Re: OT: Composing (jara: My girlfriend is a conlanger!)

On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 08:19:14PM +0000, Jan van Steenbergen wrote:
>  --- H. S. Teoh skrzypszy:
>
> > I've personally never grokked choral music. I have heard a few good ones,
> > and I do like them; but for some reason, they just don't have the draw
> > that purely instrumental pieces have for me.
>
> Oh, me neither, until I started singing myself. Eleven years ago I
> joined an amateur choir specialized in the performance of contemporary
> music. Quite a unique thing, I must say, and it is really a pity that it
> doesn't exist anymore. But those years gave me a lot of knowledge about
> and a strong interest in choral music.
I see. Well, for me, I do sing, too. But as an art form, I find it less
interesting than instrumental music. When there are lyrics, I feel that
the music must be dictated by the lyrics; and so it is constrained. But
when there are no lyrics, the music is free to develop on its own. I find
that more engaging.

Now, non-verbal choir accompaniment is an interesting device which can be
very effective (cf. Nielsen's Aladdin suite; the end of Holst' Planets
suite).

[snip]
> > I've written pieces with odd meters, but not at all frequently. That
> > quartet piece I was talking about had a (incomplete) movement that has
> > a passage in 6/8 superimposed with 9/8.
>
> Don't hesitate to upload it ;) .
Don't hold your breath for it, though. I've mostly given up on that piece.
If I *do* end up getting back to it someday, I'll put it up. But I'm
expecting that to happen in the near future.

[snip]
> > I've always been a neoclassicist... my favorite music is Beethoven and
> > Romantic era music, plus post-romantics like Sibelius.
>
> Hehe, my taste is a bit different, I'm afraid. I especially love the Baroque,
> the Middle Ages, and the 20th century. Stravinsky is my favourite composer.
Interesting. I'm not very familiar with Stravinsky, unfortunately; I've
only heard very few of his pieces. I do like Baroque pieces, but not as
much as Beethoven.

> > I've never been into avant garde stuff... in fact, that unconventional
> > piece I was talking about was originally a mockery of people who write
> > avant garde just 'cos it's cool, but have no idea what they're doing.
>
> Oh well, every musical style has its good and its bad composers. A bad
> piece by a mediocre Baroque composer is also no fun to listen to.
Exactly my point about a bad piece in Alberti bass...

> BTW Your idea sounds interesting.
Perhaps... the only problem is, I'm not sure how to maintain interest in
such a piece, since most of my ideas are currently packed into a very
small space.

> > 4' is short?! lol...
>
> Well, if you compare it to my first quartet (20-25')...
Hmm. The longest piece I've written is only 10-12 mins at most. The march
piece is currently estimated at 15 mins in full length (so you're really
only hearing 1/3 of it).

> Especially if you consider the form. Not that ABA so unusual, but the
> contrast between A and B is so immense that you can easily consider them
> separate movements. A is extremely slow and playing all the time around
> one note, while B is fast and full of tension.
I'm curious to hear it. :-) I'm a big fan of high contrast between
sections.

[snip]
> Haha, I can imagine that. OTOH, my music rarely reflects my personal
> situation or emotions. The great exception being the string quartet I
> mentioned.
Interesting. My earlier pieces were more detached; but my later pieces are
mostly quite personal.

[snip]
> > > How about a saxophone? Would that work, too?
> >
> > No, at least not if played according to current saxophone practices. It
> > might work if played the way Sax intended them to be. ;-)
>
> I heard it, and I agree that saxophone is not the right instrument.
> Pity, because Marina forms a duo with a saxophonist. Serenity would
> probably sound best on a clarinet, I think; alto flute is a beautiful
> instrument, but easily blown away by the piano. But you should check in
> how far the more "virtuoso"  parts are playable for a clarinet.
I think a clarinet should be able to handle it. Well, the cadenza might
have some problematic parts, esp. the last long run that ends with a
trill. There's very little breathing space just before it; I'm not sure if
it's possible to play on a clarinet without running out of breath. But
yeah, I realize that flutes are easily overwhelmed by the piano. Esp. in
that register.

> > Don't expect too much from it, though... not that many people who heard it
> > like it as much as I do.
>
> I like it. There are some places that I have doubts about (especially
> the piano part at the beginning, which is a bit too full and "greasy"
> for my taste), but in general I really like the piece.
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that the thick piano chords aren't
supposed to be that way... what I have in mind are softly rolled chords,
but the limitations in my notation program prevents me from realizing that
without excessive effort.

