Leaderboard

I always agree with this and think you can never know how to compose unless by composing. To quote Hegel, knowing is always negating since it turns the thing to be known as object, rather than as a subject. However only a subject can compose. A subject is only known by their activity in a continuous sense, so only in the moment you’re composing with inspiration you really “know” how to. I will go further to say music is more than emotional restlessness, it can even be the Spirit’s restlessness express through the composer as the medium to express itself. Henry

Hi all. I’m reading a very interesting book called Musical Poetics, which brings together six lectures given by Stravinsky at Harvard between 1930 and 1940. I highly recommend it; it’s an enjoyable read and, well, this man certainly knew what he was talking about. On the subject of composition (Lecture No. 3), he says: The study of the creative process is one of the most delicate. It is, in fact, impossible to observe the inner workings of such a process from the outside. It is futile to try to follow the stages of another’s work. It is equally difficult to observe oneself. Even so, I believe that by drawing on my own introspection, I may have some chance of guiding you through this essentially fluid subject. Most music lovers believe that what drives the composer’s creative imagination is a certain emotional restlessness generally referred to as ‘inspiration’. I do not intend to deny inspiration the prominent role attributed to it in the creative process we are studying; I simply maintain that it is by no means a prerequisite for musical art, but rather a secondary manifestation in the sequence of events.

I actually take the stance of a classical Chinese literary critic book, "The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons" [文心雕龍] that you have to be really familiar with all the techniques and theories that when you write you can forget all of them and use them whenever the music requires. My way of writing is always intuitive but I always study when I'm not writing as to prepare for my intuition during composing. For me it's not appropriate to write for theory; theory serves composition and not the opposite. Theory always comes after works are written, and this holds true for all forms of creation. For me the purpose of music is the same as poems: to express yourself in a unique way, the only difference is that poem uses words and music uses non-verbal sound. I totally agree with you guys, for me there's no intuition or inspiration without already some composing skills in your head. Your knowledge storage determines the quality of your inspiration. I have the same approach with you @Vasilis Michael ! Usually I allow the music guides me to where it want to first, and then after that inspiration spike and I return to my own I start polishing the natural gem with my own polishing skills! Thx for this great topic! Henry

Hi all - I’m back from a bit of a musical hiatus/summer break, and I wanted to share my latest orchestration project: Fauré’s Nocturne No. 1 in E-flat minor. Some of you may remember an earlier orchestration of this piece posted on the forum by @Alex Weidmann which I also reviewed at the time. That version gave me some ideas and eventually inspired me to try orchestrating the piece myself, although I ended up taking my own approach to it. I still think this is a surprisingly difficult piece to orchestrate. E-flat minor is not the friendliest orchestral key, particularly for the strings, harp, and transposing instruments. The piano writing also contains a lot of overlapping lines and inner details that cannot simply be transferred directly without the texture becoming too heavy. As an additional challenge, I limited myself to a relatively small chamber orchestra: two flutes with piccolo doubling, oboe, English horn, two clarinets, two bassoons, two horns, harp, and strings. I was thinking loosely of the scale and transparency of Ravel’s orchestration of the Pavane pour une infante défunte, rather than trying to imitate its sound directly. My goal was to preserve the intimate, nocturnal character of the original while passing the melodic material between solo winds, divided strings, and occasional string soloists. I also tried to avoid using the harp as a constant substitute for the piano, saving it instead for color and continuity. I’m interested to hear what everyone thinks. The score and audio are attached—thanks for taking a look! Nocturne No. 1 in E Flat Minor - Flow 1.mp3 Full score.pdf

A 7-voice canon I have been recently working on with the intent of following the rules of counterpoint while employing a somewhat unorthodox usage of extended harmonies and tonally-adjecent suspensions, featured heavily in the minor 2nd intervals produced by the maintained rhythms of each subsequent entry in the opening section. The text corresponds to Bible verse Matthew 28:5, translated as follows: "But the angel said to the women in response: 'Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified'." The addition of the initial "et" conjunction to the Latin text is not present in the Vulgate version of this passage, however its inclusion was deemed necessary to accommodate for the prosodic adaptation of the entire verse across the whole piece without disturbing the flow of the initial suspensions. The choice of the text was based around Bible verses mentioning angelic contact, and more specifically those containing the phrase "fear not"/"be not afraid" as a more secular reference to the niche Biblically-Accurate Angel meme trend which inspired the compositional concept at the core of this piece. YouTube video link: https://youtube.com/shorts/um0jb9Y8iJ4?feature=share Canon at the 2nd a 7 in F-sharp minor.mp3 Canon at the 2nd a 7 Et respondens autem angelus dixit.pdf

