Does anyone resonate or identify with the way of composing described in this video -
If anyone would like to participate in this journey in any way (details in the video), it would be great to hear from you. If not, hopefull, we'll have more videos coming soon. My next couple will probably be around Composers' Block and Dealing with Criticism. Any input/experiences you'd like to share with me in advance of making these would be really helpful.
Replies
Well it's an interesting and heartfelt vid Guy and it might well help many composers if you develop it further. However I'm sorry to say that I do not think at a fundamental level, yours is the best approach to writing music, specifically regarding the genre chosen and so will push back a little, even if you've heard it all before. I do agree that as a personal creative outlet, the intuitive approach can have many benefits and I'd certainly encourage it and your project on that basis. But on a purely musical level there are flaws with the intuitive approach that hamper the end result from the off imo. I should also say that I'm motivated below by the desire for all composers to reach the highest level they can as it seems you are too, however we are thinking about it in two mutually exclusive ways. If anything, DAW/Notation software and the internet has shown that many people have a talent but many might not realise how strong it is and their true potential will be lost. Worse still some composers are clearly able to express themselves to a decent level and have the makings of distinctiveness but can go no further.
As one who went through academia I know the benefits and whilst I might not be the world's greatest composer, when I write I have absolutely no musical limitations and tons of options and know how which help me get my own personal best out of any ideas. It's that sense of creative/artistic freedom and the sense of adventure it encourages that is something all composers can acquire but they must go through a learning process before they can fly as high as they are able to. I contend that the intuitive approach will not necessarily get a composer to that place. I accept that learning the craft might not be for everyone but that does not change the reality that doing so will make a composer more able and is without doubt the best and realistically speaking, the only route to mature artistic expression in concert hall music. That said even a partial learning of some specific techniques will always improve the composer and is probably the more practical route for amateurs to improve.
For the more ambitious concert hall composer, not learning how to write fluently and accurately and with as full an arsenal of techniques that one can learn is actually a dis-service to the their own voice imo, for it will almost certainly stymie their musical and expressive reach by leaving their full potential unlocked and worse, possibly even undiscovered. I think that's a real shame. I think of theory/technique/learning/academia (it's just one thing to me), as the way to actually unlock creative options, a deep personal dive and discovery into one's creativity and a musical search engine, for that is what it actually is when approached, learnt and then used properly in composing ( that does not mean adherence to the so called rules btw). Without the artifice, I contend that the resulting art cannot truly flourish to maximal personal effect. I believe academia's necessary pedagogy itself might be partly responsible for the dry misconceptions that have accrued in the internet composing age regarding technique and its artistic relevance and implications. That's unfortunate but is it any real surprise that to be good at something, one needs to know it very well. One just needs to discover and understand how theory applies to the self.
Misconceptions about theory by non-theory based composers are, it seems to me, often cited in a derogatory or dichotomous sense. Well there is a reason there are better composers than others and that has everything to do with how theory's absorption into a composer's artistry and the resulting musical growth and development affects a composer's output. This process of learning, absorbing, mastering of technique and musical growth is not grasped nor understood by an intuitive approach and nor can it ever be given the implied aversion to learning. Incidentally, theory does not necessarily equate to complexity but what it does equate to is musicality, the musicality personally developed as a composer grasps with learning techniques and discovers his/her own artistry in the process.
I'd like to add that much of the processes you describe in the video as they relate to you are still important to composers who have learnt their craft. The difference being, with a foundation of know-how, the creative options become many more and multi-faceted, the focus more potent and the ability to create musical inevitability and a sense of flow and momentum greatly enhanced. The idea (not yours) that theory somehow sets music in stone or adversely affects the individual voice is a myth due to a lack of understanding as to how technique applies to a composer's artistry. Also, intuition, serendipity and any other way that gets the job done are all still vital and determining factors, however when underpinned with experience born of handling and learning at the technical/musical level that then informs or supports creative choice, intuition, serendipity and raw technique can be transformed into a more powerful and cogent focus.
I haven't even mentioned instrumentation/orchestration and the learning curve involved but presumably you are just concerned with using samples for their own qualities. Re David's comment above about theory being absorbed just by listening I'd like to say by analogy that one cannot play scales and arpeggios by simply listening to concerto performances and then go on to play the concerto in an exquisite, musical and personal way. YMMV.
