|
Post by BootHamilton on Sept 7, 2017 21:52:18 GMT
(Allow me to offer a pre-emptive apology for this unusually long post) Say I wanted to write a String Trio. Where does one start? I don't understand the 'shape' of contemporary classical pieces. Sure, I am all for breaking the rules (after all, where's the fun if you don't?). But one cannot eschew convention without first understanding it, can one? Oh, I have plenty of ideas for melody, harmony, interesting chord progression, modulation, etc. I am simply not knowledgeable regarding form - the 'shape' a piece is to have; how to organize one's ideas. The transition from writing 'songs' to writing within a classical discipline is a continual source of befuddlement. In Contemporary Songs, there are: * verses * Chorus/Refrain/Hook * Bridge Older song form I assume had no Bridge. Older yet had verse only(?). Anyway... Contemporary Classical Composition. I have no problems with melody, chord progression, modulation and key-changes, etc. But what framework to hang it all on? There are melodies, and with accompanying notes there are always associated chords to be found. But what about a verse? Is there a set length for a verse? Is there a 'verse'? (You start to see my problem) Music theory (as regards scales & chords) is not my issue (IMHO). However, regarding the theory of "Compositional Structure" - there, ahead lies the great crevass. Sonata Form. Exposition, development and recapitulation. There's a melody/theme. Second theme. Add in key changes, etc., etc. Confusing enough. Then there's Mike Hewer's works. What the hell is THIS!? Adagio for Strings; Theme and Variations for String Orchestra; Concerto for Clarinet, Percussion and Strings. Holy S$%t! These are wonderful. Partita Concordia! Are you kidding? I had no idea that just three instruments could sound like this! I want to do this (when you quit laughing, I will continue...) So, say I want to compose a kindergarten-version of Partita Concordia - Prelude or Sarabande. What's the 'shape'? What are the rules? Are there any? Surely there must be. How many bars here? How many there? Does it matter? I may very well have all the makings to begin exploration of works such as these (original thematic material only - I obviously am NOT possessing of any of Mike's most formidable and seemingly endless bank of skills in arrangement, orchestration, and most everything else required to make these beautiful works - total respect, Sir). An example of my conundrum: My latest uploaded piece seems to me a string of a dozen or so beginnings - each with potential - of various sections of what could become a larger work - however, each individual 'movement' is neither developed nor expanded-upon thematically, harmonically nor orchestrationally (disclaimer - The final section - Pianouveau final movement - remains most beautiful to me). I wonder if, winnowed-down to a select few movements - and with further development of each, this could be made into a more proper 'composition'. So many questions.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Marko on Sept 7, 2017 22:18:36 GMT
Boot,
I think you're making it harder than it needs to be at this point. You have to walk before you run!lol.
Try using a contemporary form as you pointed out. Contemporary form is usually just ABACABA or something similar, with A being the verse, B being the chorus and C being the bridge. Create a simple setup, perhaps each section being sixteen bars and work to put your trio into this format. Start with what you know and then expand. Try not to make each section identical to the first so there is some "development". Concentrate on writing for the three instruments.
Start with where you're comfortable and work out from there.
By the way, you just wrote in rondo form! (ABACABA)
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Sept 8, 2017 8:59:18 GMT
Hi Boot,
First off, you really are too kind, but I'll take it on the chin for the greater cause. Thank you.
I went over to your soundcloud and had a listen. Your harmony is well advanced, fluent and often imaginative especially in the experimental works, as is the production in some. I am always wary in recommending a course of study because it might be detrimental to your own distinct voice and stifle your freedom at first. Yours is a tricky case to advise as you clearly have a good understanding of some principles but I hear no evidence of say counterpoint, nor do I know how advanced your knowledge of instrumental technique is. But regarding compositional procedure, I can offer a few observations that might help point you in a direction you might feel comfortable with.
