UPDATED: Theme for a Piano Quartet Andante-- FINISHED!

10-8-24:  UPLOADED VSL rendering of PQ mvmt II with new SYNCHRON SOLO VIOLIN AND CELLO, Yamaha CFX.   Sound great.  Needs a few custom tweaks for playback, but really pleased.  Almost ready for workshop.

9-18-23   :   UPLOADED  Vienna Symphonic Library  SYNCHRON-ized SPECIAL EDITION V.1 LIBRARY EDIT.

  Much better than Garritan VST.   Steinway D-274 "lite" very clear, and strings are exceptional with Cross-Fade feature and varied attacks based on velocity/dynamic markings.  Very nice.  Viola is particularly impressive, especially compared to Garritan.   This is the chamber/close mic. setup.

I've been mulling over a new project, but am too busy to do much with it.  

  It occurs to me that time spent on shaping thematic material is well worth it.  Major limitations with my compositions has to do with themes/lack of variety.

    So, I thought I'd throw this out there now.   It is more adventurous with progression than my first efforts, while still solidly early romantic in style.  In fact, I had to laugh it sounds so much like Mendelssohn, my favorite composer.  What can I expect after hundreds of hours of listening?

   Clearly a hymn like quality.   I'm excited about the prospects of adding a string trio and developing it further....

   Anyhow, this is the main theme for a likely ABA andante for  Piano Quartet.    It is not intended as a demonstration of pianistic virtuosity, but just a laying down of progression and thematic elements.   The simplicity, as all theme and variations composers know, allows for gradual heightening of tension and drama in subsequent iterations.  

   BTW, the grand piano on Garritan sounds darned good to me.  Messing around with pedal effect...

Hey @Rich,

I like this theme! It is quite chorale like! I love the simplicity in it, as it reminds me the first movement of Schubert's Piano Sonata in G major! I love the minor plagal cadence!

For me the triple C sharp does take me off in b.1, 3, 5, 7 and 14 since the leading tone effect is too strong for me! Also the opening G major chord with double B in the bass seems too bright for me for a hymn with three thirds for a major chord.

For spelling the Ab in b.11 should be G sharp, and I am not sure in b.20 the A sharp should be Bb or not.

Also the markings need not to be put in both hands, but I guess it's for the MIDI?

Thanks for sharing!

Henry

Henry---

  Thank you for the listen!

     I'm glad you like the theme.   I don't want to start off with a handicap.  Too much time goes into this stuff!    For the B section, it will likely be a complimentary  theme in the subdominant or dominant, with ---wait for it---a relative minor section.   I will focus this time on truly varied A section return.  With a string trio and piano, it really is inexcusable not to mix it up.

    Yes the Ab was an artifact of using the "transpose" function.  I was just to lazy to change it to G#.  The markings in both hands are ignorance--1st time scoring a piano.  Of course I could have consulted any of a dozen scores lying around...Shame on me.    

     I will look at the doublings.   I like using the 3rd (or 5th)--the less strident bass gives it a loser feel that I hope to take advantage of in development.  But I will consider your comments closely.  Doubling the G--the root---just makes it a bit ponderous here, it seems to me.   Of course, my plan is to write a much more refined piano part when the actual composition evolves, but the bass line/chord progression strategy is important.

(   BTW:  For anyone interested in Piano quartets, I highly recommend Ferdinand Ries' stuff!  he was a student and secretary for Beethoven for 3 or 4 years, and a prodigy himself.  Fine, fun music.  And Raff is exceptional as well.  (Beyond Beethoven, Brahms and Mozart...)

   Thank you again-----------

4 hours ago, Rich said:

 I will look at the doublings.   I like using the 3rd (or 5th)--the less strident bass gives it a loser feel that I hope to take advantage of in development.  But I will consider your comments closely.  Doubling the G--the root---just makes it a bit ponderous here, it seems to me.   Of course, my plan is to write a much more refined piano part when the actual composition evolves, but the bass line/chord progression strategy is important.

Yeah if the bass is more fluid the brightening effect will minimize!

4 hours ago, Rich said:

BTW:  For anyone interested in Piano quartets, I highly recommend Ferdinand Ries' stuff!  he was a student and secretary for Beethoven for 3 or 4 years, and a prodigy himself.  Fine, fun music.  And Raff is exceptional as well.  (Beyond Beethoven, Brahms and Mozart...)

