Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

I want to ask the question that was suggested in another thread because I think it's important. The question is: How should an inexperienced composer who wants to write dissonant and rhythmically complex music learn how to do that?

I've been writing and playing music a long time but I'm basically a beginner at 'classical' composition. I can read score at an intermediate level. I know basic theory and have some experience with extended harmony and odd time signatures and syncopation. I can write four part harmony and I have a basic understanding of counterpoint. I haven't spent much time on orchestration. I do spend time studying scores and listening to a variety of composers. I can write basic pieces that mimic (poorly) composers of the baroque and classical period.

So my question is: What else should I be doing, what is the next step? I don't post music here because lately I haven't much time to write anything; and to be honest, the level of bickering and personal attacks on this site in the past at least makes me think that it is a waste of time.

But I'd like to hear any thoughts or suggestions.

Views: 2442

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Nick I listened to 'Tanto Meglio' and I liked it. It had some complex harmonies and some dissonance but the phrasing and structure were pleasing and accessible.  I read the 'Newtonality; Thomes and Phases' article that you linked to and while I don't pretend to completely understand it seems to be a sort of process similar to set theory and I found it interesting.

My original question for this thread, "How can I learn to write atonal music?", was not so much me trying to learn the form and practice of atonality as me trying to stimulate a good discussion on this forum; and I feel it was quite successful as there were many thoughtful and interesting viewpoints presented. 

I enjoy some 'atonal' music and a lot of what we loosely term 'modern' music but to be honest I am not a fan of the process of serial composition or set theory.  I respect the study and practice of those approaches and I often enjoy the music that is produced but I don't enjoy the process itself.  And I think this is because I believe what you said in your original comment, " . . just write it from the heart . . " so when I write I usually seem to abandon any preset goals or processes and follow the whims of the moment which is not a good way to get much accomplished; but I enjoy it.

I do study and try to learn new things so if you have other material I will gladly look at it as I have time.

Nick Capocci said:

Thank you, Ingo. I omitted to mention my own technique of Thomes and Phases. More complicated than pure atonal techniques, but with the "advantage" of employing tonal structures. I tried to explain it here a few years ago, but met largely consternation!!... I'd be happy to expand if you're interested. Anyway, here's a link.   ( hope it works, as I'm pretty crap at modern technology).  http://www.nickcapocci.co.uk/thomes-phases/

Ingo Lee said:

Hi Nick, thank you for responding to this thread.  'From the heart' is always the best compositional approach I think but I wouldn't normally associate it with atonality and that is a mistake. Artists with skill and experience can usually 'fake it' pretty well but for art to really resonate it has to, on some level, be 'from the heart' I believe, and there's no reason atonal music should be any different.

I see you've been a forum member for a while and are getting back into it.  There have been some changes you'll see, so welcome back!

Nick Capocci said:

Once I asked my teacher, Humphrey Searle, how to write atonal music of real character. He said" just write it from the heart, as you would any other music". 

Anyway, technically the best place to start is with serial technique. It's relatively uncomplicated!


Hi Ingo. Many thanks for listening and reading my thesis. It's important to understand that Thomes and Phases is very different from set theory, serialism - and, for that matter, the theories of Paul Hindemith, with which it has also been compared. There are indeed some similarities, but they are superficial. Thomes and Phases is formed on what I have termed the "Newtonal" principle; that atonality can function ONLY in relation to tonality, in the same way that dissonance can only function in relation to consonance in the older tonal systems. This principle - as far as I have been able to ascertain thus far anyway! - is unique to Thomes and phases. Also, "newtonality" must be thought of independantly from Thomes and phases. The newtonality idea was developed after Thomes and phases was up and running as a compositional technique, and dealt with broader, more general way of looking back over the history of composition and the origin of atonality. This last point led to some confusion when I first introduced Thomes and phases and the Newtonal idea to the forum some years ago.