What is missing in your work is motivic impetus and development - not a criticism at all because a lot of the genres you are writing in do not require it. As I think you've realised, this is one of the main differences between the serious art music of the orchestral/ chamber type and other styles and study of the techniques involved might well get you closer to where you want to be. Learning how to manipulate an initial motif, finding its latent potential and developing it will automatically give your writing cohesion and forward momentum and will inevitably create the structures and form. Depending on what sort of music you want to write, there are rules concerning length of phrases or there are not and the best pieces of music often create their own logic and form and as a result feel inevitable.
Rather than write an essay on how to expand an idea or a hook, post a short motive of yours that you like, no longer than say a couple of bars and I will give you some ideas on how to expand it into a long line whilst making it sound logical. Try not to make the hook too jazzy, in fact the straighter the notes the better. It does not need to be complicated neither, in fact simplicity might be good at this stage as I might be able to show how a humble beginning can blossom into sophistication. Obviously my way is subjective and personal, but has foundations in sound practice and if you can glean the techniques used, you can then go on and absorb anything that feels good to your way of writing/thinking and apply your own instincts to it.
Technique like the above is only one of several steps in the right direction but it is a fundamental one that feels like a good place to start, what do you say Boot?
I loved pianoouveau btw way, but like you I felt it lost its way in the middle and the ending was great. I loved the blues tracks and feb flip (big Miles Davis Fan). The experimental was interesting too, it said a lot to me about your adventurous musical ear - don't lose that, rather translate it if you can.
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Sept 8, 2017 16:08:53 GMT
Just dropping in to say that I'm all ears w.r.t. what Mike will do in developing a simple motif into something awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Sept 8, 2017 17:36:21 GMT
oh s**t... what did I do?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Sept 8, 2017 17:36:46 GMT
oh I see the swear police are up to scratch.. Teoh from what I know of you, you can contribute to Boots dilemma too in a good way.....
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Sept 8, 2017 18:12:10 GMT
Mike Hewer: I was hoping to stealadapt your methods of motivic development. Sure, in the past I may have employed some simple motivic development devices unknowingly, and writing fugues over the past little while have also helped in that regard, but still, I feel like I'm still missing a solid handle on it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I've much more to learn in terms of how to start with some ho-hum motif and turn it into a glorious symphony, something along the lines of what Beethoven was reputed to do with finesse, and I was hoping to pick up more ideas from the way you handle your motifs.
|
|
|
Post by David Unger on Sept 8, 2017 18:33:45 GMT
Boot,
perhaps you would benefit from reading something like Aaron Coplands "What to listen for in music". It explains many of the most common forms of classical music, and I remember I found it to be a good read. It doesn't go in to specific detail on how many bars this or how many bars that but gives a good general idea of how most forms work. There are probably more recent books of the kind as well, but this one still explains much of what you are askong about, I think. The downside of course being that it doesn't explain new forms that have arisen in the last half century.
|
|
|
Post by BootHamilton on Sept 8, 2017 20:24:40 GMT
Mike - No... YOUR too kind. Let's see who can be kinder (blech). Seriously, though. This is very good of you. See if this works as a starting point. Kind of simple (minded) but, hey. soundcloud.com/boothamilton/mh-help/s-WZ3JkSimple's HARD! I found that after I improvised a little at keyboard, I then had to go back and deconstruct it to get to the essence of the thing - take off all the chrome bumpers & such to get to the chassis. That, in itself, was a pretty good exercise.
|
|
|
Post by BootHamilton on Sept 8, 2017 20:29:04 GMT
Boot, perhaps you would benefit from reading something like Aaron Coplands "What to listen for in music". It explains many of the most common forms of classical music, and I remember I found it to be a good read. It doesn't go in to specific detail on how many bars this or how many bars that but gives a good general idea of how most forms work. There are probably more recent books of the kind as well, but this one still explains much of what you are askong about, I think. The downside of course being that it doesn't explain new forms that have arisen in the last half century. Thanks, Dave. I'll check that out and see if it can get through this thick skull of mine.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Sept 9, 2017 0:37:42 GMT
Boot
"Say I wanted to write a String Trio."
