First Attempt for Flute and Guitar

I wrote a Flute & Guitar duet. It turned out pretty good I think. One thing for sure, I'm certain it's playable because I used my flute and guitar to compose it, and if I can play the parts anyone can.

I'd be happy to hear technical criticisms. I have no clue about any music theory rules, I just wrote what sounded good to me. It's not the greatest, but for a first duet I'm happy with it.

I had to upload everything to my web site because I can't upload to this site.

There's a Midi (8 KB), an Mp3 (1 Meg), and PDF (77 KB).

I rendered the mp3 at a lesser quality to save file size but it still sounds much better than the midi.

The music is about 2 min 43 seconds.

Fantasy

Right in the beginning, the "cut off" flute notes, I would have loved them to be held.

At about 1:40, where the guitar plays the arpeggios, and the flute does so too, but leaves the guitar for one or two measures, you could give a held note to the flute.

I enjoyed listening to this.

Thank you blue. I agree with everything you've said.

I wrote this piece with my actual skill level at playing the flute being a consideration. Since I have respiratory problems I was giving myself plenty of time to breathe and get ready for the next phrase.

I know this shouldn't be a consideration in composing, but this is what was going through my mind when I wrote this (with instruments in hand).

I'm actually hoping to use this piece within a larger tone poem symphony, and I do plan on refining it some in the future. I'll have to get some feedback from actual flutists on precisely how much time they need to breathe between phrases. But it was breathing considerations that caused me to cut the notes off a bit short.

I kind of rushed the ending too. I’d like to have the flute play echoes of a motive during the last measures as it responds to the singular guitar chords (instead of just playing a single note for each chord).

In the tone poem the flute is an angel who is encouraging a child who has just awakened to an interest in music. The guitar being the instrument of the child.

I totally agree with your comments. I’ll work on increasing some note durations and maybe adding some hold-over notes during the arpeggios when the flute isn’t playing a full accompaniment.

Thank you for your suggestions. I appreciate them.

I am glad to hear that you appreciate my critique.

I can understand your considerations about breathing, but as far as I know, there is a technique called circular breathing, which allows to play without pause. I don't know though if this applies to the flute as well.

I would imagine that this is not the case. As a general comment, I just love the flute, this clear sound, so... awww... :w00t:

I would like to hear your full orchestration of this. I'm sure it would be great. I like the harmonies you used. Quite dark , like I use to like them.

Very calm and relaxed feeling, nice piece.

1) That was a nice piece of music...simple, to-the-point melodies and a nice texture.

2) I couldn't open the .pdf file, but I feel you could explore this piece more harmonically. Some modulation perhaps?

3) The B section (with the faster arpeggios) worked very refreshingly for me.

4) Nice ending!

Cheers!

I would like to hear your full orchestration of this. I'm sure it would be great. I like the harmonies you used. Quite dark , like I use to like them.

It will be quite a while before that entire symphony is finished (could ulimately end up being years!). However, every time I write a piece of music I'm thinking of my symphony and how it might fit in. So it might not take as long as I imagine.

In the symphony there will be a timpani accompaniment to this guitar and flute duet. The timpani represents the background heartbeat of life and is a key element to the entire motif of the symphony as a whole. The timpani ties all the little pieces together. This symphony will be a timpanist's dream come true I think, because the timpani will be the heart and soul of the entire symphony (albiet often playing at ppp levels).

~~~

Thank you, Emperor, for your comment as well.

~~~

Quite often the timpani is an essential element in orchestral music, more often than one might think. Timpanis might chance the whole piece...

Quite often the timpani is an essential element in orchestral music, more often than one might think. Timpanis might chance the whole piece...

Yeh, for the good...and the bad :D

Yeah, my timpanis somehow ruin my pieces :D But oh well...

I couldn't open the .pdf file.

Sorry about that. For some reason it never got uploaded. I fixed the problem it should be available now. It's not the greatest print out though, this is one bad feature of Melody Assistant. I could clean up the print formatting, but I didn't feel up to fussing with it. It should be readable though.

But I feel you could explore this piece more harmonically.

I agree. I actually wrote this piece thinking of using it within a larger piece so while I was tempted to run on for much longer I was trying to keep it around 2:30 min, I'm already a tad over that.

Some modulation perhaps?

