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!
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.
Yes Ollie, some good points imo. There is no correct way, only the way that works for you. The thrust of my argument is that one finds and hones a more profound musical self as one learns and integrates technique as the foundation for expressive creativity.
I like the way you are willing to adapt and manipulate serialism to find solutions, using technique as a search engine - an attitude to techniques I use to break creative deadlocks and open up musical ideas. I bet at times you are spoilt for creative choice as I know I often am. Your point about the piece writing itself is ultra important too imo. This is the ideal state to be in, what's called 'flow'. and is one anyone, regardless of skill level, can experience. This state can be encouraged with dilligent systematic work that explores many options and familiarises one with ideas at a deeper level. Inventive and imaginative application of technique is a great way of searching beyond the notes and seeing what implications they could have for progressing a work.
Thanks for posting this, Mike. Sorry for not replying earlier; I was on the road with limited internet access until now.
Just listened to your violin concerto. It reminds me of Walton's viola concerto for some reason. I enjoyed the drama and thematic development that is typical of your work.
It was especially interesting to follow the score and observe how it's structured with your two themes. I feel like it's still missing something, though: while it was helpful to see where A and B were used, it would be even more helpful IMO to get a little example explanation of, say, one random instance where you used one or both themes, what kind of motivic development you used, and why. Was it just free-form imagination? Or did you go through a decision process where you considered different possibilities and eliminated them one by one until you arrived at a particular instance of motivic development that you chose to use? Or did you already have in mind where the music wants to go, and merely selected a particular permutation of the theme as a way of getting there?
IMO explaining one or two such decisions (among the hundreds that must have gone into producing this composition) would be a very helpful insight into how you employed theory/technique in a way that nevertheless allowed your creativity full rein over the resulting music.