How Often Do You Revise A Piece?

How often do you revise a piece after you think you have completed it? How thoroughly do you revise it?

What do you think does a composer's frequency of revision of pieces say about them?

What do you think does the fact of needing to revise a piece say about it?

Do you think that it is the mark of a great piece that it needs to be constantly revised - or that of a lesser one?

I think the need to revise a piece might mean that one is developing as a composer, that the previous degree of care and consideration taken in judging a piece complete is no longer definitive or sufficient. It might also mean a piece is problematic, or that one was too quick to judge it complete. Alternatively, it might mean that the piece was subtle, seminal and/or full of possibilities and unseen potential that one failed to see or appreciate, let alone fully develop, at the time that the decision/judgement of completeness was taken.

just for once, it was an exception, but I never do revisions or do different versions after I take the final call the work is done, I revise over and over while writing, but when I finish, is done, I usually end very satisfied with the work, so I don't need to change anything.

I have to resist the temptation for endless revisions, but certainly I've done my fair share of them. Only that I only do them after a long time (4-10 years perhaps), when I've grown enough as a composer to detect flaws and/or possible improvements. As long as a piece isn't performed or published, I think it's legitimate to make changes...

How Often Do You Revise A Question?

How Long Does It Take To Make A Point?

Are You Afraid Of Being Misunderstood?

Why Do You Ask So Many Questions?

How often? Never, until I started uni. I've noticed that this semester I've been writing pieces rather quickly and usually well before the due date - this way I've had some time to separate myself from it and come back with a more critical eye. I've thought a few piece were finished, but in the past few weeks I've come back to them and realised they weren't - or rather, I could have done something differently. A work I just finished revising today went through considerable changes until it was finished, partly because the criteria we were given was very vague and I used the wrong mode in one section. Also, when we played through it at uni, the flautist wanted to have a more exciting line - similar to the piano part I had written, so she gave played a few variations on what I had which opened up new possibilities of what I could do.

Usually, writing the entire piece is the easy part, then I get to revising it, and I must do it with as much care as possible so that the piece will be as great as possible. A piece is problematic when not enough revision is done. In theory you could keep revising forever, so it's not a good idea to keep revising until you consider the piece "finished" rather, you should keep revising until you are satisfied with every detail of the piece. After that, more revision would just change the piece, rather than improve it.

I revise until I think the piece is complete! I might find some harmonic inconstancies or little things that I might not like.

I am one of the few people who can't stand revision. But, then again, I take FOREVER to write anything. Like, my revision process occurs during the writing of a piece. So, at the end, I'm sure I have exactly what I want.

Now, when I am using performers with my pieces, that's a different story. If I can make something more playable, or I find the balance isn't "just" right, I will DEFINITELY spend time at the computer moving things around and doing revision. But, as far as the "piece" goes, I know exactly what I want going in.