I'm not quite that far advanced yet as a composer. This is written in the key of C actually, but I think I almost made an unplanned modulation into A minor purely by accident. I'm not sure if there's much room to make a full blown modulation within the 2:30 min time frame.

Although, I'm now thinking of maybe making two versions of it. One for within my larger piece, and another stand-alone version that could be free to run on for as long as I like.

3) The B section (with the faster arpeggios) worked very refreshingly for me.

Thanks, I wasn't sure if that would be taken as "refreshing" or too sudden of a break from the original meter. It felt good actualy playing it on the guitar so I took a chance and went with it. It just seemed like what the piece "wanted" to do.

4) Nice ending!

I actually got tired at the end and just did a really simple thing so I could go to bed. (ha ha) But I kind of like the simplicity of it too. I was thinking about adding little echoes of the motive by the flute instead of just single notes though. Nothing too complex. I like to keep it simple, but maybe just a little 3 or 4 note run after each guitar chord instead of just single notes for the flute. With the last run melding right into the strummed guitar chord at the end. I'll have to play with that possibilty.

Thanks for the comments. Good suggestions. :D

The pdf opens now. There are some issues with your notation...

You seem to flirt a lot with G major...a modulation into that?

About the 'refreshing' part; what the piece tells us about where it wants to go, that's the law (imo)!

Cheers!

You seem to flirt a lot with G major...a modulation into that?

Good idea. I think I did hear F# begging for attention from me when I was working on it.

I wasn't even thinking about a purposeful planned out modulation yet though because, like I say, I'm still trying to learn how to write within the confines of a single key.

I would love to learn how to do modulations confidently though. That's something I do plan on learning here in the near future. I'm only just now learning the keys, bits and pieces of harmony, and meter.

But I definitely want to learn everything. (ha ha)

Well, at least modulation anyway.

And yes, I imagine there are a LOT of issues with my notation. I have no CLUE what I'm doing yet. I only just now learned how to control note beaming. So I'm fully aware that all the notes are beamed incorrectly in that piece. I'll try to see if I can figure out how to get them to beam properly.

Like I say, I'm still trying to fully understand things like meter, note beaming, and a billion other things (like how to control my software!).

I'd love to hear any specific detailed comments you might have about the notation because that how I LEARN!

I have seen (and created) much worse notation! Nothing major really;

a) You don't give your players any dynamics. So they wouldn't know how soft/loud to play.

b) How can I say this in english? Well, you need to beam some notes together so you can provide rhythmical clarity for your player. This is apparent in the first 5 measures, See, also, the third system in the second page!

c) Your measure spacing is a bit awkward at times (see the first few measures)

d) At times your rests lay on top of beams, notes and so on.

e) "Ritardeno"? What language did you use? If you meant a gradual decrease in temp, it's ritardando you need. And it should be above both the guitar and the flute (I think).

f) Place a final barline at the end.

g) Some phrasing marks for the flutist?

h) Measure numbers?

That's from a brief view. There might be even more...

Thank you very much for taking the time to look over my score and post comments!

I actually reworked the score quite a bit and uploaded a new PDF. It's MUCH better, but probably still contains problems. There are several reasons for this. Part is that I don't know what's proper. Part is because I don't fully know how to use all of the features of my software. And last, but certainly not least, the printing function of Melody Assistant isn't the greatest so I can't get the score to look precisely how I would like it to look. I'm working on trying to learn how to format the printing better.

I'll respond to each of your comments.

a) You don't give your players any dynamics. So they wouldn't know how soft/loud to play.

Ok, this is partly because I didn't think that would be necessary in a small piece. But since I intend to eventually use this inside of a much larger symphony I guess it should be as professionally scored as possible, and dynamics are in order.

I have added some dynamics, including fading the volume of individual notes for the flute. Originally I was kind of afraid to nit-pick like this, because I felt that the players would automatically deal with this. But perhaps I'm wrong.

In any case Melody Assistant actually uses the dynamics and it sounds much better now.

I took Blue's advice and increased the duration of quite a few notes for the flute, and it does sound much better now. At least I think so.

b) How can I say this in english? Well, you need to beam some notes together so you can provide rhythmical clarity for your player. This is apparent in the first 5 measures, See, also, the third system in the second page!

Ok, the original score was doing automatic beaming and it was all set up wrong. I cleaned up the beaming CONSIDERABLY. Hopefully it's correct.

