Leaderboard

It has recently come to my attention how some composers approach their music-making very technically - labeling chords, roman numerals, showing modulations etc. But this kind of approach is very much the opposite of how I write music. I studied all those technical aspects of music as well of course. But how I make music now is very much based on my gut feelings and intuition rather than technical rules. I am still tangentially aware of all those technical aspects of my compositions of course. But inspiration, for me, comes first and the technical understanding, after. How do you approach composition? Which approach do you value more? Technique or Intuition? Which comes first and which is secondary?

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.

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?)

Hello @PeterthePapercomPoser! Let's see, by "technical composition," do you mean things like deciding beforehand to resolve to a major chord here or using a diminished chord there to create a darker mood? Or perhaps composing using mathematical formulas? In any case, I personally feel that it’s best to use whichever approach fits the moment. For instance, even when inspiration strikes, I often fail to give it shape because I lack the necessary skills. At times like that, or when I have no inspiration at all, I’ll compose based on technical principles instead. Sometimes that process sparks a new idea, and the reverse happens too. Of course, if you consider a technical breakthrough to be a form of inspiration itself, then we’d really need to clarify our definitions, though perhaps this isn't the place for that. Sadly, I’m not a gifted composer, I just do it for fun, but I enjoy both methods because each is important and has its own unique appeal. Personally, I find it satisfying when I start with technique and end up creating something that matches what I envisioned. (And sometimes, creating something unexpected too!) Best, Lithl.

What prelude is it?

Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback. It was incredibly helpful.

My reason for using the English horn, is that oboes can sound quite harsh and intrusive in their low range. A bit like a duck! So I thought an English horn would have a more pleasant timbre in that range. Alex this really is a misunderstanding of how an Oboe works! Let's throw out the meme about DUCKS! The lower range/register can be as beautiful as the upper range. (just ask Dvorak). The English horn in this orchestration will not add too much. It does not have the penetration ... it is better used a solo instrument or in a small ensemble. Please no more duck jokes! Mark