Sonata for Trombone and Piano; Molto allegro

Hello guys,

I want to present you my newest composition, a sonata for trombone and piano in b minor which lasts about 33 minutes. It is in three movements:

MOVEMENT 1 - MOLTO ALLEGRO

The first movement roughly follows the sonata form .

Two remarks for the listener:

- at 10:45, the tromboist will play a solo cadanza

- at 11:42, there should be a deep pedal tone, whole note (B flat), but Finale unfortunately doesn't play it

Download: First Movement

MOVEMENT 2 - PRESTO - ANDANTE AMABILE

Being a little bit shorter than the first, the second movement still lasts about 9 1/2 minutes. It is actually a symbiosis of a Scherzo and a slow movement. It begins with a Presto (c# minor) which suddenly breaks off and an Andante amabile in the parallel key E major follows. The Andante consists of 2 themes. The second theme begins in B minor, which can be seen as a reminiscence of the first movement, but gets back to c# sharp minor after a while, and soon the Presto comes again. And last but not least, there's the first Andante theme again.

Thus the form is pretty simple: A - B - C - A' - B'

Download: Second Movement

MOVEMENT 3 - GRAVE - ALLEGRO MOLTO MODERATO E GRAZIOSO - ALLEGRO ANIMATO

The third movement is a rondo with a slow introduction and a long coda. The introduction in B minor (although the tonic never appears) is based on the tritone interval. It leads into the Rondo which is in B major. At the end of the rondo, the tone row of the first movement appears again and leads into the coda, which presents a new theme and a part where nearly all of the themes of all movements are combined. At the very end, there's the tranquillo part of the developement of the first movement again which finishes the sonata quietly.

Download: Third movement

Some comments would be very kind!

Greetings,

ralphb

a few comments:

notation, notation, notation.

if you are using Finale then there is no reason for notational elements to overlap - slurs, dynamics, hairpics, etc.. also off-centre notes should be fixed.

musically, this is arch-romantic, it would fit quite well smack dab in the middle of the 19th century. So why is there a tone row in it? It's rather gratuitous.

At around measure 100 there are harmonic movements by augmented fourth that just don't jibe with the rest of the music. They don't serve to place the music in a modern context, rather what they do is underline the fact that the majority of the score is harmonically very traditional and "romantic".

At measure 250, and again at 378 (if memory serves), there's that annoying tone-row. It just comes across as a gratuitous element, it is unrelated to the rest of the piece, and brings nothing to it.

At measure 334 or there abouts, there is more dissonance in the piano part than in the rest of the score, yet it ends up sounding cartoonish. More like vaudeville than anything serious. I don't think that works at all.

Overall, this is a very strong score, if dated in language. The piano part is certainly quite playable, although I can't vouch for the ease of the trombone part, it certainly looks difficult.

Still, an enjoyable romp.

First, thank you very much for your review.

This piece was my first try on mixing styles in order to write a tonal piece in a classical form which still shows that it is a contemporary composition.

It's sort of a parody. There's a trivial diatonic run which ends in a tone-row. The tone-row is repeated by the trombone, while the piano plays a dancy rag-time rhythm with tonic and dominant chords.

This CANNOT be taken serious and it is not what it should be.

At measure 334 or there abouts, there is more dissonance in the piano part than in the rest of the score, yet it ends up sounding cartoonish. More like vaudeville than anything serious.

On purpose - see above. This part first appears in the exposition after second theme, when the piano suddenly starts with a weird fugue which ends sounding burlesque. Whether it works, I cannot say. That's why I want you to review it. You say it doesn't. Maybe it doesn't. I of course fully understand what you mean.

The only thing I want to tell you is that what I did was on purpose and not because I didn't know what I was doing.

Nevertheless I appreciate your criticism! This was a try and I want to know from you whether it works or not. But do not try to take the tone-rows serious ;-)

Greetings

ralph

I think that for the styles to be effectively mixed, you would need to tighten the score a bit.

One would need to focus more on the "vaudevillian" elements, for example to understand that they are not incidental.

For the contrast between the arch-tonal elements and the tone-row to be noticeable, they need to be juxtaposed.