The starting key is technically F-sharp minor. I'm guessing you assumed it was E major since the 2nd entry is in its relative minor, C-sharp. The coda is in F-sharp/G-flat major, the relative major of the initial key. Thus, one could say it goes full-circle before the ending. Thank you kindly for your observations. Even though my Pantonal Perpetual Canon series is not yet over, I have been stuck for months on developing others of its type. Even though the contrapuntal possibilities might as well be infinite, the formula and its configuration are now so strictly defined all the parameters involved seem to stifle new ideas and actively work against more unconstrained developments (admittedly an ironic outcome considering the core message of this one canon in particular). As such, I will have to bring it to a pause until I regain the inspiration and creative spark necessary to keep working on them. Until then I should once again focus on choral music due to circumstances I cannot fully disclose yet, but which (with enough luck) may see one of my pieces performed for the first time ever! Although such a dream is still as uncertain as it could be, the mere possibility fills me with hope. Expect future updates on this around the turn of the year!

Hi @Vasilis Michael my friend! Thx so much for your comprehensive review and appreciation! I feel really happy for it! Yeah I hate doing the same thing all the time so I chip and chop here and there to vary the music. I always think in a chamber music every player is independent and at the same time harmonizing and cooperating with each other (just like a fugue but unlike orchestral music) so I always want every player has a chance to shine themselves and communicating in different ways. Yeah I think it will be boring if I don't do so: I could have changed the melody for variation but since I really love that particularly melody, I can only change the instrumentation and keys and texture for varitation, as well as pushing the music forward. I put coherence and motivic development in the first priority in my music since that makes a piece a meaningful entity rather than seperate parts forcefully glued together to be named as a piece. The harmonic language is determined by the Eb-D-C-B motive itself, as there are lots of modulations via major 3rd which is also the main motive of the whole piece. I want that major motive not only controlling micro but also macro aspect of the whole movement as well. Thx for mentioning Brahms, I only notice recently that the whole Clarinet Qunitet is essentially Brahmsian. Yes, the confuso description is added in this revised version since I find it fit to the music. The dark energy here is released by 1st movement's disappointment and despair and may be you can check it out too if you have time (it's 21 minutes long 😬): When I compose I always think of what I want to express and what the music itself wants to express. To me technicality is always means to the ultimate aim of the music: the unique meaning this piece of music can express. So every piece of music has their own life because they have their own thing to express. Being effective is merely a prerequisite for real expression in arts. I am really happy to have discovered your music and invite you to this forum! I love your music even more since recently I am digging Scarlatti's Sonatas one by one. Thx for your review and activity in this forum! Henry

Hi @ferrum.wav ! I just listen to the updated version without scrutinously comparing the score, but I agree the updated version is less boring! The music definitely feels more moving forward and there are more varities in texture. I can tell the quality is improved! Thx for sharing the update! Henry

Hi @Alex Weidmann ! I listen to both the original and the revised version and I enjoy both versions to be honest. I think for @Luis Hernández 's suggestion is that the whole arppeggiated phrase need not to be played by one instrument alone: for example in 4:20 even if you want the whole phrase played by flute alone, you could have shared the phrase to flute I and flute II players respectively, or in some bars later by divisi Vioin I players which will give the additional benefit of minimizing the volume as well. Thx for sharing this wonderful (again!) arrangement! Henry

