How to compose meaningful music, yet with daily routine
Markus Nyman
I am an enthusiastic but frustrated amateur composer. I mainly make
music to my own listening, although in the future I would like to
create music of some interest to others as well. I started studying
mediaeval and renaissance music theory and composition some 5 years
ago. Since then I have expanded on 17th century as well. During this
time I ended up in guitar as the medium, before which I to a
lessening extent created my music with the help of a computer.
During the past one and a half years I have repeatedly felt like
lacking something in my composition process. I will try to elaborate
on this in the following. I feel quite capable of composing short
pieces, say, 16 bars, two variations and an ending. However my skill
in planning the compositions beforehand, as well as bringing life to
them is quite lacking.
I have used fugue, variations, ground basses, isorhythm, chords versus
diminutions, centonisation, patterns such as prologue - narration -
confutations & refutations - epilogue, and other means as well. With
practice my melodies are now more logical and flowing than before.
Same applies to progressions of consonances and dissonances, or even
"chords", if you allow me this term.
However, all of the above means are something I would call
"structural". If we take an analogy in architecture, if there were a
building designed so solid and hard it could resist an atomic bomb
(which is however not the case with my counterpoint), yet could it
lack all and any aesthetic qualities. Furthermore, were there a flower
so sweet and fragrant it would attract gods from their heavens, yet
once picked up for inspection it would soon wither. I will not make
any more ridiculous examples lest I be carried away. My point here is,
that both quality and content are needed. Perhaps someone would call
these "logos" and "pathos", with pathos as the measure of content
and meaningfulness in music.
Sometimes feelings and emotions have helped me to find the spirit, and
they have carried me through the initial four, six or ten hours of
work. Sometimes I get a fresh musical idea, and enchanted and captured
by it I compose. However these accidents of nature happen not so
often, and it would not be good habit for a composer to rely on these.
If there be five such accidents during any given year, and three
hundred days during which I compose, there must be something more I
can do to give life and spirit to my creations. Even if not overtly
charming, there still needs to be some degree of attraction to a piece
of music. After these endless preludes I shall now proceed with more
specific questions to tickle your wit and understanding.
1) Which kind of method or approach could be used for planning a
musical piece with content and meaning, even though understood by two
listeners as having different meanings?
2) Which kind of method or approach could be used for making a musical
piece more visual? Someone once said the music of baroque resembles
speech, while romantic music resembles painting. This seems true to
me, although I cannot reason it due to my lack of knowledge concerning
the latter genre.
3) Let there be a situation where a composer is drawn by an idea or
feeling to compose. Likewise be there a situation where the composer
knowingly draws inspiration from a source of his choose. How to
cultivate the latter approach as the first must surely be more rare?
My strong assumption is that there are no exhaustive answers to these
questions. However there might be someone who has perhaps gone through
these problems oneself, and since then by time and dedication solved
them. These people I address, as well as people with similar
experiences. This to help lessen the amount of my frustration and
increase my tolerable musical outcome in both quality and quantity.
Respectfully,
Markus Nyman
Finland
Dr.Matt
can ignore them as your skills will fill in for you.
Time to concentrate on building to and sustaining a climax.
Here's an essay on this topic which I wrote for this newsgroup
a long time ago: http://www.cosmoedu.net/DoctorFields/1.htm
The people who are hosting it have taken it upon themselves to
screw up the formatting, but the content is still there.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Samuel Vriezen
> 1) Which kind of method or approach could be used for planning a
> musical piece with content and meaning, even though understood by two
> listeners as having different meanings?
Do you think there is a 'method' involved? What 'method' would you use
if you want to mean something in using natural language? You just say
what you need to say, don't you?
> 2) Which kind of method or approach could be used for making a musical
> piece more visual? Someone once said the music of baroque resembles
> speech, while romantic music resembles painting. This seems true to
> me, although I cannot reason it due to my lack of knowledge concerning
> the latter genre.
Such maxims are fun but ultimately not very helpful.
> 3) Let there be a situation where a composer is drawn by an idea or
> feeling to compose. Likewise be there a situation where the composer
> knowingly draws inspiration from a source of his choose. How to
> cultivate the latter approach as the first must surely be more rare?
>
> My strong assumption is that there are no exhaustive answers to these
> questions. However there might be someone who has perhaps gone through
> these problems oneself, and since then by time and dedication solved
> them. These people I address, as well as people with similar
> experiences. This to help lessen the amount of my frustration and
> increase my tolerable musical outcome in both quality and quantity.
Okay, I'd say it takes years and years of being astutely critical of
everything and everybody musical, most of all of yourself and what you
do and want.
--
samuel
free.concerten.fr
Drew Krause
Take a melody you like and use it as a cantus-firmus for an entire
movement. Let a verrrry slow version of the the melody unfold over the
entire movement, in one voice or shared between voices.
That's your structure. Now everything else is up to you -- harmonic
language, rhythm, sectional contrasts, etc. Work hard to make every
moment 'count' -- if not "inspired" (as you put it), at least
contributing a sense of direction. As you work, monitor how & when the
next phrase of the c.f. would most logically appear. This may (or may
not) provide a way for you to focus on the large vs. small dialectic in
your composing -- events can determine sectional choices and vice versa.
For models, you might look at masses by Obrecht and some of his
contemporaries -- look at the method, not the language.
Hope this helps.
dt king
news:bh8p9l$7hu$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> This may or may not answer your question, but I offer it as an exercise:
>
> Take a melody you like and use it as a cantus-firmus for an entire
> movement. Let a verrrry slow version of the the melody unfold over the
> entire movement, in one voice or shared between voices.
Oh, I like that. I'll give it a try.
dtk
dt king
news:759e0592.03081...@posting.google.com...
> Greetings, rec.music.compose.
>
> I am an enthusiastic but frustrated amateur composer. I mainly make
> music to my own listening, although in the future I would like to
> create music of some interest to others as well. I started studying
> mediaeval and renaissance music theory and composition some 5 years
> ago. Since then I have expanded on 17th century as well. During this
> time I ended up in guitar as the medium, before which I to a
> lessening extent created my music with the help of a computer.
If all else fails, take heart that in another two or three years you will
have expanded into the Blues.
dtk
David Sherman
mkn...@gmx.net (Markus Nyman) wrote:
>Greetings, rec.music.compose.
[....]
Have you considered studying with a composition teacher for a little
while?
What you're describing is not uncommon to inexperienced or novice
composers. A good composition instructor will help you loosen up a little,
and help you break out of the "cages" you seem to be building for yourself.
Beyond that, there might be a couple of things you can try.
It's often hard to pick up where you left off and continue writing your piece
from the exact moment you left off. But, if that's what you want to do,
you
might try singing your piece from the beginning all the way through to the
point where you stopped. That will give you a feeling for the flow of the
piece. By the time you've sung to the point where you stopped, your piece
should be fresh in your mind, and you might already have some thoughts
on how to proceed.
Another thing is to realize that Rome wasn't built in a day. It takes a
lot of
work over a long period of time to complete a long work. And there's
nothing that says that you have to write your piece in the order in which
it
will be played. If you have no thoughts for what follows what you've
already written, set it aside. Work on a different part of the piece. Or
on
another movement.
Working on a section that follows what you've already written will very likely
give you some good ideas of how the previous music will flow into this new
section.
Also, don't judge how successful your writing session was by how many
measures or pages you wrote. Sometimes you might sit and write for
hours without a measure of new music to shwo for it. But if your thinking
was constructive, it will pay dividends much later.
Boulnager reported how Stravinsky used to work every day from 5:00 -
11:00 AM. He didn't always have something to show for it, but he worked
for six hours and that was sometimes good enough.
Finally, and I don't know if others here have commented on this, but you've
seemed to drastically limit yourself stylistically. There's a universe
that you seem to be avoiding. This might be a good time for you to start
listening and analyzing more contemporary works. Your problem might
be that you're trying to stylistically imitate works from the 17th century
and
before, and in doing so, closing yourself off from a great many happy
musical possibilities.
---------------------------POST VIA--------------------------------
news://nntp.xusenet.com http://www.xusenet.com
===================================================================
knud
>by it I compose. However these accidents of nature happen not so
>often, and it would not be good habit for a composer to rely on these.
It would be a great habit if you never run out of ideas! Composing
without ideas is the main problem with most music. People aren't inspired but
they go on doing it anyway and end up with dreck. Don't take that to mean a
composer with a constructionist work method is not inspired. It really has
little to do with composing process. You're better off waiting, saving up stuff
you KNOW is superb rather than forcing it, developing it when you have enough
stuff to use. Forcing inspiration is a special skill that not many people have.
>If there be five such accidents during any given year, and three
>hundred days during which I compose, there must be something more I
>can do to give life and spirit to my creations.
Have more sex?
>1) Which kind of method or approach could be used for planning a
>musical piece with content and meaning, even though understood by two
>listeners as having different meanings?
There are as many different methods as there are composers. Some people
compose slow like Beethoven and end up with dreck. Some people compose fast
like Mozart and end up with dreck. Some people fart it out and end up with
genius. It's impossible to predict or apply standards.
>2) Which kind of method or approach could be used for making a musical
>piece more visual?
Uh... get a projecter and show some stuff in sync with the music? You
could always take up painting and forget this weird "sound" junk that only us
dorky ear-centric composer society rejects care about.
>Someone once said the music of baroque resembles
>speech, while romantic music resembles painting.
Someone once said something really, really stupid.
>This seems true to
>me, although I cannot reason it due to my lack of knowledge concerning
>the latter genre.
Oh well, if you can talk you can understand "Baroque" and if you can
paint you can understand "Romantic". Yeah, that explains everything!
>3) Let there be a situation where a composer is drawn by an idea or
>feeling to compose. Likewise be there a situation where the composer
>knowingly draws inspiration from a source of his choose. How to
>cultivate the latter approach as the first must surely be more rare?
If this is what you're into I reccomend some intense study of the huge
library of "Romantic" era programe music.
>My strong assumption is that there are no exhaustive answers to these
>questions. However there might be someone who has perhaps gone through
>these problems oneself, and since then by time and dedication solved
>them. These people I address, as well as people with similar
>experiences. This to help lessen the amount of my frustration and
>increase my tolerable musical outcome in both quality and quantity.
My advice is to forget about quantity and concentrate on quality. if
you ened up with a bumper crop that's find. If you dry up for years, don't
panic. Some of our greatest composers have had down stretches of many years
only to come back with something really powerful. If you need something to do
in the meantime, refine your orchestrations, make adaptions, make hack music
for fun or profit. If you sit around and try to force inspiration you may
restrict it's flow. Just don't over-think too much.
blahblah
knud
>composers. A good composition instructor will help you loosen up a little,
> and help you break out of the "cages" you seem to be building for yourself.
David has a strong point. making your *own* music is much more important
than trying to be someone else, or to fit any particular pre-defined criteria.
> And there's
>nothing that says that you have to write your piece in the order in which
>it
>will be played.
Many composers work on a piece in random order building it up to it's
finished form. Beethoven is the most famous example of this. Don't be afraid to
rewrite and worry parts like a bone. It's a lot of work but nobody ever said
that quality came easily. Cheesy books like to say things about how composing
was "effortless" for this or that composer. Keep in mind that these assumptions
are made by people who aren't composers. Even the most facile composer works.
It's just that composing is a particularily pleasurable kind of work!
>Working on a section that follows what you've already written will very
>likely
> give you some good ideas of how the previous music will flow into this new
>section.
And when that approach fails, come at it from a totally different angle to
shake things up! Avoid the routine! Unity in diversity!
blahblah
Al Smith
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.doesnt...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3f37cafa$0$49099$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Markus Nyman wrote:
>
> > 1) Which kind of method or approach could be used for planning a
> > musical piece with content and meaning, even though understood by two
> > listeners as having different meanings?
>
> Do you think there is a 'method' involved? What 'method' would you use
> if you want to mean something in using natural language? You just say
> what you need to say, don't you?
>
Do you think they are comparable?
I can play the piano a little, but I am totally hopeless with a
paint brush.
Joe Roberts
You have tons of good suggestions already in this thread, ranging from
practical to inspirational.
I can't add very much, but hopefully this will help. Two parts to it.
First, don't force yourself to compose in a linear path on one composition.
You know you'll agonize for awhile over the unknown reason why your
inspiration for the next passage doesn't work its way out into notes in the
score. Don't sweat it. A little like a mystery novel, you'll understand
earlier themes better after you've gotten to later ones. Write the parts
that come naturally to you, be moved by writing them. That will take you
back, eventually, to the earlier parts which were hanging you up. You'll
fill the earilier parts out, and you'll make them work into the entire
feeling of the work.
A corollary of this is: feel free to have several unfinished compositions
going at once. Don't put off work on one because you're having troubles you
must "solve" on another. Broadening your compositional world can give you
its own kind of ideas and inspiration for each individual piece you're
doing. Besides, you need to have some feeling of satisfaction, from time to
time, when one or another piece is starting to 'feel good' to you, as
opposed to being stuck and frustrated at length in an "unsolvable" problem
with only one piece. Life is varied and diverse. Each part of it educates
and inspires for another part. So with diverse musical work.
Second, don't delay or postpone writing (or at least sketching) when an
inspiration comes. If it comes at 2:00 AM, get up and write it down. Don't
imagine you'll remember it at 7:00 AM. You won't. Something will suffer,
ranging from your bedmate to your daytime job. You'll have to work that
out. But few things are worse than a lost inspiration. If it's right,
write it down.
Best of luck. Hoping it helps,
Joe
Samuel Vriezen
A question of working hard. Unless you have some sort of brain damage,
there is no reason why you couldn't learn to use a paint brush.
--
samuel
free.concerten.fr
Markus Nyman
> Here's an essay on this topic which I wrote for this newsgroup
From www.cosmoedu.net/DoctorFields/1.htm:
> 2. Do something assertive at the beginning of your piece. This
> needn't be loud or sharp, but if you start too soft or mild in the
> hopes of then gradually cranking the intensity up, you run the risk
> of failing to grab the listener's attention.
This seems to somewhat match the idea in baroque musical rhetorics,
called "exordium", that is, an introductory part intended for grabbing
the listener's attention before moving on to more specific topics.
However I may have studied Harri Wessmann's yet unpublished treatise
on the subject of musical rhetorics with emphasis on the wrong things
or perhaps I only plain misunderstood this part.
Although perhaps based on a slightly differing approach, the curves
you have drawn, and also the audio files included seem illuminating.
I am aware this is not the rhetoric approach though. I will proceed
with a study on the topics expounded to test my skill and capability
in actualizing these ideas.
From www.cosmoedu.net/DoctorFields/1.htm:
> 3. In works of longer than 30 seconds duration [...] comes anywhere
> from 60% of the way through the piece to right at the end. Otherwise
> you run a terrible risk of having your listeners get bored with the
> gradual denoument of your work.
