# What started out as a simple music box melody...



## Colourless

The first composition I am going to post here is... a music box piece!
I love giving out the most bizarre first impression on people... :lol:

This is one little thing which was originally only supposed to be a simple loopable music box melody, that I had made for my own pleasure of doing something both simple and unusual for once.

However upon release, and to my astonishment, this little fella was an instant hit especially amongst musicians and classical music fans. I got complimented a lot mainly about these 3 aspects:
- The originality of using the music box as the main and only instrument for
- The melody itself.
- Being able to achieve depth and emotional power of usually complex and elaborated works within a simple and short music box song.

Now I want to know what you guys, as classical music lovers, think.

A few words about the composition first:
Wether it is short and simple, or long and elaborated, I always plan a very specific intent for each and every one of my works.
For this piece, I wanted something that gives the idea of a waltz, like something people would dance to in a huge luxurious ballroom. Yet, not any kind of waltz, but something of a darker feel, without becoming "evil" or "mean". Just darker with an uneasy tense to it. Imagine yourself entering a large victorian-like ballroom, with people dressed at their finest, dancing a waltz in a highly sophisticated manner... yet as you get closer to them, you realise that they don't release any "living" energy, like empty shells moving around in synchronism... What would be playing? Now take this music, and put it in a music box for children... This is what I wanted for this piece.

http://braindamaged.webs.com/dragon_waltz.mp3

Btw, I am currently writing a whole symphony based on this melody...


----------



## Rasa

A Waltz in 4/4, very innovative!

Will your symphony feature an atonal fugue and a monothematic Rondo?


----------



## MJTTOMB

Rasa said:


> A Waltz in 4/4, very innovative!
> 
> Will your symphony feature an atonal fugue and a monothematic Rondo?


This might be one of the greatest responses I've ever heard.

Can't say much though, I wrote something in 6/8 marked Tempo di valse.


----------



## LarsikComposer

Guys, Im really impressed by your sense of humor

You are probably infected by the thought that the only way a waltz can be performed is in 3/4. Yeah, thats right if Strauss and Chopin rule the world, but they don`t. During the late 1800s many forms of waltz were developed and you can find waltzes in 3/4, 2/4, 3/2 and 5/4. It`s called Modern Waltz


----------



## Colourless

Reading all the posts on here got me confused... and now I can't tell if you guys were being serious or sarcastic or whatnot... Care to enlighten me a bit? I'll answer all questions you might have concerning my work. I believe music's only restrictions are being dictated by the composer's own heart, and I just love to go against or past established "rules" when composing. 



Rasa said:


> A Waltz in 4/4, very innovative!
> 
> Will your symphony feature an atonal fugue and a monothematic Rondo?


I want to avoid atonal music, it is not the kind of result I want to achieve when I write orchestral works. I hadn't thought about the fugue, but now that you mention it, I think it could be a good idea, especially maybe for a less tense slow waltz movement, I'll see if I can incorporate to the piece a fitting fugue part.
As for the rondo, I just love rondos. The answer is yes, there will be a monothematic one!


----------



## LarsikComposer

My post werent ment to you but to the other sarcastic comments here


----------



## Colourless

They were being sarcastic? At least Rasa's comment seemed pretty genuine to me... Unless I missed something?

I didn't really get the meaning of MJTTOMB's though...


----------



## Rasa

LarsikComposer said:


> You are probably infected by the thought that the only way a waltz can be performed is in 3/4. Yeah, thats right if Strauss and Chopin rule the world, but they don`t. During the late 1800s many forms of waltz were developed and you can find waltzes in 3/4, 2/4, 3/2 and 5/4. It`s called Modern Waltz


Not quite accurate.

When taken for a type of dance, Waltz is always in 3/4. This was a well-established custom in 18th century Vienna, with it's origins in the Ländler (which also is in 3/4)

However, the word also means to turn in German. In the 19th the word "Waltz" came to indicate that the dance in question contained a turn in the movements (as opposed to say, a straight polka), hence why some dances in 2/4, 6/8, 5/4 had "Waltz" as a qualifier. All these dances indicated as such are not "real" Waltzes.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Colourless said:


> Reading all the posts on here got me confused... and now I can't tell if you guys were being serious or sarcastic or whatnot... Care to enlighten me a bit? I'll answer all questions you might have concerning my work. I believe music's only restrictions are being dictated by the composer's own heart, and I just love to go against or past established "rules" when composing.
> 
> I want to avoid atonal music, it is not the kind of result I want to achieve when I write orchestral works. I hadn't thought about the fugue, but now that you mention it, I think it could be a good idea, especially maybe for a less tense slow waltz movement, I'll see if I can incorporate to the piece a fitting fugue part.
> As for the rondo, I just love rondos. The answer is yes, there will be a monothematic one!


It was sarcasm.

