Sonatina No. 2 in G Major

Hi everyone!

This is my second complete sonatina in three movements:

• I. Moderato – A simplified sonata form movement that was inspired by an idea from the second movement of Beethoven's Sonata No. 1 in F minor.

• II. Larghetto – A gentle piece in ternary form that is by far my favorite movement in this sonatina. It is very simple in nature, but I think it fits nicely as a breath of fresh air between the faster movements.

• III. Andantino – A variant in rondo form that explores both the traditional feel of the first movement and the more lyrical texture of the second.Sonatina No. 2.pdf

YouTube link

Timestamps:

00:00 I Movement

02:18 II Movement

03:15 III Movement

Thank you for giving me your time and valuable feedback like always!

Hello @MinGry,

I really enjoyed your piece, and I love the amount of thought you put into its design! It even gives me some inspiration for my next sonatina! I’ll focus on the first movement right now, since it’s the most important, and I think it also shows the most room for improvement.

Score formatting:

• The movements should be formatted into separate flows.

• When a hairpin follows a dynamic marking, the two should typically be on the same level. Also it’s easier for performers to read when they are between the two staves. Most of the time these guidelines are followed, but there were a few points that could be slightly cleaner (for example, ms. 22, 32-33, 43).

• The triple-forte in m.66 is probably excessive in a sonata—fortissimo will suffice!

Compositional elements:

• I must admit, my first general impression of the piece was that I couldn’t tell if I was hearing neoclassicism, or bad counterpoint. I settled on the latter by the end of the movement, and more so by the end of the second movement — though I think you could set the scene earlier so the listener doesn’t have to guess. You could be a little bolder in your dissonances in this part, using a few more sonorities that can’t be reduced to triads or incomplete triads.

• The main figure for the transition (m.9) gave me a little bit of trouble, for two reasons. First, it contains a lot of internal rhythmic contrast, more than I’d expect in a transitional theme. Second, I didn’t hear how it connected either to the primary or secondary themes — it just sounds a bit out of place. I then observed that it could be derived from the figure in bars 6-7:

  

But I think the link could be made stronger, and more audible, by slightly modifying the figure’s metrical position. One possible solution for m.9:

I would also personally omit bar 11, as I don’t think it’s really necessary.

My favorite part of the movement was the secondary theme, and I also liked how it was introduced first in the bass! Moving onto the mini-development, I wasn’t initially convinced by the figure in bars 24-25, though I find it creative how it connects to the coda, and to the accompaniment of the secondary theme. To give it more interest, I’d suggest consistently omitting the first eighth note when it occurs in the right hand, as you did in bars 24-25. It also leads more naturally to its target note that way.

Overall, really good work! I have much less to say about the other two movements, because I think they’re pretty strong.

Edited Monday at 01:18 PM3 days by CrystalCanon

@CrystalCanon

Thanks for the extensive review!

As far as the formatting goes, could you expand on what you mean by separate flows?

I definitely agree with the triple-forte and the alignment part, that's just laziness on my side when editing, and it definitely shouldn't make it through to the final draft! The reason I sometimes wrote the hairpin above or below the staff was to make it clearer that it only applies to one stave. I'm not sure if that's actually a good idea in practice though haha.

In retrospect, it's funny how composition works! Now that you pointed it out, I can see how bar 11 is so obviously out of place. I actually had it connected to everything originally, but during some voice leading edits I thought it was a bit too difficult to play for a piece like this, so I simplified it to the point where it doesn't really make sense anymore haha.

It's always fun seeing people find all these different ways that the material is connected to each other. I never really thought about making that connection more obvious, but your comment actually sparked something in my brain. I really appreciate that feedback!

Hello!

it seems like you're trying to write in a classical style, perhaps inspired by Clementi's sonatina's?

The opening movement starts a bit like an invention and as such there are opportunities to contrast the treble and bass parts.

To illustrate those opportunities, I have reworked some of your ideas (first and second movement). I have altered your leading in certain places that demanded it (to facilitate better two part harmony) and the motivic development to improve coherenceI hope this helps you.

My advice:

1. Focus on the outer parts first and listen.

   1. Remember the three types of motion: parallel, oblique and contrary

      1. Prioritize opportunities for contrary motion, otherwise consider parallel thirds or sixths, Oblique motion can be useful for pedal points (and suspensions if your experience allows).

      2. Avoid parallel motion if octaves or 5ths apart. If you do this, you are most probably missing an alternative and better solution.

2. With regards to the development of your ideas

   1. You have the right idea with mirroring the left and right hand. But compare my solution in the first two bars of the first movement. How does it differ?

Feel free to ask me any questions. I am here to help with anything :)

MinGry's Sonatina.pdf

Edited 3 hours ago3 hr by Markus Boyd

@Markus Boyd
Hey! I really appreciate your time and effort, especially since you took the time to actually rewrite parts of the piece. That's really valuable to see!

I just wanted to clarify that my main focus with this sonatina is Classical motivic integrity and structure. I feel like some of your suggestions approach the piece from a stricter Baroque counterpoint perspective, whereas I'm aiming for a somewhat different stylistic direction.

That said, I really appreciate seeing how you reworked the material, and I'll definitely think about some of the things you pointed out. It's just that I don't think I'd want to take the piece entirely in that contrapuntal direction. I actually used to be very obsessed with counterpoint, but I found that it made me way more burned out from writing music. So nowadays I try to use it as a tool but break a lot of its rules when I want the motivic integrity to be the more important role.

Thanks again for taking the time to review it!

31 minutes ago, MinGry said:

@Markus Boyd
Hey! I really appreciate your time and effort, especially since you took the time to actually rewrite parts of the piece. That's really valuable to see!

I just wanted to clarify that my main focus with this sonatina is Classical motivic integrity and structure. I feel like some of your suggestions approach the piece from a stricter Baroque counterpoint perspective, whereas I'm aiming for a somewhat different stylistic direction.

That said, I really appreciate seeing how you reworked the material, and I'll definitely think about some of the things you pointed out. It's just that I don't think I'd want to take the piece entirely in that contrapuntal direction. I actually used to be very obsessed with counterpoint, but I found that it made me way more burned out from writing music. So nowadays I try to use it as a tool but break a lot of its rules when I want the motivic integrity to be the more important role.

Thanks again for taking the time to review it!

Anytime!

To an extent you're right about the baroque idiom creeping through in my example. But do recognize that the classical idiom is based on the same principles. You cannot really escape the 'rules' when applying traditional approaches to harmony. In addition, I did not intend to influence the direction of your work, but illustrate how one might otherwise approach the initial compositional process.

Credit to you, though, for approaching composition in a free spirited way. I do understand your reasons. But don't feel intimidated by the 'rules'; they are only there to guide best practice. If you need help with anything please feel free to message me.

Edited 17 minutes ago17 min by Markus Boyd