|
Post by fuguestate on Nov 1, 2018 19:46:55 GMT
IMO, Beethoven is a chief model when it comes to handling form. Every passage leads to the next with a strong sense of inevitability, and above and beyond that the larger-scale structures make a lot of sense (often in retrospect -- a sign of a masterfully-crafted form). He can also make even the littlest, most innocuous of details at the beginning of a piece flourish into an all-out "oh that's why he had that note there" moment. Example in mind: the finale of the 8th symphony (that C# that comes out of nowhere in the beginning).
With Bach, I find that I often get lost because of the (perceived) repetitiveness of the music unless I'm 100% focused and intent to pick out the subtle turns of phrase. With Beethoven, though, even relaxed listening can be rewarding because of the drama that he works into his pieces. I think John is right on about Bach being about developing a single affect rather than contrasting opposing material. While it's all very expertly done, on a level I probably will never attain to, sometimes Bach does leave me wishing for some more contrasts.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Nov 1, 2018 20:30:43 GMT
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 can't agree - I don't think 10+ minutes is the benchmark for being good, partially because I'd be balls out of luck. I would often rather listen to (or write) a short piece that marshals the composer's intent succinctly. If they needed an hour, fine, but I shouldn't have to be judged on shorter pieces just because other composers did long ones. That's not to say I don't want to write a symphony or concerto or something else longer, but it does feel like it's simply the thing to do in some circles - to such an extent with some composers that they view it as a failing on the part of those who haven't done it yet! There's the practical consideration as well, though. I write with the hope or intent of being recorded or performed, the longer I write the lower the odds become.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Nov 2, 2018 9:32:58 GMT
While it is true that Bach's style was more single minded, I often prefer the simpler focus of the baroque paradigm, free from emotional excess and more 'pure' for want of a better word - which is probably why I also like to go back further in time to early vocal polyphony. John may have a point, especially about Bruckner. Perhaps more performances that ignored the repeated sections would allow more time for beer in the pubs afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Nov 2, 2018 12:34:27 GMT
While it is true that Bach's style was more single minded, I often prefer the simpler focus of the baroque paradigm, free from emotional excess and more 'pure' for want of a better word - which is probably why I also like to go back further in time to early vocal polyphony. I feel like I'm straddling both worlds, having grown up with Beethoven as my primary inspiration and consequently acquiring a taste for the dramatic "emotional excesses", yet lately having grown quite fond of the delicacy in which Bach handles his "single-minded" themes. Perhaps the Beethoven is truly emotionally excessive, and I'd like to add more Bachian "purity" to it, but at the same time I also find Bach a little "too pure" and wish for more drama. Is it possible to bridge the two? Who knows. But it certainly invites me to look at fugue writing from a fresh new angle: to consider whether it's possible to add more Beethovenian dramatic flair to it while still preserving the tightness of the fugal texture. I've heard both the abridged and original version of Bruckner's 5th, and do prefer the latter, in spite of its much greater length (and associated aural fatigue afterwards). On first hearing, I preferred the abridged version as being easier to grasp, but after more listens, I begin to appreciate the form of the latter more. The climax was so much more satisfying in the latter because of the extended buildup across a far grander scale than Schalk does justice to in his abridged version. But that's the thing with Bruckner: his thinking is on the grand scale, and actually doesn't work if you try to simplify it to something shorter and less grand, or if you expect instant gratification. His style can only be truly appreciated if you allow yourself to be lost and carried away in the music, forgetting the time and immersing yourself into a grand sound-world outside the rush of modern life. Having said that, though, such an experience easily wears out the ear, and listening to several Bruckner symphonies in a row (*ahem* I didn't actually admit I did that, right? Wait, what? What're you lookin' at me like that for?!) is not recommended because by the end you'll feel like you need to change your career from music (either writing or listening ) to, I dunno, sweeping the streets of London, or something.
|
|
|
Post by driscollmusick on Nov 2, 2018 15:28:31 GMT
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 can't agree - I don't think 10+ minutes is the benchmark for being good, partially because I'd be balls out of luck. I would often rather listen to (or write) a short piece that marshals the composer's intent succinctly. If they needed an hour, fine, but I shouldn't have to be judged on shorter pieces just because other composers did long ones. That's not to say I don't want to write a symphony or concerto or something else longer, but it does feel like it's simply the thing to do in some circles - to such an extent with some composers that they view it as a failing on the part of those who haven't done it yet! There's the practical consideration as well, though. I write with the hope or intent of being recorded or performed, the longer I write the lower the odds become. Well, I was speaking more to the concert hall composer. Obviously film and media composers work by a different standard (as Mike mentioned), primarily because the structure of the music in most media work is defined by non-musical elements. I am a big fan of John Williams but I wouldn't want to sit through a half-hour of his battle music in a concert without the accompanying visuals (except maybe for cribbing purposes).