Out of interest, I have a direct link with Schoenberg and the Second Viennese School. My teacher at college was Humphrey Searle, who studied in Vienna with Anton Webern.

From comments you have made, I would guess Thomes and phases in its original manifestation (the form in which you heard in Tanto Meglio) would suit your composing needs perfectly! I say this not from any egotism, but simply because I know from years of practical experience what an incredibly powerful method of composition it is and how it so easily adapts to the style of the individual composer.

Set theory etc...... Because of my background and interests I have studied at some time most modern methods and theories. Set theory is just about the most dull, over-intellectualised technique ever devised. Cold, clinical, devoid of any interest to anyone with a modicum of musical passion or imagination. Of course composition is a technical skill! But!!!... It MUST originate from the soul, from the heart, not from the intellect. Thomes and phases is not the source of musical material, but a technique that is applied to musical material that has already been created, often by improvisation. The music that results comes therefore from the heart, from the soul. That is why music composed in this way can, and often does, sound as powerful and natural as anything conceived in a purely tonal idiom. That is what distinguishes Thomes and phases from other techniques. With Thomes and phases, the heart always powers the ship. The intellect simply supplies the compass and charts, nothing more.

Please feel free to share any of these comments with others. I hope in the near future to find a young composer who would be willing to carry this material forwards, as I have only scratched the surface. Be assured , I am always happy to discuss any of this with anyone who is genuinely interested.



Ingo Lee said:

Nick I listened to 'Tanto Meglio' and I liked it. It had some complex harmonies and some dissonance but the phrasing and structure were pleasing and accessible.  I read the 'Newtonality; Thomes and Phases' article that you linked to and while I don't pretend to completely understand it seems to be a sort of process similar to set theory and I found it interesting.

My original question for this thread, "How can I learn to write atonal music?", was not so much me trying to learn the form and practice of atonality as me trying to stimulate a good discussion on this forum; and I feel it was quite successful as there were many thoughtful and interesting viewpoints presented. 

I enjoy some 'atonal' music and a lot of what we loosely term 'modern' music but to be honest I am not a fan of the process of serial composition or set theory.  I respect the study and practice of those approaches and I often enjoy the music that is produced but I don't enjoy the process itself.  And I think this is because I believe what you said in your original comment, " . . just write it from the heart . . " so when I write I usually seem to abandon any preset goals or processes and follow the whims of the moment which is not a good way to get much accomplished; but I enjoy it.

I do study and try to learn new things so if you have other material I will gladly look at it as I have time.

Nick Capocci said:

Thank you, Ingo. I omitted to mention my own technique of Thomes and Phases. More complicated than pure atonal techniques, but with the "advantage" of employing tonal structures. I tried to explain it here a few years ago, but met largely consternation!!... I'd be happy to expand if you're interested. Anyway, here's a link.   ( hope it works, as I'm pretty crap at modern technology).  http://www.nickcapocci.co.uk/thomes-phases/

Ingo Lee said:

Hi Nick, thank you for responding to this thread.  'From the heart' is always the best compositional approach I think but I wouldn't normally associate it with atonality and that is a mistake. Artists with skill and experience can usually 'fake it' pretty well but for art to really resonate it has to, on some level, be 'from the heart' I believe, and there's no reason atonal music should be any different.

I see you've been a forum member for a while and are getting back into it.  There have been some changes you'll see, so welcome back!

Nick Capocci said:

Once I asked my teacher, Humphrey Searle, how to write atonal music of real character. He said" just write it from the heart, as you would any other music". 

Anyway, technically the best place to start is with serial technique. It's relatively uncomplicated!

Hi Julie. I found you on Ingo's thread . I would really appreciate your comments, opinion etc. on my own meagre efforts in this area. Due to commitments over the years I've never been able to follow through with these ideas as I would have wished. From your comments on this thread it's obvious you know what you're talking about! I have to be careful when sharing this thesis and the pieces which use this technique, as, in the past, it has met with varying degrees of incomprehension which I then have had to try and deal with. So now I tend to choose individuals such as yourself on a one-to-one basis to get feedback etc..

