# My "Phil Loves Classical" Inspired Composition



## Captainnumber36

It's short, like Phil's, but it was really hard to write.


----------



## Samuel Kristopher

It's good. I liked that the beginning (not including the intro) reminded me of the third of Chopin's Op.10 Etudes (Tristesse), but went in an unexpected direction. The only thing I feel is missing though (by association with this etude) is more counterpoint, which the etude is full of. Not that I'm suggesting you rip off the etude  it just sounds a little empty, but it doesn't distract from the otherwise pleasant and simple progression to conclusion. 

The intro though, not sure what that's about? It doesn't seem logically connected to the thematic material of the rest - more like the performer's little warm up before playing the actual piece.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Samuel Kristopher said:


> It's good. I liked that the beginning (not including the intro) reminded me of the third of Chopin's Op.10 Etudes (Tristesse), but went in an unexpected direction. The only thing I feel is missing though (by association with this etude) is more counterpoint, which the etude is full of. Not that I'm suggesting you rip off the etude  it just sounds a little empty, but it doesn't distract from the otherwise pleasant and simple progression to conclusion.
> 
> The intro though, not sure what that's about? It doesn't seem logically connected to the thematic material of the rest - more like the performer's little warm up before playing the actual piece.


Thanks for the thoughts. The intro (dissonant faster part) is the crux of what was inspired by Phil. I kind of like the contrasting sections, not dissimilar to Mozart's Fantasy in D minor.

I definitely hear Chopin, even when I was writing it, in the second half of the piece.

I could probably expand on this piece.


----------



## dzc4627

Like Phil's it sounds like a musical joke. Some soft rumblings on the piano after a contrasting pecking intro. Perhaps if you took more time on your music, more would come of it. Oh, and I cannot for the life of me understand the Mozart D minor Fantasy comparison you are trying to make.


----------



## Captainnumber36

dzc4627 said:


> Like Phil's it sounds like a musical joke. Some soft rumblings on the piano after a contrasting pecking intro. Perhaps if you took more time on your music, more would come of it. Oh, and I cannot for the life of me understand the Mozart D minor Fantasy comparison you are trying to make.


Were you being sarcastic in Phil's thread when you called it genius? Mozart Fantasy in D Minor starts soft and dark, then the joyful Mozart returns by the end. Two completely different sounding sections, that is the comparison I was making.


----------



## Samuel Kristopher

I see what you're trying to say, but possibly what dzc is driving at is that Mozart's Fantasy does a lot more behind the scenes to connect the parts of the piece into a smooth, seamless, coherent whole.

Let's look at tonality. It's difficult to hear the shifts in key in Mozart's fantasy because they are so subtle and logical and well-prepared for, but even though they are difficult to hear, we get the full pleasure of his tonal landscape all the same - especially said shift to the major tonality about 2/3s of the way through - it happens so subtly that you barely realise it has happened until an entire measure or two later. In your intro, though, there is no preparation for the sudden shift. It starts in what sounds like a C9 chord (although the D note is more prominent so I feel like perhaps it's a D9 with a sharpened fifth?). Anyway, the tonality is very ambiguous, which isn't a bad thing on its own, but if you want satisfied listeners then it needs to resolve, and the more dissonant and ambiguous the start, the more stable and consonant the resolution should be.

Again, I could be wrong (I'm not the best at transcribing by ear), but the intro starts with this C9/D9#5 and hangs on a C minor chord twice, before being restated, after which we have the pause and move to what sounds like an E-flat major, which is the relative major of C minor. Although a shift to E-flat major from its relative minor shouldn't be difficult, probably what makes this introduction so jarring is that the E-flat major melody is the first time that I get any sense of tonal grounding (the hanging C minor doesn't achieve this). Be sure that Mozart's contrasting introduction grounds us in D minor from the very beginning. Indeed, the beauty of his shift from minor to major works so well _because_ he has grounded us so firmly in the minor keys, especially D minor.

