Hi everyone.

I want to ask you something.
Are you a composer? Then how do you compose?
Are you not a composer? Then how do you think all the composers in the world compose?

If you have a few minutes to spare, I would like to ask you to leave your response in the comment section below.
I am very interested in knowing how you compose (or how you think composers compose) because every composer has her/his own way and each can be unique.

To be fair, I will share my composing method first.

First of all, I know that many of my composer and musician friends probably think that all I do, in order to compose, is to drink beer while watching Star Trek episodes on TV, and by end of the week I have a piece of music composed.

I am sorry to break the news, but that is not how it is done. Not even close (although this method helps when I am trying to come up with a title for a piece).

The following is the typical compositional process I go through:

First, I think about a musical idea. I mean I really think about it—melodic idea, rhythmic idea, instrumentation, chord progression, harmony, whatever.

It usually happens when I am driving, walking, and reading textbooks (therefore I usually do not remember what I read). I think about what to write whenever I have a chance to.

I have heard people (composers of course) saying, “we should compose everyday,” and I agree.

But I do not think we should spend hours pounding the keys on a piano, or wasting ink on staff paper everyday. “Thinking” itself is a very important part of composing. In fact, I would say that 1/3 of my composing time is used for just “thinking,” (and 2/3 for actual writing, editing, maybe rehearsing, and then fixing). I often have a stream of ideas bouncing around in my head. Sometimes it is easy, but some other times it is very difficult to isolate and construct the “good idea(s).” Once I think I have a good idea (or ideas), I let it sink in or float around my mind, and see if it sticks with me. If I, the composer, cannot remember what it was, it probably lacks character or power to stay with (or even reach) the audience. If people leave the concert without remembering even a part of the piece, it is not a good piece of music, in my opinion (although sometimes the ones that stick with you are not necessarily good ones). Therefore, I try to gage the “character” and “power” of the idea before I write it down. A Sort of screening, I guess.

Once I think I have a good (“strong” enough to pass the screening) idea or two to begin with, I start the actual writing part. I would say I use paper and the computer (Finale) equally for sketching to visualize what I have been hearing in my head, and, of course, to hear what it really sounds like. Even if it seemed (sounded) like a good idea in my head, I cannot know for sure if it really is good until I get to hear it out loud. I either try it on my guitar or Finale depending on my mood, and the nature of the piece I am going to write. I will play around with the idea for a while until I shape it in the way I really like, or as close as I can get to what I heard in my head originally. If the idea turns out not as good as I thought it would be, or I cannot develop anything out of it, I try to go back to the very beginning of the process, “The Thinking,” and try to come up with something better.

I suppose some of you may have been shocked to see the word guitar instead of piano.

I am aware that the most common belief, or stereotype, is that, “a real composer write with a piano (on staff paper), and the ones who do not should change their ways.” I often see that some of those who write using a piano push the idea on the ones who do not.

I respectfully disagree. Moreover, honestly, I would say, “who cares how it is done as long as it works.”

To me, the piano is, as a compositional tool, just a huge wooden box with a bunch of keys that make too much noise, and as a result I forget what it was I originally had in my mind. My lacking of piano skills does not help, but truthfully, I can visualize my music through guitar so much better, or should I say it comes out naturally like it is an extension of my body and mind. Melody, harmony, rhythm, and so on, I can grasp whatever musical idea I have so much better on guitar. Perhaps, it is the only way I can actually materialize my idea to its full potential as a form of music. It is most likely because I was a guitarist first and then became a composer.

Anyways, all I am saying is that the choice of instrument (as a compositional device) should be up to the composer. Marimba, harp, vibraphone, banjo, etc. – as long as it is a multiphonic instrument, one should be allowed to pick whatever s/he feels most natural with.  One may argue that the piano can cover a wider range than guitar. Yes, that is true, but (1) I have a bass guitar that can cover the low range that guitar cannot, and (2) I do not like writing music that goes too high anymore because it hurts my ears. If you only know how to play the instruments that can play a note a time (without using an extended technique) such as flute, trumpet, saxophone, and so on, don’t worry, there are such things called notation programs like Finale, as I mentioned before. The program will play as many notes as you want at the same time.

