The Composition Thread

[T-Bot]

 

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).

 

 

To whom is the work by many serialists more complex than that of debussy? The people that composed the music? The listener? You?

 

 

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

 

 

Surely your dictionary isn't missing pages?

 

pitch (p?ch)

 

- Music. Any of various standards for this quality associating each tone with a particular frequency.

[stikygum]

Why isn't this a sticky anymore? It should be!

[cum2roll]

A little known fact that Debussey was the first well-known composer to utilize an instrument made of a light steel and held by one individual while two others played it, each with a different wooden stick. This led the way for the modern day percussion staple, the cowbell.

 

 

It's just a ride.

 

[80zclubkid]

wow! Read the whole thread! wow! I have a simple ? that i always wanted to ask, but didn't for fear of feeling stupid. So here it is : Is it proper music theory etiquite to call the black G sharp key the A flat key instead ? cheers

[arise]

To whom is the work by many serialists more complex than that of debussy? The people that composed the music? The listener? You?

 

Considering that serialism requires defining consonance from scratch, I'd say so. Let alone that they applied this concept to rhythm, though Debussey sure knew how to write over the bar line.

 

80z: I think I mentioned above. It's a matter of context. In tertian-tonal music, it depends on the key and the voice-leading (which would reflect in the score, also), or if you're Karlheinz Stockhausen in his work Kontrapunkte, it's sharp. I'm sure there are other different cases. Context.

[cum2roll]

 

wow! Read the whole thread! wow! I have a simple ? that i always wanted to ask, but didn't for fear of feeling stupid. So here it is : Is it proper music theory etiquite to call the black G sharp key the A flat key instead ? cheers

 

 

I play the guitar more than any other instrument. I did go to University as a 'Minor' in 'Music,' though, and I believe a trained and educated pianist refers to Eb and Ab.

 

I don't go out of my way to teach my guitar students that either is more correct. As long as you know where it belongs and what it is.

 

Cheershttp://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f226/cum2roll/patkramer.jpg

[arise]

If you're not learning to read music, then it doesn't matter. But, generally, those who don't know how to read are lacking an understanding of harmony (and other things).

[Stanley]

.

[Diametro]

Welcome back ...

[Stanley]

.

[Jeez]

Hey guys, what's up?

[Stanley]

.

[Jeez]

Wow, this thread is almost five years old!

 

I've been hanging out at KVR. Some of my recent contributions are listed here. It's mostly on production and mixing, rather than composition.

 

-Kim.

[Michael Blue]

Unbelievable thread!

 

I'm kinda new here, but you guys are fast making a believer of me!

 

If you're not learning to read music, then it doesn't matter. But, generally, those who don't know how to read are lacking an understanding of harmony (and other things).

 

I disagree completely. I'm somewhat dyslexic, and can read music, though very slowly and have always found it much faster to play by ear.

Understanding of music theory transcends the ability to read notes on a page. That isn't to say that music literacy doesn't help greatly, we should all strive to be as competent in that as we can. But to discount an entire group of musicians for the inability to "read" music is ludicrous.

 

--

 

OK, background. I've been writing and recording since the mid '80s (2,000+ pieces), and have generally focused on electronic music, though I have a background in marching, concert and jazz bands. I have also been trained in worship leading and am involved in the worship community at my local church - so I have a lot of different genres influencing my work, and it comes off sometimes as a blend of Peter Gabriel, DePeche Mode and Jan Hammer, lol! I'm often told how "soundtrack" my work sounds, which is fine, but lately I've been driving at slightly more commercial (yet still my eccentric style) electronic-based alternative Christian music, also utilizing live musicians for the remainder - hard to explain.

 

Anyways, I'm one of these people who wake up with a tune in their head, or sometimes a basis for an entire song. Other than working quickly to "get it down" before it's forgotten, I fall into the "blocks" category quite often...It just works.

 

Intro-verse-bridge-chorus-exit are good building blocks, and can be made as similar or dissimilar as your imagination will allow. There are MANY different ways to write these, to arrange them and to distinguish them from one another. Something as simple as bringing in and dropping out different tracks/instruments - sometimes doing something contrasting to the "base" - can be a great way to build these "blocks" and most rhythm composition-type equipment and software packages allow for "part muting" pretty easily, lending itself to this even more. You could also vary the chord structure, timing and melody, which is more common, or you could simply filter/sweep or otherwise modify your base sounds to create a distinction of song blocks. Really, anything here works, what works best is up to you and the project you're working on.

 

Something fun to play with is to take a chorus or verse from a song you thought was a different piece entirely, and add it into the mix as one of the blocks of the piece you're currently working on. Even if that doesn't quite fit, it may well give you fresh ideas on something else altogether that may work well for that piece.

 

This is all pretty basic probably, but hopefully I gave someone some ideas.