Now, of course, if you are going for something more modern (maybe even postmodern), these expectations about smoothness and convention break down and you can be more liberal with music, but be aware that these genres are much less popular than conventional ones, and generally these modern artists are breaking rules because they first implicitly know the rules inside out, and secondly, because they are trying to make a point about something. Rule-breaking takes on a sense of purpose and the task of the listener shifts from trying to enjoy the music to trying to figure out the reason behind the composers rule-breaking. Often, a postmodern piece (even a great one) will not be appreciated or enjoyed until it has been 'figured out' and studied. However, given that the piece is inspired by "classical", and the fact that you probably don't know these compositional conventions inside out (not meaning to be an ******* - I can say this about myself as well - it takes an experienced and professional composer to reach this point) I assume you're not intending to write a modern/postmodern piece.

Sorry to ramble, but those are a few thoughts I had that I think are pertinent. Since I haven't been all that helpful though, I had a tinkle on the piano and tried some variations on your piece. I made up a quick mock of one in Sibelius and uploaded it. Some notes:
- I've chosen C minor as the starting chord simply because we were comparing your piece to Mozart's fantasy and I think it's the simplest way to ground the piece firmly in that tone - also like Mozart's fantasy, the staccato chord begins on the fifth
- I went with a slightly more colourful frill which is admittedly my own creative license, but the point is that I wanted to use this frill to emphasise the notes of the C minor chord (further grounding it in our minds)
- I've kept the hanging C minor but in the first statement it now resolves from a staccato A-flat, which is the sixth chord in the C minor key - this gives it a subtle major flavour which gives a hint of the major shift we'll go to next - the second hanging C minor comes from a B-flat seventh which is a little darker. It also resolves down onto strong octave Cs in the bass with the colour coming from the C minor inversion in the right hand (in hindsight I would have liked to move it up so we have contrary motion, but I did this in about 5 minutes so never mind!)
- In the restatement, the C minor in the bass now has C in the root (stronger), but now that we've quite firmly established C minor, the frill dabbles in a bit of E-flat major (the key we ultimately want to end in), by adding in a B-flat (which is the only note that a C minor chord doesn't share with the E-flat major - obviously the C minor has 'C' instead). The presence of both a B-flat and C in this chord gives it a sixth chord feel to it too, which is nice. 
- In the first chord of the fifth measure, I placed the C minor chord with an E-flat in the lowest position, further preparing us for a shift to E-flat major, and I use an F-minor seventh chord instead of the A-flat major to transition us to E-flat major. However, that doesn't quite ground the shift - so a second statement of the Fm7 and resolution to E-flat major takes place (again, I could have worked out a better contrary motion). Now we're definitely in E-flat major and the melody will carry on smoothly.

Sorry I don't have time to clarify more, but I hope this is helpful and not in anyway overbearing or invasive. Enjoy!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Samuel Kristopher said:


> I see what you're trying to say, but possibly what dzc is driving at is that Mozart's Fantasy does a lot more behind the scenes to connect the parts of the piece into a smooth, seamless, coherent whole.
> 
> Let's look at tonality. It's difficult to hear the shifts in key in Mozart's fantasy because they are so subtle and logical and well-prepared for, but even though they are difficult to hear, we get the full pleasure of his tonal landscape all the same - especially said shift to the major tonality about 2/3s of the way through - it happens so subtly that you barely realise it has happened until an entire measure or two later. In your intro, though, there is no preparation for the sudden shift. It starts in what sounds like a C9 chord (although the D note is more prominent so I feel like perhaps it's a D9 with a sharpened fifth?). Anyway, the tonality is very ambiguous, which isn't a bad thing on its own, but if you want satisfied listeners then it needs to resolve, and the more dissonant and ambiguous the start, the more stable and consonant the resolution should be.
> 
> Again, I could be wrong (I'm not the best at transcribing by ear), but the intro starts with this C9/D9#5 and hangs on a C minor chord twice, before being restated, after which we have the pause and move to what sounds like an E-flat major, which is the relative major of C minor. Although a shift to E-flat major from its relative minor shouldn't be difficult, probably what makes this introduction so jarring is that the E-flat major melody is the first time that I get any sense of tonal grounding (the hanging C minor doesn't achieve this). Be sure that Mozart's contrasting introduction grounds us in D minor from the very beginning. Indeed, the beauty of his shift from minor to major works so well _because_ he has grounded us so firmly in the minor keys, especially D minor.
> 
> Now, of course, if you are going for something more modern (maybe even postmodern), these expectations about smoothness and convention break down and you can be more liberal with music, but be aware that these genres are much less popular than conventional ones, and generally these modern artists are breaking rules because they first implicitly know the rules inside out, and secondly, because they are trying to make a point about something. Rule-breaking takes on a sense of purpose and the task of the listener shifts from trying to enjoy the music to trying to figure out the reason behind the composers rule-breaking. Often, a postmodern piece (even a great one) will not be appreciated or enjoyed until it has been 'figured out' and studied. However, given that the piece is inspired by "classical", and the fact that you probably don't know these compositional conventions inside out (not meaning to be an ******* - I can say this about myself as well - it takes an experienced and professional composer to reach this point) I assume you're not intending to write a modern/postmodern piece.
> 
> Sorry to ramble, but those are a few thoughts I had that I think are pertinent. Since I haven't been all that helpful though, I had a tinkle on the piano and tried some variations on your piece. I made up a quick mock of one in Sibelius and uploaded it. Some notes:
> - I've chosen C minor as the starting chord simply because we were comparing your piece to Mozart's fantasy and I think it's the simplest way to ground the piece firmly in that tone - also like Mozart's fantasy, the staccato chord begins on the fifth
> - I went with a slightly more colourful frill which is admittedly my own creative license, but the point is that I wanted to use this frill to emphasise the notes of the C minor chord (further grounding it in our minds)
> - I've kept the hanging C minor but in the first statement it now resolves from a staccato A-flat, which is the sixth chord in the C minor key - this gives it a subtle major flavour which gives a hint of the major shift we'll go to next - the second hanging C minor comes from a B-flat seventh which is a little darker. It also resolves down onto strong octave Cs in the bass with the colour coming from the C minor inversion in the right hand (in hindsight I would have liked to move it up so we have contrary motion, but I did this in about 5 minutes so never mind!)
> - In the restatement, the C minor in the bass now has C in the root (stronger), but now that we've quite firmly established C minor, the frill dabbles in a bit of E-flat major (the key we ultimately want to end in), by adding in a B-flat (which is the only note that a C minor chord doesn't share with the E-flat major - obviously the C minor has 'C' instead). The presence of both a B-flat and C in this chord gives it a sixth chord feel to it too, which is nice.
> - In the first chord of the fifth measure, I placed the C minor chord with an E-flat in the lowest position, further preparing us for a shift to E-flat major, and I use an F-minor seventh chord instead of the A-flat major to transition us to E-flat major. However, that doesn't quite ground the shift - so a second statement of the Fm7 and resolution to E-flat major takes place (again, I could have worked out a better contrary motion). Now we're definitely in E-flat major and the melody will carry on smoothly.
> 
> Sorry I don't have time to clarify more, but I hope this is helpful and not in anyway overbearing or invasive. Enjoy!


Nice man! I'm honored you took the time to create something based off my original. Ya, it's not the smoothest transition, is there a hold in music which is an "infinite" rest where you begin the next passage whenever it feels right? That's what I'd like for my piece between the two sections.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Just use or loose our marbles, its easy no composition required..............


----------



## Captainnumber36

Your version definitely resolves better than mine, no doubt.


----------



## Captainnumber36

You also kind of lost me in the chord language, I'm horrible with chord names besides basic major and minor chords. I hear jazz chords, but can't name them.


----------



## dzc4627

Samuel Kristopher said:


> I see what you're trying to say, but possibly what dzc is driving at is that Mozart's Fantasy does a lot more behind the scenes to connect the parts of the piece into a smooth, seamless, coherent whole.


That is pretty much what I was saying. Also, it is much longer and generally the music is much better written, and the Fantasy form (or lack thereof I should say) feels natural and is recognizably a fantasy, while the capt piece just sounds like a disjunct intro and then some low murmuring on the piano with a rather banal melody on "top," in a register that sounds too close to the low accompaniment to be differentiated.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Sam:

I'm not really attempting to compose in any particular genre, I just compose what I hear and feel. I think I have more of a New Age approach than Classical, though.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Bettina:

What are your thoughts on this one? I always enjoy your breakdowns as well!


