lolol okay, its not yet complete, or closely checked through, but here's a rough idea for starters. Tis to be a rondo for piano for second year A level music.


Constructive criticism appreciated! I want this one to be a good one. :)

There's something going on before the first measure that should be fixed in the sheet music. Did you write the parallel octaves in m. 6 on purpose? If not, maybe you should consider fixing that.

I liked the first few chords, and it seemed like it was going to be an interesting song, but then when you came in with the actual song, it was kind of anticlimactic, and very cliche. Cliche isn't always bad, but if you're going for cliche, the beginning really needs to be tweaked to fit. Furthermore, the amount of chord rolls at the beginning is a little grotesque, in my opinion. I think on many of the chords you use them on, they're unnecessary, and would sound better without.

I definitely felt some Andrew Lloyd Webber in there, though. Am I wrong?

There's something going on before the first measure that should be fixed in the sheet music.

Yeah i cant get rid of that |:



Did you write the parallel octaves in m. 6 on purpose? If not, maybe you should consider fixing that.

Still thinking on that, it sounds good, and isnt really forbidden within the style i guess



I liked the first few chords, and it seemed like it was going to be an interesting song, but then when you came in with the actual song, it was kind of anticlimactic, and very cliche. Cliche isn't always bad, but if you're going for cliche, the beginning really needs to be tweaked to fit.

Lol, i dont like the intro so much, personally. I think if the chord progressions were a little better it would fit more, especially bars3-4. its not quite right, i just cant figure out why yet.



Furthermore, the amount of chord rolls at the beginning is a little grotesque, in my opinion. I think on many of the chords you use them on, they're unnecessary, and would sound better without.

They do sound lot better on a real piano when being played, Sibelius kinda mucks them up and plays them slower than i'd like, so it does just sound a bit..wrong i guess.



I definitely felt some Andrew Lloyd Webber in there, though. Am I wrong?

Yes :P I had nothing at all of Andrew Llyod Webber even remotely in my mind when i wrote this xD

but thanks :)

Well that doesn't mean he wasn't an influence :P! Someone pointed out that one of my songs sounded like music from Secret of Mana, which I hadn't listened to in a long time, but which somehow still had an influence on my music, ya know? Anyway, it definitely sounded like Webber influenced it a little. No biggie, though.

Personally the chord rolls seemed to me a bit overuse. Save them for a few occasion that can work well. The octaves notes in the bass I find it not so necessary for this piece really. But I guess that will be a personal choice. I think the piece can do well without them. Another thing is the left hand part gets tiring after a while. Try going higher, don't leave it all in the bass, there is room between the left hand's notes and the right hand's melody.

Hope all goes well! :>

Yeah, maybe with some of the rolls you may want to instead add a grace note for some of them. My biggest suggestion would be to open up your left hand, that is the intervals in the arpeggios are too close together. Try keeping at least a fifth or greater interval in that lower octave range. Close notes in the lower octave range sound muddy. For example, if you have an apgeggiated triad, consider moving the third an octave higher to open up the arpeggio.

Keep at it! :thumb:

Cool, i'll give that a go, sounds like a plan :)

Here's a long overdue update.

You really need to look at the score to know what should be going on. Try as i might, i cannot make sibelius play back like i want it to.

Getting there!

i think you have too many different ideas?

introduction was nice, but when you bring back that idea later on (bar 46) i think you could squeeze a lot more out of it; you've just had those running semiquavers so i think a nice contast would be to have an extended repeat of the introduction; at the moment you have theme 1 with a suggestion of the introduction and i dont think it works?

first like LH im guessing the bad notation is to make it sound right on sibelius but you will lose marks for it if you hand it in like that.

anyway at the moment im seeing:
introduction b1-4
theme 1 b5-14
theme 2 b15-29/30
*b30-37= has characteristics of 2nd theme but not- in the least harsh way possible the analogy that comes to mind is of an improvisor that has lost concentration for a split second and finding the plot again
theme 3 b37-45
theme 1 b46-54- discussed this above; yes vary theme 1 but not merged with introduction
theme 4- the prestissimo seems really out of place and also kind of as if its been composed bar by bar without a larger picture in mind
theme 5- the andante i love you could milk some good material from that.

anyway the form you have right now is not a rondo. if you wanted to make it a rondo i dont think theme 1 is a suitable rondo theme i would go for theme 2. also the structure of a rondo pretty strict: rondo theme, new idea, rondo theme altered, new idea, rondo theme altered, new idea etc etc... ending with rondo theme exactly as it entered in beginning. and i dont think your rondo theme should have a different ending on first and second repeat; keep it the same so it gets straight into the listener's mind and yells IM THE THEME!

alternatively you have some good material there for a romantic style nocturne or ballade. if i remember rightly at A level they give you a list and you have to pick one style to compose in? if im wrong maybe think of changing it to a nocturne/ballade

theres my opinions/advice anyway. im sorry if anything came over as harsh (blame my composition lecturer) and PM or msn or facebook if you want to ask me anything- i rarely check the composition board these days >.<

ooh and picky thing i forgot about with the more important stuff- spelling of Appassionata con tenerezza