I think it sounds absolutely brilliant. And it’s an impressive piece of work, especially the detail with which you’ve crafted the strings. I also really like the fact that ‘it doesn’t sound like a piano at all, but rather like an orchestra’. And yes, I did want to make a few observations which, as I say, are just that – my opinions. Firstly, I’ve already mentioned the question of key. E flat minor is a brilliant key for the piano, but it’s one of the worst for the orchestra. Berlioz said as much in his treatise, as did Rimsky-Korsakov in his. I don’t know, it seems there’s a bit of a fear of transposing the work a semitone up or down, as if it were sacrilege or as if we were straying terribly from the composer’s intention. I believe that if we’re orchestrating, we have to make the best decisions to ensure it sounds as good as possible. But I’ll say it again, it’s up to each individual. The second point is the choice of the English horn as an instrument throughout the work. It’s not that I think it’s wrong, but I do wonder whether it’s really necessary. Apart from specific cases (Impressionism, etc.) where it can serve as a distinctive ‘colour’ instrument, in the orchestra I believe it is an instrument of extension and should only be used when the two oboes cannot cover the lower register. The opening line, for example, could be played very well by a second oboe. In other instances, even where it is possible, I feel the English horn is in a rather high register. Thirdly, another instrument where I would sometimes have assigned its part to a different instrument is the flute. In bar 15, it is in a low/very low register and will be completely drowned out by the English horn, even with the flutes in A2. I can see the intention to add a different colour to that phrase, which is why they’re doubling, but I’m not sure – in this case, I would have doubled the C an octave higher with a clarinet, for example. The octave doubling of the A-flat flute in bars 52–53… There, Flute 1 completely drowns out Flute 2 because it’s in its brilliant register, and Flute 2 is doing its best. One of the things I was taught on the woodwinds is to try not to double at the octave with the same instrument, because the difference (imbalance) in tone and volume is very great. It’s better to double with another instrument whose range in that other octave is optimal. Well, please excuse all this, as these are minor details in the context of such an extensive and beautifully crafted score, which sounds absolutely marvellous. Finally, a question: what software do you use.... In bars 73 and 74, the clarinets haven’t been condensed I don’t know if you do this manually or if the condensing is automated. I sometimes have those problems and when the programme won’t...

I'm not done with the score for this yet: so please forgive the sloppy notation. Just hoping to get some comments on my orchestration choices before I finalise it. I know there are arrangements of this piano work for various ensembles; but I couldn't find one for symphony orchestra: so I thought I'd make one. Hope you enjoy listening! Rachmaninoff - Elegie in E♭ minor (orchestration) #26 (midi).mp3 Rachmaninoff - Elegie in E♭ minor (orchestration) #26 (midi).pdf

Thanks Henry. I think it would have to be shared between flutes anyway, otherwise they wouldn't be be able to breathe! I just hadn't got round to marking in the instrument changes yet. I could indeed split the arpeggios across more than just violins and harp, as Luis has done. Will give that a try at some point. It just takes a bit longer to notate.

Haha yeah I can't stop writing until the music finishes itself. The confuso is added in my revision and I find it really fit to the movement! Henry

When it comes to personal style, as a composer, it is hard to describe what that style would be. Yes, I compose ensemble pieces (rather solo or chamber) or full orchestra, too. However, period style is not going to be same. The term best fits me is "polystylist". This means I could possibly write in different styles. For instance, my Halloween piece was written for string quartet but the style 20th century. (note; I could have written a serialism written for that competition...). Currently, I working piece that sounds neo classical for the next competition. Joe Hirashi was the inspiration for the piece. My personal taste is open book. Heck. George Leigti works are always fun to listen to. And who does not want to listen a post tonal composition that has clusters and other modern jazz. :) The problem is...midi can not play back alerotical boxes and clusters. Only live musicians can. Thus, that is what trying figure out, next. How to have play back in score. (maybe use a daw?)

HI @Kvothe ! It's an interesting topic! To me style follows when you have unique things to express as you can never fake a new style if you don't have unique things to talk about in a unique way. I agree with @Luis Hernández that it's easiest to achieve a personal style by eclecticism, maybe that's my approach towards composing too. There's no one absolutely best style, but only the most suitable style to present your very own thoughts in a most unique way. Henry

Hi! First of all, before anything else, I want to say how amazing this forum has been for me and how friendly and helpful the community is. This is the only place where I truly feel I'm getting the kind of feedback that helps me grow as a composer. Thank you all for that! Now for the music. I wrote a piece that explores the idea of Classical clarity being gradually corrupted by an unknown force. As the music unfolds, the familiar structure and stability slowly break apart, transforming into something different. There are a lot of little details and ideas I tried to communicate through this piece, and for the last few weeks I don't think I've gone an hour without thinking about it. Naturally, I feel very connected to it, and I'd genuinely love to hear your thoughts and feedback. YouTube link Score Movements: 0:00 Allegretto 1:44 Adagio 3:28 Andantino Corrupted Sonatina.mp3 Corrupted Sonatina.pdf

