Art & Hard Work
r e z a m u s i c . c o m
Michaelangelo and Bach said they worked extremely hard.
Angelo, can you please elaborate on "hard work" in composing / artistic creation?
The master who makes it look easy has worked hard hasn't he, to obtain mastery. You see
Eduardo Fernandez play, like a breeze, perfectly, effortlessly. He must have woked very
hard.
No clear question. perhaps it's not so clear, on one hand, hard work and creativity go
together, on other hand, mastery and effortlessness go together. Any insights?
RG
Angelo Gilardino
" r e z a m u s i c . c o m" <gan...@dtc.ch> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3fe17865$1...@news.bluewin.ch...
> A master played makes it seem easy.
>
> Michaelangelo and Bach said they worked extremely hard.
All the true artists work extremely hard. They have to squeeze the best from
themselves, and this is not possible without giving one's maximum.
>
> Angelo, can you please elaborate on "hard work" in composing / artistic
creation?
It is mainly connected with the form. An accomplished form calls for a lot
of elaboration. Theoretically, this is an endless process. Practically, an
artist decides - at a certain point - that he has brought the work at a
level of elaboration which is satisfactory enough, and calls this point the
end of the work.
> The master who makes it look easy has worked hard hasn't he, to obtain
mastery. You see
> Eduardo Fernandez play, like a breeze, perfectly, effortlessly. He must
have woked very
> hard.
I have private tapes of him when he was a student (perhaps he does not know
I have them), and it was already clear that he was great.
> No clear question. perhaps it's not so clear, on one hand, hard work and
creativity go
> together, on other hand, mastery and effortlessness go together. Any
insights?
The effort is called in the process, but it should not appear in the result.
If, attending to a recital, you are brought to appreciate the skills and to
believe that he is good, he is not good enough, because the perfection
absorbs all the efforts and the visible signs of a player's abilities, and
you are called just to listen the music. When you look at a beatiful
landscape from an open window, you appreciate the landscape, not the window.
A performer disappears in the music he does in the measure he does it well.
If you see him in between, he has yet to attain perfection, even if his
presence can be appreciated. At the highest levels, a performer can live
within perfection at such a height so as to feel totally identified with
what he does, and forget the audience. I believe that the best players in
this world are not the most famous ones going around, and likely the very
best guitarist on this globe does not give concerts.
AG
Jeff Gower
"Angelo Gilardino" <angelog...@tin.it> wrote:
> If, attending to a recital, you are brought to appreciate the skills and to
> believe that he is good, he is not good enough, because the perfection
> absorbs all the efforts and the visible signs of a player's abilities, and
> you are called just to listen the music. When you look at a beatiful
> landscape from an open window, you appreciate the landscape, not the window.
> A performer disappears in the music he does in the measure he does it well.
This is so true. The CG performances I've attended that fit this
description were truly unforgettable: those performances where I
literally forgot that I was listening to a guitar/ist. As guitarists,
we tend to focus on the whats and the hows of the performance -
technique, phrasing, tone, etc. - so I think we are more prone to
listening to the CG performance rather than the music. But that rare
performance comes along during which we are taken in by the music
itself. One such particularly powerful performance that I was
privileged to witness was given by the splendid French
guitarist/composer Arnaud Dumond, especially during his transcendent
"Hommage à Ravel". I've certainly witnessed other superbly musical
performances, but this one leaps to mind when thinking of the "so good
that you see past the musician onstage" phenomenon.
BTW, since that concert, I've sought out and enjoyed playing all of the
Dumond pieces I could find. All are highly recommended - his is a very
unique and fresh voice. Here are some links for those interested in
Arnaud and his music:
http://arnauddumond.free.fr/english/default.htm
http://www.cci-oise.fr/classic-news/adumond.htm
Best wishes,
Jeff
Unknown
<gan...@dtc.ch> wrote:
>No clear question. perhaps it's not so clear, on one hand, hard work and creativity go
>together, on other hand, mastery and effortlessness go together. Any insights?
Opportunity is often missed because it is disguised as hard work.
The harder I work, the luckier I get.
Luck is when opportunity meets preparation.
Those are three quotes from the ages. Start with any one of them and
watch how they circle back.
Tim
http://timberens.com
A Website for Guitarists
Learn something...Have some fun
timb at erinet dot com
Greg M. Silverman
>No clear question. perhaps it's not so clear, on one hand, hard work and creativity go
>together, on other hand, mastery and effortlessness go together. Any insights?