To my shame I will have to say this very topic of intensity building
up towards the ending and then falling more rapidly, has been known
by myself for a long time now. For some reason, however, I have not
applied it but sparingly, with no apparent reason. There actually has
been growing intensity in the music, but this mainly due to other
musical ideas and devices such as diminution and textural variation.
But now to a further question, to elaborate on the topic of musical
structure, initiated by the aforementioned article and also my past
agonies with a series of pieces performed in Helsinki Conservatory
last year:
Would you say the same pattern relates to series of compositions as
well? Furthermore, there are most certainly alternate approaches to
the question, excluding dance series, opera and intermezzi. Which kind
of approaches of composing series in three, four, five or even more
parts? And if very many, if shorter, parts are involved, how shall a
sense of contrast, yet with some unity be kept up through this series?
---
Markus Nyman
Markus Nyman
> > Which kind of method or approach could be used for planning a
> > musical piece with content and meaning, even though understood by
> > two listeners as having different meanings?
Samuel Vriezen:
> Do you think there is a 'method' involved? What 'method' would you
> use if you want to mean something in using natural language? You
> just say what you need to say, don't you?
This is the reason for my paraphrase "approach". I must say here in
natural language too, we may have obstructions of expression. There
may be ideas or feelings we wish to express, yet these remain
unexpressed due to lack of experience or confidence or other reason.
Also, in a play there are actors, who are excepted to express such
ideas and feelings that are however not their own but ones of the
imaginary character. In this case there is a need to place oneself
inside the head of the imaginary character and try to understand the
underlying motivations and emotions in order to express them.
However music seems to me more indirect as although it communicates
feeling in a more direct level, the expression is in a more indirect
level (that is, the feeling is not communicated in relation to a
dramatic situation or another person more or less well acquainted;
except in opera, which is however still as dependent on the musical
means).
I wrote:
> > 2) Which kind of method or approach could be used for making a musical
> > piece more visual? Someone once said the music of baroque resembles
> > speech, while romantic music resembles painting. This seems true to
> > me, although I cannot reason it due to my lack of knowledge concerning
> > the latter genre.
Samuel Vriezen:
> Such maxims are fun but ultimately not very helpful.
Yesterday, after writing my message I thought about the issue and
reasoned the visuality of music might have something to do with
chordal colour, as opposed to the more contrapunctal approach.
Perhaps we must disregard orchestral colour and such at this point,
as, at least in my case, the discussion concerns mainly solo works
(which I deem somewhat challenging exactly due to the resticted
variation in timbre).
---
Markus Nyman
Markus Nyman
> > > Which kind of method or approach could be used for planning a
> > > musical piece with content and meaning, even though understood
> > > by two listeners as having different meanings?
Samuel Vriezen:
> > Do you think there is a 'method' involved? What 'method' would
> > you use if you want to mean something in using natural language?
> > You just say what you need to say, don't you?
Al Smith:
> Do you think they are comparable?
> I can play the piano a little, but I am totally hopeless with a
> paint brush.
I think an analogy can be drawn between both speech and music, or
painting and music, or architecture and music, or even nature and
music and so forth. For example, we may equate parts of a speech
to the parts of a musical composition. Or more intuitively, we can
make associatons even to colours. For example some piece of music
may seem to have the blue hue of an evening, some has the fiery
red, some black. Yet I agree, perhaps knowing one art often helps
but slightly in the other.
---
Markus Nyman
Markus Nyman
> Have you considered studying with a composition teacher for a
> little while? What you're describing is not uncommon to
> inexperienced or novice composers. A good composition instructor
> will help you loosen up a little, and help you break out of the
> "cages" you seem to be building for yourself.
I have this wish of finding an instructor deeply rooted in me; albeit
there are both social and financial hindrances to this. Firstly,
I have limited social network in the area of music, which in practice
means there is no-one to recommend a teacher to me, or vice versa. I
also live away from the bigger cities where most of the musical
activities take place. 40 to 50 euros for travel expenses, plus
additional money paid in return for the instruction seems quite big
to me. I have no car and I am already financially ruined, if I may
put it in these words.
David Sherman:
> It's often hard to pick up where you left off and continue writing
> your piece from the exact moment you left off. But, if that's what
> you want to do, you might try singing your piece from the beginning
> all the way through to the point where you stopped. That will give
> you a feeling for the flow of the piece. By the time you've sung
> to the point where you stopped, your piece should be fresh in your
> mind, and you might already have some thoughts on how to proceed.
This is already one of my procedures, although there are others who
may benefit from your advice. Thank you.
David Sherman:
> Finally, and I don't know if others here have commented on this, but
> you've seemed to drastically limit yourself stylistically. There's
> a universe that you seem to be avoiding. This might be a good time
> for you to start listening and analyzing more contemporary works.
> Your problem might be that you're trying to stylistically imitate
> works from the 17th century and before, and in doing so, closing
> yourself off from a great many happy musical possibilities.
There are some pieces with more contemporary style, and also modular
synthesizer experiments, although they may not count here. You are
probably right in that one should not enclose himself in a small
cage of stylistic limitations. On the other hand I cannot but
admire the utterly hard and cold madrigals of Carlo Gesualdo,
or the Palladian creations of early monody. (Palladio was a
renaissance architect the style of whose buildings come to my mind
while hearing some of this music). And there seems to be some
hidden power buried beneath the endless diminutions of some baroque
harpsichord music. I must admit that, what comes to music theory,
I am rooted in the past. But there was something I had to choose as
the starting point, and develop my skills in at least that area to
have a firm basis to build on. Perhaps studying some more contemporay
music would be benefical though, as it might broaden my perspective.
---
Markus Nyman
Markus Nyman
> > What you're describing is not uncommon to inexperienced or novice
> > composers. A good composition instructor will help you loosen up
> > a little, and help you break out of the "cages" you seem to be
> > building for yourself.
Knud:
> David has a strong point. making your *own* music is much more
> important than trying to be someone else, or to fit any particular
> pre-defined criteria.
If we are speaking about the musical, or stylistic period 1400-1700 or
whatever, I could argue that composers of that period were somewhat
limited by the conventions of their own time, yet on the other hand
the sought after freedom and originality must have been present with
these composers as well. They have also been able to develop their own
musical style and transgress the boundaries of the style of their time.
According to my own experiences the worst or my music is usually a
result of a theoretical, limiting point of view. I would say in
these cases I have used my compositions to prove a point, rather than
to acquire something lively, painful or pleasurable.
Yet, I have to say after I showed a piece with a feeling I could
clearly perceive, and style more original than the others, my
guitarist friend deemed it not contrapunctal enough. I was
disheartened by this, although inside me I knew the style was most
anti-contrapunctal, yet logical. I was quite depressed for months,
returning to my old scribbling habits. A year afterwards I looked at
the piece again, and although somewhat unpolished, it still had the
same charm left in it.
This is not to blame or say anything against the skill, judgement or
knowledge of the guitarist. It might be my composition, or the
incompability of taste, introducing my composition at a wrong moment,
or any other reason. However I still have hard time showing my
creations to him.
---
Markus Nyman
Markus Nyman
> > Sometimes I get a fresh musical idea, and enchanted and captured
> > by it I compose. However these accidents of nature happen not so
> > often, and it would not be good habit for a composer to rely on these.
Knud:
> It would be a great habit if you never run out of ideas! Composing
> without ideas is the main problem with most music. People aren't inspired but
> they go on doing it anyway and end up with dreck. Don't take that to mean a
> composer with a constructionist work method is not inspired. [...]
> Forcing inspiration is a special skill that not many people have.
I will have to agree in this, as I have used such constructionist
approach as well with results
quite pleasant to my ear. Yet sometimes the freshness is gone and
there is a need to break out
of the mold I have built myself.
I wrote:
> > If there be five such accidents during any given year, and three
> > hundred days during which I compose, there must be something more I
> > can do to give life and spirit to my creations.
Knud:
> Have more sex?
This is slightly off-topic, but I can only say that some of the
greatest inspirations have shown
up during my strictest periods of celibacy.
I wrote:
> > 1) Which kind of method or approach could be used for planning a
> > musical piece with content and meaning, even though understood by two
> > listeners as having different meanings?
Knud:
> There are as many different methods as there are composers. [...] It's
> impossible to predict or apply standards.
Yet I would argue that if there is a method, something must surely be
learnable from it, although it is true that standards can sometimes
dry the music up, and concerning meaningful music, there can and will
be no standard at all.
I wrote:
> > Someone once said the music of baroque resembles
> > speech, while romantic music resembles painting.
Knud:
> Someone once said something really, really stupid.
As far as I know, there has actually been a trend in the baroque era
to equate music with
speech. There are numerous classifications of musical events and their
resemblances to rhetoric
methods. Whole musical pieces can be built according to the rhetoric
guidelines presented in
those times. For example different parts of a speech or book can be
equated with parts of a
musical composition. Likewise the melodic and harmonic content is to
be drawn from the spirit of
the lyrics in vocal music.
On the other hand, emphasis on chordal and orchestral(not an option in
my case, however) colour
seems to create more visual associations, at least in my mind. I have
also heard some electronic
music, which is very visual and thought-inspiring, but hard to take as
rhetoric in any
discernible way.
I wrote:
> > My strong assumption is that there are no exhaustive answers to these
> > questions. [...] However there might be someone who has perhaps gone
> > through these problems oneself [...] These people I address [...]
> > This to help lessen the amount of my frustration and increase my
> > tolerable musical outcome in both quality and quantity.
Knud:
> My advice is to forget about quantity and concentrate on quality.
Naturally, when the quality is higher, the amount of tolerable musical
outcome is higher, even though the total amount of musical outcome
might be lower. That is, I can only agree. And furthermore there are
great many shorter pieces that are more satisfactory than the longer
ones, and vice versa.
Knud:
> If you sit around and try to force inspiration you may restrict it's
> flow. Just don't over-think too much.
Over-thinking is my problem in many areas of life, including music.
---
Markus Nyman
Markus Nyman
> I can't add very much, but hopefully this will help. Two parts to
> it. First, don't force yourself to compose in a linear path on one
> composition. You know you'll agonize for awhile over the unknown
> reason why your inspiration for the next passage doesn't work its
> way out into notes in the score. Don't sweat it. A little like a
> mystery novel, you'll understand earlier themes better after you've
> gotten to later ones. Write the parts that come naturally to you,
> be moved by writing them. That will take you back, eventually, to
> the earlier parts which were hanging you up. You'll fill the earilier
> parts out, and you'll make them work into the entire feeling of the
> work.
This sounds like a reasonable approach. I would also add that I
have also often lost inspiration after many hours of work just
because of demanding too much accuracy on the parts already written.
Yet sometimes making that "perfect" little patch of music has helped
me measures and measures ahead.
Joe Roberts:
> A corollary of this is: feel free to have several unfinished
> compositions going at once. Don't put off work on one because
> you're having troubles you must "solve" on another.
My uncle has a hobby of building realistic miniature models of
automobiles. The work can take weeks and weeks, and he said
he applies similar procedure to his model building, after which
I decided to try same kind of procedure. However I feel quite
uninspired by great many of the compositions of my produce,
and they will be set aside and left as they are. However after
a year or little more my musical thinking has changed enough
to allow the old pieces some freshness. Some time ago I finished
some of these older ones, or forging fragments of them into whole
compositions, which I deemed quite rewarding.
Joe Roberts:
> Broadening your compositional world can give you its own kind of
> ideas and inspiration for each individual piece you're doing.
> Besides, you need to have some feeling of satisfaction, from time to
> time, when one or another piece is starting to 'feel good' to you, as
> opposed to being stuck and frustrated at length in an "unsolvable"
> problem with only one piece. Life is varied and diverse. Each part
> of it educates and inspires for another part. So with diverse
> musical work.
I notice some singing and playing little flamenco have both given
some freshness to my musical thinking. Same goes with my experiments
with more modern ballroom dance music. On the opposite, working to
many principles and doctrines I have fabricated, usually tends to
lead into uninspired works and hours of frustration. However
researching the new oppoturnities and the act of fabricating these
doctrines itself seems quite benefical to my understanding to the
music.
---
Markus Nyman
knud
>
>This is slightly off-topic, but I can only say that some of the
>greatest inspirations have shown
>up during my strictest periods of celibacy.
Getting dumped works for me, or horrible unrequited love. I've been
tempted to get dumped or cook up some unrequited love on purpose when my work
ethic slips. The inspirational part is easy for me but work ethic is a constant
struggle. I let whole movements linger in my mind for years and years until I
forget little bits of them.
>As far as I know, there has actually been a trend in the baroque era
>to equate music with
>speech...
>....music, which is very visual and thought-inspiring, but hard to take as
>rhetoric in any...
I know that a lot of people are very fond of extra-musical association and
I'm not knocking their subjective experience. I'm an almost stupidly
audio-centric person so I'm much happier just getting deep into the sound world
and not worrying about the real world. I'll be honest here. I feel that music
is the only big-time art we have. All the great paintings and literature in the
world put together, however awesome, must bow to the might of a Beethoven's
9th. Sadly humans are by nature visually oriented so music gets the least
respect despite being the art that requires the most inflated kahonas. Music is
a door to the waking dream world, the infinite unreality that we may or may not
go to in some other form. Who knows what the indefinable nether-juice is. Some
people try to get it through drugs but it's not the same. In music we can rise
above our drab little physical world and touch the infinite.
>And furthermore there are
>great many shorter pieces that are more satisfactory than the longer
>ones, and vice versa.
Some people have only momentary genius. You need to have a "mental army"
to bring out the big guns. Some people aren't made for it, so they concentrate
on songs and short pieces. There is nothing wrong with this just a matter of
applying gifts where they are applicable.
>Over-thinking is my problem in many areas of life, including music.
Hey, in one of my other lives I play rock music and let me tell you, these
guys don't think at all. Over thinking is much preferable to that!
I have an idea to consider that may be useful... Don't over think the
composing but instead direct the obsessivness to the arrangement and voice
leading. Arranging is a great way to spend surplus boredom time because plain
skill and ingenuity are just as important as imagination, if not more. There
are people who have developed the ability to do fantastic arrangements but
can't compose a lick of anything!
blahblah
knud
>as, at least in my case, the discussion concerns mainly solo works
>(which I deem somewhat challenging exactly due to the resticted
>variation in timbre).
It's difficult because of the strict limitations. You open up virtuosic
possibilities with solo works but show-offy stuff is nearly always boring. I
would say coming up with a compelling unnacompanied solo work is a difficult
task unless you're dealing with instruments that supply their own harmony such
as piano or guitar. Even there you're severely limited in timbre resource.
blahblah
knud
>there are both social and financial hindrances to this. Firstly,
>I have limited social network in the area of music, which in practice
>means there is no-one to recommend a teacher to me, or vice versa. I
>also live away from the bigger cities where most of the musical
>activities take place. 40 to 50 euros for travel expenses, plus
>additional money paid in return for the instruction seems quite big
>to me. I have no car and I am already financially ruined, if I may
>put it in these words.