IMO it all depends on how the theory is taught. The same theory / musical education can be presented in a dry, uninspiring, you-better-follow-the-rules-or-else way, or it can be presented in the way of inspiring the student -- e.g., did you know you can do XYZ in this passage? or, did you know if you used this technique here it would make the music more effective? Such an approach can inspire the student to explore and seek to know more about a particular aspect of theory or practice, which leads to much better absorption and internalization than "you didn't follow rule #123 here, -1 marks to your total score."
I also want to add that there's this common misconception that limitations will hamper the creative process. Such is not necessarily true; it depends on how you approach it. In fact, much of my experience with totally "free" and "unlimited" writing involves staring at the blank page and having a major case of composer's block. Lately, i.e. for the past 8 years, I have essentially been writing nothing but fugues. I'm guessing that when most people hear of fugues, they immediately think "oh no, too many rules that I don't even understand, I could never do it!" However, I have to say that forcing myself to write fugues has been one of the most revolutionary things that happened as far as my compositional process is concerned. Due to the strictures of fugue-writing, I have been forced to really know my own themes and develop them to the max, and I have also been forced to face the important fundamental musical issues that one has to grapple with in successful writing; there is no room to hide or sweep weak writing under the rug by covering it over with arpeggios (for example). And contrary to common belief, my creativity has not been hampered at all by the limitations; in fact, I'd go as far as to say that it has greatly enhanced my writing. Some of you here know of my adventures in stretching the fugal form where Bach wouldn't have taken it -- my straining against the limitations has produced some of the most creative moments in my writing, if I do say so myself. Had I shied away from fugue writing, I'd have been stuck in my teenage "melody + bass and chordal accompaniment" stage forever. After experiencing fugue writing, my musical arsenal has been greatly enriched, and it has allowed me to write things that I could never have imagined I could write before.
Of course, as I said in my other post, it all depends on how you approach it. I know many people who wrote fugues because they had to do it to pass their course, and so do it only in the most bare minimum, perfunctory way. The result is not of much interest musically speaking, and it does not inspire them to progress in their own craft. But if you approach it in the way of internalizing it -- "here are the limitations I willingly put myself to, now what can I do to be maximally creative within these constraints?" -- and then, once you've achieved some degree of mastery over it -- "in what ways can I stretch the rules, and still have a coherent piece of music?" -- then you may discover the joy of fugue as I have, and you may also discover how it can really hone your compositional skills by forcing you to confront the most basic musical issues and pull it off well, not just barely get by with papering over weak spots.
This applies of course not just to fugue writing itself, but really, to any aspect to music theory. You can take it in the "oh no so many rules I can't stand it help me get me outta here" way, which will give you no benefit, or you can take it in the "welp, I guess I have to write within these constraints, now given these circumstances, where can I really show my creativity to the full? In what ways can I stretch these rules so that the result is more to my liking, and still remains an effective piece of music?". If you take the latter approach, the theory will become your tool and you will become its master, rather than the other way round. A toolbox you can draw from, rather than red tape you have to grudgingly deal with.
While I appreciate your perspective, I’m largely in agreement with Mike / Teoh here.
There may always be a theory versus non-theory debate, especially in today’s culture of instant gratification, an expectation of instant results- but I do believe that a thoughtful study of theory enriches the creative process rather than limits it. (though I probably don’t study as much as I should!)
I especially disagree with the notion that one can ‘absorb music theory simply by listening to a wide variety of works.’ It’s important to remember that music theory, much like any formal discipline, isn’t something you get a handle on through exposure alone. The principles of music theory, much like the intricacies of calculus, language, or any other learned ability, are not self-evident by merely observing the end result. Much in the same way one wouldn’t learn advanced mathematics just by looking at solved problems. One might stumble upon or begin to gain an understanding of patterns, ideas, perhaps develop a strong ear, an intuitive sense of style, and some familiarity with different musical traditions- but it will not allow one to fully absorb. I’m sorry, but good luck keeping up with a booked up Jazz improv group if relying solely on a foundation of only listening to jazz.