>
>
>
Have you read Kenny Werner's book "Effortless Mastery: Liberating the
Master Musician Within?" Very highly recomended: see
http://tinyurl.com/2zz4m.
gms--
Carlos Barrientos
<angelog...@tin.it> wrote:
>I believe that the best players in
>this world are not the most famous ones going around, and likely the very
>best guitarist on this globe does not give concerts.
>
>AG
(Con Molto Humor, Maestro)
You promised not to reveal my secret!!!
Va Bene!
;)
CarlosB
hahaha
Carlos Barrientos
"mailto:ca...@sprintmail.com"
Phone: (229)-438-1087
La Patrie Motif: (Goes Anywhere and Everywhere with me), Jasmine TC28C by Takamine,
Ken Miller Classical, Modified Washburn J6S, Ibanez RT450, 1927 National Duolian.
(www.kenmillerguitars.com)
Angelo Gilardino
"Carlos Barrientos" <ca...@sprintmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:m294uvgc6ap45pjsf...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:08:48 GMT, "Angelo Gilardino"
> <angelog...@tin.it> wrote:
>
> >I believe that the best players in
> >this world are not the most famous ones going around, and likely the very
> >best guitarist on this globe does not give concerts.
> >
> >AG
>
> (Con Molto Humor, Maestro)
>
> You promised not to reveal my secret!!!
>
> Va Bene!
>
> ;)
>
> CarlosB
Now, you cannot escape your obligations: a CD with a new version of Aranjuez
and of the Cinco Piezas, Adios Nonino, etc.
AG
Carlos Barrientos
<angelog...@tin.it> wrote:
>
>"Carlos Barrientos" <ca...@sprintmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:m294uvgc6ap45pjsf...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:08:48 GMT, "Angelo Gilardino"
>> <angelog...@tin.it> wrote:
>>
>> >I believe that the best players in
>> >this world are not the most famous ones going around, and likely the very
>> >best guitarist on this globe does not give concerts.
>> >
>> >AG
>>
>> (Con Molto Humor, Maestro)
>>
>> You promised not to reveal my secret!!!
>>
>> Va Bene!
>>
>> ;)
>>
>> CarlosB
>
>Now, you cannot escape your obligations: a CD with a new version of Aranjuez
>and of the Cinco Piezas, Adios Nonino, etc.
>
>AG
Hahahahahahahahahahaha ROFLMAO
If only I liked those pieces . . . and there are so few extant
recordings of them ... Alas ...
The new piece I am composing for - - - is moving along nicely - so
far . . . let's hope it doesn't misbehave, a Blues/Jazz piece for
Solo Guitar... a peek into that soulful world . . . for all the
erudite classical guitarists to come slumming in . . . some sounds
from another neighborhood
;)
David Kotschessa
> " r e z a m u s i c . c o m" <gan...@dtc.ch> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:3fe17865$1...@news.bluewin.ch...
> > A master played makes it seem easy.
> >
> > Michaelangelo and Bach said they worked extremely hard.
>
> All the true artists work extremely hard. They have to squeeze the best from
> themselves, and this is not possible without giving one's maximum.
>
>
> >
> > Angelo, can you please elaborate on "hard work" in composing / artistic
> creation?
>
> It is mainly connected with the form. An accomplished form calls for a lot
> of elaboration. Theoretically, this is an endless process. Practically, an
> artist decides - at a certain point - that he has brought the work at a
> level of elaboration which is satisfactory enough, and calls this point the
> end of the work.
Thanks to the two of your for this discussion. Angelo has brought up
something I've been thinking about and am probably going to start
asking about more here since I am getting back into composition.
When I was studying compositing in college with a teacher, it seemed
that my biggest problem wasn't any shortage of ideas, but not
finishing a thought before it had begun. I would have a great idea,
then be on to the next one without developing it. I am guessing this
is what you mean by "elaboration," and that perhaps I am not alone in
having this "problem," as a composer. I'd know a little better how
common it was but my composition studies were cut short due to lack of
funds and I have been on my own since then.
I'm finding my hardest task as a composer is just to keep working on
something I have started. I have "page one," "page one," "page one,"
lying all over the place. Some on my computer, some on notation
paper, some on paper I picked up. Some I have never written down.
This sounds like the "hard work" part that I'm losing the battle with.
Not to mention I have problems with notation, and during the time I
was studying with someone, actually bringing my materials to the
lesson... I tried to reassure myself that maybe I was some kind of
absent-minded genius waiting to have his talents brought out, but more
and more I think that I'm just absent-minded and lacking discipline.
Angelo Gilardino
"David Kotschessa" <dkots...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:4589696c.03122...@posting.google.com...
