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
Interesting video, though I'm still not sure I understand any better exactly how you compose. I guess I might be able to evaluate better if I listen to one or two works in their entirety which I hope to do in due course. The general point, though, I agree with. It is entirely unnecessary to have studied music theory to compose -- I haven't as everyone on this forum knows. Music theory can be absorbed by simply listening to enough works in different styles and indeed it's not strictly necessary to be able to read music (I certainly can), though it's certainly useful. Of course there are practical things one has to know if music is to be performed by real human beings such as the range of instruments and how flexible they are in certain positions etc. However as regards harmony, counterpoint etc, I compose according to what the music is trying to express even if the broad outlines of common practice in these fields are there at times, simply because I'm so familiar with this way of composing that it becomes second nature -- or intuitive as you would have it.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what you come up with next!
As far as theory vs intuition is concerned: IMO it depends on how you approach it. When I was young (I can't speak for music education today since I've not been involved since childhood), the way music theory was taught was a set of rules that you were meant to follow, and breaking the rules was something to be ashamed of. As such, I found it dry and uninspired, and hated it.
It was only much later in life that I discovered another approach: not following music theory as a rulebook which you are not meant to break, but rather using it as a toolbox from which you can draw tools to improve your composition as the need arises. I discovered that there are actually very real, and very useful, reasons behind many apparently arbitrary rules. Understanding these reasons allowed me to reap their benefits when appropriate, or ignore them when they are not useful. When the music calls for it, I have no qualms about "breaking" the rules. Actually, IMO it should not be thought of that way at all. Rather, it's a set of tools which you may find useful depending on the situation. There's nothing inherently "wrong" about not using one tool or the other; you use a hammer when you have a nail to hammer, and you use a screwdriver when you have a screw to tighten. You're not obligated to use either if your art doesn't call for nails and screws. And sometimes, creative use of a hammer where it wouldn't usually be used, can add an interesting twist to your art.
Ultimately, what shapes the composition is really the musical inspiration behind it; the "theory" is merely there to help you when it's useful, or discard once they have served their usefulness. The composer molds it however he wishes, and chooses when to use which tool, or when not to use any at all.
Thanks HS Tech - these are interesting thoughts.
Thanks David - that's great, and you're quite prolific. I'm listening to your latest string quartet at the moment. You're much more confident and advanced than I am (I'm still pretty much a beginner). But if you're up for it, you're just the sort of person I'd like to have a brief chat with on the YouTube channel - someone who's established and written a lot, but with a very intuitive approach. (plus you're welcome to ask me any questions during the conversation, so you and others can get more of a handle on my own process, if that's of interest to anyone...).
If you do want to listen to one of mine, my Viola Quintet is my favourite by a long way (though not quite finished yet....)
Perhaps best wait for you to finish your viola quintet then! But I don't mind discussing things with you on your YouTube channel in the meantime
That's brilliant, thanks David. I'll reach out to you with a message.
No I won't - just seen there isn't a way to send a message - not sure how to continue a conversation offline....
Where are you based (I'm in the UK), and what sort of times might be good for you to have an initial chat to finalise what we'll talk about?
You could also use this forum for private messages if you wish: just send a "friend" request to the person you wish to talk to, then once they accept it, you can use the private message function of the forum to communicate with them.
For me, analysis is about being able to see structures on large and small scale. To see how they fit, or how they defy fitting. Perhaps you are already able to see this. But, reading music creates a definite picture of those structures.
If one can't see, then maybe a 'painter' feels that the painting is lopsided, but can't see that all the brushstrokes are only on the right half of the canvas.
Then, the painter could say, but I like it like that. I want it lopsided. That would be fine, but at least they can see it, and be deliberate.
Being unconscious about it is not necessarily a good thing if one is evaluating a work.
One can then see if they are making an A frame cabin, or a Gaudi cathedral, and be fine about it either way, or not.
Thanks Greg. Yes, for me it's not about saying that one way is better than another (whcih doesn't make much sense). But having said that, some people are more suited to one way than another. If I could only make music through the study of theory, I'd never make any, as I that's not how my brain works, and I'd never "quality" to make anything. Theory will be there, and I'll learn more and more of it as I go along, but not in the formal analytical academic way that is common. Other people might be the other way round, and feel that the theory is a must in order to make anything of any complexity. At the end of the day, we can't do what doesn't work for us.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next