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

I don't exactly know what that was. It sounded like broken music box, that's the closest thing I can compare the piece to.


----------



## Captainnumber36

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> I don't exactly know what that was. It sounded like broken music box, that's the closest thing I can compare the piece to.


:lol: I kind of like that comparison, even though I know you didn't mean it favorably.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

I didn't necessarily mean it negatively or favoratively. While it may not be pleasant, I could see many applications of a similar motif, like in ballet.


----------



## Captainnumber36

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> I didn't necessarily mean it negatively or favoratively. While it may not be pleasant, I could see many applications of a similar motif, like in ballet.


That's cool. I'd love to get someone to choreograph a ballet to some of my works. It has come up in conversation before!


----------



## Bettina

Nice piece. I think that the harmonic shifts actually work well, despite what some others have said. I like the way that you create tonal ambiguity in the beginning, and then the overall key gradually crystallizes and comes into focus. That type of tonal disorientation works well for the fantasy genre of this piece.

I like your introductory melody and I wish that you could bring it back later in the piece. That would help establish a stronger sense of continuity in the overall form of the piece. Maybe you could combine it with your second theme, in a kind of counterpoint between the two melodies. Or alternate between them, perhaps? Many Fantasies switch back and forth between alternating sections (actually, Mozart does that to some extent in his D Minor fantasy) and you might want to experiment with that.


----------



## Timothy

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's short, like Phil's, but it was really hard to write.


This is a nice start, it would be wonderful to hear those initial 30 seconds expanded into a piece based around the harmonic and melodic minor scales (or modes)


----------



## Captainnumber36

Bettina said:


> Nice piece. I think that the harmonic shifts actually work well, despite what some others have said. I like the way that you create tonal ambiguity in the beginning, and then the overall key gradually crystallizes and comes into focus. That type of tonal disorientation works well for the fantasy genre of this piece.
> 
> I like your introductory melody and I wish that you could bring it back later in the piece. That would help establish a stronger sense of continuity in the overall form of the piece. Maybe you could combine it with your second theme, in a kind of counterpoint between the two melodies. Or alternate between them, perhaps? Many Fantasies switch back and forth between alternating sections (actually, Mozart does that to some extent in his D Minor fantasy) and you might want to experiment with that.


Should I change the name to Fantasy, is that really what it is at heart?

Ya, I wanted to bring back the original melody but couldn't find a way to connect it.

I like your idea to perhaps re-invent the initial idea in the second theme, and explore it that way, and some how bring it back to how it started, I like being circular like that typically.


----------



## Bettina

Captainnumber36 said:


> Should I change the name to Fantasy, is that really what it is at heart?
> 
> Ya, I wanted to bring back the original melody but couldn't find a way to connect it.
> 
> I like your idea to perhaps re-invent the initial idea in the second theme, and explore it that way, and some how bring it back to how it started, I like being circular like that typically.


Yeah, I think the title should have "Fantasia" or "Fantasy" in it. That would help the listener understand what you're doing harmonically, in terms of the improvisatory shifts between chords and keys.

A circular form would be great. ABA is a classic form that works for many different types of pieces. The opening melody has so much promise - I definitely want to hear more of it at the beginning and later in the piece. The second melody is beautiful too and you could probably expand that as well, maybe by repeating fragments of it in a higher octave.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Bettina said:


> Yeah, I think the title should have "Fantasia" or "Fantasy" in it. That would help the listener understand what you're doing harmonically, in terms of the improvisatory shifts between chords and keys.
> 
> A circular form would be great. ABA is a classic form that works for many different types of pieces. The opening melody has so much promise - I definitely want to hear more of it at the beginning and later in the piece. The second melody is beautiful too and you could probably expand that as well, maybe by repeating fragments of it in a higher octave.


I'm going to work on it after I listen to a few more of the suggestions in my other thread in the main forum. You've given me some ideas.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Here is an updated version of the song. I ended up calling it "Gough" after the painter.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I'm anxious to see what people think of the new version. Bettina's advice was essential to creating the new version! I really think I need to hire her as a guide/critic/write out the score. lol!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Anyone up to give feedback at this time?


