Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge Criticism of compositions

I have no interest in continuing this exercise in Babel-like confusion, but I thought I'd point out that basis does in fact have a plural: "bases." Check a dictionary before you correct someone's spelling again, Steve. I thought you liked books that had rules in them?

A forum is a very harsh place to look for criticism, you cannot see the other's eye briefly close as he enjoy your music, you cannot see the smile on his face as he write his comment and search hard to find the little things that could guide you in improving yourself. Because if you ask for criticism, it's because you want to improve. right?

The best we can do to receive constructive criticism is to speak out what you seek for at the very beginning. But there is so much subtle thing in the way a piece is constructed that, even with the best attitude of all, a critic's commentary will necessary be a bit off track. It's up to the creator to pick what suits him, and what's not. If you cannot do that, don't seek out advice, you'll end up disappointed no matter what.

They say "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger", I believe it so much I made a movie about that (you can see it on my podcast if you understand french). Even some critics that I thought plain wrong helped me understand my own creation. If I ever post for criticism on this forum, feel free to tell what you really think without restrain .

Even if you can make objective statement about a piece, there is no such thing as objective appreciation in music as we do art and not engineering.

Note: I really liked the performance on Steve's video, does that make me an elitist? I've seen similar performances in music festivals and I must say I trully like the style.

I think John Cage is amusing. I can see how it'd be fun to actually participate in one of his "compositions" but I find it difficult to take him seriously as a composer in the musical sense. He says in the beginning of the video: "I consider music to be the production of sound, and since I am producing sound, I would call it music" or something to that effect.

In my opinion, to say that music is simply "the production of sound" obscures the meaning of the word, music. Suddenly the word "music" becomes synonymous with: "Clapping," "Burping," "Talking," and any other word whose base meaning is the production of sound. Now how are we to describe the kind of sound made by humans, for humans, for its own sake?

So while I think John Cage is "fun" and certainly was an interesting person, I just can't place him in the same category as composers who write for actual musical instruments. I also can't quite understand why anyone would take recordings of his music seriously. I'd rather actually be amongst the performers, myself. It'd be like being in a playground, or something, making fun sounds. Maybe I'm just uneducated and not deep enough or something, I don't know. I'll let the resident pedants correct my erroneous thinking.

I haven't eschewed formal training, I had 3 years of piano study with the top piano professor at my university. I wasn't an actual music student, but nonetheless I have had formal training at least in piano playing. While I haven't had a formal teacher in composition, I have read several music theory books (including Schoenberg's Theory of Harmony), websites, and have gathered information from the internet. That said though, I find what I've learned just on my own by ear, and from friends on the internet who also improvise to be far more useful with regards to making good music---that's been my individual experience anyway.

I have often toyed with improvising based on 4 part harmony and its rules such as parallel fifths, not doubling the leading tone, etc. I find it quite easy to do. That said, when I contrast pieces I've recorded where I've explicitly set out to follow the rules, or ignored them, not only can I not tell when I am or am not following the rules, I generally find that the rules have little or no impact on how elegant or beautiful the resulting sound is. Would you be able to spot doubling the leading tone or using parallel fifths just by ear? If so I find that very impressive, because I certainly can't (unless it is a passage of say, parallel open fifths and they are a defining feature of the piece).

Also, personally I find absolute total freedom completely unintimidating. Nor do I find rules intimidating...I just consider them an option.

Zom, Steve:

Interesting posts. My contention is if you learn the rules and accepted conventions, you subconsciously tend to write in those ways, whether you realize it or not.

I believe there are advantages to learning and composing music in the conventional manner, but the also can be advantages in remaining unschooled, at least to an extent, and writing in an unconventional manner. I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both. Steve, you probably won't agree with this?

Zom: You say the rules have little or no impact on how elegant or beautiful the resulting sound is. I'm very interested in hearing opinions on this from those in the "conventional camp."

Zom, you also question whether leading tones and parallel fifths can be spotted by ear. Your questions parallels something I've been wondering about but didn't know how to express well. If the resulting music is elegant or beautiful or pleasing sounding, what's the difference if it has parallel fifths or ...whatever.

Well, I suppose the "difference" is, the music can be criticized for not adhering to the "rules". But the irony is everyone says the rules are made to be broken.

If everyone agrees that the rules are made to be broken, and the rules are broken for a "purpose" and result in what many consider to be beautiful music, is that music "good"?