There is so much more I can say about “compositional devices” but it would take up another blog or two, so I will leave it there and let’s have someone else tackle that subject.

So, after I am done with trying and sketching, I start notating the music on my computer by using Finale. At this point, I may or may not have a clear idea how every part of the piece sounds like, but if I succeeded this far, it is just a matter of time. I may change or add things as I go. If I am not sure about the change or new ideas, I try them on my guitar or play around with them on Finale; again it depends on my mood or the nature of the piece. This part of the process usually goes very fast. And I spend extended amounts of time for editing—notation, dynamics, articulations, margins, spaces, etc. One thing all the composers can agree is that this is a “never ending story.” You can fix one thing, then you find another. You can adjust something, then something else looks funny. You can bring the music into rehearsal, then you realize that the transposition was wrong or the notes are unplayable for the particular instrument. These are some examples of this never-ending editing process. At some point (usually it is called THE DEAD LINE) we have to call it quits and hope for the best. You can always revise your music later if you want to.

This is pretty much how I compose.

Whether it was something you expected to see or something completely off, I hope you enjoyed reading about my daily activities. And I also hope that you will be more accepting toward non-piano-using composers, especially the ones who use guitar, and the ones from Japan.

 

 

 

 

V.S.

 

 

Relating to the previous post about music notation, one must write music based on the chosen notation by hand or by computer. Writing by hand and writing by music notation software has been a debate for quite some time.

Writing music by hand has been used since perhaps before the Renaissance period, and many great composers such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky, and many more have written by hand. Throughout most of the history of music, composing by hand was the norm for composers. Then during the post World War II era, many composers experimented with electronic music. Although electronic music was made through splices, loops, and other techniques, the outlines that were used by composer s were written by hand.

30 years ago, there was a new method for writing music, music notation software such as Sibelius and Finale. The purpose for both of these programs were to facilitate the process of composing much faster as well as making professional-looking scores than by hand.

Last year, David Maslanka, who judged last year’s Honors Competition, suggested in one of his comments that everyone should get away from their computer and try to write by hand. At the time, I was not sure how to approach writing music by hand since I started composing using Finale 2006 during my high school years. So I did some research: (before I go any further, this blog is not intended to show any favoritism towards a specific method of composing but rather it is intended to give you an idea of the benefits and cons of both methods).

Composing by hand

There are many benefits to composing by hand. One of them is flexibility. Although you can not control how your staves look, you can add any marking just the way you want it, such as adding aleatoric boxes, customizing time signatures, omitting barlines…anything really! In addition, Sibelius/Finale contain a lot of tools that you can use to write music that can attempt to make the same markings as the ones done by hand.

One benefit, in my opinion, to composing by hand is the lack of distractions to writing. Sibelius and Finale are amazing in so many levels, but there are too many options for the composer to choose, and sometimes they make composing much more complicated than it should. By hand, the composer can focus a lot more on only the ACTUAL composing part of the process. As far as how to hear your music, you can either play your music on a piano, play it on your instrument (if possible), or you can give it to a musician who would be willing to check your music out.

One of the cons for this method is the editing process. Since you are writing in pencil, you will be erasing literally all the time. In fact, time is a big problem when writing by hand. When comparing Sibelius/Finale to hand, it could take about 10 minutes or less to write 10 measures on finale where it could take about 20 minutes, or more to write 10 measures by hand.

Composing using Sibelius/Finale

One of the benefits of using music notation software is the large assessment of tools that a composer can use. They are quite accessible and easy to use. In addition, they are a great way to make music scores look professional (as long as you know what you are doing). You can also change the size of the paper, score, everything in the music with a couple clicks. In addition, you can erase and edit in a short amount of time (even though it still takes forever to edit).

The main problem with music notation software is the playback. I can imagine that many of you reading this are thinking “But that’s the best part of Finale! I do not need to play any instruments. I don’t need to listen to a band. I don’t even need to think! I just sit back and enjoy the sweet sounds of video game music right in my ears.” I can not emphasis this fact any more: the playback will disorient the natural sounds and capabilities of the instrument, therefore the composer will assume that if the particular motive sounds good on the computer, then it will sound amazing in person. In other words, it’s not real!