> When I was studying compositing in college with a teacher, it seemed
> that my biggest problem wasn't any shortage of ideas, but not
> finishing a thought before it had begun. I would have a great idea,
If the idea you have is really great, do not bother to write it down. It is
not yours, and three minutes, three hours, three days after writing it, you
will discover where you borrowed (or stolen) it from. Take care of notating
only those ideas which do not appear especially great to you, but rather
uncertain, still invinting, promising: this is the beginning of a
composition, something which appears from afar in the midst, and which you
have not to invent, but to discover, note by note.
> then be on to the next one without developing it. I am guessing this
> is what you mean by "elaboration," and that perhaps I am not alone in
> having this "problem," as a composer.
All the guitar pieces written by everybody begin well, with two nice
measures. The problems start with the third measure...Elaboration deals with
the form of musical thinking as with a construction, and leads you to make a
wise use of the material you gave yourself (the theme, the series, the
motive). The stature of the composer, his talent and skill, are shown in the
way he elaborates the material, not in the material itself. Composition is
the way of derivating from a given material the maximum of its potential.
One has to study the material and the way to develop it in the fullest of
its potential. Begin analizing a simple study by Sor, observe where he
starts from, and how far he goes with the basic, small elements: he is a
master in the little musical form, he never adds or misses a note. Check up
why he did not push his development beyond the point at which he stopped:
you will unfailiningly discover that he brought the basic elements to the
right point, not one step "before" of "after", and this will be a lesson to
you. With such a criterion, you will learn to understand from the
battlefield the laws of musical construction. And you will become capable of
understanding the art of the most powerful music builders of the history:
Johann Sebastian, Ludwig and Johannes. As well as appreciating the genius of
all the other ones - from Franz Joseph and Wolfgang Amadeus to Claude,
Maurice, Igor and Bela (the list of masters is a very long one indeed). We
can learn, however, only from the music written by amateurs - especially the
pieces written by guitarists who believe to be composers because they can
find pleasant sound combinations on the fingerboard and notate them. They
often create beatiful effects, but with no cause. Take note of the effect,
maybe one day you will have a deserving cause for it.
> I'd know a little better how
> common it was but my composition studies were cut short due to lack of
> funds and I have been on my own since then.
Of all the musical studies, composition is the one that less suffers from
self-teaching. A clever person can get wrong habits with his hands and
fingering on an instrument, but using his intelligence for studying the
disciplines of compositions will hardly leave him alone. Copy the masters.
Observe how Scarlatti builds up his Sonatas, and write some Scarlatti
Sonatas, how Schubert writes Lieder and write some Lieder.
> I'm finding my hardest task as a composer is just to keep working on
> something I have started. I have "page one," "page one," "page one,"
If you have reached the end of page one without doing nonsenses or
banalities, you have already reached a good point. The problem with most
guitar music is that it should not have reached measure three.
> lying all over the place. Some on my computer, some on notation
> paper, some on paper I picked up. Some I have never written down.
> This sounds like the "hard work" part that I'm losing the battle with.
Here is the man who wins or looses, the musician is the expression of the
man.
Work hard and believe in what you do, you will be the best of your teachers.
AG
Matt McNabb
I know none of that was directed to me, nonetheless it was the most
inspiring advice I have ever heard. I suffer from the same "page one"
difficulties as David ( although i can't claim to have studied composition),
but more often I find myself victim to those measure three blues that you
described so well, Maestro. Thank you.
Angelo Gilardino
"Matt McNabb" <matthe...@fuse.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3fe47bbb$0$30511$a04e...@nnrp.fuse.net...
> I know none of that was directed to me, nonetheless it was the most
> inspiring advice I have ever heard. I suffer from the same "page one"
> difficulties as David ( although i can't claim to have studied
composition),
> but more often I find myself victim to those measure three blues that you
> described so well, Maestro. Thank you.
It was not directed to any individual person, but to everybody, including,
and mainly, myself. I have never learnt how going after the 2nd barline
with the sense of dominating the situation, and each note I write is often,
not the best one, but the less unsuitable among the 12 available ones.
Composing is sometimes the result of refusing many options for saving one
which we are not very pleased with, but we cannot replace for better.
AG
Matt McNabb
I'll keep that in mind when I hit the desk tonight.
David Kotschessa
> "David Kotschessa" <dkots...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:4589696c.03122...@posting.google.com...
> > "Angelo Gilardino" <angelog...@tin.it> wrote in message
> news:<4VfEb.9453$wM.6...@news1.tin.it>...