Tanto Meglio was written in 1979 and was the first piece to employ the Thomes & Phases method of composition.

http://www.nickcapocci.co.uk/thomes-phases/

There's no hurry to reply - should you choose to, that is!

With all good wishes, Nick c



Ingo Lee said:

Great composition idea and execution Julie, wonderful source for musical ideas.  I missed the lullabies the first time around! Thanks for posting that.

Julie Harris said:

I wonder if any of you would like a less cerebral approach to so-called "atonal" music? 

I would like to suggest that music that has no tonal center and does not use functional harmony is a lot less complex than the previous discussions have implied.  I actually believe that it's a lot easier and more enjoyable to write than the rule-bound tonal music.  Some of my youngest students (the under 9 crowd) are writing appealing music that our competition judges called "atonal" and yet audiences liked it as well.  It's just what they hear naturally before they get too trained and too educated  ;-)   I have three brothers with perfect pitch and exceptional curiosity - one loves tonal, one loves what he calls dissonance, and one is gradually finding his preferences.  I'm letting each follow his impulses and teaching them what I consider to be the basics of composition, even more so than melody and harmony.  Contour and shape, contrast and continuity, moving toward something and then arriving, building tension and releasing it - all these things and many more apply equally well to the different categories of music, and have parallels in daily life. 

I used to use "in the head" constructs and abstract rules for my music, similar to what Mike is describing.  I loved that stuff thirty or more years ago, but I'm afraid the resulting music didn't satisfy my humanity.  Now I like to think more like a child, like an innocent hearing the world around me. In more recent years, I have turned more and more to nature or poetry or pictures or stories to "hear" what I want to write down.  I find so-called atonal music to be a natural form of expression.  The sounds I hear around me - birdsong, rhythms and contours of the wind or rain, the exciting sounds of a new house being built -  are not arranged in 4/4 or 3/4 or anything/4 nor do they use functional harmony.  I find that if I really listen and pay attention, the resulting music appeals to audiences and satisfies my humanity, even though it may be called "atonal".  I prefer to just call it music.

Here's an example of a piece that was performed and recorded by the late pianist Greg McCallum.  The entire Suite, "American Triptych" is a three-movement piano virtuoso solo based on American folk tunes.  The middle movement, "Hush-A-Bye" is based on night sounds and two American lullabies.  My "study" for this involved going outside every night and listening.  It was spring and there was a little pond next door where various families of frogs congregated.  The frogs, the night crickets, the repetitive call of one bird - these took the place of tone rows, intervallic structures, hexads and suchlike.  I had a wonderful time writing this piece, and will never forget the magic of those nights of listening.

The structure I wanted was simple - the night sounds gradually hint at and finally culminate in quotes from the two lullabies, which soon drift back into the songs of the frogs, crickets and birds.  Pretty simple stuff, really.  Audiences in the US, England and Scotland seem to resonate to this piece, and I'm happy with it as well.  These sounds are universal, even if you don't know the particular lullabies.

Hush-A-Bye audio file
Hush-A-ByeScore.pdf

For those who prefer nature and stories and poetry and pictures to complex rules, there is plenty of source material all around you.  Listen, absorb and write, without trying to force it into Western rules of either tonal or atonal origin.  You might be pleasantly surprised! 

Hi Nick and FYI, Julie is on hiatus right now, so it might be a while before you get an answer - best

Gav

Many thanks! Nick c

Gav Brown said:

Hi Nick and FYI, Julie is on hiatus right now, so it might be a while before you get an answer - best

Gav

I'm new to the forum and haven't fully grasped how popular or frequently read the posts are, but I'm happy to come to the party with fresh and enthusiastic eyes and ears.

