# My 4th composition



## Phil loves classical

When conservative here. No dissonance. Excuse that one break. I get real self-conscious when i play before anything.






Hmm... There is one emphasis on a chord during an offbeat I should fix.

BTW, would this be considered Classical, pop or pop/classical?


----------



## Sekhar

Nice, melodious piece. I like your use of the full piano register, especially the upper end. Seemed a bit amorphous however, meaning I didn't see any clear form/structure...may be that was intentional?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Sekhar said:


> Nice, melodious piece. I like your use of the full piano register, especially the upper end. Seemed a bit amorphous however, meaning I didn't see any clear form/structure...may be that was intentional?


No, the first part was repeated with a bit of variation on the left hand accompanyment, also the first part with the arppegios was a repeat of a theme in the middle. The bridges and the last part is just a 2 or 3 note chord with a simple progression over 4 bars.


----------



## nikola

Amorphous is pretty much good word. You say it's not dissonant, but actually some parts are pretty much 'off'. It is also piece drowned in the need to be more complex than it could handle. There are some interesting melodic ideas, but they are changing throughout the piece without much sense. The piece is not coherent considering what it wants to bring to the listener. It is confused. 
You're too much obsessed with the idea of complexity and you're too much focused on LH playing many different things, while RH melodies, chords and ideas simply get lost because of LH trying to prove how spectacular it is. Your pieces sounds like they're trying to prove something on technical level and like they're not there for music, but music is there to justify some compositional rules that I think you still don't know how to use correctly. It's like listening to Christina Aguilera singing. Everybody says she has a great voice, but all she is doing is killing every song with oversinging. Instead of 1 tone she will scream 10 tones to prove how her voice is great, but song isn't there because of her voice. Her voice is there because of the song. 
If I were you, I would first compose some meaningful little melody, stick to it and then try to adjust LH playing to it. After you finish playing one meaningful melodic idea, then you can start to dissolve it with some virtuosic LH playing. There are many really good amorphous pieces in the classical music that do make sense, so if you want to achieve something like that, you should be more focused on how piece works as a whole instead of trying to change every 3 seconds its flow on every level, because such approach doesn't work to my ears.


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> Amorphous is pretty much good word. You say it's not dissonant, but actually some parts are pretty much 'off'. It is also piece drowned in the need to be more complex than it could handle. There are some interesting melodic ideas, but they are changing throughout the piece without much sense. The piece is not coherent considering what it wants to bring to the listener. It is confused.
> You're too much obsessed with the idea of complexity and you're too much focused on LH playing many different things, while RH melodies, chords and ideas simply get lost because of LH trying to prove how spectacular it is. Your pieces sounds like they're trying to prove something on technical level and like they're not there for music, but music is there to justify some compositional rules that I think you still don't know how to use correctly. It's like listening to Christina Aguilera singing. Everybody says she has a great voice, but all she is doing is killing every song with oversinging. Instead of 1 tone she will scream 10 tones to prove how her voice is great, but song isn't there because of her voice. Her voice is there because of the song.
> If I were you, I would first compose some meaningful little melody, stick to it and then try to adjust LH playing to it. After you finish playing one meaningful melodic idea, then you can start to dissolve it with some virtuosic LH playing. There are many really good amorphous pieces in the classical music that do make sense, so if you want to achieve something like that, you should be more focused on how piece works as a whole instead of trying to change every 3 seconds its flow on every level, because such approach doesn't work to my ears.


To me, this is as simple as it gets while still maintaining variety. The left hand is only doing 2 things playing broken chords at the beginning and arpeggios later on. There are 2 themes with a couple of bridges where the right hand doesn't do anything play a chord for the whole bar. But if the structure isn't that obvious, I not so concerned. I was afraid of it being too simple actually.


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> To me, this is as simple as it gets while still maintaining variety. The left hand is only doing 2 things playing broken chords at the beginning and arpeggios later on. There are 2 themes with a couple of bridges where the right hand doesn't do anything play a chord for the whole bar. But if the structure isn't that obvious, I not so concerned. I was afraid of it being too simple actually.


Your fear is exactly the reason why this piece doesn't work. Trying so hard to fulfill all mathematical rules only shows that you actually can't hear what you're composing. It may look good on paper to you, but this piece simply doesn't work on more levels. 
Also, many dissonant chords that doesn't fit there and some of the most obvious I can hear on timeline at: 
0:53
1:33

Too much cacophony and weird chords to call this a finished musical piece. It can be only some kind of study. Some good ideas are drowned in your mathematical mindset which doesn't have good relationship with your ears and that's pretty much obvious at least to me.

But ok, that's only my opinion.