Welcome to the life of a modern composer!
blahblah
knud
>clearly perceive, and style more original than the others, my
>guitarist friend deemed it not contrapunctal enough.
I hate to say it but guitarists are second only to drummers on the
musician-stupidity scale! In other words ignore your friend. He's just jealous.
P.S. I am a guitarist.
>I was quite depressed for months,
>returning to my old scribbling habits.
Woah, if you want to compose get used to rejection. People love most of
all to laugh at or ignore your lifes work. If your pals rejection of one small
piece is hard for you get ready for suicide when you unleash your epic 3 hour
mass only to be lambasted. I'll tell you right now that critics are and always
have been retards.
>However I still have hard time showing my
>creations to him.
He doesn't sound real supportive. More importantly he doesn't sound real
smart if he bashes your piece because it's not "contrapuntal" enough. Who says
every piece needs to be contrapuntal? Ignore this guy! Better yet write a
strictly homophonic piece and dedicate it to him!
blahblah
Alain Naigeon
759e0592.03081...@posting.google.com...
>
> If we are speaking about the musical, or stylistic period 1400-1700 or
> whatever, I could argue that composers of that period were somewhat
> limited by the conventions of their own time,
I've sometimes had the impression that some contemporary music
has been written with the constraint of avoiding ancient conventions ;
but... isn't that a convention too, after all ?
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Strasbourg, France
Michael Mossey
A question: what
benefit have you already gotten from writing music, apart
from writing "good enough" music or taking it to the places
you want to go? I'm also an amateur composer doing a little
bit of composition in my spare time, and I've noticed that,
although I don't feel that I've developed much technique,
I enjoy listening to classical music more than ever before.
My attempts to compose, regardless of the quality of the
output, have enhanced my life tremendously. Perhaps you have
noticed something similar; perhaps you enjoy listening to
these mediaeval and renaissance composers more than ever
before. Or perhaps you enjoy some other aspect of composition
independently of the quality of the output.
The purpose of this question is two-fold. First, you
can benefit from finding the enjoyable parts of the process
or enjoyable results that are available right now. Second,
many people find that one
way of improving the quality of work is, paradoxically, to
make less of a deal about it---to work steadily without undue
concern for where that is going.
My next suggestion echoes others on this thread: it's okay
not to do everything at once. For example, you are asking how
to make a piece both structurally sound and aesthetically pleasing,
suggesting that you've written pieces that fit one of these
categories but not both. Well, you are probably doing okay.
It is perfectly fine to write
pieces that get one thing right but fail somewhere else. The
fact that you have written pieces that are different
in their strengths is encouraging. That means your attention
is on all the variables; time and experience will bring them
together into one piece.
I like the word "process." This means simply a sequence
of actions or ideas, often referring to a creative or work
activity (the "creative process" or the "engineering process").
We can find processes in your composition on different time
scales. On the largest scale, you are learning something from
each piece you write. That is your overall learning process.
On a smaller scale, you go through a process in creating an
individual piece: you get ideas, you assemble them in various
ways, you also learn about that piece (so you have a smaller-
scale learning process going on during the writing of the piece),
and you eventually arrive at a more-or-less complete piece.
Above I mentioned the idea of "not doing everything at once."
I'm going to restate this idea in a form that uses the word
process: "Allow your process to progress through intermediate
stages, giving yourself a great deal of permission and freedom
to write incomplete or 'broken' music as part of intermediate
stages."
This is another way of saying "you don't have to do everything
at once." But let me make it more concrete.
Let's take the example of your piece that you felt was expressive,
yet was criticized by the guitarist for lacking counterpoint.
Let's assume for a moment that there is some truth to the comment;
that indeed you wish to make the piece more sophisticated in its
counterpoint (which may not be the case at all). Instead of regarding
this piece as a failure, you could regard it as one stage in a larger
process. You learned something from writing it; now you might be
able to take some of your favorite material from that piece, find
some more countrapuntal accompanying parts, and write a new piece.
Another poster suggested working through a piece without undue
concern for getting each section right from the beginning, noting
that you will learn as you go, and you can revise earlier sections.
That's the same idea I'm promoting here.
Right now I'm playing with the idea of writing a whole piece with
greatly simplified materials in order to establish its structure
from the beginning. On subsequent passes, I revise the material
to contain much more variety and interest. You might try something
like this: write a piece that is a series of slow chords. Get
the structure to your liking (which hopefully is easier because
the material is simpler), and then see if you can elaborate by
inserting new notes. Feel free to change any of the chords you
first wrote, too. This is not a rigid process; the idea is that
you get a feel for the overall direction of the piece, then write
details with that feeling in mind.
I think I want to close by restating: ask yourself what you already
enjoy now. You don't have to wait for those rewards.
Regards,
Mike
Markus Nyman
> > I was quite depressed for months,
> > returning to my old scribbling habits.
Knud:
> Woah, if you want to compose get used to rejection. People love
> most of all to laugh at or ignore your lifes work. If your pals
> rejection of one small piece is hard for you get ready for suicide
> when you unleash your epic 3 hour mass only to be lambasted. I'll
> tell you right now that critics are and always have been retards.
You might be right about many of the critics. There are mythological
trollin creatures, called "Yakshas" in sanskrit. A yaksha is reputed
to have a tongue sharper than a knife or sword made of any other
substance. Some people are like these "divine critics". But one has
to live with such people. However my friend is a positively minded
person who just had a bad day. At that time there was no other critic
to my work which must have amplified my musical shame. And after all,
he was preconditioned to me composing in the renaissance/baroque style
and judging from the duration and manner of his musical analysis,
I can only deem this a result of practice stress (which he quite likely
had at the moment) combined with the wrong moment of showing my music
to him in an unclear handwriting.
I am quite sensitive to critique, which may have it's good point in
that nothing too unfinished will slip out of my hands. However perhaps
I should not take other's comments too personally. It's the composer's
ego that comes in the way, gets hurt and thus should be made smaller.
Knud:
> He doesn't sound real supportive. More importantly he
> doesn't sound real smart if he bashes your piece because
> it's not "contrapuntal" enough. Who says every piece needs
> to be contrapuntal?
> Ignore this guy! Better yet write a
> strictly homophonic piece and dedicate it to him!
As I said, he was excepting something else, and analysed the piece
from that viewpoint. Less embarrassed had I been, I could have played
it to him myself, which would perhaps have made the piece more
comprehensible to him.
And really, I have actually written a strictly homophonic piece, which
I intend to show him in the first occassion. However I am quite
certain it suits his personality and style very well. Probably he will
rather like it than reject it altogether.
---
Markus Nyman
Markus Nyman
> > If we are speaking about the musical, or stylistic period 1400-1700 or
> > whatever, I could argue that composers of that period were somewhat
> > limited by the conventions of their own time,
Alain Naigeon:
> I've sometimes had the impression that some contemporary music
> has been written with the constraint of avoiding ancient conventions ;
> but... isn't that a convention too, after all ?
I would call that a convention. I have also encountered during my own
learning process something I would call avoiding modern conventions.
I think this conservativism should not be taken to excess lest it will
limit the depth of my expression. However I would not call composition
of "early music" conservativism, only the way I am sometimes doing it.
---
Markus Nyman
Al Smith
Geez, must be brain damage.
But there are a lot of folks that wouldn't be surprised at all.
Dr.Matt
Markus Nyman <mkn...@gmx.net> wrote:
>I wrote:
>> > If we are speaking about the musical, or stylistic period 1400-1700 or
>> > whatever, I could argue that composers of that period were somewhat
>> > limited by the conventions of their own time,
>
>Alain Naigeon:
>> I've sometimes had the impression that some contemporary music
>> has been written with the constraint of avoiding ancient conventions ;
>> but... isn't that a convention too, after all ?
Yes. But really, only Debussy ever practiced it in its pure form.
In order to practice it, you must be a master of the old conventions--
and Debussy was a top student at Conservatoire.
>I would call that a convention. I have also encountered during my own
>learning process something I would call avoiding modern conventions.
Indeed, it often gets to the point where the expressive devices in
Mozart's work are avoided as too "unintelligible".
>I think this conservativism should not be taken to excess lest it will
>limit the depth of my expression. However I would not call composition
>of "early music" conservativism, only the way I am sometimes doing it.
In the unexposed ears of those who have only heard pop music, Macheaut
and Solage are "atonal".
>---
>
>Markus Nyman
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
charlie
>Greetings, rec.music.compose.
>
>I am an enthusiastic but frustrated amateur composer. I mainly make
>music to my own listening, although in the future I would like to
>create music of some interest to others as well. I started studying
>mediaeval and renaissance music theory and composition some 5 years
>ago. Since then I have expanded on 17th century as well. During this
>time I ended up in guitar as the medium, before which I to a
>lessening extent created my music with the help of a computer.
>
>During the past one and a half years I have repeatedly felt like
>lacking something in my composition process. I will try to elaborate
>on this in the following. I feel quite capable of composing short
>pieces, say, 16 bars, two variations and an ending. However my skill
>in planning the compositions beforehand, as well as bringing life to
>them is quite lacking.
>
>I have used fugue, variations, ground basses, isorhythm, chords versus
>diminutions, centonisation, patterns such as prologue - narration -
>confutations & refutations - epilogue, and other means as well. With
>practice my melodies are now more logical and flowing than before.
>Same applies to progressions of consonances and dissonances, or even
>"chords", if you allow me this term.
>
>However, all of the above means are something I would call
>"structural". If we take an analogy in architecture, if there were a
>building designed so solid and hard it could resist an atomic bomb
>(which is however not the case with my counterpoint), yet could it
>lack all and any aesthetic qualities. Furthermore, were there a flower
>so sweet and fragrant it would attract gods from their heavens, yet
>once picked up for inspection it would soon wither. I will not make
>any more ridiculous examples lest I be carried away. My point here is,
>that both quality and content are needed. Perhaps someone would call
>these "logos" and "pathos", with pathos as the measure of content
>and meaningfulness in music.
>
>Sometimes feelings and emotions have helped me to find the spirit, and
>they have carried me through the initial four, six or ten hours of
>work. Sometimes I get a fresh musical idea, and enchanted and captured
>by it I compose. However these accidents of nature happen not so
>often, and it would not be good habit for a composer to rely on these.
>
>If there be five such accidents during any given year, and three
>hundred days during which I compose, there must be something more I
>can do to give life and spirit to my creations. Even if not overtly
>charming, there still needs to be some degree of attraction to a piece
>of music. After these endless preludes I shall now proceed with more
>specific questions to tickle your wit and understanding.
>
>1) Which kind of method or approach could be used for planning a
>musical piece with content and meaning, even though understood by two
>listeners as having different meanings?
>
>2) Which kind of method or approach could be used for making a musical
>piece more visual? Someone once said the music of baroque resembles
>speech, while romantic music resembles painting. This seems true to
>me, although I cannot reason it due to my lack of knowledge concerning
>the latter genre.
>
>3) Let there be a situation where a composer is drawn by an idea or
>feeling to compose. Likewise be there a situation where the composer
>knowingly draws inspiration from a source of his choose. How to
>cultivate the latter approach as the first must surely be more rare?
>
>My strong assumption is that there are no exhaustive answers to these
>questions. However there might be someone who has perhaps gone through
>these problems oneself, and since then by time and dedication solved
>them. These people I address, as well as people with similar
>experiences. This to help lessen the amount of my frustration and
>increase my tolerable musical outcome in both quality and quantity.
>
>Respectfully,
>Markus Nyman
>Finland
Perpetual inspiration is about having a good method.
You may have some tricks that could let you down some variations more or less
at random but did you ask yourself if all the tricks you use were writen down to
form a method that you can use as a checklist and let you flow maybe where you
didn't wanted to go but *somewhere* anyway? Sometimes the more trivial things
are hidden, taken as granted, my these is that this can lead to blockings.
examples :
* "When it sounds good, it's good." + variations on the same theme.
* phrasing (chords, arpeggios, fills, rhythms, tempi...)
* drops
* enrichments, substitutions
* major <-> minor
* retrograde
* inversion
* retrograde-inversion
* augmentation, diminution
* transpositions
* Accumulation, decumulation (1.., 1,2.., 1,2,3.., 1,2,3,4) (1,2,3,4.., 1,2,3..,
1,2,.., 1..) You know this dance.
* Substraction, addition (take an aspect of the movement and omit the rest,
adding something, in the orchestration or in the structure)
* Respacialisation (making play the same thing in a different place or in
another direction)
* Embellishement (add something on top of existing material)
* Background, foreground (changing something out there)
* Canon
* Sequence (development where the music repeats lower or higher)
* Variation (development where the music repeats but not in the same way)
* Imitation
* ...
This is nothing new but the point of this is not to take the items in particular
but how they can chain up to make a flowing mechanic of things to do without
any gap for to go from ideas to realizations including form and orchestration.
Is there a gap in your list? Is it a list or a checklist?
Hope this helps.
Markus Nyman
> [...] I feel that music is the only big-time art we have. All the
> great paintings and literature in the world put together, however
> awesome, must bow to the might of a Beethoven's 9th. Sadly humans are
> by nature visually oriented so music gets the least respect despite
> being the art that requires the most inflated kahonas. Music is a door
> to the waking dream world, the infinite unreality that we may or may
> not go to in some other form. Who knows what the indefinable
> nether-juice is. Some people try to get it through drugs but it's not
> the same. In music we can rise above our drab little physical world
> and touch the infinite.
There seems to be a traditional notion that music communicates feeling
more directly than the other arts. Judging from the extra-musical
asssociations that come to people's minds while listening to music,
it seems to communicate a more impersonal kind of atmosphere as well,
which is then interpreted by each person according to their own
personality and way of perceiving the world. Whereas "feelings" and
"emotions" are something personal, the "atmosphere" or "ambience"
(and if better word for this will be found, let it be used instead)
implies something transgressing the merely personal level.
If I understood you right, your notions seem to place music above the
personal level, into something transgressing personal, however not
merely an ambience but something that can be /expressed/ by ambience.
The ambience of a place can affect may affect the feelings of a person
abiding there, and likewise strong feelings sometimes seem to
influence the atmosphere of a place, at least temporarily.
There are mythological stories about semigods and people, such as
Orpheus of the antique and Vainamoinen of the finns, who with their
music were able to acquire miraculous effects. Such musical "magic"
that is able to affect spiritual states of people in the form of
mental images, feelings and more is sought after a composer, although
with quite a lot weaker effect. I don't think this effect applies to
only music with the specific intention to move the feelings of a
listener. All music has some kind of effect, and if not emotional or
intellectual, if not deeper spiritual feeling, if not even a pleasant
one, in the very least it will have a boring or confusing one.
