Lesson with Marsbars (General Composition, Literature, History)

Marsbars:

From what we've talked, it seems to me the most adequate thing to do would be to first work on a little simple composition exercises.

The first exercise I like to do in these sort of situations, so I can get to know you better, is that you write something based entirely on how it sounds to you.

That is to say, write for any instrument or group of instruments, but the most important thing is that you write entirely "by ear". Don't write a piece, just fragments, ideas, or sketches of what you think sounds cool , interesting, etc.

I already saw some of you work, so I'm aware that you have some basic knowledge. But for this particular exercise,forget all you know about music (so to speak) and just "wing it" based entirely on how you think it sounds better to you.

The reason for this exercise is, like I said, so I can get to know you better as a composer which is crucial or we won't get any work done. If I say anything else, I may end up influencing you so I'll explain more as we go along.

Remember, don't try to write pieces, just sketches, fragments, it doesn't matter how long or short. It's only important that you do it all by ear. Help yourself with the computer, piano, or whatever other instruments (or ways to produce sound at all) you have.

The result you can post as a MIDI (or any other such sound file, as mp3, etc) as well as PDF, specially if you did it on the computer. Don't worry about the MIDI (If you picked that) sounding bad, that's not a problem.

Try to have somethin' at least by next week, but there's no rush if you don't~

If there are any questions, feel free to post them here, naturally.

Is this adequate? I composed this entirely using the computer; trying not to worry about theory.

Good work! And so fast too~

From this I have a clearer idea on what we can work on. I see that you're really entrenched in classical rhythms, though your sense of harmony/etc is got a modern spin to it.

You're using also imitation techniques, and such other things, which is all fine. However, I think we should loosen you up some, specially the rhythms.

It works like this, we'll now use a technique taken from serialism, which is apply a specific set of numbers to a sequence of musical parameters. In this case, you're again free to write whatever pitches/instruments you want, that's not defined. However, the note durations are going to be defined by a number row.

You also get to choose your own row, and what it means. For example, a row of 5:

1 = quarter
2 = Whole
3 = 16th
4 = dotted 8th
5 = half

And, you can organize the sequence in whatever way you want. First as 12345, but then can be 54321, or in any order, or repeating numbers even. The idea is that you play around with it, again, don't make a piece, but rather a sketch or treat it as an exercise with a limited number of variations for the row. Remember that you are free to pick, again, what instruments and what actual note pitches are played. The only set-down parameter are the note durations, and the row you created.

Keep in mind, that there's no "wrong" or "adequate" exercise outcome for these things. So, don't worry about it and go crazy.

Post the row you used, as well as files (midi/pdf/mus) like before.

1 = quarters
2 = eighths
3 = halves
4 = whole
5 = dotted 8ths
6 = 16ths

I wrote this so the note values vary every measure or so, then I realized that you probably want each note to change with every note. I'll do it over if that's the case.

Originally Posted by marsbars

1 = quarters
2 = eighths
3 = halves
4 = whole
5 = dotted 8ths
6 = 16ths

I wrote this so the note values vary every measure or so, then I realized that you probably want each note to change with every note. I'll do it over if that's the case.

Yeah, I should've specified more. The idea is that within the same measure, you have for 123456 and then 654321 in two separate voices, and things like that. But trying to keep the row within a measure, so that each note value comes one after the other.

So, in one measure you'd have in one voice if it's 123456 with your row, it starts with a quarter and then come each of the other values until the 16th note at the end.

I have an example I did a while ago:

serialism.jpg the score, and

serialism1.mp3 Mp3 audio

The thing is, in my example I not only serialized the note durations, but I also serialized the pitches, and write a little scheme of how it flowed. It's detailed on the top of the score, though in German. Either way, it should give you an idea of how it works. Note I also did away with measures altogether, since I find them pretty pointless in something like this, though it helps to keep things organized sometimes.

Same row. Whenever the lower voice comes in it goes through the row backwards (654321).

This came out kind of random. I'm wondering how Schoenberg and everyone was able to express themselves with serialism so fluently. I wasn't feelin' it.

Good work.

That's a good question. A problem with serialism has always been that, when you have rows and things defined by numbers, you're actually taking the composer's intuition away from the composition process beyond the definition of the rows at the beginning. There are a lot of mixing and matching, specially by Schoenberg. However, Schoenberg shouldn't be considered that much of a serialist as he belongs to the atonality movement instead (despite his technique being seminal to the development of serialism later on).

Stockhausen and Luigi Nono are examples of serialist composers, for example Nono's "Il Canto Sospeso" or "La fabrica Iluminata" are examples of serialist compositions. Stockhausen's electronic pieces are pretty famous for trying to even take out other musicians from the whole equation, as serialism demands absolute tone per tone-precision, which real musicians aren't so good at when things get as complicated as it can get with these techniques.

Today, it's not very usual to shoot for the same goals that Nono or Stockhausen did in the 50s and 60s. Think of serialist techniques such as the one we used as ways to come to rhythms, harmonies or otherwise textures that can be used as musical material regardless of what technique we use to use them in.

For example, you can come up with a rhythm like we did serially, but use classical harmonic principles. If the note pitches are serialized, you don't necessarily have to always play them in the same way. 12 tone technique is pretty much a series of inversions/retrograding of the same row, but all that work is dependent on the composer.

Development, that is, is still dependent on the composer's intuition if we're talking about 12 tone music strictly. The difference is that serialism is the serialization of absolutely every single parameter, even things such as form, etc etc so that the piece technically "writes itself" once you have your formulas figured out. 12 tone technique is simply serializing a 12 tone row, where rhythm, form, and other such things are still left to the composer's intuition to control.

Another thing that is interesting about these techniques is that by eliminating the composer's intuition or "say" except for the definition of the rows, the piece can sound in a direction that the composer would have not reached simply "by ear", or otherwise intellectually. It can give rise to material that can later be reused, or developed in different techniques altogether.

In our case, the idea was that you experimented a little with it, and like you said, it sounded sort of "random." However, the aesthetic principle of things like this can only be appreciated if you give it some time to actually let it get in your ears. Specially rhythms that aren't metric and non-standard harmony. It's not important if you later decide to write atonal, serialist, or otherwise use any of these techniques at all, but it's a good idea to have had first-hand experience with them.

So, on to your next exercise!

Take the first measure of the previous exercise, keep the notes and rhythm. Then, only using this material, make variations of it. They can be only measure wide, and don't need to be done in any serial technique. For example, you can double some notes, alter the rhythm, invert the intervals, and so on. Do some 15 to 20 small variations.

Remember that the musical material has to be taken from the original measure, such as the pitches and rhythm. Try progressively variating things, start with small changes and move on to bigger variations. For example, you can get rid of all rhythm and just have all the pitches play at once, creating a sort-of cluster chord. There are a lot of possibilities, so give it a shot.

PS: I recommend that if you can, you listen to some of Stockhausen's electronic pieces. Like, for example, Gesang der Jünglinge which is the more famous one. As general knowledge, it's good to know this sort of thing and have it in ear. Also, if you aren't already, I recommend you follow the lesson thread with SimenN about counterpoint, baroque style, etc since what I'm going to deal with there is also relevant to our composition work here though in a different way.

Here you go. I have to say.. I'm getting thoroughly "loosened up" with these exercises.

I listened to that Stockhausen piece and am wondering if all those sounds he synthesized himself or are they samples. Does he have any orchestral work I should be aware of? Interesting.

Originally Posted by marsbars

Here you go. I have to say.. I'm getting thoroughly "loosened up" with these exercises.

I listened to that Stockhausen piece and am wondering if all those sounds he synthesized himself or are they samples. Does he have any orchestral work I should be aware of? Interesting.

Well, even if we just started basically, what you did here does show that you're getting around trying out more things than before. I really liked how you solved this exercise, specially the rhythms and the intervals.

It should be evident by this point that, when it comes down to it modern techniques like 12 tone, serialism, and so on rely a lot on principles found in counterpoint. However, like you've done here, the note relationships don't need to behave in a certain way unless we're shooting for a different style.*

The idea with "loosening" up is so that you actually feel comfortable working with a good degree of freedom. Interestingly, where one would perhaps think "Well total freedom is easy as pie, you can do whatever you want!" it couldn't be further from the truth. The less "rules" you have, the harder it is to have the job done for you.

For example, let's go back to Mozart. Mozart wrote a lot of music. A whole, huge, lot. However, as he got older he'd write less and less music. In his later years (though he died young) his output was much smaller than when he was younger. This wasn't because he was running out of juice, no. It was because he was trying to go do something else, something different.

It's no surprise that the weirdest compositions come from this time, where he was trying to reach back to past techniques (counterpoint, Bach's style, etc etc) while at the same time trying to experiment with new ideas (at the time).

It is also evident that in the 20th century, as stylistic rules became more and more of a choice rather than a norm, composer output became progressively smaller unless composers did stick to a system. Sure, there were very prolific composers (Martinu, for example) but Ligeti's work is not even a fraction of Mozart's, in sheer volume. However, Ligeti had a lot more to think about when he wrote, than Mozart did.

A composer today has a million options to pick and choose from, and because of that it's important to know what one wants. Sadly, there's no formula for this, but it does come with experience.

About Stockhausen, the Gesang der Jünglinge was one of the first entirely electronic pieces, despite the fact it does use samples. Back then, electronic music was done basically by recording things on tape, and literally manipulating the strips of tape by cutting, copying, and so on until you got something. Needless to say, it took weeks and months to get something out of all this cutting and measuring, but I really do have to say it's amazing the dedication these composers had. Also remember that the first synthesizers were not capable of more than one sound at the time, and you need to readjust the entire machine to get a different tone, or tone quality. So recording a simple chord took an entire day of messing with knobs and dials, plus then splicing, copying and pasting tape together.

One of the amazing things about the synthesizers and the use of electronics was that for the first time composers were able to really work with sound on a deeper level. Not just depending on instrument acoustics, performance nuances, etc, but actually going in and defining exactly what they wanted to hear. Also, the fact electronic pieces were not performed gave composers freedom to experiment with aural landscapes that were previously unimaginable or impossible altogether.

It's easy to forget how complicated it was to get where we are, were we can just play back an mp3 or digitally manipulate samples.

In any case, as for Stockhausen's pieces, I recommend "Punkte" for orchestra, there's also the pieces for piano out of which X is my favorite by far. Though it's a nightmare to play, it's just amazing what he does. If you want another electronic piece to look at, "kontakte."

Now that we have gone over a little the 50s and the serialism history, let's look at something else. If you haven't heard of Penderecki's infamous "Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima", it's time you find and hear it. It's required literature for the 20th century, nevermind music altogether. While at it, let's get a little Ligeti going; you said you've heard some Ligeti, but I'm going to recommend "Lux Aeterna" and
"Atmospheres."

And as for exercises, we'll stick with serialism a little longer. Up to now, you've had to serialize the note durations in a pretty free way. But, now let's try to get some proper 12 tone system going. It's actually not complicated at all and it's almost exactly like what we've done.

You need to take a 12 tone row, that is, just arrange all the 12 tones (no enharmonic) in whatever way you want and number it from 1 to 12 like you did with the note durations.

Now, if you actually took a look at the counterpoint lesson in the other thread, we'll be using the same principles of melody-development here. That is to say, I want you to write the 12 tone row first, and then show me the 3 fundamental variations.

- The row 1-12 as it is.
- The row 1-12 but with all the intervals inverted (Inversion)
- The row 12-1 (retrograde)
- The row 12-1 with all the intervals inverted (Inversion and retrograde.)

This time, however, don't worry about rhythm or any of that, just write me the row in quarters if you want, that's not important. Once you do this, we'll be seeing how a system by no means dictates what you write with it! Plus more history and all that jazz.

As usual, ask if you got any questions or doubts.

* By the by, I think this exercise actually sounds like a pretty cool small piece on it's own, even if we didn't intend it that way the ending is pretty fun. But hey, that's your call. I tend to think exercises don't need to be JUST exercises, look at Debussy's "La Mer," labeled by himself as "3 sketches for orchestra." They're not even proper pieces if we go by terminology, but they're amazing all the same. Some ideas sometimes come around in the weirdest places, but it's only natural that if we're working a little creative muscle interesting stuff may happen.

Heres the row:
1: C#
2: C
3. A
4. D#
5. D
6. E
7. B
8. A#
9. F#
10. G
11. G#
12. F

I listened to Penderecki's "Threnody" and found it frightening to say the least. I'm curious how he approached writing such a monstrous piece. I love Ligeti's Atmospheres, particularly the use sound mass composition to create "walls of sound".