It's a little too repetitive; I don't know if I'd listen to two minutes of this.

Hrm. Everything too repetitive, or just the rhythm? (In other words, do you accurately hear the melody?)

The rhythm is definitely more of it than the melody.

Just make some "high" and "low" notes at some strategic point of the melody to make it sound like it's different each time and that in fact, it isn't.

Hrm. The melody spans from G to Eb', and the counterpoint spans from a minor third below to a minor seventh below the melody.

Wouldn't making the melody a broader range make the repetition more obvious?

It depends if you use the right song at the right moment. That can be like you're "whaiting for the other notes".

Don't talk in "Eb" and "G" I don't understand a little poo to it :3

I'm a hopeless romantic, not a hopeless classical; I care infinitely more about emotional expression than structure.

Errr...

This piece is about as structured as you get.

I'm glad that you like it, though...

I know you like to think in theory when it comes to music, but if you want to make something where repetition works well, here is my advice. Hum a tune- any old tune that pops into your head- as long as it's something that can "loop". That is, the end of the "loop" should lead into the beginning of the loop. Keep on hummin' it until you've got it just right. Now, this all sounds like morbidly common sense stuff, but here's the part that's going to be hard for you (you, specifically)... Arrange your loop on FLS, and play it over and over- AND, here's the really hard part! Don't analyze it at all. Don't apply any theory or reason to it. Don't even pay attention to what notes you're putting down. Build other loops on top- harmonies, and basslines. And when you're half way through, THEN you can analyze it. Analyze the ever-loving crap out of it. Apply every bit of musical theory to what you're about to add, but don't change what you've already got. I'll hear from you in a week.

*sticks his tongue out at you*

The idea of not analyzing music strikes me about as much as not listening or not breathing.

(Yes, I analyze the HECK out of everything. You've figured me out perfectly.)

I'll try that. But my results won't be very good.

I figured you'd have about that kind of reaction. See, that's where you and I differ... Telling me to plan out a song before doing it is like telling me to go into a coma- I'd never get anything done.

Hrmph! You and I really DO differ on this topic.

(It's not that one way is bad and the other is good; it makes for very different songs.)

I'm lazy when it comes to counterpoints and I just tend to retrograde the original melody!
After listening to it a couple of times, I can make out the melody, but I believe the rhythm needs 'jazzing' up if you want a little less repetition, melody is fine though...
Also, sometimes atonal pieces can actually be quite beautiful, I think the counterpoint needs changing in order to make this more 'appealing' to the general listener...
Finally, I find repeating the accompaniment rather then the melody, or a motif being repeated in the background works fine too!
Very good so far!!!

Wow. You and I differ lots on counterpoint.

In college, I studied Fux... and that tends to show in my counterpoints. I'm trying a different way to break out of that: I'm fixing the intervals below the melody, rather than fixing a second melody. My hope was that it would (every seven notes) "pulse" between very consonant to slightly dissonant.

In your experience, which do people hear more: the top or the bottom melody in a counterpoint?

It entirely depends on which one has the most diversity...
For the most part, its the top melody that is heard the most often, but if the bottom melody is more diverse and interesting, then that's the one I/they will focus on!
Hope that helps...

That's what I thought...

I put the simpler melody on top, so that it would stand out more. It didn't quite work.

If I do more of this kind of composing, then the rule for the counterpoint is going to be simpler (probably just four or five intervals before the repeat.)

Thank you so much for listening!

"I'm thinking about ways to incorporate more repetition into my work, without it being boring."
I can't imagine you being boring. ^_^ But is there some reason you want some of your works to be more repetitious? Most pop music nowadays is very repetetive in some way or another - I'm more interested in why you would want what you create to be more so.

(The work itself is more like background music - something meant to augment something else - than a musical work of its own. For some reason it keeps bringing old episodes of Blake's 7 to mind. Or, rather, to my mind. ^_^)

I'm trying to find the right mixture of what people like... and what I want to compose. (I don't just compose for myself!)

There's a LOT of repetition in popular music, and in dance music. I'm trying to find what amount of repetition I can enjoy (I don't like straight repetition, but I like theme and variations), and what level others like.

And you're right: This kind of scrap is not complete -- it needs to be an element in a bigger piece. Blake's 7 is one idea; another that I had was as "computer tones" in a sequence of, say, hackers taking over the world.

That's what the piece reminded me of - that synthy, ominous ostinato sound that permeated late 70-early 80's British SF TV. If it did sufficiently repeat itself, eventually the listener would be able to hear the individual thematic cues (old protagonist 1, young protagonist 2, didactic observer, malevolent high-tech computer/robot/droid, etc.)