You may indeed gain enough to “get by” in many mainstream genres—pop or rock— this music often operates on what could be called “low information” structures. Those genres and others typically rely on simpler harmonic progressions, predictable rhythms, repetitive patterns etc. Typically the instrumentals behind the vocals only provide the core, necessary harmonic information to imply the harmony, with the harmonic shifts more or less lasting for several bars and being somewhat predictable. While this is not inherently bad, it often means that the compositional techniques and musical language employed for the type of music this video touches on (and typically for more formal orchestral / concert music) are absent in those genres.
Similarly, one does not become a structural engineer by reviewing countless blueprints or an expert woodworker by watching a master craft furniture. Observation alone is valuable in gaining surface level insight, but it’s merely a start in my opinion. You might glean enough information to construct something basic, but you won’t grasp the underlying science and artistry.
The reluctance to engage with music theory represents, in my view and as others noted, a missed opportunity. Music theory isn’t about rigid rules that constrain creativity; it’s a toolkit designed to help you better communicate your musical ideas. An athlete trains for a sport often by doing specific, regimented, repetitive exercises. It’s tedious, it’s likely boring. But it’s the stuff that turns many away. It’s the bones that, as Mike pointed out, separate the goods from greats from the masters That’s all to build a stronger foundation for a higher reaching end game. It’s about understanding the mechanisms that allow music to evoke emotions and express ideas in ways that others may emotionally respond to. It’s about knowing exactly how to quantify everything you can hear in an organized, accessible manner. If the goal is to create music that resonates with others on an emotional and intellectual level, then studying theory is a necessary step. If, however, the goal is purely personal self-satisfaction—writing only for oneself—then theory really is not essential.
Don’t forget, all those composers with a strong theoretical background still have an imagination, an inner voice, and something to say as well.
I especially disagree with the notion that one can ‘absorb music theory simply by listening to a wide variety of works.
Yes, that wasn't very well expressed and in a sense contradicts what I said previously. What I should have said was that one can learn to compose simply by listening to a wide variety of works which in turn stimulates the inner spontaneous musicality. If that is missing, then no amount of theory will help. But anyway, it would be nice to have concrete examples of in what situations a thorough grounding of theory could help with composition (other than practical knowledge about instrumentation I've already mentioned) as so far, this position has largely been put forward on trust. I am of course assuming original work here and not exercises which try to prove theoretical points.
David, 500 years or so of great and not so great composers learning their craft should give you confidence in the process of having to learn the craft of composition to write the best one can. I must say, I've never come across an exercise that just 'proves a theoretical point', that's not really what they are for. Exercises exist among other things, to develop a composer's innate musicality, show them how to solve creative problems by providing options and to expand their creative vistas. Imagine having to harmonise a bass line 10 different ways and for 10 different combinations of instruments, all within the restricted parameters of the exercise. That will test a composer's invention and ingenuity to complete the task by them having to dig deep and in doing so the composer will learn an awful lot about their capabilities and musical mind set. Once absorbed any technique becomes available at the coal face, to be used as the composer sees fit, for by then the composer will have found ways to utilise their hard gained know-how in their own way and to their musics advantage. And that's partly the point, technique provides good practice and develops musicality with practice but it has to be absorbed, internally recycled and filtered through the composer's musical self to then become a guiding hand born of best practice. One way to develop a 'self' is once the 10 bass line harmonisations are done to the requirements of the exercise, do a few more in a freer fashion that acknowledges some of the principles learnt. Do this with every new technique learnt as a way of exploring the self from outside the academic box. One needs a sense of adventure to do this but if you don't look or search, you wont find right?
Take species counterpoint as another example. At the end of such a course of study, a composer will have garnered a better sense of what constitutes a good musical line, counterpoint, voice leading, spacing and imitative work, most of which are pre-requisites in good practice orchestration for example. The composer will also glean a sense of musical purpose and shape within the lines from having understood these principles that will aid in eliminating any meandering and/or randomness they may have been guilty of. The foundation is then laid to study harmony and counterpoint in more detailed and specific ways thus increasing the creative reach of the composer.
Another real world example of the application of technique would be as a 'search engine' to find new material from something as basic as a scale or an idea one already has. I've used mirror techniques in conjunction with common practice concepts to generate new harmonic material from a scale but to explain the process in words would be exhausting and boring. Give me a day or two and I'll post something that shows some of the process on manuscript. Suffice to say a wealth of material to explore further can be gleaned from the humblest of material by the inventive and imaginative application of technical concepts. Finding new material like this in serach engine fashion retains control and can often lead to homogeneity and a sense of inevitability in the final result. It can certainly reduce guess work, random fumbling around whilst imparting purpose and firing the imagination further.
