# First Draft of Turkish March



## caters (Aug 2, 2018)

So I have finished composing the first draft of my Turkish March. Here are the keys for each section of the rondo:

A - C major
B - F major
C - C major
D - A minor
E - C minor
Coda - C major

I went with the flow when I composed this, so yes it sounds very Mozart influenced. But 1 thing I do that Mozart wouldn't is use Vmaj7 in the coda. Normally I would use the major 7th to resolve to the major by raising the 7th up a step. But I figured I could use it as the dominant chord. So I did that.

And you notice, most of the C minor section is in the natural minor, though I do use the harmonic minor in the third to last measure of that section where I transition back to C major.

And I kept the keys of the different sections closely related enough that a direct modulation(in other words, no intermediate key), would suffice.

Here is the link to the piece on Musescore.com:

Turkish March

What do you think of it? Do you think I need to make any changes to it? And if so, what needs changed?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Hi Caters,

I could do a granular critique of the piece, but I'll make just a few technical comments, because I think that isn't the most important place to focus. So just a few big things: 
-The ends of the sections are too obvious, mostly half-note chords marking nearly every transition. This chops the piece into short fragments.
-The harmonic progression overall doesn't work. It breaks down especially at the transitions between sections. For example, the harmonies in mm. 8 and 16 are just wrong. You really need the dominant or some viable substitute for it in both places, because the return to tonic in mm. 9 and 17 sounds random and weak.
-The melodic content tends to sound kind of random also - like it is built from generic figures chosen to go with pre-selected harmonies (and they often don't go). The melodic material just isn't memorable or interesting.

What I think you really need to reconsider is your working method. IMO, you shouldn't be thinking about composing in a large form like a rondo. You aren't ready for that. And you certainly shouldn't be focusing on sequences of keys and large scale planning as you discussed in your posts. Starting with those kinds of plans makes no sense until you can write well-formed and meaningful phrases.

What I would recommend (after committing to studying music theory and learning more about chord progressions and voice-leading!) is: Don't think about large scale structure or even finishing a big composition. Just start by writing coherent and meaningful phrases. *Write melodies*, aiming each time for something memorable that hangs together from beginning to end - that sounds like it goes somewhere. Something you would enjoy playing and singing. Don't think about harmony or structure or anything else at first. Only after you have a melody that stands up should you think about harmonizing it or adding other parts.

Good luck.


----------



## caters (Aug 2, 2018)

The harmony of the transitions, I have the way I have them because to me, using G to transition to F sounds odd, and using Dm, just sounds odd in the context of a C major section of a C major piece because it is the ii chord. I don't know of any place where a ii IV occurs in classical music.

The transition back to C major is a chord on the subdominant, because I planned on there being a plagal cadence, to avoid too much finality early on and I knew that since I would start with C major right after the subdominant chord, there is no reason to have the C major chord in the B section as well.

The transitions from C to A and vice versa, end on C major because both sections are in C major, so ending on the tonic is no problem.

The transitions from C to D and A to D also end on C major because I am going to the relative minor. Similar thing for D to C but it is ending on A minor to go the relative major.

The A to E transition is a parralel modulation precisely because I fel I needed some drama, and the E to A transition goes from Gm to G using the harmonic minor V chord to transition back to the parallel major.

Also I have written a nocturne, which is actually longer than this Turkish March and is in Theme and Variations form and only really got 2 improvement comments. One was to write it in 3/4 time and the other was to end on a root position tonic chord instead of a second inversion tonic chord. And I have studied music theory and orchestration for years. So, clearly, I am ready for composing big forms like rondos, sonata form, and fugues.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

caters said:


> Also I have written a nocturne, which is actually longer than this Turkish March and is in Theme and Variations form and only really got 2 improvement comments. One was to write it in 3/4 time and the other was to end on a root position tonic chord instead of a second inversion tonic chord. *And I have studied music theory and orchestration for years. So, clearly, I am ready for composing big forms like rondos, sonata form, and fugues.*


It is clear from what you have posted that you haven't passed a basic course in classical harmony or counterpoint.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> -The melodic content ...... with pre-selected harmonies (and they often don't go).


While Edward has hit on many good points, I want to comment on just this. Look at your measures 3 & 4. In m. 3, the LH is playing a tonic C major chord and the first, second and final melodic notes are also part of a C chord. So far so good. Then m. 4 happens! The LH is still the C major chord, but the first, second and final note of the RH are not part of a C chord. This carelessly using too many melodic non-chord tones in a measure happens a number of times in your piece. It is essential if you are composing in the common practice style to treat melodic non-chord tones carefully. You always must have some but not the great majority within a measure.