I wasn't sure whether or not to beam eigth notes to quarter notes though. I was temped to for temporal reasons, but it just didn't look good on the score, so I decided not to beam quarter notes to eigth notes. I'm happy with it the way it is now, I hope it makes sense to a musician.

c) Your measure spacing is a bit awkward at times (see the first few measures)

Again, the original score was basically unformatted. I pretty much have all the measures the same size now and don't see any real need to have any that are differnet size. But again, the print out may not be as pretty as it could be because of the lousy print feature of Melody Assistant. That's one down side to the program.

d) At times your rests lay on top of beams, notes and so on.

I think I cleaned that up fairly well too. Although I do have eighth rests in parallel with whole notes. This program allows "layering". I'm not sure if that's accepted in professional score. But it would seem to me that without it I'd either need to use a lot of ugly ties and extra notes, or just put a comment in that says to let notes ring. But for the sake of creating a proper mp3 file I needed to write it that way in sheet music program.

e) "Ritardeno"? What language did you use? If you meant a gradual decrease in temp, it's ritardando you need. And it should be above both the guitar and the flute (I think).

I was going to just use "rit" and then thought I'd spell it out and then went and mispelled it! It's still mispelled on the current score but I can fix that.

I only put it in once becasue again, the dynamic is live in the program and applies to the whole piece. However, I could use inert text to repeat it on each staff.

f) Place a final barline at the end.

Done.

g) Some phrasing marks for the flutist?

Well, I'm not sure how to do that, but I did do some better beaming which will help a lot. I'm not sure how to use phrasing marks. I'm also not sure how to use that feature in my software yet. I'll have to learn about that.

h) Measure numbers?

Done. I just put them above the guitar so both players can see them. Although I'm going to be adding timpani to this piece when it goes into the larger symphony. So it will be up to 3 staffs then. Their will be a full orchestra leading up to this piece, and then recovering from it, but this part of the symphony will just be the flute, guitar and timpani.

Thank you for taking the time to look over my work. If you see anything more in the updated version of the score that hasn't been taken care of or discussed here let me know.

Oh by the way, I changed the ending just a tad. It basically the same thing, but changed up a bit. I'm not sure whether I like it as well as the original. It's a bit more complex, and I like the idea behind it, but I'm not sure if I like the precise lead-in to it. It sounds a tad awkward. I might need to deal with that a bit more too.

Over all I'm real happy with the piece and at 2:45 min. it's just about perfect for the larger piece that it will go into. I could run 3 min, but not too much longer than that.

Here's the link to the updated files (it's the same link as before):

Fantasy

Here's an excellent explanation of how to properly use phrasing marks when writing for wind instruments:

http://www.mti.dmu.ac.uk/~ahugill/manual/clarinet/movies/tiprearticulation.mov

(It's explained in the context of the clarinet, but exactly the same principles apply for all wind instruments.)

I’ve spent all day to day cleaning up the score even further. Much of that time is being spent on learning how to make the software do what I want. But, alas it seems to have all the features necessary.

I was able hide the unneeded rests altogether. They need to be there for the layering sheet music program, but they can be made invisible for the score so I did that. I also found ways to selectively change the stem directions for large quantities of stems without having to choose the whole staff. So this is pretty cool.

I corrected the spelling of ritardando and also stated it as “ritardando to 60 bps” and placed it above both instrument staffs.

I also added some more detailed dynamics markings.

I have a question though,… all I see is ppp, pp, p, mp, mf, f, ff, and fff. So how do you get them back to “normal”? Do you basically chose either mf or mp as your norm?

Here's an excellent explanation of how to properly use phrasing marks when writing for wind instruments:

Thanks for the link to the video. I’m not sure if I got the whole thing as it seemed rather short and didn’t explain how to actually write the phrases out in notation but rather how to play them. I think the music is already being played with good phrasing. I just need to figure out how to write in phrasing marks for the flutist. I don’t think those markings are actually going to have any affect the sheet music rendition. I think they are going to be ignored like text by the program. But I’d still like to put them in for the actual musicians who will play the piece.

I’m on dial-up too, so I’ll search for a pages that explains this without a video.

Thanks for the link though it was interesting.

Ok...I took the time to view the revised version...

1) The tempo marking should go above the flute staff, preferably above both staves.

2) The dynamics markings should go below the staff for which they apply.