In addition, every composer here at Michigan State University will agree with me when I say that MIDI playback does not sound good at all. MIDI, along with other sound libraries, can deceive your ears by making music sound either disturbing, or somewhat decent. The point is that these sound libraries, such as GPO4 and COMB2, try to recreate the actual sounds of a live ensemble to help the user hear how his/her music will sound in person, yet even if they sound exactly like an authentic Saxophone, it will never match a live instrument.

Another problem are the tools used in these programs. I might be contradicting myself here, but the available tools on Finale/Sibelius are amazing: convenient and easy, but it is very easy for someone to get distracted by these tools and not pay attention to the realistic results to the real musicians. That is why so many young composers’ sound so fragmented. You have so many options to work with, along with playback, that when you hear a motive that sounds so epic, there is a chance that you will use that motive regardless of what else is going on in the piece.

To sum up, both methods are great for different purposes. I recommend composers to start writing by hand, and then when you are about 2/3s or finished with the piece, add your music onto a music notation program in order to make your composition look like a professional product.

 

One last thing before I go…

These videos are from a concert presented by the composition area on 19 April 2011 called Music + Theater. It included four works, three by graduate student composers, one by a faculty composer, that all dealt in some way with the intersection between music and theater. Enjoy!
 

 

 

Sam Merciers presented a film on the program as well, but I thought it would be a bit silly to show the video from the camera pointed at the screen. Sam, if you read this, feel free to embed your video in this post.

 

There is more music being written today than ever before. Anyone that owns a computer has access to sound manipulating technology and an outlet for their work. In this expanding creative world, it is a mistake to say that music is reaching or will reach its maximum potential value without it being heard by the public. Value is measured less by the ingenuity or challenging nature of a work than by whom the music influences and how it lives past the premier performance. This should not be taken to mean that music composed in an “ivory tower” institution has no merit or value. On the contrary, music composed using new and cutting edge techniques is extremely important and has influence throughout the musical field.

Unfortunately, public perception of new music coming out of universities and conservatories is generally negative, in large part due to the argument that an audience is not necessary for performances of new pieces. The modern audience has been alienated by an attitude of superiority or elitism from within institutions and attendance at new music performances has plummeted in recent decades. New music in any genre should be able to connect with an audience outside of the group that created it in order to create and maintain a healthy, viable musical atmosphere. It is possible to create an appreciative audience without sacrificing musical integrity and it is beneficial to the composer for a wider audience to hear his or her work.

Proponents of an isolated approach to new music cite the autonomy of each new work as a virtue and claim that the unique sound of each piece is indicative of a developing specificity in musical vocabulary. Some argue that the ability to hear and appreciate this type of music is gained only through study and an ability to immediately recognize continuities not based on obvious or assumable generalities resulting from the form. Music, however, is always produced in relation to the continuum of already created pieces. A work will always relate, in some way, to processes, techniques, and sounds that have come before it. The relationship can include anything from stylistic similarities, harmonic or melodic conventions, and/or the use of form but can also arise from a willful departure from established practices. Nothing can be called different, similar, new, or old unless it is compared directly with what came before it.

There is a large audience that is familiar in many ways with aspects of music historical progression. A basic knowledge is usually present or can be easily provided to the public in order to give new music context. Instead of an audience member feeling that he or she cannot understand the ideas being presented in modern music, it would be better to provide a basic understanding of the underlying principles or the overall ideas that tie a work together through a brief explanation or program notes. Giving the audience an idea of what to listen for in a piece of music often allows them to appreciate the work and can deter them from joining the ranks of fastidious opponents to new musical expression. Sometimes a brief word about the techniques used or the original inspiration for a piece is enough to give a listener grounding from which to appreciate what he or she is hearing. Modern composers should be able to create an appreciative audience by providing a context for their works, just as Romantic and later composers created programatic titles and stories to guide the listener’s perceptions. It is at least this minimal context that will allow the public to build a deeper understanding of what the composer is trying to say through his or her music.

