This creative process started with the creation of a motif. I went for 4 ¼ note pitches repeated over 4 bars, each with some modulation in F#m. The pitches were F# A C# G#, F# A C# E#, E A C# D#, and D F# C# A.

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

Then I began to work on the Action dramatic setting and figured I would augment those pitches to last between 1 full bar to 2 bars with a trombone section to make it epic.

I worked on percussion and strings to finish it up and had it ready for submission.

​

Once done with Action, I debated between the Love or the Nostalgia dramatic settings. Opted for Nostalgia and kept the original rhythmic pattern of the motif, using a harp and just strings to dress it up.

 

Submitted both, confident that I had created a clear and strong leitmotiv between the two settings. I was wrong. The augmented rhythm in my Action setting was (and remains, as you’ll hear) too long. One or two bars per pitch are hard for the average consumer to grasp and identify as one musical sentence. On my Nostalgia setting, having used only strings and a harp through the entire piece also made the motif difficult to identify by the average consumer.

Attempting to make more sense on both pieces I revised them as follows:

​

Action setting. I left the augmented rhythm but added a diminution of my originally written motif every two bars, performed with violas, winds, and marimba, all in unison. This certainly made the motif clear, but I’m still not fully convinced that it works as a leitmotif when used in the Nostalgia setting.

​

Nostalgia setting. I just added a piano to the portions of the harp that were already performing the motif. The rest of the harp I left it alone.

You will also notice that some of the pitches I used in both pieces changed. So, the motif you’ll see in the staff is not totally accurate all the time.