If on the other hand, the rules are broken due to ignorance of the rules and the result is what many consider to be beautiful music, is the music any less "good"?

If the music succeeds, does it make a difference if the person who broke the rules did so knowingly, or unknowingly due to lack of knowledge?

Does/should the answer to the above questions depend on whether the person breaking the rules is deemed to be worthy of breaking the rules? Or on the effect the music has?

Maybe the way to go (whether to learn all of the conventions or not) is best determined by which route results in the highest incidence of "successful" music: knowledge of and use of the conventional rules vs. the other route ???

We could ponder these questions forever, and in fact, we've been talking about this for a while here on this forum. Will we ever all come to an agreement on this subject? I don't think so!

Jeanne W

Let's not forget that "rules" of harmony, voice leading etc, are not instructions to be followed but descriptions of compositional practice of a certain era. Traditional 4-part harmony and its "rules" will end up with you producing (if you're skilful) something that could perhaps have been a Bach chorale harmonisation (maybe on one of his off days ). This is hardly the standard harmonic vocabulary of 20th, 21st century music. (And not of most 19th century music while we're at it). And of course, even Bach broke these "rules" that have been distilled from his writing of chorales. (eg leading note should proceed to tonic - take any Bach chorale at random and you've got a pretty good chance of finding this "rule" broken in the alto part at the final cadence).

We learn these things in order to understand ways in which music works, and to learn a certain facility in writing. If you think that instruction in composition is purely learning and abiding by rules, then you have the wrong idea.

I also have to disagree that learning rules and conventions means you necessarily (even if unconsciously) write in this way, and the best way to avoid this is to remain "unschooled". I can't see why knowledge is something to be feared. Should novelists avoid reading and examining the works of Jane Austen lest they be unable to then produce anything but a pale imitation of Pride and Prejudice? Why should skill be a threat to spontaneity? I just don't follow the argument.

Jeanne, you also seem to be assuming that those who are not schooled in the conventions are the only ones who write "unconventional" music. This is just obviously not true.
You may not want to study harmony and counterpoint. Your choice. But don't think that by so doing you are necessarily bestowing on yourself any advantage.

And my thoughts on the original question? I have benefited from criticism of my work on many occasions. If I didn't want to hear any negative feedback, then I think I wouldn't ask for feedback at all.

Yes, but from the sounds of it, many consider these kinds of things rules, and base critiques upon them, use them as grounds to blast other composer's work.


Very well said. No, I don't think instruction in composition necessarily is purely learning and abiding by the rules, but some here have posted they've encountered this in the learning institution they are attending. If I recall correctly, even after demonstrating to their teacher they understood and were capable of executing compositions in the conventional way, but had purposefully deviated from the wanted method to achieve a certain purpose, they were given a bad grade and disciplined.

I don't think knowledge is to be feared, but it certainly has an effect. I do believe everything we encounter and especially things we take time to learn about, continues to knock about in our subconscious and may therefore manifest itself, whether we realize it or not. Is that necessarily true for every person. Maybe not. But it's likely that it will.

Oh, no! I certainly don't believe that only those who are not schooled in the conventions are the only ones who write unconventional music!

What I'm trying to say...

I believe, generally speaking, for most people, learning the conventional methods is the best route to take; however, I also believe...

in some instances, for certain people, there may be a greater advantage in not learning the conventions. It may be more advantageous for these types to stay unschooled. It allows them the freedom to think musically in original, unconventional ways that would otherwise have been "stamped out of them" by their education. These people are probably rare cases, but they do exist. (I'm not saying I'm one of them.)

And for some people, it means the difference between making any music at all. (Those who couldn't abide by the conventions, got the life stamped out of them, and gave up altogether.)

I am reminded of Robert Frost's poem "The Road Less Travelled." The problem with what I'm talking about, is a person can only take one road, not two.

Jeanne W

Originally posted by Jeanne W:
I do believe everything we encounter and especially things we take time to learn about, continues to knock about in our subconscious and may therefore manifest itself, whether we realize it or not. Is that necessarily true for every person. Maybe not. But it's likely that it will.