3) You needn't put measure numbers for every measure. Once in the first meter of every system is enough. Also, the measure numbers need be placed either above both instruments (preferably, as they belong to different families), or just above the flute staff. Confusing, huh?

4) m.21 for the flute is notated awfully. I can't make a picture of what it should look like.

5) Guitar, page 2, 3, 4, last system, it goes below the page.

6) m. 52-57; what exactly are you doing with your dymanics here? Are the forte markings supposed to apply for the flute?

7) Ritardando is enough. You needn't place 'to 60bps', unless you need to be very specific for that. In which case, you had better provide your performers with a way to slow down to exactly 60.

8) m. 81. Diminuendo to what dynamic level?

9) There is no 'normal' dynamic level. Everything is relevant. You should use the dynamic level you want (the one you consider normal).

10) Hiding the rests provides for a clearer score, but the rests should be there. Probably above the whole notes? Also, the other notes should have their beams facing up (I think, but this is guitar writing...).

Phew! Hope this helps.

Phew! Hope this helps.

It does help a LOT! Thank you!

However, having said that, I’m also aware that some intricacies may possibly a personal preference and so whilst I’m very glad to have you’re input I may not accept everything you say as carved in stone. None the less it is quite helpful as I have no clue other than score that I have seen and played from. And I might add that I’ve seen a variety of styles, some I like better than others.

I just now uploaded a yet newer version of the PDF with phrasing. It might be over-kill. But once I got started I starting thinking in terms of what I would personally like to see if I were playing it. So I put in phasing markings everywhere I thought they were needed. However, some may appear to be slurs which is not the intent. (it seems that phrasing and slurs use the same notation).

As a final note, when (and if) I have this actually performed it will most likely be at a local college near me. The students will have recordings to listen to, as well as me breathing down their necks (ha ha). So I think it would probably be alright without any phrasing marks at all for my purposes. But putting them in may reduce questions (or cause more problems if everyone thinks they are slurs!!!)

1) The tempo marking should go above the flute staff, preferably above both staves.

I thought that’s where they are? I think that printout may be a bit confusing. I wrote the piece and sometimes when I look at the printout it appears the things that are supposed to be above one staff actually look like they are meant to be below the other. I can’t seem to get the thing to print the staffs with the spacing I’d like to see. It’ s much more clear in the *.mus file. Unfortuantely it’s a Melody Assistant *.mus file and won’t load into Finale (at least I don’t think it will). It won’t load into my Finale Notepad I know that.

2) The dynamics markings should go below the staff for which they apply.

Ok, I didn’t know whether there was a rule for that. I seem to remember seeing them both above and below staffs on other sheet music so I thought it was just a matter of what was more convenient at the time.

Is there any place I can find the rules written out for music notation so I don’t need to guess?

3) You needn't put measure numbers for every measure. Once in the first meter of every system is enough. Also, the measure numbers need be placed either above both instruments (preferably, as they belong to different families), or just above the flute staff. Confusing, huh?

Yes it is confusing, and like I say, I wonder just how standardized it is? If it that well carved in stone shouldn’t their be a nice little convenient rule book for these things that I can just refer to?

4) m.21 for the flute is notated awfully. I can't make a picture of what it should look like.

That’s part of the end of an earlier phrase. Maybe with the phrasing markings it will make more sense?

5) Guitar, page 2, 3, 4, last system, it goes below the page.

Lousy print formatting again! I think there are ways to solve these problems, I’m just not sure how to format the printing feature. It won’t do what I want it to do! Argh!

6) m. 52-57; what exactly are you doing with your dymanics here? Are the forte markings supposed to apply for the flute?

Yes, and all I really want is for that single last note to be a bit louder than the preceding phrase. It actually works in the program. So it’s having the affect that I want, but maybe there’s a better way to notate that?

7) Ritardando is enough. You needn't place 'to 60bps', unless you need to be very specific for that. In which case, you had better provide your performers with a way to slow down to exactly 60.

Darn it! I did that to stay a step ahead of you and it backfired! I thought you be asking me “retard to what?”

It actually needs to retard to quarter note = 60 bps in order to meld back in with the original piece that is played at 120 bps. Like you say, the performers are going to know what they need to so by that point. I think some things are kind of obvious and it may be wasted effort to actually notate them or comment on them in the score.

8) m. 81. Diminuendo to what dynamic level?