I know he is Beethoven's student but I've probably just listened to his music for a few times... I will try to listen to his!! Beethoven himself didn't compose mature piano quartets, but I love Brahms piano quartet especially his 3rd that I model on his 3rd piano quartet in my composition! The two Mozart quartets are great as well! 

I also don't listen to Mendelssohn which is a shame. I am only familiar with his Piano trio in C minor, String Quartet in D major and F minor, and probably Lieder ohne Worte since I played them.

The piano sample sounds really great, though it's quite expensive for me!! 😅 The Grand Piano sounds really authentic and high quality! Thanks for your thoughts!

Henry

Hello.

Very interesting.

Some small imperfections of the bass path  in my opinion that can be easily arranged. Because it causes mistakes that are very audible in the classic style. (Parallel octaves in particular, Also doubles of unresolved sensitive notes or certain obligatory movements that are dodged and pass from one voice to another. It can be good for the piano but it would be delicate in vocal polyphony or string quartet for example).

I feel that you want to avoid some harmonic stereotypes

I hope my comment is not too harsh! The classic style is very demanding, but as with a board game, the rules can quickly be integrated to increase your pleasure of playing tenfold!

Yes, your piano sounds good!

Krisp---

   Thank you for the listen and comments--

    I was thinking about the parallel fifths and octaves rule.  It must not pertain to pure bass writing.   Doubling bass and cello was common practice for a long time, and there would be parallels abound.  But I get the application in polyphony, counterpoint writing.

    Regarding sterotypes:

           The problem as a student --which is all I could be considered--- is that when writing pastiche you want to sound TYPICAL without being STEREOTYPICAL, I think.  That is, present original ideas--themes, treatment, manipulations of form--without sounding like outright THEFT!

             I listened to your piece--and it is very enjoyable--and I can see how writing in a 20th c. idiom might make writing in an early 19th style  a bit of a non-starter.   But it is the music I love, and I find the parameters it imposes to be guide posts and rules to be internalized before  I can really appreciate and successfully go beyond...

   Again, this demo is a bare-bones presentation of a theme, with elements that could be used a motifs in development.   I'll take "interesting" as a good thing!

   Thank you again------

1 hour ago, Rich said:

Krisp---

   Thank you for the listen and comments--

 

    I was thinking about the parallel fifths and octaves rule.  It must not pertain to pure bass writing.   Doubling bass and cello was common practice for a long time, and there would be parallels abound.  But I get the application in polyphony, counterpoint writing.

    Regarding sterotypes:

           The problem as a student --which is all I could be considered--- is that when writing pastiche you want to sound TYPICAL without being STEREOTYPICAL, I think.  That is, present original ideas--themes, treatment, manipulations of form--without sounding like outright THEFT!

             I listened to your piece--and it is very enjoyable--and I can see how writing in a 20th c. idiom might make writing in an early 19th style  a bit of a non-starter.   But it is the music I love, and I find the parameters it imposes to be guide posts and rules to be internalized before  I can really appreciate and successfully go beyond...

   Again, this demo is a bare-bones presentation of a theme, with elements that could be used a motifs in development.   I'll take "interesting" as a good thing!

   Thank you again------

 

Yes, I'm not talking about the lining of the bass (example type, cello and double bass that can perfectly work together which are processes known since organ writing). I was only talking about octaves that horn inside polyphony (as there are quite a few..). Similarly, forced movements are generated by sensitive ones that cannot easily be masked (or sevenths of all kinds or even more complex chords). It's a bit like a chess game. Towers can join, but they do not move like bishops.

This can of course be totally distorted and It's the most interesting in your approach, I agree !. But someTypical language, like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann or other, you necessarily enter into discriminatory criteria. Moreover, the illustrious composers themselves give us many Examples of how to get off the beaten track While perfectly exploiting the rules or distorting them a little.

When I was a student and it went through many constraints. My teachers were totally intransigent. When I made a given Bach choral song with errors of quintes or octaves, I had large red felt strokes and sarcastic taunts. However, like you, I tried to escape these constraints very often. I made my Schumann sound a bit like Duparc... But I was taking a blow on the head!

In any case, this should not be taken in the negative sense. What is extraordinary when you are young is that the world opens up to us and that we only have to take the time to discover its riches And I look forward to realizations where you will still look for even more crazy escapes with great freedom.

Hey---

  Another weekend where I got some work in.    I managed a "tentative" scoring of the first section of the Andante.    I'm not entirely happy with some of the voice leading and definitely need to sleep on some of the ornaments and figurations for strings.  I'd like to add a tad more interest to the parts.

