Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge My first little attempt

"Little dance"
MP3: http://www.box.net/shared/2nxdzgp6l5
Sheet music (PDF): http://www.box.net/shared/chudc21cuk

So far, my small steps into composing have been limited to reading harmony books and analyzing some of the works of the great composers wrt melody, harmony, and form. Recently I have changed my mind a bit in that I now think that this has to be accompanied by little composition studies, otherwise how will I see if I can improve?

So yesterday night I decided to make a starting point. The goal was to write & finish a short piece in simple harmony, ABA form, with 8 bars per section, 1 modulation. I guess this "recipe" sounds silly, but the idea was to stimulate creativity while also having some concrete learning experiences (sticking to a form etc.).

I would like to continue with other exercises of this kind, so any kind of feedback on this 1st attempt and on a direction for further composition exercises would be more than welcome!

Okay, I may not be the most qualified person to give composition advices, but I am going to try my best give some technical comments to help you improve your piece. The melody is nice, but the accompaniment part is rather lacking. What I suggest is you rework the piece using species counterpoint to give a much more satisfying bass progression ( and hence better harmonies ). For example, for the first two bars, you could use this bass line instead: D, A, F#, D and hence these harmonies I, IC, IB, I.

Also try to create rhythmic contrast between left hand and right hand ( which you would be aware if you have studied species counterpoint ). So taking the example of the first two bars, you could just use four crotchets to fill the left hand instead of creating some fancy figurations. That way the right hand melody will be clearer and the listener would not be distracted by the overly florid left hand. You do have slight grasp of this as evidenced by some bars e.g. bar 4, but in general I think you accompaniment is on the noisy side, can be a lot simpler.

You could also experiment with more advanced rhythmic figure e.g. suspension. For example, the melody from b. 9 onwards. You could tie the two Es together. This way it will create a better contrast between this section and the more driving first 8 bars.

I listened to your "Little Dance" and found it charming. I think you've made a great start. Your first section has a memorable theme and I like the unexpected harmonic turn in the first cadence (secondary dominant leading to super tonic). Your second section is a nice contrast that turns the rhythm around (shift from 2/4 to 3/4). Then you repeat your first section and close it out. OK in thinking about this piece some more I find myself wondering if it's necessary to change the rhythm that significantly. Something for you to think about.

Your challenge will be to expand each section. Also I was told never to repeat yourself exactly and I've found that to be worthwhile advice for the last 30 some years. When you repeat the first section don't make it an exact repeat change something about it.

CWPiano's advice is fine, though I am not at all concerned about the lack of rhythmic contrast between the hands. For a section as short as this it's fine. Think about the opening of the Hammerklavier, there's no rhythmic contrast in its first phrase either (it comes in the subsequent phrase). This little ditty is obviously no Hammerklavier, but I wouldn't be as concerned about that issue. I would also appreciate it CWPiano explained what was meant by species counterpoint (I never liked Fux).

One last bit of advice. In extending and expanding your piece think about delaying expectations. This is how a composer builds anticipation. After playing this section several times I can see how that theme would drive one crazy. That's a good thing, it means it's memorable.

You've got a nice start and plenty to think about. Good luck.

"Also I was told never to repeat yourself exactly and I've found that to be worthwhile advice for the last 30 some years-Steve"

Very good point! There are many ways to create variations in repeated parts. Altering the rhythm, changing from major to minor, grace notes, changing the octave on the melody, etc, etc...

You'll make your music much more interesting having something new around every corner.

Great start Piano Virus! Now it's time to develop those nice themes.

Best, John

Thanks so much to all three of you for the detailed feedback and suggestions! I will need some time to digest all of it but it will be very helpful as a guidance.

Steve: I must say I also agree by now that the 2/4 - 3/4 meter switch would probably better not be done - especially not in such a tiny exercise. I find it the biggest temptation to try everything at once and this rhythm change is a symptom of it. It's much more instructive to try to limit the expressive means in the beginning and to first properly develop some basics before incorporating more and more devices.