Another part I'm not quite happy with is when the piano enters with the
main theme fully chorded. The chord writing there definitely needs some
work. I think the best part is after the cadenza, when the new variant of
the theme comes in, but yet it sounds familiar and conclusive.

> > I'll see about that. :-) Right now, it's somewhere at the bottom of my
> > priority list... and it's my version of the Carnival of the Animals, if
> > you will. It is supposed to be a sarcastic mockery of "composers" who go
> > avant garde just 'cos it's cool, but have no idea what they're doing.
>
> Haha. "Le Carnaval des Avant-Gardistes" :))
LOL!!! I'm *definitely* going to remember that title. :-)

> > My reaction to that has always been, you guys are old; *I* am the most avant
> > garde of all, 'cos I write neoclassical music in a time when nobody else
> > would.
>
> Oh, but don't let that misguide you! A lot of people write music the way
> you do... They just don't make it to the stage that often. But let me
> assure you that they exist. Actually, my father wrote music that could
> easily have been written 50 years earlier. But I value it highly,
> because it is beautiful, well-written, and he clearly had his own style.
Yeah... Sometimes I feel that in many ways, I really belong to the
previous century. But anyway...

[snip]
> > Well, in that case, I probably failed horribly. :-( What you hear is
> > supposed to be an exposition only; the unfinished repeat you hear is
> > actually the beginnings of the development section. (It's supposed to be a
> > "false" da capo which turns out to be a development instead.)
>
> No, I don't think you failed horribly, because the piece is beautiful
> like it is. Definitely not a failure. My impression was that you got
> stuck because you wanted to add something to a composition that already
> had its beginning and its end, and in that case I would have said: don't
> do it!
Right, but the plan has always been that it's much longer than that. The
problem is, the climax you hear is supposed to be quickly over, like a
teaser of some sort. But the way it's written right now, it sounds overly
conclusive.

> But of course, it is your piece and you know best. If you want to go on
> with a false da capo here, then I'd suggest another instrument (to avoid
> the impression that you got into a loop ;) ). Bassoon would be best, I
> think.
Actually, it's supposed to sound like it got stuck in a loop. And then
when the audience's patience almost runs out, it suddenly stutters and
coughs, and then takes on a whole new direction. :-)

> > Except that there is a lot more to come. But the fact that you perceive it
> > as complete probably indicates that I've built up too strong a climax,
> > which probably should be reserved for the real ending instead.
>
> Possibly, but I like the climax the way you wrote it. Why should it
> necessarily take half an hour before the audience finally gets what it
> has been waiting for? Okay, it is a matter of taste. I like simplicity
> and compactness. My credo: tell them whatever you have to say, play a
> bit with it, but don't chew on it too long, otherwise the audience will
> fall asleep (1). Work your way to an explosive climax, but when it's
> done, make an end to it as quickly as possible. Not too much afterplay,
> or the audience will fall asleep (2).
Good point. Which is why I said I failed horribly: that climax you hear
isn't supposed to be quite that strong, since it ruins whatever else may
come after it.

> (1) Typical example: Mahler. I like it a lot, but I find most of his
> music way too long. Everytime when you think it is done at last, he
> starts the whole thing all over again...
Yeah, Beethoven is another example. I still cringe towards the end of the
5th symphony, because it sounds like it should be done already but he just
doesn't want it to stop.

> (2) Typical example: Rachmaninov. IMO The guy wrote about the best
> climaxes known to musical history, spins them out beautifully over a
> relatively long period, but when he is finally done, instead of cutting
> off and proceeding to the next movements, he starts to do the whole
> thing all over again, which I find quite unsatisfying sometimes.
Depends on which piece you're talking about... the finale of the 3rd piano
concerto always strikes me as being too long. It sounds like he got lost
in the development somewhere, and when he finally finds his way back
again, he repeats it all over!

But on the positive side, Saint-Saens is a good example of when to stop.
His 2nd piano concerto always strikes me as very well organized, because
he doesn't meander about; everything is stated clearly and purposefully,
and there is no superlong coda, just a brisk and firm cadence, and it's
finished. I like that conciseness.