Hi @MinGry ! It's interesting for you to end the piece in tonic minor which makes the title "corrupted". I think the voice leading is improved comparing to your first Sonatina no.1, but of course it can be further improved. My favourite movement is the 2nd mov, it really gives some Schubertian singing quality there. Thx for sharing! Henry

Hi @Tristan25 ! I think first some of the harmony are not matching with the melody, for example the last 2 beats of b.18-21. B.22-25's last 2 beats are better because there are resolutions to the suspension in the 3rd beat. Another aspect is variation. I think you can definitely add a contrasting section in a different key in the middle, since here it's predominiantly A major with not so much harmonic and modal contrast. Thx for sharing. Henry

Hi @Nazariy ! I listen to the Scherzo and it feels really smooth with all those transitions. I feel like the contrasting Ab major section could be longer but it's subjective. At some point there could be an even louder climaxes to add more flavours to the movement. But overall it's a really good movement, thx for sharing! Henry

Hello everyone! This post marks one of the few solo piano pieces I have created. As a classical pianist myself, there is a certain abrasion to writing for the pianoforte that I have come across. It has a special connection to me for my own expression, whether it is by performance, teaching, or discussing. To write for it alone is a daunting task as I hold a lot of respect for the composers who came before me. This said, I wish to present Sternenliebe to you all. Written in 2025, this work captures passionate love. It was my letter to an admirer, however, our connection was never realized by the time I left for a new chapter of my education and career. Attached on the manuscript was this message, and when reading it now, the more I reflect on what could have been: "Not a day will go by where I don't think of you. Not a night will go by where I wouldn't wish to see you. This piece is my reminder that each time you look to the sky, I am under the same stars looking back hoping to embrace you again. When you hear me play it, know it's because I am thinking of you." I hope you enjoy this nocturne I have created! If you want a little more information on the structure of the work, you can find it on page 3 of the document (marked as page 1). Lastly, besides the score, attached is a video of me playing it! https://youtu.be/9Zz_voOD3r0 SCORE_Sternenliebe.pdf

Hi Mason, The accompaniment at the beginning immediately reminds me of the Db major Nocturne of Chopin. The half diminished harmony in b.20-22 is really nice, and I like the more fluid section after it. A simple but really nice nocturne indeed and thx for sharing! P.S. And forgive me if it sounds weird, but permits me to say that you look really charming and handsome playing the piece =.= Thx for playing it by showcasing your own playing. I play my pieces too but I never dare to show own ugly face playingthe pieces 🤪. Henry

after two WEEEKKKS, the revision is finally DONEEEEEEEEEE (definitely longer than a few days lmao) i ended up investing more time on this but its definitely worth it cus i do think is so much better. a lot of it was just changing the boring accompaniment to make it more interesting rather than repeat one to one. the new version highlights those peaks on phrases, added more rooms to breathe, and variations!! im definitely spent on this damn piece but is out now so ENJOYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! here's the OLD version for comparison, NEW version is on the main post at the top of this thread. To Fantasize Contentment OLD.mp3 To Fantasize Contentment OLD.pdf

