Jump to content

The Composition Thread


Jeez

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Roll up!! Roll up!!

 

Ladies and Gentlemen! Step right this way - Tonight I present to all our loyal readers - The Composition Thread! This will be a forum for the old and wise to share their knowledge and advice, and an opportunity for the young and green to learn something new!!

 

A few words about what this thread is not:

 

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 295
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Ok, to kick this off I'll try to post something here every day. I'll start by talking a bit about elementary structure.

 

Structure is the technical term for how we put ideas together in time. You're probably familiar with the typical pop song structure: something like verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus-chorus goodbye.

 

These types of structures are common because they use repitition to reinforce the chorus. By repeating the same material several times, it stays in our mind more strongly, and (if it's a good chorus) we walk away humming the main hook.

 

This is an easy structure to work with - especially for beginners. A good approach could be to work on the chorus first, come up with something really cool and catchy. Develop it a bit, then work on the verses. If anyone wants a more detailed description of how to write a pop song, just ask and I'll do one.

 

 

The typical pop song structure is not the only way to do things though. Generally, structures are based on a series of sections. The sections can be all the same size, or variable size. Some sections can be the same as others (literal repitition), slightly different (variation), or completely different (contrast).

 

For basics, start a new piece. Quickly create three sections (one main cool one, one slightly different, and one completely different). For simplicity, make them all fairly short (maybe eight bars), and all the same length. If you're using a sequencer of some sort, you can then experiment with different orderings of the sections.

 

In classical terms, we might have section A (the main one), section A' (variation on A), section B (something contrasting), and maybe section B' (variation of B). You can then use this to come up with some structures, perhaps something like this:

 

A A B A A' B A' B B' B' B A' A

 

I'm sure you can come up with many more. The great thing about modern sequencers is that it takes very little effort to move sections around to see how different orderings can affect the direction or flow of the piece.

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If you want to expend yourself a little, try making each section a different length. Also - try irregular lengths. Most section lengths in popular music are even multiples of four (4, 8, 16 bars, etc). Try strange numbers like five, or thirteen. This practice can add excitement or unpredictability, as well as making the overall flow and direction of the piece more organic or fluid.

 

Another alternative approach is rather than treating each section as a particular (overall) sound... treat each section as a transition between two sounds. I composed a simple piece where I set out a list of bars and intensity levels (0-5), such that I had a structure that looked something like:

 

Bar 0, intensity level 0

Bar 5, intensity level 3

Bar 6, intensity level 5

Bar 15, intensity level 2

 

and so on and so on....

 

When I filled in all the notes, the resulting piece had a very different feel to all my other previous work - it felt more [ii]animated - more in motion. It never felt stagnant or repetitive, because the texture was always changing, going somewhere new. It never stood still.

 

In my particular piece, I just used one variable - "Intensity" meant volume, density, thickness - all at once. It would be interesting to take this a step further and use multiple variables! Does anyone want to try this?

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by DodgingRain

How about we talk about how synth features(non-traditional) act as compositional elements. For example there is no such thing as filter/res sweeps in classical(or many other music forms).


I think that is an area of music that needs some serious exploration and is more interesting to a lot of forumites.

 

 

I see these features (such as filter sweeps, PWM, step-sequencers) and merely features of our chosen intrument. If it were violins we could be talking about gissando or pizzicato, or if it were pianos we could be talking about pedal or finger technique.

 

My point is that these are specific technical issues to do with specific instruments.

 

The purpose of this thread is to discuss music composition in general terms - so that it will be useful for everyone - even if your synth doesn't have filters, or PWM, or a step-sequencer.

 

That having been said - this forum is called "Keys, Synths, and Samplers", and most of the people here are using electronic instruments to create electronnic music.

 

So, of course it would be useful to discuss composition techniques that are specific to electronic music (such as midi sequencers, automation, etc).

 

BUT I'd like this thread to be about composition - not sound design. Please see that there is a difference. Please understand that this thread is primarily focussed on composition because we hardly ever discuss it on this forum. Sound design techniques, however, are discussed much more frequently.