Mike, I've always been impressed by your mastery of melodic development by applying different techniques to extract homogenous material from a basic idea. I'm always eager to see more examples from you to this end. Perhaps a short example in which you discuss, say, one or two steps of your thought processes, what options were considered and which were discarded or chosen, and why. That sort of insight would be extremely helpful IMO.
You're too kind Teoh but I'm no musical talisman, just someone who has learnt their craft and trying to impart the benefits of doing so to others. My ways are only one of many approaches one could take armed with know-how but they work for me. Only in this digital age does that fact seem to be a less desirable state of affairs but nothing has changed musically, realistically and practically despite the digital age. Knowing how to manipulate music to get the best out of it is still the best route to one's maximum expressive potential.
Anything I do is not particularly clever or special but what it does do as I'm sure you will understand, is help me unify a piece and eliminate rambling and aimlessness by encouraging- discovering actually - purpose, drive and a sense of inevitability. I will post something soon I promise, I just need to solve some compositional issues I have atm in my latest piece, namely where to go next - even those of us who know our shit have the same struggles all experience.
some interesting points, Mike, but at the moment I just want to make one in reply. Of the 500 years of music theory as the basis of composition, around 480 were during the period when it was hard to learn any other way. Other than solo keyboard, you couldn't really get constant direct feedback on a composition in progress so to some extent it was necessary to learn from theory how things should sound and should work together in theory until such time as a live performance were possible. With the recent debut of more or less convincing virtual instruments, compositions can be proofed and endlessly tested in real time. Now of course a) what works for virtual instruments may not always be comfortably playable by real musicians b) virtual instruments do not necessarily behave in exactly the same way as real ones in terms of balance among other things and c) none of this means that theory is irrelevant -- not something I have ever claimed -- but merely that it's not impossible to write worthwhile music without it which is, I think, the point Guy was originally trying to make. Perhaps a theoretical background can indeed help to hone craft but I await more concrete examples of this. Your final paragraph doesn't seem to be about theory at all but technique. I also use inverse/mirror/retrograde and various other thematic transformations at times but I don't see what this has to do with music theory (in fact much of it can be done automatically by notation software nowadays if required)
Hi David,
Sorry for the late response.
I think, somewhat understandably given your bypassing of the craft, that you might have difficulty appreciating the time honoured benefits of learning the craft and how it enables personal musical growth and the inspirational benefits of technical interaction at the creative interface - between know-how, musicality and instinct. Simply using playback to write and assess work with is not enough in order to be the best one can be in concert hall music. Note my emphasis here on being the best one can be. There is much talent on this forum alone (you included) that has shown itself capable of lovely expression with a modicum of know-how so I am not dismissing any music written for say orchestra without a full knowledge as rubbish. In that respect I agree with Guy and you - clearly writing for playback samples is a thing, but not studying and knowing technique be it instrumental or compositional limits creative freedom by denying a composer access to more options, all to the potential detriment of their own unique voice.
BTW, can you truly distinguish between theory and technique? I said above that I view them as pretty much the same and mean it. I'm afraid there is no 'perhaps' that technique hones the craft and I shant expand on that anymore, suffice to say you are wrong in assuming it might not help. I fully intend to post some examples of how I humbly use technique to generate material for further exploration but am busy on wrestling with some problems in my latest piece, but will get to it. In the meantime, pick anything from the canon to see the ideal blend of brain and heart for it is continually on display.
Hi all - thanks for your comments. I'm not trying to reopen an old debate about theory or no theory. I was making the point that both theory and intuition are essential ingredients of any creative process. I guess with recent technology, those with intuitive strengths but less aptitude to learn theory have an oppotunity to get started with composing and go further than they ever would have been able to before. But they'll still likely face difficutites and limitations without some awareness of theory.
While traditional ways of learning it might not be fruitful or productive for them, one of the purposes of the channel is to make some of that available in easier more accessible ways through a community which may have understood certain aspects and be able to communicate them effectively to such an audience.
Of course, building such a community is another challenge - perhaps an even harder one...
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next