This hasn’t escaped my attention either. In fact, I actually had to tell the sheet music program precisely how to play those. The default setting sucked.

I was thinking of putting in a comment at the very beginning saying that all diminuendos should be played from 100% (the current level) down to zero in the durations of the given notes. This is what I have them all set to and they all sound just right that way.

Once again, I give the flutist some credit for having their own artistic interpretation. But technically, it’s from 100% to zero over the duration of the note. I imagine that a real live flutist is just going to play that intuitively rather than robotically.

9) There is no 'normal' dynamic level. Everything is relevant. You should use the dynamic level you want (the one you consider normal).

Well, I’m happy with mf for the sheet music program. In real life I think flutist and guitarist will find their own volume level. I imagine that they will practice the piece and have some idea of what they are comfortable with. Most of them probably aren’t going to give a damn what the composer wants anyway (ha ha)

10) Hiding the rests provides for a clearer score, but the rests should be there. Probably above the whole notes? Also, the other notes should have their beams facing up (I think, but this is guitar writing...).

I tried to beam everything up Scotty but the transporter was malfunctioning!

I just now uploaded the final version of the score.

I beamed up all the notes, except for a few that I left down because I felt it was more comfortable with that appearance.

All the volume dynamic markings are below the staffs they refer to, all of the tempo markings are above the staffs. I beamed down all the notes beneath the ritardando to make room for the rit markings themselves. I think those notes ok good beamed down, and it looks better than having to separate the staffs further to make room for high rit markings.

I also seem to have conquered the printing formatting to some degree. It’s still seems restrictive, but it’s the best I’ve been able to do thus far.

I posted that latest and greatest (hopefully the last) version of the score on my web page.

Fantasy

Thank you for taking the time to review my score and comment on it. I found the experience to be quite helpful.

I’d still like to find a rule book for musical notation. Like a composers guide to type-setting. (ha ha)

Obviously composing music, and knowing the typesetting rules are two entirely differnet things.

No rule is actually carved in stone but these are conventions agreed to by musicians and composers alike, so that one might know what thing to look for when producing or reading a score. Kind of like...grammar and spelling? About the book, PM me.

Ok, that's obviously NOT the final version; why rush this procedure? You have yet a whole lot to learn about notation (everybody does);

1) m. 1. (same with m.60) The tempo marking should go above the flute. No use waiting for the flute entry (m. 6) to tell the flutist to go to that tempo. He already checks out the tempo the guitarist applies to the music.

2) The phrasing marks don't have anything in common with slurs. Slurs are used for notes of the same pitch and they extend their duration. You phrasing marks at times don't make sense (m. 15-16 guitar, for example, is very difficult to play legato) and they collide with other elements (m.28). They shouldn't.

3) Even for guitar, the beams should be upwards for the upper layer (though I'm not quite sure :D).

4) m.43-44. Why the slurs?

5) m.21, again, awful. I actually created a .pdf (I still can't get the hang of this stuff). :sweat:I didn't use any phrasing marks, just the rhythmic alteration. The first one is the same you're writing but actually understandable. The second one is even easier (except if you wanted that rest at the end).

6) Again, the rests should be there - not hidden (but still not sure).

There's definitely more, but I just woke up...:)

Overall a great improvement. Your score starts to take a more professional look with each subsequent post.

Cheers!

Flute - guitar duet.pdf

Ok, since this is written in 21st century pop style, I honestly think that the chords you use in some places are all wrong. The chord progression in this type of music is always the same, so it just sounds wrong when you use the chords that you are using. I don't think I am making any sense right now, but I was on to something. I am going to try and coherently help you tomorrow because its 3:30 in the morning and I have no idea what I am saying.

Also, I really don't think you should expand this to a symphony. It wouldn't hold up well. It is fine as a duet, but it doesn't have enough substance to orchestrate it. It would sound too blocky. Like a clown named Bertha walking down the road. It just doesn't work. Clowns should stay in the circus, and duets should stay in groups of two.

Oh my, I really need to stop talking and go to sleep. Happy trails.....

Ok, that's obviously NOT the final version; why rush this procedure? You have yet a whole lot to learn about notation (everybody does);

Alright, alright. Not really in a rush, just thinking that I might end up getting overly nit-picky with it.