The modern composer should not accept that his or her work is destined to be heard only in closed academic circles. This existence is death for new music and results in many isolated pockets of innovation that go nowhere. It is far more meaningful and valuable for composers to work toward a wider audience that will become receptive to new sounds. The modern composer must learn to think of himself/herself as an educator in service of the public in order to foster a community of creative discourse that will reverse what many see today as the death of the classically trained composer. There is no cause to lose compositional integrity or complexity in order to gain an audience. Audience members are capable of learning to appreciate new music if the composer is willing to provide the necessary context in which they can listen to the work. Nothing exists outside of the continuum of musical experience and it is the job of the contemporary composer to ground the contemporary listener in the time-line. Once a person has context for new sounds, he or she can begin to understand what is being heard and appreciate the art and language being used.

This was adapted from a paper written for a class. Sorry if it sounds a little stuffy.

 

J.S. Bach had the Lutheran Church.

Haydn had the Esterhazy family.

Beethoven had Archduke Rudolph.

Bartók, Stravinsky, and Copland had Koussevitzky, Diaghilev, and the National Endowment for the Arts.

People with lots of money, we’re talkin’ Esterhazy money, are not, by and large, spending it on the patronage of classical music the way they might have 250 years ago. There are certainly some who are, and while the NEA is funded less and less each year, there are still a handful of composers (mostly already well-established) that are receiving commissions from individuals and government/non-profit grants. They are, however, the exceptions.

In addition to people like Rich Uncle Pennybags and non-profits, one of the biggest support groups for composers has historically been performers, particularly over the last hundred years or so. Conductor Serge Koussevitzky commissioned Bartók’s Concerto for Orchestra; clarinetist Benny Goodman commissioned Copland’s Clarinet Concerto.

The internet has lowered the entry cost of so many industries and other ventures. Why not patronage? In Spring 2010, Facebook ruffled feathers with some new policies about privacy (and a leak of some personal info). Many informed users were worried that Facebook had too much control over the internet and users, and up popped a little startup called Diaspora. Diaspora was working on a new kind of social network to compete with Facebook, and to raise money, they turned to Kickstarter. Kickstarter allows users to pledge support to creative products. It brings together people who are creating niche products with the niches they want to access and influence. Diaspora was able to raise over $200,000 mostly with donations of $5 to $25.

Kickstarter has an interesting all-or-nothing approach to fundraising. When starting a project, you set a goal and a deadline. People pledge various amounts. Different amounts get different rewards. If you reach your goal, backers’ credit cards are charged for their pledges and you get the money. If not, no money changes hands. This makes sense. The Diaspora folks couldn’t have done much with $200, and it would suck to be one of the people who gave part of the $200 just to see nothing come of it.

That got me thinking about my own niche, contemporary concert music. How could this model work for us that are creating music which unfortunately (yet honestly) has a very small audience? Kickstarter could be perfect for arts patronage in the internet age. Commissioning consortia have been around for quite a while, but when was the last time you heard of a commission that you could participate in for twenty-five bucks? (crickets)

So, I’m going to try it. I’m going to use Kickstarter to put together a commissioning consortium for a solo saxophone piece I’ll start working on this summer with Tim Rosenberg. I’ll keep updates on my blog, and on the Kickstarter project page. I’ll have a link to that here when I launch the project. My goal is to raise at least $500 in 90 days. Wish me luck!

 

<soapbox>

It seems that at least once a week, I see or hear a conversation among composers that goes something like this:

composer 1: Nobody ever comes to our concerts.

composer 2: Tell me about it. I spend months writing a piece. Then, I have to beg performers to practice, rehearse and perform it. I tell everybody I know, put up flyers, and after all that effort, only a dozen people show up to hear the thing. Heck, there are usually more people on the stage than in the audience!

composer 1: Why doesn’t anybody support new music?

There are a lot of reasons people don’t go to recitals or concerts. I understand people are busy. But this Monday night, I went to a composition recital by Matt Karram, a talented undergraduate composer here at MSU. I don’t know how many students are in the composition studio, but it’s at least twenty. At Matt’s recital, I counted no more than five composers (outside of Matt).

How can we expect other people to support new music when we don’t even support each other? It’s simple. We can’t.

</soapbox>

(PS – This is a repost from my personal blog.)

© 2012 Michigan State University Music Composition Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha