I find it easier to compose when I follow my ears and my feelings than when I try to observe "too many" rules and to dissect what I am composing. Is this very bad and does anybody else feel like that?

Thanks,
CA

Hmmm, I'm on the fence with this one because if I allow myself to just follow my ear, there's way too many cliches, and I have a pathological obsession with the I-IV relationship. Dissecting is necessary to avoid at least SOME instances of this, though it is truly shocking how often I think I've done something different and find that...ooops, I did it again. It might be an augmented IV, a minor IV or even the IV that is a tritone away (whatever the technical term for that would be)...but it's still a dang IV......ugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm with you ChopinAddict! I compose from the heart. To heck with the rules, though I'm sure the rules are imbedded in my brain. I just try to keep them out of my composing. Music is mostly emotion anyway.

John

Rules are OK as long as you realize that they are made to be broken. Ultimately the only things that really count are how the piece sounds and how difficult it is to play. Rules alone are not going to create an interesting composition - that is something you need to do for yourself.

They're made to be broken because they are not "how to" instructions for composing. They are observations of what was done by certain composers at certain times. If you want to write a piece which sounds like these composers, then observe the rules, for much of the time anyway.

If you want to write your own music, in your own style, then you make the choices, based maybe on principles you've observed in other music (of balance, for example, or contrast, or ideas of form), but using the material in a way you want to.

Harmonic theory and "rules" may give you some fluency with writing, they may sharpen your ear to hear what it is you want to write. I don't think this sort of study need inhibit your creativity, and I don't think it's a waste of time. Just don't think of "rules" as either a recipe book or as a list of banned procedures. I don't think anyone wrote decent music simply by following "rules".

I think rules can be useful when one has no idea where to go (as guidelines/orientation)... But if you somehow feel how to proceed and hear the music in your heart... To heck with the rules, as John said...

Okay, rules are made to be broken, yes. But in order to break the rules without sounding overly simple, the rules must be well aquainted. I compose from the heart then engage the head. In order to achieve greater depth in a piece of music, the head has to be engaged - the rules have to be present. That being said, the rules can also make a composition sound too simple and leave the audience bored and unfulfilled. The key is to find the balance between structure and flexibility. Think of it like the human obdy - the bones being the structure or rules, the muscle and tendins being the flexible and inventive side. When these two entities are working together in harmony, they can create a powerful entity. When they are not, the true potential cannot be attained.

I agree rules are made to be broken. I also agree that the head should be engaged when composing. What's most helpful to me as a composer is to know why the rule exists.

One example is the rule about parallel fifths and octaves. I've heard two reasons for the rule, one was that it was a reaction to organum (medievel music rife with parallelisms). That reason doesn't tell me too much. The second is much more instructive. Octaves and fifths are the first overtones and parallel octaves and fifths can confuse the ear. Are they overtones or melodic lines? In polyphonic music parallel fifths and octaves could be perceived as a reduction in polyphony. For me the net result is that music without parallel fifths and octaves generally sounds more elegant. Yet I use parallel fifths regularly because they have a unique sound. It's probably best to use more than one or two in order to make clear that your use of them was not random, but intentional. Some people can be very judgmental and critical about what they perceive as mistakes. So composing from the heart can be a wonderful thing, just be sure to follow up with editing from the head.

(First of all, please forgive my poor english)

I think that the rules are important, indeed. They are important because the way that leads to masterpieces is the way of strictness, method and order. And I don't think we can handle these points without handling the rules. That's why we feel it is so perfect when we listen to Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven. It's all clarity,order and beauty.

But, there is no rule that's to be considered as always true or unalterable. When you have a look at a masterpiece, you find that a LOT of rules are completely broken. But never without a purpose, never as a caprice. When you understand why a rule is being established, when you get its real purpose, you can break it when you feel it's necessary, when this violation is part of your composition plan.

And, maybe I'm wrong, but I think that, somebody who is gifted with a good heart and a good ear, will, sooner or later, get to the "rules". maybe not all of them, because some of them are debatable (for instance, banning the parallel fifths and allowing the parallel fourths when "covered" with a third) but a least, the most importants and the most useful.

Hmm.. your reply seems a bit odd Ilia - coming from the land of Ravel.

