The Composition Thread

[Teoman]

Now another subject related to composition techniques: how about minor and major scales. Lets say some of my 7th chords are minors and some are majors, but the overall feeling of the piece is minor such that there is a heavy emotional side of the song but I construct melodic lines totally from major tones( I have a good understanding of music theory, nondiatonic chords, nonchordal tones and all related subjects and their use for what I am saying though). I know there is no specific rules for music making and ear is the main judge for how good and right a music is, but I would still like to learn your approach. Another thing is that I usually tend to use 7th chords which, to me, better harmonizes melodic lines but at the same time gives the song a dense harmony which maynot be a good thing all the time. But usually that's the way I follow, and I'm not sure if I should give up this habit or not.

[Jeez]

Originally posted by teoman I would still like to learn your approach.

I tend to use chord extensions quite a bit. Often I'll go to at least a 7th, but sometimes I'll add a 9th and even an 11th as well. It's great for adding colour to harmony, especially if the chord and instruments are voiced such that the lower elements (closer to the tonic) of the chord are in the lower registers, and the upper extensions are played mainly in higher registers.

Extensions are also good to remember for melodies - with care, they can be used to give an interesting "not quite on key" effects, without sounding wrong.

I think I've already made post in this thread about how I construct chord extensions.

Originally posted by teoman I'm not sure if I should give up this habit or not.

Only you can decide whether this approach is useful for the music you make. However, I think it's good to practice using 7ths, because they are useful for many, many different kinds of music - not just classical or jazz, but techno/electronica, and even pop. It's a good way (not the only, though!) to build more complex harmony - which gives you more compositional choices.

Keep at it.

Forever,




Kim.

[Teoman]

Well Kim, as you said 7th chords are allowing for me to get more complex harmony than 5th chords, simply because I have more chord combinations in my hand and fills the background much better. I think I missed the part about chords that you are mentioning, so I will check it again and thnx for your input till the next question.

[Wout Blommers]

We all use computers.
There are certain rules in musical theory.

1+1=2

Could it be possible to make the computer deliver all the audio material in a well defined field of parameters and let the 'composer' make his choice out of that?
Would it be nice to do this live, in a gig?

What is the opinion of this group about this?

Wout

[Birdienumnum]

Originally posted by Wout Blommers We all use computers. There are certain rules in musical theory. 1+1=2

There are no rules in music theory, only commonly observed historical practice. Walter Piston wrote about this in the introduction to his classic book "Harmony".

1+1=2 is not per se any more musical than any other equation; nor is music logical or a science anyway--it's an art. There are certain equations that seem to pop up in nature, notably the Fibonacci Sequence, which are valuable to study, but the artist still maintains control--unless he chooses to abandon control.

It is interesting how "totally organized" music (the serial music of the 1950s and 60s) and "aleatory" music (using chance, randomity) equal exactly the same thing to the listener--chaos. Whereas when a composer allows only a certain amount of these factors in the overall composition, the results can be highly artistic. So abandoning a precise amount of control can be useful, but...

The best art always is uniquely imbued by the personal style of the artist. We hear a piece of music and will say, "Oh, that was Beethoven". Automatic composition, like automatic poetry, negates this integrity.

Originally posted by Wout Blommers Could it be possible to make the computer deliver all the audio material in a well defined field of parameters and let the 'composer' make his choice out of that?

Yes, and I've heard it many times. You don't need a computer to do this, just compose your parameters whether it's serial organization or Brian Eno's random acts of inspiration. The computer simply automates whatever techniques you use.

Originally posted by Wout Blommers Would it be nice to do this live, in a gig?

Depends on how stoned the audience is.

Seriously, everything still comes back to your talent. Garbage in, garbage out.

[fulcrum]

Well, this has given me quite a lot of food for thought. This is stuff that I do but don't give a whole lot of thought to, or without always being aware that I'm doing it.

I'll see if I can't contribute something of more substance when I can. But I'm going to have to read this again before I do. And maybe once more for good measure.

Thanks for this to one and all. I'll see if I can't contribute something of more substance when I can.

[Birdienumnum]

Bump for the very bestest threadeth of them all. Thank you Jeez! You new guys, you can always find this thread in the "Where to find key topics" sticky.

[Jeez]

A couple a composition-related forums:

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/forum.php

http://www.composeforums.com/forum/default.asp

I am not a member of these forums, although I'd like to check them out when I get some more time in the future...

Another interesting composition web site that I haven't time to check out in detail:

http://www.sequenza21.com/

Apologies for not being around much lately...

Forever,




Kim.

[BillyWa]

Resurrected by popular demand!

[Counterpoint]

After all these years, I know the lion's share of the "rules" by heart. But the compositions that I'm most proud of I wrote by the seat of my pants. Aesthics and passion are more important in composition than a properly executed numerical exercise.