There is no such thing as a monothematic Rondo. You _really_ need to study form.

I can understand someone consciously choosing to write a "Waltz" in an atypical meter, as Debussy's Prelude "Les sons et les parfums tourent dans l'air du soir" does use moments of 5/4 and maintains a very dance-like feel. However, this individual demonstrates almost no grasp of formal considerations. Rondos are generically "ABACA..." form, the entire nature of the form is about contrast and introducing a variety of themes. A monothematic rondo would be "AAAAA...", not a Rondo at all but a sort of poorly-conceived Theme and Variations.

He gives no inkling that he understands that Waltzes are typically in a triple meter. If he had included a statement acknowledging the irregular meter and why he felt it was necessary to use it, I would have nothing to criticize.

On another note, how would a fugue fit with a slow "less tense" waltz movement? The polyphonic nature of a fugue makes it very complex to most listeners, and the form is based almost entirely on tension and release.


----------



## Colourless

I am still being confused here...........

The symphony I am writing for this melody might contain a waltz movement (which WILL be written in a classical 3/4 form) but will NOT be a watlz in itself. Just pointing this out in case it wasn't clear....


----------



## LarsikComposer

Rasa said:


> Not quite accurate.
> 
> When taken for a type of dance, Waltz is always in 3/4. This was a well-established custom in 18th century Vienna, with it's origins in the Ländler (which also is in 3/4)
> 
> However, the word also means to turn in German. In the 19th the word "Waltz" came to indicate that the dance in question contained a turn in the movements (as opposed to say, a straight polka), hence why some dances in 2/4, 6/8, 5/4 had "Waltz" as a qualifier. All these dances indicated as such are not "real" Waltzes.


I totally agree with you. Was just trying to quibble (don`t know any other words for it)

But in dance competitions you can perform two forms of walts, Vienna and Modern. Anyway, I know what you mean. Waltz is always 3/4 so theres no need to argue about a ******* waltz


----------



## Colourless

MJTTOMB said:


> It was sarcasm.
> 
> There is no such thing as a monothematic Rondo. You _really_ need to study form.
> 
> I can understand someone consciously choosing to write a "Waltz" in an atypical meter, as Debussy's Prelude "Les sons et les parfums tourent dans l'air du soir" does use moments of 5/4 and maintains a very dance-like feel. However, this individual demonstrates almost no grasp of formal considerations. Rondos are generically "ABACA..." form, the entire nature of the form is about contrast and introducing a variety of themes. A monothematic rondo would be "AAAAA...", not a Rondo at all but a sort of poorly-conceived Theme and Variations.
> 
> He gives no inkling that he understands that Waltzes are typically in a triple meter. If he had included a statement acknowledging the irregular meter and why he felt it was necessary to use it, I would have nothing to criticize.
> 
> On another note, how would a fugue fit with a slow "less tense" waltz movement? The polyphonic nature of a fugue makes it very complex to most listeners, and the form is based almost entirely on tension and release.


Thanks for the sarcasm then, I really feel respected... not.

And I do very well know what a rondo is, thank you very much. as for "monothematic" rondo, I thought it was meant in a "feeling" way, not a melodic or theorical way. As for "less tense", I was talking in consideration of the tensing and (especially) releasing this form offers, as opposed to other movements that keep a very high tension with barely any release bits.

I wasn't expecting I'd have to explain from a to z every single little decision I took for my compositions that differs from their form's typical "mold". I thought people were able to just listen and feel the music as it is written and played, with an open mind, heart and soul, and not stop at every "unrespected" rule they are accustomed to with a reaction of "No, this bad! Should be this! Can't be right!".
I don't see the point of being a composer if one can't come up with novelty, wether it be based or not on existing molds, or to be told by other people how one's own creative work should be written and/or played.
Boundaries are there to be crossed.

This piece is just a simple light loopable score for a music box, and should be viewed as one. Nothing more, nothing less, with all allowances and restrictions a music box offers. I've given the background for this music as to explain my choice of notes, key, and measure, and to give a better idea to people as to what I was trying to achieve and why.
Why I chose 4/4 is of personnal liking matters. Now I do not have anything against the typycal 3/4 waltz, it is beautiful. I just wanted to do something different that would fit what I wanted to achieve. That is all. Should there be any more reasons?


----------



## Weston

I would call this 2/4 instead of 4/4, but either way it's more of a march than a waltz. It's still a loop as there is no development. As a loop it works great though. I think "Loop" is a relatively new genre of music and should be taken more seriously than it is. I'm intrigued by the idea of a piece of music that can be used in games the way soundtracks are used in movies, but with the added restriction that it must be of indeterminate length. It's kind of brilliant the way some composers came up with looping music, and the software seamlessly switches to different moods of the piece as the action within the game changes. In this way, loops would be closest in genre to theme and variations.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Breaking a mold is one matter, lacking a solid form is another. Form and structure are something you'll develop over time as a composer.