Knud:
> I have an idea to consider that may be useful... Don't over think
> the composing but instead direct the obsessivness to the arrangement
> and voice leading. Arranging is a great way to spend surplus boredom
> time because plain skill and ingenuity are just as important as
> imagination, if not more. There are people who have developed the
> ability to do fantastic arrangements but can't compose a lick of
> anything!
I haven't arranged much myself, but I suspect it might have a positive
influence on one's own musical style.
---
Markus Nyman
Dr.Matt
>> Here's an essay on this topic which I wrote for this newsgroup
>> a long time ago: http://www.cosmoedu.net/DoctorFields/1.htm [...]
>
>From www.cosmoedu.net/DoctorFields/1.htm:
>> 2. Do something assertive at the beginning of your piece. This
>> needn't be loud or sharp, but if you start too soft or mild in the
>> hopes of then gradually cranking the intensity up, you run the risk
>> of failing to grab the listener's attention.
>
>This seems to somewhat match the idea in baroque musical rhetorics,
>called "exordium", that is, an introductory part intended for grabbing
>the listener's attention before moving on to more specific topics.
In music, to the extent that there's a "topic", you can grab the
listener's attention while stating your hook or first theme at the
same moment.
>However I may have studied Harri Wessmann's yet unpublished treatise
>on the subject of musical rhetorics with emphasis on the wrong things
>or perhaps I only plain misunderstood this part.
>Although perhaps based on a slightly differing approach, the curves
>you have drawn, and also the audio files included seem illuminating.
>I am aware this is not the rhetoric approach though. I will proceed
>with a study on the topics expounded to test my skill and capability
>in actualizing these ideas.
Indeed, this is an "intensity" approach that may be relatively
independent of rhetoric and rhyme and similiar patterns.
>From www.cosmoedu.net/DoctorFields/1.htm:
>> 3. In works of longer than 30 seconds duration [...] comes anywhere
>> from 60% of the way through the piece to right at the end. Otherwise
>> you run a terrible risk of having your listeners get bored with the
>> gradual denoument of your work.
>
>To my shame I will have to say this very topic of intensity building
>up towards the ending and then falling more rapidly, has been known
>by myself for a long time now. For some reason, however, I have not
>applied it but sparingly, with no apparent reason. There actually has
>been growing intensity in the music, but this mainly due to other
>musical ideas and devices such as diminution and textural variation.
Well, sure, those are devices you can use to thicken the number of
events, and on percussive instruments like piano they automatically
increase the density of percussive attacks per second and thus naturally
feed a crescendo. But you can run the program the other way around too,
realizing you need a crescendo and then picking a choice of details--
perhaps diminution and stretto and expanding registers--to serve the
crescendo while filling the listener's ears with motivic material.
>But now to a further question, to elaborate on the topic of musical
>structure, initiated by the aforementioned article and also my past
>agonies with a series of pieces performed in Helsinki Conservatory
>last year:
>
>Would you say the same pattern relates to series of compositions as
>well? Furthermore, there are most certainly alternate approaches to
>the question, excluding dance series, opera and intermezzi. Which kind
>of approaches of composing series in three, four, five or even more
>parts? And if very many, if shorter, parts are involved, how shall a
>sense of contrast, yet with some unity be kept up through this series?
Giving such examples as the symphonies of Beethoven and the Eroica
variations, I think that a resounding yes is one very serviceable option.
Even a concert of various works by all different composers can be arranged
so that just before each intermission there's a particularly exciting
moment and the very last piece on the program is a take-no-prisoners
showpiece-- Getting programmed first or last on a concert is a special
honor.
>---
>
>Markus Nyman
Matt
Markus Nyman
> A question: what benefit have you already gotten from writing
> music, apart from writing "good enough" music or taking it to
> music more than ever before. My attempts to compose, regardless
> of the quality of the output, have enhanced my life tremendously.
> Perhaps you have noticed something similar; perhaps you enjoy
> listening to these mediaeval and renaissance composers more than
> ever before. Or perhaps you enjoy some other aspect of composition
> independently of the quality of the output.
It is true I have learnt from my experiences to appreciate music,
and not only mediaeval, renaissance or baroque music. I recall
having seen a television production with Schoenbeger's atonal
music. Previously, I would have deemed it incomprehensible and
very unpleasant. "Pleasant" is still not the right word, and
the lyrics confirmed it might not have been his intention either.
However I enjoyed the 45 minutes tremendously, and I felt like a
completely new world had opened to me, as I were able to
understand some of the ideas in his music.
On the other hand, I always feel paranoid about my improvisations.
My ear tends to pick up melodies and harmonies from diverse
sources very easily. Later on I cannot remember where. If I
begin composition by writing down something improvised, I often
have the scary feeling that the music flowing from my heart is
not actually my own but something I have heard before. One or
two times too, I have found a small fragment of music, in my own
handwriting. Unable to decide whether or not it was of my own
composition, I had to leave it as it is.
Mike:
> My next suggestion echoes others on this thread: it's okay
> not to do everything at once. For example, you are asking how
> to make a piece both structurally sound and aesthetically pleasing,
> suggesting that you've written pieces that fit one of these
> categories but not both. [...]
I think being aesthetically pleasing is one very important part of
music's meaningfulness. I would also add that there, in my opinion
is also something else to this meaningfulness. I recently read a
book written by a painter, who had devoted himself to painting
seascapes. I will quote from the short introduction to the artist:
From "Paint the Sea and Shoreline in Watercolors
Using Special Effects, by E. John Robinson:
> [...] From 1960 to 1980, E. John painted only the sea and with
> keen reverence for nature that isa a hallmark in his paintings.
> He eventually painted landscapes as well and carried the same
> love of nature to them. Today, [...] he can look back on over
> 4,000 seascapes, most of which are on private collections,
> four covers for Reader's Digest, instructional books, articles,
> and videotapes, and widespread recognition. [...]
It is true that he must have studied many areas of painting, yet
the paintings of only this one very topic show remarkable freshness,
beauty and variation. I am not implying one should go about composing
only and exclusively fantasias, choreographed dances or madrigals
(although this seems perfectly fine if done with the heart).
What I however am implying is, that there must be something else,
some more subtle variations in the structure and aesthetics, that
make the paintings not only pleasing, but also meaningful. That
is, something that enables the artist to communicate something of
himself, or an atmosphere, through the means of painting.
In his book he first describes watercolour techniques, then
moves on to guidelines for painting and observing skies, waves,
rocks and shoreline in general. What seems remarkable is, that
instead of discussing mere technicalities there seem to be
other little things, something deeper he wishes to communicate
as well.
He repeatedly reminds that in his own works he always puts
a little sunshine in them, even if the seascape be otherwise
stormy or cloudy, and he adds, "it is like a caress of love in
a less than bright day." He discusses how with several elements
one can create many interesting and different compositions.
He also discusses painting happy seascapes, seascapes with a sense
of sadness and so on. Perhaps I should try to translate some of
his ideas into the language of music.
Mike:
> Above I mentioned the idea of "not doing everything at once."
> I'm going to restate this idea in a form that uses the word
> process: "Allow your process to progress through intermediate
> stages, giving yourself a great deal of permission and freedom
> to write incomplete or 'broken' music as part of intermediate
> stages.
Lately, I have usually tended to make a part first, then refined
it nearer to perfection, and finally then derived the rest of my
material from that one finished part through reason and intuition,
or alternately from the parts of music written later and then
refined somewhat. This approach is however slightly different from
writing "broken music". I should broaden my methods somewhat,
perhaps by allowing more broken music as has been suggested.
Mike:
> Right now I'm playing with the idea of writing a whole piece with
> greatly simplified materials in order to establish its structure
> from the beginning. On subsequent passes, I revise the material
> to contain much more variety and interest. You might try something
> like this: write a piece that is a series of slow chords. Get
> the structure to your liking (which hopefully is easier because
> the material is simpler), and then see if you can elaborate by
> inserting new notes. Feel free to change any of the chords you
> first wrote, too. This is not a rigid process; the idea is that
> you get a feel for the overall direction of the piece, then write
> details with that feeling in mind.
I remember having tried such approach some years ago, but by
that time my technical capabilities were not yet sufficient to
finish the pieces with enough variation. I should try this again
now that I have some more experience.
And perhaps the methods should be varied during the initial
sketching process. Sometimes I have begun with the tenor,
sometimes with the bass, sometimes with the highest part, yet
sometimes with the chords, sometimes with a musical idea and
so forth. Sometimes I have only written down the music of
my improvisation and then refined it later on.
However beginning with one method of sketching and then sticking
to it for sixty-four bars, and then trying to fill in the rest,
yet with variation, is sometimes quite a challenge.
The area that was first given most attention to, such as melody,
harmony or means of imitation, often tends to dominate the other
areas. If I begin with a pre-defined set of chords, even if it
be pleasant and inspiring, after twenty or thirty bars, my
inspiration begins to wane. I feel like getting stuck, unable to
bring in any new ideas. Same with a bass, tenor, a discant.
Perhaps in such case it would have been better to alternate
chordal passages, melodic passages, fugue and others. This way,
although the final result might not be structurally that
different, there will be variation in the process itself.
Mike:
> Let's take the example of your piece [...] You learned something
> from writing it; now you might be able to take some of your
> favorite material from that piece, find some more countrapuntal
> accompanying parts, and write a new piece.
This is what I did with eight of my long-time forgotten pieces
some months ago. I found it extremely rewarding to refine them
to a greater level of perfection; removing worse parts, adding
new ones, or even extending a shorter motif into a complete
composition. This is something I am willing to do again, although
it seems to take time until my old pieces regain enough freshness
to inspire me again.
---
Markus Nyman
knud
>that nothing too unfinished will slip out of my hands. However perhaps
>I should not take other's comments too personally. It's the composer's
>ego that comes in the way, gets hurt and thus should be made smaller.
The idea is to show deference to quality instead of ego. if some meddler
can actually help you out with specifics (say a good teacher) then you can just
learn from it. Eventually you'll develop the ability to be your own
springboard. Self-criticism can make the difference between a good composer and
a bad one. Many composers can't divorce themselves from their work and decide
if something needs revision or.... god forbid needs to be trashed! However
don't let some ass lacky lead you to ruin an awesome piece just because they
don't understand it. Anyone who criticises an involved work on first hearing is
automatically suspect.
blahblah
David Sherman
mkn...@gmx.net (Markus Nyman) wrote:
>I think being aesthetically pleasing is one very important part of
>music's meaningfulness. I would also add that there, in my opinion
>is also something else to this meaningfulness.
First, I don't agree. Being aesthetically pleasing (and I assume what you
mean by this is "pretty" or "tonal") is a part of it only if you intend your
music to be aesthetically pleasing. Otherwise it has nothing to do with
it.
The first thing I would recommend you do is expand your horizons and your
background. This is easy to do: start listening!
Once you're expanding your awareness of music written after, say, 1850, you'll
start to hear gripping and emotional musical statements that are not aesthetically
pleasing at all. Sometimes "aesthetically pleasing" is in direct opposition
to what you are trying to express. How do you depict a pagan dance in the
language of common harmonic practice? How do you express the sorrow of the
victims of the atom bomb at Hiroshima in the musical language of the 1700's?
If it is impossible for you to travel to a composition instructor, start
doing what they are going to have you do anyway: listen, listen, listen.
Start with Stravinsky's "Sacre du Printemps" or (in English) "The Right of
Spring". It is one of the greatest works of the 20th Century. Listen to
it. Get to know it inside and out. Buy a score and look at how Stravinsky
creates some of the sounds. Play them on the piano and you'll hear how Stravinsky
himself heard these sounds for the first time.
Then listen to Bartok - the man who I personally feel was one of the greatest
musicians of the 20th Cent. Listen to his String Quartets, His Concerto
for Orchestra, his Violin Concerto.
Listen of Mahler, then R. Strauss and then some early Schoenberg and you'll
see how music gradually became more and more dissonant, but in the hands
of masters, no less beautiful.
Listen to some Debussey to hear how the styles in France greatly differed
with the Germans. Styles in the United States, Russia, and Great Britain
were different still.
Any good book on the the music of the 20 Century will give you a lengthy
list of other composers to listen to.
These are things you have to do as a composer. So, start listening!
The other point I want to make is this: don't confuse what is "aesthetically
pleasing" with what is artistically necessary.
If the music you hear is nothing but major chords, so be it. But make that
a decision you made from all the harmonic and melodic options you had.
If you're writing only major and minor chords because your only experience
with music is compositions that were written well over 300 years ago, you're
not being a composer. You're simply writing pretty tunes in an archaic style.
---------------------------POST VIA--------------------------------
news://nntp.xusenet.com http://www.xusenet.com
===================================================================
knud
>personal level, into something transgressing personal, however not
>merely an ambience but something that can be /expressed/ by >ambience.
To me music can be all encompassing and affect us on any level in turn or
simultaneously. Of course sometimes a person is too rooted in reality problems
to get the full effect but all things being equal it can be an incredibly
intense experience of hyper-awarenes. Awareness of what, who knows. The
important thing is that it makes sense while we're in the thick of it!
>The ambience of a place can affect may affect the feelings of a person
>abiding there, and likewise strong feelings sometimes seem to
>influence the atmosphere of a place, at least temporarily.
At the same time, for me each piece has it's own "place" that is always
there regardless of circumstance. I mean an experience, a feeling, whatever.
It's impossible to put into words but they are places that I love to go. It's
just too bad so many in this world will never get to go there.
Words or pictures can't even come close since they are descriptive by
nature. People try to use them to make "far-out" stuff but the greatest novel
has got nothing on an inspired melody. Talk this way at a pretentious gathering
of art-geeks and you may get beaten to a pulp!
blahblah
Samuel Vriezen
>
> I think an analogy can be drawn between both speech and music, or
> painting and music, or architecture and music, or even nature and
> music and so forth. For example, we may equate parts of a speech
> to the parts of a musical composition. Or more intuitively, we can
> make associatons even to colours. For example some piece of music
> may seem to have the blue hue of an evening, some has the fiery
> red, some black. Yet I agree, perhaps knowing one art often helps
> but slightly in the other.
>
Associating music with particular colours is always a highly personal
affair.
Going back, though, I think it is possible to think of different
appraoches to music: music can be like poetry or other forms of
language, particularly sung music and by extension music that has a
vocal sort of quality. Another appraoch is music in which the composer
is more interested in the sensations of the medium itself, that might
perhaps be more like visual arts. Ultimate forms of speech music would
include certain liturgic chant, but also certain vendors I hear on the
markeplace. An ultimate form of 'picture music' might be the work of
Morton Feldman.