I would also add that beginning of the piece is quite nice and promising, but later into the piece you got completely lost... it didn't go anywhere after first 40 seconds.


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> Your fear is exactly the reason why this piece doesn't work. Trying so hard to fulfill all mathematical rules only shows that you actually can't hear what you're composing. It may look good on paper to you, but this piece simply doesn't work on more levels.
> Also, many dissonant chords that doesn't fit there and some of the most obvious I can hear on timeline at:
> 0:53
> 1:33
> 
> Too much cacophony and weird chords to call this a finished musical piece. It can be only some kind of study. Some good ideas are drowned in your mathematical mindset which doesn't have good relationship with your ears and that's pretty much obvious at least to me.
> 
> But ok, that's only my opinion.


I think it is a composer's job to stay a step ahead of the listener, those 2 less consonant chords resolve after and add tension to what I think is a straight forward piece. At 1'33 I do agree something got cluttered, since the right hand notes came too close from the previous bar, and I have to space out the notes on the right hand, or reduce.


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> I think it is a composer's job to stay a step ahead of the listener, those 2 less consonant chords resolve after and add tension to what I think is a straight forward piece. At 1'33 I do agree something got cluttered, since the right hand notes came too close from the previous bar, and I have to space out the notes on the right hand, or reduce.


Ok, stay ahead of the listener then if you think that's what's happening here. Like I said, the beginning of the piece (first 40 seconds) is promising. After that, things fell apart.


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> Ok, stay ahead of the listener then if you think that's what's happening here. Like I said, the beginning of the piece (first 40 seconds) is promising. After that, things fell apart.


For me the highlight was the 2nd theme.


----------



## Sekhar

Phil, would you mind posting your score? It'd be educational (to me for sure anyway) to relate that to the music and see what's working and what's not and why, and we can potentially give suggestions to improve (if you're interested).

I religiously follow the standard stuff like voice leading principles, cycle of fifths chord progressions, accepted NCTs, etc. (e.g., as in the piece I posted earlier), because they give you enormous flexibility without getting you into trouble. So, it'd be a straightforward matter to start with a simple melody and then embellish/enhance as you please, for example with NCTs to achieve pleasing rather than strident dissonance.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Sekhar said:


> Phil, would you mind posting your score? It'd be educational (to me for sure anyway) to relate that to the music and see what's working and what's not and why, and we can potentially give suggestions to improve (if you're interested).
> 
> I religiously follow the standard stuff like voice leading principles, cycle of fifths chord progressions, accepted NCTs, etc. (e.g., as in the piece I posted earlier), because they give you enormous flexibility without getting you into trouble. So, it'd be a straightforward matter to start with a simple melody and then embellish/enhance as you please, for example with NCTs to achieve pleasing rather than strident dissonance.


Sure. Is there a way of posting a Pdf file? I feel there are a couple things I need to change first


----------



## Captainnumber36

Nikola's first post has left me speechless. He articulated extremely well my thoughts on the piece and then some!

I see two positive things about this piece:

1. You are attempting to focus more on a melody.
2. You are attempting to create a longer work.

But I 100% agree with Nikola's sentiments.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I also feel you abounded yourself in this piece, all the elements that make you unique as a composer are missing. Intricate rhythms and chord changes have almost become your signature sound, and this really feels forced and contrived and unnatural.


----------



## nikola

Captainnumber36 said:


> Nikola's first post has left me speechless. She articulated extremely well my thoughts on the piece and then some!
> 
> I see two positive things about this piece:
> 
> 1. You are attempting to focus more on a melody.
> 2. You are attempting to create a longer work.
> 
> But I 100% agree with Nikola's sentiments.


I am still 'he' 

Yes, also 'forced' is good word.


----------



## Captainnumber36

nikola said:


> I am still 'he'
> 
> Yes, also 'forced' is good word.


Sorry about that!


----------



## Phil loves classical

Can't seem to get a pdf posted. Here is a fixed version. There were a couple chords I felt weren't quite right from the first version. Excuse the wrong notes in places. Doesn't matter how much i practice, I end up messing up on something.






Sorry, bad version. Lots of mistakes, I get bothered listening to it. There was a chord I played missing a tonic note, so it really just messed up,


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Can't seem to get a pdf posted. Here is a fixed version. There were a couple chords I felt weren't quite right from the first version. Excuse the wrong notes in places. Doesn't matter how much i practice, I end up messing up on something.


I've been going through my list of compositions and narrowing the ones down that I'm not intimidated by at all so I can perform mistake free. I want to achieve perfection in performance where I make no mistakes and I think that takes self-awareness, discipline, & hard work. I may have a more inspired performance from night to night, but I want all the notes to be there all the time.