[mcmurray]

bump for a great thread.

 

Will this still be around on 2.0 or should I save it now?

[arise]

You misunderstood my words. ' lacking an understanding' doesn't mean 'none'. It does imply a lack of deep understanding. Even Schoenberg had lacks of [definitive] comprehension of his own works, because he didn't at the time have the tools to do so. Just as Einstein experienced the same in physics until a time when he'd acquired the proper tools.

 

I disagree completely. I'm somewhat dyslexic, and can read music, though very slowly and have always found it much faster to play by ear. Understanding of music theory transcends the ability to read notes on a page. That isn't to say that music literacy doesn't help greatly, we should all strive to be as competent in that as we can. But to discount an entire group of musicians for the inability to "read" music is ludicrous. -- OK, background. I've been writing and recording since the mid '80s (2,000+ pieces), and have generally focused on electronic music, though I have a background in marching, concert and jazz bands. I have also been trained in worship leading and am involved in the worship community at my local church - so I have a lot of different genres influencing my work, and it comes off sometimes as a blend of Peter Gabriel, DePeche Mode and Jan Hammer, lol! I'm often told how "soundtrack" my work sounds, which is fine, but lately I've been driving at slightly more commercial (yet still my eccentric style) electronic-based alternative Christian music, also utilizing live musicians for the remainder - hard to explain. Anyways, I'm one of these people who wake up with a tune in their head, or sometimes a basis for an entire song. Other than working quickly to "get it down" before it's forgotten, I fall into the "blocks" category quite often...It just works . Intro-verse-bridge-chorus-exit are good building blocks, and can be made as similar or dissimilar as your imagination will allow. There are MANY different ways to write these, to arrange them and to distinguish them from one another. Something as simple as bringing in and dropping out different tracks/instruments - sometimes doing something contrasting to the "base" - can be a great way to build these "blocks" and most rhythm composition-type equipment and software packages allow for "part muting" pretty easily, lending itself to this even more. You could also vary the chord structure, timing and melody, which is more common, or you could simply filter/sweep or otherwise modify your base sounds to create a distinction of song blocks. Really, anything here works, what works best is up to you and the project you're working on. Something fun to play with is to take a chorus or verse from a song you thought was a different piece entirely, and add it into the mix as one of the blocks of the piece you're currently working on. Even if that doesn't quite fit, it may well give you fresh ideas on something else altogether that may work well for that piece. This is all pretty basic probably, but hopefully I gave someone some ideas.

[pogo97]

I've yet to hear someone say "I don't read and it hurts my overall musicianship."

 

I've yet to hear someone say "I do read and it hurts my overall musicianship."

 

Me, I breath and that helps my overall musicianship.

[pogo97]

 

wow! Read the whole thread! wow! I have a simple ? that i always wanted to ask, but didn't for fear of feeling stupid. So here it is : Is it proper music theory etiquite to call the black G sharp key the A flat key instead ? cheers

 

 

Depends on what key you're in. In E major it's a G sharp. In E flat major it's A flat. Sometimes, in a modulation, it's a toss of a coin.

[arise]

 

I've yet to hear someone say "I don't read and it hurts my overall musicianship." I've yet to hear someone say "I do read and it hurts my overall musicianship." Me, I breath and that helps my overall musicianship.

 

 

 

I don't read much and it seriously inhibits my musicianship. (Now ya heard it. Conversely, early in my formal study, I came across someone who said they had a breakdown after studying music. They 'knew too much about it'. Hmmm.) This doesn't mean it is so for everyone - however, going by the language I've heard from others about music, and the music of theirs I've heard, what I've said above indeed seems to be the case.

 

And, to add to your response about 'accidentals': very simply, it can depend upon voice-leading/melodic motion. This is, of course, largely the case in tonal music. In Kontra-Punkte ('52-3) Stockhausen used only sharps.

[rockinrobby]

I so do not understand the process at a scientific level, for me it's organic. Music comes "pouring out of me?" like urine from a bum on the streets of the city. The songs pick me, I do not pick them, I am merely the vessel. But it's good?

[arise]

 

Music comes "pouring out of me?" like urine from a bum on the streets of the city. The songs pick me, I do not pick them, I am merely the vessel. But it's good.

 

 

I've edited your statements. Now it says nothing about anything but yourself, and dispenses with any assumptions about anything else.

[Etienne Rambert]

I've been trying to write AB, C, D,E, AB lately.

 

I've thought a lot about that old Association song, "Cherish".

It's basically an ABC song, but then amazingly, it moves into a "D"

 

"oh I could say I need you, but then..."

 

and then it goes back to the AB.

 

I like the idea of extending a song unexpectedly, but keeping the melodic core.

I think that used to be done in stage & Broadway music a lot.