how to improve my piece?

I don't know much about music theory, but I've tried to compose some music by improvising on the keyboard with my favorite scale F minor, and using what I think sounds good:

http://www.frank-buss.de/tmp/melancholy.mp3
http://www.frank-buss.de/tmp/melancholy.pdf

but it sounds a bit boring and is too short. What do you think about it? Do you have ideas how to make it more interesting and longer?

Are there some good websites about music theory (besides this one ), harmony etc. ?

Firs of all, avoid 5th parallels, they don't sound good: (i.e. rewrite your left hands using the same note but in different inversions: try to find the shortest way for the fingers to reach them!). Then make your bass more interesting, for example using an alberti form (for example F C Ab C F C Ab C in 8th notes instead of one solid chord in half note).
Vary your chord progressions, too.
Oh, in your progression you play: "F minor" "Db major" "Eb major" "C minor". I would replace the "C minor" with "Ab major", it sounds much better.
Also, your piece ends on a 4th-6th chord, which is not a good ending: you should solve it using "C major 7" then "F minor (with F in bass)"
On bar 6 I suggest that you use the melody "f-eb" instead of "f-c", it will sound less repetitive, as you use a "c" everytime on this section of your rhythmic pattern.

I think it was very good I feel you should go with your personal preferences and if you like how it sound, then dont mind that the theory says it sounds bad! Go with what you like!^^ Good job! Its sounded very Melancholic to me:) I also liked the ending! Perfect!=)

As you are german, I suggest you to read the book "Harmonielehre im Selbststudium" by Thomas Krämer. It's well done and covers all basics of music theory, starting from part writing, which is the basis of any good composition. The book is to be found in most music stores.

The melody itself was über, but I'll have to agree that the way the left hand is playing solid chords wasnt that exciting. The chords themselfs was in my opinion ok, but you could've solved it using different type of patterns and rythms and merging them into eachother.

Music is art, in art there is no correct or wrong answers. That's what's making it art, the theory is the for guidance, it's not a rulebook. But the better you know the rules, the easier there is to break em and understand why.

Remember the music you make should come from within you, and you have to decide what you think sounds good or give the feeling you wanna share. You say yourself it sounds boring ( I would call it flat, because of how the chords are arranged ) and too short ( short is relative ). It's better to compose a bunch of short compositions than one long, that way you learn alot more that you can use when making 3-5 min compositions.

Thanks for all your comments. I've created a slighty modified version. It is too difficult for me to play it live on keyboard, so it is a tracker output (the free version of MultitrackStudio, with SB X-Fi Synth, because the Microsoft soft synth sucks), which I've used a bit to compose the changes, too:

http://www.frank-buss.de/tmp/melancholy2.mp3

There are not many changes (see below), so no sheet this time.

Matthieu Stepec wrote:Firs of all, avoid 5th parallels, they don't sound good: (i.e. rewrite your left hands using the same note but in different inversions: try to find the shortest way for the fingers to reach them!). Then make your bass more interesting, for example using an alberti form (for example F C Ab C F C Ab C in 8th notes instead of one solid chord in half note).

The Alberti bass doesn't sound good, if I do it for all chords, but I've found a mixed way: When the melody has longer notes, I use Alberti bass, but when there are short notes, I play the lowest note and then the rest. I've used some inversions, too.

Matthieu Stepec wrote:
Vary your chord progressions, too.

That's difficult, I don't know which chords sounds good, so this would be a very time consuming task testing all combinations

Matthieu Stepec wrote:
Oh, in your progression you play: "F minor" "Db major" "Eb major" "C minor". I would replace the "C minor" with "Ab major", it sounds much better.

For me this sounds too soft. I want some tension, which is finally released at the end.

Matthieu Stepec wrote:
Also, your piece ends on a 4th-6th chord, which is not a good ending: you should solve it using "C major 7" then "F minor (with F in bass)"

I have no idea how to do this. Do you have an example? BTW: I'm still learning the names, especially the english ones. "C major 7" means C E G B? Sounds strange for this scale.

Matthieu Stepec wrote:
On bar 6 I suggest that you use the melody "f-eb" instead of "f-c", it will sound less repetitive, as you use a "c" everytime on this section of your rhythmic pattern.

Thanks, I like this idea and I've changed the piece. And thanks for the book suggestion, looks interesting, I'll buy it.

Thomandy wrote:I think it was very good

+1

Any comments on my second try? Better or worse? Should I stop music composing and better start gardening?

frank wrote:Any comments on my second try? Better or worse? Should I stop music composing and better start gardening?

It's hard to say !

I'd love to hear you play it as you intend it, because on auto pilot it doesn't sound as melancholy as the first. But I can see where you're going, so it has great potential.

On the other hand, I can see it also in this faster pace some neat potential as well, it just doesn't sound melancholy.

So, put down the rake and let's hear it!

You are right, the sequencer doesn't sound good. I've tried another version, with the same chords as the first version, but slightly modified and with a different ending:

http://www.frank-buss.de/tmp/melancholy3.mp3

http://www.frank-buss.de/tmp/melancholy3.pdf

I think now it doesn't end on the wrong chord, as suggested by Matthieu and for me it sounds better than the first version. I can't play it with splitted chords, but it doesn't matter, because maybe a flat harmony fits well with the melancholic sound anyway Next time I'll try a more bright piece with splitted chords.

great, thanks for posting it!

Hey! Wether the chords are splitted or not don't change anything to the harmony!
I insist on the fact that you should resolve Eb on Ab at least one time as a surprise effect.
On the last chord, the issue I mentioned was the bass note: i.e. the C. It should be "F" instead! :-)
Oh, and C major does fit into this scale: it is the dominant, the most basic relationship ever! You could use it instead of the last Eb chord, by raising the Eb to E (that would be a C7) for example.

http://www.mediafire.com/?yymwignd1fm

http://www.mediafire.com/?exm2faaizql

Here are two examples I made this morning!

To be honest I liked Franks a lot more! A tip to you Matthieu is that you should concentrate more on what feelings to awake and not do what is "correct theory" etc. You version don't sound melancholic at all, its jumps and humps and instead of having a harmony that support the melancholic feeling it actually steals the focus and create "static". Just my opinion!^^

Your comment makes me think that you listen to the performance more than to the music itself. My performance is a sequencer one. Played by a correct pianist it would sound better than the other versions...

Having no clue at all as to what perfect harmony should be like I find Franks very first posting of the tune best as far as feelings go. I think its difficult putting a freshly composed, emotional piece up for people to critisize. Not that I wouldnt want people to give me a few tips, but it might happen that I let others influence me so strongly that the feelings Id first intended cant be found afterwards anymore. As others have said here, I think music should come from the heart and not strictly from the theory.

Frank, your first piece feels really gloomy, as if your looking out of a window on a rainy day and thinking of the things youve lost. I just cant picture that in the other tunes you posted... actually I wasnt able to picture anything to your second posting... =)

I do find it very exciting to see how one tune can be switched and changed into completely different feelings though!

Matthieu Stepec wrote:Your comment makes me think that you listen to the performance more than to the music itself. My performance is a sequencer one. Played by a correct pianist it would sound better than the other versions...

Actually not I know it would have sounded A LOT better with a real performance, but so would his original writing as well. So to know for sure we would have to compare real performances, but still I think Especially the beginning of your rendition was very messy, the middle part with the arpeggios where a bit better, and the end was pretty good. But the piece as a whole does not reflect melancholy, its to much going on!

But hey, my original ideology about music is that it is very much Subjective! Not only do my associations to the word Melancholy influence my opinion, but also my general taste in music, progression, structure etc - And we can be split in these opinions! So dont take what I said in a wrong way! Im not saying Im correct, and you are wrong!! Important for me to get that out to you, since I feel you got a bit offended! Not my intention. It was only a subjective conclusion

aendym wrote:Having no clue at all as to what perfect harmony should be like I find Franks very first posting of the tune best as far as feelings go. I think its difficult putting a freshly composed, emotional piece up for people to critisize. Not that I wouldnt want people to give me a few tips, but it might happen that I let others influence me so strongly that the feelings Id first intended cant be found afterwards anymore. As others have said here, I think music should come from the heart and not strictly from the theory.

Frank, your first piece feels really gloomy, as if your looking out of a window on a rainy day and thinking of the things youve lost. I just cant picture that in the other tunes you posted... actually I wasnt able to picture anything to your second posting... =)

I do find it very exciting to see how one tune can be switched and changed into completely different feelings though!

+1

Totally agree

Matthieu Stepec wrote:http://www.mediafire.com/?yymwignd1fm

http://www.mediafire.com/?exm2faaizql

Here are two examples I made this morning!

Thanks for creating this version. I agree with the other comments that it doesn't sound very melancholic, but I really like the harmony and chord splitting idea in the second part of your version, it's a bit like Bach . Amazon says I'll get "Harmonielehre im Selbststudium" the next days, so I hope I'll learn a bit more about the theory the next months.

You are playing piano for 15 years, would be cool if you could do a real performance of your version.

Thomandy wrote:
Actually not I know it would have sounded A LOT better with a real performance, but so would his original writing as well.

Hmm, my first (and third) version was a real performance, but maybe not as real as if you would play it

aendym wrote:Having no clue at all as to what perfect harmony should be like I find Franks very first posting of the tune best as far as feelings go. I think its difficult putting a freshly composed, emotional piece up for people to critisize. Not that I wouldnt want people to give me a few tips, but it might happen that I let others influence me so strongly that the feelings Id first intended cant be found afterwards anymore. As others have said here, I think music should come from the heart and not strictly from the theory.

But I think theory can help. I don't know how others compose, but for me it was very difficult to find some chords which sounds good by pressing some keys and listening if it sounds good to the melody. Some theory can help finding the right keys without too much trials

But creating the melody was easy for me, maybe because I felt like this when I composed it. I appreciate all constructive critics and the third version (my favorite) demonstrates that I can ignore many tips, if I think it doesn't sound like I want it

aendym wrote:
Frank, your first piece feels really gloomy, as if your looking out of a window on a rainy day and thinking of the things youve lost. I just cant picture that in the other tunes you posted... actually I wasnt able to picture anything to your second posting... =)

I do find it very exciting to see how one tune can be switched and changed into completely different feelings though!

Yes, the second version was too much theory and in addition I don't know how to apply the theory Matthieu demonstrated that some nice piece (but very different mood) can be created when using the theory and experience.

Thomandy wrote:But from all the positive feedback I have given you on your composition, and this little mistake from my part is the only thing you grasp? .. disappointing

Sorry , many thanks for your positiv feedback and the feedback from the other posters! Maybe I'm still too suprised that my first simple try to compose something sounds better than expected.

HEHE i found this thread vry interesting ...even if it is starting to delve away from the actual music issue ...but in my opinion ,i think it is great that all these people are so willing to give their views and help on this ...so just proves what a good forum this is ...btw frank keep up the gd work and remember trial and success is on the same ladder as trial and error....but we have to try ...which you have done so bravo

ROBIN wrote:btw frank keep up the gd work and remember trial and success is on the same ladder as trial and error....but we have to try ...which you have done so bravo

Hear Hear!!!!

frank wrote:But I think theory can help. I don't know how others compose, but for me it was very difficult to find some chords which sounds good by pressing some keys and listening if it sounds good to the melody. Some theory can help finding the right keys without too much trials

Consider theory as a guide. To compose music you can either start with or without it. But starting without it would be like going to a foreign land without any basic knowledge of language and culture etc. You'll have to figure out everything from scratch. And that's not a good thing. Theory is one of the most important stuff you can learn, that way it's much easier to break rules without pushing it way over the limit.

I did start out composing music only buy listening to what I created, it worked ok, but I didnt really feel I had control over it.

Now I start out by picking a scale ( when you know theory you can aslo easily jump scales ), then I start improvising small riffs or themes, when I find one that I sound pleasing I record it in midi ( it's not try and fail, it's more like getting it the right way ). That way I have something I can build on, I usually also try to imagine a scenery, that way I have more controll over the piece. The melody and harmony usually develope at the same time. The most important is to create something comming from youself, not some "this scale and this rythm and this keys sounds good when played like this". It's like handwriting vs printer or human vs machine ^_^

One common mistake is to think that theory would kill spontaneous feelings or even kill artistry. Ask Schönberg! He wrote with an extraordinary amount of rules but yet managed to create powerful pieces, because he managed to express something BEYOND these complex rules. The same goes for baroque music, which is extremely expressive although following very, very strict theoretical rules.
Of course the opposite exists too; composers like Satie for example, or Poulenc (although both are often considered as dilettante) wrote mainly without thinking too much of theory. Nevertheless, the only thing that saved them was an extremely high sensivity for music, which allowed them to find beautiful musical solutions to the expression problems they ran in.

Anyway; my example versions of melancholy were not definitive corrections of the piece! They were examples of bass figuration and of different chord progressions. People here didn't seem to like the bass figurations I chose, probably mainly because it was played too loud in the midi (no differenciation between melody and chords) which gave it a hectic/jumpy/messy feel. But it works, when performed for real.
Nevertheless, be it good or not, one can ignore it and just stick to the chord progression I showed in the example, which is much more elegant than the parallel 5th (the chords are almost the same as in the original version, but with different part writing).
The goal here was to try to find better solutions for the piece, not to rate it. Frank asked for what he could change to make the piece different, he didn't ask for a rating. I think that his melody is inspired and his chord progression not bad at all, but it can be improved as far as theory goes, and these improvements will give him a much greater span of musical imagination. (And I also think that it does make the piece sound better.)