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Good stuff!!

 

Here are a couple beginner level ideas I have been toying with:

 

1. Make a list of things that "work" like the verse-chorus-verse structure, or "proven" chord progressions. Turn this into a "don't" list.

 

2. Try overlapping parts with different time signatures.

 

As a NuB I can say my success rate is inversely proportional to the complexity of my efforts.

 

Biting off more than one can chew does not encourage or inspire...it frustrates.

 

You do not need 40 simultaneous sounds to make a complex, engaging song. You do need a bit of common sense though.

 

Back to the experts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'll chime in with my basic song writing structure since it fits the thread.....

 

 

I generally work from a melody and then write the chord progressions next. I sort of write some basic elements so to speak and figure out the details as I'm working it into a song. I know a lot of people write from the bassline, but I find that messes everything up in the end. I think this is a trap that a lot of people fall into. Writing from the bassline is very restrictive, and a lot of really good tunes have simple 8th root note basslines.

 

...on basslines: There are a lot of good bass guitar websites that are a great read for all of us. I forget which ones were really good, but I beleive there is a list on the H.C. Bass subsite. You can get a good foundation of how bass and drums work together to form a great rythme if you take the time to read them. I found that my rather poor drum scores seemed to jump alive once I started composing the bass and drums at the same time. They need to feed off of one another, and "give and take" from each other.

 

It has a lot to do with dynamics. Think of every drum of bass note as ether strong or weak. If both the kick drum and bass hit loud notes on the first beat of the measure you've got a very "strong" beginning for example. While a soft ride and a soft bass note will create a very "weak" point in the music. If you've got a strong drum note with a weak bass note(or vice versa), you have an "even" point. The interplay of weak, strong, and even points will create a great groove that simple "BOOM BOOM BOOM" rythme sections will lack. I'm not describing it as well as the basss players do. So, be sure to hit those websites.

 

Well, it's not really structure, but it has to do with the basics of writing a rythm section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I usually write everything part-by-part. It helps me to focus on these parts individually. However, this list is not carved in stone. This is a part list for my most basic contemporary jazz/funk tune. For example:

 

1. Intro

2. chorus x 2

3. chorus with melody line x2(depends on the direction of the song. It might get left out this area of the song)

4. verse x2(main theme)

5. verse with chord change

6. verse II

7. chorus with melody line

8. verse x2(main theme)

...and so on

 

Song flow is what I mainly listen for. I would add some vamps here and there to better the flow. The bass line is usually done last, since it is the most crucial. I would experiment with different lines and turnarounds. Each chorus or verse would have some different nuances added to them to keep them fresh. Every part is inputted into my software sequencer since I don't write or read music very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Great thread, but here's a request. When you post your insite into the creative process please post the genre of music you compose. ALthough the creative process is similar in all genres, there are intricacies in the composition process for each genre that apply specifically to that genre. Say for instance dance music typically has a 32 bar basic intro for the DJ to mix in and a similar outro to mix out. There are plenty of other examples and I'll go into trance and house later tonight when I'm not at work but I just thought I'd add that for now.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Anyone interested in alternative compositional structures would do well to check out the approaches John Cage and his contemporary composition experimentalists used. They made a point of moving as far away from traditional sheet music as possible. Some of the creative results are quite interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by rockafeller

Great thread, but here's a request. When you post your insite into the creative process please post the
genre
of music you compose. ALthough the creative process is similar in all genres, there are intricacies in the composition process for each genre that apply specifically to that genre. Say for instance dance music typically has a 32 bar basic intro for the DJ to mix in and a similar outro to mix out. There are plenty of other examples and I'll go into trance and house later tonight when I'm not at work but I just thought I'd add that for now.
;)

 

Good composition should transend genres. Using your dance music example, one should take good general compositional approches and understand the limitations of the genre. It's like doing a 15 second tune for a TV ad. You work around what's expected and work within the parameters of the project.

