trio. Last page looks pretty funny though, with that systems at the bottom of the page like that.

Also you should submit this to the "modern string trio competition" if you decide to write more movements, it's a chance to get it recorded.

Yeah, I was debating on that measure, whether to use 4/2 instead. I agree and it's changed in my score. I thought about adding more movements and making this a suite and might do that, not sure yet though. Thanks for listening!

Wow, kind of harsh already. I'll this slide though as I really don't want to get into a discussion on harmonic foundation. It's there though.

I wasn't harsh, I was honest and direct. I also wasn't unreasonable because it is, after all, my opinion. Opinions tend to be unreasonable, but mine isn't. I didn't feel any harmonic foundation in this section, only a bunch of 4ths and thirds. By foundation, I meant a note that one could cling to in case of emergency. You certainly had chords and momentary foundations, but they weren't consistent or solid. Perhaps that IS the foundation, a lack of one.

The viola pizz there wasn't meant to be any sort of melodic notion or idea - and thus wasn't used as such. It was meant to serve as a rhythmic constant within the changing violin and cello lines. Playing that passage without it... leaves it very, very empty. This was meant as a simple piece NOT a gargantuan develop everything like Mahler epic.

You assume I'm thinking of Mahler (of whom I've never seen him "develop everything"). I wasn't. Even accompaniments should be developed to an extent or they become stagnant and boring, here it did. As a footnote, you might want to consider why the section does sound "very, very empty" without the viola line. I don't think the problem is the viola line, but the setting you put it in. The stuff around it (esp. the cello) is also stagnant (rhythmically). Two stagnant lines in one section cause problems.

I don't see anything wrong with the time signatures. Given that I made the suggested metronome marking eighth = 240, should give reason enough for the time sigs in the main part. Are you referring to the change to 4/4 and then 4/1? If so, I'd advise you look at what i'm doing with the thematic material there. This is one reason that I tend not to use changing time sigs much because noone on this site ever looks at my reasoning for doing it. Instead, they just see it as odd and comment. I changed the meter in this section due to the change in the length of the motive there. I'll change it all back to 3/4 instead so it looks 10x more confusing to the performers.

I'll specify because you took this way overboard. Bars 54-57 were what I was thinking of actually. I didn't even notice the 4/1. :) I think to make life easier for the player, it should be written as 3 2/8 bars (or one 3/4 bar), then one 4/8 (or 2/4) bar. Having the crossing of the phrase into 2+3+2 land is unnecessary when nothing else is happening.

As for the 4/1, now that I saw it, it really isn't useful. Just write it as 4/4 as before. The 4/1 does give any meaningful information to the players. Simplicity is the best policy.

So I don't provide an "Ending" that you like? Well, I'm sorry... I see no reason to alter the ending. That's exactly how I want it. I wanted it to fizzle out - NOT- be punctuated by pomp and circumstance.

You assume again. I didn't care if it was pomp and circumstance, only that it provided closure. In this case there is none, simple as that.

I'm actually quite offended at your reply, Justin. I wasn't expecting it to be so harsh without any sort of backing. I know that my music is not your cup of tea - yours isn't mine either. Generally, when i review your music -however- I tend to respect your aesthetical choices. I find lots of things I feel can be fixed or changed in your work all the time. Instead, I try to look at it from an open eye and consider the possibilities for what I deem as mistakes in your work. Only when I can't bare to let a mistake go by will I comment - and when i do, I try to be civil about it. That's all I'm going to say on this. Thanks for listening, Sorry my work didn't please your ears.

Offended? Really? I kinda went out of my way to not be inflammatory. I respect what you're doing, your aesthetics, whatever, but when you ask for comments (i.e. opinions about the work), then I shall give them. If you didn't want comments that weren't glorious praises (exaggeration), then don't ask. As for backing, or justification (which is what I'm assuming you're asking for), it exists, just not on paper. I didn't want to write a whole essay for this little work and just gave you bullet points. Indeed, I didn't want you to just be tl;dr. Regardless, my opinion, while it has backing (hence reasonableness), I don't have to share it (or justify it) since it is, after all, an opinion. But I'm, if anything, being civil here.

Hey Jason -

Writing as I'm listening for the second time. First run through impressions: I like the general vibe of the music! I think the audio rendition lacks clarity between the voices.

bar 6-9 harmony destroyed the introduction for me. I like your progressions but that 4th chord is thrown in from the side. Aestethically (sp?) I don't like it.

that was pizz? On first listening I thought you were having some weird woodblock detuned. A better sample would suit it!

I find the time signatures to make perfect sense, but I think you could do without bow markings on bar 62. Those are obvious in my opinion.

To sum up: great vibe, great music!

Thomas

I wasn't harsh, I was honest and direct. I also wasn't unreasonable because it is, after all, my opinion. Opinions tend to be unreasonable, but mine isn't. I didn't feel any harmonic foundation in this section, only a bunch of 4ths and thirds. By foundation, I meant a note that one could cling to in case of emergency. You certainly had chords and momentary foundations, but they weren't consistent or solid. Perhaps that IS the foundation, a lack of one.

