Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge My new composition that needs a title...

The link to the composition is this one here. I don't have a title to it yet, so I asked around to see what others think the mood of this piece is. Before anyone bashes me by saying that I can't even determine what the mood of my own composition is (ha ha), let me inform you about what I had in mind when I was writing the piece:

The piece, in my point of view, depicts a person who longs to be with or talk to the person he or she really likes/loves, but that he/she cannot do so.

Other people, on the other hand, have said that the piece sounds like a lullaby. Still another person had an interpretation that was completely opposite to mine: this person thought that the piece depicted two people meeting with each other after not being able to see each other for a while.

Please share your thoughts and opinions regarding this piece and the opinions of others that it sounds like a lullaby.

Some day, I'm going to have to post a video of me actually playing it. This computer robot just doesn't cut it anymore.

Titles are a tricky thing generally. It all usually is just non-sense to be honest. I have troubles with naming my compositions also.

I guess just pick something. A keyword or something creative. Or something that says everything and nothing. At the end of the day, to everyone it will sound different. And everyone will have different associations.

And... really... I consider titles more like a way how to identify and categorize music, rather than to give it some "description".

hmmm....well since it sounds like it was played by a computer[ please correct me if I'm wrong] but that sound makes it very difficult for me to get a 'feel' of the music. Perhaps if the tempo were quicker there might be a' march ' effect but as relates to the computer maybe something with the word 'robot ' in it.

rada

A long time ago in another forum I asked about naming pieces and the advice I got was that every piece should be given a name. Today's audiences find the concepts of Sonatas, Fugues, numbers and keys foreign and boring. So names like Sonata #2 in Bb Opus 66 may sound important but carries no meaning to the listener. With that in mind you're on the right track to want to name your piece.

However, rada has hit the nail on the head with the comments regarding the robotic quality of the recording. I'm not going to be cruel and suggest you call it March for Robot in Sonatina form. If I imagine this piece in my head I can hear the longing and angst in it, so "Angst in G" might work.? You could get more romantic and call it "The Distance Between Us." Then again the literal thought "Wishing You Were Here" could also work. But, I would honor your original thought, after all it's your piece. What someone else thinks is irrelevant. Does that make sense?

Regarding rada's point about the incompetent robot playing the lyrical and expressive melody, I have recorded myself playing the piece and will be uploading it to YouTube and also create something called a "video score" on the MuseScore website where the piece was uploaded.

Steve, you are the first one to agree with my intention in terms of the what mood the piece is in. Yes, I wrote it to reflect that feeling you get when you long to talk to someone you really like/love but are unable to do so. It can also reflect when you really miss that person, as well as the feeling you get when you long to have someone in your heart. In essence, then, the overall mood of the piece is: longing. At least, that's how I intended it to be.

Granted, everyone will have different opinions about what the mood of my composition is. And that's where people said that it sounds like a lullaby or the opposite of my intention - that's what their perceptions were. The sensation (hearing the piece) was the same for everyone, but the perception (how the piece is interpreted) can and will be different. It's largely psychological.

Anyway, I'll let you all know when the video score has been made.

The video score has been created. Please click on the black box on this website to listen to me playing the piece while following the score. I hope this gives you a better understanding of the piece, now that it's an actual human playing it and not a computer.

Dave,

This performance is certainly more expressive. My naming advice stands.

Since you've posted this on a composition forum I'll give you some feedback on your piece. It's a nice piece that expresses your longing. Some of the harmonic progressions are interesting in that they don't go where one would expect. For me that's usually a good thing and I take no issue with it here. Yet, there's something about it that sounds very square with regard to rhythm and phrasing. You might look for ways to spice that up as well. The occasional triplet helps a little, but I would prefer more fluidity in the piece and for me that means the occasional deceptive cadence, throwing in an extra bar here or there to break up the square phrases, mixing up the rhythms with the bars so they don't all sound the same. There are other ways, but that gives you a few ideas. You have a nice start but the real work of composing is in not being satisfied with the first draft. Good luck.