--
samuel
free.concerten.fr
Michael Mossey
> Mike:
> > A question: what benefit have you already gotten from writing
> > music, apart from writing "good enough" music or taking it to
> > the places you want to go? [...] I enjoy listening to classical
> > music more than ever before. My attempts to compose, regardless
> > of the quality of the output, have enhanced my life tremendously.
> > Perhaps you have noticed something similar; perhaps you enjoy
> > listening to these mediaeval and renaissance composers more than
> > ever before. Or perhaps you enjoy some other aspect of composition
> > independently of the quality of the output.
>
> It is true I have learnt from my experiences to appreciate music,
> and not only mediaeval, renaissance or baroque music. I recall
> having seen a television production with Schoenbeger's atonal
> music. Previously, I would have deemed it incomprehensible and
> very unpleasant. "Pleasant" is still not the right word, and
> the lyrics confirmed it might not have been his intention either.
> However I enjoyed the 45 minutes tremendously, and I felt like a
> completely new world had opened to me, as I were able to
> understand some of the ideas in his music.
Yes, that's neat, and similar to my experience.
>
> On the other hand, I always feel paranoid about my improvisations.
> My ear tends to pick up melodies and harmonies from diverse
> sources very easily. Later on I cannot remember where. If I
> begin composition by writing down something improvised, I often
> have the scary feeling that the music flowing from my heart is
> not actually my own but something I have heard before. One or
> two times too, I have found a small fragment of music, in my own
> handwriting. Unable to decide whether or not it was of my own
> composition, I had to leave it as it is.
I think you can learn something from working with fragments
whether they are your own melodies or whether they are remembered
from somewhere. I'm guessing that what is scary to you is the
idea that your spontaneity, which you value so much, could turn
out to be simple recall. I think that you don't have to worry
about it. I think you *do* have spontaneity, based on what you've
written, and you just need to remember that it won't be there
all the time. Sometimes the "music flowing from your heart" does
turn out to be remembered from somewhere---but that doesn't mean
you have no original music in your heart.
Taking a melody and working with it---harmonizing, varying it,
and so on---will also build your spontaneity, whether that melody
is original or not.
A couple points: I used the word "aesthetics" to contrast with
structure. I mean something quite broad by it.
Also, you are writing about the elements you value in art. I
would caution you about one thing: if this way of thinking about
them makes your job seem much more complicated, then you may wish
to go back to doing simple things. Like you, I often feel that
a melody has some nice elements, but is lacking something, some
"je ne sais quoi", which I can spend hours musing over. The problem
with that is that it leaves me with few concrete ideas about what
to do next. If I tell myself, "Okay, make it a bit more spiritual,
and a bit more subtle, and focus on the variety, etc., etc." ---
well sometimes that kind of direction gets way too abstract and
complicated. I have no idea what to do, really. Whereas a
direction to myself like "Insert an extra measure here"---well,
now THAT'S concrete. At least I know exactly what I mean by that.
>
> Mike:
> > Above I mentioned the idea of "not doing everything at once."
> > I'm going to restate this idea in a form that uses the word
> > process: "Allow your process to progress through intermediate
> > stages, giving yourself a great deal of permission and freedom
> > to write incomplete or 'broken' music as part of intermediate
> > stages.
>
> Lately, I have usually tended to make a part first, then refined
> it nearer to perfection, and finally then derived the rest of my
> material from that one finished part through reason and intuition,
> or alternately from the parts of music written later and then
> refined somewhat. This approach is however slightly different from
> writing "broken music". I should broaden my methods somewhat,
> perhaps by allowing more broken music as has been suggested.
Yes, experimentation with methods is generally a Good Thing.
>
> Mike:
> > Right now I'm playing with the idea of writing a whole piece with
> > greatly simplified materials in order to establish its structure
> > from the beginning. On subsequent passes, I revise the material
> > to contain much more variety and interest. You might try something
> > like this: write a piece that is a series of slow chords. Get
> > the structure to your liking (which hopefully is easier because
> > the material is simpler), and then see if you can elaborate by
> > inserting new notes. Feel free to change any of the chords you
> > first wrote, too. This is not a rigid process; the idea is that
> > you get a feel for the overall direction of the piece, then write
> > details with that feeling in mind.
>
> I remember having tried such approach some years ago, but by
> that time my technical capabilities were not yet sufficient to
> finish the pieces with enough variation. I should try this again
> now that I have some more experience.
Well, perhaps you learned something from this approach even
if you couldn't finish the piece with "enough variation." I
know what you mean, that you want a piece to work well, and
that having enough variety is part of that---but it sounds like
you are demanding too much of yourself here. "Having enough
variation" is a kind of abstract direction that is very hard
to fulfill in simple, concrete, here-and-now terms. These
kinds of things comes with time, of their own accord, I think.
>
> And perhaps the methods should be varied during the initial
> sketching process. Sometimes I have begun with the tenor,
> sometimes with the bass, sometimes with the highest part, yet
> sometimes with the chords, sometimes with a musical idea and
> so forth. Sometimes I have only written down the music of
> my improvisation and then refined it later on.
>
> However beginning with one method of sketching and then sticking
> to it for sixty-four bars, and then trying to fill in the rest,
> yet with variation, is sometimes quite a challenge.
Let me note that these kinds of directions to yourself, "fill
in the rest yet with variation," tend to feel challenging
only to the extent that you demand the result is good. For
sake of argument, imagine that you were going to fill in extra
voices, but you didn't care whether the resulting music was any
good. It would be easy, right?
Now here's a little secret: you can learn something even when
you are making music that is 'no good'.
I'm not suggesting here that you should go write terrible music
all the time, or terrible music for terrible music's sake.
What I'm suggesting is that if you feel constrained in your working
methods because some of them seem "too challenging," you can actually
reduce the challenge level to something manageable by focusing
less on the quality of the result. In particular, demanding
that the result fulfill abstract criteria like "a balance of
variety and continuity" is a setup for frustration, for a beginner.
Far easier to have concrete goals, like "write 4 notes against
1." I know that you want to do all those nice things like
balance all these parameters, but that ability tends to come
by itself while your attention is on simple, concrete things.
By the way, a simple concrete way to add more variety to a
piece is: change something. Anything. Don't worry about whether
it "works", at first.
>
> The area that was first given most attention to, such as melody,
> harmony or means of imitation, often tends to dominate the other
> areas. If I begin with a pre-defined set of chords, even if it
> be pleasant and inspiring, after twenty or thirty bars, my
> inspiration begins to wane. I feel like getting stuck, unable to
> bring in any new ideas. Same with a bass, tenor, a discant.
>
> Perhaps in such case it would have been better to alternate
> chordal passages, melodic passages, fugue and others. This way,
> although the final result might not be structurally that
> different, there will be variation in the process itself.
>
> Mike:
> > Let's take the example of your piece [...] You learned something
> > from writing it; now you might be able to take some of your
> > favorite material from that piece, find some more countrapuntal
> > accompanying parts, and write a new piece.
>
> This is what I did with eight of my long-time forgotten pieces
> some months ago. I found it extremely rewarding to refine them
> to a greater level of perfection; removing worse parts, adding
> new ones, or even extending a shorter motif into a complete
> composition. This is something I am willing to do again, although
> it seems to take time until my old pieces regain enough freshness
> to inspire me again.
That's a good point: the passage of time refreshes your perception
on a piece. I've learned that most of my music sounds much better
to me about six months after I wrote it. This would probably
relate to my tendency to be over-critical; someone who tended
to be under-critical might have the experience that time reveals
more flaws than merits.
Regards,
Mike
Markus Nyman
> Perpetual inspiration is about having a good method.
I am not sure whether this is completely true or not. However with
a good "method", or alternately a "process", as Michael Mossey phrased
it, one can transgress many obstacles that would otherwise hinder
one's expression. I will take an example.
Be there an affection or ambience, let us say, blue of the evening.
Although the composer might have developed sufficient instinct to
express the mood, and also done research on the properties of chords,
intervals and melodic progressions so that he will be able to
communicate some of this very affection. However with an insufficient
composing process one may either succeed or fail in bringing these
devices into life in the form of a completed composition of two,
three or five minutes in length.
On the other hand, there might be a situation of the composer having
the greatest method, but no instinct. This would most likely ruin the
composition as well. Even though I have understood that some people
use most unmusical methods in generating the initial patterns of notes,
(that is, melody, harmony or both,) even then there must ultimately
be judgement present, based on the composer's musical instinct.
I would argue that with instinct alone, there can be perpetual
inspiration. However keeping such instinct fresh would need other
measures aimed at developing the composer oneself. Such development
of sensitivity and instinct is most likely to take no less time than
developing one's style from the musical basis. Yet person with such
sensitivity and instinct would still need the musical means, or
a "method", to channel his now increased capability of understanding
the affections to the actual composition process.
...
There have been suggestions to work insequentially, and also practice
some sketching instead of scribbling exclusively. Your method seems
to emphasise applying the concious use of musical devices not only to
intervals, texture and such in the small scale, but to a larger scale.
I find this too a reasonable idea, as well as many of the suggestions
given previously in this thread.
Although most of the means suggested by others have already been tried
out by myself in a form or another, I find the advice quite useful,
especially for there is greater sense of relevance in a conversation
than in information contained in the books. Literary sources are
indispensable, but they can rarely tell which points are actually
relevant to the situation at hand.
Charlie:
> You may have some tricks that could let you down some variations more
> or less at random but did you ask yourself if all the tricks you use
> were writen down to form a method that you can use as a checklist and
> let you flow maybe where you didn't wanted to go but *somewhere*
> anyway? Sometimes the more trivial things are hidden, taken as
> granted, my these is that this can lead to blockings.
>
> examples :
>
> * "When it sounds good, it's good." + variations on the same theme.
> * phrasing (chords, arpeggios, fills, rhythms, tempi...)
> * drops [and the list goes on...]
Actually I have compiled three such lists, two on my own, and the
third one as a summary of a book listing great deal of these devices.
Sadly I never quite used any of the lists the way I intended, and
neither did I use them as a checklist as you described. I find it
true that although I command innumerous devices of composition,
yet there are only few in frequent use. I have different periods
during which I apply some means more fervently and almost forget
the others. I might try writing such list once again, and then using
it as well.
This also brings to my mind how after compiling a multi-page list of
all the diverse manners of arpeggiation and strumming, it was still
left completely unused. I merely returned to my old habit of
arpeggiating my chords in the manner dictated by intuition alone,
and still applying only the simplest strumming patterns (in imitation
of the late renaissance and early baroque strummed guitar style,
quite akin to the modern practice of playing from chord names).
Of course there must be nothing wrong with using intuition, or simple
patterns in a section or another. However using my skills and knowledge
more diversely might have benefited my musical growth and also, more
directly, (and quite self-evidently,) the diversity of the compositions
themselves.
However I could have applied all kinds of accompanying devices such
as suspensions and so forth less sparingly. But perhaps I could start
another thread on the art of arpeggiation later on, as it seems like
quite an interesting topic to me. It also seems somewhat more
difficult than one would guess before trying it out oneself.
Charlie:
> This is nothing new but the point of this is not to take the items
> in particular but how they can chain up to make a flowing mechanic
> of things to do without any gap for to go from ideas to realizations
> including form and orchestration.
While making a solo madrigal for guitar and a baritone I remember
having used the small-scale devices most conciously, applying certain
kinds of dissonance to certain words, certain textures and so forth,
most conciously. I must say the work was slow but results very
rewarding. For some reason I never quite got finished with the work
although the lyrics were not too long. Perhaps I should return to it
some day.
---
Markus Nyman
Markus Nyman
>>Perhaps we must disregard orchestral colour and such at this point,
>>as, at least in my case, the discussion concerns mainly solo works
>>(which I deem somewhat challenging exactly due to the resticted
>>variation in timbre).
Knud:
>It's difficult because of the strict limitations. You open up virtuosic
>possibilities with solo works but show-offy stuff is nearly always boring. I
>would say coming up with a compelling unnacompanied solo work is a difficult
>task unless you're dealing with instruments that supply their own harmony such
>as piano or guitar. Even there you're severely limited in timbre resource.
I haven't tried my hands on the piano very much, but guitar, the instrument
of my choice, seems to be more challenging in a way, at least until one gets
used to it's pecularities. The notes are scrambled across the fingerboard and
one will constantly have to adjust the notes to sound from a different string
and a fret. Furthermore, such adjustments make some ornaments seem more
natural than others due to their easier execution. Perhaps one will have
easier time if one disregards legato completely, which in my opinion is
somewhat contrary to the nature of the instrument, as it is possible to make
fine adjustments to the phrasing by the use of slurs in the right places.
I also assume judging the playability of a chord might be somewhat more
straightforward on the piano, whereas on the guitar there needs to be a
constant awareness of the fingers and their placing on the fingerboard,
as well as proper placing of the notes therein. Piano and guitar also
seem to have different expressive resources, guitar allowing vibrato,
strummed chords, slurred notes, and many more. Piano in turn seems to
have greater dynamic resources and also the capability of sustaining
the notes longer.
Perhaps I am not properly educated in either instrument to make any further
statements.
---
Markus Nyman
Markus Nyman
> Well, sure, those are devices you can use to thicken the number of
> events, and on percussive instruments like piano they automatically
> increase the density of percussive attacks per second and thus naturally
> feed a crescendo. But you can run the program the other way around too,
> realizing you need a crescendo and then picking a choice of details--
> perhaps diminution and stretto and expanding registers--to serve the
> crescendo while filling the listener's ears with motivic material.
"Thickening the number of events" sounds like an interesting
way to put this. I have given thought of thickening chordal rhythm,
density of the melody, or perhaps texture. However this expression
"musical events" seems to allow me more perspective on the matter.
Perhaps it could be made to work on a slightly larger scale as well.
---
Markus Nyman
Larisa
> Sometimes I get a fresh musical idea, and enchanted and captured
> >by it I compose. However these accidents of nature happen not so
> >often, and it would not be good habit for a composer to rely on these.
>
> without ideas is the main problem with most music. People aren't inspired but
> they go on doing it anyway and end up with dreck. Don't take that to mean a
> little to do with composing process. You're better off waiting, saving up stuff
> you KNOW is superb rather than forcing it, developing it when you have enough
> stuff to use. Forcing inspiration is a special skill that not many people have.
Any pointers on how to pick up that special skill? Due to my
ballet-accompanist job, I have to come up with 1.5 hours of original
material twice a week. So far, it's been OK, but I wouldn't want the
dancers to dance to boring dreck when I run out of ideas.
Incidentally, I'm struggling with the idea of "structure", myself (and
like the original poster, I'm too impecunious to hire a teacher, so I
have to puzzle these things out unaided). One thing that has worked
for me is to think of the piece I'm writing as a story, told in
musically-expressed emotions rather than images or words. Somehow, it
makes sense this way for me. I'm working on the sonata form now, and
such a form lends itself very naturally to a story.