>
>
> > When I was studying compositing in college with a teacher, it seemed
> > that my biggest problem wasn't any shortage of ideas, but not
> > finishing a thought before it had begun. I would have a great idea,
>
> If the idea you have is really great, do not bother to write it down. It is
> not yours, and three minutes, three hours, three days after writing it, you
> will discover where you borrowed (or stolen) it from. Take care of notating
> only those ideas which do not appear especially great to you, but rather
> uncertain, still invinting, promising: this is the beginning of a
> composition, something which appears from afar in the midst, and which you
> have not to invent, but to discover, note by note.
Some of the best advice I ever recieved is the advice that didn't make
any sense when I first looked at it. But you're completely right.
The real ideas are the ones that are vaguely crawling around somewhere
in the back of my mind, have not even formed themselves into musical
phrases yet that I can even hear. Usually hinting at something beyond
my understanding. Also, they occur nowhere within the geographic
vicinity of my instrument, or close to a time where I have played one.
I laughed out loud at your description of the "beautiful effects, but
with no cause," concept. The guitar is great for that, with all our
beautiful combinations of open and fretted strings, same
note-different strings, legato, tones that ring well, tones that tone,
tones that resonate well. (On my guitar, my favorite string is D, my
favorite note being the A on the 7th fret...)
Anyway, I know the syndrome. If I write anything of the sort, I tend
to label it "etude," and develop it to fully exploit the effect. I
think it's worth exploring as a compositional exercise, but doesn't
yeild true compositions themselves. Does that make sense? Really
though, I very clearly understand what you are saying. I think one of
the ways I define "genius" (if there is such a thing) in composition
is to be able to create a beautiful peice of music that actually calls
for such an effect. Where the notes matter, the effect matters...
Where one wouldn't work without the other.
> > I'd know a little better how
> > common it was but my composition studies were cut short due to lack of
> > funds and I have been on my own since then.
>
> Of all the musical studies, composition is the one that less suffers from
> self-teaching. A clever person can get wrong habits with his hands and
> fingering on an instrument, but using his intelligence for studying the
> disciplines of compositions will hardly leave him alone. Copy the masters.
> Observe how Scarlatti builds up his Sonatas, and write some Scarlatti
> Sonatas, how Schubert writes Lieder and write some Lieder.
I hope you are right, and I will take your advice, and will continue
to read your advice as well. I hope you enjoy sharing as much as we
do reading it, because sometimes it's almost too good a deal to be
able to read such advice for free over the internet. (Unless you plan
on sending us a bill!).
You brought up something else I was wondering about, which was really
"compositional exercise." To compose for the sake of practice rather
than for the sake of actually coming up with a composition. Hey, that
sounds like "hard work."
> If you have reached the end of page one without doing nonsenses or
> banalities, you have already reached a good point.
Well, of that I'm not sure.
> The problem with most
> guitar music is that it should not have reached measure three.
Or 1.
> > lying all over the place. Some on my computer, some on notation
> > paper, some on paper I picked up. Some I have never written down.
> > This sounds like the "hard work" part that I'm losing the battle with.
>
> Here is the man who wins or looses, the musician is the expression of the
> man.
>
> Work hard and believe in what you do, you will be the best of your teachers.
>
> AG
Thanks for putting a different perspective on things. The same
themes that I always discuss with people about improvisation come
through in your post. What's difficult about composing (or
improvising) for guitar and trying to be true to your artistic ideas
is that it's sometimes difficult to "fit things," into the intrument.
I suppose that's a whole different topic. It's just that many of the
things I often dream up are not physically possible on one guitar, or
standard tuning, or maybe in any practical way.
Thanks again.
-D
Matt McNabb
"David Kotschessa" <dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4589696c.0312...@posting.google.com...
> "Angelo Gilardino" <angelog...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:<bs1seu$8ssp2$1...@ID-91010.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "David Kotschessa" <dkots...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > news:4589696c.03122...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Angelo Gilardino" <angelog...@tin.it> wrote in message
> > news:<4VfEb.9453$wM.6...@news1.tin.it>...
(On my guitar, my favorite string is D, my
> favorite note being the A on the 7th fret...)
Mine's A on the 10th fret, second string. Rings out really clearly and
responds to vibrato more distinctly.
Angelo Gilardino
> The real ideas are the ones that are vaguely crawling around somewhere
> in the back of my mind, have not even formed themselves into musical
> phrases yet that I can even hear. Usually hinting at something beyond
> my understanding.
Exactly. A true idea comes after such a process. And you have to earn it,
and your compositional skill helps you to get it as quickly as possibile,
but above all in the right way. It may be a rhytmic movement, or a little
melodic fragment (three, four notes, usually), or a chord connection (if you
have got the level of thinking harmonies in your mind with no need of an
instrument). Take note of it and begin to undestand how to make it complete.