----------



## dzc4627

The music is like the annoying pecking of a bird. I liked it better when it was shorter.


----------



## Captainnumber36

dzc4627 said:


> The music is like the annoying pecking of a bird. I liked it better when it was shorter.


Birds are sweet! Thanks.


----------



## Samuel Kristopher

I don't have a chance to listen to anything right now - I'll check it out later. I'm glad you appreciated my effort!

As for the chord language, it might be a romantic idea to just "feel the music", but I can't encourage you enough to bury yourself in music theory and apply it to your work. You obviously have the spirit of creativity, and I'm sure it's satisfying for yourself, but you would have a lot of potential to satisfy and please others if you worked at understanding the fundamentals underlying the music that you write. Take my testimony if you like. I was happy writing amateur music for upwards of 10 years before I came to Russia, and the high standards of the classical music scene here quickly shut me down with much less grace and subtlety than what some of the commenters here have made. That was about 3 years ago, and I'm far from being an expert but this year I reached a point where I feel that I am using music in a masterful way - that is not to say that my music is necessarily good, but that I understand the array of tools that music gives me, and I can dabble and employ them in ways that I choose to reach a certain effect. 

I can recommend you find lectures by Robert Greenberg - he changed my life and taught me so much, and he is perfect for starting out on this journey. Specifically, his series: "Understanding the Fundamentals of Music", but I'd recommend also his series devoted to specific genres like piano music, concerti, etc. Always feel free to PM me if you want to know where to find these lectures or want something more - I have collected loads of material over my time that has helped me. 

At any rate, it's your choice whether you want to remain a composer of 'whim' as opposed to a composer of 'control', as I like to say it. There's nothing wrong with composing what comes naturally to you, but unfortunately it means having to accept the derision of certain others who look down on that activity - who see it as an offense to the art of those who devote their lives to it and take it seriously. Personally, I'm a live and let live kinda guy - if it makes you happy, go for your life. But I can also empathise a little with those who roll their eyes at amateur pieces, especially when there is an expectation that they are not allowed to apply the same standards of criticism that they would apply to themselves or to professionals. 

I hope you have a nice day - finally it's beautiful weather here in St Petersburg (after a week of hail and thunderstorms).


----------



## Captainnumber36

Samuel Kristopher said:


> I don't have a chance to listen to anything right now - I'll check it out later. I'm glad you appreciated my effort!
> 
> As for the chord language, it might be a romantic idea to just "feel the music", but I can't encourage you enough to bury yourself in music theory and apply it to your work. You obviously have the spirit of creativity, and I'm sure it's satisfying for yourself, but you would have a lot of potential to satisfy and please others if you worked at understanding the fundamentals underlying the music that you write. Take my testimony if you like. I was happy writing amateur music for upwards of 10 years before I came to Russia, and the high standards of the classical music scene here quickly shut me down with much less grace and subtlety than what some of the commenters here have made. That was about 3 years ago, and I'm far from being an expert but this year I reached a point where I feel that I am using music in a masterful way - that is not to say that my music is necessarily good, but that I understand the array of tools that music gives me, and I can dabble and employ them in ways that I choose to reach a certain effect.
> 
> I can recommend you find lectures by Robert Greenberg - he changed my life and taught me so much, and he is perfect for starting out on this journey. Specifically, his series: "Understanding the Fundamentals of Music", but I'd recommend also his series devoted to specific genres like piano music, concerti, etc. Always feel free to PM me if you want to know where to find these lectures or want something more - I have collected loads of material over my time that has helped me.
> 
> At any rate, it's your choice whether you want to remain a composer of 'whim' as opposed to a composer of 'control', as I like to say it. There's nothing wrong with composing what comes naturally to you, but unfortunately it means having to accept the derision of certain others who look down on that activity - who see it as an offense to the art of those who devote their lives to it and take it seriously. Personally, I'm a live and let live kinda guy - if it makes you happy, go for your life. But I can also empathise a little with those who roll their eyes at amateur pieces, especially when there is an expectation that they are not allowed to apply the same standards of criticism that they would apply to themselves or to professionals.
> 
> I hope you have a nice day - finally it's beautiful weather here in St Petersburg (after a week of hail and thunderstorms).