I hear what you're saying. In fact, it's obvious. Our learning will manifest itself - I mean that's why we do it. But I think this happens purely by listening too, doesn't it? And no-one is suggesting we avoid that. I just don't think that knowing how something works is likely to taint your creativity. In my composition course (many moons ago) we had to churn out lots of music in lots of different styles. I was particularly good at the mock Schubert song, no doubt because I knew so many of them. But do I write in the style of Schubert? Am I tempted to? Well, no. But certain things I will gladly take from Schubert - the interplay of vocal line and accompaniment, the emotional power of the melodic line - if this is influence, then I'm influenced. But of course my music doesn't sound like Schubert.

I believe, generally speaking, for most people, learning the conventional methods is the best route to take; however, I also believe...
in some instances, for certain people, there may be a greater advantage in not learning the conventions. It may be more advantageous for these types to stay unschooled. It allows them the freedom to think musically in original, unconventional ways that would otherwise have been "stamped out of them" by their education. These people are probably rare cases, but they do exist. (I'm not saying I'm one of them.)

Just to reiterate - I don't see harmony & counterpoint as "methods", and certainly not "methods for composition".

I am in total agreement with your opinion of courses which stamp out creativity and individuality in the name of teaching "rules" of composition. Surely they distinguish between what is a harmony exercise and what is a compositional project??? If not, then I'm just as opposed as you. Music courses which "stamp out" anything sound particularly nasty to me! We probably agree much more than we seem to

Don't be so obsessed with originality. Quality comes first. Originality will follow - as long as it's not forced.

I've tried to stay out of this, but I think it's time to add to the fun...

We study composition for the same reason we study grammar -- so we know the formal aspects of writing, whether it be music or the written word. That are times that we break the rules -- but we need to know that we are breaking the rules and why.

The fact that I've studied grammar does not constrain my writing but, rather, ensures that what I write will have the possibility of being understood by those who read what I've written. The masters of writing knew the rules and therefore could decide if they were going to break those rules and when and how it would be done -- usually for a specific effect.

Music is no different. There is a grammar to music, a structure and a form. There was a time when the "rules" said you did not use a tritone (diminished fifth/augmented fourth). There was a reason behind it that had to do with the fact that the ratio of the jump was an irrational number. However, there's a more powerful argument against it: it's hard to sing! Yet in the song "Maria" from "West Side Story" we see a use if that very tritone.

If we don't know the rules then we don't know when we are breaking them. If we don't know that, then the result we produce may not be what we expected, at least, not in the ear of the listener. Now, if we don't care about those who will hear what we write, then it doesn't matter. If, on the other hand, we want other people to hear our music, to understand what we are trying to say, then it makes sense that we understand the rules that have formed our music for at least the last 700 years.

On another forum someone asked if anyone knew how to write a fugue. The poster had never studied composition, but wanted to write a fugue. How is it possible to write a particular form that requires a knowledge of counterpoint without having studied counterpoint? How is it possible to write a particular form if one has never studied what that form is and how it is constructed?

Even "new" music that has not prior form is dependent upon the ear to follow the music and to have expectations met and surprises generated. These are dependent upon knowledge of what it means to meet musical expectations and to surprise one musically. And that requires study and knowledge.

Knowledge does not bind one but, rather expands possibilities by providing a basis upon which one builds and shows horizons that are yet to be explored.

Just my $0.02 worth...

Ed

Damn!

I missed this thread! I hate being away for too long!

Zom (original poster):

There are some things to conisder.

first of all there is constructive critisism and feedback which should always exist and be asked for. I'm 30 and I still ask for help. Nothing wrong with that!

Anybody aiming to hurt someone through critisism is an idiot! Plain fact! Forget about that, since it's not worth the trouble or worrying really! Negative is not bad per se, and if a track/music is rubbish, then it is rubbish, I'm sorry to say! There are far better words to describe that and there are ways to explain what you mean and why you think it's rubbish, but if it is, it is. Far more important to consider is that exactly because it's not exactly objective, it's a personal opinion that matters. If you value the person giving you the critisism, then count it in, if not, then don't care too much, unless it makes sense as well.

As for composition and rules. Since I'm finishing my PhD in composition, I can have my say to it, without believing it's definately right, but still worthy a read (so in other words: my $0.02)

Yes, composition doesn't have rules, etc, blah blah. Sissy talk! Composition is not placing a chimp on the piano and recording him. Composition is not going random (unless you have a strong philosophical case on your back, like Cage, or Ives had). Composition is not not caring (twice the not).