Do not ask WHAT it is, but HOW you should have it clear, complete, round.
When this is done, then begin projecting it forward. You can transpose it -,
if yes, how far? Which is its resistence? Can you move it as it is, or when
moving it you need to change its profile (look how Sor and Villa-Lobos uses
sequences)? This is the simplest kind of forwarding an idea - and it can
still work, especially in forms which admit repetitions (like studies), but
if the nature of your ideas does not call for such a simple treatment, then
you have to go along other, and more difficult, trails...
> I laughed out loud at your description of the "beautiful effects, but
> with no cause," concept.
It is borrowed from Wagner. He said that about Meyerbeer, if I correctly
recall, but I have taken this statement as a lesson in composition. My use
of effects is extremely restrained, I seldom use even only harmonics.
> The guitar is great for that, with all our
> beautiful combinations of open and fretted strings, same
> note-different strings, legato, tones that ring well, tones that tone,
> tones that resonate well. (On my guitar, my favorite string is D, my
> favorite note being the A on the 7th fret...)
All of this is a wealth, of course, but using it musically, within the
logic of a construction, along a true musical thought, is not easy. A
compositional problem cannot be solved with an effect. An enormous
percentage of guitar music is incredibily cheap, from this viewpoint. But
of course also the contrary problem can be found in our repertoire. Pieces
which are well constructed on paper, but do not "sound" on the box. These
are usually written by non guitarist composers. A simple rule: a piece
written for guitar should sound on the guitar better than in any other
instrument. A piano cannot challenge a guitar with a Villa-Lobos study. When
your fellow the pianist or the harpsichordist can read your guitar piece
making it more fluent and better sounding that you can do on the guitar, the
composer has not accomplished his job. Sometimes, a guitarist has to work
hard as a pianist which performs the Liszt Sonata in B minor, for
producing, at the end of such a battle, a bagatelle. For each "work" a
player is committed to to by the score, a significant result must be
produced in sound, otherwise the composition has something wrong.
> Anyway, I know the syndrome. If I write anything of the sort, I tend
> to label it "etude," and develop it to fully exploit the effect. I
> think it's worth exploring as a compositional exercise, but doesn't
> yeild true compositions themselves. Does that make sense? Really
> though, I very clearly understand what you are saying. I think one of
> the ways I define "genius" (if there is such a thing) in composition
> is to be able to create a beautiful peice of music that actually calls
> for such an effect. Where the notes matter, the effect matters...
> Where one wouldn't work without the other.
Exactly. The greatest example of musical form are found in Beethoven. He
never wrote a melody in the true sense of the word, his harmony has nothing
special and his orchestration is often normal. But what he does with the
musical idea is absolutely genial: everything which happens in a piece of
his is absolute, unavoidable, essential, stone engraved, and you feel that
it couldn't go otherwise. But then you go back to the theme, and you see
that it was nothing special: he invented everything starting from nothing.
Study his piano Sonata op. 106 - Hammerklavier: only A God could do that.
AG
David Kotschessa
> Exactly. A true idea comes after such a process. And you have to earn it,
> and your compositional skill helps you to get it as quickly as possibile,
> but above all in the right way. It may be a rhytmic movement, or a little
> melodic fragment (three, four notes, usually), or a chord connection (if you
> have got the level of thinking harmonies in your mind with no need of an
> instrument). Take note of it and begin to undestand how to make it complete.
> Do not ask WHAT it is, but HOW you should have it clear, complete, round.
> When this is done, then begin projecting it forward. You can transpose it -,
> if yes, how far? Which is its resistence? Can you move it as it is, or when
> moving it you need to change its profile (look how Sor and Villa-Lobos uses
> sequences)? This is the simplest kind of forwarding an idea - and it can
> still work, especially in forms which admit repetitions (like studies), but
> if the nature of your ideas does not call for such a simple treatment, then
> you have to go along other, and more difficult, trails...
I've managed to destroy some ideas by trying to actually play them,
perhaps before they were fully developed. Once I brought them into
sound-existence, what I heard (in the real world) somehow managed to
completely overwrite what I was hearing in my head. Does this sound
familiar at all?
> > I laughed out loud at your description of the "beautiful effects, but
> > with no cause," concept.
>
> It is borrowed from Wagner. He said that about Meyerbeer, if I correctly
> recall, but I have taken this statement as a lesson in composition. My use
> of effects is extremely restrained, I seldom use even only harmonics.
