I hope so too! The next style guide video will probably be on Arvo Pärt, but I haven't planned who'll be after that.

One can only do so much in a 20-minute youTube introduction, but my goal was to keep it simple and practical, so viewers can immediately start composing and improvising after watching, even if that means keeping things a bit too simple and superficial. Since you already have more nuanced Mozart knowledge, you probably aren't the intended audience for this video introduction, but you still might enjoy the demonstration video here which isn't nearly so repetitive nor reliant on the Alberti bass: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bbZkmrJnxLfFZ3U.html

I agree about the counterpoint in the outer voices being very important in learning the Classical style with any serious depth beyond a short youTube introduction. I own and have read Gjerdingen's book. In my C major phrase shown at the opening, for example, you can hear measures 1-4, or 9-12, as using the prototype Gjerdingen calls "The Do-Re-Mi" (discussed in Chapter 6) by looking at the counterpoint of outer voices on downbeats. The cadences I wrote are also a formula discussed in Gjerdingen's book. I chose to analyze them using Roman numerals, but the same patterns I use are referenced by Gjerdingen as a "compound" clausula (see Chapter 11, p. 141). The melodic pattern associated with the cadence in my example is what Gjerdingen would analyze as the "Do-si-do" type. You can see examples of the compound clausula combined with the "do-si-do" on p. 146. If the items you view as unidiomatic are the improvised bits later on, then I completely agree with you, but I don't try to claim that they're great. Rather, they're just a way to get started at improvising something in this style.

@@GalenDeGraf I did spot the 1-7-1(fa-mi-fa) bass at the beginning, and thought for brief moment that it was intentional and not mere coincidence ha. But then I thought the melody had a weird shape, although I could see the often neglected goal oriented motion. So yes, I would say what strikes me as most unidiomatic are the diminutions you added later. For example in the first measure you strongly accent the third scale E-la, both by 6th leap, and by making it double the duration of C-fa. Whilst it's true that the 1-7-1 bass could idiomatically take both 1-2-3 and 3-2-1 as counterpoint, starting from 3 strikes me as a closing gesture, instead of opening... I am going by ear here, so take it with a grain of salt. Now, to truly compose like Mozart would imply being a master at using the schemata, so of course it's not something one can easily do in a short video intended for beginners! My main criticism is that while the basic structure is obviously there, approaching 18th century music with a modern mindset necessarily leads to an unidiomatic sound. I understand that Roman numerals are ubiquitous and that your video is intended as an introduction for beginners, but I personally think that using a "gradual refinement" approach is not only easier and faster, but also leads to a more solid and idiomatic structure. Case in point, it took me less than 5 minutes to compose this little example using this appoach: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eZ6cZ7V838W6caM.htmlsi=GjyfzmVk-cosbFcM

@@Terpsichorean-oj8vc Thanks for your response. In truth, my main goal with this video was to discuss a particular phrase structure and type of embellishment which can sound very Mozartian. I wanted to package these together in a quick formula as a starting point, so I felt it was worth offering some harmonic guideposts for viewers who don't know where to start. If this video were specifically about harmonic and contrapuntal practice, it would be a lot longer, and I would address counterpoint far more. Given what you already know, you probably aren't the intended audience for this video. If you ever put out more content specifically about contrapuntal and harmonic practice in the Classical style, please feel free to link it below. I'd love to see it!