Leaderboard

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)

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!

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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 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'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. 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. 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.