I could rename this as Minuet in F, but I think its important to establish what minuet form is:
- 3/4 (I agree this piece has the feel of the meter)
-Minuet and Trio
I think the first condition is met, this piece is no doubt in 3/4
Well, if you agree that the piece "is no doubt in 3/4", then why did you write it in 4/4? If the time signature wasn't a mistake, I presume you must have had a reason to do it that way. I'd love to know the reason, I hope it's not a secret. I've tried to play it in 4/4 as written (i.e. emphasizing the first and third beats of each 4/4 bar as is customary), and I just can't do it. But playing it by emphasising every third beat, ignoring all the bar lines, works fine.
and I should have used a fermata for the 5/4 measure
Only if you actually want a pause between the "minuet" and the "trio", but you don't seem to intend this. You play this transition in more or less strict time, which makes perfect sense to me. I guess the only reason you put in the 5/4 bar is because you wanted your "trio" or "B section" to start at the beginning of a bar (bar 20 in this case).
I think actually it would work nicely if the fifth beat of your 5/4 bar were to be a rest, so that the F-A-F chord only lasts two beats. It would give the opportunity for a "breath" before the next section, without breaking the continuity of the 3/4 rhythm.
Minuet and trio repeats the BA section and then fines after the da capo runs through the first A section. But I repeat the B section (a B prime section on the repeat) and then go back to the a section.
Minuet and trio is usually A-A-B-B-C-C-D-D-A-B, where C-C-D-D is the trio. Rather closer to ternary than binary, I think.
If you shrink the B and D sections in the AABBCCDDAB recipe down to nothing, it becomes A-A-C-C-A, which is more or less the form of your piece, except that your C section is slightly different the second time, and extended by a linking section before returning to the 3rd A.
Still, I don't think it's all that important whether this strictly fits into one of a number of Minuet and Trio or Minuet-only moulds. The point is that it feels
minuet-like, or perhaps waltz-like.
I also agree with Rainer eliminating the double note chords (keeping only the top notes) in 3rd beat of the piece would sound nicer than what i have down on the score.
No, that's not what I meant. Please don't get rid of those nice parallel thirds F-A and G-Bb which lead into the repeated A-C thirds which follow (assuming by "beat 3 of the piece" you mean the 3rd crotchet (quarter-note) of the piece, i.e. beat 1 of your notated bar 2).
What I meant was that you could eliminate notes 1 and 2 of the piece (the F-E), and perhaps also notes 3 and 4 (F-G), in other words getting rid of either all or just the first half of your bar 1.
The thinking behind this is that minuets (or minuet-like pieces) often don't begin with a complete bar, but with a truncated partial bar, typically only one beat long (occasionally two), forming an upbeat (or two) into the first complete bar. If your piece were re-time-signatured into 3/4, then its first full bar might consist of beats 2-4 of your bar 2, and the two quaver chords would constitute the up-beat part-bar.
I noticed that in bar 34, you print E-D-C-B-C-B-C-D, but you play E-D-C-B-C-D-C-D, i.e. the second printed B you play as a D. Which version is correct?
This linking section reminds me of a bit from one of the popular Strauss waltzes, by the way.