 

A good idea of general music thoery and composition can be reworked into any type of music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by DodgingRain


Hey Afro... do you have a link to anything on the 'net? Sounds like there may be some interesting ideas there.

 

www.google.com

 

;)

 

I read Cage's "Silence" a while ago. Some interesting ideas there. Also read a book about experimental electronic music in the 20th century, but the name of the book and the author escape me, and I'm afraid I have to go do some work now . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by hypnotic



Good composition should transend genres. Using your dance music example, one should take good general compositional approches and understand the limitations of the genre. It's like doing a 15 second tune for a TV ad. You work around what's expected and work within the parameters of the project.


A good idea of general music thoery and composition can be reworked into any type of music.

 

 

 

Yes, the original inspiration and good general compositional approach does transcend genres, but if thats all you are concerned with you wont make much more that 15 second comercial tunes. Understanding the compositional structure specific to your genre is completely necessary. General music theory will only get you so far. I can write a thrash metal riff on my guitar because I have general music theory and understanding of chord progressions, but that wont be enough for me to write a complete "good" song.

 

I'll go back to dance music. You can take a chord progression or program an arpeggio because you have an understanding of general music theory and apply a slightly tweaked preset and say I have a trance song, but you really don't. You have piece of the whole. If you don't understand how the arpeggio must enter and exit the song morph from a percussive element into a lead element (compositional theory specific to the trance genre) you will never write a good trance song. I can write a thousand 4/4 beats that would fit into any dance song because I understand general music theory. I can write a thousand synth lead parts and a thousand pad parts for those beats, but if I don't know howo to arrange and sequence within the paramerters of that genre then I'll never write a good song.

 

Basic music theory can be taught out of a text book. Applying that theory to a specific genre with specific compositional standards and understanding how to manipulate those standards well is much much harder.

 

Someone on this site once responded to the question of what's the difference between all of us bedroom studio producers and professional artists. Their response was that we all write good stuff, but the pros just have a talent for putting it together. And putting it together is essentially arrangement which is specific to each genre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by DodgingRain


I suppose if you would like to limit yourself thats ok.
:(
But you could decide to think outside the box and throw away time signitures

 

Yes, I've done work like that too... and hopefully some of the advice I'll be giving in the near future will be useful for those working in this field.

 

Originally posted by DodgingRain

(throw away)... macro structures and let the sounds and ideas themselves dictate structure.

 

I think what you're actually talking about here is creating a structure by "feel". Anyone can do this (metric or non-metric time) and many people don't know of any better way.

 

The purpose of this thread to to provoke people to think conscienciously about their composition process, because doing so is the best way of moving forward and growing as a composer.

 

If you want to ignore theory and just work solelye from feeling and emotion - that's up to you, don't let me stop you. But that's not what this thread is about.

 

 

Now (everyone) please don't misunderstand me. I believe that feeling and emotion are very important ingredients. But they are personal and cannot be taught. Composition theory can be taught, and seeing as this thread is about sharing knowledge, I think it would make sense to focus on composition theory - not on feeling and emotion.

 

 

It is up to each individual composer to solve the problem of how to marry theory with emotion.

 

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

With regards to theory for specific genres:

 

This can be useful to discuss - from the point of view of mixing elements from different genres, or even just inspiring composers to try out something different.

 

However, I'd prefer if we didn't talk about set-in-stone steps of "how to compose the perfect trance song", or "how to compose the perfect pop song". That kind of approach can come across as restrictive. It is also something that individuals can teach themselves simply by listening to examples of a particular genre.

 

I'm not saying that approach is bad. In fact, I encourage composers to listen mindfully to music and try to figure out what gives the music its character, what makes it work.

 

However, I'd like this thread to be about possibilities, alternatives, options. We're not trying to write the perfect pop song. We're trying to branch out, open our minds, try something different.

 

It is this way that we become better composers.

 

If you really are trying to compose the perfect genre song, just listen to tons of music of that genre. Just understand that the mere existence of a genre implies that it's already been done.

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ok guys and gals, Today I'm going to talk about flux.