Yes there are no rules, BUT:

i. There are objective rules: Flute can't go bellow B. Want it lower? get an alto one, or have the clarinet play it. A single violin playing pizzicati, won't be heard through the timpani, and brass and bass drum playing FF. These are facts, rules if you want. So orchestration and instrumentation is filled with rules.
ii. composition: Intervals. A minor second sounds "ugly". Sounds dissonant. In most cases (depends on the environment always, but generic fact still remains). A minor third sounds pretty nice. A minor chord sounds nice, a cluster sounds... weird. Not using a motif, or knowing you have a motif, can hurt the development. Putting 4 melodies in the row is not 1 finished piece. It's 4 pieces jigsawed together. What the old (and new) masters did is art and technique. It's not inspiration. Take Beethoven for example. A lot of his themes are mere arpegios. Appasionata, Moonlight, and many other actually. And with a single F minor arpeggio (appassionata) he ends up with a whole sonate of 10-15 minutes of length! He didn't follow any textbook rules, but he certainly applied knowledge, his mind, and various techniques (counterpoint, harmony, etc) in his composition. Plus a set form: Sonata form.

If you take notice in universities, I doubt you'll find anyone teaching "composition". In my masters I was taught "compositional techniques of the 20th century", "aesthetics in the 20th century" and antoher 2 modules a bit more irrelavent. Nobody came to tell me about things that I could argue about: The theme, why I went of B minor (which I never did, I'm atonal to my academic persuits), or other things. But they did have things to propose (maybe this is a bit too long, maybe the piano won't sound too much through this dense texture, etc). And nobody actually taught me that "you compose this way". Nope! They all taught me that "one thing you could do is this technique, like Ligeti, or that one like Stravinsky", etc...

Anyways I'll come back later to watch this thread. mighty interesting!

All I know is, in my own experience---the quality of my music has been continually improving since I began writing music, and the more I ignore the rules the better my music becomes. Maybe my ear is discovering the rules on their own if they really are there, a couple of people have told me I use them even though I didn't plan to. I do like tonal sounds a lot, and they find their way into my music. I just happen to use my ear to create these sounds rather than books, rules, and others pointing out errors. I've never needed to know why I was or was not breaking any rules. All I know is---by continually improving my musical vocabulary, my music has gotten more expressive, more elegant, introduced more form, etc. without consulting a single music theory book. I would never say that is how everyone should approach writing music though! It's just how I do it...

What rules are you refering to? Otherwise we won't be able to communicate properly.

When I compose I don't have any textbooks next to me, or some handy "rules" to follow. I compose what "I want to compose". THE END...

But I can explain pretty much everything I do and why I did it, as well as make my music sound coherent (if I'm successful to what I do, which is another issue altogether and can't answer that myself for myself by myself... to autistic to do so... )

Rules in harmony, counterpoint, fugue, etc are there ONLY for stylistic reasons. There's no reason why you can't have the piece only with parrallel 5ths! Or clashes, or everything. But if you want to resemble that classical style, or Baroque, then yes you do need to know what they did in order to follow. If you just want to write music, you're free to do so! Heck, either way you're free to do so.

Just make sure that you ignore rules, because you choose so and you know that the result will be "better" (according to you of course) and not because of ignorance of the rules alltogether.

Rules about parallel fifths and octaves, doubling the leading tone, etc. The common practice era rules.

I use them when I imitate baroque and classical music, but when I'm just playing to be myself, I don't pay attention to whether or not I am using them. Funny thing is, some people have told me I use them anyway, so I guess my ear just likes those sounds. Books or no books.

Let's not get off track though. I think my main concern is I've become aware of way too many people in the classical music world who have absolutely towering inferiority complexes...and I think this is sad. Music should be about joy, not an endless cycle of teachers taking out vengeance on their students for their own crushed creative spirits (which appears to be what is happening). I've been fortunate enough for this not to happen to me, and this is partly why I crusade so against negative criticism. I see it as a threat to simple childlike joy with music. I enjoy this kind of joy and freedom and I always wish others to also.I know many others share this joy but it just breaks my heart when I hear about someone who thinks they can't do it and insists they suck and so on and so forth just because some bully said their music sucked.