CWPiano, thanks for your advice too. Like Steve, I'd benefit from a bit more detail on why you refer to species counterpoint here? Do you mean that I should use a more polyphonic writing? Actually I'm very interested in polyphony, but I wanted to defer this to later exercises (for the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph) and keep it homophonic here. I had the little Schubert dances (3 Henle books) in mind which are often just melody+harmony. For later learning of counterpoint, I have bought the little Fux book and a bigger modern text by Kennan which looks very nice - but I have not worked in them. Do you mean it should do this from early on?

Finally, Johnny-Boy & Steve, good advice not to repeat too literally - it does get boring! For me, it was a way to get to bed earlier last night...

Basically species counterpoint teaches us to think of compositions as lines. Even non contrapuntal pieces can benefit tremendously from knowledge of species counterpoint. A detailed study of it can be found in Counterpoint in Composition by Felix Salzer. Or you could read a detailed explanation here: Species Counterpoint

One of the most important study in species counterpoint is to create rhythmic contrast between lines to achieve maximum clarity and also expressiveness. So for example if you are writing a bass line in minims, you could write the melody in crotchets. While obviously there are some exceptions e.g. Chopin Prelude Op 24 No 20 in C Minor, I recommend learning species counterpoint to make life a lot easier when composing.

CWPiano, thanks for the explanation. I agree with you that even if there are lots of exceptions out there, a knowledge of how to unfold creativity within the limits of a system (e.g. species counterpoint) can be of great benefit even if not all of these rules are followed later on. I'll add that to the homework list

pianovirus:
How cute! I really like your main theme. In fact, I think it has potential for a theme and variations. I agree with others regarding the question as to why the meter change in the B section, but I think if you were able to perhaps expand the main theme a bit, and use the 3/4 time section for a variation instead, then I think it would work better. Then, of course, there's just tons of things you can do for other variations. I'm so excited for you!

Morodiene, thanks a lot for listening and for the kind comment! The idea of theme+variations is a great one - maybe once I have gathered a bit more experience (my current exercise is to write a simple canon). Regarding the meter change, I agree with everybody that it would need a larger scale composition for this to make sense.

A very nice little piece. Thanks for sharing. I share the impression of others that the accompaniment could use some work (perhaps keeping it more similar throughout, as Steve suggested?). However, I love the theme. It's so jaunty and spry.

What did you notate it with?

Thanks for the feedback Horowitzian! I use Finale to notate, but I'm still early on in the learning curve.

About counterpoint and polyphony, there's a lot of rules regarding voice leading. These rules do not exist because some guy has sat down and invented them only to tease composition students. The rules exist because centuries of composers have refined the language of functional tonality and ultimately ended up with a set of techniques that produce the best sounding result, which have later been defined as rules. Going against these rules tends to sound a bit clumsy in a tonal environment, which can of course be used for special effects. But as a composer you should be very fluent in these rules so that you can follow or break them as you wish, according to the effect you wish to achieve.

Even though you see your piece as melody+accompaniment, I see four voice polyphony, which could be improved. Some examples: In bar 1, second beat, the bass and alto voices move in parallel octaves, as a result that voice is temporarily thicker than the others and do stand out quite a bit. At the end of bar two, the same thing happens again, this time it's the seventh and it's resolution, which makes it even worse (at the same time the tenor and soprano both leap to a fifth in similar motion, which doesn't improve the situation). End of bar three, the soprano and the bass move in parallel octaves. There's also a few cases where two voices move from one perfect interval to another (not as bad as parallel octaves or fifths, but sounds clumsy anyway), for example end of bar 6, bass and alto, fourth->octave. Combined with the fact that the leading tone never resolves as it should, this sounds particularily clumsy to me.

