|
Post by driscollmusick on Oct 27, 2018 20:30:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 28, 2018 2:15:52 GMT
Well I guess that says it all.
1,2,3, 1,2,3, Write this symphony with me. 1,2,3, 1,2,3, It's as easy as A,B,C.
|
|
|
Post by gx on Oct 28, 2018 4:53:06 GMT
very informative - especially the graphics … that sexy lass in part 3, her r.h. index finger seems to be poking the dudes adam's apple.. I've always found that the sideways glance upwards - is the sine qua non for finding inspiration - (as shown in part 1) . I just wish I found out much sooner.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Oct 28, 2018 8:14:33 GMT
very informative - especially the graphics … that sexy lass in part 3, her r.h. index finger seems to be poking the dudes adam's apple.. I've always found that the sideways glance upwards - is the sine qua non for finding inspiration - (as shown in part 1) . I just wish I found out much sooner. Well my wife's a redhead and I'm on my 2nd symphony, I'll report back to see if 'Adam's Inspiration' works. EDIT, No it doesn't work, I forgot what I was writing!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 28, 2018 13:34:31 GMT
The "1(a): actually write music for ages and ages and preferably have a bit played so you know you're not writing impossible parts/your articulations are going to do what you expect and fundamentally have a grasp on the subject that cannot be conferred by simply romantically sitting in a park jotting things in a Moleskine and 'thinking hard about music'" part was dropped in early edits for being just too depressing.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Marko on Oct 28, 2018 13:58:31 GMT
Wow! After all these years with no symphony to my credit I now know why...
I've been doing it all wrong!
|
|
|
Post by driscollmusick on Oct 28, 2018 14:27:53 GMT
Anyone have the feeling that the reason the vast majority of music is/was written is to get someone attractive to sleep with the composer?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 29, 2018 3:02:57 GMT
You better believe that when I meant my current wife I started writing more stuff like crazy. It worked. I think she married me to get me to stop.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 29, 2018 10:05:09 GMT
I'm very lucky to be with someone who both likes my music and wants me to keep doing it; so far, the dreaded "look, it's been a few years and you gave it a good try, but I know the local McDonalds is hiring" conversation hasn't happened. I can vouch for (good) guitar playing as a boot to the door of seduction, though. Or bad guitar playing, with good hair.
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Nov 1, 2018 2:17:59 GMT
The "1(a): actually write music for ages and ages and preferably have a bit played so you know you're not writing impossible parts/your articulations are going to do what you expect and fundamentally have a grasp on the subject that cannot be conferred by simply romantically sitting in a park jotting things in a Moleskine and 'thinking hard about music'" part was dropped in early edits for being just too depressing. Yeah, no kidding! No wonder so many would-be composers' first symphonies all tend to majorly suck. (My own attempts at it included therein, though I haven't officially started writing an actual symphony yet... but my orchestral works are generally composed with the goal of eventually being able to write a symphony. So far none of them have been fully satisfactory.)
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Nov 1, 2018 9:08:38 GMT
I believe that writing in an extended fashion for concert music involves a paradigm that forces one to think in longer phrases and form. I found it difficult for a while after leaving the media industry to re-acquire this way of thinking, given that media mostly requires an immediacy in the appeal of the music and very rarely gives an opportunity for totally free reign because even extended cues are beholden to extra-musical dictates.
