Too Simple?

I can't answer absolutely as I have not seen the videos you are referencing. Sounds like a good foundation to me.

Without knowing the conversation, so adjust accordingly, I would start to transpose the chord and see if things like sequences etc. click.

Take the 1st two/three notes you play and see if you can go around the circle of 5th. (or any other tonal areas)

 

That's why I get paid the big bucks.. ..err..... no I don't.

Delete the word function. That has too many other connotations. Keep it simple. Don't even worry about modulating at first. Just play it
in a different key each day at the piano.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

With two "chords" there are 1000's of variations on the kind of piece you can write. So it's pretty hard to answer specifically.
Perhaps begin with the "energy" or "affect" or "drama" of the piece you are trying to communicate.

I could expand on what I hear as interesting of your two chords, but what will serve you best is knowing what you are trying to practice.

A general principle of music composition is that if one aspect of the piece is active/complex, other parameters need to be less active/simple.

For example if you can hear in your head the Moonlight Sonata, mov.1 ... the harmony and modulation is active. The rhythmic elements are repetitive.

That's basically my way of explaining the logic of what I am about to say. If you want to confine your composition to these two chords, literally, without transposition/modulation then the surface of the music needs to be more active. Also, very important is the rhythmic element. Most likely this would need at least 3 independent parts to be of interest. The whole notes of the accompaniment will get boring.

This piece of mine, is only two chords through out. The guitar repeats the same ostinato throughout

And this example is also two chords. (from a tutorial I made)

This guy milks single sonorities very effectively in my opinion.

 

Ahhh..... too kind

You know..... one thing I have thought about lately: In Zen the students could only paint like 1-2 things. So wake up paint Mount Fugi. Everyday.
How many fugues did Bach write ?

My point: Don't just write one piece using this idea. Write one everyday for say 2 weeks. Give yourself a time limit. Let's say 1 hour each day.
(I'm not often a fan of the knock it out approach, but in this context it works very well as any "flaws" are observations to notice and learn from. Meaning where is the gap between what you ideally want to hear and what you hear. If we don't create the gap, we have nothing to observe)

Take your two points.

• Keep the harmony simple, but do something with the melody (Let's call this - A - as this is more common with film music)
• Keep the melody simple, but do something with the harmony. (Let's call this B)

Now when you write a set of pieces you can mix the formula.

A-A-B-A

B-A-B

If A and B each = 8 bars we can create a C1 by using half of A and half of B. We can create a C2 by half of B + half of A

Now we can make something like

A-A-B-C1-C2-A-A

 

Integrate, Integrate, Integrate. The only difference between "composing a piece" and "composing a piece with two chords" is the restriction of tonal areas.

Often we can fragment our minds into 100 different ways. Like ...oh theme and variations is this.... a composition is this, orchestration is this...etc.

They are all connected. There are so many two chord pieces with a wide range of style and variety it could easily keep a person busy for a year.

That is why I mentioned I would advise trying to be clear on the intention of the piece. Especially if it is just for your own development of craft.

To give an analogy: Often with instrumental study, the beginner will just try playing a piece over and over again. When they hit a wall and a highly skilled teacher will quickly advice to practice the problem and not the piece. By isolating the problem the student progresses at a faster rate.

I could easily offer 10 different techniques. Really there are so many options, from almost every genre.

My 2 cents: From what I have heard of your pieces the top 2 areas I would advise are

1. Rhythmic interest & variety
2. becoming comfortable composing a work with at least 3 independent layers. (*the best way to do this is via rhythmic variety)

There is just something magical about music with at least three layers as opposed to the melody/chord pad two layer variety.

By all means try writing melodies without any accompaniment with only two chords. Just single lines


Let me know if you have any other questions

 

Sounds good. I hope you will post it for us to hear.

 

Still think you need to consider the rhythmic elements of the piece over possible re-harmonizations. Plus, it seems like you are drifting away
from the 2 chord restriction.

Those opening 4 measures........ it's pretty dead. It's just ba------------- ba-----------.

It's also ambiguous. Hard to tell if you are in 4/4 or a slow 6/8. Now you can either use this ambiguity to surprise us as the piece develops or
give us more pulses so we lock onto it. If you would like I can make an example or two to demonstrate.

 

Sure. Just give it some life. It will make it more 3-D. I can expand on this much more if you like, but this should get you going.
I put one measure of your melody at the end of each for context.

First example: I am just taking some of your melody and making accompaniment out of it.
Basically just little fragments so it's melodic but not a melody.

Second example; Basically if ex1 is too complex go way simple. In ex 2B) I just added in a passing chord. Very simple, but sets up 6/8

Third Example: This is not really for your piece, but more to show that these devices can be used across the registers. Since you mentioned the G7
problem, I wanted to show that if you further extend the chords the gravity of G7 gets weaker. It's very simple what I am doing, but can already sound more complex.

In case of emergency you can always do moonlight sonata style accompaniment.

I'll leave it here, but I think adding interest to your accompaniment will make the melody shine more. This all is within the two sonority parameter you set out for.

Good luck, and hope to hear the results

Doug

 

Like all of your posts Doug, mountains of wisdom and information. Your comment about a 3rd dimension is really true (and made me think), and I believe it may be one of the hardest things for amatuer musicians to grasp and execute. Arpegios in line with the melody are an excellent start but the most interesting rythmns are not always in down-beat sync with the melody. I was thinking about this while practicing 'Stand by Me' recently. Nothing really complex about the piece, but the rythmn + melody makes it very memorable (and a pain for me to play).

For Sam, maybe it would be good to mess around with the ryhmatic lines from some pop tunes and just use the progression he's using with that pop tunes left rthymn. Could work, maybe not, but I think this goes down the line of advice of learning and playing countless pieces for ideas - something you've all suggested many times.

I also can't see how anyone writes any decent music without being a really good piano player. Two dimensions are hard enough but all 3 potentially moving their own way (3 on 2 or the stabbs in jazz, etc) is....hard.

 

Now, now, now....... please: No feeding the egos of the Zoo Animals here.

Thank you for the kind words, and best wishes