This might seem a bit picky, but the fact is that if you avoid situations like this, the piece sounds better. In the works of the great classical masters, you won't find casual doublings of the bass and some of the higher voices like this.

No problem!

Great! I've been using Finale 2009 for several months now—and I still and on the learning curve!

You know, I wasn't distracted by any voice leading errors that other posters pointed out.
The main theme was so whimsical (almost scherzando) that the aural effects of the rule-breaking didn't seem out of place to me at all.
Maybe if the piece were something overtly contrpauntal and serious it might have stood out but here it wasn't an issue for me.

I quite enjoyed it too!
Listened three times.

That's pretty good..Are you a Schubert fan?

Thanks Simon! It's just a little learning exercise. It's interesting that you mention Schubert - yes I'm a big fan, and for this composing attempt I had his German dances lying next to my desk as models for very short pieces. (edit: in no way should this imply that my little dabbling comes close to any of these dances, but still it's good to have some models in the beginning)

Allazart, thanks for listening as well and sorry for the late reply. After some thinking I'm also not convinced about some comments regarding voice leading issues - I'm not sure it is so useful for purely homophonic music, such as the Schubert German dances, too....

And I am 100% sure that neither this piece, nor the Schubert German dances, are anywhere near purely homophonic. I don't understand where this false notion came from, that polyphony only exist in purely contrapuntal writing like fugues. If you have more than one voice, then it is polyphony, no matter if it is melody and accompaniment or separate melodies. It exists in everything from Bach's fugues to Beethoven sonatas and Chopin etudes (and Schubert's German dances). I would strongly recommend that you learn to understand and master this polyphony, denying it's existance won't take you anywhere as a composer, except perhaps back to the early renaissance...

Hi Roger, thanks a lot for trying to explain further, I appreciate it a lot. I'm always willing to change my mind (and have often done so), but I'm not yet convinced to follow you in what seems to me an extreme point of view. Maybe it's a misunderstanding, so let me clarify:

First of all, I agree 100% that as a composer we need to learn polyphonic thinking and writing, and that this skill will even help us when writing more melody+accompaniment - style music.

But then, do I understand you correctly that your point of view is that every texture should essentially be considered a polyphonic one? In contrast, my current opinion is that there is no clear border between polyphony and homophony. Rather, it's a continuum and a particular passage may be called more or less polyphonic depending on how much melodic individuality the different parts sounding at the same time have. For some people, even an Alberti bass may have melodic individuality; in contrast I'd say it's clearly subordinate to a main melody, looking at any Mozart sonata for example (which does not at all mean it is easier to play well, of course!).

What is the purpose of voice leaning rules? In my current understanding, their purpose is to help avoid a style of writing in which the individual voices lose their individuality (e.g. parallel fifths - you don't perceive the individual progression so well anymore). However, I think there are styles of writing where we are not concerned about the individuality of all voices and really think in a (figurated) accompaniment + melody style. In these situations, rules that help to protect the individuality of voices cannot contribute much - or am I wrong? To clearly summarize my point: I think voice leading rules matter when you care about the individuality of different distinct voices at a given moment - and I don't think we always need to care; sometimes we may even deliberately want no such individuality in part of a texture.

Now let me give four examples of different degrees of polyphony: (1) high polyphonic individuality; (2) some polyphony; (3) a choral: the soprano has the single most prominent part; I would call it an essentially homophonic texture even though voice leaning helps to discern melodic movement in other registers; (4) a Schubert German dance.

(1) 10 secs from Grünfeld's Fledermaus Paraphrase:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKnbwd7n8IQ#t=4m5s
Two melodies of equal weight here (both are different J. Strauss melodies, now played at the same time).

(2) 20 secs from Andante spianato:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxIwcDlxshE#t=2m01s
One could say this is a 3-voice texture. Are all voices of equal melodic weight? I would say no. To me, it's a duetto passage with accompaniment, and even in the two duetto voices, the higher one is having more weight.

