Petite Suite for Three Disagreeable Characters

Here's an older work of mine that I'm thinking of writing a sequel to. I would be interested in folks' opinions about what works and what doesn't.

The basic "story", such as it is, is that the three instruments are three separate characters who are constantly taunting each other. It finally gets to be too much for the piano, who slowly loses it over the course of the piece.

Thanks!

I. The Klangfarbenmelodie is good, but I really didn't like the stops, personally. I don't think you needed them to really send a message about interjections. The connected Klangfarbenmelodie at the end is pretty cooperative for the theme, don't you think? It's practically tonal.
II. Lovely use of sustained tones atop a fast ostinato. I feel like the clarinet gets a lot more prominence here, though. Long slurs in the viola are definitely possible, but I'd probably split them, especially one with hairpins.
III. Didn't like this one so much. Obviously very obstinate, but the polyphony above it seemed almost disjunct. Rather than having them compete, they seem like they're in their own world... I suppose I simply didn't get the impression of much musical translation.
However, on the whole, very good writing, with good ranges and performance articulation (always important). Great source material!

Hi Monarcheon,

Thanks! Very helpful feedback.

Agree about the stops. Looking back on it, they kill the momentum of the opening.

Re: the end of movement 1, the feeling of cooperation is intentional. What I was going for is that the argument in the first movement was resolved, but that the piano is taking away some emotional baggage.

Re: movement 3, it's intended to be disjunct and uncomfortable. The intended effect was that the piano is getting ganged up on by the others, which causes the outburst at the end. Do you think it's explicit enough to convey that?

1 minute ago, Adrian Quince said:

Re: the end of movement 1, the feeling of cooperation is intentional. What I was going for is that the argument in the first movement was resolved, but that the piano is taking away some emotional baggage.

Fair enough, just making sure!

1 minute ago, Adrian Quince said:

Re: movement 3, it's intended to be disjunct and uncomfortable. The intended effect was that the piano is getting ganged up on by the others, which causes the outburst at the end. Do you think it's explicit enough to convey that?

I thought you might say that, as I don't think I really used the best word. It just doesn't quite feel to me that they're part of the piece at hand, therefore not really contributing to the conflict. That's just me though. For me I would make it a bit more explicit and responsive/reactionary, rather than so apart as two voices. Does that make sense?

2 minutes ago, Monarcheon said:

Fair enough, just making sure!

I thought you might say that, as I don't think I really used the best word. It just doesn't quite feel to me that they're part of the piece at hand, therefore not really contributing to the conflict. That's just me though. For me I would make it a bit more explicit and responsive/reactionary, rather than so apart as two voices. Does that make sense?

Makes perfect sense. Of the three movements, the idea in the final one is the most abstract and hardest to translate into concrete musical terms. If I were to revisit the piece, this movement would probably get a fairly thorough makeover.