Many classical/jazz musicians have achieved this level of perfection and it has always been a goal of mine to achieve it.

So what I'm trying to say is, perhaps you should compose simpler songs that are more in your comfort zone technically and thus the performance will be better.

Just a tip!


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> Nikola's first post has left me speechless. He articulated extremely well my thoughts on the piece and then some!
> 
> I see two positive things about this piece:
> 
> 1. You are attempting to focus more on a melody.
> 2. You are attempting to create a longer work.
> 
> But I 100% agree with Nikola's sentiments.


I think the structure is quite obvious and formal, and am not concerned about that part. Others can comment on the structure. But this was a focus more on consonant melody (my 1st and 2nd one did still have melody), even if I do use more conventional progressions. This is something I wanted to compose to satisfy my other side, even if it is not the direction I am that interested in pursuing. I agree it may sound forced coming from my previous pieces, but it was in fact something ingrained in me before my infatuation with dissonance.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've been going through my list of compositions and narrowing the ones down that I'm not intimidated by at all so I can perform mistake free. I want to achieve perfection in performance where I make no mistakes and I think that takes self-awareness, discipline, & hard work. I may have a more inspired performance from night to night, but I want all the notes to be there all the time.
> 
> Many classical/jazz musicians have achieved this level of perfection and it has always been a goal of mine to achieve it.
> 
> So what I'm trying to say is, perhaps you should compose simpler songs that are more in your comfort zone technically and thus the performance will be better.
> 
> Just a tip!


Whoa, no way. My focus is on the music itself than my performing them adequately. I'm sure Bettina or someone could perform them in their sleep. the problem is I screw up even simple parts, something with my psychology while performing.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Here is a midi version.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cu406z8y9y746wh/Op. 4.mid?dl=0

Some base notes get played twice because the tie feature is not that capable


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is a midi version.
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/cu406z8y9y746wh/Op. 4.mid?dl=0
> 
> Some base notes get played twice because the tie feature is not that capable


Did you put the "trance pad" in there or is that just my garage band going bonkers?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> Did you put the "trance pad" in there or is that just my garage band going bonkers?


It's a free version music notation software that self-generates a midi  I may have noted the tempo a bit slow. I figured the 2 chords Nikola noted would cause some controversy. The second one I fixed to a more consonant chord since it does feel kind of outta place, but the first one I will stand by.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Check out this recording. I'm happy with it. Ironed out a couple of little wrinkles. Plus my playing has a lot more conviction, in spite of the mistakes, which was lacking in the other run throughs.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I would try slowing it down and adding more Rubato to it, I think that would help a lot. This version does seem more pleasing, definitely. 

I also don't feel the development sections developing dynamically or expressively. They feel a bit emotionless. 

I think with more expression overall, feeling it out more, will help a lot.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> I would try slowing it down and adding more Rubato to it, I think that would help a lot. This version does seem more pleasing, definitely.
> 
> I also don't feel the development sections developing dynamically or expressively. They feel a bit emotionless.
> 
> I think with more expression overall, feeling it out more, will help a lot.


My performing sucks, no question. I analyzed it afterwards to make sure I have the proper notation. It actually switches keys quite a bit. starts in F major, switches back and forth with Csharp minor and ends in A flat major, even though it sounds simple harmonically to my ears.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> My performing sucks, no question. I analyzed it afterwards to make sure I have the proper notation. It actually switches keys quite a bit. starts in F major, switches back and forth with Csharp minor and ends in A flat major, even though it sounds simple harmonically to my ears.


It's hard to escape what's embedded in your sub-conscious...


----------



## Captainnumber36

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's hard to escape what's embedded in your sub-conscious...


We must be careful what we put in there...


----------



## paulc

Hi Phil,

I listened to both the original and revised pieces. I also feel that the first 40 to 56 seconds is the strongest - aside from one progression (sounds like direct motion to a fourth, resolving to third in the outer voices, or maybe it's a 2nd inversion chord seventh resolving to sixth - not sure) that appears in two places which grates on my ears for some reason. Composer's preference, really.

Overall, the revised version is better. The things that weaken the piece in my opinion: The harmony beyond the first 56+ seconds is either a bit too distant relative to the tonal centre, else those distant harmonies should be anticipated (tonicised?) or lead to through intermediary moments which relate to both keys. The voice leading of the arpeggiated chords seems a little off / abrupt later on.

But, it's getting there. Polish, polish, polish.


