My second Composition :D

Not much to say, I just wanted to show my work and see if other have a word about it. I felt like it was a bit overextended after measure 78, I'm not sure what should I do with it as shortening it will make it sound wrong and not right.

C1.pdf

I enjoyed listening to this. I’m far from the best person to analyze other people’s music, but here are some thoughts on what I heard.

First, I think you should just call this f minor and write it as such. Phrygian dominant would have a g flat, I believe. (But I haven’t worked with modes in years and you might have a different reason for not putting this is f minor.) Add accidentals for the natural minor as needed. It will still give the sound you are looking for and make it much easier for a piano player to read. Also, is that a tie on the top note of each pair of notes on beats 2 and 3? It doesn’t sound like it is in the recording. I think they are not necessary and I found them distracting when playing through the piece.

I like the themes. They are pleasing to the ear, at least to mine. There could probably be a little more variety. Measures 13-14 do reverse the direction of the tune, but it’s still rhythmically the same, and I wonder if that is giving enough sense of “new material”. Also, it’s in the same key. (This is a problem I have writing music — trying to keep things familiar but not beating any dead horses). How about putting something in a related key, maybe a major or try reversing measures 13 and 14, so you would have the new phrase start with three quarter notes. How about putting in some theme that has wider intervals. You have mostly step-wise motion the whole way through with the exception of a few jumps in the octave section. I think measure 39 and following have the more successful new material. Good variety but the key is still intact, so it’s provides some connection (again, for my ears, can’t speak for others).

Maybe don’t use repeats for measures 63 / E section. The listeners’ ears will be well-familiar with the ideas by that point.

Finally, I vote for an authentic cadence to at the end. It sounds unfinished.

Like I said, just some thoughts I had.

On 11/1/2026 at 3:09 AM, Brs said:

I enjoyed listening to this. I’m far from the best person to analyze other people’s music, but here are some thoughts on what I heard.

First, I think you should just call this f minor and write it as such. Phrygian dominant would have a g flat, I believe. (But I haven’t worked with modes in years and you might have a different reason for not putting this is f minor.) Add accidentals for the natural minor as needed. It will still give the sound you are looking for and make it much easier for a piano player to read. Also, is that a tie on the top note of each pair of notes on beats 2 and 3? It doesn’t sound like it is in the recording. I think they are not necessary and I found them distracting when playing through the piece.

I like the themes. They are pleasing to the ear, at least to mine. There could probably be a little more variety. Measures 13-14 do reverse the direction of the tune, but it’s still rhythmically the same, and I wonder if that is giving enough sense of “new material”. Also, it’s in the same key. (This is a problem I have writing music — trying to keep things familiar but not beating any dead horses). How about putting something in a related key, maybe a major or try reversing measures 13 and 14, so you would have the new phrase start with three quarter notes. How about putting in some theme that has wider intervals. You have mostly step-wise motion the whole way through with the exception of a few jumps in the octave section. I think measure 39 and following have the more successful new material. Good variety but the key is still intact, so it’s provides some connection (again, for my ears, can’t speak for others).

Maybe don’t use repeats for measures 63 / E section. The listeners’ ears will be well-familiar with the ideas by that point.

Finally, I vote for an authentic cadence to at the end. It sounds unfinished.

Like I said, just some thoughts I had.

I tweaked it a little bit, there wasn't any bright idea for the E section, so I just made it a bit familiar with the previous section and making some thin connection to the segno. The tie-on top of the chords wasn't a tie, but a slur, after you mentioned that, those slur does looks like a tie, so I deleted those. Now the paper sheet looks clean and neat. About the scale, when creating this, I tried to play the Phrygian scale and change it a bit, and after searching on the internet, turns out it was a Phyrgian dominant scale.

I'm still confused with the ending cadence variation, So I just moved one notes down to make it sounds like a finish. I think I have hit the limit of my current musical imagination.

C1-1.pdf

Hello,

This is pretty good for a second ever composition. Keep writing and experimenting with what sounds good to you. We live in an incredible age where music is so accessible and we can listen to the greatest (and probably some of the not so greats, to be fair) in the comfort of our own home within seconds and an arm's reach.

Near the end, (around 4:39) what you played reminded me of this. Admittedly, it's on the violin, but perhaps it will give you some degree of inspiration? I have learned a lot from the composer of the Zelda sound tracks...You can see how a skilled composer takes these ideas that I think you are having fun with and it just really shines and becomes something incredible. Let me know, if this piece speaks to you or perhaps you have heard it already ;)

Nice little waltz. Some pointers: this is actually simply in F minor, which has 4 flats in the key signature. The raised 7th is very standard in minor key music and part of the harmonic minor scale, nothing modal about it, especially not phrygian. All those G sharps and C sharps would be spelled as A flats and D flats as well, and those pedal markings would not work on a real piano because it would just muddy up the sound. Repedalling every measure is pretty safe here. You don't need rehearsal markings; those are for rehearsals with multiple performers, but this is for solo piano. "legato" being on both staves is unnecessary. "Normal" is not a marking that appears in piano literature anywhere; if you want the legato to stop, either remove the legato and slur the passage, or where you have "normal", put "non-legato".

I also feel that since the chord progression and motivic content repeats ad nauseam throughout the piece, it doesn't really merit being over 5 minutes long, but that is my opinion. Since it seems you also feel it's too long, here's what I would suggest. Remove a section, or more. I think this could work as a simple Ternary form or Rondo for example. And make the different sections contrast with eachother

Listen to this beautiful waltz for solo guitar by Barrios and pay close attention Agustin Barrios Mangore's "Vals Op. 8, No. 3" played by Raphaël Feuillâtre on a 2020 Julia Wenzel it has a very clear structure: an introduction followed by the A section in D minor, which goes twice. Then onto the B section, also in D minor, but notice how he switches the new section up, even when in the same key: completely different rhythms and motifs, different register, different chord progression, etc. This section also goes twice. Then a brief return to the A section, going only once. After that, he switches to D major for a huge contrast in the C section, basing itself on one of the motifs from the B section, and this section is itself in a mini ternary form, before it transitions back to the A section and closes. For your piece, I wouldn't attempt to modulate like this piece does, since you don't quite yet have the skill to do so successfully, so keep it simple in scope. I hope this helps.

Edited 2 minutes ago2 min by ComposaBoi