Violin Sonata in C major (original composition) [UPDATE]

[marijn1999]

Hi guys,

So, I've been working on this sonata for quite a while now (the earliest sketches go back to april 2015) but I've only been able to really work on it on a daily basis for the past two weeks. I'm only as far as the point where the second subject of the expositions is about to fall in.

As you can probably hear, I'm a big fan of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. I think the first half (until the point where the transition from first to second subject begins) is mostly influenced by Mozart by means of clear and transparent writing. Then the transition sounds more like Beethoven to me, It's much more bold and harsh. I didn't do that on purpose.

Anyway, please tell me if you like it so far. I'm not sure if I'll keep the transition part like this since it's a little bit boring, but until now, I think I've been pretty organic in composing this.

BW,
Marijn

[themeandvariation]

You are off to a great start.. in the transition section, the 'echo' works effectively..
Curious where you take it now..

[marijn1999]

You are off to a great start.. in the transition section, the 'echo' works effectively..
Curious where you take it now..

Thanks, I'll post an update as soon as I'm at the end of the exposition which, I think, will take another two weeks.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

It sounds promising. I would be wary of the second section (it's more or less a canon in form) where you are introducing what may be inadvertent harmonic clashes between the parts. It sounds like it would be possible to have a clearer texture by changing the number of beats difference between the entrance of each part, or also by viewing each individual turn as motivic (which they clearly are) then analysing the implied harmonies of each turn in relation to its focal note, and re-expressing the turn by retaining the implied harmony but putting it into a different harmonic inversion. If that makes sense :p e.g. D' C' B C' E' C' G changing to A G F# G C' G E (as you have indeed done in the introduction). Or, alternatively, it might be interesting later on in the movement to literally invert the gesture (e.g. D' C' B C' E' C' G to B C' D' C' G C' E' G'). Or reverse it, etc.

[marijn1999]

It sounds promising. I would be wary of the second section (it's more or less a canon in form) where you are introducing what may be inadvertent harmonic clashes between the parts. It sounds like it would be possible to have a clearer texture by changing the number of beats difference between the entrance of each part, or also by viewing each individual turn as motivic (which they clearly are) then analysing the implied harmonies of each turn in relation to its focal note, and re-expressing the turn by retaining the implied harmony but putting it into a different harmonic inversion. If that makes sense :p e.g. D' C' B C' E' C' G changing to A G F# G C' G E (as you have indeed done in the introduction). Or, alternatively, it might be interesting later on in the movement to literally invert the gesture (e.g. D' C' B C' E' C' G to B C' D' C' G C' E' G'). Or reverse it, etc.

I'm really sorry. I tried, and tried to get any of that. But I just don't.  Is there any other way for you to explain?

BW,
Marijn

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I did fear it wasn't all that comprehensible..

Could you post a screenshot of the section? I could print it, annotate it, scan it, and post that as a reply.

[marijn1999]

I did fear it wasn't all that comprehensible..

Could you post a screenshot of the section? I could print it, annotate it, scan it, and post that as a reply.

Here you go.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I suppose my preliminary comment has to be that on the page it looks fine. The clashes I was hearing are in the sixth quaver of each bar (and occasionally on the first beat of the next bar). Your playback software it making it sound appreciably worse than it would do f performed by real instruments, so I'm inclined to retract my criticism. In reality it looks quite well written.

[marijn1999]

I suppose my preliminary comment has to be that on the page it looks fine. The clashes I was hearing are in the sixth quaver of each bar (and occasionally on the first beat of the next bar). Your playback software is making is sound worse than it would be if performed by real instruments, so I'm inclined to retract my criticism. In reality it looks quite well written.

But it is in 4/4 time so, sixth quaver of a bar?? Please, explain...

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Unles my eyes are deceiving me, it's in 3/4..

[marijn1999]

Unles my eyes are deceiving me, it's in 3/4..

I'm sorry I meant 3/4 and I mistook quaver for quarter. You're right.

[marijn1999]

Here's an update of this sonata. I made it to the first bars of the development. I haven't landed on any of this yet but it is a first draft/version. Hope you enjoy! Please give feedback.

BW,
Marijn

[themeandvariation]

Good work.  It has developed since i last heard.  I think the sections following the first development section work in a flowing way.  But - I think it takes away from the piece,  to have that long repeat of all the previous sections, verbatim. Then what follows is a development section (for a few bars) in the minor.. (C minor?)…
I would skip the repeat, and continue on thru the new development , to the (newly)cleverly arrived at restatement of the opening subject, with added drama, and end it.  That is just my thought regarding your form here.. You may indeed feel differently. 
Thanks for posting!
T.

[marijn1999]

Good work.  It has developed since i last heard.  I think the sections following the first development section work in a flowing way.  But - I think it takes away from the piece,  to have that long repeat of all the previous sections, verbatim. Then what follows is a development section (for a few bars) in the minor.. (C minor?)…
I would skip the repeat, and continue on thru the new development , to the (newly)cleverly arrived at restatement of the opening subject, with added drama, and end it.  That is just my thought regarding your form here.. You may indeed feel differently. 
Thanks for posting!
T.

Thank you very much. I love your critical opinion, however I feel an enormous urge to explain the form I'm trying to write in.

I think what you mean with the repeat of the big first part, is just the repeat of the exposition. It is a classical tradition and I wanted this sonata (along with the other two I'm writing) to be very conventional in form so I repeated the exposition. That's what you hear. After that I indeed move into the development by stating the principal theme in minor mode (something Haydn was fond of as well, however not so much in the minor mode as by putting it in the dominant).

After that a large modulation finds place which starts on a B-flat major dominant seventh chord, and moves to D minor, G major dominant seventh and finally C minor. Until there this passage is reminiscent of the passage which is found earlier in the exposition, however this time, it has a much clearer harmonic skeleton. As soon as I move into C minor, I combine both the principal theme and the short theme I introduce before the beginning of the development (the coda-like section). At first, I didn't really want to develop this one, but the way I would be able to use it kept bogging me.

Only thing I'm not sure of yet is if I will start this when I move into C minor for the second time in the development. Maybe I should modulate a little bit further to make a more extended development. The exposition is quite extensive as well anyway.

Anyway, thanks so much for your opinion. Again, I will post an update asap!

BW,
Marijn

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Briefly: I think this is going well. I don't mind the repeat: it is very reminiscent of early Beethoven sonatas, etc. I'll be interested to see what happens in the development section - you have teed up the possibilities nicely and the modulation worked well.

[themeandvariation]

"It is a classical tradition…"
Yes, it is true.. And it is good to be aware of the formal tendencies of the past, etc..
And with your indulgence,
I would posit that this repeat idea doesn't always benefit a many sectioned exposition..
And if repeated, i would definitely tweak it some.. with some fun surprises.. flip voices, modify harmony in an few spots, play with some rhythmic displacement…
Again, it is good to be aware of 'formal' structure, and how it's been employed.. But also consider 'nuance', which can bring more life to an auto-repeat..
That is all I'll say on that.
Good luck.  Sounding good!