    The solo strings are not great---typical of VSTs--but I can't spring the $2k for better!

This is the initial statement  of the A section of an ABA movement.  I'd like to add a very brief development of the basic theme--perhaps as an extended coda--and the ending here will be curtailed when I add the B section.  The one I've included its much too "FINAL" sounding--more appropriate for the end of the movement.

  I am well aware that this type of syrupy-sweet music has been labelled "insipid" on many occasion! --but as a student piece I'm looking at fundamentals, and scoring a chorale like piece is a good exercise.

!!!!

   After repeated listenings and a little sleep, I've revised and made many, MANY corrections to this fragment.

   Corrected many voice leading issues, adjusted parts for greater interest.  Use more closed chords in the strings. 

   Finally, I adjusted the playback balance to bring the viola out a lot more-- a few nice bits went totally unheard....

                Writing for chamber ensembles is tough.  There is no place to hide!  EVERY line is exposed!  This has definitely been the roughest time I've had evolving something....

Hi @Rich,

I find this more enjoyable than the first one with strings added!

6 minutes ago, Rich said:

Finally, I adjusted the playback balance to bring the viola out a lot more-- a few nice bits went totally unheard....

Viola is always the issue... I remember that when composing my chamber pieces... Should I recall @jawoodruff here??😝😝

7 minutes ago, Rich said:

Corrected many voice leading issues, adjusted parts for greater interest.  Use more closed chords in the strings. 

I still find those C# too much for my perspective, e.g. in b.9 last beat 5 notes out of 6 is a C#, b. 14 third beat 4 notes out of 6 is a C#. The treatment in b.27 is more reasonable for me. Having those leading tones will create difficulties for their resolution, e.g. in b.14 the C# in cello is an outer voice but you resolve it to A to create a 6/4 chord in the next bar, which is not quite good for me.

For spelling issue in b.19 piano left hand should also be G#, b.30, 34,35,36 A# should be Bb. 

Thanks for your update and looking forward to your progress and completion!

Henry

Quote

I still find those C# too much for my perspective, e.g. in b.9 last beat 5 notes out of 6 is a C#, b. 14 third beat 4 notes out of 6 is a C#. The treatment in b.27 is more reasonable for me. Having those leading tones will create difficulties for their resolution, e.g. in b.14 the C# in cello is an outer voice but you resolve it to A to create a 6/4 chord in the next bar, which is not quite good for me.

For spelling issue in b.19 piano left hand should also be G#, b.30, 34,35,36 A# should be Bb

.  Ok Henry!  No getting around it.  I will make changes and see how it sounds.  The spellings too!

           But yes, a definite improvement.   I think i had to get something down on paper before I could grapple with the nuances---and there are so many details in chamber music....I think I'm  in striking distance here though, now.   Hopefully this next weekend  I can insert a 8 or so bar coda based on the B portion of the melody and a terse cadence before launching into the B section proper.   

             I've had so many problems, I think a piano rendering of the thematic ideas/structure would again be a big help.

Hey--

  Well here it is.     

    This was the most difficult challenge to date.   I struggled with transitions, finding the exact phasing--almost every detail is under the miscroscope, and with such small forces, problems are always very evident.

   I'm not entirely happy with the A section repeat, but I managed to make enough changes where it sounds interesting enough to warrant another announcement.

  I'm most happy with--in the context of this piece-- the minor B section in general.   The rapid modulating with a short motif was a first and it comes off ok, I think.   Also, the modulation back to G major AND transitioning from the driving triplet rhythm was a trick.  It sounds fairly smooth to me.  It came to me at a random moment, and I am most pleased when I think of a solution (or whereever this stuff comes from!)  and IT WORKS (mostly).

   An uneven effort, I admit.  But I got stronger as I continued working, and this was defintely a learning experience.  I even picked up a few critical time saving/playback tricks on Print music as well.

   I'm gonna stick with this piece and work on the 1st movement, I think.  I want to work with shorter motifs, and work on transformation/modulaiton ala Brahms and the mid/late romantics.  We shall see...

   Please comment.  I have braced myself....😬

   Update!

   After a little rest and several listens and considerationing the piece as a whole, I'm  working on some revisions.

   The main 2 deficiencies are the imbalance between the long 'A'section and the rest of the piece, and the stodgy uninteresting nature of the whole. ( Even if the piece were corrected for all errors, as written  it would still land in my CD "listened to once" pile.   We all have one....)

