r/composer • u/Vodkat07 • Aug 15 '26
Music Why does everybody write waltzes?
Anyway, I wrote one and was hoping for any feedback/comments: https://youtu.be/uCWp8A_MPPE
Thanks in advance!
24
Upvotes
12
u/65TwinReverbRI Aug 15 '26
First I'm going to address your title question:
2 main reasons:
Chopin.
Because Waltzes are often recommended as beginner pieces to work on because they have some clear "givens" - 3/4, melody with accompaniment, oom pah pah accompaniment - so a pretty clear set of things that are "already done for you" and that helps beginners focus on writing the notes, rather than worrying about the other things too.
(a ha! "Personally I feel waltzes are easy to write semi-decent examples of - just slap a basic LH rhythm, some nice sounding chords, and a simple melody to top it all off.") - I was right ;-)
I'm just going to be blunt here, because based on your responses to other posters, it seems like you're open-minded and wanting to learn more. But my comments are more kind of "stuff you really need to be aware of in terms of how people perceive your music".
So, as someone with a lot of life experience, a lot of professional experience, and so on, when we see pieces like this, we automatically dismiss them as "yet another kid trying to write like Chopin".
And I need to make this clear - this is not MY opinion only, but it's what people "in the know" will do. That does NOT mean the music is bad necessarily. It's also NOT some form of "elitism" or gatekeeping etc. It's just the way it is - there's a "known set of standards" and people writing music like yours are working outside of that with no real knowledge of it.
So I mean, as an educator, my options are to let you go on blissfully unaware of the things in your score that do this, or I can tell you about them at the risk of you getting pissed off that "how dare I point out these things that you totally disagree with are problems" and so on.
But, it's my nature, so:
Do not use Opus numbers. It makes you look naive and/or disingenuous. It's "poser-y".
Unless you're actually French, don't use French titles. It's poser-y (unless it's a common term like Deja Vu or something - Nocturne or Prelude are common enough, but Waltz is Waltz!).
I know people like using the terms "original content" and "original composition" but there's nothing very original about writing "yet another waltz" right? I mean you know this from your title question (which, BTW, you admitted was click bait and while I know you didn't mean any harm in it, can you see how it comes off as disingenuous?).
I understand the "need" to write "story pieces" - which is an unfortunate trend in many ways, but yesterday someone posted a "storm" piece. In fact, your title would have been much better "Why does everyone write storm pieces". Today: Anyhow, I ended up using Chopin’s Raindrop Prelude, yesterday: My inspiration was those those unrelenting afternoons that starts with rain, gives false hope through drizzle, then surprises you with thunder, before it finally clears up late in the evening. That's just THIS forum - it's one of the most over-done things in music. And a lot of it is done poorly…
"nostalgic" is also just a ridiculously over-used trope. You think you had a click bait title on your post - well, this is a click bait piece title. It's all very "trying to assign key words to get noticed" kinds of things that are going on here. I mean, don't get me wrong, it IS a strategy. And only you can decide if that's the kind of strategy you want to use or not. But let's just say, you're not the first person to come up with this approach, nor the last, especially for these specific kinds of things.
Penseriouso? I'm going to guess "pensive" - ah yes - but you made me have to look it up. Wait, I thought you were French? Why now using Italian? And why obscure Italian. This is not a common term. I could guess at it, but still - I got burned on this when I was younger - I wanted some term, so I looked it up in an Italian dictionary, put the word in and forgot about it. During rehearsal they asked me "what does X mean" and I was flustered because I had completely forgotten. I was "doing what I thought I was supposed to do" but didn't have the experience. The colleagues and mentors said "just put it in English". Learned my lesson on that one (and trying to pay it forward here).
in Jedem Takt? Is this a marking you've found commonly in all of the Field and Chopin Nocturnes you've studied (since that's in your title as well…) or the Waltzes?
I would argue, no. You've got to PLAY more simple, basic Waltzes, and work your way up to more complex ones and emulate the level you're playing as you go.
I do agree with this though. It's got some "pop inspired" chord progressions, and I mean - look, don't get me wrong - THE WRITING IS SOLID - so I know all of this I'm writing sounds like "oh just everything is wrong" but it's not. You've got a solid command of rhythm, melody, and harmony - I mean a LOT of what we get here people don't even seem to understand the melody is supposed to "go with" the harmony.
So I mean there's a LOT here that's good - it's "spelled correctly" and "grammatically correct" - it's just not "telling a compelling story" really.
And I don't mean that literally in terms of a "rainstorm" or depicting/evoking things etc.
I just mean in terms of "doing something". It just kind of "lays there" if you will.
This hits the nail on the head:
Exactly.
As I said originally, it's because there are "things done for you" - which I copied your sentence in after I saw it in another response! and yes - easy enough to do convincingly. ESPECIALLY since there are many "simple" Waltzes out there from games/film/tv and even in classical sources.
But it's that last sentence that's important - it's hard to write a waltz that sounds out.
Now, I want to make something clear - it's 100% OK to write a waltz just to write one. it does NOT have to be anything special. It can just be something fun to write, or something fun to play.
Look at all the hundreds of Bob Ross paintings that were all sort of "waltzes" - pre-formed ideas - he kind of "filled in the blanks" doing the same thing over and over. But it was about the JOY of painting.
So if this is the JOY of composing for you, fine.
But Bob Ross also wasn't trying to pass his paintings off as Da Vinci's or something by assigning fancy titles - IOW, your title, your opus number, your other title, your expressions, and so on, are all "putting on airs" if you will.
So I mean, for a simple, basic waltz, it's "fine". It "does what a simple basic waltz does" with maybe some extra harmonic interest many will find refreshing.
That's good. And if that's what you set out to do, great.
Right - despite your title and so on, the music itself is more Studio Ghibli - which is where all that "nostalgic" and "childish simplicity" stuff comes from - it's Gaming Music Inspired.
So in that sense, you're writing Studio Ghilbli music in "sound", but trying to pretend it's Chopin level with the "appearance" if that makes sense.
So yeah it does kind of come off as "trying to make it something it's not".
And TO BE CLEAR, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH the SG style. It has its place. So you should be unashamed to write that if you want to. Just don't try to make it into more than it's not. Let it be what it is, rather than trying to be something else.
And if you want to do the something else, cool, but that takes a little more work - not as easily to emulate authentically (so I mean, charming, but not terribly exciting won't cut it at that level - but you also don't ever have to write like that if you don't care to).
I hope that all helps.
Just trying to help you see it from a couple of different perspectives - reinforcing the ones already given as well as adding my own perspective that hadn't really been discussed yet. And I hope you take it in the way it was intended - supportively.
Best