Getting your music performed

I agree! Hearing your music played by real musicians is such a great experience! :)

I've had a few of my pieces performed. Two were performed by my local symphony because I won a composition contest. Another was performed by a local college band. (because I asked... really nicely, lol) And my own highschool's wind ensemble played some of my pieces as well.

I have an mp3 of my highschool sax quartet playing one of my pieces:

http://www.freewebs.com/compy-green/14-Track-14.mp3

Originally posted by compy-green@Sep 6 2005, 02:21 PM

I agree! Hearing your music played by real musicians is such a great experience!

My advice would be to just ask :P It can't hurt to try. Let them know a little about yourself - why you're interested in composing, why you want your piece performed, etc. Also, try looking into any composition contests going on in your area. Many of them offer having your piece performed as a grand prize.

Good luck :blush:

Or SCHUBERTS GREAT symphony 9? in key of C!

I believe the music was Supposedly too difficult for the vienna philharmonic back in shuberts day.

I find it helpful to meet friends who also play music. We all liked to compose music, so we often met together listen to each others pieces, perform, and critique them. I had one of my friends who plays piano how to play one of my pieces, but I also played the flute part for the music that my friends created. In the end its just a loop of us helping each other out.

My suggestion to young composers, and it's echoed in William Russo's book on Composing Music to only write for instruments you have access to and to only write parts that you yourself can play.

If you can't play any of the instruements in the orchestra then why are you writing for orchestra? And can't put your hands on one at your school then quit trying to write music for them. Here's an idea, contained in the book: Write a piece for wastebasket, keys and rubber band instead. He also mentioned to write the melody for wind and string instruments because they are more expressive than an instrument such as piano. You'll be able to bring the melody alive with crescendos and sfortzandos etc. This implies that you have one to work your melodies out on.

Go buy/rent one and take some lessons. Knowing whats possible and enjoyable on the instrument will improve your composing immeasurably.

That said, I write almost exclusively for melodic percussion now but I also know how to play violin.

Gongchime

And I suggest that you stop believing everything that books tell you, especially about what you can and can't do.

Hindemith wrote a concerto for each instrument in the orchestra. I'm pretty sure he didn't play all of them. And even though it's a frequently used solo instrument, most of the great cello concerti were written by composers who didn't play the cello.

I don't see how knowing just a little bit about how to play an instrument is going to help one write great music for it - it's good to start that way, but most good composers end up writing well beyond their own technical limitations as performers.

Yes indeed - and not all composers even play an instrument at all.

I know that I didn't play any when I started composing, and nowadays I hardly ever approach composition through the experience of playing one of my three (piano, viola, violin). I actually find that a good deal more difficult than looking at the score.

You said,

"Hindemith wrote a concerto for each instrument in the orchestra. I'm pretty sure he didn't play all of them."

I'm most definitely sure that he HAS played all of them. Having played them and "playing them" are two different things. If you want to write for harp for example, you study a book about harp playing and go put your fingers on one at least once or twice before anyone would EVER take you seriously as a harp composer.

I didn't say it was impossible. I implied it was impractical. Yeah, you can compose for harp as a complete ignoramous but I wouldn't recommend taking yourself too seriously in the process or then go present your work to the harp player in the orchestra without expecting to be laughed out of the rehearsal room.

Jesus, Hindemith is a monster composer. You don't think he has touched every instrument in an orchestra? Where do you get off making such an assumption?

My suggestion is to stop dissing books and read some. The book for beginning composers I was quoting is by William Russo. He has also written the most important books on Jazz Instrumentation and Orchestration. Stop knocking education and get some.

Gongchime

I don't think you have to learn to play an instrument in order to write for it. Most modern instruments are so well-developed that they don't have many limitations except for their range. I always keep a table of the instruments' ranges around when I compose. Knowing the basics of the "special" instruments like harp and timpani might be smart, but as composers, we write with the sound and expressions we want as a basis, and then consider intruments' limitations afterwards. You can always ask some musicians if there is anything.

