Those who have been following my compositions thread know that I'm working on another band piece. However, I have been postponing work for it for a while and just got back to working on it today, and I am starting to notice my faults with composing even more.

To start with, I notice that I have to start working from scratch on this Suite now. It's been kind of difficult for me since I've never had to compose from scratch, and before, I would just have some piece in my head that I could just write down (or rather, click) on Finale.

So I started off today writing down a few ideas / themes / melodies, etc. I'll probably write more down as I don't feel that I have enough material at the moment with which to work, and as soon as I feel like I have enough, I'll start forming the piece.

Before I do so, I'd like to have some idea on where to start with planning and how to organize such a piece.

Thanks for any help in advance.

Hey!

I think a good place to start is to say to yourself, "What do I want to do with the piece?". Do you want it melody based, timbrel based? etc. Have a clear idea of the purpose of this piece :) Things like that might help in the early stages.

Something we've been doing in my composition seminar is analyzing simple pieces (i.e. Shubert Waltzes and Schumann piano pieces) in order to see how they follow a form but also make the music their own. Just remember even very complex forms generally use a max of 3 themes or motifs in them, and often there are only 1 or 2. If you're having trouble coming up with your own structure, you could always kind of use a piece that you like as a basis for your structure and then morphing it to fit your own style and goals. Does that make sense?

Thank you both.


Something we've been doing in my composition seminar is analyzing simple pieces (i.e. Shubert Waltzes and Schumann piano pieces) in order to see how they follow a form but also make the music their own. Just remember even very complex forms generally use a max of 3 themes or motifs in them, and often there are only 1 or 2. If you're having trouble coming up with your own structure, you could always kind of use a piece that you like as a basis for your structure and then morphing it to fit your own style and goals. Does that make sense?

It does make sense; I think what I need to practice, though, is utilizing form and I'll see where I go from there.

Myself, personally, am getting extremely sick of form and order, really. It sort of saddens me that I have to go back and start reviewing theory (which I haven't touched in 2 years now) for college theory placement tests next August. I'd rather not spend my time learn about how music is formulated, because I already know how it is, instinctively. I know it's good to know, but I'm getting quite tired of getting un-inspired, just because I am trying to compose something in a style.

So my ideas on musical form? [For you,] just trust yourself. There's nothing really more to know than that. You already know what makes a well mapped-out piece of music as the next guy, so it's useless to feel so lost. Trust your mind's ear. If the musical ideas in your head develop, then THAT'S what the piece should be on paper. Well, I am not saying it "should" be, but that's ultimately what you wanted [technically, of course]?

Anyway, I'm in a odd mood, so I've probably made 0% sense to anybody at all. I just am really turned off to the norm, I guess. Call me another "nonconformist that's really just conforming," but I've truly come to understand why people like to colour outside the lines ;)

Myself, personally, am getting extremely sick of form and order, really. It sort of saddens me that I have to go back and start reviewing theory (which I haven't touched in 2 years now) for college theory placement tests next August. I'd rather not spend my time learn about how music is formulated, because I already know how it is, instinctively. I know it's good to know, but I'm getting quite tired of getting un-inspired, just because I am trying to compose something in a style.

So my ideas on musical form? [For you,] just trust yourself. There's nothing really more to know than that. You already know what makes a well mapped-out piece of music as the next guy, so it's useless to feel so lost. Trust your mind's ear. If the musical ideas in your head develop, then THAT'S what the piece should be on paper. Well, I am not saying it "should" be, but that's ultimately what you wanted [technically, of course]?

Anyway, I'm in a odd mood, so I've probably made 0% sense to anybody at all. I just am really turned off to the norm, I guess. Call me another "nonconformist that's really just conforming," but I've truly come to understand why people like to colour outside the lines ;)

Sorry Mazeppa, but I strongly disagree.

A composer is much like an equestrian, form and structure in music are used to keep the horse in control, if you ignore those, your horse would run wild. Evidently, we know what happens to the equestrian on top of a wild horse. At this point, you're merely unintentionally colouring outside the lines, but not really providing any justification. I mean, you can colour outside the lines, but you have to know what you're doing. This is the difference between random and intentional.

I think you both have your points here; I know what it feels like to have problems getting inspired when juxtaposing classical theory on your own compositions; however, you don't have to follow those theories to understand what makes a piece so likable. For our composition project this week, we simply had to choose one of the simplest aspects of organization within a Schubert Waltz and apply it to a piece in our own style. I think that's a good exercise.

Sorry Mazeppa, but I strongly disagree.

A composer is much like an equestrian, form and structure in music are used to keep the horse in control, if you ignore those, your horse would run wild. Evidently, we know what happens to the equestrian on top of a wild horse. At this point, you're merely unintentionally colouring outside the lines, but not really providing any justification. I mean, you can colour outside the lines, but you have to know what you're doing. This is the difference between random and intentional.

Then I see you are not a fan of John Cage or of other chance music?

I agree and disagree with you, respectively of course, you prove your point and I agree with that-- however --to say that the music I am coming into to writing (many pieces I do not post merely because they are sketches that have no place on these forums, because there is not much to be "learned" from other people, but merely expressed [I am not quite ready to "express" them, you might say]) is random is a total bias statement.

As you know yourself, Dot, I am not one of these "music theory people suck" fellows. Quite the contrary; as a performer, I think it is KEY to understand theory in order to see, structurally, what is happening in the music. The same goes for composers and improvisers (i.e. jazz musicians). In the same handful of theory, studying compositional form is key to this as well. I have studied, practiced these forms, and I am very capable of writing [with] them. I could write you a sonata in the classical style, for example.

The point is, I am not saying that I like colouring outside the lines because I hate trying to work with form, it's just that my inner-core isn't quite agreeing with traditional takes on music. Instead, my ear and myself are agreeing much more with the music of the now and just a little bit back (20th century). I don't quite understand as much of the new as I do of the traditional (notice I don't call it "old" because it's still breathing with new and interesting life..old is word for something outdated to me).

I guess you'd call me an 'emotionalist' about such an 'intellectual style.' Or maybe I really am just an intelligent person who is passionate about something that is much more free to the emotions. Whatever you want to think of it Dot (or anybody else) go for it.

Logic (form) amplifies emotions of music. If it's just emotions on emotions on emotions, then it's just all gooey and mushy. It's like baking a cake, you can't just put all the ingredients together at your will. Humans naturally like their cakes layered, textured, and shaped in logical ways.

Modern logic comes from traditional logic. You can't possibly create a new set of logic without basing it off something. John Cage could justify himself, thus, he was logical. He amplified the fact that silence was a part of music because there are rests in music. He amplified that 'noises' were part of music because instruments' sound could be considered noise if you stepped back. He amplified the element of chance was a part of music because, using my own analogy, tuning of every note on instruments are quite probability-based.

However, if you merely believe that emotions and 'sounding right' are all that counts in music, then that's not really justifying, it's just: a) you are not able to justify your own music b) finding something to push your lack of justification onto.

I find myself starting to agree with you more and more often...:P

That was a very very good point.

The point is, I never disregarded anything that Dot has said. Not one bit. What I've only done was open up about something that I was thinking and feeling in the past few months.

I never stated that form is wrong, but basically that I am getting bored with such constrictions as I feel I am being zapped from trying to stay to true to things which are below the most important thing-- my own enjoyment of it.

Yeah, sorry, I understand what you're trying to say, too. I just learned more from what he said that I can apply to my music.