----------



## pkoi (Jun 10, 2017)

I also agree with the points Vasks and Edwardbast commented, I would add also that the way you treat phrases is very different from Mozart and other late 18th century composers. In mm. 1-19, there's not really a single satisfying cadence anywhere. Cadences are absolutely vital for 18th century music (and for later tonal music as well), as they were used to mark the endings within different sections of a piece. The way they are used in late 18th century style, stems from rhetoric.

For example check the opening (mm.1-8) of the first movement of Mozart's K331. It's a typical parallel period that ends the antecedent (mm. 1-4) on the half cadence (HC) and the consequent in perfect authentic cadence (PAC) (mm.5-8). It represents a kind of "sentence" where the antecedent proposes an idea, which ends on the comma (HC). This idea is further developed in the antecedent by repeating the basic idea but this time implementing a growth of tension at the end by increased harmonic activity and resolving that sentence in a PAC in a similar manner as a regular sentence would (mm. 7-8).

Your song begins in C-major, moves towards the IV degree and really much emphasizes it in measure 8, which is still okay, despite the strange voice leading. However, moving to the IV degree and emphasizing it, creates a strong expectation of an upcoming dominant chord, which you do not give to the listener. Instead, you return to the tonic as if nothing had happened. You could alter it by changing the of the F-major chord in measure 8 to octave positioning (f4 as the highest note) and start the melody with e4 in measure 9. This would be a more natural melodic procession in the Fuxian counterpoint (fourth is a dissonance in fuxian counterpoint that needs to be resolved by moving a step down), which to a certain affected even the most galant music of the late 18th century.

You do use dominant tendencies in mm. 13-16 and hint of it with the melodic notes already in measure 12 but it is also used strangely, as you do not resolve the leading tone B or the seventh F, leaving a very dissatisfying feeling when you move back to the tonic in mm. 17-19. That fanfare-figure you use at the return to the tonic is also a texture usually used as post-cadential action. I would suggest you resolve the dominant passage in mm.13-16 and only then move into that figure in mm. 17-19 or at least change the melodic figure of measure 16 to something that ends in the note B4. Then it resolves at least melodically to the I degree.

The structure of your opening phrase is then as follows: mm. 1-8 I-IV'' mm. 9-12 I, mm. 13-16 V mm. 17-18 I. Measures 1-8 seem to suggest an antecedent phrase, which is interrupted by emphasizing the IV-degree. If I was you, I would recompose the beginning by keeping measures 1-8 as they are (fix the melody) and continue towards a satisfying PAC and keeping the phrase symmetrical by using 18 bars. After that you could emphasize the tonic with the stuff you wrote at measures 17-19. Another choice would recompose the stuff in mm-1-8 to end on a HC, start from the beginning and end it to a PAC the second time.

I believe that you've studied music theory but I would suggest you to return to your harmony and counterpoint studies alongside your composition activities. As was pointed out by EdwardBast and Vasks, your melodic and harmonic writing is a bit off at times and it could be improved so much by some species counterpoint exercises. At least for me, the species counterpoint lessons at the university taught so much about how melody is treated in Western tonal music, even if the style we did the exercises was in the 16th century style. Also, when you study scores, try to pay special attention on harmonic and melodic choices Mozart and his contemporaries made and try to replicate them in your own works.

For tonal harmony, an excellent book is Aldwell & Schachter's _Harmony and Voice Leading_
For counterpoint, either Fux's book or for example Knud Jeppesen's _Counterpoint_

Keep on composing!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Twenty measures of your melody slightly modified and reharmonized:









Sound:

View attachment caters.mp3


----------



## caters (Aug 2, 2018)

Okay, that sounds odd. I was going for triadic harmony because I thought that would be best for C major(would avoid any questioning of like "Is this modulating or is it just harmony?"). But now it almost sounds like it is in G major with really odd accidentals. It almost sounds like you made a jazz piece out of a classical music piece.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda (Jul 12, 2017)

caters said:


> Okay, that sounds odd. I was going for triadic harmony because I thought that would be best for C major(would avoid any questioning of like "Is this modulating or is it just harmony?"). But now it almost sounds like it is in G major with really odd accidentals. It almost sounds like you made a jazz piece out of a classical music piece.


I like this style better, actually. Curiously, I notice that despite the title, this has a distinct lack of turkic motifs. Perhaps rename it to just a rondo?


----------



## caters (Aug 2, 2018)

Well I only had 2 pieces to go on when composing this. Mozart's Rondo Alla Turka, and Beethoven's Turkish March from Ruins of Athens. Both of them had the basic eighth note pulse and triadic harmony I have in mine and both of them are in Rondo form.


----------