And it makes me mad when people say nonsense like WELL YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE BALLS IN THE CRUEL MUSIC WORLD. BUT I WILL BE NICE AND GENTLE AND NOT RIP YOU APART AS BADLY AS *I* WAS.

you know? It just makes me mad. Music should be about joy not freakin' 19th century boarding school discipline nonsense. Why haven't we moved beyond that? And I'm not saying anyone on this site is necessarily all THAT bad, I'm just trying to draw attention to the issue of: Music should be about joy, encouragement, etc. You know? This is music.. MUSIC people. Not the freakin' ARMY.

Nikolas, Ed, Scott and Currawong,

I appreciate your comments. I have refrained from commenting in this thread because it became personal. I offered an analysis of a portion of a piece that I hoped would serve to highlight it's organizational strengths. I received no commentary on that effort, but rather was taken to task for grammer. I find it ironic that I would be criticised for not knowing grammer by someone who eschews the knowledge of musical grammer. If music is organized sound then having an organizational plan would seem a wise course of action.

Again thanks for your comments.

Grammar =)

I didn't criticize your grammar, I criticized your spelling (which by the way you did first tee hee). Anyway...music doesn't communicate semantic meaning, therefore there can't be anything truly "correct" in music. Even in language it can't be said to be truly "incorrect" unless the meaning is so obscured you can't decipher it.

Look, I don't dislike you Steve. I just think you should be a little bit more sensitive about what you say to people about what they innocently create from their hearts, that's all. You're actually not the worst I've seen out there...still though I am just trying to bring awareness to the idea that music should be about joy and encouragement, not negativity, criticism and "balls and cruelty" and what not, that you and so many others think it's about.

Steve, no worries man

Zom, I find that you live in some kind of bubble! Not in exactly the negative way, but the kind that makes you believe that what happened to you is the norm in the world. It's not. I'm teaching and know many teachers, at university level, postgraduate level, or lower level, at grade level, piano and composition, none of who are eveilshly hating thier students and want to make them suffer, etc. You remind me a bit of Pink Floyd, only it's no longer 1981!

Rules etc: They are only impotant when you attempt to go towards the stylistic way and the aesthetic way of a said era. If you want to write like Bach, for example, you should know counterpoint otherwise your efforts will show transparent, I'm sorry to say. You are certainly free to do whatever you want (but yell at me, which is not nice at all), and not take it out at random people! I have tons of parrellel 5ths and doublings and triplings and whatever in my pieces ,and nobody can say anything to me. It's stylisticly different.

Plus you should know that since you post in the Internet, everything goes public and you are in the fear of being critisized by anyone! What if someone listens to your music and thinks it's rubbish? You can either hide your music for ever, or bear to have it torn apart. A risk you need to take, only if you mean it.

Same with posting, you came, you posted, the composition forum rarely reaches 2nd page and you made it! You are being critisised for what you say and you are being asked to reconsider by more than one person. Maybe you should check if, just if, what you say is not the norm. And either way, found a bad teacher? Report him/her and move on! I never stayed in one place until I was happy and stayed for 10 years in a row! Easy...

I don't care if my music is criticized. This isn't about me, this is about people who are vulnerable. I have a thick hide from another pursuit other than music. I just don't want other people to have that happen to them in music. In music I'm like a 5 year old boy in a playground. I want others to enjoy that also. So when I see any remote likelihood of that being stamped out of someone, I often snap. Partially because of that possibility, and also because I find individuals who post everywhere on forums lording their SUPREME KNOWLEDGE in everyone's face to be kind of repulsive. Unless they do it in a kind, unconfrontational manner...I've known a few individuals like that. Who are only helpful, and encouraging.

I think also at issue here is trust. I think maybe criticism is much more palatable if you trust your teacher. On the internet, trust can never be an issue because you can never interact with or form any sort of (real) bond with them. It is much more volatile than in person. I think on the internet people ought to reserve such comments and only provide helpful information, not criticism. Yes, I know I am criticizing a criticizer, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

Maybe I do live in a bubble. You're probably right. I HAVE known a sizable number of people with huge inferiority complexes who were classical musicians though. Maybe it was bad parenting (of those people. my parents were awesome). Maybe it was a bad teacher, I don't know. But something has gone wrong in the classical music world. The manager of a local piano shop even said people couldn't WAIT to get more guitar lessons, but the piano students couldn't WAIT for christmas vacation.

Something's wrong in the classical music world---maybe I misidentified the problem as criticism...

What do you think it is?