LM
Markus Nyman
>>I think being aesthetically pleasing is one very important part of
>>music's meaningfulness. I would also add that there, in my opinion
>>is also something else to this meaningfulness.
David Sherman:
>First, I don't agree. Being aesthetically pleasing (and I assume what you
>mean by this is "pretty" or "tonal") is a part of it only if you intend your
>music to be aesthetically pleasing. Otherwise it has nothing to do with
>it.
To which I shall add another quote of myself from the same message just quoted:
>It is true I have learnt from my experiences to appreciate music,
>and not only mediaeval, renaissance or baroque music. I recall
>having seen a television production with Schoenbeger's atonal
>music. Previously, I would have deemed it incomprehensible and
>very unpleasant. "Pleasant" is still not the right word, and
>the lyrics confirmed it might not have been his intention either.
>However I enjoyed the 45 minutes tremendously, and I felt like a
>completely new world had opened to me, as I were able to
>understand some of the ideas in his music.
I would make a distinction with being "aesthetic" and "pleasant" as well
as yourself. I know later in the message I referred to a painter, who
was advocated having something "pretty", and "harmonic" in each composition.
However this was to give an example of my another point. The music should
be aesthetically pleasing. It should also communicate affections or ambience.
I wrote:
>He repeatedly reminds that in his own works he always puts
>a little sunshine in them, even if the seascape be otherwise
>stormy or cloudy, and he adds, "it is like a caress of love in
>a less than bright day." He discusses how with several elements
>one can create many interesting and different compositions.
>He also discusses painting happy seascapes, seascapes with a sense
>of sadness and so on. Perhaps I should try to translate some of
>his ideas into the language of music.
This implies the painter has an idea, which he is trying to express.
The application of sunshine is, that is correct, perhaps something
to arouse the affection of something "pretty" or "nice" even amidst
the darkness. This is however his individual choice to express such
things, and undoubtedly there are people who might agree to him in
that decision. My point, however was to show how also in a relatively
abstract painting depicting only rocks and sea, a distinct affect
can still be aroused. You have provided excellent examples of this same
requirement of having content, or meaning besides the aesthetic quality:
David Sherman:
> Once you're expanding your awareness of music written after, say,
> 1850, you'll start to hear gripping and emotional musical statements
> that are not aesthetically pleasing at all. Sometimes "aesthetically
> pleasing" is in direct opposition to what you are trying to express.
> How do you depict a pagan dance in the language of common harmonic
> practice? How do you express the sorrow of the victims of the atom
> bomb at Hiroshima in the musical language of the 1700's?
Something with aesthetic quality is what I call aesthetically pleasing.
I would not equate this aesthetic quality in any way to the language
of common harmonic practice or tonality. These are only a means of
acquiring a musical result. There are also other means that might
be contrary to the common harmonic practice, yet with a musical result.
Another quote of myself:
> What I however am implying is, that there must be something else,
> some more subtle variations in the structure and aesthetics, that
> make the paintings not only pleasing, but also meaningful. That
> is, something that enables the artist to communicate something of
> himself, or an atmosphere, through the means of painting.
The paintings should be aesthetically pleasing, yet they should be
able to communicate something more than mere aesthetic quality.
This might be pain or sorrow, as well as happiness. It might be
the feeling of rejection or utter desperation. If one studies
late 16th century madrigals, one may find all these affections,
yet I would call these madrigals aesthetically pleasing. And as
I already said, the Schoenberger I heard one day was also
aesthetically, if not emotionally pleasing.
David Sherman:
> Start with Stravinsky's "Sacre du Printemps" [...] It is one of the
> greatest works of the 20th Century. Listen to > it. Get to know it
> inside and out. [...] Then listen to Bartok - the man who I personally
> feel was one of the greatest musicians of the 20th Cent. [...]
> Listen of Mahler, then R. Strauss and then some early Schoenberg and
> you'll see how music gradually became more and more dissonant, but in
> the hands of masters, no less beautiful.
And here I shall add that perhaps "aesthetically pleasing" and
"beautiful" are not so different expressions at all. You must have
misinterpreted my expression due to the use of word "pleasing".
I could add that actually, if I remember correctly, the italians
seemed to blame french music of being merely pleasant and lack
affections. This in the 17th century.
> Any good book on the the music of the 20 Century will give you a
> lengthy list of other composers to listen to.
> These are things you have to do as a composer. So, start listening!
I would not call it mandatory, although I must agree that it may and
will be useful to always expand one's musical horizons.
> If the music you hear is nothing but major chords, so be it.
> But make that a decision you made from all the harmonic and melodic
> options you had. If you're writing only major and minor chords
> because your only experience with music is compositions that were
> written well over 300 years ago, you're not being a composer. You're
> simply writing pretty tunes in an archaic style.
First of all, I would like to state that writing pretty tunes in an
archaic style is in my opinion something to be called "composing",
as long as the main motivation is not merely exercise but rather art.
That said, you might be having misconceptions about the harmonic language
of late renaissance and the 17th century. Although perceived quite consonant
in relation to innumerous composers of the 20th century, the presence
of dissonance is not only optional, but actually mandatory to expression
of the diverse affects in musica reservata & "the second practice" of
early baroque, and naturally from that point on as well.
It is true, however that the music, especially on the theoretical side,
was quite clearly oriented towards consonances as the structural basis,
and dissonances subordinate to these.
Even though I doubt this will be the best possible introduction to
either renaissance or baroque music, I strongly recommend listening
to the responsoria, or perhaps some of the later madrigals by Carlo
Gesualdo, one of the most impressive late renaissance composers I
have heard. I shall add here, in the end of my message a short
poetical quote from the booklet accompanying a compact disk of
his responsoria.
Renaud Machart, in the booklet accompanying "Sabbatto Sancto"
(Harmonia Mundi):
> [...] This theatrical treatment of the voices seems to be governed
> by a personal code of subtly masochistic rhetoric: contorted
> tessituras, extreme rhytmic fragmentation, enlongations,
> destabilizing and assymmetric alternations of tension and relaxation.
> The closeness and the space of stigmatization (Gesualdo had himself
> flogged daily by youths maintained for this purpose) represented in
> this asperous music seem to be taken to their ultimate extreme [...]
---
Markus Nyman
Markus Nyman
> > If the music you hear is nothing but major chords, so be it.
> > But make that a decision you made from all the harmonic and melodic
> > options you had. If you're writing only major and minor chords
> > because your only experience with music is compositions that were
> > written well over 300 years ago, you're not being a composer. You're
> > simply writing pretty tunes in an archaic style.
Markus Nyman:
> That said, you might be having misconceptions about the harmonic language
> of late renaissance and the 17th century.
I must admit that with this comment, I perhaps went too far. My only
defense is that I must have been quite tired, replying to the messages
on this group for the fourth hour, well after midnight. My apologies.
I took your words, not the intention.
---
Markus Nyman
Markus Nyman
> > > My next suggestion echoes others on this thread: it's okay
> > > not to do everything at once. For example, you are asking how
> > > to make a piece both structurally sound and aesthetically pleasing,
> > > suggesting that you've written pieces that fit one of these
> > > categories but not both. [...]
Markus Nyman:
> > I think being aesthetically pleasing is one very important part of
> > music's meaningfulness. I would also add that there, in my opinion
> > is also something else to this meaningfulness.
Michael Mossey:
> A couple points: I used the word "aesthetics" to contrast with
> structure. I mean something quite broad by it.
I in turn separated the music into a)structure, b)aesthetic quality
and c)emotional quality. I think you meant with aesthetics my "b"
and "c". However I will not be fiddling more with categories in
message.
Michael Mossey:
> Taking a melody and working with it---harmonizing, varying it,
> and so on---will also build your spontaneity, whether that melody
> is original or not.
And composing, at least in my case seems to be endless harmonizing,
varying, centonising, and using abstract technical means. However
I see no other way to get the music "right", and would I not like it,
I would have probably chosen another hobby.
I have noticed my musical instinct has indeed been improved with
work, even though I seem to have had more spontaneity in the beginning.
That notion, of course may have something to do with the fact that
by then I did not yet understand what I was doing, although yet, there
are some quite charming pieces from that era.
I believe one of the problems in my case might be clinging too much to
technical devices. Instead of using them creatively I think: "I should
do it in this way!", or "I should do this in that way!", instead of
thinking creatively, concerning all the many possibilities I have
available. This is what Charlie pointed out to me, not using one's
musical resources fully and disregarding great many useful
oppoturnities.
Michael Mossey:
> Also, you are writing about the elements you value in art. I
> would caution you about one thing: if this way of thinking about
> them makes your job seem much more complicated, then you may wish
> to go back to doing simple things. Like you, I often feel that
> a melody has some nice elements, but is lacking something, some
> "je ne sais quoi", which I can spend hours musing over. The problem
> with that is that it leaves me with few concrete ideas about what
> to do next. If I tell myself, "Okay, make it a bit more spiritual,
> and a bit more subtle, and focus on the variety, etc., etc." ---
> well sometimes that kind of direction gets way too abstract and
> complicated. I have no idea what to do, really. Whereas a
> direction to myself like "Insert an extra measure here"---well,
> now THAT'S concrete. At least I know exactly what I mean by that.
One thing I have noticed to be useful is analysing one's own
pieces to find out what in particular made this and that part seem
so "sad" or "dignified" or "fierce". One may have intuitively been
able to express these affections, now it is the time to find out
what created such atmospehre. Of course the same goes with others'
pieces as well, though analysing one's own work might be easier.
That way one could also amplify the affections a bit. Once understood
the devices can be used yet to a little more sophistication.
Michael Mossey:
> > > Right now I'm playing with the idea of writing a whole piece with
> > > greatly simplified materials in order to establish its structure
> > > from the beginning. On subsequent passes, I revise the material
> > > to contain much more variety and interest. You might try something
> > > like this: write a piece that is a series of slow chords. Get
> > > the structure to your liking (which hopefully is easier because
> > > the material is simpler), and then see if you can elaborate by
> > > inserting new notes. Feel free to change any of the chords you
> > > first wrote, too. This is not a rigid process; the idea is that
> > > you get a feel for the overall direction of the piece, then write
> > > details with that feeling in mind.
Markus Nyman:
> > I remember having tried such approach some years ago, but by
> > that time my technical capabilities were not yet sufficient to
> > finish the pieces with enough variation. I should try this again
> > now that I have some more experience.
Michael Mossey:
> "Having enough variation" is a kind of abstract direction that
> is very hard to fulfill in simple, concrete, here-and-now terms.
> These > kinds of things comes with time, of their own accord, I think.
> [...]
> By the way, a simple concrete way to add more variety to a
> piece is: change something. Anything. Don't worry about whether
> it "works", at first.
I think experience is important, but there indeed are different
here-and-now terms one could use in adding variety. And instead of
changing just something, one could contemplate on some of the least
varied parts of one's compositon.
One might notice having used the same affection all the
way through the piece, for example, the top part may be all happy
and jumping around with no variation. Then perhaps, a calmer
passage needs to be added somewhere to complement this, if the
piece is starting to repeat itself too much.
Some other examples, more concrete than the aforementioned: there
might be no variation in texture, so the texture may be varied.
Or by some accident the composer notices his counterpoint has
resulted only in three chords, although he tried to be more
diverse. In such a case one may go on adjusting some voices to
create more chordal variety. Or if one is a tonal and not a modal
composer, that is, always aware of the chords one is using,
there might be flaws in the voice leading. Perhaps he notices
the same arrangement of notes (for example root-fifth-tenth) has
been used over and over again up to the point of getting boring.
In such case he will again have to adjust the voices, but this
time not for the variety in the "chords" but their arrangement.
There might also be too little diversity in melody, or maybe
the same intensity is being used all the way through. Then too,
one will have to consider variation.
Your idea of using here-and-now terms is good. Maybe I should make
more use of it in creating variation in my pieces.
Let me note that these kinds of directions to yourself, "fill
in the rest yet with variation," tend to feel challenging
only to the extent that you demand the result is good. For
sake of argument, imagine that you were going to fill in extra
voices, but you didn't care whether the resulting music was any
good. It would be easy, right?
Michael Mossey:
> Now here's a little secret: you can learn something even when
> you are making music that is 'no good'.
>
> I'm not suggesting here that you should go write terrible music
> all the time, or terrible music for terrible music's sake.
> What I'm suggesting is that if you feel constrained in your working
> methods because some of them seem "too challenging," you can actually
> reduce the challenge level to something manageable by focusing
> less on the quality of the result. In particular, demanding
> that the result fulfill abstract criteria like "a balance of
> variety and continuity" is a setup for frustration, for a beginner.
> Far easier to have concrete goals, like "write 4 notes against
> 1." I know that you want to do all those nice things like
> balance all these parameters, but that ability tends to come
> by itself while your attention is on simple, concrete things.
Even then, the reason for starting this thread was exactly the need
of moving on from small scale to the larger scale. I find myself
quite capable of creating harmonious, logical and flowing entities
of say, 8, 16 or 24 bars. Then I may vary these, or attach new parts
or use motifs from these as the source of imitation and so forth.
However what I have been missing is some "greater logic", something
to enable me to move on from the larger scale to the smaller, not
only from the smaller to the larger.
---
Markus Nyman
Markus Nyman
> writing as a story, told in musically-expressed emotions rather
> than images or words. Somehow, it makes sense this way for me.
> I'm working on the sonata form now, and such a form lends itself
> very naturally to a story.
A few questions came to my mind:
1) Which kind of means do you use in writing this 'story'? Do
you think it through before going any further, or work more
intuitively. I know there are at least two kinds of writers,
some of which have a more definite idea of what will happen in
the course of a book, yet others who develop their plot during
the writing process.
2) To what extent is the expression of emotions intellectual
and to what extent intuitive. There seem to be composers who
draw the emotions mainly from their own imagination and
experience, yet others who seem to give intervals, chordal
progressions and melodic entities different kinds of meanings,
then using them as the way to convey the emotions. For example,
in the case of sadness one may think of the feeling itself, then
using improvisation and inspiration. Yet others may use long
times contemplating: "what kind of progression would give this
affection? What kind of interval; what kind of texture?"
3) What particularly, in a sonata form, do you reckogn to make
telling a story easier?
These questions are only a starting point, intended to provoke
discussion about making music more meaningful emotionally.
Unemotional music can be meaningful too, although your approach
to music as an "emotional story" seems interesting, and I wonder
if there is more I could learn about it. I have been trying
to get my music out of being merely intellectual and pleasing to
the ear, to convey something else as well. Perhaps feelings or
emotions caused, if not people, maybe dreams or nature.