For me, actually thinking about the music helps enormously as one can imagine, assess and discard at will any projection into the future of the piece one wants. I also find it useful sometimes to draw a horizontal schematic on paper that just uses shapes and sections to visually represent moods, or musical themes, density of scoring, climaxes etc. Mind you I have never totally stuck to the plan once I get going, but it does help to focus my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Nov 1, 2018 12:55:34 GMT
I believe that writing in an extended fashion for concert music involves a paradigm that forces one to think in longer phrases and form. I found it difficult for a while after leaving the media industry to re-acquire this way of thinking, given that media mostly requires an immediacy in the appeal of the music and very rarely gives an opportunity for totally free reign because even extended cues are beholden to extra-musical dictates. For me, actually thinking about the music helps enormously as one can imagine, assess and discard at will any projection into the future of the piece one wants. I also find it useful sometimes to draw a horizontal schematic on paper that just uses shapes and sections to visually represent moods, or musical themes, density of scoring, climaxes etc. Mind you I have never totally stuck to the plan once I get going, but it does help to focus my mind. Clarification: thinking about music is fine, but in the context of knowing your stuff after years or decades of graft. I was ripping on the article's inference that one can just think, probably whilst staring wistfully at autumn leaves or snow, and music will come. They neglect the billion hours of experience which allows someone like you to actually do it
|
|
|
Post by driscollmusick on Nov 1, 2018 15:19:16 GMT
I believe that writing in an extended fashion for concert music involves a paradigm that forces one to think in longer phrases and form. I found it difficult for a while after leaving the media industry to re-acquire this way of thinking, given that media mostly requires an immediacy in the appeal of the music and very rarely gives an opportunity for totally free reign because even extended cues are beholden to extra-musical dictates. For me, actually thinking about the music helps enormously as one can imagine, assess and discard at will any projection into the future of the piece one wants. I also find it useful sometimes to draw a horizontal schematic on paper that just uses shapes and sections to visually represent moods, or musical themes, density of scoring, climaxes etc. Mind you I have never totally stuck to the plan once I get going, but it does help to focus my mind. I think this is an essential step in becoming a better composer. Copland (or Bernstein?) wrote something about this. Paraphrasing here, but if you can write a 1-minute piece, you are a composer. But to be a good composer, you need to master writing 10 or more minutes of music, which essentially is solving the problem of how to effectively organize ten 1-minute pieces together. I don't teach composition, but if I did, I'd write "Form, Form, Form" on the chalkboard the very first day. I strongly believe that form is *everything* in music--it's what makes the great pieces great. It is the hardest thing to achieve but also the most worthwhile. At any rate, I don't write a lot of long-form concert music, but now that I'm working on an opera, I use the libretto as the roadmap and I do sometimes use my own words/graphics to sketch out some of the high-level musical structures. This kind of super-high-level sketching is among the most pleasurable composition activities, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Nov 1, 2018 17:11:25 GMT
Well, yes but...
1. What if the form and over all plan for a piece is really good, but the actual content (themes and phrases) is mediocre? Or...
B. What if the content is outstanding but not so well put together? Or..
3. What if both form and content are only average?
Which would we rather listen to? The quality of form and content are personal value judgments. Given the choice between Bach and Mozart, I pick Bach every time. Both were masters of form and content, but I much prefer Bach's content. All things being equal, I might tend to pick B. Notes matter.
|
|
|
Post by driscollmusick on Nov 1, 2018 17:51:34 GMT
Well, yes but... 1. What if the form and over all plan for a piece is really good, but the actual content (themes and phrases) is mediocre? Or... B. What if the content is outstanding but not so well put together? Or.. 3. What if both form and content are only average? Which would we rather listen to? The quality of form and content are personal value judgments. Given the choice between Bach and Mozart, I pick Bach every time. Both were masters of form and content, but I much prefer Bach's content. All things being equal, I might tend to pick B. Notes matter. 1. I think there's a lot of pieces that fit this mold, basically the lesser symphonies of most of the major symphonic composers. Bruckner? 2. Wagner and Richard Strauss (and some Mahler) comes to mind. I love Mahler to tears, but some of it needs an editor. 3. Too many to enumerate! Well, I think of course you want both good form and content. Bach and Mozart are both masters of form, but their forms are very different. To be glib about it, Bach was about maintaining and developing a single affect, Mozart about opposing material (sonata form). The "notes" are a more personal matter, as Herr Hewer would say.
|
|