I've started this thread so as to not further derail Guy's thread re intuituve composing.
This post is a result of my and David's discussion about the use of technique whilst composing, i.e. using craft. I said I'd post some examples from how I use technique and this is the first of two examples. The second post will be about how I generate harmony, from the most dissonant to consonant using technique as a 'search engine' to find raw material to explore. It'd be nice if others can post about their methods as there are many approaches to be had. So to get the ball rolling and especially to fulfill a request from Teoh, here's some motivic analysis of the 1st mvt. from my violin concerto. The aim is to show how by retaining control of and applying invention and imagination to raw material, one can create the illusion of inevitability and at the same time maintain a musical focus and create a sense of purpose and impetus. The movement has two themes marked A+B but in reality it's more like one theme with two parts. I've only scribbled A's and B's on the score and have probably missed something but it should be obvious that motivic development is taking place.
I'm not posting this for the glory nor am I suggesting that what's demonstrated here is masterful or superior in any way. I post this merely to show a rather obvious and mundane technique I and many of us like to use to create a unified piece of music. Anyway I'll keep this short but should just add that the score and the audio don't match at letter J as I stupidly marked the wrong score. There may be other discrepancies but not enough to throw you off course. If you can, listen on headphones for the best sonic results.
Mike Hewer Violin concerto.1st analysis for CF.pdf
Replies
I'm not quite sure which David you are referring to here but let's assume it's me! Sorry about the delay -- my last PC suddenly died while listening to this for the second time so I am a bit wary about going back into it - perhaps you could provide a standard .mp3 so I don't need to go into a different application to listen to it? Anyway, I generally enjoyed the work -- particularly the beautiful lyrical violin solo theme and could more or less work out what you were playing at. I'm mostly not a fan of violin concerti because there is too much emphasis on for me sterile virtuosity and technical stuff which seems to be more for the soloist than the listener and I found some of that here but that's probably just me.
However the main point is the use of technique and I'm not sure what this has to do with music theory -- it could be that we have been discussing at cross purposes. A number of my works, including the most recent orchestral 17th symphony is based on very limited thematic material heard at the outset which is transformed and developed in various ways. Now I probably don't do this in as sophisticated a way as you do but I am using what I see as technique -- I guess the difference is that how I use it is perhaps more instinctual and not based on any specific theory. Again I guess the question is what specific theory would help me to write this sort of music better? Perhaps when I think of theory, I really mean what some describe as analysis -- in other words formal study of things like harmony and counterpoint. Perhaps you don't particularly mean that and that our positions are less far apart than I had thought.
David I thought we might be talking at cross purposes when I asked you in the other thread what you perceive as the difference between theory and technique. For me, they pretty much mean the same thing because application of technique is also fundamentally application of theory and I have a hard time distinguishing them, so I think we are far apart on how how we view theory. For me theory/technique are 2 sides of a coin and one doesn't exist without the other. I found that after I learnt the different aspects of the craft, theory and technique blurred into a symbiotic whole as the knowing/learning how and the actual doing whilst composing felt pretty much one and the same as they supported and contributed to the writing. I understand theory as being defined as merely analysis and the study of harmony etc. but compartmentalising as such and viewing theory seperately from the composition process denies the relationship and integration into the composing process that occurs as one learns imo.
Neither for that matter do I see theory as a system that opposes instinct, an opinion/aversion I sense you might hold from past posts of yours. Systems (the definition of which can be narrow or very wide), are vital for coherent thought but that does not negate the importance of instinct in creativity nor does a system stop instinct from even being the main creative impetus - there is no dichotomy here. A system is more a guide, a foundation and will almost always be abused if used properly because a system with some limiting parameters can play a large part in creating the necessary conditions for powerful composition, especially when creative compositional choices rub up, play off and even rebel against the restrictions/parameters. The lack of system, or the unadventurous composing and/or unimaginative creative reaction to a system is, imo, often responsible for much weakness in music compared to that written by masters. (Remember my context for this topic only relates to concert hall music and is nonsense in almost every other genre).
You ask what theory might make you write better, well the answer from me is probably no surprise to you, learn the craft enough to then confidently exploit it in your own way. In doing so, you might see theory as less a formal and divorced study from composing and more like a gateway to eventually being able to manipulate raw ideas in a technical sense almost at will. It takes a paradigm shift in how you view the application of theory/technique in practice, but remember this is all under the hood stuff and should underpin and support the expression, not dominate or undermine it. It's always been that way and is unlikely to change because in learning how, one can grow as an artist.
fair enough, Mike -- you know I hold you in high regard as a composer and always take what you say seriously, even if sometimes I'm not totally convinced. No doubt we will be exploring this area further in the weeks and months to come!
No worries David and I believe you have real talent but if the canon and great masters can't convince you then I'll shut up. Read my long post below and see if it gives you any more insight into the relationship between technique and composition as I sometimes see it. Better still, try the process I outline below as a kind of search engine starting point to get the juices flowing or to resolve a creative block. The issue is that if you don't know about something be that technical or perhaps the true depth of your musicianship, it all becomes unavailable as creative resource and therefore a limit on what can be done.
David, thinking further about my and especially the canons inability to convince you re technique in composition, I turned to AI CoPilot and asked a couple of questions. Here below is what it came back with. Now you might not consider AI as reliable but it did confirm everything I've been trying to convey to you.
