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

 --- 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 do like chamber pieces too; one of my utter favorites is Dvorak's
> Sonatina in G for violin and piano, op.100. It's technically quite simple,
> since he wrote it for the technical abilities of his children at the time.
> But it's just so very Dvorak, and I just love it dearly.
Hm, I can't recall the piece, but I probably have it one tape somewhere. I must
have a look.

> 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 ;) .

> > Besides, the last (unfinished) piece I have been working on is for choir
> > and ten instruments (2 oboes, bass clarinet, horn, string quartet,
> > double bass, and piano). Not exactly an orchestra, but sometimes it
> > feels like that :)
>
> Well, I consider that a miniature orchestra. :-)
LOL.

> 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.

> 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.
BTW Your idea sounds interesting.

> 4' is short?! lol...
Well, if you compare it to my first quartet (20-25')...
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.

> as far as darker pieces are concerned, I've played very dark pieces at the
> piano during the times when I was going through personal difficulties. But
> I've never written any of them down. I still remember one time when I was
> in the 3rd mvmt of a dark piece, pervaded with minor 2nd (dis)chords in the
> high register, and somebody came up to me and asked, are you *really*
> feeling like that right now??
Haha, I can imagine that. OTOH, my music rarely reflects my personal situation
or emotions. The great exception being the string quartet I mentioned.

> > > The Serenity piece referenced in [1] is also in this category, I suppose,
> > > it's for piano and flute---although it's probably better suited for an
> > > alto flute or clarinet because of its tessitura. Or maybe a recorder. At
> > > any rate, it's for some kind of pipe. :-)
> >
> > 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.

> 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.

> 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" :))

> 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.

> > Unfinished? Why? I don't know if you recorded the whole piece, but my
> > impression is that the piece is quite finished the way it is.
>
> 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!
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.

> 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).

(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...
(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.

> 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.

> Oh, I'm glad somebody can appreciate it! :-)
Well, I am surely not the only one. I'm sure others who listened to it liked it
equally.

> 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."

> Of course, that initial attempt was very short, but
> it contained the motifs for the two subjects. After that, it took about a
> week to expand the material, add a bridge, to make an exposition, and work
> out a development and add a coda. And then perhaps two more weeks to
> polish it off.
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.

> 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 ;))

> Ah yes. The much feared eardrum-splitting contests. Sometimes I wonder if
> these would-be avant garde "composers" even had any sense of music at all.
> Even though I'm clearly biased to music of earlier periods, I do
> appreciate modern, nontonal music _when it's done musically_. As opposed
> to being a mechanical exercise in the latest theory of serialism.
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.

Nevertheless, as a technique I find it much too restrictive. Not my cup of tea.

> > The same professor told me, that my music was "not contemporary enough"
> > in his opinion. He even accused me of "rhythmic tonality"!
>
> 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.

> Sometimes that's what I feel like: the rich history of Western music has
> in a sense culminated its exploration in the "modern" era; now I feel like
> these are all tools which I can use and even mix freely to express my
> 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".

> That's more like maniadewism. :-P
You know what? I forgot what the letters ANADEW mean...

> Exactly!!!! I personally don't have a problem with atonal stuff, it's when
> it's missing musicality that it's just disgusting. I mean, it's the same
> thing as writing a bad piece with Alberti bass. It's not which musical
> idiom you write in, but whether you have anything worthwhile to say or
> not, musically speaking.
Agreed.

> > Last week I heard a piece by Scelsi in the Concertgebouw, and I was
> > thrilled from the first till the last note.
>
> 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.

> Very powerful. (Of course, the music itself is powerful, but I *have*
> heard powerful music like Beethoven's 5th sound like a toy march when in
> the wrong hands. Or Tchaikovsky's Pathetique sounding like a leaking
> balloon. Etc..)
<trying to imagine Tchaikovsky's 6th sounding like a leaking balloon> I feel
the inspiration coming :)))

> 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.
Another popular and even more annoying excuse, BTW, is that they will be
appreciated only 50 years after their death.

> 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? 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.

> 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.

> Yes. I have at least a few good pieces to show as well. But I am still
> considering taking a composition course in the local conservatory this
> fall. Just so I have some official recognition in the form of a sheet of
> wood fibres. ;-)
Wood fibres? WOW! That's what I need, too :))) I don't think I'll ever do it,
though. I've had my chances and made my choices. But I will always encourage
others to follow their calling.

> Now, I *do* agree that generally speaking, I distrust crowd followings and
> hype. But, as Carl Sagan (IIRC) put it: they laughed at Einstein, but they
> also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Although generally I am suspicious of
> overly popular things, that alone is certainly not sufficient grounds to
> dismiss it altogether!
Right!

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

Jan

=====
"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Replies