February 28, 200917 yr I know it doesn't follow the exact structure for a rondo, but it's close. Besides, it's more modern than classical, so I don't think structure is all that important. I could be totally wrong, but whatever- if I am, I'll change the title. ANYWAY about the piece. It's very high-energy. 232 beats per minute. I wrote it in two hours because there are a lot of repeats throughout. It's really repetitive, but the people I've already shown it to say that it doesn't really take away from the listening experience. A-theme: Really high-energy. Bouncy. B-theme: Basses and cellos keep the fast rhythm, upper strings bring in a slower melody. C-theme: A bridge. SoundClick artist: Jon Ginder - page with MP3 music downloads Rondo.mus Finale 2009 - [Rondo.mus].pdf
March 1, 200917 yr Jon Normally speaking, if I call something a gregorian chant, it should follow all of the rules implied in being one. Same thing with a Rondo. If you wish to compose in a certain time era and call a piece something from that era, then the peice should follow the rules of that era. As you said, this is close, but you repeat the 2nd theme which a Rondo normally does not. With all of that said, as a composer, if you can justify your music, then who cares what others may say. That goes for everything from a title to the choice of notes. The piece itself has a nice flow to it and is quite good for 2 hours worth of work. The more you compose though, the more you will see how much time you will put into your pieces. I have spent hours deciding on one note. I have read that Beethoven once spent months deciding on one chord for one of his pieces. Keep at it. Ron