|
|
|
Post by driscollmusick on Nov 2, 2018 15:53:26 GMT
While it is true that Bach's style was more single minded, I often prefer the simpler focus of the baroque paradigm, free from emotional excess and more 'pure' for want of a better word - which is probably why I also like to go back further in time to early vocal polyphony. I feel like I'm straddling both worlds, having grown up with Beethoven as my primary inspiration and consequently acquiring a taste for the dramatic "emotional excesses", yet lately having grown quite fond of the delicacy in which Bach handles his "single-minded" themes. Perhaps the Beethoven is truly emotionally excessive, and I'd like to add more Bachian "purity" to it, but at the same time I also find Bach a little "too pure" and wish for more drama. Is it possible to bridge the two? Who knows. But it certainly invites me to look at fugue writing from a fresh new angle: to consider whether it's possible to add more Beethovenian dramatic flair to it while still preserving the tightness of the fugal texture. I've heard both the abridged and original version of Bruckner's 5th, and do prefer the latter, in spite of its much greater length (and associated aural fatigue afterwards). On first hearing, I preferred the abridged version as being easier to grasp, but after more listens, I begin to appreciate the form of the latter more. The climax was so much more satisfying in the latter because of the extended buildup across a far grander scale than Schalk does justice to in his abridged version. But that's the thing with Bruckner: his thinking is on the grand scale, and actually doesn't work if you try to simplify it to something shorter and less grand, or if you expect instant gratification. His style can only be truly appreciated if you allow yourself to be lost and carried away in the music, forgetting the time and immersing yourself into a grand sound-world outside the rush of modern life. Having said that, though, such an experience easily wears out the ear, and listening to several Bruckner symphonies in a row (*ahem* I didn't actually admit I did that, right? Wait, what? What're you lookin' at me like that for?!) is not recommended because by the end you'll feel like you need to change your career from music (either writing or listening ) to, I dunno, sweeping the streets of London, or something. So what I find so genius about Bach is that the pieces are always proportional in length to the potential of the material. This is most obvious in the fugues. Despite plenty of specific differences in structure, you can still basically correlate the complexity of the fugue theme to the length of the completed fugue. I think it's part of what gives Bach this sense of the *divine*--there's a certain baked in inevitability, that each piece is exactly the perfect length for the material within it. What's also interesting to me is the meta-structures that appear in some of his works. Yes, each of the preludes and fugues are relatively short, similarly structured (prelude/fugue, duh) and one-dimensional (emotionally), but when you put 24 pieces like this in a row across all the keys, you start to get this larger, more profound sense of what the meaning of this music is. There is a similar arc in the Goldberg Variations. I understand that Bruckner used to literally lay out on paper the total number of measures for each section of a symphony before he'd written the music. The lesson from Bach, though, I think, is that the length (and therefore structure) of a piece is most pleasing when it is feels appropriate to its musical content. Meaning, as a composer, as you develop your content, you should also always at least be reconsidering your initial structural plans.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Nov 2, 2018 16:30:29 GMT
And I would gladly sit through a half hour of Williams battle music before I would grudgingly sit through an hour of Beethoven. I like Beethoven. Actually, I seldom sit down to listen to much of anything. As for contemporary concert music. I don't know. So much of it seems to rely too heavily on moodiness and special effects. Beethoven relied on writing good music. He relied on powerful melodies and harmonic movement. That said, my favorite piece by him is Wellington's Victory. I know, it's considered a joke by most serious classical fans. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by driscollmusick on Nov 2, 2018 16:47:49 GMT
And I would gladly sit through a half hour of Williams battle music before I would grudgingly sit through an hour of Beethoven. I like Beethoven. Actually, I seldom sit down to listen to much of anything. As for contemporary concert music. I don't know. So much of it seems to rely too heavily on moodiness and special effects. Beethoven relied on writing good music. He relied on powerful melodies and harmonic movement. That said, my favorite piece by him is Wellington's Victory. I know, it's considered a joke by most serious classical fans. Oh well. Wellington's Victory? Bob, Bob, BOB!!!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Nov 2, 2018 21:46:05 GMT