(btw sorry I forgot to address your query about posting a file of the violin concerto on this site. Unfortunately I can't as the file is too large. I'd be very surprised if visiting dropbox was the source of your computer woes).
music technique-copilot.jpg
technique 2 copilot.jpg
Ah, I was wondering what this strange CoPilot thing I see on my new Windows 11. Now I know! Anyway, your long reply to HS does show how different out methods are. I don't generally try out lots of things, I simply have an instinct on how to proceed once I've got a movement started (usually the hardest thing). What harmony or counterpoint is used depends on exactly what I'm trying to express or in what way I'm trying to move the music forward. In your example of counterpoint, for instance, you say you use your knowledge of theory to eliminate non-sensible options. Perhaps indeed this can help but it would be useful to have a more specific example. For me, a non-sensible option is simply something which sounds wrong and/or doesn't express the exact feeling I'm trying to convey.
On your violin concerto, I didn't want you to post it on this site but simply to use the standard audio format -- i.e mp3. I had to resort to VLC to play the work rather than simply going through the default Windows media player. Of course it's highly unlikely that the file itself corrupted the computer, especially as it played through first time fine.
If starting a movement is the hardest thing, perhaps that's where an application of some of Mike's methods might give you a jumpstart by generating ideas that are derived from some underlying motif or theme in your work, so that the result will have some kind of underlying unity that sounds convincing. 😉
As I've mentioned before, theory/technique should be considered as a toolbox you can draw from, not some obligations you're required to fulfill. If you don't need to use it, then that's fine. But when you're stuck, it could be a source of ideas of how you might continue.
And also, being aware of different techniques in the back of your mind can help bring new possibilities to your awareness as you're composing the "intuitive" way (or whatever you might call it). Possibilities that you may not have otherwise thought of, and which may occasionally serve as a springboard for expressing what you wish to express at that point, that you might have otherwise overlooked. Like an enriched vocabulary which a novelist might employ to convey the mood of a particular scene, where in the absence of an adequate vocabulary may have resulted in a more cumbersome, perhaps less effective writing.
As an aside, being the AI skeptic that I am, I can't help feeling that AI generated responses read like your average Wikipedia article full of persuasive words but with references of unknown provenance and dubious reliability. 😂 Sometimes it's spot-on, but other times the more carefully you read it the more it becomes obvious that something is wrong. 😆
If starting a movement is the hardest thing, perhaps that's where an application of some of Mike's methods might give you a jumpstart by generating ideas that are derived from some underlying motif or theme in your work, so that the result will have some kind of underlying unity that sounds convincing.
The problem is coming up with the sort of theme I want in the first place and of course theory can't help with that. The rest generally takes care of itself!
You should ask Mike for an example of how to turn something as short as a 2 or 3 note motif into a full-fledged theme, using standard techniques of motivic development. 😉
Well actually, you can already see some of this in the given example, you just have to look a little closer. It's not readily apparent but if you compare the various incarnations of each theme (A or B), you can see many of the motivic development techniques that could be used on something as short as a 2 or 3 note group to incrementally generate a longer fragment that sounds internally consistent. Applying these techniques recursively to an increasingly long fragment, you can almost literally pull a theme "out of thin air" and yet have it sound convincing and internally coherent.
These techniques are essentially a kind of "search engine" (in a slightly different, but related sense from the way Mike used the term) to explore the space of potential themes that are similar to some starting motivic fragment, in the hopes of discovering a theme or theme fragment that sounds convincing and is self-consistent, and fits the vision of what you'd like to express at that moment. It can be applied to something as short as a 2 or 3 note fragment, so it takes almost nothing to get started. And it's open ended and can be steered or modified in any way you see fit, according to your vision of what kind of theme or movement you'd like. Another tool in your toolbox to draw from when the need or the desire arises.
Whether or not any of this is relevant, I hope it's interesting.
I'm not sure what this post is referring to specifically, so to cover several grounds...
I have several methods for coming up with ideas:
1) Melody first: I seem like a bit of a weirdo when I do this but it always produces the best results for me. I record my own human voice singing a silly sounding tune, just playing around (lalala/dumdumdum/doodoodoo). My love of classical music usually leads to my subconscious producing something in my head with orchestral or chamber instruments, and I'm confident it will work for most composers here when they're feeling good and just let go. The result is a messy melody. Once I've got a melody I can manipulate it to acceptable pitches for consonant harmonies. I have attached an embarassing video of myself singing a silly song which became the first movement of "Elysium" (see my page for the resulting composition) silly singing.mp4
2) Serialism: Taking snippets from a random exceprt of a 12-tone series can force me to develop creative harmonic solutions to breathe life into an unconventional melody
3) Let the piece write itself: Once you have some starting material, ask yourself: "What do I expect to hear next?" I don't worry about the consequences and go with it. I'll be able to reign it in later
4) Harmony First: Not something I use often, but when I do, it stops my music from coming across so hyperactive and allows it space to breathe. The harmony becomes the melody and the result is a more open and immersive sound.
In terms of unifying my music
I will often allow the music to go where it naturally "wants" to go (even if that is just an A -> B -> C Structure) and then bring it back in an arc (ABCBA), rondo (ABACA), or ternary (ABA) structure.
If we're talking specifically about counterpoint...
I tend to vary my textures often and counterpoint comes with that. I regard counterpoint as another "flavour" to complete my dish, and within counterpoint there are additional "flavours" to play with, such as contrary motion, parallel harmony, consonance, dissonance & drone.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next