----------



## Phil loves classical

paulc said:


> Hi Phil,
> 
> I listened to both the original and revised pieces. I also feel that the first 40 to 56 seconds is the strongest - aside from one progression (sounds like direct motion to a fourth, resolving to third in the outer voices, or maybe it's a 2nd inversion chord seventh resolving to sixth - not sure) that appears in two places which grates on my ears for some reason. Composer's preference, really.
> 
> Overall, the revised version is better. The things that weaken the piece in my opinion: The harmony beyond the first 56+ seconds is either a bit too distant relative to the tonal centre, else those distant harmonies should be anticipated (tonicised?) or lead to through intermediary moments which relate to both keys. The voice leading of the arpeggiated chords seems a little off / abrupt later on.
> 
> But, it's getting there. Polish, polish, polish.


Thanks for your comments good to hear a more technical analysis. I screwed up playing one bar in the runs of the arpeggios near the ending so yes, it was rough there. I was wondering about your level of progressive tonality tolerability. There is quite a bit of music I listened to that uses a new key as a spring board, and the original key is a distant memory. I did go back to the original key of first theme and back again to 2nd key. I'll post the score if I get a chance.

Looking back, the last few chords of the arppeggios are actually the same as the ones in 40-56 seconds, but I agree they sound transformed (which I think is part of the beauty of it). The part you find grating may be the part I had the most trouble with from the original version, is it at 42 seconds? In this revised version it became one of my favourite chord changes in the song , but which I still think is in keeping with the overall piece.


----------



## paulc

Phil loves classical said:


> I was wondering about your level of progressive tonality tolerability. There is quite a bit of music I listened to that uses a new key as a spring board, and the original key is a distant memory.


My 'progressive tonality tolerability' is pretty good, lol. I mostly listen to (and aspire to write) very chromatic music which segues between key rapidly. So, music from the Romantic and Late Romantic periods. I also like modern music, even 12-tone stuff but find atonality a bit tiresome. I think the reason that chromatic progressions work so well is because the voices are mostly lead _step-wise_, rather than by abrupt skips. The latter tends to sound more disjointed.

I wonder whether you've tried that sudden key change (0:53) as a first inversion chord, that perhaps allows you to lessen the distance between the notes previous and following? That might soften the effect. But then... I'm telling you what to write.  Damn theory!

The part I don't like occurs at 0:20 and 0:45.


----------



## Phil loves classical

paulc said:


> My 'progressive tonality tolerability' is pretty good, lol. I mostly listen to (and aspire to write) very chromatic music which segues between key rapidly. So, music from the Romantic and Late Romantic periods. I also like modern music, even 12-tone stuff but find atonality a bit tiresome. I think the reason that chromatic progressions work so well is because the voices are mostly lead _step-wise_, rather than by abrupt skips. The latter tends to sound more disjointed.
> 
> I wonder whether you've tried that sudden key change (0:53) as a first inversion chord, that perhaps allows you to lessen the distance between the notes previous and following? That might soften the effect. But then... I'm telling you what to write.  Damn theory!
> 
> The part I don't like occurs at 0:20 and 0:45.


ok, that's not the part I had in mind. That is a b flat major to sort of round or ease it out to the next chord. at :53, it's not a key change, just a progression. I think you mean second inversion the first would make the distance even more. I would hesitate cuz I don't want it to linger in that spot too long. the first key with the first theme iis actually C major, but I changed to subdominant F midway through to tie in with that bridge section around .50. I intended it as just like a prelude to the main parts.


----------



## paulc

Phil loves classical said:


> it's not a key change, just a progression.


@0:53 - It might not be a sustained change of key, but it is not tonicised or hinted at beforehand and sounds very abrupt. 



Phil loves classical said:


> I think you mean second inversion the first would make the distance even more.


I'd have to see the score. Maybe I'm just hearing the large skips between voices (?), which I dislike.

I'm actually second inversion-phobic! Generally speaking, those chords work only with a pedal tone, or fleetingly between other progressions. Bach will forever be regarded as a better composer than me, but I've been studying some of his scores recently and I can't stand his use of 2nd inversion voicing at times!  Especially since his pieces sound good played at speed (and mine sometimes sound bad!), but I dislike his usage of them. Haha. Practice trumps theory.


----------



## Phil loves classical

That one chord that you find grating, paulc, is actually "correct" according to the related keys, redid my analysis, but I feel that pariticular melody in the bar banal and holding a passing note too long. The skips are direct modulations, which I limited in this piece. The idea is I don't want it to sound high romantic like Chopin, but wanted a more postRomantic, slightly impressionistic sound especially with the transition to the 2nd theme. I still need to get the notation corrected first before I post the score.


----------



## Phil loves classical

This is probably my most expressive version, while having fewer technical mistakes. Plus I fixed the line I felt was a bit banal.


----------

