It's up

{"name":"maxresdefault.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/0\/a0534ae67c99214a42b0c526e6ca7c10.jpg","w":3000,"h":1688,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/0\/a0534ae67c99214a42b0c526e6ca7c10"}

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oJ9D_C11pY

Thanks to everyone who helped me in this thread: https://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/615226
Sorry bambams, I used an annotation

Sounds like an adventure puzzle game sound track.

I like it a lot. I broke the ice on it.

It occurred to me that your name is rather a mouthful or handsful for us on this side of the pond. Perhaps it would be beneficial if you included a nickname somewhere (e.g., in the description or in the video intro/outro) so that people in other parts of the world can more easily reference you. Obviously professionally you may want to be known by your actual formal name, but YouTube isn't really a formal setting. What should people call you on YouTube? The full Wlasdfj-Davis or is there something shorter and easier to spell?

These are just my thoughts... Not sure it matters. I was tempted to comment something like "Good job, Bruce!" or "Good job, Ben!" Of course, I don't know if you would want to mix and match these identities (other than you posting here, of course). I'm not sure you care about the American audiences anyway, but I digress.

This is a good video. I hope that it gets you some attention. Everybody share it!

Reminds me of an another video:

Really, when at the end they throw the violin case out of the car i had tears in the eyes (could sell this at ebay ... )

I thought a boss battle if anything.

Thank you

True, it's a consideration, but then, there's a long history of that in classical music. I think it makes sense to maintain a consistent identity for my music. You're right not to call me Bruce over there

Love it

Not sure I can see the similarity myself. Do you find my notes arousing?

For me noob its all "classical music". But interesting, both videos have almost the same length.

Lots of my songs end up being exactly 4:20 in length. But it's not really intentional.

that's the weed talking.

Dammit bambams! You cursed my annotation I just assumed it didn't appear as a link for me because I was me and you can't subscribe to yourself, but it turns out that when YouTube asked me to specify the username for people to subscribe to, that wasn't optional and I had to copy and paste the channel hash (UCGUqU00M89nIZtgvqGWJ87g) in there. I wonder how many people wanted to subscribe so far and couldn't figure out how

The good guys win!

Yes, the annotation was sorted out in the end

Great piece! I just played the video for my pupils. Only positive comments. Is there a structural idea? Other than the obvious repeat in the beginning?

Thank you - I'm touched Are they pupils of composition?

Perhaps Rondo if anything. It developed organically though. The opening does come back but with sixths instead of fifths.

They were just ordinary 8th grade pupils. First I played Für Elise for them and they got introduced to the rondo form. One girl asked if contemporary music is written in the same way, i.e. you decide what structure to use and then you fill it with music. At that point I remember this composition of yours and played it for them. I gave them the task to listen to Für Elise and mark the time of each section. And I told them that we would listen to your composition once again, after I had analysed the structure of it.

You're dealing with a sample set of one. I decided to compose a cadenza for Mozart 24 a while ago while I was learning it, and my teacher encouraged me to plan the harmonic progressions for the whole thing first and put the ornamentation in later. I just stuck to my proven 'technique', which is to keep trying stuff until something works without really planning anything, and we were both very happy with the result: I think it's more distinctive and more 'me' than it would have been otherwise. The upshot is that different people obviously work in different ways.

Depending on how detailed an analysis you want to do, one thing you could point out is how some parts of it amount to two-bar phrases while others are mostly three-bar phrases with the odd one padded out to four (or made end-heavy, as in a 1 and a 2 instead of a 2 and a 1). I think the overall effect I achieved was that the bits with two- or four-bar phrases have the most agenda and direction, while the bits with three-bar phrases are more erratic.