I think that composition rules should be in the fore-front of every artist's mind. It is the composer's duty to study and learn them, and especially to know when it is better to bend them. But you should never just throw them all away. Ex: Varése. Ugh.

My reply to this question is that music is not just noises that creates decent tune to your ears, it's also a language, and you need to use proper grammar in the language to make it fluent, or else it's just a bunch of noise. But also, composing does NOT always have to follow the rules, you can break a rule or two if you think the rule you're breaking is not so important (e.g. paralell fifths for harmony, even though I am not really fond of it...) and it sounds and look all right after you break the rule, then it's up to you. So it really depends on how you want the song to look like, you might want your song to sound good and look good on the score, or you might want your song to sound good but hard to read on the score, all just depend on the music conventions. ^_^

What do you mean by "composition rules"? Are you referring to music theory? If so, than I don't think it's necessary to follow them - music is a vary "artificial" thing, and as Walter Piston had written in his Harmony, "theory must follow practice... theory is not a set of directions for composing music... It tells not how music will be written in the future, but how music has been written in the past." I think it wouldn't be wrong to write music however you'd like, if there's an audience for it (even if that audience was just yourself). What I certainly don't support is a composer writing very conventionally just for the sake of commercial reasons (ie, many VG/Movie music composers).

I think there's a huge misconception about music. Because it isn't tangable, people think it's also ethereal. Not so. There is a scientific reason why we think major chords are pleasing and minor chords intriguing or sad. It all has to do with wave lengths and consonance. So, to abandon all established theory and things like part-writing rules for no other reason than to be avant guarde is ridiculous. It ceases to be art and becomes organized noise. I quote Mozart:

"Nevertheless the passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of causing disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music."

Just because a complete abandoning of the rules has become more popular in the more recent years of music history doesn't mean it's right.

Some rules are necessary - you can't write a piece in bass clef for the oboe for instance, that's just impossible to play. Some rules you'd really love to break but just can't because of the instrument you're writing for.

I think rules are just a guideline in music. You should be allowed to break as many as you feel like to get the sounds you want as long as it's physically posible. But then again what do I know?

Originally posted by Alfonso de Sabio@Mar 19 2005, 11:41 PM
I think there's a huge misconception about music. Because it isn't tangable, people think it's also ethereal. Not so. There is a scientific reason why we think major chords are pleasing and minor chords intriguing or sad. It all has to do with wave lengths and consonance. So, to abandon all established theory and things like part-writing rules for no other reason than to be avant guarde is ridiculous. It ceases to be art and becomes organized noise. I quote Mozart:

"Nevertheless the passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of causing disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music."

Just because a complete abandoning of the rules has become more popular in the more recent years of music history doesn't mean it's right.
Well, if you are referring to me referring to music as "artificial", I actually mean it in that it is very "man-made"; music in all it's complexity(or simplicity, depending on how you look at it) is something that that simply doesn't occur "naturally" without human intervention. As far as scientice implications goes: if music was something that could simply and successfully be manipulated with mathematical relationships, we wouldn't need composers (or distinct genres of music) now, would we ;)?

As with any art form, there is no sense of absoluteness in what is "right" and what is "wrong"; what may be art for one person certainly doesn't have to be for another. It is up to the tastes of individual perceivers to draw the line between music and sound; I'm sure there are some people who genuinely enjoy Varese's music (I'm not one of them, though I do see his works as valid contributions to the world of music).

But I do agree that the practice of creating music for the primary sake of sounding avant garde is rather questionable. Personally, I'd probably "draw my line" at extremely indistinguishable music - people who randomly bang away at keys without deliberation can claim it to the aleatorical music, and thus artistic, or hypercomplex works with structures so convoluted that it might as well be random, etc. I consider such to be strictly art on the personal (the creator's) level, if at all...

I voted yes. What music "is" is whatever you see it, it doesn't matter. The "rules" are are there as guidelines really. Conventional music follows certain rules because people are attracted to music that follows a certain style. Styles become "styles" due to certain unique rules.

Also, this belongs in the Music Discussion section. =D

:: moved ::

Art is freedom . . the rules are merely a guideline. If you understand them, then you can bend them to your will if that is you want. There's always a choice. Nobody's forcing anybody to do anything.


There is a scientific reason why we think major chords are pleasing and minor chords intriguing or sad. It all has to do with wave lengths and consonance. So, to abandon all established theory and things like part-writing rules for no other reason than to be avant guarde is ridiculous.

You're right though, about the physics behind the music. But to some people, avant-garde stuff actually sounds good. To each his/her own I say =) And does it really matter if the music sounds good or not? There will always be somebody who likes your work. And if you restrict yourself, you're closing yourself off to all the options available.

Still, I tend to favour conventional forms, because it's more pleasing to my ear. But I do have an appreciation for branching off. That's just me.

While there are certain rules that one can/should follow in composition, in the end music is what is going through the composer's and perfomer's soul at that moment in time. It is an audible snippit of their very soul(s). Think of music as poetry; not much of a stretch. There are various different patterns that one can follow, all with their own merits. HOWEVER, there is always free verse; no patterns, no rules, and no formulas. Both the traditional and free form poets are equally valid and emotional; they're just two sides of the same coin. Music is the same. Composers can CHOOSE to follow rules, but that is up to the individual (though this sometimes goes too far--I am a marimbist, and most all of our music is atonal and just nasty).

Just my two cents,

Perry

^ I think you're romanticising music too much.

Originally posted by Alfonso de Sabio@Mar 21 2005, 08:20 PM
^ I think you're romanticising music too much.
How so?

Hmmmm... I voted "No"..

Rules should only apply when you're letting somebody else play them, since the rules are there simply to let the music world have a universal language. Other than that, if it's just for yourself, screw the rules, as long as you understand it.

I voted no. Not that I even study music intensely, though I'm starting to now, but how would new genres be made if we just stuck to conventional means?

Originally posted by AtomicSpud@Mar 22 2005, 02:35 PM
How so?
I'm with Sabio on this one. All the songs you listen to that makes you feel some sort of emotion, has a composer behind it who followed structure etc.. Music is art, but as Alfonso de Sabio mentioned, there's a reason why it works.

Yeah but every piece of music has some sort of emotion going into it. It wouldn't be an art otherwise. Every piece of art has an opinion in it and that is how the artist feels and their art work is their way of expressing how they feel. I see Alphonse de Sabio's point but that is just stereotyping that style of music. Really all art works have some sort of emotion put it into it, romantic period songs just take it to the extreme.

I agree with michael's view but take a different stance on it. Sticking rigidly to the rules never created different styles of music as zebra said. The shouting in heavy metal isn't what everyone thinks of music. That's more expression of rage(?). Sticking to rules would only limit yourself. It just depends if you want to limit yourself to decide if you want to stick to them or not.

But really as Alphonse de sabio said, music is intangible so we don't really know who's right.