In my own writing, I've found that if I'm trying to emulate a soundscape or rhythm, I've gone to the source material of my inspiration to see how it was created. As part of my learning process I would copy out chunks of existing works. Whilst it can be too easy to fall into the trap of copying without thinking, I tried hard to consider how and why certain instruments, notes or times worked. Play around with changing a note or having a different instrument perform a passage and you soon learn what works and what doesn't. Take one score and blend it into another piece of similar style and see what happens.

There is no right or wrong music, although opinions widely differ on what is good. I'd like to think I'm not a fan of atonal or dissonant, yet I find myself revisiting Ligeti, Reich, Glass and many other contemporary composers just as often as the classics. Sometimes I love a piece, sometimes I can't switch it off fast enough.

In answer to your enquiry, there can be no doubt that a foundation in music theory is essential, but you will only produce the results you want by writing, erasing, writing, erasing, amending, deleting everything, starting over, then doing it all again.

Hi Graeme -  Reading scores while listening is a great approach I agree. "There is no right or wrong music" , absolutely!  I'll listen to anything at least once.  And I spend a lot of time writing, erasing and lots of deleting. Once in a while I get lucky and write something I like on the first try; and sometimes those other mistakes turn out to be happy errors, that's always fun.

Thanks for commenting, I look forward to hearing your music!


Graeme Helliwell said:

I'm new to the forum and haven't fully grasped how popular or frequently read the posts are, but I'm happy to come to the party with fresh and enthusiastic eyes and ears.

In my own writing, I've found that if I'm trying to emulate a soundscape or rhythm, I've gone to the source material of my inspiration to see how it was created. As part of my learning process I would copy out chunks of existing works. Whilst it can be too easy to fall into the trap of copying without thinking, I tried hard to consider how and why certain instruments, notes or times worked. Play around with changing a note or having a different instrument perform a passage and you soon learn what works and what doesn't. Take one score and blend it into another piece of similar style and see what happens.

There is no right or wrong music, although opinions widely differ on what is good. I'd like to think I'm not a fan of atonal or dissonant, yet I find myself revisiting Ligeti, Reich, Glass and many other contemporary composers just as often as the classics. Sometimes I love a piece, sometimes I can't switch it off fast enough.

In answer to your enquiry, there can be no doubt that a foundation in music theory is essential, but you will only produce the results you want by writing, erasing, writing, erasing, amending, deleting everything, starting over, then doing it all again.

This entire thread, in my honest opinion sadly suffers, as so many have, by having a very vague, not clearly defined term, and then trying to discuss that.

That term is "atonal music"....

Now this term gets a little more clarification here:

"How can I learn to write atonal music..... dissonant and rhythmically complex music?"

But there isnt one single flavor of atonal music that fits that description..so thats a HUGE problem in my opinion. What may have really helped this thread is the OP naming and linking to an "atonal" work  that embodied the atonal style they wanted to write in.

Secondly Ive found it really helps me to listen to the compositions of those answering a question, especially something like this one..

and see exactly how many here ARE actually writing "dissonant and rhythmically complex music". There simply arent many if ANY at all...so almost all thats being offered isnt borne from the experience of actually WRITING this kind of music.

So in light of the above I can't see having a really in depth, really worthwhile discussion on this topic and we end up with the usual page after page of replies and side discussions that really dont help anything, or anyone. YMMV

I can only speak for myself and say how I did it, and am still doing it as everyday is a learning day--and my music page at Soundcloud is linked to below.

I started from total scratch, discarding all I had done (I originally wanted to be a contemporary choral composer, and stopped composing for many years due to illness; and restarted very roughly about 10 years ago) and throwing myself into the deepest part of the musical ocean I could find as the music there really appealed to me..the New Complexity.. and see if Id sink, swim or hopefully at least thread water:)

I saw what the big composers who were doing what I wanted to do, were doing--recordings, articles Youtube videos with scores, etc and then note by note measure by measure tried to write in the same ball park as them. I stopped listening to any older classical music at all, so that the old ways of saying and doing things wouldnt slip into what I was trying to do.