I don't think Stravinskij would have written his great bassoon opening of "The Rite of Spring" if he was taking instrument limitations into account.

And did Mozart and Beethoven play all the instruments in the orchestra?

If you're going to accuse me of knocking education, then I suggest that you get some yourself, and stop acting like Russo is the be-all and end-all of musical knowledge. There are books other than Russo's. In particular, there are many orchestration texts out there. I have copies of both Rimsky-Korsakov's and Adler's. A good orchestration text will explain, in detail, capabilities and idiomatic material for each instrument, and anything that isn't clear can usually be figured out by listening to music and studying scores.

In fact, one historical study that I read, comparing late Romantic and 20th century bassoon parts written by composers who had played the bassoon, with those written by composers who had not, showed that the non-bassoonist composers wrote parts that were more difficult on average, but also more likely to be within the capabilities of a solid amateur bassoonist (in other words, less likely to be super-difficult).

I didn't say you had to learn to play the instrument proficiently. I meant that you should at least have read it's manual and played it yourself which I think I'm repeating myself on now. Hindemith has probably even memorized all the instrumental manuals of the orchestra and can play music placed in front of him on any of the orchestral instruements. The bassoon comment is moot since I never said you had to be proficient.

Difficult music does not necessarily equal good music in my opinion.

Concerning my education: here's a link to my CV http://www.contemplationgarden.bravehost.com/About.html

Yes, even classical composers understood the instruments they were writing for "OBVIOUSLY."

My comment and Russo's are targeted toward beginner composers so as to keep them out of trouble. They can easily get lost in the woods trying to do too much at once.

I think pushing young composers towards a certain medium such as orchestra or classical music is misguided. It's similar to brainwashing your kids to be whatever religion YOU already are.

The hoity toityness of both classical and jazz afficianados is counterproductive. There's nothing wrong with writing for waste basket, rubber band and keys or guitar bass and drum kit, whatevers available.

Gongchime

It seems to me that what Gongchime is saying is definitely true of some of the more problematic instruments, such as the harp, to follow his example - and even for strings. Reading up and hands-on is good advice for a beginner, if you don't happen to play the instrument in question. The results of people failing to do that kind of homework in their treatments of any number of instruments are to be found all over these boards.

However, it is possible to come to a point in one's composing career where one has heard enough and has the requisite experience to be able to write credible and idiomatic music for an instrument with which s/he is not conversant.

Dear Graham,

bless your soul. Enough said.

Next!

Gongchime

This is also true of the piano. Before I learned to play the piano, I didn't write music nearly as well as I do today. After studying piano sheet music and learning to play the piano with decent skill, my composition skill for the piano became much greater than it would have been had I "not" learned to play the piano. Also, just because you "can" play an instrument well, doesn't mean you can compose for it, it just means that if you have composition talent in the first place, it will be greatly enhanced if you know the instrument well. Also, maybe this depends on which instrument we are talking about.

For example, a non pianist will not know how to compose music for the performer (a pianist in this case), and the music most likely will be too hard to play and not sound very smooth. A non pianist also doesn't know the benefits of certain key signatures and certain styles (pertaining to the piano of course). There is a good reason Chopin chose C# minor for his Fantasie Impromptu rather than A minor. Now I can imagine this concept is true for most instruments, especially the harp. I am sure the guitar has a few key signatures that are really hard to play, but if I am not a guitar player, how will I know which key signatures and chords help the performer play the instrument easier?

Of course, a composer can compose great music without playing an instrument, but whether or not the piece is logical to play is another issue. Playability is a big issue, and it "should" affect how a piece sounds. For example, I think a composer should sacrifice something in order to achieve "playability" in a piece. There is always a trade-off, but that trade-off is well important. How many compositions on this site are truly playable?

I have to agree that my last posted piece would be difficult to play well.

:) but its not intended for performance.

Just out of curiosity, as i havent played it, why is the Fantasie Impromptu in C# minor?