---
Markus Nyman
Markus Nyman
> > I am quite sensitive to critique, which may have it's good
> > point in that nothing too unfinished will slip out of my
> > hands. However perhaps I should not take other's comments
> > too personally. It's the composer's ego that comes in the
> > way, gets hurt and thus should be made smaller.
Knud:
> The idea is to show deference to quality instead of ego.
> if some meddler can actually help you out with specifics
> (say a good teacher) then you can just learn from it. Eventually
> you'll develop the ability to be your own springboard.
> Self-criticism can make the difference between a good composer
> and a bad one. Many composers can't divorce themselves from their
> work and decide if something needs revision or....
I find it easier to divorce myself from my works after some time
has passed. However this might take six months or a year. After
that period, it is easier to look at one's pieces as an outsider,
with more critical an approach. I am not saying the delay between
composition and critical evaluation needs to be this long. Actually
every moment of composition includes some kind of critical evaluation.
However to me, it takes time to see the lacks and good sides of
my compositions more clearly. Probably it is possible to take distance
to one's work in a shorter time, though.
> god forbid needs to be trashed!
It is not the needs that are to be trashed, but neediness.
---
Markus Nyman
Markus Nyman
> >If I understood you right, your notions seem to place music above the
> >personal level, into something transgressing personal, however not
> >merely an ambience but something that can be /expressed/ by ambience.
Knud:
> To me music can be all encompassing and affect us on any level in turn or
> simultaneously. Of course sometimes a person is too rooted in reality
> problems to get the full effect but all things being equal it can be an
> incredibly intense experience of hyper-awarenes. Awareness of what, who
> knows. The important thing is that it makes sense while we're in the thick
> of it!
Does this have some kind of ecstatic connotation? It seems that some
music, more than the other is aimed at, or apt to emphasise musical ecstasy.
This must be however dependent on the listener as well. Different
people seem to become immersed in quite a different music.
Markus Nyman:
> > The ambience of a place can affect may affect the feelings of a person
> > abiding there, and likewise strong feelings sometimes seem to
> > influence the atmosphere of a place, at least temporarily.
Knud:
> At the same time, for me each piece has it's own "place" that is always
> there regardless of circumstance. I mean an experience, a feeling, whatever.
> It's impossible to put into words but they are places that I love to go. It's
> just too bad so many in this world will never get to go there.
>
> Words or pictures can't even come close since they are descriptive
> by nature. People try to use them to make "far-out" stuff but the greatest
> novel has got nothing on an inspired melody. Talk this way at a pretentious
> gathering of art-geeks and you may get beaten to a pulp!
It is true that music communicates more directly, and intuitively than
pictorial arts or literature. Yet I would say there can be something
similar to music in some of the poetry, where ambience is communicated
and words only used as a vessel. Yet poetry is not tied to time as strictly
as music so the process is slightly different. While the music is going
on, it could be said that there actually is a "place" present, in the
mental and auditory level. In some people this seems to trigger visual
connotations as well, though more rarely olfactory or gustatory ones. It
would be interesting, though, to create music expressing tastes and
fragrances. I am not sure whether this is possible though.
But to get back to the notion of a place, yes, I think music, in a way
could be perceived as creating such place in the auditory space, and
ultimately mental as well; whereas poetry seems more like a window
to me, although with a reader of suitable personality, it will create
a place in the mental level at the least.
---
Markus Nyman
charlie
Instinct is essential but there I can't really help but to say go at
the sea, read a book , have a romance, go to swim, irrelevant things
like that. Let's suppose you have blood.
Method and process have very close meanings. Process is surely nicer
but I'll keep method for to emphasize on the systematic and problem
solver aspect of the approach.
Certainly you have to take this with a grain of salt. You can't just sit
at the guitar and begin to list every single aspect of everything, though
why not but it would takes ages compared to some inspiration. But did you
ask yourself if you had to rely only on your method, would it work?
If yes, once you are in a block, you review your list and you pass. If you
have a good method and you know why it works, why if you bring this item out it
don't work anymore, why this one is purely decorative yet in an inspirational
way, etc..., you're on your way to find a solution to any problem of the class
"ok, and what now?".
Some time ago I was in the same situation as you, having blocks and inspiration
at the same time, leading of course to begin hundreds of things and finishing
only a few. I solved the problem this way, by realizing how the 'process' was
indeed a 'method'.
Hope this helps.
knud
>ballet-accompanist job, I have to come up with 1.5 hours of original
>material twice a week. So far, it's been OK, but I wouldn't want the
>dancers to dance to boring dreck when I run out of ideas.
That's an entirely different ballgame!
Hmm, dancers often dance to boring dreck that is part of the repretoire so
you should be OK.
>One thing that has worked
>for me is to think of the piece I'm writing as a story, told in
>musically-expressed emotions rather than images or words. Somehow, it
>makes sense this way for me. I'm working on the sonata form now, and
>such a form lends itself very naturally to a story.
Progression of experience... a start, middle, end, whatever. A journey,
a story. I call it a progression of experience because I dislike reality
analogy applied to music.
blahblah
knud
It's just terminology. "Unemotion" is just another emotion. All the
experiences conjured in an infinite variety of inspirations. Just as we feel
things in dreams that dont exist in daily reality.
blahblah
knud
>has passed.
This is true for everyone to some degree.
> However this might take six months or a year. After
>that period, it is easier to look at one's pieces as an outsider,
>with more critical an approach.
Thats not a bad timeframe.
>Actually
>every moment of composition includes some kind of critical evaluation.
Sometimes all of it takes place on a higher concious plane and we are but
passengers along for the ride. Funny how that is often the finest music.
Sometimes we have to hack at it slowly. You can arrive at genius via any
process.
Often the problems end up being minor and structural. I would guess judging
by my own experience that revisions and corrections, deletions etc are nearly
always structurally oriented rather than idea oriented. Sometimes a revision
ends up taking a passage and composing a better link for it, so you end up
actually extending the piece instead of cutting. it's always different.
Tchaikovsky has several pieces that are great examples of great music with a
few akward structure problems.
blahblah
knud
>could be perceived as creating such place in the auditory space, and
>ultimately mental as well; whereas poetry seems more like a window
>to me, although with a reader of suitable personality, it will create
>a place in the mental level at the least.
a question of someone having absorbed or being able to absorb a piece. The
experience of each listener will be different of course but not in the same way
as a novel where the reader has to mentally create each and every thing taking
place. However that is part of a books potential for longevity vs. a film for
example. A film is the most static creative experience in existance. Funny how
it has also become the most pervasive in our society. What does that say?
blahblah
Markus Nyman
> > Actually every moment of composition includes some kind of
> > critical evaluation.
Knud:
> Sometimes all of it takes place on a higher concious plane and we are but
> passengers along for the ride. Funny how that is often the finest music.
> Sometimes we have to hack at it slowly. You can arrive at genius via any
> process.
There is a piece I wrote before understanding anywhere this much about the
music conceptually. However, only slightly refined, this piece still stands
in comparison to any of my newest works. There certainly has been lot of
development since then, but seemingly not equally in all areas.
> A large part of word art is dependent on the reader. With music it's more
> a question of someone having absorbed or being able to absorb a piece. The
> experience of each listener will be different of course but not in the same
> way as a novel where the reader has to mentally create each and every thing
> taking place. However that is part of a books potential for longevity vs.
> a film for example. A film is the most static creative experience in
> existance. Funny how it has also become the most pervasive in our society.
> What does that say?
a) Composing music mainly for films and TV commercials might be a way to
acquire some degree of financial stability besides artistic results.
I am aware, however that not many people on this planet make their
living by writing serious art music. Thus, considering the regular
day jobs perhaps most of these composers are financially quite stable
after all.
b) Films relate to the two most used forms of sensory perception, besides
which they also have social, moral and other aspects to be observed.
It is quite easy to become immersed not only in the films, but the
endless flow of television programs. They fill out more gaps in one's
sensory perception, they offer more aspects to observe than music.
However something called "real life" has even more of these interesting
sensory and mental sources of enjoyment. However making use of these
is often difficult, and people end up running after these sources
of enjoyment instead of paying attention to their own ability to
perceive and experience things.
Arts are a way to fill this void of experiences in a qualitative way.
Films have more means to do this. However not all music is 'qualitative',
neither are the films. They are also a business. Being commercial does
not always make something better or worse. Rather it implies that the
same thirst of experiences is being taken financial advantage of.
c) People are more hungry about the experiences, which means more intense
music might be more popular. However thinking twice, I must admit that
dancing to some of the renaissance music in my midi collection has been
a rather intense experience, resulting with lots of sweat and sore feet.
/There must be something to "intensity", that we are sometimes initially
unable to perceive until a new point of view has opened to us./
Although I would like to make more statements here, I realise the
discussion is slowly drifting away from musical topics. As my intention
is not spamming the newsgroup but discussing and learning about
composition, I'll end my posting here.
---
Markus Nyman
knud
> endless flow of television programs.
It's quite easy to be brainwashed by them as well.
>They fill out more gaps in one's
>sensory perception, they offer more aspects to observe than music.
In theory. It doesn't work out that way for people who have the capacity
to really experience great art. Go ahead and laugh but I think film is an
inferior medium, a quick escapism fix for the masses. Some films manage to be
pretty good nonetheless. I would say animation has a better chance at achieving
greatness. By this I do NOT mean the computer generated comedy kids crap that
passes for animation in this country.
>Being commercial does
> not always make something better or worse.
But it usually does make it worse, simply because something created with a
purely financial goal may not arouse the passion of the composer. Let's face
it, film music on a whole is dreck. There are some isolated examples of
memorable themes but little else. Soundtracks have cheapened and denigrated the
orchestra. I feel if you write for a huge orchestra, you better well have
something special to say! Oddly enough the best soundtracks have been those
that are the least "soundtracky". usually it's just background mush!
blahblah
David Sherman
>> Being commercial does
>> not always make something better or worse.
>
> But it usually does make it worse, simply because something created with a
> purely financial goal may not arouse the passion of the composer.
Well you've just ruined Cosi fan tutti for me. And half of Wagner's operas.
Yep, I'll never listen to a piece of music made for cash the same way again.
Poor Bartok in failing health writing his Concerto for Orchestra just for
the pay check - garbage! And all those pieces written on commission for the
New York Philharmonic, Boston Symphony, Chicago Symphony (and not to mention
a little piece I wrote for the Eroica Trio,) all crap!
As a matter of fact. I'm never going to listen to music written before 1920
again. All those composers working for a living. Crap! All of it.
> Let's face it, film music on a whole is dreck. There are some isolated
> examples of memorable themes but little else. Soundtracks have cheapened and
> denigrated the orchestra. I feel if you write for a huge orchestra, you better
> well have something special to say! Oddly enough the best soundtracks have
> been those that are the least "soundtracky". usually it's just background
> mush!
Showing you know little about film scores and orchestral music in one silly
paragraph.
Listen, when you're a professional composer, creating something for money is
a very passionate situation. More passionate than when you're not working
for money, because this what you're using to pay the rent and buy groceries.
It's your survival. In a lot of cases, I can't think of anything more
passionate than that.
In fact, when you're a professional, you tend to get in the frame of mind
that writing music for no money is pretty passionless. With no deadline,
nobody barking at you about rehearsals, schedules, how much copying and
printing is going to cost, and absolutely nobody to please but yourself, you
start to think to yourself, "What's the point?"
But a professional musician knows how to get passionate about what he's
doing in both situations.
I don't pretend that the economics of music and films is creating the best
possible music, but if you knew even a little about the process, you
wouldn't be so quick to judge.
No need to reply. I don't expect you to understand.
> blahblah
Which is pretty much what your posts read like.
Over and out.
Dr.Matt
David Sherman <some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>> From: symp...@aol.comblahblah (knud)
>
>>> Being commercial does
>>> not always make something better or worse.
>>
>> But it usually does make it worse, simply because something created with a
>> purely financial goal may not arouse the passion of the composer.
>
>Well you've just ruined Cosi fan tutti for me. And half of Wagner's operas.
Do those need any help for ruination? :)
David Sherman
>
>> Well you've just ruined Cosi fan tutti for me. And half of Wagner's operas.
>
> Do those need any help for ruination? :)
<hee hee>
A good quick story about Cosi. I saw it for the first time performed by the
Juilliard Opera Center. Not too good. It was long, performers and
orchestra seemed to be just going through the motions (read my earlier
comments about professional musicians working for no money,) and the whole
opera seemed "flat." So I decided that I didn't like Cosi.
Year later I was fixed up on a blind date with a woman who loved music
(natcherly,) and had a subscription to the Metropolitan Opera. Our blind
date was going to be at the Met. Super. It turned out that the performance
that evening was, you guessed it, Cosi. I think the performance at
Juilliard was moved over to the Met (heavens knows they had the talent.)
But it was a "B" cast of performers at the Met that night, and I left not
liking Cosi any better.
Moving ahead a few years, my mother also has a small subscription to the
Met. My father loves to go with her, but when the NY Knicks have a
televised game that conflicts, he prefers to stay home and watch (I'm proud
to say that my father has his priorities in good order!) So my mother calls
me to see if I want to take my father's seat, which of course I do. I don't
have a lot of evenings like these left with my mother, and I savor them
whenever I get the chance. Sadly I learned that the opera that night was,
yes, Cosi.
That night however, the Met rolled out their "big guns" and James Levine led
the fabulous Met Orchestra (some say one of the best orchestras in the
country right now.) The performance absolutely crackled with humor,
passion, drama, and fabulous musicianship, and I was charmed. It took
approximately fifteen hours, but I finally fell in love with Cosi.
But I will say this in response to your comment: I haven't seen Cosi since!
:-)
knud
>>> not always make something better or worse.
>>
>> But it usually does make it worse, simply because something created with a
>> purely financial goal may not arouse the passion of the composer.
>
>Well you've just ruined Cosi fan tutti for me. And half of Wagner's operas.
>Yep, I'll never listen to a piece of music made for cash the same way again.
You know what music we were talking about so chill out. Considering every
little commisioned piece as "made to order" is absurd. We were speaking
specifically about purely functional music. Maybe you go to the latest
hollywood crapbuster for your music fix. If it works for you I won't break your
bubble! Take a great composer. Getting a commision is like getting money for
what you were going to do anyway. It can sure be an incentive to get it done!
>Showing you know little about film scores and orchestral music in one silly
>paragraph.
OK, so you like endless string drones and horn solos. More power to ya!
You obviously haven't heard many movie soundtracks! I'm not talking out of my
arse. You must be focusing on the rare exceptions and ignoring the 99.9% that
is pure dreck.
>n fact, when you're a professional, you tend to get in the frame of mind
>that writing music for no money is pretty passionless. With no deadline,
>nobody barking at you about rehearsals, schedules, how much copying and
>printing is going to cost, and absolutely nobody to please but yourself, you
>start to think to yourself, "What's the point?"
The point is that you HAVE to compose it. I'm sorry if your sole artistic
motivation is money.