Of course this may sound drastic to some, but I feel its worked and is working  for me...

So my answer to this question would be for the OP to clearly define what kind of dissonant and rhythmically complex music they want to compose, with specific articles, music score videos etc of as many examples they can find from the big contemporary composers, that sounds like where they want to go musically, and then from there proceed however much in depth they want to go.

For my money you need to be all in to do this kind of music and get the result youre looking for, as anything else wont sound like the kind of music youre really trying to compose/

Again YMMV

Thanks Bob https://soundcloud.com/bob-morabito

PS for those using Sibelius and wanting to get a little taste of 12 tone composing, this plugin might help:

http://www.sibelius.com/download/plugins/index.html?plugin=467

Apply series

Version 3.0
Added 25 Jul 2013 (last updated 09 Sep 2014)

For use with Sibelius 6, Sibelius 7.1, Sibelius 7.5, Sibelius 8.x and Sibelius 18.x

This plugin is principally designed to help with serial composition but it can be used for other purposes, including mapping the rhythm of one stave to as set of pitches contained in another.

It requires a stave to be wholly dedicated to the series (source pitches), which should be present once in its Prime form. The plugin can then be used to map selected notes in other staves to the series notes.

Options include different versions of the series (Prime, Retrograde, Inversion and Inversion Retrograde), transposition, octave shifts, labelling the version used and note numbering.

Version 2 is fully polyphonic, i.e. it works with chords and it also allows the partial selection, repetition and reordering of the notes in the series. Such techniques are quite common in post war serial music. A bug which could lead to the main dialog disappearing has also been fixed.

The series can be any number of notes.

Added in Version 3

The octave position of the series notes can now be determined by the selected notes and the series can now be applied one stave a time or across all selected staves in the order that the notes are played.

Plug-in written by Kenneth Gaw.

Thanks Bob https://soundcloud.com/bob-morabito

Hi Bob.

I listened to some of your music on the soundcloud, so I'm guessing you will hate my piano piece, with its deliberate references to older tonal idioms and textures. Nevertheless, you obviously know your onions and I would greatly appreciate your opinion. 

Also (if/when you have the time and inclination!!) I'd value your opinion of the method I used when composing it, Thomes & Phases. It's a technique derived from atonal serial technique which I studied with Humphrey Searle ( who was a student of Webern in Vienna).

I much prefer these day discussions on a one-to-one basis with people who's work and opinions I respect to the open forum, where, let's face it, anyone can "have a go"! 

Btw, enjoyed reading your comments very much.

Best regards, Nick 

http://www.nickcapocci.co.uk/thomes-phases/

Bob Morabito said:

This entire thread, in my honest opinion sadly suffers, as so many have, by having a very vague, not clearly defined term, and then trying to discuss that.

That term is "atonal music"....

Now this term gets a little more clarification here:

"How can I learn to write atonal music..... dissonant and rhythmically complex music?"

But there isnt one single flavor of atonal music that fits that description..so thats a HUGE problem in my opinion. What may have really helped this thread is the OP naming and linking to an "atonal" work  that embodied the atonal style they wanted to write in.

Secondly Ive found it really helps me to listen to the compositions of those answering a question, especially something like this one..

and see exactly how many here ARE actually writing "dissonant and rhythmically complex music". There simply arent many if ANY at all...so almost all thats being offered isnt borne from the experience of actually WRITING this kind of music.

So in light of the above I can't see having a really in depth, really worthwhile discussion on this topic and we end up with the usual page after page of replies and side discussions that really dont help anything, or anyone. YMMV

I can only speak for myself and say how I did it, and am still doing it as everyday is a learning day--and my music page at Soundcloud is linked to below.