John

John, you made a point but I'm not french, though I live in France. And I mus t admit that I was heavily influenced by my teacher, a great admirer of Schoenberg. Maybe that in three or four years, I will come here to say "down with the rules!" but for now I do my best to learn them, to understand them.

Whatever works Ilia!

Best, John

Wonderful post Not that I'm heartless, but I like really really strong "rules" or structure to compose by*. And I like listening to music with structure. The creativity comes in when you are setting up "the rules for this piece" which I do before I compose a piece. It usually takes longer than the bar by bar writing of the piece. Not that I usually write my bars (measures) in a row from first to last The moment where you break an implied rule can be a wonderful climax.

*I don't use harmony rules such as avoiding parallelisms etc, more like studying a composer I really like and borrowing some of their rules, or extrapolating rules from dance, or visual art or literature or random thoughts while bicycling.

Just my few ideas enjoy your writing!

I like rules and restrictions, but they come second.

When I start writing something, I come up with a rough sketch - a few pencil marks, a motive here and there, a rhythm or melody I like, and a general idea of structure.

I end up with a page of notes, instructions, arrows, and it's not uncommon to see something like "cool scale thing that ends on E" scrawled on the staff.

At that point, the rules come in very handy. I wrote a piece a few years ago based on the idea of tolling bells. I had a texture I liked and a motif I wanted to use. I also wanted the piece to end on a V chord. I wanted it to have a gradual rise and fall. I wanted it to be in minor, but without being terribly dark.

Having those ideas in mind, the rules helped me out a great deal. I used dorian mode to get a minor-but-not-too-dark sound, I came up with a four-measure phrase based on the motif. I sequenced that phrase to provide the gradual rise and fall. My knowledge of harmony and voice leading gave me the inner voices I needed to fill out the texture and manage the sequences.

Rules are technical equipment. A fashion designer starts with a sketch, then relies on their sewing skills to turn the sketch into a real dress. An architect starts with a sketch, then the engineers go to work figuring out the structural details. Poor sewing skills give you a dress that looks unfinished and doesn't fit right. Bad engineering and the building falls apart.

I've noticed this problem in a lot of amateur composition. The inspiration and the idea starts out great, but a lack of compositional technique leads to awkward sounding textures, unplayable scores, and unfinished pieces.

Put another way - I think the best compositions begin just like ChopinAddict suggests, with ears and feelings; but the rules are what realize the final product, a score that relays those sounds and feelings to others.

Canonie, I think that studying a composer in particular and trying to understand his way of writing and his musical elements (wich is different from copying or any kind of plagiarism), is a great way to proceed, and that's how a lot of composers learn their job. Very few studied the rules in an academic way, and most of them proceeded that way, and it's a wonderful one. It takes time, a lot of work, but it's very rewarding. And it gives you the opportunity to understand wich rules really matters, and how and when to break them with intelligence. So I agree with you entirely, and I also like the way Kreiseler formulated the idea.

ps : the way you talked about extrapolating rules or ideas for everyday life, reminded me of my teacher who once told me that he had a new idea for a piece and that he will show me. I expected something like a motif, a musical idea written in a few measures, something like that. He came up with a drawing, a spirale. That was, he said, his idea and it came up with a beautiful piece!

Music is emotion. If music ignites my emotions, I could care less if it was conformingly composed.

Adhering too strictly to rules makes Johnny a dull boy.

John

It is?

"Music is what feelings sound like."
Author Unknown

John, in a way, you're certainly right. Writing music cannot be just applying the rules. A musical theory teacher is not always a composer, and Schoenberg would say that he is never a good composer, thus being a non-composer. But I don't know a composer who doesn't proceed according to a certain order. Not necessarily the academic order, but at least, his own. As modal magician said, it's certainly a question of balance... (there must be a lot of english mistakes in my posts, sorry guys!)

I believe it was Hindemith who wrote that music is not in itself emotional. He believed it relied on the experiences of the listener to gain power. Music, by Hindemith's definition, is simply a reminder of how an emotion feels. Otherwise, how would we as composers be able to take an audience on an emotional journey. Emotions are hard to change in an instant. Even when we are sad, but see a friend that we have missed for quite some time, the sadness does not simply disappear - rather it drifts away slowly without our realizing it. That is the key to a great masterwork - the ability to very accurately remind an audience of the exact emotion that is to be presented.