>
>
>
> > The guitar is great for that, with all our
> > beautiful combinations of open and fretted strings, same
> > note-different strings, legato, tones that ring well, tones that tone,
> > tones that resonate well. (On my guitar, my favorite string is D, my
> > favorite note being the A on the 7th fret...)
>
> All of this is a wealth, of course, but using it musically, within the
> logic of a construction, along a true musical thought, is not easy. A
> compositional problem cannot be solved with an effect. An enormous
> percentage of guitar music is incredibily cheap, from this viewpoint.
The guitar music your referring to is probably a result of "noodling"
on the guitar... Not that I haven't written some. But it's
accidental. It's "Hey, I found this really neat chord voicing," and
"Mommy! Look what I did!" It's a great process of discovery, but when
it turns into a composition it can get ugly. The ideal is that these
sink into the brain somewhere and come out later with some cause.
Interesting how the mind can do that too.
> But
> of course also the contrary problem can be found in our repertoire. Pieces
> which are well constructed on paper, but do not "sound" on the box. These
> are usually written by non guitarist composers. A simple rule: a piece
> written for guitar should sound on the guitar better than in any other
> instrument. A piano cannot challenge a guitar with a Villa-Lobos study. When
> your fellow the pianist or the harpsichordist can read your guitar piece
> making it more fluent and better sounding that you can do on the guitar, the
> composer has not accomplished his job. Sometimes, a guitarist has to work
> hard as a pianist which performs the Liszt Sonata in B minor, for
> producing, at the end of such a battle, a bagatelle. For each "work" a
> player is committed to to by the score, a significant result must be
> produced in sound, otherwise the composition has something wrong.
The key word is "sound..." (more below)
> > Anyway, I know the syndrome. If I write anything of the sort, I tend
> > to label it "etude," and develop it to fully exploit the effect. I
> > think it's worth exploring as a compositional exercise, but doesn't
> > yeild true compositions themselves. Does that make sense? Really
> > though, I very clearly understand what you are saying. I think one of
> > the ways I define "genius" (if there is such a thing) in composition
> > is to be able to create a beautiful peice of music that actually calls
> > for such an effect. Where the notes matter, the effect matters...
> > Where one wouldn't work without the other.
>
> Exactly. The greatest example of musical form are found in Beethoven. He
> never wrote a melody in the true sense of the word, his harmony has nothing
> special and his orchestration is often normal. But what he does with the
> musical idea is absolutely genial: everything which happens in a piece of
> his is absolute, unavoidable, essential, stone engraved, and you feel that
> it couldn't go otherwise. But then you go back to the theme, and you see
> that it was nothing special: he invented everything starting from nothing.
> Study his piano Sonata op. 106 - Hammerklavier: only A God could do that.
>
> AG
Again, the end result I think is more than music - it is "sound." We
are trying to make sounds that will invoke a response in the listener,
harmonic, melodic, percussive, and whatever we have at our disposal.
Having said that, here is another difficult (controvesial?)
possibility... I have considered that there may be times when a sound,
or possibly an effect, seemed almost more important than the notes
themselves, because they invoked the required response. One must be
careful of such things, but I try to stay as open-minded as possible.
For example, maybe I want to express the feeling conveyed by a fast,
ascending line, which is mostly chromatic. From where to where?
Which notes? Which ones will be chromatic, and which will not be?
How much does it matter? I must choose them, of course, as carefully
as possible, but it could be the "sound" of the line, rather than the
notes.
Or I have even thought "I want something...lydian." Because I wanted
to convey the feeling that it conveyes, but the notes almost seemed
secondary. I have thought long and hard about this!
-D
Angelo Gilardino
> "Angelo Gilardino" <angelog...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:<bs3ek7$964q8$1...@ID-91010.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> I've managed to destroy some ideas by trying to actually play them,
> perhaps before they were fully developed. Once I brought them into
> sound-existence, what I heard (in the real world) somehow managed to
> completely overwrite what I was hearing in my head. Does this sound
> familiar at all?
Perhaps you have distorced your idea when writing it. If you can repeat a
short profile in your mind, it exists. Try to fix it on paper with a simple
note, do not go to the instrument. When a note is on paper, it is saved as
it happened in your mind, and whatever happens when you attempt to make it
sounding on the instrument, you will not miss it as it was originally.
>
> The guitar music your referring to is probably a result of "noodling"
> on the guitar... Not that I haven't written some. But it's
> accidental. It's "Hey, I found this really neat chord voicing," and
> "Mommy! Look what I did!" It's a great process of discovery, but when
> it turns into a composition it can get ugly. The ideal is that these
> sink into the brain somewhere and come out later with some cause.