>But a professional musician knows how to get passionate about what he's
>doing in both situations.
Well... I agree to an extent but you make it sound as if all these
soundtracks have some kind of "passion". Gimme a break! Anyone who can noodle
around a string patch on a keyboard and play a boring horn solo over the top
can be a soundtrack composer and get paid well as long as they know the right
people.
>I don't pretend that the economics of music and films is creating the best
>possible music
Well, that is the argument you just made. In reality unknown powerhouses
are creating better music in their bedroom and not getting paid jack shit for
it!
blahblah
knud
Woah! Slow down and back up. We want details! Did you score?
blahblah
Dr.Matt
1) When a composer keeps producing stuff without making a living at
it, the producing must be motivated by something other than a passion
for money. It may be motivated by "artistic passion", i.e. the desire
to realize an artistic vision--or it may be motivated by delusions of
grandeur or any number of other causes.
2) Fear of starvation is a strong motivator--a passion unto itself. It
isn't artistic vision--really, it isn't--but a whole different animal.
But there's no rule that says it can't co-exist with artistic vision,
and occasionally it does.
3) In the context of commercial use, realizing an artistic vision is
quite rightly valued far less than the ability to create something
which will serve its purpose, which is polished enough to blend in,
and which is done on time and within budget. That makes composing for
commerce a different gig from composing for artistic sake--a job with
a different set of goals, a different set of challenges, and a whole
different set of markers of "success". There aren't any concert works
that lend themselves to being used as the score to Jaws the way
Williams's score does; but the score to Jaws without the movie also
does not make a fascinating listening experience--it may, in the
context of the movie, seem like it's "telling the story" of the movie,
but it's no R.Strauss tone-poem. Interestingly enough, years ago I
got to see a few minutes of the film with the underscore removed, and
that too was a bit of a snoozer.
4) While a lot of film has used quite conservative music, the old saw
that atonal music would never be heard at the movies is quite nuts.
From the beginning of movies with sound, atonal music has been there,
through the Hermann scores for Hitchcock. For a shocker, turn on the
sound for the opening credits to "Seven"--pure 70's-style atonal
electronic expressionism!
5) Arguments about whether commerical music or non-commercial music is
better are quite a bit like arguments about whether dance is better
than painting, or whether hair color is more important than
intelligence---better for what? More important for what? There's really
no basis for people from either field to sneer at people from the other--
nor to appropriate ambiguous figures from the past as representative of
one field or the other.
Commercial music and art-music are different activities, as different
as baseball and poetry, though all four may rightly fit under the
larger umbrella of Show Business. Passion and money have roles in all
four--but if your passion is about money, poetry and art-music are
both poorer matches for you, and if your passion is about art, you
might find baseball a bad match. If your passion is about putting
smiles on people's faces, then any of those four might work.
David Sherman
for now:
> 3) In the context of commercial use, realizing an artistic vision is
> quite rightly valued far less than the ability to create something
> which will serve its purpose, which is polished enough to blend in,
> and which is done on time and within budget.
Sometimes that alone is the art! Seriously. Commercial writing for films
TV or commercials is about buying into and supplying "art" for someone
else's vision. If they want a particular musical style, you might think
it's totally wrong headed, you may have very strong ideas about what the
right sound is, but it's your gig to make it work using their idea.
So, yes, I agree that realizing an artistic vision is valued less, but
composing artistically being given that vision - good or bad - is sometimes
what makes commercial writing so challenging, and in my view, often
artistic. It also keeps me abreast of a great many musical styles that I
probably wouldn't otherwise bother with. When the phone rings, I have to be
prepared to carry out whatever the instructions are. So, in a perverse way,
commercial writing makes me a better musician.
Granted, I can't write anything commercially near what I write for the
concert stage, but I stopped making the distinction long ago. The same
process is involved using my training, my ear, and my musicianship. Some
days I write hip-hop for commercials, some days I write quasi classical and
sound design documentary scores, some days I work on chamber music. I
write. That's what I do.
> That makes composing for
> commerce a different gig from composing for artistic sake--a job with
> a different set of goals, a different set of challenges, and a whole
> different set of markers of "success". There aren't any concert works
> that lend themselves to being used as the score to Jaws the way
> Williams's score does; but the score to Jaws without the movie also
> does not make a fascinating listening experience--it may, in the
> context of the movie, seem like it's "telling the story" of the movie,
> but it's no R.Strauss tone-poem. Interestingly enough, years ago I
> got to see a few minutes of the film with the underscore removed, and
> that too was a bit of a snoozer.
Exactly. And that's the challenge of writing for film. You can write a
serious tone poem if you want but the director will throw it out because it
deflects attention away from his directions, actors, dialog, and
cinematography.
Actually film music doesn't tell the story, it tells the emotion. And
because films move quickly, there can be no question in the watcher's mind
what you're trying to express. That's why film composers often resort to
easily recognizable idioms. Sometimes you have no choice. You have ten
seconds to communicate suspense in no uncertain terms. What do you do?
Plus, you have to factor in what kind of movie it is: Jaws, Western, Sci
Fi, Bruce Willis action, Bridges of Madison County chick flick... And you
have to factor in what the director has asked for. And even maybe that the
directors girlfriend is the one producing the music and she happens to love
Japanese music. Man, I'm telling you, it gets hard.
It's almost easier to sit alone and write my own concert music where there
really aren't any "wrong" ideas - only ones I think won't work.
What I'm trying to say is that you find art where you can, and you try to
fill your artistic needs where you can. I didn't think I would be doing
this when I was an idealistic composition student. But after working in the
busness for nearly 20 years I seriously don't think I've sold myself out
artistically. There are a lot of assumptions (not yours, Matt, others
here,) that there is absolutely no art in commercial writing, and I'm here
to tell you that it just ain't so.
Samuel Vriezen
> Actually film music doesn't tell the story, it tells the emotion. And
> because films move quickly, there can be no question in the watcher's mind
> what you're trying to express. That's why film composers often resort to
> easily recognizable idioms. Sometimes you have no choice. You have ten
> seconds to communicate suspense in no uncertain terms. What do you do?
> Plus, you have to factor in what kind of movie it is: Jaws, Western, Sci
> Fi, Bruce Willis action, Bridges of Madison County chick flick... And you
> have to factor in what the director has asked for. And even maybe that the
> directors girlfriend is the one producing the music and she happens to love
> Japanese music. Man, I'm telling you, it gets hard.
>
> It's almost easier to sit alone and write my own concert music where there
> really aren't any "wrong" ideas - only ones I think won't work.
That makes sense, though I do sometimes feel I've put myself under more
conflicting restraints than twelve directors and their girlfriends taken
together ever could!
> What I'm trying to say is that you find art where you can, and you try to
> fill your artistic needs where you can. I didn't think I would be doing
> this when I was an idealistic composition student. But after working in the
> busness for nearly 20 years I seriously don't think I've sold myself out
> artistically. There are a lot of assumptions (not yours, Matt, others
> here,) that there is absolutely no art in commercial writing, and I'm here
> to tell you that it just ain't so.
Just out of curiosity, what would you have considered to constitute
'selling out'?
It's a term I've never really understood. I do of course see examples of
composers whose early work strikes me as audacious and whose later and
more succesful work strikes me as less imaginative, but I'm never quite
sure they can help it really. I mean artistic bravery and genius aren't
buttons you push, engines that run on lack of recognition or something.
--
samuel
free.concerten.fr
Toccata III in de Gaudeamus Muziekweek!
Beurs van Berlage, 3 september, 20:30 - www.gaudeamus.nl
knud
>it, the producing must be motivated by something other than a passion
>for money. It may be motivated by "artistic passion", i.e. the desire
>to realize an artistic vision--or it may be motivated by delusions of
>grandeur or any number of other causes.
In some extreme cases, the composer may not even WANT to have anything to
do with it but the music will not let them rest.
>) Fear of starvation is a strong motivator--a passion unto itself. It
>isn't artistic vision--really, it isn't--but a whole different animal.
>But there's no rule that says it can't co-exist with artistic vision,
>and occasionally it does.
The idea that promise of food or money will create inspiration is absurd.
But it certainly will create work ethic and the needed energy to get it done,
if that is not already present in copius amounts by birth.
>There aren't any concert works
>that lend themselves to being used as the score to Jaws the way
>Williams's score does; but the score to Jaws without the movie also
>does not make a fascinating listening experience--it may, in the
>context of the movie, seem like it's "telling the story" of the movie,
>but it's no R.Strauss tone-poem. Interestingly enough, years ago I
>got to see a few minutes of the film with the underscore removed, and
>that too was a bit of a snoozer.
This is what I mean when I call 99.9% of film music "functional". It may be
well done, but it's still utterly boring to listen to on it's own. The really
great film scores such as Yoko Kanno's Macross Plus are let down by the film in
many cases. The score is brilliant and stands much BETTER on it's own than it
does sitting behind a cliche story. In this case It's not film music at all.
It's just music with a film tacked on. Now, if the movie is shot around a score
that draws attention to itself and uses it to advantage we have something
pretty good. Unfortunately most film dreck is just generic attempts at
subliminal emotion engineering. There are a couple of grey-area examples where
the composer produces something stuck in a void between music and function.
This isn't common however. You almost feel bad for those scores because they
could be made into something useful but instead they rot behind a buncha dorky
people trying to act.
> Commercial music and art-music are different activities, as different
>as baseball and poetry
What David suggests is that "art music" magically belongs to the
"commercial" category as soon as someone is paid for composing it. I maintain
that the stimulus for quality work is far deeper than that in most composers.
In part this emphasis on quality and work ethic as opposed to cut-throat
social/financial gain is what alienates the serious composer from our society.
From birth (in america at least) we are conditioned to simply put all effort
into keeping the cogs turning instead of taking the time to build a monument.
blahblah
knud
>serious tone poem if you want but the director will throw it out because it
>deflects attention away from his directions, actors, dialog, and
>cinematography.
The only "challenge" of writing for film is not going postal as every
last ounce of interest is revised out of your score as morons try to homogenize
the entire project to meet the quarterly financial goals of a large
corporation. Directors are sometimes in the same boat. Everyone involved with a
movie that has a decent budget is under pressure not to rock the boats lest
something creative slip through. Film industry is a lousy environment for art,
although some people manage to pull it off with nothing more than a cheap
camera and a buncha friends. The best movies seem to be made by the people with
the least money!
You do have a point though... film music must be pretty challenging for
some of these soundtrack guys... just hop down to your local cinema and hear
what I mean. In reality I think alot of composers don't care about some shitty
movie so they toss off whatever bland dreck they are asked for. This is morally
acceptable. Why waste good music on yet another buddy cop movie or "wow big
kiss scene with panning camera at the end" chick flick? It's a good gig for a
composer because you can toss of stuff and get money to survive which can allow
you to work on your real music. Not to say some guys don't have an ethic that
makes them put at least a bit of juice into even the most mundane job.
> And
>because films move quickly
Some of the best films of all time move like molasses! Some of these
supposedly "fast" action movies seem slow to me simply because it's all been
done before, and better.
>there can be no question in the watcher's mind
>what you're trying to express.
The watchers mind ain't that advanced. The sheep are easily amused. The
last thing they care about is someones sensitive horn solo as the camera
watches some dumb truck roll across some countryside.
>That's why film composers often resort to
>easily recognizable idioms
They resort to familar cliches because they are quick, dirty and cheap. For
your average cookie cutter movie the composer has only a little time near the
end of production to fire out several hours worth of background noise. Plus the
studio wants to hear cliches, so people in the theater aren't too disturbed by
having to think. Don't rock the boat... as I said in another post, it's better
this way because it's a shame to have good music wasted on yet another cloned
generic movie.
David, I'm not claiming there aren't exceptions but you must know the
grind first hand unless you are fibbing. In fact there are some pretty nice
pairings of picture and music, it's just that they don't end up in the
theaters.
I actually enjoy movies quite a bit despite my bashing (I'm a career
devil's advocate, be warned!) A good one is "Urusei Yatsura movie 2: beatiful
dreamer" which not only has a great score but also a superb movie to go with
it, well matched scene for scene.
To further qualify my statements, I am active as a no-budget
writer/director so I have a passion for films, just not the junk in the
theater. I am currently filming a really involved no-budget production in which
I am shooting the ENTIRE movie to my original score, which was recorded
beforehand.
blahblah
David Sherman
Samuel Vriezen <sqv.doesnt...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>David Sherman wrote:
>
>Just out of curiosity, what would you have considered to constitute
>'selling out'?
>
>It's a term I've never really understood. I do of course see examples of
>composers whose early work strikes me as audacious and whose later and
>more succesful work strikes me as less imaginative, but I'm never quite
>sure they can help it really. I mean artistic bravery and genius aren't
>buttons you push, engines that run on lack of recognition or something.
When I was a composition student earning my degree, I probably would have
conisdered "selling out" exactly what I'm doing right now.
It was in my last year of school that I realized two things: 1.) I didn't
want to teach - I wanted to be an active composer, and 2.) nobody was going
to pay me to be a composer and write Symphonies and String Quartets. I had
spent years poo-pooing commercial, studio, jazz, and film composition even
though I was earning my way through school playing jazz piano and writing
arrangements for a variety of night club talent. I was even down on music
that came out of Universities (it was very hip for conservatory composers
to say bad things about "university music" in those days.)
So there was the problem in a nutshell. I had to forget what I thought and
go out and see what I could actually do. I realized that there was a lot
of paying jobs if I wasn't particular about what they were. And I needed
paying jobs. My NYC landlord wanted a crisp new check every month. So,
I wound up at a "Jingle House" as a staff arranger. I remember my first
gig: a 60 second toy commercial for singers, piano, bass, drums, electric
guitar, 4 Violins, acoustic guitar, and flute. I had written plenty of chamber
music, but this was the wackiest ensemble I ever had to write for. It was
hell. I had the musical sence of what to do but no idea of how to distribute
the notes among this weird collection of instruments. All my education and
I was helpless.
So I learned. I also learned how to write specxific little snippets into
various parts to let the players know that I really knew the instruments
I was writing for. This at first led to some twinkling eyes and winks in
the studio, some friendships, some more work, and in a couple of instances,
a couple of commissions from studio musicians who had their degrees from
the same school I went to, and who were serious concert artists in their
own right.
So, I sold out alright. I took jobs not for the music, but just for the
money. And look what happened! Just what I wanted originally - I write
music every day. I often work with some of the finest instrumentalists in
New York. I'm able to make a living and I have some time to work on my own
music. And even sometimes I get to do something really challenging and musical.
And the best part is it lets me afford the hobby of being a golfer who lives
in a major metropolitan area. That ain't cheap!
---------------------------POST VIA--------------------------------
news://nntp.xusenet.com http://www.xusenet.com
===================================================================