Hello A number of interesting topics. I’m speaking from a position of inexperience and, more to the point, as I’m still learning, so all of this is just suggestions or other possible options. As I said, it sounds brilliant as it is. Firstly, the issue of transposition for orchestra. I agree with what your teacher (your piano teacher, that is) said. But I think we need to consider making things easier for the instrumentalists. Another point is that it doesn’t really matter to us. It’s going to sound the same, at least in the context of virtual instrument libraries. But the reality is that in this key of E flat minor, it’s more complicated for the strings because there are no open strings; they have to ‘press down’ with their fingers all the time, losing resonance, and so on… I can see problems for the harp too, because being tuned to six flats puts a lot of strain on it. And changes may be more difficult. I think the woodwinds would be most comfortable with this. This key is rarely used in the orchestral repertoire, and I think it’s sought after for dark, tragic, profound tones. Perhaps it would suit something like the Elegy. As far as I’m aware, in the symphonic repertoire, the only works in E-flat minor are by Russian composers: Prokofiev’s Symphony No. 6, Rimsky-Korsakov’s Symphony No. 1 (which he himself transposed to E minor later), and a few others. The other issue, that of arpeggios… You see, in my orchestration classes and seminars we’ve discussed this quite a lot, as well as Alberti basses, etc… How do you adapt them for an orchestra? As I said in my previous message, a literal translation can, of course, work, because there are instruments capable of playing those arpeggios. However, we’re now dealing with an orchestra. It doesn’t have to be a single instrument that does everything. The important thing, I believe, is that the rhythm is clearly marked (with accents and pizzicato, for example), and that the figures are in the appropriate pitches and note values for each instrument. This is also where the question of how faithful one wants to be to the original score comes into play. That’s down to personal preference; we can be very literal, or we can take the main ideas and create an orchestral version. It’s true that for some scores I find it less appropriate to take liberties (for example, when orchestrating Baroque counterpoint), I’ve written these few bars in one possible arrangement, which I’m sure could be improved; I also think it would sound softer on the strings, especially with mutes. Haha, in the very first lessons I had on all this, we worked on Mozart and pieces like that, precisely to translate those piano accompaniments into something else. Cheers. Proyecto.mp3

When it comes writing, I like to write from structural point of view. Think analyical as I write (melodic form, hamorny, musical form, counterpoint, etc). That way, I can try to a cohesive composition. The recent piece I wrote I went through and looked for motive i could use for ending section. :)

I really liked the replies and I couldn’t agree more. The ultimate purpose of music, as has been pointed out, is, I believe, to evoke emotions, whatever they may be. And taking it to extremes, whether one relies solely on inspiration or bases everything on theoretical and technical considerations, the result will be ineffective. I don’t think there’s a single composer, including in pop music, who has achieved any real success by relying predominantly on one or the other. Many pop musicians don’t have much technical training, but they have teams behind them who make up for all that. Relying solely on inspiration and intuition is like a surgeon who operates with great talent but knows nothing of anatomy. Conversely, an anatomist cannot operate on the basis of theoretical knowledge alone. These are inseparable aspects for any composer of even the most basic calibre. And as has also been said, ultimately it becomes a naturally interwoven process. The idea, the inspiration, can come from a great many sources, but technical knowledge allows you to greatly improve the result in every respect. I also believe that, nowadays, many composers are eclectic and draw on elements from various musical languages, depending on what they think will work best for what they wish to express. I don’t know – the broader the range of resources, the more varied and better the results can be. It’s like being a chef with 10 ingredients or with 100.

An interesting question. I think that, nowadays (or for the past few decades or so), even as a professional composer, it is almost impossible to develop a unique, new and personal style. I believe very few in history were like that. Bach, Wagner, Debussy, Schönberg… in the 20th century there are perhaps more: John Cage, Messiaen, Bartók… But there are other composers of equal or greater calibre who did not introduce ‘revolutionary’ new ideas, yet who took the music that was developing at the time and made it evolve and grow. These composers also have highly recognisable personal styles (Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi, Puccini, Brahms, Chopin, and many more). We currently face a ‘problem’: we are familiar with a vast number of musical languages and systems that emerged in the 20th century, and there are many of them. I believe that, nowadays, a composer must be eclectic and must be familiar with as many musical languages as possible, drawing from each the elements that suit them at any given moment. The ability to combine all of this is a sign of a composer’s maturity. Very often, we stick very closely to a particular style, or even a particular composer, and write pieces by imitating them as best we can. That’s fine, but I don’t think that amounts to developing one’s own style. I see it as absolutely necessary, especially for learning purposes. Regarding the second point you raise. It’s true, there are a great many widely used techniques and other things that software programmes cannot do. Although they are gradually incorporating them. Of course, I can’t see a DAW or an editor handling random elements. The notation for this has been sorted out, but the software-based performance cannot be random.

Hey Pabio @Fugax Contrapunctus ! I am always in awe with your contrapuntal power and this one is no exception. The perpetual modulations through the circle of fifth matches so well with the latin text of "Change is inevitable in all things. Everything flows in the balance of those who are tempestive.", as Yijin [The Book of Change] says, "The only thing unchanged is Change itself". For me just one personal thought: maybe since this starts with E major, would it be the best to end with its tritone major, the Bb major, instead of Gb major, so the changing theme of the piece would be even better reflected? Thx for sharing this wonderful piece! Henry