> Interesting how the mind can do that too.
Interesting is also to see how it happens - in accomplished compositions -
having an effect associated consequentially to a cause. Let us see an
example, to make the point clear. A guitarist "plays" by chance an amusing,
idiomatic and well sounding effect on the first string: three notes in scale
(G sharp, F sharp, E), slurred with a descending left hand slur. This effect
can be transposed (using three fingers) and it sounds always amusing. But it
is just a sound, a stone found on the road. How to make of it a brick for a
wall, and how to make a wall with other bricks? Let's place the question to
don Fernando Sor and seek for an answer, for instance in his Study op. 6 n.
3. His lesson tells us: the three notes are "interpretated" as following:
the third one as the upper part of a four voice chord - which is not given
on the same beat, in order to allow the effect shining alone - and the first
two notes as auxiliary notes with ornamental function. The other three
voices of the chord of which the third note of the "effect" is the upper
one, are given...on the preceding beat, in the form of a triad. So, the
musical structure is obvious: a succession of four voice chords in the key
of E major. Given as such, it would be rather dull, flat, simplistic,
inertial; but the structure is broken into two phases: the harmonic, strong
phase on the 1st and 3rd movement of a 4/4 measure, and the "effect" on the
2nd and 4th movement. So, we have the effect with the ornamental notes and
the slur as a "motion", both rhythmically, melodically and as a "sound" of
each preceding triad in a structure otherwise too flat and common, and from
other side we have an effect which has a cause, the harmonic structure and
the voice which it "legitimately" belongs to. Now, it is just a matter of
understanding the exceptions: eg measure 11, 2nd beat, and the following
ones, which sometimes "break" the regularity of the pattern. Each of them
has an explanation. Where did Sor begin from? From the casual discovery of
that effect - to which he gave a structural cause - or from a plain exercise
of harmony, which he felt he had to animate in some way, and then he deviced
the effect he needed? We will never know, but for sure we have a perfect
balance between musical construction and effects. This is a very simple
example, and it works as a beginning to understand the lesson of the balance
among all factors which participate of a composition.
To give, and to repeat, an effect casually - or even ingeniously, why
not? - found on the guitar, without having a structural reason, is
senseless.
AG
Matt McNabb
> The guitar music your referring to is probably a result of "noodling"
> on the guitar... Not that I haven't written some. But it's
> accidental. It's "Hey, I found this really neat chord voicing," and
> "Mommy! Look what I did!" It's a great process of discovery, but when
> it turns into a composition it can get ugly. The ideal is that these
> sink into the brain somewhere and come out later with some cause.
> Interesting how the mind can do that too.
Here's how I would phrase that: Experimentation is great for the process of
discovery, but it has no place on the concert stage. I learned this from
listening to old Grateful Dead albums.
Matt McNabb
>
> "David Kotschessa" <dkots...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:4589696c.0312...@posting.google.com...
> > I laughed out loud at your description of the "beautiful effects, but
> > with no cause," concept.
>
> It is borrowed from Wagner. He said that about Meyerbeer, if I correctly
> recall, but I have taken this statement as a lesson in composition. My use
> of effects is extremely restrained, I seldom use even only harmonics.
That's funny because I feel that way about Wagner.
Carlos Barrientos
wrote:
>"David Kotschessa" <dkots...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:4589696c.0312...@posting.google.com...
>
>> in the back of my mind, have not even formed themselves into musical
>> phrases yet that I can even hear. Usually hinting at something beyond
>> my understanding.
>
>Exactly. A true idea comes after such a process. And you have to earn it,
>and your compositional skill helps you to get it as quickly as possibile,
>but above all in the right way. It may be a rhytmic movement, or a little
>melodic fragment (three, four notes, usually), or a chord connection (if you
>have got the level of thinking harmonies in your mind with no need of an
>instrument). Take note of it and begin to undestand how to make it complete.
>Do not ask WHAT it is, but HOW you should have it clear, complete, round.
>When this is done, then begin projecting it forward. You can transpose it -,
>if yes, how far? Which is its resistence? Can you move it as it is, or when
>moving it you need to change its profile (look how Sor and Villa-Lobos uses
>sequences)? This is the simplest kind of forwarding an idea - and it can
>still work, especially in forms which admit repetitions (like studies), but
>if the nature of your ideas does not call for such a simple treatment, then
>you have to go along other, and more difficult, trails...
>
form or manner may be elusive... IMHO, the piece may bring an organic
whole with itself, or it might just be there waiting for you to look
deeper into the material you are working and
ultimately/metaphorically/sensitively into the self/into the human
condition/ into the divine/ into the . . . OMMMM...