(btw, for the most part, in my experience, guitar is equally easy in all keys. for scales and similar anyway. you learn a pattern, and just move it horiontally. i.e. up a fret or several. yes, there are exceptions, but mostly its easy)

The comment that the modern orchestral instruments had very few limitations except for range struck me as just plain wrong as well. Can you play a chromatic glissando on a piano or synthesizer? In most cases the answer is No!

The kind of piano that can do that has been designed but composers performers and listenders aren't terribly interested. All it takes is to add a little space behind the black keys so that the black and white keys are all the same height in the back.

Also, the flute is another example. It can play the fastest chromatic passages of any instrument in the orchestra but all that keywork sacrifices it's ability to play microtonal mordents and portamento efficiently. The flute's design assumes that a stationary note on the page is a stationary note in the performers hand and that chromaticism is the norm. The keywork was thought to be an advancement at the time but now we're not so sure anymore.

All that keywork and the music written for it (as Frank Zappa has so eloquently stated) is a relic designed for the dead kings and popes of Europe of the REALLY ANCIENT PAST PAST PAST past past pst pst pt pt ppp...(echo effect)

The Bansuri flute of India which I MUCH prefer though even more ancient, doesn't have that limitation. It easily surrounds a standard pitch with microtones either through air pressure or fingering or both. Microtonal ability is a big concern nowadays.

Today the audience is very much alive, with many new developments and foreign introductions familiar to them and they're not kings or popes. If the music isn't addressing that, then it's not keeping up with the times.

If you play opera music from the speakers in front of convenience stores, people stop hanging out there. Conclusion, opera is DEAD!!!! for most people anyway. You CAN make a living writing for opera IF you can convince all the filthy rich and their wanna be's that you belong in their inner circle. But I suspect they don't like the music either. They use it to define their identities. They so very much really wish that they were the kings of Europe and they want you to believe that they are or should be and treat them that way.

The price of orchestral instruments is also another huge limitation that concerns me when schools start to promote music programs. (The Bansuri flute is a lot cheaper in India than the classical flute is in America or Europe).

Sports will always win out over music especially in the inner cities because it's a hell of a lot cheaper to buy a basketball which people might actually pay to come see a game played with than it is to outfit an entire orchestra nobody wants to hear.

I also read that the violins, violas, cellos and basses are all the wrong sizes for the ranges they play and that the violin would be smaller and all the other instruments would be significantly larger to push the air as efficiently as possible but will never be adopted because of a dry, stale, stoic position on tradition and conformity.

There have been "developments" such as serialism etc... never mind that it has completely alienated the audience and that the composers are concerned with writing the music of the future. Meanwhile the present goes whizzing by but composers don't notice it much because they're not down and in here with us. They're all over the timeline up and way out over there somewhere trying to be better than everyone else.

I'm not buying it. The people who enjoy doing that and make money doing it, good for them. But what about the rest of us?

Gongchime

What specifically are you supporting, or are you a proponent of? I'm seeing a lot of intriguing rhetoric, but I'm not clear on what you stand for. Forgive me...it's a serious question, because you raise some interesting points.

I'm with you that the key and valve mechanisms that were added about 150 years ago to wind and brass instruments are not particularly an improvement in all cases. It's neat that the valve mechanisms on brass instruments allow them to play a full chromatic scale; but I've always preferred the sound of the more natural woodwinds of the 18th Century and before.

I'm not sure I agree that it was kings and popes who were interested in the improvements, however. I believe it was partly inventors who by their nature innovate, and musicians who got tired of trying to play the older instruments accurately and consistently in tune in a world where composers were demanding more virtuosity from them all the time. Even so, some of the innovations didn't take right away; Mendelssohn was still writing for natural horns until the end of his life, and he wasn't the only one.

If you play opera music from the speakers in front of convenience stores, people stop hanging out there. Conclusion, opera is DEAD!!!!

No offence, but that's a lousy deduction.

The fact that opera music exists in some form you could play it at a convenience store with (cd etc) shows its not dead.

If you say opera is for rich people and their inner circle of friends, i assume you mean going to see live opera.

I'm guessing that you think they only do this for some reason like appearing cultured, living the high life or something similar.

Then there would be no cds of opera, because if they only go to opera for superficial reasons, they wouldnt want the music.

I know you added 'for most people', but how can you really make this statement. You really don't know if it's dead or not.

You're right the kings and popes were not so interested in the innovations. The kings and popes were interested in providing entertainment at court and at home. The composition just kind of naturally went in that direction which they werej paying for. Based on the aesthetics of the time and other factors.

I wrote some articles which clear up my stance if you're interested. They need editing but I won't be getting around to that for a while so I put them up for people's benefit. There seemed to be some demand for them.

http://www.contemplationgarden.bravehost.c...ithoutfuel.html

After my cv there's an article called About the Music. http://www.contemplationgarden.bravehost.com/About.html

Here's an article on aesthetics.

http://www.contemplationgarden.bravehost.com/Musical.html

Thanks for the interest.

Just because 1/10th of 1% of the music buying public can afford to pay for opera music and want to doesn't mean it isn't dead. Or in it's last throes. Jazz is in the same boat.

Gongchime

I really don't have a problem, because my conservatory is small, and the pedagogical style is to begin small, and work up. To further explain:

I begin writing solo pieces. I can easily find performers for these, and get my name out in the conservatory. Each composition major is required to have 2 pieces performed a semester, so the exposure's there.

I then begin writing duets, then trios, then quartets, as my skills develop and my name becomes known, so I can get more performers for my pieces.

By my senior year, when I have to have a "long" or "tall" piece performed, I have a network of musicians who all know who I am and will play for me.

I hate to reduce things, but really, in this business, a lot of it can be who you know.

I disagree on one of {Gongchime}'s points.

1) Audience alienation occurs through one of two ways: lack of compositional skill, or a closed-minded audience. I would recommend listening to Dallapiccola's "Due Lireche de Anacreonte" for an example of non-alienating serialism. The wonderful thing about serial music is that it's an exercise in control - a composer who controls the row, rather than letting the row control him or her, can make some incredible sounds.

One thing that I found conflicting in my own compositional study is the teaching of modern techniques, even alienating techniques, without teaching their limitations as far as expression. This leads to the lack of skill in composition that in turn leads to audience alienation.

As far as western art music becoming a "dead" or anachronistic cultural mark, I would again address your ideas on development. Development is entirely dependent on human creativity, and there is PLENTY of development going on - there always has been. Music that is old and "undeveloped" is still played because there is still demand for it. If music is not changing at a fast enough pace, it is because the audience wishes it not to change.

--And, not to seem facetious, and it could be I come from a place where this doesn't happen - but I'm totally unfamiliar with anyone "hanging out" outside convenience stores. Does this happen where you live?

New York and LA immediately come to mind as places where people hang out at convience stores.

Almost all of the serial music has alienated the audience. You maybe can't see that because you and some people you know like one or two pieces. This doesn't change the fact the audience for it, even among afficiandos of classical instrumentation, is miniscule or nonexistent arriving at a number probably even smaller than that of punk music. Try to get people to attend such a concert. I dare you. I'll be headed for the exit door like a hippie at a John Tesh concert.

You said the composer may lack compositional skill which is precisely my point. Mark Twain commented that Wagner's music was better than it sounds which applies just as well to all recognized composers of serialism. It is an intellectual/mathematical persuit suitable for an individual and possibly a theorhetical mathematician not an artistic pursuit suitable for an audience.

Gongchime

I suggest you read Style and Idea selected writings of Arnold Schoenberg first, before coming up with accuzations like that.

I've read hundreds of music books. I stand my ground. One more won't make any difference. I've heard his music which is all I need to know. I'm sure he wrote that book to justify his music. A truly successful composer won't find such an endeavor even necessary.

Gongchime