 

Don't be scared off by the weird name - It's not an "official" theory term... but a word I use to describe the effect of change. (I actually borrowed the word from physics - magnetic flux).

 

So what is flux? Well, as I mentioned above - it is about change in a piece of music, and how change affects the listener.

 

Change is essential to (almost) every type of music. Change is what keeps a piece interesting, engaging. As synth and keyboard players, I'm sure you're all aware of the magic of The Cool Sound. In my case, this is usually something I come up with in the very early stages of composition. I get a few instruments, layer a few loops, and get a section about four bars long.

 

And it sounds so cool that I sometimes keep playing around with it for hours. I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about.

 

It's important to remember, however, that our hour-long enjoyment of a few seconds of music does not imply that your listener will enjoy it in the same way. That is, if you had a four bar loop and repeated it for an hour, the effect on the listener would not be the same as it is on us.

 

Sitting there, with the headphones or speakers, the sequencer open, the synths rolling, etc is a different listening experience than listening to a CD. Why? Because as composers, we are interacting with the music. A CD is static. If you repeat a four-bar loop for an hour and put it on a CD, the loop with not change. You will have an hour of something that's incredibly boring.

 

... just like this post so far. I keep repeating myself, and I get boring.

 

My point is: No matter how cool your sound is, it's just a sound. No matter how cool it is, it will get boring. Change is essential to composing a piece of music

 

Yeah, you probably know all that.

 

You're probably using it already. So what's the point of writing this?

 

To make you aware of flux in your compositions. Let's look at some examples of flux, and how it affects the listener. We'll take only one variable - intensity.

 

The simplest flux we can have is no flux at all - that is, the piece is completely unchanging. Remember that flux is relative - so that regardless of whether we have high intensity or low intensity, if it's unchanging, there is no flux.

 

When we have periods of no flux in a piece of music, the listener often has the impression that the music is standing still. It is unchanging, it is going nowhere. This can be good or bad, depending on how you (the composer) use it.

 

Briefly placed at key points throughout the piece, periods of no flux can give a sense of stability, a plateau, or a pause. Extended periods of no flux can have an effect of slowing down the overall pace of the music, producing a stagnant (or boring) effect, or reducing interest in the music (the listener may allow her/himself to be distracted from the music).

 

When we have a moderate amount of flux, it is often percieved as a gradual change in the texture or direction of the music. Positive flux (intensity gradually increasing) often prepares the listener for a climax or some sort of arrival point. Likewise, Negative flux (intensity gradually decreasing) is often used as a kind of "wind down" after a climax, but can also take the listener to a new place.

 

Either way, moderate flux over a longer period of time can often give the listener a sense of anticipation. This is because the music is moving in a particular direction, towards a certain arrival point.

 

If the section of moderate flux is familiar to the listener, they will have an expectation of the length (and degree) of the flux, as well as what the arrival point will be. If the listener is not familiar with the section of music, there will be much more uncertainty as the listener will not know how long the section will go for (they may guess though), or where the arrival point will be.

 

When we have large amounts of flux, the change is very sudden. This can be used to great dramatic effect.

 

When the change is positive (rapid increase of intensity), the listener often percieves a sudden "blast", can can boost the excitement of the music. This should be used sparingly though, because if the listener becomes used to it, or even comes to expect it, then the effect will be greatly diminished.

 

The the change is negative (rapid decrease of intensity), the listener is often left hanging in expectation. the sudden change can have a destabilising effect, and very quickly create and sense of uncertainty.

 

 

It's also important to remember that flux is effective on more than one level. For example, if a piece of music has many sudden rapid changes of intensity, we will have very large fluctuations of intensity. At first, this may be very exciting, and have similar effects to those I described above. However, over time if this high level of flux does not change then eventually the listener will percieve the music to have very little change - and very little flux overall. It's important to consider the larger context.

 

 

Ok, that's all for today. I'll see you tomorrow - same time, same channel!! Until then - Goodnight!!

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I like this a lot, as it's my passion, hot, cold, frustrating, revitalizing..all of it..