Like dissonance, parody is a thing which needs preparation and resolution. I suggest you listen to Schostakowitch's 1st piano concerto, where there is an abundance of parody. You will notice in that piece that particularly humorous moments are brought in with preparations, as though he were dealing with a strong dissonance.

I certainly can't comment on stylistic or compositional aspects of it - out of my league, and I actually liked it very much. Reminds me somewhat of trombonist Christian Lindberg's rendition of the Šulek Sonata: Vox Gabrieli.

I can comment trombonistically, and must say it all looks to lay quite well on the horn. Quite a challenging part, but nothing impossible! Bits like the 16ths in m102 etc, seem especially well placed on the instrument. Beware of large interval leaps - especially ones you want smooth, and quiet (m11, m142). They can be tricky and would require a skilled performer...

A couple notational points:

m97 - why the sudden switch to treble clef? The A is only a half step away from the G#'s preceding it; the switch seems (to me) more confusing than it's worth. Personally, I'd prefer to see it written in bass clef. See also m142.

m132 - assuming this is an error, in the piano part, I think the measure would benefit from a bass clef before beat 2.

m151 - Just a personal thing, odd accidentals (double #'s etc) are cumbersome to read. If you want, spell it differently...if not, no big deal.

...

I like the piece a lot - would love to hear it performed live.

I didn't get a chance to listen to the entire piece but what I heard I really liked! It was very energetic and kept my interest. I loved the huge leaps in the trombone part! Seems like you've created a piece that a good trombonist would love it sink their chops into!

Nice work!

Thanks for the comments!

@robinjessome: Concerning the notation points:

m97: well ok, as a trombonist usually prefers the bass clef, I should change that indeed ;-)

m132: This is an error, you're right. I had already noticed that but was to lazy to re-upload the score :) but I think beat 1 should not be in a bass clef - the f#2 would be too high, wouldn't it?

m151: well, it's in g sharp minor and you need a f## instead of a g - or does the interval on the fourth beat sound like an argumented fifth?

The live performance will follow, I'll play it with a tromboist from school!

One more minor notational thing: I think it would be a good idea to include a cautionary natural at the beginning of measure 26, on the D natural. Just for ease of reading. :)

I'd have already done that if I knew how ;-) can you tell me? I'm using Finale.

Go to speedy entry, select the note you want and press the asterisk key (*). Or, if you prefer them parenthesized (I don't), press P.

Thanks for the comments!

@robinjessome: Concerning the notation points:

m151: well, it's in g sharp minor and you need a f## instead of a g - or does the interval on the fourth beat sound like an argumented fifth?

The live performance will follow, I'll play it with a tromboist from school!

F## may be more accurate from a theoretical standpoint, but your trombonist will not likely care. In his part all he'll see is an ugly double-sharp...but that's just my opinion - he may have no problem with it or prefer knowing which degree he's on (for tuning perhaps?).

Will your performance be recorded? I look forward to hearing it!

Great piece!:toothygrin: The main theme is great and I love that kind of dancy piano part, I think the first instance is at bar 49. The accelerando is brilliant aswell, very effective, and it led into a brilliant ending section.:)

The tone row does seem rather abrupt...

I'd love to hear a live recording:)

This piano part looks like a lot of fun to play. If I knew a trombone player good enough to play this score I'd offer to lay it down for you. Sadly finding an awesome trombone player in Spokane is like trying to find a cow in L.A.

But all the same, you've absolutely gained my respect as a composer.

Hi,

I've uploaded a new score - some minor musical changes but mostly score-cleaning. Thanks hopper, the D natural worked.

I think we will record it, maybe not live at that concert but at home.

@Berklee: Thanks for offering ;-) I have luck that we have a good tromboist at school - but on the other hand, otherwise I would not have composed a trombone sonata ;-)

As a trombonist, I tend to disagree with Robin on one key point: This trombone part is nearly impossible to play. If it were written for the top of the top, I would say they might be able to play it, but you would certainly have to be a virtuoso. 16th notes are certainly doable, but 16th note runs in this key at this speed are incredibly cumbersome. Not to say that they are impossible, but I have never seen a trombone part that expected that kind of flexibility from a horn. It could probably be done on a euphonium, but not likely on a trombone.