At the risk of self-aggrandisement, though, I don't think of myself as a media composer. I love scores and obviously have adopted some filmic tropes into my writing, but I think of myself as a classical composer who wants to write soundtracks - as well as concert works. But deciding to be a concert composer is even lower odds of success, so it makes more sense to try and start out scoring. As a concert composer my pieces would not, initially, be terribly long. Williams concerts tend to mix up his action music with his character themes, so you should be all right Old argument of course, but writing for media - though it has always produced a percentage of dreck - is to me no less noble than writing for oneself, since most media composers I respect do just that through their scoring. Bach was in some senses a media composer, as many greats were - his talents bought and sold. The fact that many immortal pieces were written in exchange for money or as part of a post, or for ballet & opera, doesn't seem to have damaged their reputation!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Nov 3, 2018 0:41:02 GMT
And I would gladly sit through a half hour of Williams battle music before I would grudgingly sit through an hour of Beethoven. I like Beethoven. Actually, I seldom sit down to listen to much of anything. As for contemporary concert music. I don't know. So much of it seems to rely too heavily on moodiness and special effects. Beethoven relied on writing good music. He relied on powerful melodies and harmonic movement. That said, my favorite piece by him is Wellington's Victory. I know, it's considered a joke by most serious classical fans. Oh well. Wellington's Victory? Bob, Bob, BOB!!! Yup, I like all the low-brow stuff. Ride of the Valkyries, 1812, Night on Bare Mountain, Trittico, Marche Slave, Sorcerer's Apprentice. Ever since I was in elementry school. What's even better is that I've been in groups that played a few of these pieces. Nothing like it.
|
|
|
Post by driscollmusick on Nov 3, 2018 16:57:38 GMT
Wellington's Victory? Bob, Bob, BOB!!! Yup, I like all the low-brow stuff. Ride of the Valkyries, 1812, Night on Bare Mountain, Trittico, Marche Slave, Sorcerer's Apprentice. Ever since I was in elementry school. What's even better is that I've been in groups that played a few of these pieces. Nothing like it. It's not about the low-browness! All those other pieces are great!
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Nov 5, 2018 10:13:21 GMT
So what I find so genius about Bach is that the pieces are always proportional in length to the potential of the material. This is most obvious in the fugues. Despite plenty of specific differences in structure, you can still basically correlate the complexity of the fugue theme to the length of the completed fugue. I think it's part of what gives Bach this sense of the *divine*--there's a certain baked in inevitability, that each piece is exactly the perfect length for the material within it. What's also interesting to me is the meta-structures that appear in some of his works. Yes, each of the preludes and fugues are relatively short, similarly structured (prelude/fugue, duh) and one-dimensional (emotionally), but when you put 24 pieces like this in a row across all the keys, you start to get this larger, more profound sense of what the meaning of this music is. There is a similar arc in the Goldberg Variations. I understand that Bruckner used to literally lay out on paper the total number of measures for each section of a symphony before he'd written the music. The lesson from Bach, though, I think, is that the length (and therefore structure) of a piece is most pleasing when it is feels appropriate to its musical content. Meaning, as a composer, as you develop your content, you should also always at least be reconsidering your initial structural plans. So true John. The irony is that Beethoven and others could create huge structures from a small motif, a concept enabled by sonata form. The instincts that tell a composer that musical material is appropriate for a particular form is most definitely honed and improved with technical practice and experience allied to a developing emotional awareness of the latent power within an idea. This awareness (also honed with experience) will become more self evident when one digs around and chips away at the notes in order to develop them - now that is how one might go about beginning to write a symphony. Sorry, I can't get rid of Teoh and his avatar at the head of this post.... .
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Nov 7, 2018 21:37:40 GMT
[...] Sorry, I can't get rid of Teoh and his avatar at the head of this post.... . I am infectious. Muahaha! What Mike Hewer said about the motivic development and the latent power in a motif corresponds very well with my concept of a symphony: it must be internally consistent and coherent within itself. And motivic development plays a big role in ensuring this happens. And I'd say not just motivic development, but even interrelationships between the larger-scale structures of the symphony should correspond with each other similarly. A good symphony simply cannot be just a bunch of random themes thrown together in a haphazard way. This is one of the things that drew me to fugal writing -- when everything revolves around a single subject, it ensures a certain kind of internal self-consistency even if the so-called "free counterpoint" may vary greatly in the extrinsics -- content and style, etc.. It's also one of the things I enjoy so much with Sibelius' symphonies, esp. his later ones, culminating in the 7th where the entire thing is one seamless integrated whole. That curious little footnote of his, Tapiola, is also another fine example of an entire piece developed from basically a single subject. (Tapiola has been criticized precisely for this, but IMO it's actually one of its strong points.)
|
|