[Jeez]

Originally posted by Counterpoint Aesthics and passion are more important in composition than a properly executed numerical exercise.

Of course. Formalised technique is only there to support and guide you. You must have the passion FIRST. Only then can formalised technique help improve your work and help you create astonishing music.

Forever,




Kim.

[Counterpoint]

Originally posted by Jeez Of course. Formalised technique is only there to support and guide you. You must have the passion FIRST. Only then can formalised technique help improve your work and help you create astonishing music . Forever, Kim.

I wasn't generalizing or drawing universal conclusions. I was speaking for myself.

Formalized technique only goes so far. I've heard amazing music created by the blissfully unaware, yet four years at Berklee isn't going to put soul into a body that doesn't possess it. I don't know if this is what you meant by passion, but I think of passion as something different, a yearning to learn and to improve, to do the best work that you can do. You can teach a computer to generate random tone rows and invert them, but you can't teach a computer to come up with a moving melody any more than you can ask a computer to come up with a tasty cookie recipe. Maybe it will stumble upon one after a thousand tries, but it will never be as effective as a human being humming melodies or playing them on a piano. Because the human can evaluate his or her creation. We can feel the power of the music. The computer can't. It can't feel music, and it can't taste cookies. Only the interactive human response in the moment of inspiration, the "gut reaction" if you will, can create art on the highest level.

Creating music by rules is like running back a kickoff by thinking about how your muscles are attached to the bones in your legs. Don't expect an inspired athletic performance in that context.

[stikygum]

I feel like a Jack@@@. I missed this good thread up until this point.

I'm trying to get more into composing and theory together. I mainly compose music by ear and without any knowledge of theory, which it works and can sound good, but theory adds another dimesion.

Is this thread about how to compose mixing up different techniques and whatnot?

[Birdienumnum]

Originally posted by stikygum Is this thread about how to compose mixing up different techniques and whatnot?

Sure it is, among other things. Composition involves lots of different techniques whether you read music or not or know traditional theory or not. Glad you bumped the thread, it's the best!

[percyexpat]

ive just read this entire thread so i thought id best make some kind of contribution to it as its been dormant for a few weeks.

do you sit with your instrument and just 'doodle' for a while until you find maybe a snippet of an idea and develop that or maybe do you stay away from the instrument entirely until you have a pretty well formed idea?

i find it most useful to try all approaches. when making ambient stuff i usually make it up as a go along sat at my computer. for a song in a traditional sense it has to be sitting at an acoustic guitar for a while. for basslines or synth or guitar melodies i usually get it clear in my head first and maybe hum it into a microphone, chop and copy and paste until i have what im looking for and use that as a template for the instrument to be added. i find this best because its the easiest way to get a sound from my head to the physical world as quickly as possible.

anyway, there we are hope you know what im getting at.

[thefunkman]

...do you sit with your instrument and just 'doodle' for a while until you find maybe a snippet of an idea and develop that, or maybe do you stay away from the instrument entirely until you have a pretty well formed idea?

 

 

While everyone's different, my method involves both, each under certain conditions:

 

1.) Sitting at my instrument works for me in a "jam situation:" If I'm alone at the piano, not as much. The external stimulation, and my response to that stimulation, can lead to new ideas.

 

2.) When an idea "drops from the sky," I'm better off being away from my instrument. I can mentally bounce it around the same way people do when they "get a song stuck in their head." I'll toy with minor variations, different beats, maybe throw in a "B-section," all in my head. A lot of this also has to do with the fact that ideas can come any time, anywhere, and many of my ideas aren't built around my instrument or my voice.

[henre]

Hi. Nice thread. Didn't bother reading it all, just the first post and this page.

Here's a question that ties in with the above: how many of you guys write lyrics as well? I've recently discovered how deep my love and appreciation for poetry really is, and as a result I've started by writing poetic lyrics first, and then composing around those. My friend Casper, on the other hand, fronts a wicked 4-piece funk band and he likes having music first, then writing lyrics that fit in.

So how do you guys do it? For me, the process is thus:
1) Lyrics, start to finish.
2) Sketch out a rough idea (in words) of how the music should progress.
3) Start composing a bassline and melody simultaneously.
4) Add in percussion.
5) Add in inner voices.
6) Add random guitar strumming or whatnot, finishing the composition off.

But to be honest, thus far this process has yielded only one complete song. I'm confident my process works, but I just need to sit down and finish a few more songs to get a hang of it.

Oh, and I want to take this opportunity to bitch and moan: my drummer friend (18 years old, like me) is the most musical person I've ever met. He has no idea of music theory and only plays basic guitar; yet he easily writes music by ear on Guitar Pro that competes with Placebo and Smashing Pumpkins. I hate him. I really do. He's so much more musical than I am; yet he's only been playing for 5 or so years (I've played piano for 10) and he doesn't know a quarter of what I do about modes and counterpoint and whatnot. It's so unfair. I wish I could convince him to go study music next year. But nooo. Psychology. Something he's never shown any real affinity or love for.