You see no foundation there at all, I see a foundation and my composition teacher saw a foundation as well.... so, if i'm going off opinion here.. I'm going to take my teachers.

You assume I'm thinking of Mahler (of whom I've never seen him "develop everything"). I wasn't. Even accompaniments should be developed to an extent or they become stagnant and boring, here it did. As a footnote, you might want to consider why the section does sound "very, very empty" without the viola line. I don't think the problem is the viola line, but the setting you put it in. The stuff around it (esp. the cello) is also stagnant (rhythmically). Two stagnant lines in one section cause problems.

There have been countless pieces throughout the vast 500 years of western music where not 1 thing was developed. In a simple form piece, such as this, it ISNT required to develop anything at all - not even in 'accompaniments'. I did have some development in this piece... and chose what I wanted to develop. The reason that passage is empty without the viola line is due to the fact that all three parts there work in tandem - as one unit. That's what I wanted. It's a texture. And no, the stuff around it isn't stagnant either - there are three different rhythmic ideas being stated simultaneously. All three, however, work in tandem with one another as I -the composer- wanted. If it seems stagnant to you, than I apologize it comes off as such.

I'll specify because you took this way overboard. Bars 54-57 were what I was thinking of actually. I didn't even notice the 4/1. :) I think to make life easier for the player, it should be written as 3 2/8 bars (or one 3/4 bar), then one 4/8 (or 2/4) bar. Having the crossing of the phrase into 2+3+2 land is unnecessary when nothing else is happening.

As for the 4/1, now that I saw it, it really isn't useful. Just write it as 4/4 as before. The 4/1 does give any meaningful information to the players. Simplicity is the best policy.

That's why I chose the 4/1 because it was far more simpler than having four individual measures with 1 note in each. In regards to the 2/4 - 3/8 section, If you really want to be technical on what would be easiest for the performer to read then 7/8 would be the most obvious choice. I chose to do it this way because coming from a string players perogative, it looked better. And I can count it just fine the way it is. I might consider changing it to 7/8 though - that would be even easier.

Offended? Really? I kinda went out of my way to not be inflammatory. I respect what you're doing, your aesthetics, whatever, but when you ask for comments (i.e. opinions about the work), then I shall give them. If you didn't want comments that weren't glorious praises (exaggeration), then don't ask. As for backing, or justification (which is what I'm assuming you're asking for), it exists, just not on paper. I didn't want to write a whole essay for this little work and just gave you bullet points. Indeed, I didn't want you to just be tl;dr. Regardless, my opinion, while it has backing (hence reasonableness), I don't have to share it (or justify it) since it is, after all, an opinion. But I'm, if anything, being civil here.

I don't mind criticism at all. However, I think your original comments were very derogatory and rude in quite a few ways. This composition took me a month to compose WITH my teacher there at every step. I put work in this - and didn't appreciate your delivery of comments. If you have criticisms those are welcome... but don't be derogatory and rude in delivery -as you were.

I sort of liked this. The orchestration (vla. pizz, higher cello phrases) was great.

The intro was interesting, quartal with some chormitism resulting in some more traditional triadic sounds as well, but soon shifting to a quartal chord again. It did not so much provide a harmonic ground, and did not so much intruduce the arabic sounding scale. So I liked it, but do not see so much how it contributes to the whole...

For the 2/4+3/8 section I'd like to do a suggestion. Why not write as a 5/8 measure? Notating is a scallop, but a quarter from the tuplet and the dotted eight are so close in value that a difference is hardly heard. I perceived that section as 5 beats per measure. I know it is not exaclty the same, but maybe clears something up. I have nothing against the time signature changes. I think it contributes a lot to the clearness, how you intend it. (And I love time signature changes)

...I think your original comments were very derogatory and rude in quite a few ways. ... but don't be derogatory and rude in delivery -as you were.

What was so rude? I'm baffled here.

I think it has much more to do with this:

This composition took me a month to compose WITH my teacher there at every step. I put work in this - ...

Is that what its about?

No, it has nothing to do with the work I put into it. Let me point out what I felt to be the rudeness in your post.

My comments could be summed up thus: "Meh."

Self Explanatory...

This may be your aesthetic choice, but don't bother trying to pull out a foundation if you don't have one.

Instead of stating that there aren't any... or rudely assuming as you did here... explain HOW there is no foundation obvious to you.

Section A': Same as the first A except the ending made no sense. If you're going to end something, then end it! Don't just let it fizzle out and hope it works. Regardless of your intentions, that's how it sounds to the listener.

I found this to be rude in that your equating that every piece of music written by any composer has to have a definite ending.

To sum up: Meh.

O.....k...

*Tokkemon leaves this discussion.*

I gotta say that I even felt annoyed reading your first post Tokkemon.

However I hope my comment didn't drown Jason.... :)

Nah, i'll just unapprove all the argument between the two of us... so that way the constructive posts remain viewable