What separates the pieces that get remembered from those that don't isn't the choice of notes or feelings, it's the structure. A well-structured piece is built to weather the sands of time, just like a well-constructed building. The Pyramids may not be the prettiest buildings constructed history, but they inspire us because they remain virtually unscathed and undiminished even after thousands of years of wear. Contrast this with a beautiful glass building built in the industrial era. They simply do not last. They would be fortunate to survive a hundred years of wear, much less a thousand.

I was perhaps too harsh, but if I can redeem myself perhaps a little by making this suggestion, that would be very nice. Once you have mastered harmony and melody to the best of your ability, move on to form and immerse yourself in it. Don't just learn letters or names of sections. Look over scores written by the greats and determine how they treated different sections. Some of them, you will find, did break the mold. But when they did so, they were merely forging a more solid, reinforced structure. And never give up, no matter how many critics like myself beat you down.


----------



## Colourless

MJTTOMB said:


> Breaking a mold is one matter, lacking a solid form is another. Form and structure are something you'll develop over time as a composer.
> 
> What separates the pieces that get remembered from those that don't isn't the choice of notes or feelings, it's the structure. A well-structured piece is built to weather the sands of time, just like a well-constructed building. The Pyramids may not be the prettiest buildings constructed history, but they inspire us because they remain virtually unscathed and undiminished even after thousands of years of wear. Contrast this with a beautiful glass building built in the industrial era. They simply do not last. They would be fortunate to survive a hundred years of wear, much less a thousand.
> 
> I was perhaps too harsh, but if I can redeem myself perhaps a little by making this suggestion, that would be very nice. Once you have mastered harmony and melody to the best of your ability, move on to form and immerse yourself in it. Don't just learn letters or names of sections. Look over scores written by the greats and determine how they treated different sections. Some of them, you will find, did break the mold. But when they did so, they were merely forging a more solid, reinforced structure. And never give up, no matter how many critics like myself beat you down.


I already know all of this all too well, and I have done said studies on great composer's work years and years ago. I am way past that stage. I still dont get why all the severe and harsh criticism over.... a music box melody. Just a damn short music box melody I especially stated was made for my own pleasure, and not meant for being anything serious. It in no ways reflects even in the least my actual capacities as a composer.
As for your reference with pyramids and glass buildings, to me pyramids ARE the second prettiest structures ever constructed, after gothic architechture monuments of the middle-ages. And I really despise any of the modern buildings (or should I say modern architechture in general), especially the glass buildings you were talking about. But that becomes off-topic...


----------



## Comus

Sorry to butt in. It doesn't seem to me that your piece is being criticized here, but rather your terminology in describing it. Certain phenomena do have names for specific reasons. Monothematic has a fairly literal meaning. Nevertheless, I'm inspired by this little 'loop' and Weston's comments on indeterminate length in composition. The timbre of a music box lets the notes come through extraordinarily clear. Good luck on the symphony. Or perhaps it should be a music-box concerto?


----------



## Rasa

Weston said:


> I would call this 2/4 instead of 4/4


The reason I put down 4/4 is because the harmonies (as streched out over an albertian bass) stretches out over 4 nothes, and each sentence seem to be contained per 4 beats aswell.



> Look over scores written by the greats and determine how they treated different sections.





> I am way past that stage.


I doubt it.

Oh, did I mention that it was a nice loop?


----------



## Colourless

Comus said:


> Sorry to butt in. It doesn't seem to me that your piece is being criticized here, but rather your terminology in describing it.


Well then I am sorry for being born french and not knowing the correct english musical terms.



Rasa said:


> I doubt it.


Beleive that if that is what you wish, I can't really help it if you will only trust the first impression you get of things.



Rasa said:


> Oh, did I mention that it was a nice loop?


Oh yay thanks for being sarcastic again.


----------



## Rasa

Colourless said:


> Well then I am sorry for being born french and not knowing the correct english musical terms.


Waltz is not an English specific term, and is not too far from valse.
Monthematic=monothématique

Please don't use silly excuses.



Colourless said:


> Oh yay thanks for being sarcastic again.


I can't win


----------



## Colourless

Rasa said:


> Waltz is not an English specific term, and is not too far from valse.
> Monthematic=monothématique
> 
> Please don't use silly excuses.


I knew about these. I wouldn't use a term or respond to it before at least making sure I know what it is. I think Cosmus was referring to my speech in general, the way I wrote it. I answered accordingly.



Rasa said:


> I can't win


Then tell me how on earth I am supposed to know if you're being serious or not, if you keep alternating between serious-ness and sarcasm without warning!
It's not like a forum can include the tone and face of the people speaking to give a hint of their true meaning!
I already have difficulties telling when someone is using sarcasm in real life, don't expect me to find out on here!


----------

