FRANK STEMPER, COMPOSER
Piano Trio No. 1 (2026)
violin, 'cello, piano
[17 mins.]
PIANO TRIO NO. 1
This piece has a curious form that explores beginnings and endings. The music opens with a solo violin introduction, followed by the beginning theme, igniting the musical narrative. The piece begins three times, because that beginning theme is stated three times. The final beginning is the end of the piece, although not necessarily the conclusion. The first two times, the beginning theme sets the tone and pushes the music on, through its various episodes. Although the third and final beginning is indeed the ending — at least the performers stop playing their instruments, stand, bow, etc. — we expect more, but alas – there is no more. The beginning is also the ending.
About a third into the narrative, the piece ends after an explosive, somewhat traditional climax. It sounds very conclusive, but something is wrong — the performers do not get up and leave the stage. There is empty questionable space, leaving the audience a bit confused or bewildered. Hopefully, being perplexed will reign in the audience’s curiosity to anticipate and listen as the piece hesitantly continues, which it does, with a vague representation of a dark, tolling bell in the piano, leading to the second beginning.
What can only be slated as the PRIMARY THEME of this trio occurs twice. The first time it is heroically presented around 3 minutes into the piece. The second time, it is closer to the end, around the 13-minute point, and, although it seems contrived, it sounds pretty much like a traditional recapitulation. There’s not much to say about this tune other than it does seem to me to be THE MAIN MELODY. Unlike most primary themes, there’s nothing particular about it. It fits the bill as important but is not prodigious in any way. As a matter of fact, most of the melodic information in this piece is quite plain, even at times foolishly so. Goal-less melodies that are nothing more than a happy soul walking through town whistling a non-tune. Doing this fulfilled an idea I had over 50 years ago, when I was student in Canada. I once mused about writing a piece that showcased uninspired, silly melodies rather than exquisite, provocative ones. I mean shouldn’t all melodies get the same attention and respect regardless of their innate beauty or profundity?
By the way, I am not trying to be cute with my language in this attempted explanation of my music. This is what actually happens, or at least how I hear it and interpret it. It is also what I was trying to convey by writing it. Of course, as is true in all music, it is up to each individual listener to interpret the sound of these enigmatic conundrums into life and death, both universally and for themselves.
This piece has a curious form that explores beginnings and endings. The music opens with a solo violin introduction, followed by the beginning theme, igniting the musical narrative. The piece begins three times, because that beginning theme is stated three times. The final beginning is the end of the piece, although not necessarily the conclusion. The first two times, the beginning theme sets the tone and pushes the music on, through its various episodes. Although the third and final beginning is indeed the ending — at least the performers stop playing their instruments, stand, bow, etc. — we expect more, but alas – there is no more. The beginning is also the ending.
About a third into the narrative, the piece ends after an explosive, somewhat traditional climax. It sounds very conclusive, but something is wrong — the performers do not get up and leave the stage. There is empty questionable space, leaving the audience a bit confused or bewildered. Hopefully, being perplexed will reign in the audience’s curiosity to anticipate and listen as the piece hesitantly continues, which it does, with a vague representation of a dark, tolling bell in the piano, leading to the second beginning.
What can only be slated as the PRIMARY THEME of this trio occurs twice. The first time it is heroically presented around 3 minutes into the piece. The second time, it is closer to the end, around the 13-minute point, and, although it seems contrived, it sounds pretty much like a traditional recapitulation. There’s not much to say about this tune other than it does seem to me to be THE MAIN MELODY. Unlike most primary themes, there’s nothing particular about it. It fits the bill as important but is not prodigious in any way. As a matter of fact, most of the melodic information in this piece is quite plain, even at times foolishly so. Goal-less melodies that are nothing more than a happy soul walking through town whistling a non-tune. Doing this fulfilled an idea I had over 50 years ago, when I was student in Canada. I once mused about writing a piece that showcased uninspired, silly melodies rather than exquisite, provocative ones. I mean shouldn’t all melodies get the same attention and respect regardless of their innate beauty or profundity?
By the way, I am not trying to be cute with my language in this attempted explanation of my music. This is what actually happens, or at least how I hear it and interpret it. It is also what I was trying to convey by writing it. Of course, as is true in all music, it is up to each individual listener to interpret the sound of these enigmatic conundrums into life and death, both universally and for themselves.