I always think of music as a means to describe feelings that words cannot. It's definitely an extension of our languages.

Music form, theory, and harmony are too embedded in my mind to completely ignore it. I compose from my heart, while unconsciously influenced by my education.

John

Let's not forget that Hindemith wrote three books on the rules. (A fundamentals text, a harmony text, and "The Craft of Musical Composision.")

I also think that just listening to well crafted music is as valuable as book learning (maybe more). One acquires their taste in music through listening. Before I had book learning, a teacher told me I had good taste in music. So I was defintely influenced by what I heard (though I couldn't technically define it).

John

Speaking of the great masters and learning through listening/ (imitating?), is there a book that describes styles, like Chopin's style, Mozart's style etc. more in detail and how to be like them in composing? I know this question sounds naive, however I am not referring to simple imitation, but rather to analysis and possibly making a particular style one's own...

There are books like the ones that you are inquiring for, but I find it much more gratifying to sit down with a score. The bigger issue though, is that you want to write like one of the Great Masters of Classical music. It is all fine and well and good to learn from the masters, but ultimately they are great because they found their own voices. Chopin was a fierce supporter of Bach and Mozart, but sounds nothing like either of them. Beethoven studied with Haydn for several years, but could not be more different. No matter how great of an admirer of a composer you are, you can never be them, so learn what you can from their successes and failures, then find your own voice.

Finding ones voice can be troublesome. I have been developing mine for nearly five years and feel like I've gotten nowhere. Ultimately, it boils down to a lot of hours writing music of all different kinds, and I mean ALL KINDS!! It has been my experience that the most helpful thing to do is sit down with a basic form in mind (yes it requires limiting yourself to rules) and see how much is possible within these parameters. One of the most interesting lessons I Learned form this was how to write in the Atonal vein - How to get away from Tonal Harmony. Now that I am able to think outside of Tonality, I am also able to go back and forth. I started with a few pieces using tone rows, moved into free-atonal, and feel that I have, to a certain extent, added that genre to my toolbox. That is how we find our voices, by having a toolbox, constantly developing it, and using the contents of said box in new ways.

Now then, as far as books: There is a great book about the way that Chopin performed, thought about music, and taught called "Chopin: Pianist and Teacher - as seen by his pupils". Hindemith wrote many books: Elementary education for musicians, A Composers World, The Craft of Musical Composition (parts one and two are complete, part three remains unfinished), as well as a set of books on Theory and Analysis of Tonal Harmony. Forte wrote a book that in great detail examines The Rite of Spring. Many thousands of books and dissertations have been written on Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, etc., etc., etc. - "What is this etc." - The King and I. Amazon is a great place to look for a book about anything. If you are in College and your school subscribes to online journals, J-Stor has thousands of articles, books, and dissertations on file that are available free of charge, but as I mentioned before, a good score is worth a thousand books and allows you to draw your own conclusions while developing your musical knowledge.

What rules? I follow no rules. My music is my music and comes from whatever I am feeling and thinking. The only rule I made for myself is that I have to play the songs I make flawlessly whenever on demand. I figure artists always play their own material best. However I don't compose classical style more or less so I am less likely to be judged on rules.

You follow plenty of rules. I hear motives, chords, a gradual rise and fall to the action.

You may not do it consciously, but your music is fairly conventional. i-VI is a reasonably common chord progression to use as an ostinato. (From Samurai)

And that's probably the best way to approach composing. Learn all the rules first, and then let them exist in your subconscious. But let your emotions take center stage.

Learning the rules first will help keep your music intelligible.

John

Heh you are completely right. I have been playing the piano for over 11 years however. I don't really notice the things I follow. I can sit down in front of the piano and naturally starting hitting keys making it sound good while following rules I don't realize I am following. naturally transposing and such. You are also right about the chords. Samurai is different from all my other music though to fit the feeling of the title and theme. I didn't know how else to make it and have it sound the way I want. You are right though. I do most likely follow some rules. I think most people will say that they stay in a certain key often once they choose so also, I know I do.

Thanks, Modal Magician, for the advice.
About rules, I have found it interesting approaching them to see that yes, I was following some unconsciously. It was interesting to see WHY I was doing something rather than the other way around.