Piano Trio in c minor. Third movement (Poco Andante)

Dear forum... here's the third movement of my piano trio. I've been working concurrently to the second movement (which I want to be a scherzo - Eb? -, lighthearted, having still confused ideas about the middle section). The second movement did not want to come out of the hat, so I worked on the third instead. Hoping to get your always precious feedback. The structure is perhaps a bit odd:

[g minor]

b. 1-11 A

b. 12-21 B

b. 22-40 A' expanding A going through b flat minor then back to g with inganno

b. 41-51 B' modulating to c minor

b. 51-65 transition to B flat major

b. 65-83 C middle section in B flat

b. 83-88 retransition to g minor

b. 88-140 A-B-A'-B'' with B'' staying in g minor

b. 140-152 coda

My biggest qualms are with section B', I think the modulation is a bit weird. The theme of C I like, but the different bits could be better stitched together rather than having pauses. the retransition to g minor I like but perhaps it would be more effective adding a couple more chords before the dominant D? The transition to the coda could be less abrupt? a few chords longer?

Any reaction suggestion recommendation correction evaluation words of encouragement or gentle hints to just drop it all very welcome!

Enjoy the summer!

Edited August 6, 20241 yr by Giacomo925

Hi @Giacomo925!

I perceive this as a piece without a theme.  Clearly, when you wrote it you perceived that you were writing themes/motifs/melodies, but to me as a listener they are very dissolute.  Like the same way as if you dissolve something in water to give it taste, but it's not enough to give it any flavor so it's "dissolute" or "diffuse".  One explanation I have for why this is occurring is that in the beginning, you don't hook the listeners interest with any recognizable characteristic of the material presented, whether rhythmic or harmonic or both.  Your rhythms are especially monotonous and don't provide the listener with any surprising or interesting characteristic that they can grasp at and imprint into their memory.  In the first 4 measures the rhythm of the melody is just dotted half note followed by dotted quarter, consistently, which is bland.  Then you switch to just dotted quarters.  There is so much more possibility for variety!  And when you do utilize shorter values you seem to default to quick scalar motion (in the melody).  Or, the passages with 8th notes and duplets I don't perceive as melody either but just notes.  There are some syncopated rhythms in this too, which seem to change the metric groupings of the measure entirely (and hence confuse the listener imo).  There are ways to make redefinitions of the metric groupings in 9/8 work but you'd need a melody to lead the changes deliberately which I don't think you've done here.  The pizzicato passage for the cello in measure 140 is too rapid to be practical for pizzicato.  That is my perception of this piece - sorry I couldn't be more encouraging.  Thanks for sharing.

Hi @PeterthePapercomPoser! Thank you for your honest comments, very refreshing and useful!

13 hours ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

Hi @Giacomo925!

I perceive this as a piece without a theme.  Clearly, when you wrote it you perceived that you were writing themes/motifs/melodies, but to me as a listener they are very dissolute.  Like the same way as if you dissolve something in water to give it taste, but it's not enough to give it any flavor so it's "dissolute" or "diffuse".  One explanation I have for why this is occurring is that in the beginning, you don't hook the listeners interest with any recognizable characteristic of the material presented, whether rhythmic or harmonic or both.

 

I agree, unfortunately! Believe it or not, I had a thought very similar to yours in mind when I started writing. Then listening and re-listening to what I was sriting I think I kind of fell for what was coming out and thought it was so good 🙂 But indeed, at the beginning, I was thinking of a few examples (Schubert, Brahms) in which the slow movement beging with a very simple melody, a very uneventful rhythm, but there's a catch, a diminished 7th, some kind of harmonic surprise that makes the simple theme memorable and the monotonous rhythm shine. In my theme, I was hoping to achieve some effect with the second beat of each bar, in which piano and cello fall in a grave register and - or so I thought - characterize the theme. (The second beat tries to stay relevant also in the B section, where the 8th stop on a dotted 4th, and in B' in which the 16th triplets happen.)

13 hours ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

In the first 4 measures the rhythm of the melody is just dotted half note followed by dotted quarter, consistently, which is bland.  Then you switch to just dotted quarters.  There is so much more possibility for variety! 

 

Yes, I did like the simplicity of the melody and thought that the feeble accompaniment of the strings was enough to make it interesting... I'll think more about that.

13 hours ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

Or, the passages with 8th notes and duplets I don't perceive as melody either but just notes. 