 

Not sure where I'm fitting in to what's already been said, but I'll just jump in with where I sometimes have difficulty. I guess it's a right brain/left brain thing for me...My traditional way of working is to sit at the keyboard or guitar with no preconceived notions at all..This is after many years of trying to fit my small piece of creativity into some preconceived format, which of course, is the ultimate goal, but to get there, I kind of have to peek through my fingers, sort of. So, what I do, or try to do, is sit down and just free form until an idea comes..at that point I switch brains, and try to flesh it out into some cohesive acceptable structure..hopefully, not too mundane, and with some twists...

 

Now, here's my problem at times. I sometimes switch from right brain to left brain too quickly. Before I've allowed the idea to formulate I start analyzing. I've written with partners before, and at that stage have a tendency to want to bring to the session a completed idea, if not a completed song, so I may be rushing the process at times...Any help in this regard would be most appreciated. Great thread, Kim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by DodgingRain

Ah, again flux can be built into the sound and isn't necessarily part of the composition if we don't include sound design as part of a composition(which I disagree with). A sound can change over the course of several bars(100's if you like), but the idea itself is important regardless.

:)

Yes DodgingRain, I know how much our composing can be inspired by the sound shaping capabilities of our wonderful synths, however, I believe Jeez's intention is to keep the dialogue focused specifically on the process of notes written, regardless of which instrument or voice for which it is intended.

As for my particular process, a tune with words is lyric driven but with a BIG ear open to the notes which will be sung. If the tune is to be written in an "off" tempo, then obviously the words will have to bend. Lyrics or not, I compose at the piano, trying to voice everything nicely, adding first the bassline and then the drums. Next I'll try adding different instruments in various places to bolster the composition appropriately. I sometimes like to try to take the chorus or bridge to an unexpected key, so finding a way to modulate smoothly is a challenge. Nice post Jeez, thanks.

Peace :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by DodgingRain

Ah, again flux can be built into the sound and isn't necessarily part of the composition if we don't include sound design as part of a composition(which I disagree with). A sound can change over the course of several bars(100's if you like), but the idea itself is important regardless.

:)

 

If a sound changes over an extended length of time, and you use that as part of your piece, then that is definately composition.

 

Sound design is when you build sounds, but the sounds have no context.

 

Composition is when you give the sounds context - ie, you call it a piece.

 

Composition doesn't have to be beats and bars, it doesn't have to have notes or harmony - it's just the organisation of sound.

 

 

Ok, we're starting to get into semantics here. Let's try not to get into a petty grey-area squabble. I know that in some cases sound design and composition cross over. In this thread I'd like to just focus on composition.

 

 

I think that's enough sound design vs. composition for this thread. :)

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by ebonivory

Now, here's my problem at times. I sometimes switch from right brain to left brain too quickly. Before I've allowed the idea to formulate I start analyzing. I've written with partners before, and at that stage have a tendency to want to bring to the session a completed idea, if not a completed song, so I may be rushing the process at times...Any help in this regard would be most appreciated. Great thread, Kim.

 

 

I know what that's like. I've had situations where I come up with an idea that I like, then start developing it too early. Pretty soon I hit a dead end, because I didn't start out with much material.

 

When this has happened though, sometimes I find it helps to start developing new ideas, and build on them before incorporating them into the original material.

 

Of course, this doesn't always work.

 

The important thing to remember, is that composition is an iterative process - it's not common to start at the start, develop your ideas, then have a completed product - all in a linear fashion. Very often, you have to go back, make up new material, scrap older stuff, mix and match, etc.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by easy1

I believe Jeez's intention is to keep the dialogue focused specifically on the process of notes written, regardless of which instrument or voice for which it is intended.

 

 

Almost. That's the right idea... but also understand that not everyone uses notes, or time signatures, or even harmony. I've done some work which had none of this - just a "music concrete" collage of sound. That's still composition, and the principals we're discussing here should still be applicable.