Cool! Ya, send me some courses!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm anxious to see what people think of the new version. Bettina's advice was essential to creating the new version! I really think I need to hire her as a guide/critic/write out the score. lol!


What did you think of the added sections and transitions, Betty?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Samuel Kristopher said:


> I don't have a chance to listen to anything right now - I'll check it out later. I'm glad you appreciated my effort!
> 
> As for the chord language, it might be a romantic idea to just "feel the music", but I can't encourage you enough to bury yourself in music theory and apply it to your work. You obviously have the spirit of creativity, and I'm sure it's satisfying for yourself, but you would have a lot of potential to satisfy and please others if you worked at understanding the fundamentals underlying the music that you write. Take my testimony if you like. I was happy writing amateur music for upwards of 10 years before I came to Russia, and the high standards of the classical music scene here quickly shut me down with much less grace and subtlety than what some of the commenters here have made. That was about 3 years ago, and I'm far from being an expert but this year I reached a point where I feel that I am using music in a masterful way - that is not to say that my music is necessarily good, but that I understand the array of tools that music gives me, and I can dabble and employ them in ways that I choose to reach a certain effect.
> 
> I can recommend you find lectures by Robert Greenberg - he changed my life and taught me so much, and he is perfect for starting out on this journey. Specifically, his series: "Understanding the Fundamentals of Music", but I'd recommend also his series devoted to specific genres like piano music, concerti, etc. Always feel free to PM me if you want to know where to find these lectures or want something more - I have collected loads of material over my time that has helped me.
> 
> At any rate, it's your choice whether you want to remain a composer of 'whim' as opposed to a composer of 'control', as I like to say it. There's nothing wrong with composing what comes naturally to you, but unfortunately it means having to accept the derision of certain others who look down on that activity - who see it as an offense to the art of those who devote their lives to it and take it seriously. Personally, I'm a live and let live kinda guy - if it makes you happy, go for your life. But I can also empathise a little with those who roll their eyes at amateur pieces, especially when there is an expectation that they are not allowed to apply the same standards of criticism that they would apply to themselves or to professionals.
> 
> I hope you have a nice day - finally it's beautiful weather here in St Petersburg (after a week of hail and thunderstorms).


I've always been more of a feeler when it comes to composition. It's the method I like best, certainly. But I'm open to some courses!


----------



## Phil loves classical

Hey Capt'n did see this thread till now. Where is the first video?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Hey Capt'n did see this thread till now. Where is the first video?


I took it down, the second video is the completed piece!


----------



## Bettina

Captainnumber36 said:


> What did you think of the added sections and transitions, Betty?


Very nicely done! Your revisions have made this piece much stronger. I particularly like your expansion of the introductory section into a full-fledged A section, with a clear-cut theme and repeated rhythmic pattern. The transitions between sections are also more effective than before; there's a stronger sense of harmonic and thematic connection. Your use of different registers in the B section is another nice touch - it allows the main melody to stand out more clearly from the accompaniment.

My only critique this time involves the ending of the piece. I feel as though it ends a bit too abruptly. It might help if you slowed down at the end, and maybe you could add a few more chords to the concluding cadence, to wrap things up gradually rather than suddenly. Or perhaps a descending scale or arpeggio, leading down to the final chords?

Overall, I'm impressed with how well you've revised your piece. Revision is often the hardest part - the process of developing, connecting and reworking the original ideas. The revised title is good too. I can definitely hear the "impressionistic" sound that I associate with Van Gogh.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Bettina said:


> Very nicely done! Your revisions have made this piece much stronger. I particularly like your expansion of the introductory section into a full-fledged A section, with a clear-cut theme and repeated rhythmic pattern. The transitions between sections are also more effective than before; there's a stronger sense of harmonic and thematic connection. Your use of different registers in the B section is another nice touch - it allows the main melody to stand out more clearly from the accompaniment.
> 
> My only critique this time involves the ending of the piece. I feel as though it ends a bit too abruptly. It might help if you slowed down at the end, and maybe you could add a few more chords to the concluding cadence, to wrap things up gradually rather than suddenly. Or perhaps a descending scale or arpeggio, leading down to the final chords?
> 
> Overall, I'm impressed with how well you've revised your piece. Revision is often the hardest part - the process of developing, connecting and reworking the original ideas. The revised title is good too. I can definitely hear the "impressionistic" sound that I associate with Van Gogh.