I agree that the switch to treble cleff is entirely unneccessary. Especially since you have high A's dispersed through out the part in bass clef. Trombonists aren't exactly comfortable with treble clef. If you were to change clefs, you might consider the tenor clef before the treble.

The range is all very playable, but the tessatura remains exceedingly high, and a player would have to show remarkable stamina to remain that high for that long with hardly any time for breaks between the beats. You have the horn above middle C almost all the time, which is somewhat of a sweet-spot for great trombone players, but still exceedingly taxing on the emboucher.

Range aside, the sudden drops below the staff are awkward and unneccesary. You can get the same effect by dropping half the distance. The middle range of the trombone is not explored very much in this piece at all. You seem to marvel at the extreme high and low registers. Be aware that low e's, though not at all impossible to play, are typically difficult to approach. Likewise, high A's are not entirely difficult to play, but I think you'll find they sound much different in the settings you have given them.

Also, your slides are sometimes overused. Trombones love to gliss, but to give them too many in one song just makes it sound sloppy. It's better to focus on some of the other techniques a trombone can offer (peddle tones, flutter tongue, lip trills, lip slurs, etc.) Getting caught up in the one effect is pretty trite and detracts from the over all greatness of the piece.

In my opinion, this is a great work that has been vey well written, but will never stand alone in a live performance. The trombone part is simply too hard and too fast to be played with the precision you are requiring.

Thanks for your very detailed review concerning the point I'm weakest in: writing a playable and idiomatic trombone part - because I have no experience with wind instruments at all (I play the violin and piano).

It would be VERY helpful if you could tell me which passages are especially difficult and could be simplified. Maybe some semiquaver runs which are too difficult? Some passages I could enhance by using the techniques you mentioned? Some gliss. that could be replaced by other techniques to obtain greater variety?

Of course the tempo of the piece can be reduced. It should not be too slow, so I want to improve the parts being to difficult - but it need not be 125 bpm.

Thanks

ralph

I took a second, in-depth look at the trombone part. I totally disagree with Nightingale - the part, though quite challenging and a long blow is completely playable. A good undergrad trombonist should have little trouble with it. I know I certainly wouldn't, and I'm a jazz player.

Re: exceedingly high tessitura : The highest note is a Bb (right?) and perhaps I've spent too much time reading jazz ensemble lead parts, but anything lower than a D doesn't warrant a second glance. Stamina may be a problem, but again - where you're not hanging out constantly in mid treble-clef range, I doubt it'll be an issue. Perhaps a bit more space somewhere - it will be a long, hard blow, but that's for the trombonist to deal with.

Re: clefs, he's right. I suppose. Personally, I'm more comfortable with treble (that's just me with a jazzers training - never learned alto/tenor clef). I don't feel A's, Bb's really need a clef change anyway. I wouldn't be upset to see it all in bass clef. But, whatever.

I just don't feel it needs any simplification...

:D

Well, as a classically trained trombonist, I simply must disagree with you in this matter. The fact is that it all can be played, and with a lot of practice, it could even be played fairly well. But given certain circumstances, it proves to be exceedingly challenging to a non-virtuosic player.

For instance, the 16th note runs wouldn't be nearly as hard if they were in a different key. To go from gaba twice requires the trombonist to go from 4th to 2nd to 5th to second, which is not an easy exchange at that speed. I suppose it the part were down one half step, it would simplify things (5th 3rd 1st 3rd is an easier transition).

In regards to the heavy use of glissando toward the end, just doesn't allow much time to reset the emboucher to begin the next slide. However, to simplify it, one could write it as a lip slur, or a drop off of sorts, which most trombonists could probabably handle.

The issue with range is not necessarily one of comfort, as most trombonists should be able to approach Bbs, but the fact is that it doesn't make adequate use of the trombones middle to low range, which is what a trombone is most commonly recognized for. I don't think you would want a jazz lead trombone sound on this piece.