> > Actually, I painstakingly notated the whole thing and turned it into an
> > mp3 by means of a software MIDI synth and LAME (a free, high-quality mp3
> > encoder).
>
> Hm, I should get something like that. I have hundreds of midi files, but
> nothing on my computer to work with them.
Search for TiMidiTy++ on the Net, that's a good software MIDI synth. But
you'll have to find good patches on your own; the set that it comes with
sucks.

[snip]
> > The main ideas of the Sonatina was in fact worked out at the piano in one
> > sitting. (I have a history of writing really good pieces in sudden
> > impulsees of inspiration, and lots of mediocre stuff which I refuse to let
> > go but which go nowhere no matter how I try.)
>
> I agree, those pieces are the best: a really good idea that suddenly
> appears from nowhere, and the pieces writes itself, while you are just
> helping (or even transmitting) it. As my father once said: "Actually, it
> is already there. You just need to cull it from the sky."
Indeed. Sometimes I find that a good way to unstuck a piece is to forget
about it for a while. After a while, sudden inspiration strikes and you
realize that you can make a different turn, or introduce a new idea, that
will work with the previously stuck piece.

[snip]
> You know what they said about Chopin? That he wrote a piece in just a
> few hours, or days. And then, he spend months reworking it, polishing
> it, until he finally decided that it was finished. The funny thing is
> that the final version was ALWAYS exactly the same as the original
> draft, but he just couldn't change his habit.  Not that I am such a
> great fan of Chopin, but I can understand this perfectly.
LOL... I know very well the temptation of the revisionist. Most of the
time, the more you revise a piece to correct what you think is an obvious
shortcoming, the worse it becomes. Most of my pieces undergo a lot of
revision and polishing before they are done. But once they are done, if I
attempt to go back and "fix" them, they usually get worse rather than
better. As somebody once advised the student of composition, you can
revise a piece forever, but there comes a time when you just have to put
down your pen and say, it's finished, even if you feel it's still
imperfect.

> > Now the A minor piece... I'm not surprised it's suited for baby dances; it
> > *is* supposed to be a cute, march-like piece. The development section
> > (which unfortunately I've never notated yet) even has a starry night
> > section... ;-)
>
> But you have it in your head? Then I'd suggest you to write it down quickly,
> before you forget it. Our baby will certainly appreciate it ;))
I have the entire piece in my head, in fact. It took me a few years to
work out the details, but sometime early this year, I finally bridged the
gaps, and have the entire thing in my mind. The challenge now is just to
orchestrate it in a way that will convey it well.

[snip]
> Indeed. Although I must add to the defense of dodekaphony and serialism,
> that it has brought about some great pieces, too. I took part in
> performances of both some of the late works of Stravinsky and of works
> by Penderecki, Pousseur, and Berio; all they proved to me is that
> serialism is just a composition technique like many others, and that
> only the hand of the master decides whether or not it will be a good
> piece.  Same thing with Webern, by the way.
Exactly. As somebody once said of programming languages: fine or rude
sentences and well-designed or ugly code have one thing in common: they do
not depend on the language.

> Nevertheless, as a technique I find it much too restrictive. Not my cup
> of tea.
If you go for pure serialism, that is.

[snip]
> > Then I would suggest he read the introduction to Samuel Adler's "The Study
> > of Orchestration." The high tide is receding. Real contemporary composers
> > are turning back to traditional forms and methods, albeit with a lot more
> > at their disposal than in earlier music eras.
>
> Yes. The weird thing is only that this very professor's own music was written
> in some sort of "post-Ravel" style, and could hardly be considered extremely
> contemporary at all. In fact, it is quite beautiful.
Interesting. Then why would he be so adamant about composing in "modern"
styles?

[snip]
> > musical ideas. I've been told that some of my odder pieces sound like
> > Mozart and Stravinsky (or one of the "modern" composers) smashed together
> > in a self-contradictory paradox. But in a sense, I like it just the way it
> > is... it's a mosaic of different eras. I don't see anything wrong with it,
> > at least it is of more entertainment value than the so-called avant garde
> > folks.
>
> Most certainly there is nothing wrong with that. One of my favourite
> composers is Schnittke, who is as mosaic as a composer can get. He calls
> his music "polystylistic".
Hmm. I should check him out. :-)

> > That's more like maniadewism. :-P
>
> You know what? I forgot what the letters ANADEW mean...
Hehehe... ANADEW = Another Natlang's Dunnit Except Worse. Here I propose
MANIADEW = Man, Another Nutty Idiot's Already Dunnit Except Worse!  :-P

[snip]
> > Ah, a fine orchestra, that. I am particularly moved by Bernard Haitink's
> > interpretation of Shostakovich's 8th with the Royal Concertgebouw Orch.
>
> Well, in this case it was a German orchestra playing. Mind you, the
> Concertgebouw is the concert hall where the KCGBO is based. A very beautiful
> place. They say it has one of the best acoustics in the world, which wouldn't
> surprise me at all. If you ever visit the Netherlands, you really should go
> there... you won't regret it.
Yep, I'll keep that in mind.

