Naming a piece of music?

I greatly agree with Carlly Clabby. It might not be my main way of doing things, but its still a really good suggestion that I may have to try soon.

I also named pieces after badass psychological terms.

"Skinner Box" would be great for a minimalistic piece. I wonder would "Hierarchy of Needs" or "Oedipus Complex" would sound like.

1. listen to the piece of music.

2. close your eyes.

3. surely, you see SOMETHING. humans see things when they listen to music even if they are not aware of it. even if its just a color, its still an image. it might not always be something specific, like a tree. i might just be a blob of colors or something. remember this is only a process of gathering ideas.

4. give it a title according to what you saw.

When I write a piece of music, I usually think of it as part of a game, anime or movie OST, as that is where most of my inspiration comes from. Hence, I use similar naming conventions to what I see on the track listings of soundtrack CDs. Results range from the vague description of a mood to a very specifically named character theme, often using names/terms from my conceptual story. :)

I could try that because recently the things that I've been writing seem to be based off of movies, but then I'm afraid of of naming it something really close to another composition. If that makes any sense to anyone else besides just me.

I usually love to extend the creative work and find an original name for the piece... I think it can add so much to have an original title by it's uniquity, and make an immediate association to you and your work...kind of like a signature. Here's some tips:

1- be creative and original

2- use words that are not frequently used

3- take the emotion of the piece ( image in mind, atmosphere, musical colors) and think of a situation that describes it best.

4- always put aside titles that sounds close to existing ones

5- think outside the box

6- don't rush, and remember the first idea is often the best ( or something around that will be)

Nick

I used to look at my book shelves and close my eyes. I would walk towards the shelves with my finger held out and, whichever book I pointed at, I would use to name the composition in question.

I am about to record 'Regional Italian Cookery' for string quartet.

I think original titles are only useful if they aren't random. Random titles do not enrich the piece, since it does not increase understanding of the piece.

But I don't think I'll use anything but "Theme for Piano" or something for my recital -- my names are largely of the random or internal joke variety...

I used to try to come up with silly, facetious, descriptive titles for my pieces, such as "What is the Speed of Dark?" or "Drive on a Parkway," or "Daydreaming at Approximately 11:26am," or "Rhapsody for a Lonely Housewife."

With one exception, I have gone back to titles like "String Quartet 2008" or "Piano Sonata 2005."

I choose titles as/when/if they come to me. I never set out looking for a title or inspiration for one, and I don't write a piece feeling that I have to give it a title other than "Piano Sonata NO.174."

I have stopped using descriptive instructions at the beginnings of pieces, too. I have a set I am writing right now that lacks "Allegro...", "Slowly...", etc and just uses metronome markings at the start of each movement. Instead of using words like "Slower," "Piu Mosso," "rit...", I have been using just metronome markings for those measures, too, but with instructions that the numbers are approximate and just represent a tempo change and are not to be exact.

Unfortunately, I can't be much of a help because I am obsessed with form, structure, and ... more form. :) "Sonata for Pianoforte in G major, Op. 79" is always perfectly fine for me... unless it's not a sonata of course! Form always dictates content in my opinion, but if you really prefer vision, program, content, and ideas over identification of the form, try to use vaguely philosophical names.

I always make sure not to give a literal name like "Winter Snows", but something more along the lines of "December Universe"; it communicates cold, snow, or a time and place darker and more frosty than usual. In my opinion, this abstract naming system works more confidently than a literal system would. In stead of "The Grand Canal", why not "The Silent River"? A canal is essentially a much quieter river, so .. why not? Think in abstracts, or in words that could suggest several meanings!

Also, this is a cracking good idea for a thread subject. It allows everyone of all ages and of all joining times to contribute to the archive of ideas. I love it!

I think that Nordreise is on the right track. Using abstracts could enrich the meaning instead of it being something really random, which consumers might not look at the piece if they just don't like a name. People are quick to "judge a book by its cover."

I know this thread is quite old, but:

1. Most "serious composers" and serious classical music fans in general tend to look down on programmatic titles. I know people will disagree with what I'm saying, but if you take two hypothetically identical classical music critics, and give them the same exact piece of music, one of them being told the title is [insert any creative title] and the other being told it's ["Form" for "instruments" in "key", "opus number"], the latter will probably give it higher merits and deem it more respectable.

2. That said, the general population isn't quite so cynical and elitist. So just make it a worthwhile title that honestly and genuinely reflects the music - either its inspiration, its creative process, or its ultimate effect on you. The key here is sincerity. Make it yours.

I actually despise opus numbers. As I recall, they're for published pieces only, correct?

At any rate, I find them pretentious. And that's coming from someone who poos on anything vaguely popular as "boring."

I know this thread is quite old, but:

1. Most "serious composers" and serious classical music fans in general tend to look down on programmatic titles. I know people will disagree with what I'm saying, but if you take two hypothetically identical classical music critics, and give them the same exact piece of music, one of them being told the title is [insert any creative title] and the other being told it's ["Form" for "instruments" in "key", "opus number"], the latter will probably give it higher merits and deem it more respectable.

2. That said, the general population isn't quite so cynical and elitist. So just make it a worthwhile title that honestly and genuinely reflects the music - either its inspiration, its creative process, or its ultimate effect on you. The key here is sincerity. Make it yours.