(3) Schumann: Ein Choral
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpZ6dDu58Nw

(4) Schubert D. 529/5
Everything from 3 to 6 notes at the same time. How is this bound to rules of counterpoint?

Okay, I can give you some examples. Since the Schubert might not be the easiest to grasp, I'll give a more simple example first. Here's the first four bars from Mozart's sonata No.5, KV 283:



On first glance, this might seem like melody and accompaniment, but we can also look at it a bit as four voice harmony:



Here we can see that Mozart follows all available voice leading rules. No parallel fifths/octaves, the leading tone or seventh are never doubled, dissonances resolve correctly and to make it even more smooth, the bass and melody always moves in opposite directions. So in this seemingly basic melody and accompaniment situation, we find four voice harmony with very beautiful voice leading.

The schubert is not quite as easy to describe, because there's so much more happening during the harmonies. But the basic harmonic structure for the first 16 bars would be something like this:



Perhaps an oversimplification, but it does describe the basic harmonic movements. Again we can see that it follows the rules of voice leading. There is also a very strong emphasis on the note A, which does give it it's folk-like character. If I had to describe this as four voice harmony, I would call the A-octave in the middle a pedal tone and this would be four voice harmony above a pedal tone.

From here we can go on to examine closer what happens during the harmonies, for example the first four bars would look like this:



Again, beutiful voice leading. One might think that the C# isn't present in the left hand on the first beat because it's out of reach, which it of course is. But even if it would be within reach, I suspect Schubert would have left it out to avoid doubling the leading tone. If an experienced orchestrator would arrange this for string orchestra, he would not have the violas go directly from D to C# on the first beat of bar three, because that would disrupt the balance as it doubles the leading tone.

In bars 5-6 both hands play in parallel octaves. Schubert uses this here as an effect. The whole gesture is doubled in octaves, not just two random notes within a phrase. At this point the melody also reaches it's highest note in the phrase and this note is accented. It is clear that Schubert wanted to emphasize this moment, doubling it in octaves emphasizes it even more.

After the repeat, the texture is temporarily reduced to three voices, the top voice doubled in octaves. This gives it a lighter feel and adds some contrast to the piece. You can examine this three part harmony as well and see that there is no breaking of voice leading rules. Towards the end we return to four voice harmony, giving it a more robust ending.

If you look through the whole piece, you will notice that he never doubles the leading tone or the seventh, all dissonances resolve correctly, there is no parallel fifths or octaves apart from those that I mentioned, which S. clearly have written consiously to emphasize one or two voices in some passage (and then there is of course the bass octave, but that is perfectly okay).

Now, if I try to reduce the first four bars of your piece to four voice harmony, I get this:



The four voices are moving around quite randomly, every now and then hitting parallel octaves, doubling the seventh and a leading tone that doesn't resolve (marked in red (and actually in the same chord, the seventh also moves in the wrong direction)). If you play this harmonic foundation on the piano and then compare it to the Mozart example above, I think you can hear quite clearly that Mozart's voice leading is a lot more smooth.

About the leading tone, of course Schubert also has some C# notes that don't lead to D, but that is when he is moving within the same harmony. Whenever there is a V7-I movement, both the leading tone and the seventh resolves correctly.

In this way you may examine just about any piece of classical music and find how the great masters (mostly) followed the basic voice leading rules no matter what the texture looked like. Some pieces are easier to follow this way, some are harder. I say 'mostly', because they did exceptions as well. But whenever there is an exception, one might stop and think about why the master chose to do it that way. It is almost certainly not an accident, but they usually had a good reason for it.

Hope this helped...

Roger

All the things Roger pointed out is very common musical practice. However, I can't find myself bothered by their breakage when I listen to this piece.

I wouldn't say the parallel octaves here are random but they appear to occur with a definite regularity.
Maybe the OP wasn't thinking about the voice leading but the effect produced matched the sound in his head.

Personally, I think it adds to the whimsicality of this particular piece.