[snip]
> <trying to imagine Tchaikovsky's 6th sounding like a leaking balloon> I feel
> the inspiration coming :)))
LOL...

> > The usual excuse I hear is that they're just trying to depict horror.
>
> I've heard that excuse, too. Although, I know some people who *really* depict
> horror, and quite successfully.
Yes. Penderecki's Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima is quite scary in
some places.

> Another popular and even more annoying excuse, BTW, is that they will be
> appreciated only 50 years after their death.
That depends. It might be that 50 years after the death of these
self-proclaimed martyrs people will dig up their bones to throw into the
river. :-P

> > Well, I've a hard time believing that people are so horrific that you need
> > to have *so* many pieces just to depict horror in all its gory details.
> > :-P
>
> Well, it depends. Isn't it equally boring if people try to depict love,
> or Weltschmerz, all the time?
But there is so much more to music than just horror vs. love or
Weltschmerz. Of the wide spectrum of expressions, why obsess over the one
thing?

> My impression is that a composer primarily reflects his own taste, and
> his own fascinations. That's much more important, I believe, than his
> own emotions.
True enough. I was just saying that perhaps the would-be avant garde
composers are just using it as an excuse for poor compositions.

> > Yep. I particularly admire Beethoven, Dvorak, and Sibelius, because they
> > dared to write music in their own style. Not like the would-be "composers"
> > who just follow others without adding any value whatsoever.
>
> Well, after Beethoven, writing in your own style was nothing particularly
> courageous anymore. Especially after Mahler and Debussy, things went really
> fast.
Right, but Sibelius dared to do it in a time and age where everybody else
was going another direction.

[snip]
> > And I don't understand what's with this obsession of "contemporary"
> > composers to alienate their audience just so they aren't "commercial".
> > That's just biting the hand that feeds you.
>
> No, they actually have their own small audience. Basically the same
> people as thirty years ago. Mostly critics and other composers.
I see. That probably explains the inaccessibility of a lot of these
pieces. :-) Reminds me of a comment somebody made to me once, that
nowadays math is so specialized that during large math conferences,
usually nobody except for 1 or 2 people even have the vaguest idea what
the speaker is talking about. :-)

[snip]
> > Indeed. The irony is that the avant garde folk are supposed to be the
> > open-minded ones. As one of the quotes in my sig file says, "try to keep
> > an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out".
>
> True. The whole problem is that these revolutionaries have become the
> establishment, and most of them are even worse than their former opponents.
Exactly.

> > Unfortunately I'm not even competent enough to perform my own Sonatina
> > without slipping up. And it's not exactly a technically challenging piece.
>
> Well, if you manage to scan the pages, perhaps I can fix a recording for you.
[snip]

Actually, I *do* have it scanned. This is the final, hand-written,
autographed score, 6 pages long. :-)
        http://quickfur.yi.org:8080/~hsteoh/mus/sonatina/page1-rt.tif
        http://quickfur.yi.org:8080/~hsteoh/mus/sonatina/page2-rt.tif
        http://quickfur.yi.org:8080/~hsteoh/mus/sonatina/page3-rt.tif
        http://quickfur.yi.org:8080/~hsteoh/mus/sonatina/page4-rt.tif
        http://quickfur.yi.org:8080/~hsteoh/mus/sonatina/page5-rt.tif
        http://quickfur.yi.org:8080/~hsteoh/mus/sonatina/page6-rt.tif

Hopefully my handwriting isn't *too* ugly for this to be performable. :-)
Oh, and note that the chords in the first few bars are supposed to be
light "taps" rather than heavy chords; I don't know how to notate this in
the score, and the MIDI doesn't do it quite right either.

And thanks for the offer, it's greatly appreciated. :-)


T

--
Alpha-testing: we really don't have a product yet, but since the customer
asked, here's a glue-and-matchsticks model of what we think the product will
be.

Reply