When everything works...
>> I laughed out loud at your description of the "beautiful effects, but
>> with no cause," concept.
>
>It is borrowed from Wagner. He said that about Meyerbeer, if I correctly
>recall, but I have taken this statement as a lesson in composition. My use
>of effects is extremely restrained, I seldom use even only harmonics.
My former composition teacher at University of New Orleans, Dr. Jerry
Sieg would say: "Special effects are supposed to be just that: Special
and an effect!"
>All of this is a wealth, of course, but using it musically, within the
>logic of a construction, along a true musical thought, is not easy. A
>compositional problem cannot be solved with an effect. An enormous
>percentage of guitar music is incredibily cheap, from this viewpoint.
Why I don't like many of the pieces of the repertoire many other
guitarists apparently do...
>But
>of course also the contrary problem can be found in our repertoire. Pieces
>which are well constructed on paper, but do not "sound" on the box. These
>are usually written by non guitarist composers. A simple rule: a piece
>written for guitar should sound on the guitar better than in any other
>instrument. A piano cannot challenge a guitar with a Villa-Lobos study. When
>your fellow the pianist or the harpsichordist can read your guitar piece
>making it more fluent and better sounding that you can do on the guitar, the
>composer has not accomplished his job.
Assuming a good guitarist and a good keyboardist. The tyranny of the
performer!
>Exactly. The greatest example of musical form are found in Beethoven. He
>never wrote a melody in the true sense of the word, his harmony has nothing
>special and his orchestration is often normal.
No, the gift of melody always eluded him... That, IMHO, has always
been the domain of the Italians!!! No false compliment to the Jewels
of your great countrymen!
>But what he does with the
>musical idea is absolutely genial: everything which happens in a piece of
>his is absolute, unavoidable, essential, stone engraved, and you feel that
>it couldn't go otherwise. But then you go back to the theme, and you see
>that it was nothing special: he invented everything starting from nothing.
Absolutely! Inevitable! A confrontation with the presence of a GENIUS
of the first waters!
>Study his piano Sonata op. 106 - Hammerklavier: only A God could do that.
ABSOLUTELY. Dr. Virginia Koch, also at UNO, many years ago, in her
Year long Beethoven Seminar, described/illuminated the Sonata op. 106
- Hammerklavier, to this humble student as a work that defied analysis
and I fear she was correct. What an amazing architectural wonder!
To my few students I have often reminded them that the root of the
word composition is from "putting together, assembling, etc. . ."
composition (kòm´pe-zîsh´en) noun
Abbr. comp.
1. a. The combining of distinct parts or elements to form a
whole. b. The manner in which such parts are combined or related. c.
General makeup: the changing composition of the electorate. d. The
result or product of composing; a mixture or compound.
2. Arrangement of artistic parts so as to form a unified whole.
3. a. The art or act of composing a musical or literary work. b.
A work of music, literature, or art, or its structure or organization.
4. A short essay, especially one written as an academic exercise.
[Middle English composicioun, from Old French composition, from Latin
compositio, composition-, from compositus, past participle of
componere, to put together. See component.]
Hard work indeed, composition.
Inspiration? Maybe in those quirky 3 or 4 notes, a chord gesture, but
the rest? HARD WORK! To which I must return...
NOTA BENE:
a great lesson in composition from Maestro Gilardino! Whatta privilege
to be able to participate. We are so fortunate!
Gracias, Maestro!
David Kotschessa
> Perhaps you have distorced your idea when writing it. If you can repeat a
> short profile in your mind, it exists. Try to fix it on paper with a simple
> note, do not go to the instrument. When a note is on paper, it is saved as
> it happened in your mind, and whatever happens when you attempt to make it
> sounding on the instrument, you will not miss it as it was originally.
True! What's funny is that I've encountered this even when what I
wrote down wasn't correct (ear training and reading problem). I wrote
down something that *looked* like what I heard - same shape, duration,
rythm. It was more firmly fixed in my mind. When I actually played
what I had written it was not what I had heard, and had to be
re-written. But by that point it was more firmly fixed in my mind.
Odd...
Probably neither was first (or both). That's the miracle of
creativity at work I think. The brain is this mess of nerves all
coiled and winding around each other, with thoughts that have no real
relation to one another being in close proximity. It's a real mess in
there! I think this is how we are able to create at all. At the
deepest level of thought these ideas swirl around each other without
our awareness, until we manage to grab hold of them... "GOTCHA!
Whoah! Where'd that come from?"