   So...

  1.   I've revised parts to add interest melodically where appropriate.  

  2.  I'm looking for places to include 16th note runs for the  piano/strings.  For example, the tremolo piano part in the codetta section makes a reappearance at the end...

 3.  I'm hacking the A section second variation and adding a shorter A section coda that essays a 2 bar bit of the main theme in a sequence with piano arpeggios.  Shorter/peppier.

 4.   The minor key section will have a section of more virtusosic piano passage work over the strings chordal part.

            These are the major changes in the works.  Busy at 'life"stuff  but should be finished  in a week or so.

7 hours ago, Rich said:

After a little rest and several listens and considerationing the piece as a whole, I'm  working on some revisions.

   The main 2 deficiencies are the imbalance between the long 'A'section and the rest of the piece, and the stodgy uninteresting nature of the whole. ( Even if the piece were corrected for all errors, as written  it would still land in my CD "listened to once" pile.   We all have one....)

   So...

  1.   I've revised parts to add interest melodically where appropriate.  

  2.  I'm looking for places to include 16th note runs for the  piano/strings.  For example, the tremolo piano part in the codetta section makes a reappearance at the end...

 3.  I'm hacking the A section second variation and adding a shorter A section coda that essays a 2 bar bit of the main theme in a sequence with piano arpeggios.  Shorter/peppier.

 4.   The minor key section will have a section of more virtusosic piano passage work over the strings chordal part.

 

            These are the major changes in the works.  Busy at 'life"stuff  but should be finished  in a week or so.

Great! I will wait for your update to comment on the updated version! I feel like all the D# can be replaced by Eb in the first section though.

Henry

  Hey---

  After much work---the piece is generally done.    This one was painful.    The changes:

1.  Truncated the A section with what is essentially a coda, and added passage work for the piano that adds to motion and interest.

2.  Added melodic lines in the strings in the return of A instead of block accompaniment.   Alterted the "cut and paste" piano return.

3. Refined the 16th note figure in the coda and expanded it to the other closing sections for more interest and motion.

4.  Generally cleaned up dynamics, and made note corrections.

  I've left the B section, as on reconsideration there is plenty going on there and the tendency towards thicker texture is NOT helping at this point.

       Not my favorite of what I've done.  BUT-- I've learned a ton, and hope to keep hammering away at using motifs vs. classical style phrasing, more modulation as a technique to add interest, and continue to explore more adventerous chord progressions.  My piano writting needs to get more sophisticated, which really means  I need to work on imagining more intricate lines.

   Some firsts:  first piano piece, first use of modulations beyond simple transtions to sections, first chamber music....

  Next up:  a companion:  Piano Quartet III:  Scherzo.    Shorter, but hopfully lighter, more polyphonic...

Like Mendelssohn, I can't stop fussing....

  Unlike Mendelssohn, I have AMPLE REASON TO!

fIXED:

1.  New VST violin and viola.  Much better, and better balance.

2.  Improved piano passage work rendering/claified muddy scoring.

3.  fixed piano transition into A section coda.

4. made melodic line improvements.

Because why stop now?

   Balancing volume, more clean up and refining (piano and viola parts mainly).  The volume was getting out of control, toned it down.

                The solo violin and viola on Garritan are just annoying. Since when does a viola sound like a duck?   Considering upgrading VST if I want to do a lot of chamber music...anyone own EastWest Hollywood Orchestra?...

Finished!

  I have literally done all I can.   

  I cleaned up phrasing, including the violin/viola run around bar 25 or so, which bother me/was wrong, as well as the 16th note passage passed around the instrument in the closing sections.

   I looked deeper into Garritan and figured out why the stings sound like they are in a different space than the piano---the % reverbs didn't match. FIXED.

   Finally,  I found out that the REVERB QUALITY can be modulated to avoid CRASHING your CPU!   I turned this up from about 50% to 75%, and it make a huge difference.  The piano sound FANTASTIC, and the strings at least like STRINGS!  Very happy.  Saved me from doing something stupid and buying new software....

            I went from "What a train wreck!" to being rather proud of this piece.  I learned a ton and forced myself to learn new methods of writing---modulating themes, more expansive use of chord progressions, generally handling minimal forces.  

                 For the future, I know chamber music requires far more preparation and constant change/attention to detail in the score.

