Continuation of pieces - A problem

So... I don't know if this things happen to other people or not, but I'm asking your advice.

Often, when I play the piano, I find melodies that sound good, and a few variations. Then I want to write it down, and I write it until the point, where my initial idea stops. Then I've like a blockade: I don't know how to continue the piece. Sometimes I have an idea for the main theme, and the idea for the second theme, but I simply don't know how to fill the gap within those two.

I hope somebody will explain it to me, because when I listen to classical music, it seems so easy to me, I mean they use chords over and over, but in reality, it's pretty hard.

I don't want to know how you can do this, but I'd like to learn to "fill the gaps" in the pieces.

Thank you a lot for your advices...:thumbsup:

I just found a solution that works well for me.

The root of the roadblock problem is that you obviously don't know what you want to come next. It's hard to visualize a complete composition in your head and remember it all. You just gotta write it down. Spend some more time on that stage of composition that occurs before you start putting notes to paper. I bet you improvise most of your material right? Perfect. Try this:

Get all your material together. That is, write out your melodies/harmonies/ideas.

Next, try drawing a simple sketch of a piece using only descriptive words and doodles. Use your imagination. Just find a way to write down your piece without using any traditional notation.

So now you have a macroscopic view of the WHOLE composition(Which is your sketch) and a microscopic view of some of the individual components(Your melodies and harmonies).

Once you have these two things, try the writing process again. When you get to a roadblock, stop and look at your sketches. Having an idea of what comes next may help you with your roadblock.

One problem you may have is that you deviate from the plan you set out for yourself. It happens... Inspiration strikes and you can't help but feeling that it's leading you down a golden path. This is a little dangerous as what's the point in having a plan if you deviate from it? After leaving the planned course, you may find yourself at another roadblock. You'll be in the same situation you're in now. So my advice would be to stick with the plan for a couple of pieces and if you ever get the overwhelming urge to deviate from said plan, write your ideas down and use them in your next piece.

I hope this helps.

Brilliant advice Tumababa, thank you very much. :D

Anytime.

The root of the roadblock problem is that you obviously don't know what you want to come next. It's hard to visualize a complete composition in your head and remember it all. You just gotta write it down. Spend some more time on that stage of composition that occurs before you start putting notes to paper. I bet you improvise most of your material right? Perfect. Try this:

Get all your material together. That is, write out your melodies/harmonies/ideas.

Next, try drawing a simple sketch of a piece using only descriptive words and doodles. Use your imagination. Just find a way to write down your piece without using any traditional notation.

So now you have a macroscopic view of the WHOLE composition(Which is your sketch) and a microscopic view of some of the individual components(Your melodies and harmonies).

Once you have these two things, try the writing process again. When you get to a roadblock, stop and look at your sketches. Having an idea of what comes next may help you with your roadblock.

One problem you may have is that you deviate from the plan you set out for yourself. It happens... Inspiration strikes and you can't help but feeling that it's leading you down a golden path. This is a little dangerous as what's the point in having a plan if you deviate from it? After leaving the planned course, you may find yourself at another roadblock. You'll be in the same situation you're in now. So my advice would be to stick with the plan for a couple of pieces and if you ever get the overwhelming urge to deviate from said plan, write your ideas down and use them in your next piece.

Hear hear.

Tumababa's advice is excellent. I would add that you could study sonata form. It is often very helpful in overcoming such problems.

Yeah. I think the main idea is to have a way of building a large scale picture of the piece in your head(or on paper) before you write a note of it.

Knowing how sonata form works would be a good option.

Ok, thanks a lot to you Tumababa. I think I'm gonna do it from now on. And thanks also to manossg, yes, you're right, I've studied the sonata form, but I think, it's not very wide the range of composition, if you compose as in that time (1. allegro, 2. adagio/andante, 3. Menuetto, 4. Finale)

Anyway, thanks a lot to everybody!

So... I don't know if this things happen to other people or not, but I'm asking your advice.

Often, when I play the piano, I find melodies that sound good, and a few variations. Then I want to write it down, and I write it until the point, where my initial idea stops. Then I've like a blockade: I don't know how to continue the piece. Sometimes I have an idea for the main theme, and the idea for the second theme, but I simply don't know how to fill the gap within those two.

I hope somebody will explain it to me, because when I listen to classical music, it seems so easy to me, I mean they use chords over and over, but in reality, it's pretty hard.

I don't want to know how you can do this, but I'd like to learn to "fill the gaps" in the pieces.

Thank you a lot for your advices...:thumbsup:

Why don't you post a few of your ideas? Classical music is fundamentally very simple but extremely sophisticated.

There are a lot of "techniques" to evolve an idea and they can't be explained very easily in a forum but there are a few fundamental "laws" I think that make it easier if followed. I think everyone has this problem at sometime and even Beethoven did as one can see from his sketch books.

If you are trying to compose in the classical style then its very different from jazz or, say, raga. One of the biggest and most important things is tonality and very a solid framework.

Your melodies that your creating might mesh well classically. There are just some melodies that Beethoven would never have used. (not that he couldn't force it he had to)

Notice that many classical pieces almost sound like those basic nursery rhythms or songs you learn in basic piano books. (like joy to the world, etc...) But they are much more sophisticated. Its almost as if they took these basic songs and made them sophisticated. Those basic songs usually have a very solid foundation but are very simple. Someone like Beethoven comes along and adds arpeggio's, altered chords, modulations, development, etc... in just the right way and makes it sound much more complex and sophisticated but at the basic level its just a simple song.

I think though if you post something then it would be easier for someone to point out some problems or write some variation of it and explain how and why.

But in any case a few things you could try are,

1. A very solid and simple harmonic progression for the opening phrase. You must solidify the tonality as it will ground the melody. If you look at most classical pieces they do not venture outside the key much in the first phrase. You'll be lucky if you find a secondary dominant. "Most" of Beethoven's works just consist of I and V.

What this does is state up front the tonality and establishes that the piece could be classical. If you used a bunch of 7th chords then chances are its not classical.

Remember that first impressions are everything.

2. A very solid cadence/half cadence. This goes hand and hand with 1. By having a very strong cadence you establish the tonality but beyond that you close the phrase. This is whats needed to start a new phrase . Its basically like writing a sentence, If you don't close it then you end up creating a run-on that doesn't stop and starts to wander but becomes more and more difficult for it to make sense.

Basically a cadence is almost a way to get the listener to stop and see the whole phrase in one "snap shot". Its kinda like saying "Ok, we are finished so you can review what you just heard". If you don't cadence properly then the listener never gets that chance or is very difficult.

If you end the melody "properly" then the next phrase will seem to grow out of it but will clearly defined. Without the cadence the ideas would either be very similar or most likely sound like they were arbitrarily juxtaposed

3. Use ideas from the first phrase. This is "unity" and plays a very important subconscious role. Even taking obscure elements from the theme or even its accompaniment helps to unify the 2nd phrase into the first. I personally like sequences because they give direction(variety) and unity. (its different yet its the same)

I'm starting to write a small book here so I'll cut it short. I think it would be more helpful to you if you post something so I or others can try and address specific problems rather than you try and learn all the different possible techniques to do it. (Because you'll discover them on your own once you get comfortable with it)

Probably the best way to learn this stuff is analyze a few scores(or more than a few). Look how Beethoven does it. Look at the opening harmony, look at how he tends to sequence ideas from the theme right after.

If your interested, write a few melodies and then write some harmonization/accompaniment for each one and post them(melodies separately) and I'll try write something for them. I'll do my best though as I'm not that great either. (and if I can't maybe someone else can)

I'd suggest also that you try and write a very simple(don't try and make it complex because remember that the foundation is very simple and that is most important) 2-part form. e.g., phrase1 - phrase 2. This will tend to be an antecedent-consequent pair with each phrase repeated. ie. AABB. You could then even vary it AA'BB' or anything you wish. If you do that go through each one and post them all. e.g., AB AAB'B ACAB'C'. Each part is a phrase but the idea eventually is to expand those phrases into much larger sections.

By doing that you have a very simple framework for a structured song. It will be easier to then fill in the parts because you'll see the larger picture. This is probably better than trying to write the song from "top-down" as its more "outside-in". You get to see the macroscopic structure very quickly rather than worrying about microscopic details and at each stage you have a full fledged piece.

Jon

P.S., By Strong cadence I do not necessarily mean a perfect authentic cadence as this could be too final. I simply mean something that has a enough of a cadence to separate the two phrase. Also, if you try the exercise on writing "part"s you don't have to worry to much about connecting the different phrase and you'll want the cadences to be fairly strong(probably PAC's). The only point is that each part should stand on its own and if you write some type of connecting material then it will blur the lines. There has to be something in common though so that the two parts can be considered as one piece. (sometimes the key is just enough while sometimes they use similar material)

Study theory, get your technique in order.

I think it was John Williams who said compose for half an hour to an hour every day. Force yourself to compose whether you're inspired or not. It might be what you write one day is total rubbish but it's getting into that rhythm (no pun intended) of composing regularly and knowing how you work and what's best for you that's important. Everything else should follow and that includes figuring out how to develop basic ideas.

You have to figure this out for yourself. Tumababa's advice may work for you, but I know from having tried to plan a piece his way, it doesn't work for me and probably never will. I was astonished to read this in particular:

Inspiration strikes and you can't help but feeling that it's leading you down a golden path. This is a little dangerous as what's the point in having a plan if you deviate from it?

For me personally deviations from my original thoughts are what spark my creativity and allow me to compose what I do. That's not to say Tumababa's wrong in his advice because it obviously works for him and it may well work for you. But you have to find this out for yourself and the only way of doing so is composing regularly and getting used to your own working patterns.

My 2p worth anyway.

I really agree with rob1984. Composing regularly and steadily is the best you can do, and the only way to really learn what works and what doesn't. Don't be discouraged if some things you write are rubbish. Composing rubbish from time to time is part of the job.

I'm not too fond of the "learn the Sonata form, then apply it" approach personally. Sure you can learn how Sonatas are built and pour your piece in such a form, but if the form is just a schematic and isn't coming naturally out of a conflict that lies within your themes that is led to a conclusion, it will be just that, a couple of themes forced into a fixed form. Sure, you may have a "balanced" piece then, but you won't have learned anything beyond "Sonata forms work". You won't know why they work, and you won't know how to use the principles that make it work in other forms.

A Sonata isn't just a schematic, but a dialectic process. If it isn't driven by that, it's pointless.

I find it much more useful to develop your own formal ideas and trying them out in a piece, then observe whether it works, and what you could improve. It's quite possible that you will discover many aspects of the Sonata form yourself like that. Or something entirely different. This may result in a couple of very unbalanced pieces in the beginning, but it teaches you by direct experience what works and what doesn't, which is in the end what you need to develop your own formal ideas.

(I'm not saying studying theory is bad. In contrary! It's a great tool to understand why something works. But you should only apply theoretical concepts because you know how they work and what you want to achieve with them, and not merely because "it's done like that")

I'm sorry for not answering, but I wasn't at home for a long time... So I'm gonna post here one of my pieces where I'm stuck...

I find it pretty hard to do what Tumababa said in the beginning, because, I don't really know where the piece will go, I only have idea, of how the overall should sound.

ATM I'm trying to "force" me to compose every day about a half an hour, as rob1984 said...

FileFactory.com - free file hosting

Here you'll find the Sibelius file, a pdf and a recording (played by the computer...).

Enjoy

Ok, I went ahead and wrote something around your idea. Its definitely not a masterpiece but hopefully you would enjoy it enough to learn from it(assuming there is something to learn ;) I think I spent about 45 mins on it or so. So I didn't fix every problem. Its just the first motive in your piece as I didn't bother trying to mess with all the other ideas in your piece.

SomeIdea.mp3

First I will explains some issues with your piece. I personally like the melody even though it is very simple it has potential.

Your harmonies are not tonal. You basically just have Dmin for several bars then Amaj for several and then back to Dmin. Just because you alter some of the harmonies, your bass does not change doesn't mean you have a new harmony. Essentially you have this long pedal tone on D and then C# and back to D. Your melodies are way to simple for this kinda harmony. (there are some pieces which have a single harmony for hundreds of bars but they have very elaborate and ornate melodies and accompaniments.

Untitled.mp3

BTW, I just uploaded a recording of me improvising something. This is from about 2 years ago or so I think. While I like it as it sets a certain mood, its form isn't well defined and there is no really idea going on. It sorta "wanders"... but personally thats precisely the mood I like. But it doesn't work in classical music. (although one probably could take some idea in it and use them)

This has a huge impact because you have not established a tonic. There are no cadences in D min. The melody does cadence at the 5th measure but the harmony doesn't so you don't really establish D as the tonic.

The harmonic voicings is to repetitive. I do this in my piece too cause it starts out like yours, you can probably notice where it does it and where it doesn't. It starts to sound very repetitive in the first and 3rd phrase but in the 2nd and 4th I use different voicings and different harmonies to give a better effect.

Of course I changed the melody to make it more interesting(IMO atleast) and had more tonal harmonic progressions. The first 8 measures is simple two phrases. The first ends on a half cadence and the 2nd on a authentic cadence. Both are concealed which just means that some technique is used so they don't stop the flow.

The next 8 measures is a repeat. I added some embellishments to the melody so it sounds different but essentially I just copied and pasted.

The thing is, when you cadence it allows the pieces to breath. If you don't then it starts to ramble and wander without any direction. You also have to have harmonic variety and direction.

The cadences basically let you start a new idea(well, not completely new) and that is what you are lacking. They give form. Think of them as the support beams in a building. Without it you don't have a building. Now if that is your goal then that is ok. I am also like that. But problem is, most people expect there to be some form because 99% of songs have some type of basic structure.

But only way to get that structure is with cadences. Once you get that down I think you'll probably find writing larger pieces using less work than you are now. What you are trying to do is take a bunch of ideas and string them along. I do this too and its hard thing to break. I actually sorta like a bunch of ideas but problem is, its very easy for you and anyone listening to get lost in a sea of ideas.

By taking a simple idea and structuring it you can develop that idea using many techniques and get a whole song out of it. Notice that the piece I wrote(even though its not really finished) all came from just your opening idea.

I think you are having similar problems I had(and sorta still have). Of course in music everything is relative and my suggestions are only from a classical style point of view.

In any case, let me know what you think and if you want maybe we can dive into it a little more. If you like what I wrote then I could explain more details and maybe we can work on expanding it into a full fledged piece.

Wow... I'm overwhelmed... In a positive way, of course. First of all, very nice piece you made out of it, so could you, although it's not finished, upload the sheet?

I'm really interested in diving deeper, and I really think you could be a perfect teacher, really... Your explanations are very simple and clear.

There is something that is hard to understand (without a sheet): What do you mean by "D minor is not established as the tonic"? I saw, I won't compare anything with it, that Beethoven and Haydn (just exemples) did the same thing in few of their sonatas, using only the I. and the V..

You are right, the melody is much more captivating, with those short notes in it.

By taking a simple idea and structuring it you can develop that idea using many techniques and get a whole song out of it. Notice that the piece I wrote(even though its not really finished) all came from just your opening idea.

Very well done. But what do you mean by developing the melody? And which are the techniques you mean by that?

Thanks

Well, I think you seemed to be going down the path that I've went down. I've done a lot of research and had to learn a lot of stuff on my own. I still got a long ways to go but if I can save you some time by sharing what I've learned then I'm all up for it. Realize though that I'm not all that great and still don't know everything. (In fact I know less than what I did because I stopped messing with it for about a year so I forgot a lot of stuff)

I'm not the best teacher but I try. Sometimes I tend to ramble so it will take a little work on your part get it. I also tend to write very long posts ;/

The pdf,

SomeIdea.pdf

The dynamic markings are there because sibelius does some quirky things sometimes.

One thing I noticed about your sound file(which I cannot play aifc files, I had to get friend with a mac to convert it. If you post anything else could you please do it in another format(mp3, mp4, aac, etc...)) is that the accompaniment overpowered the melody. This is why I use pp for the accompaniment and f for the melody. A good performer would do the same(just listen to some famous performers and follow along with the score).

Realize too that I composed more of an instrumental melody while yours could be more vocal. Mine would not be appropriate for vocals because its to ornate. I almost exclusively write for the piano.

Also, My assumption is that you are interested in composing music in the "classical"(by which I mean classical, romantic, and baroque). If that is not your goal then I probably can't help you that much cause that is mainly the music I am interested in.

-----

Before I answer your questions, let me ask you how much you know about "theory". Do you know what chords are, how they function in tonal music, what a tonic is, a cadence? How to establish tonality, etc?? Do you know about consonance and dissonance? What non-harmonic tones are? (at least some idea about these things anyways)

Its true that composers use I and V because in fact it is the most important chords in music(classical). In fact you can find many phrases that essentially just consist of these. The reason why they are so important is because they help establish the tonality. In your piece though.

You have no harmonic rhythm... which is like where a chord changes every bar or every beat. Your I chord(or i because its minor) doesn't change for over 10 bars. You do change come of the chords but they are voiced so that the D note is always a chord tone and always in the bass. So your bass line is just the D note. It means you have no bass line which is very boring because there is no variety. (Note I'm not saying its necessarily bad but in general its bad. Beethoven could make it work but your not Beethoven yet ;)

Developing melody is doing things like making modifications so that it changes the melody but is not to different. So you can hear the old melody but there is something new. There are two types of development(Well, probably should call it modifications). You have the essential and unessential. Almost all the changes I made in the 2nd half of what I wrote is unessential modifications. And essential modification is one that has more drastic changes usually modifying the essential intervals of the original.

I haven't talked about essentially and unessential notes/intervals but basically every melody has notes in it that must be there or they will completely change the melody. Then there are other notes that are not so important. They are "embellishments" or "ornaments". Like trills, turns, mordants, etc... These tend to be ornaments to make the melody more lively but usually have no essential characteristics(which you can tell cause if you don't play them they do no real harm). Of course everything is ultimately essential but some things are more important than others.

You can even do some rhythmic modifications or really what ever you want. Its up to you but you must have some clear idea what you are doing.

If you look at the pdf of what I did and compare measures 1 and 9 you will see they are essentially the same. The first A note in both is there but in the second one it is played as a turn. (the thing that goes A G A Bb A) (A [inverted] turn is is actually only the G A Bb A but I added the primary note at the start).

A G A Bb A is the same as A. i.e., if you hear that you will think of the A note because it occurs 3 times and A is the first. Now this isn't entirely true cause it depends on the harmony, the note lengths, and all that but its not all that important.

A G A Bb A could also represent an Eb maj chord. e.g. if we played it over an Eb maj chord then the G and Bb would be the essential tones(actually, the harmonic tones).

In any case, I probably need to know where you are at in your "theory"(or music language) so I know what terms I can use so I don't waste to much time explaining things that you already know or confuse you with things you don't know.

Sorry again for not answering, but I totally forgot about that awesome and intresting thread I started... And the email notification didn't work -.-

Well for my knowledge of music, I play the piano since 10 years, guitar since 3, and I have music theory since 5. The theory at school is very poor, but I learned for my self more than that. A little problem could be the language, because I learned everything in German, so the I simply have to google the few terms that I don't understand, but that isn't a problem...

I know what a tonic is, a cadence, consonance, dissonance and non-harmonic tones. What I don't know is for instance how to establish a tonality, which is one of the main problems of this piece.

For the music style, you are right, I love classical music, so I try to compose like that (romantic, less baroque). I mainly compose for piano or guitar as you can see from the few threads.

Now that you say it, I see the difference between the essential and the unessential notes. It's only that the unessntial notes kinda fill the "empty" spaces or change something, but neither the rythm nor the essential melody is changed.

So, what'd you suggest to do to "improve" or to learn how to use that? Simply try and error? You say that you're a bad teacher, but really, you explain it better than my music teacher here at school :D

Many thanks for the time that you invest in that, and I simply forgot it... I'm ashamed, but I've so much to do in school and the social life... Thanks again

Ok, I wrote some stuff to help wiht the tonality. I want you to listen to them and take note how they strike you and how you hear them. I'll give answers at the end on what I did.

(mp3)

ABC1.mp3

(there are 9 of them which is just repeated stuff but changes are made. Try to figure out what I did. The first is just the outline. Make a note which one you like the best and second best too(now some are basically the same to you might want to rate them all). This can tell you which is more your style.)

--------

Tonality is basically what tone acts as the foundation or central tone that all others are subordinate too. So establishing it is the act of expressing this concept. The way it is done is to make all other tones subordinate and this is done by making all other tones "obey" its law. Its like the king. But a king alone is not a king. A king must have people to enforce his rule.

In Cmaj, We mean for the tone C to be the tonic. Since our western music is based on consonance, we take the first 2 consonances of the tonic, given by the overtone series, to be the "enforcers". These are the tones G and E. G is much more of an enforcer than E. E is like the Queen and G is like the bishop or wizard or whatever. (not like chess where the queen is stronger though)

The other main tones in Cmaj are D F A B. These tones are called active tones because they must pay there taxes to the king. They do this by whats called resolution. D->C or maybe E, F -> E, A -> G, B->C. B is special and called the leading tone and must resolve to C(almost always anyways).

If the tones pay there taxes then they establish C as the tonic and you have your tonality. But they might not pay there taxes and the longer they don't the larger the chance that the king might be overthrown.

The other 5 tones, C#, D#, F#, G#, and A# also have to pay taxes. In fact they have to pay them every time or will be beheaded. Each one must resolve to the next closest tone. A# resolves to B. Now each tone has a dual or enharmonic equivalent(they are actually not identical in some cases). A# = Bb. Bb resolves to A. This is how we distinguish the two types. If the note wants to resolve up then we use sharped and flat if it resolves down. (so if you hear a note that is chromatically altered and it goes up then you probably should label it with a sharp instead of a flat(of course the letter will change too)).

Now some chords like, G7 have 3 of the most rebellious notes together: B, F, D. sorta by playing a G7 chord you are making each of the notes pay there taxes and hence establish the harmony.

In fact, the only chord needed to "establish" C as the tonic is G7. The king doesn't have to be present to collect the taxes for them to be collected. But remember the notes must resolve properly to establish the tonic. i.e., they must pay taxes for the king to be a king. G7 doesn't pay the taxes really but sets up that expectation that they will be paid.

V7 I

G7 C

F-> E

D-> C (not E since we already have it and generally we only want it once)

B-> C

G-> C

We might actually have the D leap to G so we can have a complete triad on I but its not always necessary. (we just heard G in the G7 chord so we know its there and its also implicit in the C notes(as the 2nd overtone))

So playing the progression G7->C helps establish C as the tonic. In general though more is needed. Because we want to use other notes and chords its always possible there might be revolt. A "cadence" is like squashing the revolt. When we use G7->C at a cadence we establish a very strong sense of C being the tonic. Remember though there are varying degree's to everything. Only the final cadence completely determines the tonic(well, even this isn't 100%).

So the most important thing in establishing the tonic is the cadence formula. Its always something similar to V7->I. There are many variations and sometimes you can get away with other things depending on what as happened before. (if everyone knows who is king then you don't have to keep telling them)

So the "formula" for establishing the tonic is simply a cadence on it. This is why phrasing is so important. without phrases you don't have cadences and without cadences you don't establish a well defined tonic. (you can still have a tonic but its not as well established.)

Note that if you have something that uses only the notes C D E G A B and randomly make stuff out of them then you could either be in Gmaj, Cmaj, A aeolian, D dorian, E aeolian, etc... Random notes don't set up a "king". Resolutions do.

Also, at any single instance you can "violate" the rules and have sorta "sub kings" or even overthrow the king(a modulation). Basically over any specific harmony you can treat the root as the king.

So for example, Over a Gmaj chord in the key of Cmaj, B doesn't have to resolve to C. At that moment G is the temporary king(its like a temporary tonic but since its so short and we haven't established it as a tonic(a cadence) we don't call it a tonic).

Once you establish the tonic you have more wiggle room to use other chords. If the tonic is not established but you start doing strange things then you have a stronger chance to destabilize the tonic(which might be done on purpose) but once the tonic is established its those same chords won't have as strong as an effect.

An example is D7->Gmaj. If no tonic has been established yet, then this will make G sound like a tonic. If it is a cadence then we would heard G as becoming the tonic. But if we have established Cmaj as the tonic then it will hear it as a half cadence in most states(unless F# was used a lot after the fact).

So thats the basic idea. You use specific harmonies/progressions to establish the tonic. Random progressions won't do it(there is a chance of course). Tonality is defined by very specific moments of harmony and not just random harmonies thrown together. It happens that these resolutions are governed by two things. The root movement of a 5th and the resolutions of the active tones.

So Dmin usually moves to Gmaj in the key of C. D goes to G(a 5th... this follows the overtone series), A resolves to G but possibly B, and F would resolve to G or maybe to D.

Amin goes to Dmin but sometimes Fmaj. This is because Dmin and Fmaj are somewhat interchangeable because they contain 2 identical tones. (Fmaj is almost like a rootless Dmin7 chord)

Fmaj usually goes to Dmin, G, or C.

etc....

Of course there are a ton of chords out there that can be used that contain some of the non-diatonic tones. These are more advanced techniques and shouldn't randomly be used. They were developed as an extension to tonality so you should make sure you understand tonality so you can get the most out of them.

------------------

Now the preferred method to learn this stuff is probably to follow scores and analyze them. You'll get to see that probably 80% of the time the great's are using very simple harmonies. Sometimes its just I and V repeated over and over(Beethoven uses it a lot) and most of the time its just diatonic harmonies. Past that it tends to just be altered diatonic harmonies. Like instead of Dmin you use Dmaj. This gives a different color and momentum to the progression.

But seeing how common simple progressions like I V vi ii V7 I are and the amount of music that can come out of it will make you a believer that its actually pretty simple. You'll need to keep in mind that when you look at the scores you should try and write down what you hear on them. When you hear a cadence make sure you look on the score and see how it looks and the chords that lead up to them.

On last thing about following along with the scores is that you don't have to analyze every bit of it. Sometimes there are chords that make no sense and are usually explained in strange ways. If its truly an anomaly then it doesn't matter much. If its something that seems to pop up here and there then it might be a special thing the composer uses or part of his style. (it will probably be obvious if it is)

-----------

Ok, about the mp3.

(score)

ABC1.pdf

1. An outline of the harmony used without any embellishments. Just the "basic idea" or framework.

2. Same as 1 with some embellishments or "ornaments" added to give it a little more interested. Still all diatonic.

3. The embellishments are now much more chromatic. Notice that it still sounds similar. The cadence points have not been changed nor has the basic framework. It just sounds more "colorful" than 2 because of the chromaticism(which is the point)

4. I randomly changed notes in. Now it sounds wierd and strange. Note that it still sounds like its in Cmaj. you can still sorta feel the same idea as 1. The reason is I did not change the cadence chords. (even though a lot of the harmonies are strange they are somewhat balanced by the cadences).

In fact, if you look at the two "cadences" they are G and C. So your ear sorta hears a G->C when it connects the dots. You might even think of it as a really strange G and a really strange C behind played. Maybe G13->C13.

5. Here I used 2 but the cadence chords I raised up by a step. So now we have G# and C#. It should sound weird and probably "wrong". They probably shouldn't sound like cadences either.

The difference between this one and 4 is that the phrases and there cadences are completely different. With 4 there was still a lot of notes that were from the same key.

Now even though it sounds wrong, possibly in the right context it could work. Note that the strangeness is from a contradiction in tonality. The phrase is telling us Cmaj and the cadence is telling of C#maj. (or what should be a cadence but your ear might want the G# and C# chord's to resolve to something in Cmaj)

6. now I transposed the phrase to C# maj so everything agree's and we are back to 2 but a half step higher. Realize that the two cadence chords are the same as 5. (Both G# and C# maj) but now it fits perfectly. Because we have C#maj as the key. (although we didn't establish C# maj as the tonic our ear makes the adjustment pretty easily)

7. This is 3. but with the cadence chords raised a half step(like 5). It fits a tad better because of all the chromaticism which sorta draws a way from Cmaj a little bit. It still doesn't work well but not as bad as 5. To my ears I hear it about 50%/50% in C and C#. Although my ears really want to say its in C# because of the importance of the "Cadence" chords so I might say its more like 65% in C#.