I started from total scratch, discarding all I had done (I originally wanted to be a contemporary choral composer, and stopped composing for many years due to illness; and restarted very roughly about 10 years ago) and throwing myself into the deepest part of the musical ocean I could find as the music there really appealed to me..the New Complexity.. and see if Id sink, swim or hopefully at least thread water:)

I saw what the big composers who were doing what I wanted to do, were doing--recordings, articles Youtube videos with scores, etc and then note by note measure by measure tried to write in the same ball park as them. I stopped listening to any older classical music at all, so that the old ways of saying and doing things wouldnt slip into what I was trying to do.

Of course this may sound drastic to some, but I feel its worked and is working  for me...

So my answer to this question would be for the OP to clearly define what kind of dissonant and rhythmically complex music they want to compose, with specific articles, music score videos etc of as many examples they can find from the big contemporary composers, that sounds like where they want to go musically, and then from there proceed however much in depth they want to go.

For my money you need to be all in to do this kind of music and get the result youre looking for, as anything else wont sound like the kind of music youre really trying to compose/

Again YMMV

Thanks Bob https://soundcloud.com/bob-morabito

Hi Nick--Thanks for your listening and for your kind words--they're very much appreciated:)

I can see how much you believe in these concepts and how much youve worked on this. Its all very impressive--GREAT JOB!!- but its a lot to take in, for anyone. So help me and others to want to understand your concepts.

I feel the very first thing you need to do is create a scrolling score of TANTO MEGLIO using notation software , and at least 3 or 4 more other showcase pieces of your concepts, all with clear scrolling scores and good audio quality, with explanations of how what we're hearing relates to your concepts.

As it is now TANTO MEGLIO is only heard by me in my left ear in a poor recording..which honestly doesnt make me want to dig deeper into your concepts.

The two Jerusalem fugue examples and Prelude version one, and overview of Newtonality are also left ear only here--so anything I could hear again holds me back from really getting into your concepts.

(I keep checking my audio with other pieces and only yours come out left sided only, so Im not sure if its just me.)

So I would do these as soon as possible, and then separate your theoretical writings from the rest of the stuff on your site as you have it now, and have them on their own site, away from everything else.

Id simplify all ideas and even, eg a small note why you skip the letter "c" and have all "a, b,d" in NEWTONALITY; THOMES & PHASES  would help.

You need to present these concepts in the most PROFESSIONAL way you can, to get people eally interested in them.

After all thats done I would then post in a few sites with their own topic  and see what kind of response you get, make adjustments, and then all over the web, again in their own post..but the condition of your audio, and lack of more good examples to explain whats being heard. plus all that other stuff on your website I truly believe are holding you and your concepts back from getting the interest and response they truly deserve.

Hope something here helps!

Thanks Bob https://soundcloud.com/bob-morabito

.



Nick Capocci said:

Hi Bob.

I listened to some of your music on the soundcloud, so I'm guessing you will hate my piano piece, with its deliberate references to older tonal idioms and textures. Nevertheless, you obviously know your onions and I would greatly appreciate your opinion. 

Also (if/when you have the time and inclination!!) I'd value your opinion of the method I used when composing it, Thomes & Phases. It's a technique derived from atonal serial technique which I studied with Humphrey Searle ( who was a student of Webern in Vienna).

I much prefer these day discussions on a one-to-one basis with people who's work and opinions I respect to the open forum, where, let's face it, anyone can "have a go"! 

Btw, enjoyed reading your comments very much.

Best regards, Nick 

http://www.nickcapocci.co.uk/thomes-phases/

I know I'm getting on a bit but have even more posts have disappeared. I'm not just going senile am I?! I'd hoped to catch up on the discussion.

Your insights are most valuable Bob - I am still puttering away on my own meagre efforts in this direction and really hope to discuss with you more when I am brave enough to post my first music here.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sign up info

Read before you sign up to find out what the requirements are!

Store

© 2019   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service