Hi @Rich,

I love how you persist to improve your work! I really love your middle section now especially with those modulation! I also love the variety you have in the last section to prevent mere repetitions.

Just some tiny details: for every a tempo you can just hide the Andante marking id you want the score to be cleaner. Also I will change all those D# to Eb in the middle section as it's C minor there.

Your ending on dominant D major is quite surprising to me. Will you have an attaca to the next movement there?

15 hours ago, Rich said:

I went from "What a train wreck!" to being rather proud of this piece.  I learned a ton and forced myself to learn new methods of writing---modulating themes, more expansive use of chord progressions, generally handling minimal forces.  

                 For the future, I know chamber music requires far more preparation and constant change/attention to detail in the score.

Congrats on this!! The most rewarding for composing is to learn new things by writing new music. I think this kind of experience is so invaluable that it's more crucial to have than reading lots of books and listening to a lot of music, even though they are mandatory too.

Thanks for your update!

Henry

Quote

I love how you persist to improve your work! I really love your middle section now especially with those modulation! I also love the variety you have in the last section to prevent mere repetitions.

Just some tiny details: for every a tempo you can just hide the Andante marking id you want the score to be cleaner. Also I will change all those D# to Eb in the middle section as it's C minor there.

Your ending on dominant D major is quite surprising to me. Will you have an attaca to the next movement there?

  Thanks Henry--

     Yeah, its tough cutting out what amounts to many hours of work, but excising the repeat of the A section was the right call.  It was long, not interesting at all, and SUCKED ENERGY from the piece.  Putting in the new A section coda ending with a brief working of the phrase with the piano passage and a closing ADDED energy, and transformed the piece.   

   The bones were good, I just had to trust my ear and WORK.

   The Andante markings, etc. were to try and get Print Music to get back to the regualr tempo following a fermata--where it tends to drag at least to the next measure.  Sometimes it  works...but looks horrible...

   The modulation back from the B section felt natural sitting at D major (instead of G) and I thought the key change to the dominant would be another welcomed subtle difference from the introduction--the sonics are clearly different.   One nice thing about mid/late romanticism---- if it works, well, it works!!

          My informal key plaln for the Piano Quartet is D, G, A, D (Tonic, sub dominant, dominant, tonic).   I'm going to write the scherzo in A, and if the effect is better with a 2 to 4 bar attaca tie-in, I will certainly use it.   The transition from the slow temp andante to a fast scherzo might benefit from it, and D to A is/should be easy enough!

 Thank you for your listening and comments!

Contest Entry--"Call for Scores"

  After some more improvements, I decided to enter this and "Overture: The Tempest" (with some hasty changes, perhaps ill advised) in the competion.  I don't think I'll win anything, but I'd like to get in the habit of engaging more.  And what the heck?!  The hard part is over!

A few significant improvements:

1.  I added piano passage work at the end of the minor key B section.  As it stood, the musical climax sort of fell at the end of the A section, making the piece somewhat imbalanced and less statisfying.   "The Golden Ratio" rule stipulates the climax should fall at about 2/3rds the way through the piece--usually at the end of the developement in sonata form or at the closing of the B section in ABA.  Now the piece feels right, and the peak intensity leds into the recap, as it should.  I like it.  

2.  Added a small bit of the motif in the cello part at the closing cadence.  The rising interval that begins the piece serves as a recall  that ties the ending to the beginning.  It really isn't much, but this kind of thing is very effective (psychologically), and makes a very generic ending into somethign SPECIFIC to this piece.  I think it works.

3. more voice leading corrections and fussing.

    Struggling with the scherzo--sort of in a thundering Allegro mood.  We shall see...

Hi!  I downloaded the score first and was immediately offput by the 1st inversion in the bass in the first chord, and some other inversion issues I found a little later, including one involving parallel octaves with the top voice.  I decided to just listen to the piece for effect without reading along with the score - maybe you're not trying for what I'm expecting - and I'm kind of glad I did.  I'm still not happy with a lot of what you're doing in the bass line - you seem to have an aversion to root position chords, but I'll get over it.  All that said, it's a lovely melody.  

The sudden empty space around 1:14 didn't make sense to me.

Love the shift to minor around 2:45.  The piano filigree at 3:25 is nice.  Nice return to the A theme.  

Again, the empty space at around 5:10 - not sure what that's about so suddenly. 

Your treatment of the strings is idiomatically good, so kudos there.

If the movement is in G, why did you end it in D?  Doesn't make sense to me, but no doubt you had a reason.