1) m. 1. (same with m.60) The tempo marking should go above the flute. No use waiting for the flute entry (m. 6) to tell the flutist to go to that tempo. He already checks out the tempo the guitarist applies to the music.

Ok, that’s easy enough to change.

2) The phrasing marks don't have anything in common with slurs. Slurs are used for notes of the same pitch and they extend their duration.

I’m a bit confused now, because I just got done reading about the difference between ties and slurs. From what I’ve read ties are used for notes of the same pitch to extend their duration. This is also how the tie tool works in my sheet music program. It’s active and actually ties notes together of the same pitch. In fact, it won’t even allow you to use it on notes of differnet pitches, it just won’t connect them.

The slur tool on the other hand is inactive (or inert) in my program. It will connect any two notes together regardless of their pitches. It also say to use the slur tool for phrasing. (but certainly not the tie tool).

So based on what I thought I already knew, I’m not confused. I tend to believe that a tie is for extending duration whilst a slur means to “slur” notes of difference pitches together (which is not exactly the same as phrasing them together). This is why I’m a bit confused between phrasing and slurs, but now we seem to be bringing ties into it which I thought were a totally differnet think.

You phrasing marks at times don't make sense (m. 15-16 guitar, for example, is very difficult to play legato) and they collide with other elements (m.28). They shouldn't.

How are you trying to play it? It practically plays itself in the second position. I mean your fingers should be naturally falling on these notes without any effort whatsoever. If this piece is anything its extremely EASY to play. I designed it that way! I’m too lazy to go reaching for notes.

If you start the phrase with your 2nd finger you end up playing the A with your pinky and the C# with finger #1. At that point fingers 2 and 3 merely have to fall on the D and F#. It couldn’t be an easier phrase to play.

3) Even for guitar, the beams should be upwards for the upper layer (though I'm not quite sure :huh:).

Ok, I need to see these rules written down somewhere. Precisely who’s standards are they?

I have guitar books here that don’t have all the beams up.

I have Pumping Nylon by Scott Tennant, his music seems to have just as many beams facing down as up. I also have some guitar sheet music for the Bach partitas and sonatas for solo violin (rearranged for guitar) and it has beams up and down seemingly randomly all over it. I also have an old classical guitar method book that has beams up and down fairly randomly all through it. There may be a method to their madness, but they don’t seem to have any problem with facing beams down just as often as they face them up.

So this is why I’m asking who’s standards you’re going by? They obviously aren’t used by everyone.

4) m.43-44. Why the slurs?

Well, this is where it gets confusing. Some of those are “ties” tying notes together of the same pitch to increase their duration over a bar line. The other lines I put in as “phrasing” which is probably over-kill at that point, but those notes do need to be grouped together as well as tied.

Seems to me there should be differnet symbols used for a tie, slur, and phrase, but apparently not. It’s up to the musician to know which is which by context I guess.

5) m.21, again, awful. I actually created a .pdf (I still can't get the hang of this stuff). :sweat:I didn't use any phrasing marks, just the rhythmic alteration. The first one is the same you're writing but actually understandable. The second one is even easier (except if you wanted that rest at the end).

Ok, I see. You saying that I should break the dotted half note up so that I have 3 sixteenths notes in a “run”, and then just tie the last one over for the longer duration. I never thought about that.

I tend to shoot for the least complicated-looking score (less notes and ties). You’re suggesting to write it out more explicitly by breaking the notes up and tying them back together to convey more rhythmic information.

That makes sense. You see, I don’t sight-read music, especially timing. I’m terrible at reading time so I just use the music for the notes. There’s almost always a recording (or many recordings) of the piece to get ideas of how it’s actually played.

I’m not sure if I’m that worried about having it spelled out perfectly. I mean, I’d like to have it as correct as possible, it seems to me that even the way I have it written it’s going to have to still be played the same.

The sheet music program certainly played it correctly.

6) Again, the rests should be there - not hidden (but still not sure).

Well I can unhide them easy enough. But I think I might need go through and place them individual if I want to move them up or down.

Overall a great improvement. Your score starts to take a more professional look with each subsequent post.

Yes, and I do appreciate your help. But I’m still not clear on the difference between a slur and a phasing mark, and I thought a tie was what held notes over for longer durations, not a slur?

I know the music isn’t “Final” I may even actually change the music itself a bit before I’m completely done. But I’m in no rush to clean this up anymore than it is already. I’ll be going back over it later on after I’ve had more experience writing other pieces too.