8. 2 shifted diatonically up to F so it sounds like F Lydian.

9. 8 but in F maj. This is exactly the same as 8 but with B replaced by Bb. Notice how more final it sounds. 8 sounds a little bit more "solid" although 8 is a nice contrast. But in classical music(main CPP = common practice period), the sounds in 8 are not common. would be chosen.

----

I didn't do any "atonal" examples because I'm not a fan of that music. Some of the examples(like 4 and 5) are started to get out there in that direction. The main thing I was trying to show was that its a matter of degree and that context is what is important. If Cmaj was strongly establish then all the examples except probably 8 and 9 could fit in it. If more strange stuff was established then some of those examples could fit too(and maybe even better).

In fact its very hard to get away from tonality. Your original piece had tonality. It just did not establish it by classical methods(which is essentially the cadence formula, form, and style). This is why I think its important to kinda imitate the greats first so you learn the tools. Since we hear all kinds of different styles our ears are "tainted" with it so its harder write in that style. For them that was it. It was hard for them to break out of it.

I really think if you listen to scores and try and analyze them for motivic and thematic content, harmonic and melody content, and form then you'll get a better grasp of the tools used in classical music. Then its just a matter of getting used to it. I'm still working on it myself and probably the biggest thing that helped was when I realized that ideas are more important than formulas or theories. If you try and create music by theory alone then it will probably sound elementary. But if you take an idea, use a little theory here and there to spice it up but always use your ear then it will start to sound like music. Basically an idea is a melody or motive. Once you follow along with scores and analyze them in this regard you'll see what I'm talking about (if you don't already).

Hope that helps some,

Jon

(Sorry about the long post... I tend to get carried away. Hopefully my "king" analogy makes some sense ;) )

(Oh, and don't try and of Beethoven's Later sonata's. I would either go for some of the earlier ones or some from Mozart and Haydn. Mainly look at the shorter ones as they tend to be easier to follow and see whats going on)

Compliments, you said that you weren't a good teacher... It isn't true at all (the king analogy was perfect and explained it very well!) and I thank you for the time you take for this.

Now, after all I have a few questions though:

The theoretical part about the cadence is clear, you have to establish for instance Cmaj as the tonic. But how exactly do you do it? I mean you say you need a cadence.

DEF.zip

Now I tried with another piece I had. The first example DEF1 is the one which I think is wrong, because it estalblishes Gmaj as tonic. The second example is DEF2, which, I think, establishes Cmaj as tonic.

Is that what you mean by establishing a tonic by cadence (measures 4 and 5)?

About studying scores, is there any sonata (from anyone, is hasn't to be from Beethoven :)) that you could recommend for studying, because it cleraly shows the cadence etc.?

Thanks

DEF1 is fine but does not follow harmonic convention and rhythm. I like the sequence of the initial motive.

1. Your notation should reflect the meter. The first two eighths act as a pick up to C and the first quarter note acts as the first beat. (by using the pickup's you sorta establish this to some degree musically but notationally your saying that the two eighths will be the strong beat.)

2. Your progression in harmony is sorta like C - G - D - G. Your cadence is a bit weak rhythmically because your ending it on a weak beat(you notated as a strong beat but when you renotate it it will be on the 4th beat). My hear definitely wants a conclusion to it because of this issue. You did try to fix it with the bass note on G but that is not enough cause then your repeated a chord from a weak beat to a strong beat and this effect is generally weak. (It shifts the beats so you either loose a beat or gain a beat. This generally does not happen in classical music)

3. Now the way you have it notated we could hear this piece in C or G. We do "cadence" in G but it could be a half cadence(now because of the rhythmic issue its not really a cadence but more like the music as just stopped for some reason).

Now I hear this piece in C just cause C is the most prominent chord(you open with it and it lasts half the phrase). The last part sounds like a half cadence on G. (which of course leads you a little into G but not so much that your out of C)

Of course nothing has been established completely because it requires a confirmation. If you were to write another phrase that cadenced in C then you confirm that it was a HC on G(the phrase would need to use F#'s instead of F's of course else it would be in G). You can play around with it by, say, writing the phrase in C and the cadence in G and the next phrase would reverse these. In this case you sort thwart any establishment of a tonic but one will exist. (if, say, its 50/50 then the listener might either either one as the tonic)

There are also a few problems with the melody if it were in C. If you look at all the B's, we remember that B should resolve to C. This happens at the start but but later on it seems that B becomes more of a stable tone. This is ok but overall it seems the phrase is transforming into G. (which is good if that is your purpose and you are modulating to G from C)

A clear tonic is not established(it requires a definite cadence) because there are some contradicting factors. This is ok. Music is more than a phrase. Your next phrase should confirm the tonic you want.