Whatever you do, don't put the key in the title. It's not really necessary and if it's a new piece, any knowledgeable composer will immediately label it as done by an amateur. It may sound snobbish, but reality is not always kind.

I don't know whether it's because I'm used to hearing and playing tonal music in the Common Practice Period or that I'm learning about the music theory behind this period (that'll change next semester, where I'll start learning about atonal music), but I like to stick to the rules set during the CPP, because I have a strong opinion that those rules were created to make sure that the music sounds good. Maybe it's because I haven't been exposed enough to atonal music, but I'm just not a fan of it yet.

But regarding the rules set during the CPP, I'm not talking about the four-part voice leading rules; not too many of those apply in piano music. Rather, I'm talking about things like the four/eight bar phrases, proper resolution of the leading tone and 7th of a chord, conventional harmonic progressions, and other characteristics of music present in the CPP.

Now let me list the concepts in music theory that I applied in this composition:

1. Modulation via pivot chord (can you find that chord? ) and direct modulation
2. Rounded binary form
3. Secondary dominants and a secondary function chord
4. Descending fifths sequence (10-10 linear intervallic pattern)
5. Four-bar phrases
6. Deceptive movement (not deceptive cadences)
7. Voice exchanges
8. 2-3 suspension and other non-chord tones

Also, there are rhythmic, melodic, and harmonic variations at the rounded section of the piece (the repeat of the beginning); this was done to make the piece less boring, and also to make it stay in the tonic instead of modulating again to the subdominant.

The title that came to me while listening is:
Still Life with <insert her name>
eg: Still Life with Emma

Don't like that? maybe:
Reflections of Desire or
Reflections on Love

Yes, those titles are cliche, but love songs are the all time most popular form of music, and at least they are clean titles.

I find the tentative title "My Loving Heart Longs for You" to be beyond clumsy, at least in English. However, it might be poetic in some other language.

I have another suggestion that you can take or leave: if you intend to perform this live for your sweetheart or another live audience, I suggest cutting it by half in terms of time. The big reason for this, is that unless the listener or audience absolutely loves piano instrumentals, five minutes of an unknown piece is going to have most people fidgeting and hoping that it ends soon.

Exceptions might be for those with exceptional talent in composition and/or performance. For the other 95% to 99%, leaving them wanting more is a better way.

Pardon me if I sound defensive, but on what ground do you find the current title to be beyond clumsy? You are implying that it is not a "clean title". Every time I came up with a title for this piece before the current title clicked, I did a quick Google search for it to make sure it wasn't taken. But every title I came up with was already taken by another song, or they were part of the lyrics to some other song.

You don't know how frustrated I was at not being able to come up with a title, until now. I appreciate your opinion, so I'm not trying to degrade your comment, but I'd like you to support your claim with good reasons why the title sounds more than clumsy.

I'm not going to argue with you. If you don't like my opinion, leave it. That's all it is, my opinion. However, you did come here asking for opinions on a title.

I don't like your tentative title My Longing Heart Yearns for You. I have a strong dislike for it, on a visceral level. There is that new book out Think Fast and Slow, about a person's instant reactions and how they are valuable. When I read the title, my first thought was "you have to be kidding."

I have a preference for simplicity. I understand that my preference is in large part just that, a personal preference. From your list of musical composition ideas in another post, it seems you may have an opposite preference. Given that, it is unlikely that you and I will agree on much.

Titles can not be copyrighted. To me, it doesn't matter if a title has been used before or a hundred times before, if that's the title that seems to fit my new composition. One word titles are especially prone to the problem. And that's only counting copyrighted published works. For amateur uploads, the problem multiplies a hundred fold.

Enjoy your day. Enjoy your composition.

/edit: some tips on finding titles: record the piece, play it back, close your eyes. What feeling does it convey? What color(s)? What images? What animal(s)? What natural setting(s)? What fictional character(s)? These kind of answers might be helpful to a person looking for a title. Same questions when playing, but the recording tends to be more powerful.

There are also a myriad of computerized title generators, and mad-lib constructions such as Googlism (works better on single words than phrases). An example: googlism on yearning about 15 entries down is:
yearning is a luminous book

From that I contrive this title:
The Luminosity of Love

Go with that.

I know that titles cannot be copyrighted. But I don't want people going around and confusing my composition with another of the same title. And there's the issue of trademark infringement. Can't titles potentially be trademarked?

Like I said in my previous reply, I appreciate your opinion, and I agree that thoughts and opinions were the original purpose of this topic.

Your perception of the title is clearly different from mine. I'm fine with that. No two people will have the same interpretation of something.

Your opinions did count, and common sense tells us that in the end, it's up to me to decide on what the title will be. I'm not telling any of you that you lack common sense, mind you.

But that's what life is like, isn't it? People can give you all the advice they can give when someone asks for them, and there's no doubt that the person being advised will take all that advice into consideration. But in the end, it's up to that person to make the final decision.

And that's what happened here. I took all your advice and I thought about them. Then, based on my perceptions (I did write the piece, after all), I chose this title.

Just a few comments. The title "My longing heart yearns for you" is redundant. Longing and yearning are essentially the same thing, it would be cleaner as just "My longing heart." We don't necessarily need to know what or whom it is you long for, the word longing implies someone or something. In some cases the less said the better. However, if you want to keep it as is, you're going to do so.

Now back to your comment about following the rules of the common practice period. Mozart, Beethoven and Haydn didn't follow the rules as scrupulously as you did. They mixed things up a bit because even they realized that it was beneficial to the music to enhance the fluidity of movement by breaking up the squareness of the phrasing. I realize you have to learn the rules in order to learn how to break them. If you truly enjoy the square phrasing aspect of your piece then that's what your ear is accustomed to at this stage of learning so leave it as is. Just be aware that your preferences are subject to change.

I might suggest doing some analysis of the phrasing of pieces you enjoy. In my experience stretching phrases by a few bars heightens the emotional buildup. If your piece is intended to express longing then lingering on phrases will intensify their emotional impact. These are not the techniques of avante garde (atonal) composers, these are techniques of all composers.

You can always take the route Satie took and name it something odd, mysterious and memorable.

I would like to provide all of you with an extended disclaimer, the purpose of which is to deface all harsh criticism of my pieces (not that there have been any here):

I am by no means a composer. I haven't learned it. Due to this lack of knowledge, as you may or may not have listened to my other pieces, they are in pretty much the same style.

Most of what I have written are merely my applications of music theory. Yes, I know that knowledge of music theory helps with writing music (I don't want to say composing because, as I said, I'm not a composer), but I would think that it would be better to actually take music composition courses to gain a better knowledge of writing music. Even learning about orchestration would help, but because I'm a music education major, that course isn't part of the program at my university (you need to be a performance major for it to be a required course).

Maybe when I get to grad school I'll be able to officially learn how to compose, because right now it's just not working. Also, perhaps I could ask some questions to a professor at the school who has a doctoral degree in composition.

This may or may not be the last piece I will write for a while. I might take an extended break from writing more music. I took down all my scores from the website as a start to it. But I did change the title of the piece that we are discussing here; now it's called "The Loving but Longing Heart".

I have always wondered: how did the other composers (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, etc.) learn to write their own music? Could you please provide me with some information on this? What do you learn in composition courses, anyway?

Some composers gain interest in composing while learning an instrument, but most, I think start off life with early musical imaginings and later learn the mechanics of writing the music down. I was composing long before I could write anything down, but that doesn't mean that that's the only way to approach learning composition. Tchaikovsky did a little (very little) in his teens and showed no real promise or talent until he was studying at the conservatory in his twenties!!

The better composition teachers will actually assign students certain tasks. For instance, in my case, one week we were told to write a piece for only percussion. One time we were told we had to write a song using a text where we had to obtain permission from a publisher. One week we were told that we had one week to write 5 piano pieces. Another time we were told to write a theme and variations. And I remember another time we had to write a passacaglia. Usually we did not have to finish the assignments in one week, fortunately!

That should give you an idea of what a fairly rigorous composition course looks like. Sometimes it's one on one, but at my college we usually had two students take their lesson together, which has certain advantages.

Bach learned it as part of the family business. The name Bach loosely translates into musician. He got a job where the boss demanded 25 minutes of new music every week. It had to be composed, transcribed and hand copied with quill pens, expensive paper, no erasers to speak of, much less copiers, or music software. Once copied, the musicians had to learn it, rehearse as a group and be ready to go. While doing all of this Bach also had to teach and discipline a classroom full of full time students.

I read a book of interviews of famous rock and roll songwriters. While some do have some schooling in music, many others just sat down and did it. The original poster likely has enough music theory and music background to write music. Maybe not critically acclaimed atonal pieces, but certainly enough to write a pleasing love song, or love inspired melody.

Talent is sometimes a dirty word, but there is something to it. Part and parcel with talent is desire. For lyrics based songwriters, they are often told to write 100 songs before trying to pitch one commercially. Doing has a power. Those that write a lot tend to be much better writers than those that write occasionally. Sure there are exceptions, but for writers of all stripes, repetition builds a deep understanding that study can not match.

That's why I often suggest aspiring composers or songwriters sit and write music for an hour a day for an entire month and see how far they progress. Dedicate that relatively small amount of time, and the results after that 30 hours, will say something about the level of desire and talent.

Again, my story is that I learned by doing. Immersion is what got me going as a songwriter (50 songs in 90 days). When I started writing music, I had next to no understanding of music theory, none of harmony, could not sight read (still can't really), could not play as much as a single chord. And yet I was able to compose music, transcribe it, print it out in traditional dots and lines format if needed, and most importantly perform it live and touch real people in real audiences.

I'd guess that the original poster has 100x times as much understanding of music as a form and music theory as I did when I started writing music. That is not to say that knowledge is a bad thing. For most amateurs, more vocabulary, more understanding of structure tends to be a good thing, but only when a person is actually using that vocabulary and not just learning more without actually writing.

Nice post Sand Tiger

Something I'd like to add is that talent and desire are the foundation, but there's an aspect of personality in there as well. Maybe this is patr of the talent equation. Most composers I've met tend to be very individualistic. They see artistic creation as an act of self expression. They tend to have strong ideas about what they want to create. It's not like learning to compose will get you girls (or boys). Teaching composition to such a person is more about showing them what's been done already and where they might get started and seeing where they take it. What's important is to provide an atmosphere that's supportive and yet still candid.

So David came here and posted his piece, which was a nice piece and obviously took a lot of work. He has every right to be proud of it. However, in the interest of offering honest (candid) feedback I mentioned something which I saw as a shortcoming and he acknowledged that aspect of his music then justified it as being within the tradition he was striving to emulate. I wasn't going to argue the point other than to suggest he do some analysis too see if his perspective was valid.

David I didn't mean to discourage you, quite the opposite. However, every critique I do contains some positive and some suggestions for improvement. They are my opinion based on how I react to a piece. As you seem to be well aware you can take it or leave it, I don't particularly care.

You have some obvious talent and it would be a shame if you stopped composing all together. You should be aware though that others learning the craft have been much more adventurous at a young age. I understand that writing this piece was about applying the rules of the CPP in order to further your theory studies. As such it's fine, but I hope sometime you'll choose to try self expression and forget the rules. I think you'll find it more fun and more gratifying.

And yes, even Bach and Beethoven wrote some music that wasn't so hot.