I for one, am glad that Debussy entitled his piece 'La Mer' instead of 'Symphony no.1, op.X'. Debussy has wonderful titles for his pieces that can be quite evocative, yet few classical music fans would look down on Debussy as a non-serious composer.

Opus numbers are an outdated practice. Forever gone is the 'composer as God' worship - no one wants to know that your new Opus 78 was preceded by 77 previous masterpieces. It can come off as just arrogant and pretentious (despite how well-intentioned and humble the composer is).

Besides, if your music becomes revered after your death, you're taking away half the fun from some academic who will have the pleasure of sorting through and cataloging your works.

I actually despise opus numbers. As I recall, they're for published pieces only, correct?

They used to, but nowadays, since music can easily get distributed without publication, the whole point's become kind of moot.

At any rate, I find them pretentious. And that's coming from someone who poos on anything vaguely popular as "boring."

Well of course there are individuals who are more cynical and elitist than your average bear. :P

I for one, am glad that Debussy entitled his piece 'La Mer' instead of 'Symphony no.1, op.X'. Debussy has wonderful titles for his pieces that can be quite evocative, yet few classical music fans would look down on Debussy as a non-serious composer.

Agreed. I personally like programmatic titles when they actually fit the music. But sometimes, as with Takemitsu, they get just as redundant as classical titling. >_<

Opus numbers are an outdated practice. Forever gone is the 'composer as God' worship - no one wants to know that your new Opus 78 was preceded by 77 previous masterpieces. It can come off as just arrogant and pretentious (despite how well-intentioned and humble the composer is).

Ahhh, so true. Quite unfortunate for us contemporary folks. :(

Besides, if your music becomes revered after your death, you're taking away half the fun from some academic who will have the pleasure of sorting through and cataloging your works.

Well, maybe you're like me, and you don't even finish your pieces in any explicit sequential order (aka, step-wise motion for you math folks). Then you'd just be forcing scholars to pursue futile and meaningless work. Such are the liberal arts. :D

Agreed. I personally like programmatic titles when they actually fit the music. But sometimes, as with Takemitsu, they get just as redundant as classical titling. >_<

Ugh, Takemitsu had the worst names for pieces ever. Not only are they not evocative at all but what was with that dude and rain? I swear there are at least 10 seperate pieces with that damn word in there.

Anyway, I hold the opposite opinion. I actually like programtic titles and encourage them over abstacts like "Piano sonata no. 5 in G Major Op. 50" It's just boring and hard to keep track of. Even if the programatic title really isn't evokative of what the title suggests (which happens quite a lot for me), it's still easier for that piece to take on distinction and significance in my brain if has a title like "Reflection in the wind" or "Footprints in the snow".

And this has nothing to do with my bias towards programatic music. Though I usually do find music is more effective to me personally when it is meant to evoke something and goes beyond simply sounding good, it's not really relevant to this discussion.

I always get frustrated trying to naming my works. >.<

Several go unnamed. It truly is sad.

I will name things that I write for school or if I can point out any specific inspiration that isn't another song.

I must say that it seems a trifle immature to name a piece something incredibly ridiculous.

Do some Gerswin moves and name a piece "{blank} in Blue"!

{ faint applause arises in pity for my poor attempt at being humorous}

Anyway, my pieces are mostly classical and romantic. My strongest styles are in Clementi, Kuhlau, and Brahmes.

That being said, I generally stick to labeling by form, in stead of entitling.

I love it when composers are somewhat immature.

I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I can assure you of that. I just meant that " Bunnies in the Sunshine" doesn't seem quite as professional as, Sonatina No.2 in Bb.

Then again, no one can challenge an opinion.:D

I find nothing wrong with Bunnies in the Sunshine. It's actually rather awesome. Sonatina No.2 in Bb on the other hand sounds like you're either living two hundred years in the past or are just starting to get into composing and just copy what you know from your piano lessons :P Nothing wrong with either of these, of course. But don't rely on it sounding "professional".

Unless you already have become a famous composer with titles like "Bunnies in the Sunshine", in which case naming a piece "Sonatina No.2 in Bb" might sound like a witty twist. Kagel could have pulled it off. RIP and may he twist things around weirdly in afterlife for all eternity. (Which is almost a contradiction to RIP, but nevermind.)

Rhapsody in Blue isn't Bunnies in Sunshine, but there's already a legitimacy problem with Gershwin, so someone in the 21st century making reference to "in blue" through him is just compounding the issue.

But whatever. Titles don't matter except as marketing.

"Bunnies in the Sunshine", eh? It has a nice ring to it.

I doubt I would ever name one of my compositions after its form, firstly because I think it sounds utterly boring (not to be disrespectful to the famous composers that do

Spoken as a true musician, MidiKareshi.

(Might I add that the example of Gershwin's Rhapsody was entirely seperate form the Bunnies in the Sunshine comment.)

That being said, I often subtitle my piano sonatinas. They often feature subtitles like 'anger','depression','gloomy eve', 'realization', or 'recovery'.

It really depends.

I perform for a group that is expecting more basic titles so I have learned to avoid that general "creativeness".

I really do appreciate the great Debussy's titles and such.

I didn't mean to offend anyone.

I mean, Scott Joplin's "Entertainer" wouldn't have been half as entertaining if it had been named " Modern Rondo for the Syncopation Enthusiast" . (pause for faint laughter)