Then the sudden drops, usually to low gs, is simply a much larger leap than it needs to be. I would suggest taking the lowest notes up an octave unless they are being approached by a descending line. Other than that, the range is quite good, and the melody is exceptional.

In my opinion, it certainly can be played, but unless it is being played by Christian Lindberg, it will never sound as nice as you want it.

Short question: how do you notate a lip slur? I'm not familiar with that technique.

The low drops are most the time used as a special effect. E.g. measure 141: I don't think you would reach the same effect if you'd play the G# an octave higher. But then again, I'm really not familiar enough with the trombone.

With the Glissandos, are you referring to m. 170/171? That should be the only passage with a real accumulation of glissandos. Would you replace the glissandos by lip slurs?

For measure 267, is there a more creative way to modulate? Then we'd have a gliss less.

Another question, which range exactly do you mean with the middle range?

I don't see any underrepresented range (in fact, I tried to use all possibilities of the trombone range equally). Maybe you could give some examples which parts you'd like to have an octave higher or lower?

Overall, I thank you VERY much for your feedback, it helps me incredibly!

The low drops are most the time used as a special effect. E.g. measure 141: I don't think you would reach the same effect if you'd play the G# an octave higher.

You're exactly right. Do not change these leaps. Unless your trombonist is incompetent, these will be fine.

I agree with robin about leaving the piece the way it is. From a purely trombonistic point of view, you'd be making the piece less than it is for no good reason.

I agree with robin. The piece is playable, just not necessarily by me. The only things that would particularly scare me if I were performing it are those huge leaps (15ths and 16ths). Other than that, for the sections in treble clef, I agree with nightingale in that most trombonists would be more comfortable with tenor clef than with treble clef, but you don't really need to switch clefs anyway. I've played stuff with the D above the highest note in this piece written in bass clef. I had to count ledger lines before playing it to make sure it was what I thought it was (unfortunately it was), but this piece can be written entirely in bass clef. I disagree with nightingale about the difficulty of the gaba sixteenth notes. I've found generally that it's easier to just go back and forth between two positions than to do weird things like 7th-4th-2nd-5th, for example, and since gaba is just 4-2-4-2, it's not a problem. If I'm not mistaken, you didn't write anything that would require an F attatchment, although having one would simplify some of the faster bits significantly. Overall, it looks like it would be fun, and I'll listen to it when I get a chance.

Well, maybe I'm not as skilled a trombonist as I thought I was, but I just see so many traps waiting in this trombone part. I consider myself a middle-average trombonist, and there are certain things that would make my head spin. Djf is right, that gaba sequence is 4-2-4-2, I don't know why I was thinking of Bb, but it still proves to be a very quick excange for the slide.

If it is indeed playable, as everyone says it is, it is definitely the hardest trombone piece I've ever seen. I certainly wouldn't say it could be played with "ease" as others seem to suggest, but all the notes are definitely playable. I would suggest trying to get it performed live and see what comes out of it. Obviously you'll have to rely on your performer to make these suggestions, and he may change parts as he finds necessary.

Tonally I think it is quite nice (with the exception of the mini-cadenzas that seem slightly out of place). I will note one more thing, though. Typically, the composer will notate the cadenza atleast in part so that the instrumentalist has a background from which to develop. I suppose that's all I am qualified to suggest at this point. Sorry to waste your time.

You didn't waste my time!

My trombonist will have to learn the sonata in less than a month... do you think that's possible?

Any more comments would be also nice... the need not be from a trombonistically view!

Thanks

ralph

When I read the other reviews, I thought I was going to be in for a Harrison Birtwhistle Special. (Heard a piece by him and John Cage once. Thinking of it still gives me nightmares...)

It's a lovely, whimsical piece of great fun. I think some of the other reviewers here take themselves far too seriously. You obviously had a whale of a time composing this, it shows all the way through.

I'm no expert, but I can't hear any extraneous elements. It's just a great piece of energetic enjoyment. I'd love to see it used with a Keystone Cops short - it would be ideal.

Yours with a smile,

Chris.

How about the first movement mp3? Where did it go?

And are you German?