Overall a very pretty piece!    

There is a great deal of potential here, and you're obviously not afraid to revise.  Keep at it!  

J.L.G...

   Thank you for the listen and comments!  They mean a lot to me.  You clearly know your business.

   As for the 1st inversions.   That first chord really sets the character for the theme--a little whistful, indefinite.  So the first reason, and the major reason for most of what ended up in this (where I had intention) was how it SOUNDED.  I'm a Mendelssohn fan, and the 1st inversion just seemed in character.    Henry has also been on me, and I did make a few changes early.  But to be honest, I like it.  Root position seems a little overly strident...

  So, am I to understand-- and I read this NOWHWERE--that composers use root postion chords?--  Period.   If I were to review the literature, this is what I would find?   Seems a waste of harmonic resources.  Of course, it makes the mental work a heck of a lot easier.

  I'm just not understanding the whys.  Are there exceptions? Ever?  Even POP songs don't religiously hold to root position (outside of AC/DC and the heavy metal types...).

  The pauses at a approx 1:14 and 5:10 were for dramatic effect prior to the more elaborate closing cadence.  I could eaisly fill it with notes/anacrusis but I think it would weaken the entry.   Maybe wrong, but I do have a reason.  Again, my ear likes it.  Though I will admit, writing less choppy and more through-composed segments is on  my list of priorities.

    I'm glad you like the return/transposition to the A theme!  So did I.   It came to me when I was going off to sleep, as some of these problem's solution do.  And the first attempt held.   The problem?   The return is in D!   The dominant!   I liked it so much, and it seemed right, so I just went with it.   The sonics came off different, giving the return a bit of a brighter feel.  REAL  string players would definitely give it a different feel!  Henry brought up the idea of an attaca move ot the last movement (D).  This would work fine and cover my faux pas.  On the other hand, if it works?  I wanted a light scherzo in A to follow...

  Anyhow.  In my defense, this is my 3rd piece.    I was honestly so pleased with the modulation IN/OUT of the minor that I didn't want to tempt fate.  I DEFINTELY will pay more attention moving forward.  

  All that said, maybe my personal preferences-- 1st inversions, dramatic pauses, weird modulations...begin to form my own style.  I mean, short of things being flat out WRONG?    If I write and harmonize melodies like everybody else, listeners can go listen to anybody else...

  Thank you for the compliments-- I played violin for some time and know it somewhat well, on top of listening, and string quartet collecting is a hobby within this hobby, so I'm sure both helped a good deal as far a making the string writing effect to the extent it is.  I am very fond of the rocking, grinding triplets harmonizing the minor section....

   Frankly, I am BURNT  OUT on this piece right now.  I am working up the ideas for the 1st movement: minor key intro, building up from a single voice (cello) fugato (Im thinking Harlod in Italy---LOVE the intro from Hector), then D major unison statement....all convention for the literature, but it will obviously be a first for me....Exciting, exhausting, fueling, consuming at the same time!   

   I'm considering formal piano lessons with a side of theory/composiiton.   My technique is a limit on compositional execution of ideas, and frankly I'd like to be a lot better at sight reading.

   I'm glad you characterize this piece as having potential!  It started as a bit of a dog, but I worked through a lot of problems until it started to sound right. Also thinking it might be the experience of a lifetime if I got a few movements together and funded a workshop with actual musicians to play through them.    Just a thought.   I would like to revist this when the 1st movement is done and revise it in light of the 1st and  the critiques I've received.    Maybe consider it then? See if it is **literally** worth it. Cetainly an incentive to work hard!

  Thank you again for your time and comments!   Trust me, I know it is a precious commodity...

On the topic of 1st inversions/inversion is general ---Did some quick research:

First inversion chords serve as good harmonic replacements for root position chords. As we will learn next week, second inversion chords do not because they are too harmonically unstable.

  This is the rule I use/am familiar with

Also:

There are two main reasons to use first inversion chords:

Using any chord inversion in addition to root position gives more variety to a piece of music

Using any chord inversion allows for a more melodic bassline

    So beyond this, my only question is WHY WOULDN'T WE use inversions when we can?  After all variety is the spice of life.  (And the source of many, many divorces, it must be said.)

I'm not against first inversion chords, or any inversions - not at all.  I was just surprised to find them in the specific junctures where you used them, particularly at the very beginning of the piece.  But if this is only you're third piece of music, you're doing WELL!  So don't take what I said too much to heart.