You're so good at picking up on my rushed ideas it's not even funny! You don't even know you're doing that, but ya, the ending could be edited a bit.

Ya, I love Van Gough.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Bettina, I changed the ending.

I recorded just a little bit of the end for your critiques, I think this works nicely.

Also be aware, I recorded really quickly using my computer mic, so it distorts a little. Play it at a lower volume, this is just so you get the main idea.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/p9qmal7ot09bllv/Gough.mp3?dl=0


----------



## Bettina

Captainnumber36 said:


> Bettina, I changed the ending.
> 
> I recorded just a little bit of the end for your critiques, I think this works nicely.
> 
> Also be aware, I recorded really quickly using my computer mic, so it distorts a little. Play it at a lower volume, this is just so you get the main idea.
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/p9qmal7ot09bllv/Gough.mp3?dl=0


Thanks for responding to my suggestion to revise the ending. This new conclusion is much better. I like the way that it ends with one last emphatic statement of the main motive. That's an effective way to end a piece, kind of like summarizing the main ideas of an essay in the concluding paragraph. Well done!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Bettina said:


> Thanks for responding to my suggestion to revise the ending. This new conclusion is much better. I like the way that it ends with one last emphatic statement of the main motive. That's an effective way to end a piece, kind of like summarizing the main ideas of an essay in the concluding paragraph. Well done!


Thanks for your help as I explore a new side of myself!


----------



## Captainnumber36

I decided to do a new video with the whole song and new ending.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I hear the A section as playful and bouncy, like a child getting into Mischief.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Samuel K.

I didn't know it was you had made these posts that were so helpful. I take my my past statements that you never had respect for me, my sincerest apologies.


Phil Loves Classical

What do you think of my piece that was inspired by your first composition?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> Samuel K.
> 
> I didn't know it was you had made these posts that were so helpful. I take my my past statements that you never had respect for me, my sincerest apologies.
> 
> Phil Loves Classical
> 
> What do you think of my piece that was inspired by your first composition?


I'm flattered Capt'n. I hear the dissonance, the tension is my favourite part, but in terms of the form I'm a bit bewildered.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm flattered Capt'n. I hear the dissonance, the tension is my favourite part, but in terms of the form I'm a bit bewildered.


Care to get into more details of that bewilderment? !


----------



## Captainnumber36

It's ABA.
It's a bit unorthodox, definitely. Bettina helped me with this one a lot with her pointers!
:tiphat:


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's ABA.
> It's a bit unorthodox, definitely. Bettina helped me with this one a lot with her pointers!
> :tiphat:


Ya, ABA. but the middle section sounds like is part of a different song. Which is how it is sometimes, but the connection is quite loose with the other parts.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Ya, ABA. but the middle section sounds like is part of a different song. Which is how it is sometimes, but the connection is quite loose with the other parts.


How do the transitions feel between the sections to you?

I kind of see it as a break from the tension to get dreamy. It's almost like a bridge.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> How do the transitions feel between the sections to you?
> 
> I kind of see it as a break from the tension to get dreamy. It's almost like a bridge.


Nothing wrong with the transitions. I thought they were well done.


----------



## MarkMcD

Hi Captain,

I wanted to ask you if you ever write your music down? I think one of the problems you have with your music is that it is all "off the cuff" that's to say that it seems you come up with your idea and play it for a while, then think of some direction to take it, but I think you've said before that you make most of your pieces in a matter of hours or a day at most. Is that right?

We all start with more or less the same process, but I think what happens next for most of us, is that we have some way to write it down and then take time, sometimes in my case, months, to develop and elaborate on those ideas until we have something that we're pleased with. 

I'm not saying that what you do is wrong or bad, indeed you have some really nice ideas, but I think what you tend to do is rush to get your ideas out into the public arena, without taking the time to really develop those ideas.

I hear in most of your music, one or two really interesting ideas, but even for new age music, I feel that they lack the necessary attention to detail, because you just want to get them out there.