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by Jeez




The important thing to remember, is that composition is an iterative process - it's not common to start at the start, develop your ideas, then have a completed product - all in a linear fashion. Very often, you have to go back, make up new material, scrap older stuff, mix and match, etc.


Hope that helps.


Forever,





Kim.

 

 

That is helpful Kim. It helps to realize that going back to the creative mode for additonal ideas/material, without giving up the orignial concept is possible and sometimes necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hooks.

 

In my opinion a song needs a hook if it is to be remembered long after the listener has heard it. Hooks have to repeat in the song to help it settle into the listener's head.

 

I always consciously put them in my songs. A hook can be anything that is catchy and memorable - a catchy bass line or an interesting arpeggio or a voice saying "Bring on the thunder" before every chorus section. There can be more than one hooks in a song.

 

I had this saved from somewhere I dont remember -

 

"

HOOKS

This is the part of a commercial composition we remember after the song is over; the refrain ;the part of the song that grabs you. The part you cannot seem to get out of your head, that you keep singing, the catchy repeated chorus. Commercial jingle writers are some of the most proficient in coming up with memorible hooks. These are the compositions that stick even if we try to forget them. There are many forms for hooks and hooklines.

 

HOOK BASED ON SONG STRUCTURE

This type of hook is repeated several times and contains the hook line or title of the song; usually the first or last line of the chorus. Sometimes a bridge section can also be a hook, but we mainly refer to the chorus.

 

HOOK BASED ON INSTRUMENTAL MELODY LINE

Some phrases that are played by a lead instrument may ingrain themselves into our memory and indeed be considered a melodic hook. Sometimes we tend to make up our own syllables to go along with these popular riffs such as the Pretty Woman riff, or the Beatles Something.

 

HOOK BASED ON THE LYRICS

Sometimes the lyrics or storyline are so powerful, or the message so potent, that we associate that subject with a certain song. This association acually hooks the listener into identifying with a certain subject or emotion. This angle is a bit less defined than going with a traditional song structure hook based on repetition, but can also be very powerful.

 

Hooks using certain sounds, effects and other production tools can also be identified with when the soundscape is heard and is also a further way of individualizing the production.

"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Jaydubz

http://www.zappa-analysis.com

 

Fasinating! As our signatures might attest, I think we are on the same wavelength. :)

 

But to make a long story short, Zappa started out with a brilliant and balanced approach, where sound for it's own sake (as Dodging Rain mentions) and melody/harmony were equally explored, not to mention an exciting approach to rhythm. But in his later years, Zappa lost interest in melody, harmony and repetitive rhythm, and was preoccupied with sheer sound and asymmetrical rhythm. IMO it was too bad, as he was a brilliant melodist. Uncle Meat, Waka Jawaka and Studio Tan are three of my favorites. He was also a incredible guitarist--Sheik Yerbouti has a great mix of his humor and guitar work. He was also a bit crazy--he went back and ruined all of his earliest recordings by radically remixing them, playing down the original melodies, pulling up obscure instrumental parts, and even removing large parts of the original drums and putting in a wretched electronic bass drum, just because those early recordings were so "primitive". A total original.

 

[edit] Since this is a thread about form, I suppose I should add that Zappa remained a master of form throughout his career, from his early deconstructions of pop music on Freak Out to his seemingly random (but actually masterfully constructed) sonic exercises on Jazz From Hell and The Yellow Shark. Not to mention Porn Wars, which should be required listening for anyone interested in electronic sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by DodgingRain


Hey Afro... do you have a link to anything on the 'net? Sounds like there may be some interesting ideas there.

There's a book still available on Amazon from my college days, a fantastic guide to modern techniques: randomness (aleatory), 12 tone technique, microtones, thematic metamorphosis, bitonality, modality, rhythm and meter, and even a little dated but useful chapter on electronic music at the end: Techniques of Twentieth Century Composition by Leon Dallin. Also, for a discussion of flux, or development as it's called in the classical world, and music structure/form in general, you can't beat Aaron Copland's classic What To Listen For In Music, available in paperback at your local bookstore. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...