 

Hm. Here I took a three note element from the first few bars (bar 5 I think) and built a simple imitation with the duplets for effect. The melody is admittedly limited (G, F#, D on the last note, B, A, E, on the last note, C, B, E, etc.) The idea here is to take the simple A and expand the three descending note element. But it's true that it's less a melody than an experiment in using poly-rhythms

13 hours ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

There are some syncopated rhythms in this too, which seem to change the metric groupings of the measure entirely (and hence confuse the listener imo). 

 

Are you referring to the Bb major section? If so, a bit like with the beginning, I wasn't too sure about the rhythm with the strings kind of off-setting the piano. But then after many listens it grew on me and I found it... great. But it seems that I was right in my first impression instead!

13 hours ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

There are ways to make redefinitions of the metric groupings in 9/8 work but you'd need a melody to lead the changes deliberately which I don't think you've done here.

 

Ah, can you say more about this?!

Thank you very much for listening and taking the time to comment. I'm going to not play the piece obsessively for the next couple of days and then try to listen to it with "fresh" ears and your comments in mind.

Edited August 8, 20241 yr by Giacomo925

Re:  redefining metric groupings in any meter; your melody is the heart and soul of your music and (usually) its most deliberate element which should allow you to use it to logically lead changes in metric structure.  But the melody has to be rhythmically assertive to pull it off.

getting some technical stuff out of the way
I don't like the bariolage like passage on the cello with the syncopated double stops, I just dont think it is very effective on the cello
bar 75 the double stops on the cello will sound very thick (and also very difficult technically) doesnt work in pianissimo imo
bar 68 cello not meant to have an A is it

I guess for the musical feedback I'll have to spend a bit more time and listening to the work as a whole

but ty for sharing

2 hours ago, PCC said:

getting some technical stuff out of the way

 

thanks!

2 hours ago, PCC said:

I don't like the bariolage like passage on the cello with the syncopated double stops, I just dont think it is very effective on the cello

 

I tried to do without those, but I think I do like a thicker sound there. I was concerned about the 4th tho, which I read are not super friendly double stops, so I canged them into 6th and in one case 3rds

2 hours ago, PCC said:

bar 75 the double stops on the cello will sound very thick (and also very difficult technically) doesnt work in pianissimo imo

 

you clearly know a thing or two about cello, so I'll take your advice here and erase the double stops in b75 and keep them in 76-77

2 hours ago, PCC said:

bar 68 cello not meant to have an A is it

 

 

ofc, thx for spotting that, it's B.

2 hours ago, PCC said:

 

I guess for the musical feedback I'll have to spend a bit more time and listening to the work as a whole

 

I have added some connections and expanded the piano part in the middle Bb major section... so in case you have time to give it another listen, here it is.

Thanks very much for your help! Much appreciated!

Edited August 9, 20241 yr by Giacomo925

Those kind of doublestops can start to sound better at at least mp dynamic imo

though still technically quite difficult (edit: and personally only I don’t feel like it’s worth the trouble but I’m not authoritative in this regard by any means)

its just in your last version I saw them in pp lol

Edited August 9, 20241 yr by PCC

Hello @Giacomo925, I think all of the feedback about the music has already been said, so I will comment on something seemingly less important, but key to be taken seriously: The score:

I think you suffer from overnotation. I can count eight different dynamics in the piano part in the first ten bars, that is without counting the doubling of the dynamics in both staves of the piano plus different ones in the strings. Moreover, The strings are displayed as a piano and not as two different parts. I think this has happened to all of us at some point, as at this moment in time we have music softwares that are not human, and do not understand how music should be performed, so you have to give them lots of instructions, but we have to understand that performers aren’t dumb, and know how to perform a piece correctly. (To clarify, when I say overnotate, I mean the hairpins and dynamic markings are too much, but the slurs, tenutos etc are fine)

What surprises me the most is the absence of pedal markings In the piano parts, they are definitely needed in a piece like this and will make the piece much better sounding in this case.

To make it look better, the score could be more condensed, as you only have eight to ten bars per page

The solution to the overnotating problem (or at least my preferred solution) is to make an extremely overnotated copy of the score, from where you extract the audio. And present a balanced not overnotated score as the sheet music.