I think the most problematic part is the rhythm. You could use more harmonic variety and more a stronger harmonic foundation but its only one phrase so its not that big a deal.

I fixed the notation and added cadences in both C and G to help establish them. There will still need to be some more confirmation by the next phrase though. I changed the B to A(circled) to give more harmonic variety and added an inner voice(should be played a much lower volume than the other voices).

The last example shows the direction of all the voices. This, in general, isn't good because it can become very boring quickly and doesn't add variety.

(BTW, if this was more of a polyphonic piece then the notation might be ok but its clearly homophonic)

DEF1.pdf

----

DEF2

----

The 4th and 5th bars are really out of place. You have a nice flowing melody and then all of a sudden this chordal stuff that doesn't seem to fit.

The cadence part fits well though and obviously is in C. The cadence actually occurs mainly on the first beat in bar 6 with an extension. (its just like a drawn out cadence since everything is in C. The D note is just hard as a passing tone or neighboring tone)

Now bars 4 and 5 do help to re-establish the meter so that the cadences chords do come on the strong beats. This might be why you did it that way? You can still make them fit but you have to somehow make them relate to your idea.

The harmony here is just I's and V's which is better in the sense that it's easier to confirm the tonic. The main problem here is the rhythm again. (its not such a big deal but your varying the meter which is not at all characteristic of classical music)

Normally the harmony has a very consistent rhythm. Each beat gets a new chord or a chord is help from a strong beat to a weak beat(so it gets two beats). Maybe some chords last a whole measure. But harmonic rhythm helps define the meter. All the factors infact help establish the meter. There can be contradicting elements but it should be that most of them work together to establish only one meter.

Its not that they are bad phrases but just not characteristic of what the masters do.

I would suggest you take some what simple phase of a master and play around with it. Look at the harmony he uses and how he uses, how the melody works, and the cadences. The 2nd movement of Pathetique sonata has a very nice phrase IMO which is pretty clear and easy to analyze. It ends on a half cadence so you probably should take the next phrase too since it really is a period. Its then repeated with octave shifts and such but its the same thing.

Just about any sonata(sonata allegro) should be ok. Take the main theme and it should be clear cut because the composer isn't trying to obscure the theme(usually). Since most phrases are 4 measures long usually you just have to count to spot the cadence but its usually signaled by a rhythmic pause in the melody or harmony. This is not always the case but usually is. Sometimes the next phrase starts immediately or actually the cadence is the start of the new phrase too. But cadences always have some type of pause. This pause is either rhythmic, harmonic, or melodic or usually a combination. Theres no other way you can have a cadence.

Best way is just to use your ears. Follow along with the score and just mark where you hear a cadence and that will be the place.

Remember though everything is a matter of degree. Nothing is well defined. Some cadences are very weak and some people might not hear them as cadences, some tonalities are between two keys. Its music and not math so its ok to be "wrong". Using your ears is the best thing because thats how you hear it(someone else might hear it different but thats ok).

One way to think of tonality is like color. Color can be seperated as R G B. But all color's are a combination of the 3. So you might write a phrase that is like 10% in Gmaj and 5% in Fmaj and 85% in Cmaj. It has a certain quality to it that is different if its 20% in Gmaj and 80% in Cmaj. Both are music. If your ears like it then that is all that is important. Now just remember though that if you are trying to compose in a specific style you better follow those stylistic conventions. You can't write something in rock and call it classical.

On more thing I forgot to mention is that keys that are closely related have similar tonality so its not a matter of one chord or two that can really chance the tonality. If you use D7 in Cmaj then its still part of Cmaj in most cases. You don't automatically get a G tonality from it because you used a chord in "G"(that chord is in C too). In fact you can make the C tonality stronger because D7 makes G stronger. Making G stronger can actually make C stronger(Although it could also make C weaker).

G and C are like brother. C and C# are like enemies(well, not that bad I guess). So even though we might use D7 in C and it might shift just a tad towards G its not black and white. We might be 95% in C and 5% in G. But we still are not in C# at all. Everyone will say its in Cmaj and no one will say its in G or C#.

Although if its 60% in C and 40% in G then some people might say its in G now but still no one will say its in C#. Now if its really crazy then people will just end up saying its atonal. Like if its 10% in C, 10% in C#, 10% in G, 10% in G#, etc... then there is no "winner".

Now when we modulate from one key to another then there is a point where it is vague and undefined. Two people might give different answers. Again, this is fine cause its music and not science or life and death. Main thing is that you know what you want to do and not do it randomly and ultimately just do what sounds good to you(although if your trying to compose in a specific style you really have to follow that style).