Let's start there. Was that a random idea, or do you want to write a string trio. Right off the bat, you need to know a lot about the instruments you want to write for. You don't need to be expert. But you need to know what they are capable of and how they blend with other instruments. As with writing a novel "write what you know". Any more, the format seem to be less important than what you actually write. All of us will listen to the same piece of music and come away with totally different opinions about it. So, to a certain extent, if you like what you wrote, you stick to it. On the other hand, If someones comment raises enough doubt in your mind, maybe there'e something to it. On the other hand, no one else is you. Only you know what you are trying to say, and if the rest of us are just too dumb to get it.... On the other hand, well composing is a many handed proposition. No one said it was easy.
As you are writing pay more attention to whether or not you like it, than what someone else will think of it. I think this is one case where you get to gratify yourself. Commissions area little different. But people who come to you to write something in particular, do so because they like what you do. And if you like what you do, it shows.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Sept 9, 2017 6:55:13 GMT
Boot, can you read music? The whole point of these exercises will be lost if not as they are technical. Just making sure because you sent a soundcloud link rather than dots.
|
|
|
Post by BootHamilton on Sept 9, 2017 14:59:50 GMT
Down goes Frazier... Down goes Frazier...
Well... this is embarrassing (I thought this was too good to be true).
F***ed again.
Nope. All my theory's in my head - 'play by ear - always have.
Yes. I can read. But just barely. Its a slow and mighty struggle - rarely use the stuff. But call-out 'three sharps' and I know where we're at.
Is there a bright side, here? Yes. I had Hewer fooled for a minute. After hearing my music, he assumed that I could read. At least I had you for a second, there (TBH - I thought you were going to whip up an aural-demo).
The under-educated poor cousin at the fancy family reunion.
Carry on with someone else, then. I'll go outside and watch through the window.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Sept 9, 2017 15:44:46 GMT
glad to see the swear word Nazis are still being employed. Nah, you didn't have me completely fooled, hence the question. No need to leave the party, stay and have a few beers. I will whip one up for you and post it with the score and audio, but I fear the process may be lost on you as the whole point is to see the melodic shape and expand, contract, invert, add notes, take them away, alter intervals, change/add rhythm, extend etc. If your ear is good, you may get a sense of what is going on. The point is to find the latent material within the initial germ of an idea - which is what you need to be able to do in an extended concert (classical) piece. I'll do a simple piano and flute type thing. The piano will be a basic skeleton support as the flutes melodic work is where the techniques will be deployed. I shall also do it in staffpad and mark up the score in blue (appropriate!) to give you a visual clue as to what is happening. Fair enough? Please stay at the party.
|
|
|
Post by David Unger on Sept 9, 2017 15:46:03 GMT
Boot, I hardly think you're screwed just because you don't read music. Your music clearly shows that you have an ear for what works and what doesn't.
Of course reading music can help anyone since you don't have to keep everything in your head. Especially this helps in writing music of greater lenghths naturally since there is more to keep track of. BUT I think you can still learn a lot from the members of this forum anyway. I shall try to give my own view on how your music in the earlier post may be worked upon and try to explain what I do in a language that we both speak rather than just giving you notes to look upon. I certainly am not a professional and concider you an equal (at the least) as a fellow member and therefore you may look at my contribution to this discussion anyway you like and embrase or discard anything all according to your own view on music and what this forum is about. But I sincerely think it is about helping each other out at wherever we are in our creative and learning progresses.
(And to tell you the truth, notes can also be somewhat of a prison if you like me have made yourself almost completely dependant upon them. I constantly have to remind myself to listen as well and not only judge myself from a theoretical standpoint since I sometimes find that what I first knew to work perfectly on the paper turned out to sound really poorly. Do not judge yourself from what you are not. Judge (if you have to) only from what you actually are.)
|
|