I really would suggest investing in a music notation program, actually there are some good free ones available too, and really take some time to develop your favourite pieces. Sometimes you have to be really brutal too, and cut things that really don't advance your ideas, like too many repeats of the same unchanged motif, progressions that don't really work or spending too long without a progression. But, my original point is that all of this is almost impossible to do if you can't write it down and later manipulate what you've written.

I think that this really is the one thing that almost everyone who composes music has in common, regardless of their individual styles. Wagner took years to develop some of his compositions, and I'm fairly sure that Radiohead also take quite a long time to develop and refine their initial ideas before they release it to the public.

I've said this to you before, it's obvious that you have a great love for making music, and you do have talent, but that talent needs nurturing and it needs to grow, and until you sit down and really try to work with your knowledge of musical composition, then you will always be a little held back.

I myself only took music theory to grade 3, so I'm no great authority on theoretical composition, but what I do is to spend a LOT of time working and re-working on my music until I feel it's really ready. Then, and only then, I put it on here and ask for help from the forum members, and then I take it and re-work it again, keeping in mind the advice that I'm given.

Then, after some time, you will start to develop your skills and be more confident in your own abilities, and that will most definitely show in your work.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Great post Mark. I was using IWriteMusic free for the ipad. But for my last song I used LilyPond, also for free, which is much more powerful and versatile. You basically write simple code for the music and run the script, which generates a pdf of the sheet music and a midi file (the one I replaced my video with ). the only drawback is it places notes closest within octave from previous, so making a change to one note can change all the following notes an octave, but this drawback is nothing for the versatility gained from this approach.

Despite all the great reviews, I thought MuseScore was a b*itch to work with. The editing was horrible.


----------



## Captainnumber36

MarkMcD said:


> Hi Captain,
> 
> I wanted to ask you if you ever write your music down? I think one of the problems you have with your music is that it is all "off the cuff" that's to say that it seems you come up with your idea and play it for a while, then think of some direction to take it, but I think you've said before that you make most of your pieces in a matter of hours or a day at most. Is that right?
> 
> We all start with more or less the same process, but I think what happens next for most of us, is that we have some way to write it down and then take time, sometimes in my case, months, to develop and elaborate on those ideas until we have something that we're pleased with.
> 
> I'm not saying that what you do is wrong or bad, indeed you have some really nice ideas, but I think what you tend to do is rush to get your ideas out into the public arena, without taking the time to really develop those ideas.
> 
> I hear in most of your music, one or two really interesting ideas, but even for new age music, I feel that they lack the necessary attention to detail, because you just want to get them out there.
> 
> I really would suggest investing in a music notation program, actually there are some good free ones available too, and really take some time to develop your favourite pieces. Sometimes you have to be really brutal too, and cut things that really don't advance your ideas, like too many repeats of the same unchanged motif, progressions that don't really work or spending too long without a progression. But, my original point is that all of this is almost impossible to do if you can't write it down and later manipulate what you've written.
> 
> I think that this really is the one thing that almost everyone who composes music has in common, regardless of their individual styles. Wagner took years to develop some of his compositions, and I'm fairly sure that Radiohead also take quite a long time to develop and refine their initial ideas before they release it to the public.
> 
> I've said this to you before, it's obvious that you have a great love for making music, and you do have talent, but that talent needs nurturing and it needs to grow, and until you sit down and really try to work with your knowledge of musical composition, then you will always be a little held back.
> 
> I myself only took music theory to grade 3, so I'm no great authority on theoretical composition, but what I do is to spend a LOT of time working and re-working on my music until I feel it's really ready. Then, and only then, I put it on here and ask for help from the forum members, and then I take it and re-work it again, keeping in mind the advice that I'm given.
> 
> Then, after some time, you will start to develop your skills and be more confident in your own abilities, and that will most definitely show in your work.


Thanks, I'll look into some programs!


----------



## Captainnumber36

This is currently my favorite composition of mine, it's a lot of fun to play. I try to make the A section playful and whimsical, I like that coloring of it. It's not aggressive, but could be if I played it differently.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I'm very proud of this one, it was definitely a change in direction for me.


----------