Ok, since this is written in 21st century pop style, I honestly think that the chords you use in some places are all wrong. The chord progression in this type of music is always the same, so it just sounds wrong when you use the chords that you are using. I don't think I am making any sense right now, but I was on to something. I am going to try and coherently help you tomorrow because its 3:30 in the morning and I have no idea what I am saying.

Well you better get some rest then.

I have no clue what “style” the music is written in. I’m not trying to imitate a style.

Also, I really don't think you should expand this to a symphony. It wouldn't hold up well. It is fine as a duet, but it doesn't have enough substance to orchestrate it. It would sound too blocky. Like a clown named Bertha walking down the road. It just doesn't work. Clowns should stay in the circus, and duets should stay in groups of two.....

I thank you for voicing your concerns.

I have no intention of “expanding” this into a symphony. I already have a piece in mind in which this will fit nicely into. It’s a tone poem; a kind of musical opera. It’s not the normal kind of “symphony” that you might be thinking of. The actual performance may end up with visual aid in either the form of video or mime accompaniment.

In this tone poem the flute is an angel, and the guitar is a child who has only just discovered an interest in music. If the guitar chords sound a tad awkward that would actually be perfect for what this piece is attempting to portray. As long as the flute sounds angelic I’m in good shape. This piece depicts the child playing and the is angel encouraging the child by playing along in an echoing-leading role.

This piece will be a small part of the first movement of the symphony. This movement is entitled “Infancy” and the guitar represent the child. So the guitar is allowed to sound unpolished or immature in this piece.

However, I’d be glad to learn the proper chord progressions for 21st century pop anyway! So if you’re well-versed in that genre of music please feel free to tell me what you would change. I’m actually thinking about expanding a second version of this piece as stand-alone music anyway. So perhaps I could use your input after all.

I’d like to gain some understanding of lots of different styles of music actually.

Sorry for not replying sooner - I was away for a few days.

I've now read the discussions and have a few more comments.

Ok, since this is written in 21st century pop style, I honestly think that the chords you use in some places are all wrong. The chord progression in this type of music is always the same, so it just sounds wrong when you use the chords that you are using.

I don't know anything about 21st century pop style, but my view is that your chord progressions sound fine. I feel creativity should be free - whatever sounds coherent.

My comment on harmony is that I you have stayed in C major, although I know you said you had intended to write in a single key. Although you use a lot of the A minor chord at one point, I would say that you are not really in Am because you haven't sharpened the leading note of A minor (7th of the scale) - G. I feel you are just using chord 6 (in the scale) of C major.

Secondly, your chord changes at bars 15-16 and 74-75, I don't think sound right. It looks like you've gone into D major because of the C sharp in the guitar part, but the D key in relation to C major is D MINOR. Chord 2 is always minor in a major key. It may sound better to go to G major instead. One person said you have flirted with G alot - why not modulate to that key at that point? To modulate you need to gradually introduce the sharps or flats of the new key which in this case is F sharp.

You asked about learning music theory. I don't know where you are from, but in the UK we have music theory grades. You can buy the workbooks and go through the exercises youself - but you may need a teacher to help you with them. There is also the two books called the AB Guide to music theory. The first one is grades 1-5 and the second is 6-8.

About the tails - I'm a guitarist and they look fine to me. We always put them up and down. If the note - or most of the notes connected by a beam are below the middle line they go up, and vice versa. The only thing is that in some places where there are arpeggios, you have semi-breves (whole notes if not English) at the beginning of bars that end up getting stopped before they have reached their full value. I realize why you have done this - to say they should be sustained as long as possible, but I think what would be more correct is to turn them into quavers (8th notes if not English), and put an accent on the note that used to be a semi-breve. However, I'm not sure about this - your original version maybe be clearer to a performer.

Finally, aurally I thought that your holding onto the notes in bars 17 and 76 did not sound quite right. To me it sounds as though the music has stopped for a bit, when all the rest of if it very flowing. If you want to hold onto the flute part, perhaps do so only for a minim (half note if not English), with an arpeggio in the guitar and this would prevent this effect?

Sorry to have said so much - I really think it is a lovely piece. For me, it

only needs a few minor adjustments to improve it. For someone who says they lack theory skills. you've done a great job using your ears. :huh: