Thread: How can I go about learning to compose complex melodic lines?

Hey, I am a current music student taking instrumental composition as a major and production as a minor at Mcnally Smith College of Music. I have long been a fan of classical but my main interest is trance music (which derives from classical). However, considering that the trance scene has entirely died when it comes to making good music and the fact that I've realized that everybody just considers it a joke genre meant to give druggies a reason to OD I have decided that I would like to try my hand at classical music to actually make something people will appreciate and consider real music.

To give you an example of what I listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlIA7xhV-VI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKpH8kDggQY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAkGZ-sMCiw . I haven't met anybody in my life save 1 person who doesn't consider all of this simple bad club music (despite how much emotion and complexity I see in it) so that is why I'd like to try my hand at composing classical.

I have been playing piano since I was 7 and I am most fond of the baroque and romantic periods. I however, do not know how I can go about learning to compose as complex as these masters since my school is a contemporary one and anything complex or basically made before 10 years ago is considered pompous. If you guys have any suggestions I would be most grateful.

I already produce trance but the thing is trance is very simple from a rhythmic (it's always 4/4) and linear melodic point of view. I believe it's complexity comes from it's harmony, subtelty, and presentation (which I say it does better than any other genre) but that I believe that isn't enough to help me make a classical piece. Also here is my favorite classical piece, as you can see in the beggining it is very similar to trance in many ways. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGdFHJXciAQ.

Thanks for your time and suggestions.

Digging those tracks you linked. First off, stop caring about what haters think of your favorite music genre. Haters gonna hate, after all. Don't feel like you need to impress them by composing classical music. You have to compose what you want to compose.

Now, composing complex melodies is pretty easy. To go from a simple melodic outline to a rich, complex melody, make sure your simple melodic outline is already strong (not afraid of chromatic or dissonant tones, rhythmically varied, and sounds melodic already) and keep the following things in mind as options to try: syncopation and other complex rhythmic figures, elaborate chromatic ornamentation, and occasional "melodic" sonorities (using a harmonic interval for effect, not necessarily as part of the prevailing chordal harmony). You'll also find that most "complex" melodies will use large skips more often than "simple" melodies, which are more stepwise.

Originally Posted by Kopachris

Digging those tracks you linked. First off, stop caring about what haters think of your favorite music genre. Haters gonna hate, after all. Don't feel like you need to impress them by composing classical music. You have to compose what you want to compose.

Now, composing complex melodies is pretty easy. To go from a simple melodic outline to a rich, complex melody, make sure your simple melodic outline is already strong (not afraid of chromatic or dissonant tones, rhythmically varied, and sounds melodic already) and keep the following things in mind as options to try: syncopation and other complex rhythmic figures, elaborate chromatic ornamentation, and occasional "melodic" sonorities (using a harmonic interval for effect, not necessarily as part of the prevailing chordal harmony). You'll also find that most "complex" melodies will use large skips more often than "simple" melodies, which are more stepwise.

I agree that caring about other audiences is unimportant when it comes to music but I'm just overall ticked by the fact that if I make the best trance song known to man I'll still be labeled as a no talent druggie. That's part of the reason I also want to create classical (I've always wanted to just don't consider myself good enough yet).

As for your tips, thank you very much. That actually makes a lot of sense since I know that every good song no matter how complex has a motif which is stems off of. So yes I think I will try to make a basic 8 bar melody and then expand upon it using your tips (when my keyboard arrives ). Also how do arpeggios come into play? Because I know they're by nature rhythmically as simple as they can be but I enjoy them very much, can an arpeggio be the motif considering how simple it is? An example of what I mean is this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-XNIdZtsw4 it has very simplistic arpeggio variations as the entire main melody but it is just so overwhelmingly brilliant (imo). I don't understand why that series of arpeggios sounds profound like that when arpeggios in essence are simplistic. Is it because of the harmony they are creating together?

Thanks again for your time.

Originally Posted by Andreilg

I agree that caring about other audiences is unimportant when it comes to music but I'm just overall ticked by the fact that if I make the best trance song known to man I'll still be labeled as a no talent druggie. That's part of the reason I also want to create classical (I've always wanted to just don't consider myself good enough yet).

As for your tips, thank you very much. That actually makes a lot of sense since I know that every good song no matter how complex has a motif which is stems off of. So yes I think I will try to make a basic 8 bar melody and then expand upon it using your tips (when my keyboard arrives ). Also how do arpeggios come into play? Because I know they're by nature rhythmically as simple as they can be but I enjoy them very much, can an arpeggio be the motif considering how simple it is? An example of what I mean is this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-XNIdZtsw4 it has very simplistic arpeggio variations as the entire main melody but it is just so overwhelmingly brilliant (imo). I don't understand why that series of arpeggios sounds profound like that when arpeggios in essence are simplistic. Is it because of the harmony they are creating together?

Thanks again for your time.

For EDM (especially acid house and trance) and minimal music, I think you'll find that arpeggios are very commonly used as the main motif for a piece. Classical music, however, always seems to require melodies which are more open to variation. With an arpeggio-as-motif, the pattern of the arpeggio is always very distinct, and any variation other than transposition or tempo or timbre change (e.g. filter sweeps) will make it sound like a completely different pattern. In classical music, you'll find arpeggios used more for effect, usually just to give the bass something to do, than as a real important figure. (That said, I'm a sucker for both trance gates and acid arps.)

Also, here's just a little example of what I'm talking about. The first four bars are the melodic outline, which you can see already uses a little chromaticism and more interesting rhythm than the usual whole-note-per-bar. The final four bars are the outline expanded so that emphasis is given (by various means, whether they be repetition, note duration, or the fact that they act as a resolution for another note) to the right notes.



P.S. Just curious: what DAW are you using?

ah yes that is understandable, was just wondering if it was a possibility. It does seem like arpeggios are more for decoration than actual motifs in classical which saddens me haha. And yes that diagram is exactly what I pictured when you explained the first time, definately put stuff into perspective for me. I am assuming that at a higher level that it can go all over the place even from the start but this is definately where I should start. Also a more "rhythmical" melody would be something like this right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_FRX9ZRm8c or even better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpQIvGx2uCw

And I use Ableton and occasionally FL Studio. I am hoping to be writing everything, even classical on those DAWs and basically produce electronic classical (a lot of leeway that way)

Originally Posted by Andreilg

ah yes that is understandable, was just wondering if it was a possibility. It does seem like arpeggios are more for decoration than actual motifs in classical which saddens me haha. And yes that diagram is exactly what I pictured when you explained the first time, definately put stuff into perspective for me. I am assuming that at a higher level that it can go all over the place even from the start but this is definately where I should start. Also a more "rhythmical" melody would be something like this right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_FRX9ZRm8c or even better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpQIvGx2uCw

And I use Ableton and occasionally FL Studio. I am hoping to be writing everything, even classical on those DAWs and basically produce electronic classical (a lot of leeway that way)

Those are more rhythmical than the others, yes. Of course, the possibilities are endless. I was actually thinking more like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiMexLfLf_o (especially at 0:50, the first violin solo).

Hmm... you say electronic classical provides a lot of leeway. I'm not sure if that's entirely true. It may be easier, but with what you're proposing, you're limited to what your DAW can do (which, if you're doing a lot of acoustic stuff, or sampling as with musique concrete, is quite a lot more than standard notation). I'd suggest not totally limiting yourself to either an electronic DAW or standard notation, but be open to using both. You'll find that various synths can produce more diverse timbres, but acoustic instruments with real performers (who need real music notation) can more easily achieve subtle differences in timbre and expression.

You said you already produce trance. I'd love to hear some!

Originally Posted by Kopachris

Those are more rhythmical than the others, yes. Of course, the possibilities are endless. I was actually thinking more like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiMexLfLf_o (especially at 0:50, the first violin solo).

Hmm... you say electronic classical provides a lot of leeway. I'm not sure if that's entirely true. It may be easier, but with what you're proposing, you're limited to what your DAW can do (which, if you're doing a lot of acoustic stuff, or sampling as with musique concrete, is quite a lot more than standard notation). I'd suggest not totally limiting yourself to either an electronic DAW or standard notation, but be open to using both. You'll find that various synths can produce more diverse timbres, but acoustic instruments with real performers (who need real music notation) can more easily achieve subtle differences in timbre and expression.

You said you already produce trance. I'd love to hear some!

nice piece , and yes I know that solo it is great, a lot more dynamic in rhythm than most trance which is plucky

as for the part about DAW, I think you misunderstood me. Any acoustic instrument can be replicated in DAW, whether or not it's 100% the same has been debated for a long time but for my own purposes and to keep my own interpretation, composing on a DAW with synthesized acoustic instruments as well as having the possibility of doing more things that acoustic/humans can't do is preferable. Also midi instruments exist for every instrument out there, there are 1:1 midi violins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdZTR...ailpage#t=131s is an example of one in use. I will be writing anything I make on sheet paper though of course and even if I didn't I could always transpose, I just think that the possibility to choose your own sound, your own music, and your own interpretation is what makes DAWs so great whereas sheet music is left ambiguous.

And sure, here is a remix of mine that just released http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWUha...ature=youtu.be i am not sure if you'll like it since its pretty simple but i tried haha

Originally Posted by Andreilg

nice piece , and yes I know that solo it is great, a lot more dynamic in rhythm than most trance which is plucky

as for the part about DAW, I think you misunderstood me. Any acoustic instrument can be replicated in DAW, whether or not it's 100% the same has been debated for a long time but for my own purposes and to keep my own interpretation, composing on a DAW with synthesized acoustic instruments as well as having the possibility of doing more things that acoustic/humans can't do is preferable. Also midi instruments exist for every instrument out there, there are 1:1 midi violins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdZTR...ailpage#t=131s is an example of one in use. I will be writing anything I make on sheet paper though of course and even if I didn't I could always transpose, I just think that the possibility to choose your own sound, your own music, and your own interpretation is what makes DAWs so great whereas sheet music is left ambiguous.

And sure, here is a remix of mine that just released http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWUha...ature=youtu.be i am not sure if you'll like it since its pretty simple but i tried haha

No, I understood exactly what you meant about using a DAW. You don't have to choose one or the other (ideally, you could be using both) all the time. Use whatever tool works best for what you want to do. At least leave the possibility open for a sheet music editor such as Finale or Sibelius, which would handle those sorts of things much more easily, and which can still use VST instruments. There are things you can do in a DAW that you can't notate on paper (e.g. the exact sounds you want, as you described), but there are also things which are much simpler to notate traditionally than to try to put together from a sample library in a DAW. For an example which is fairly common in classical music, I don't know about Ableton, but I know that in FL it's impossible to automate time signature changes, so you'd have to keep track of measures yourself if you wanted to change time signature.

As for your remix: simple, but enjoyable. Listened to some of your other tracks, too, and enjoyed them just as much.

Oh that's what you meant, well yeah. I might try using finale then, even though ableton has the option to modify time signature. and glad you liked it.

Also do you have any suggestions for what I can do even for my trance to make it more sophisticated? I was stuck to that chord progression since it was a remix but I tried to add varying melodies throughout as well as subtle ones(still came out simple though lol) , anything you suggest I do differently?

Originally Posted by Andreilg

Also do you have any suggestions for what I can do even for my trance to make it more sophisticated? I was stuck to that chord progression since it was a remix but I tried to add varying melodies throughout as well as subtle ones(still came out simple though lol) , anything you suggest I do differently?

I can't say much, since "sophisticated" is such a loaded term, and I honestly don't know much about trance. Your mixing sounds absolutely fine (better than mine!). If anything, a little work on form (e.g. contrasting sections, transitions, etc.) wouldn't be amiss, and I just feel like your breakdowns could, well, break down a bit more (that's just my personal taste, though).

Originally Posted by Kopachris

I can't say much, since "sophisticated" is such a loaded term, and I honestly don't know much about trance. Your mixing sounds absolutely fine (better than mine!). If anything, a little work on form (e.g. contrasting sections, transitions, etc.) wouldn't be amiss, and I just feel like your breakdowns could, well, break down a bit more (that's just my personal taste, though).

yes I agree on the transitions, I didn't know how to go about them any other way but I agree it isn't very organic (especially after part 1) as for the breakdown, yea I basically skipped that entirely and just went straight into the build because I didn't see a way of having a breakdown as well as a long build (which i needed for that purpose). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp6lY...ailpage#t=142s is a breakdown (that I am actually proud of haha) I've made for another song, which i'll be remaking. Thanks for all your advice

If i might interject, the best way to learn how something is done is to watch the experts do it. In the case of music, you analyze the music you like. See what it is doing and why. Wagner wanted to learn how to compose like Beethoven so he got copies of the Beethoven symphonies and made piano reductions of the scores. He learned the music from the inside out. If you want to write long complex melodies that just seem to spinout of the air or from the first note, I would suggest you get copies of the Bach works for solo violin and cello. Partitas, dance suites etc. With only one instrument the harmonics are more implied than obviously stated and Bach just lets the musical line spin out where it will within the boundries of the dance form. Also, check out the piece called the Air for the G String, also by Bach. Bach is not as melodically locked in as some others and he uses a small motive as the staring point for the organic growth of the entire piece.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfgtlTKPKMI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrVDATvUitA

Here's one i forgot Rachmaninoff Vocalise. the piece just spins out from the first fragment of melody.

thanks for all of these posts, I will check them out and yes I agree entirely about studying that which you want to accomplish. Beethoven and Mozart did that for Bach. What I kind've would disagree with you on is the part where you said Bach is meloidcally more widespread then most, maybe in the Baroque period but as you can tell in the first two videos he has a lot of repetition (which don't get me wrong I love but I'd like to understand how to break free of repetition) and he seems very scale based (many pieces he just goes up and done scales even chromatically).

Also as a side note, here is a super well known piece by Tchaikovsky http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg1dM...ailpage#t=199s. Unlike most people however, I am not such a huge fan of the "nice" happy reveling parts of this piece, my favorite part is from there and up to the amazing part at 3:48. At 3:48 its just a huge contrast to all the calm with a beautifully elegant and passionate solo & accompaniment. One of the most beautiful things I have ever heard and I am also really intrigued by how it sounds almost as if he just breaks the measure by giving no time for a rest. That's a piece I will be studying for sure because that's exactly something I'd like to be doing.