I hope this helps and thanks for sharing

Manuel

22 hours ago, PCC said:

Those kind of doublestops can start to sound better at at least mp dynamic imo

though still technically quite difficult (edit: and personally only I don’t feel like it’s worth the trouble but I’m not authoritative in this regard by any means)

its just in your last version I saw them in pp lol

 

In less than pp they would be too much, I think, so I took them out and added them in the crescendo. Thank you, I think that's better!

Hi @Jqh73o!

9 hours ago, Jqh73o said:

Hello @Giacomo925, I think all of the feedback about the music has already been said, so I will comment on something seemingly less important, but key to be taken seriously: The score:

Thank you but if you have some extra observations about the music, they're very very welcome!

9 hours ago, Jqh73o said:

The score:

I think you suffer from overnotation. I can count eight different dynamics in the piano part in the first ten bars, that is without counting the doubling of the dynamics in both staves of the piano plus different ones in the strings. Moreover, The strings are displayed as a piano and not as two different parts. I think this has happened to all of us at some point, as at this moment in time we have music softwares that are not human, and do not understand how music should be performed, so you have to give them lots of instructions, but we have to understand that performers aren’t dumb, and know how to perform a piece correctly. (To clarify, when I say overnotate, I mean the hairpins and dynamic markings are too much, but the slurs, tenutos etc are fine)

 

Agree! But indeed, it's to make sure that Noteperformer plays the way I want. Human performers would need a fraction of those markings. About the double markings for the two hands, that's my issue with Sibelius, often times if I try to use one marking in the middle, it only affects one stave, or if I try to change the dynamics of one stave, it changes both. So I end up overnotatting both staves. 

9 hours ago, Jqh73o said:

 

What surprises me the most is the absence of pedal markings In the piano parts, they are definitely needed in a piece like this and will make the piece much better sounding in this case.

Word. I need to add those!

9 hours ago, Jqh73o said:

 

To make it look better, the score could be more condensed, as you only have eight to ten bars per page

The solution to the overnotating problem (or at least my preferred solution) is to make an extremely overnotated copy of the score, from where you extract the audio. And present a balanced not overnotated score as the sheet music.

Yes, that is a great suggestion. When I have some time I'll do it with older scores and with this one when it's closer to definitive... which might be a while!

9 hours ago, Jqh73o said:

 

I hope this helps and thanks for sharing

Thank you very much for taking the time to listen and comment, Manuel!

Hey @Giacomo925,

I wish I have reviewed this one much earlier until now.

I really have nothing to add due to previous great comments. I like your usage of polyrhythms, but I sometimes feel like they can be more prepared, for example in b.22 where it’s after a rhythmically less varied passage, and maybe you can introduce the left hand duplets later. Also for the pacing of the piece I feel like there could be more places of rests or less moving passages! The texture can be thinner in some of the places, so that when it gets thick the drama is heightened.

Thx for sharing!

Henry

2 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

Hey @Giacomo925,

I wish I have reviewed this one much earlier until now.

I really have nothing to add due to previous great comments. I like your usage of polyrhythms, but I sometimes feel like they can be more prepared, for example in b.22 where it’s after a rhythmically less varied passage, and maybe you can introduce the left hand duplets later. Also for the pacing of the piece I feel like there could be more places of rests or less moving passages! The texture can be thinner in some of the places, so that when it gets thick the drama is heightened.

Thx for sharing!

Henry

 

This a great bday gift! Thanks 🙂

I know I need to revise this quite substantially. Alas, time is sparse 😞 but I'll find my way around it. Thanks for very constructive and useful comments, per usual!

Just now, Giacomo925 said:

This a great bday gift! Thanks 🙂

Oh! Happy Birthday!

1 minute ago, Giacomo925 said:

Thanks for very constructive and useful comments, per usual!

I hope I have more energy and time for both composing and reviewing…. 

Just now, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

Oh! Happy Birthday!

I hope I have more energy and time for both composing and reviewing…. 

 

YES! We're all waiting for more sextet!!

1 minute ago, Giacomo925 said:

YES! We're all waiting for more sextet!!

It’s the same Sextet in two years time… I always admire ppl who can write both quickly and greatly at the same time while I can’t at all… But thx!

21 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

It’s the same Sextet in two years time… I always admire ppl who can write both quickly and greatly at the same time while I can’t at all… But thx!

 

It is the same, and it's great! It is so rare to listen to music thought through so well, and with a deep emotional content that goes well beyond the technical abilities or the mastery of expressive music writing.

Sometimes life gets in the way, and, for better or worse, life is bigger than composing. But I trust you'll find the time and the peace of mind again, and I hope soon!

Hello! I understand that everyone has been waiting for months, wondering every day what happened to the trio and hoping to get updates. Well, your wait is over!

Just kidding, of course 🙂 I went through an otherwise busy and largely uninspired period and have not written a note for a while. Then, recently, a couple of ideas came, I was very doubtful, but kept working on them and now, for better or worse... the trio is finished. Or at least, a first draft that I hope to make better thanks to your invaluable comments. This is what happened:

First Movement - stayed the same

Second Movement - wrote an Allegretto

Third Movement - incorporated as best as I could the suggestions I received from @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu and other kind commenters. @PeterthePapercomPoser opened my eyes on how monotonous and boring the whole thing was. It probably still is, but I tried to make it less uniform/dissolved in rhythm and melody.

Fourth Movement - Allegro vivace in 12/8.

Here's the 4th movement. It's a Rondo ABACADA and any suggestion to make it better would be so welcome!

Hey @Giacomo925!

Long time no see and congrats on your new movement! No doubt I really love it, your writing definitely improves. I really enjoy the energy in this movement! I particularly like b.128 with those imitations! I really don’t have any suggestion since for me it’s really good. Just one question, is this movement the final one or will there be a last movement in tonic c minor? Thx for sharing!

Henry

19 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

Hey @Giacomo925!

Long time no see and congrats on your new movement! No doubt I really love it, your writing definitely improves. I really enjoy the energy in this movement! I particularly like b.128 with those imitations! I really don’t have any suggestion since for me it’s really good. Just one question, is this movement the final one or will there be a last movement in tonic c minor? Thx for sharing!

Henry

 

Oh wow, @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu! I think you might be busy polishing the sextet hence the no suggestions. I'm sure there's lot to improve. For instance I don't love the connection between b. 34 and 35 but I can't figure out how to do it nicely! But in any case means a lot to hear your praise! Thank you thank you thank you!

As per your question, this is embarrassing... So much time has passed since I wrote the first movement that somehow in my head it became f minor (f minor was the main key in development I guess), and so I wrote the last movement in f minor. Then I published this post yesterday and I look at the title and it says... c minor! So now I'm not sure what to do. I can't transpose c into f or f into c, everything would be too high or too low. So I was thinking to minimize damage: first movement transposed from c to d minor. Second movement is and stays in F major. Third is and stays in g minor. Fourth transposed to f to d minor. not ideal, but I can't think of anything better other than rewrite the first or the last movements!

OK, here's the second movement, F major 2/4 Allegretto with a 4/4 G major mid section Scorrevole...The general form is ABA' - CD - ABA' and a short coda based on A.

I wanted a contrast with the dramatic tone of the first movement, a bit lyrical with the initial arpeggios and the violin triplets and the cello theme in the mid section.

5 hours ago, Giacomo925 said:

For instance I don't love the connection between b. 34 and 35 but I can't figure out how to do it nicely!

I really find nothing wrong in this passage! Maybe it!s because of the tuplets in the cello? Maybe I’ll just remove the chromatic notes in the cello to have it be homorhythmic with the violin.

5 hours ago, Giacomo925 said:

So much time has passed since I wrote the first movement that somehow in my head it became f minor (f minor was the main key in development I guess), and so I wrote the last movement in f minor. Then I published this post yesterday and I look at the title and it says... c minor! So now I'm not sure what to do. I can't transpose c into f or f into c, everything would be too high or too low. So I was thinking to minimize damage: first movement transposed from c to d minor. Second movement is and stays in F major. Third is and stays in g minor. Fourth transposed to f to d minor. not ideal, but I can't think of anything better other than rewrite the first or the last movements!

Haha yeah that’s a good one, or just include one section in the 4th movement to be in C minor, possibly quoting themes from 1st movement so that audience know the connection between the two movements and know there is a progressive tonality with reason haha.

5 hours ago, Giacomo925 said:

I think you might be busy polishing the sextet hence the no suggestions.

The polishing was finished so that I have energy to review here haha, I’m focusing on smaller pieces like little piano pieces (one posted here and YT) and a Violin Sonata commissioned by @expert21, since I’m suffering a relapse and post partum depression after finishing a huge project like the Sextet and need smaller works for relaxation nanda regaining creative energy.

Henry

3 hours ago, Giacomo925 said:

OK, here's the second movement, F major 2/4 Allegretto with a 4/4 G major mid section Scorrevole...The general form is ABA' - CD - ABA' and a short coda based on A.

I wanted a contrast with the dramatic tone of the first movement, a bit lyrical with the initial arpeggios and the violin triplets and the cello theme in the mid section.

Wow I like this one very much too! I love the energy in both sections. The polyrhythm would be really challenging for the players but very effective and can be funny to play! I love your modulations like in b.43 and 55, really making the music go forward as required in this movement to contrast with the 1st movement. I’m not sure if the cello can play pizz. this fast in b.75, maybe @PCC can answer haha, but the interaction between violin and cello here is very good especially the high ranged cello. I also love your usage of pizz. throughout the movement. I really love the ending, each instrument is talking very well!

The opening piano arpeggios can be a bit difficult to play with a wide range to leap and in a fast tempo, but it’s doable. 

Thx for your update!

Henry

18 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

I really find nothing wrong in this passage! Maybe it!s because of the tuplets in the cello? Maybe I’ll just remove the chromatic notes in the cello to have it be homorhythmic with the violin.

 

OK, I did that and it sounds better already 🙂 Thanks!

18 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

The polishing was finished so that I have energy to review here haha, I’m focusing on smaller pieces like little piano pieces (one posted here and YT) and a Violin Sonata commissioned by @expert21, since I’m suffering a relapse and post partum depression after finishing a huge project like the Sextet and need smaller works for relaxation nanda regaining creative energy.

We're all waiting for the big drop!! Meanwhile... is the "little" piano piece the Intermezzo I just listed to on youtube? (Can't find it here, I need to sharpen my forum tech competencies!) I think Schubert would be proud of you! I can see him smiling! I love the elegant and expressive simplicity of the melody, and how it seamlessly supports rather distant harmonic gyrations.

18 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

Wow I like this one very much too! I love the energy in both sections. The polyrhythm would be really challenging for the players but very effective and can be funny to play! I love your modulations like in b.43 and 55, really making the music go forward as required in this movement to contrast with the 1st movement. I’m not sure if the cello can play pizz. this fast in b.75, maybe @PCC can answer haha, but the interaction between violin and cello here is very good especially the high ranged cello. I also love your usage of pizz. throughout the movement. I really love the ending, each instrument is talking very well!

The opening piano arpeggios can be a bit difficult to play with a wide range to leap and in a fast tempo, but it’s doable. 

 

And thanks for these kind words too! I had no idea that a polyrhythm (you mean the triplets at the violin with the 16th arpeggios at the piano?) A friend of mine is insisting to try and find students to play this. I would love that but I think it'd require lots of fine tuning of individual parts for playability? I never write at the piano and every time I try to play the piano part I'm horrified by how unnatural it is to my hands! Let alone strings, which I don't even play. GPT says a cellist can play pizz. 8th notes comfortably at 120-150 bpm. So that passage at b. 75 should be playable, but I guess it also depends on *which* notes are being played lol.

I decided to go in d minor, with is a bummer because previous to this trio I already wrote a d minor quartet. What can you do! Meanwhile, here's the third movement, revised in light of @PeterthePapercomPoser and @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu suggestions, among others. I don't think the main concerns were fully addressed but I hope it sounds better now...

28 minutes ago, Giacomo925 said:

Meanwhile... is the "little" piano piece the Intermezzo I just listed to on youtube? (Can't find it here, I need to sharpen my forum tech competencies!) I think Schubert would be proud of you! I can see him smiling! I love the elegant and expressive simplicity of the melody, and how it seamlessly supports rather distant harmonic gyrations

Haha yeah the little Intermezzo was posted here and YT:

The bigger Sonata movement I would love you to have a listen on haha!

Also I would post the finished Sextet 2nf mov tomorrow, stat tuned!

(A great self advertising reply muahaha!)

Henry

To be honest, @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu, I have listened to the second movement of the piano sonata like a week or so ago, but only once and it requires more listens and attention for me to say something remotely meaningful about it. I found it wonderful but I'd like to try and say something more articulate and I can't yet 🙂

Can't wait for the sextet to be published and saved on my phone! These days the weather is nice and I walk to work and I'm looking forward to listening to the whole thing (might need to leave home early and take some detours to make it fit, but it'll be so worth it!).