[arise]

You know, (this is partly to Rockafeller) genre is: classification of music by some combination of function, medium, form, or idiom; examples are: opera (voices, orchestra, dramatic action, staging), etude (an exercise composed for developing skills on an instrument), lullaby (song used to put one to sleep), dirge (a funeral music). (source: http://solomonsmusic.net/glossary.htm#G) What many of you are refering to - dance, etc - are styles.

Regarding formal compositional device: only to those who don't (or can't) internalise such to a remarkable intimacy does this factor seem mechanical.

Regarding non-sonata, etc, forms: sure, Cage was creative. But I feel those in the serialist, and related, camp (Webern, Boulez, Berio, particularly Babbitt and Carter), at least within some kind of definitive intonation, were more effective.

And, Jeez, I thought you said five to eight lines.......

[cum2roll]

All those artists, who have created all that great music that has enhanced your life over the years,,,all REEAAAALLLL (expletive) high on drugs.-Bill Hicks

Insisting on learning (or experiencing) structures that have been most associated with composition, as it relates to the commonly accepted musical genres, is necessary to the point the novice isn't turned off by it.

But this is the bottom line; truly gifted composers/songwriters will be as over the top or as minimalistic as suits their gift. Most human beings, even most well trained and educated musicians, cannot write music that touches your soul.

Some of the most undereducated, misguided, non-virtoustic dregs put together mind blowing music. It is a form of enlightenment and, I think it comes to you from another place. When you hear it,(in your head), document it immediately and, it may take time, but the entire song will come. You cannot force it.

[T-Bot]

"There is no theory. You have only to listen. Pleasure is the law. I love music passionately. And because l love it, I try to free it from barren traditions that stifle it. It is a free art gushing forth, an open-air art boundless as the elements, the wind, the sky, the sea. It must never be shut in and become an academic art." - Claude Debussy

 

 

 

There are a lot of people saying things like "you shouldn't" or "you shouldn't". Its music, not math. The reason it is subjective is because its impossible to accurately predict the effect or emotion a piece of music will evoke from the listener. A slowly evolving 40 minute soundscape might give goosebumps to one person yet put another person to sleep.

[arise]

This addresses both preceding posts:

Debussey was a remarkable composer. Yet, he was still embedded within convention. Did he go outside of the 12-tone even-temperament intonation? No. Were his chordal structures largely tertian? Yes. In addition to that, you have to realise that 1) abstracting a statement of someone's from a context, often negates it's meaning, 2) likely his statement was in French, so translation is a potential issue, and 3) people of that time, that education and social experience, of a paradigm of that era, were of different mind. Don't assume you understand their words, let alone their thoughts.

The whole point of composition is craft (whether one is aware of this). Preference is (generally) subjective. Craft is separate. Ego generally confuses the two.

[T-Bot]

This addresses both preceding posts: Debussey was a remarkable composer. Yet, he was still embedded within convention. Did he go outside of the 12-tone even-temperament intonation? No. Were his chordal structures largely tertian? Yes. In addition to that, you have to realise that 1) abstracting a statement of someone's from a context, often negates it's meaning, 2) likely his statement was in French, so translation is a potential issue, and 3) people of that time, that education and social experience, of a paradigm of that era, were of different mind. Don't assume you understand their words, let alone their thoughts. The whole point of composition is craft (whether one is aware of this). Preference is (generally) subjective. Craft is separate. Ego generally confuses the two.

 

 

Yet you can't tell that debussy was simply saying "don't make things complex just because they can be complex"?

[arise]

No, I don't think he was saying that at all. I think he was refering to socio-political conditions within the realm of music - particularly with regard to the conservatory, policy, and cultural mandate. You really should study the period.

On the heels of that, I wonder how complex any of your compositions are compared to his. Last on that, against the standard dictionary, I separate complex, and complicated - the latter meaning difficulty. (Dare I say that 'unnecessary' preceding that would be redundant.)

[T-Bot]

I've done plenty of study on that period.


What do my compositions have to do with it? Mine vary in complexity from pieces that use only 4 notes through to stuff that is completely unpitched.

[arise]

By complexity with reference to Debussey, I meant that his pieces have, at least, a minimal or nominal complexity ranging to very (relatively) very complex. (Not complex like the serialists, but reasonbly so.) As I said, earlier, Debussey may've refused any large-scale forms, but he still used fundamental conventions of harmonic (both aurally and in pitch relationship).

Regarding your own works, if they're based in aural perception, how can they be unpitched?