Recently, I have been doing a bit of research into the great Greek/French composer Iannis Xenakis (1922-2001) and have fallen in love with the sounds and methods he used in the mid 20th century. One of the most useful inventions of Xenakis’ that I have found is the UPIC (Unité Polyagogique Informatique du CEMAMu) created in Paris in 1977.

The original device was a large board of light sensors connected to a computer system. This board was used to directly input graphics into the computer so that they could be synthesized into sound. Using a light pen, the composer draws anything from the level of an individual waveform to a whole musical composition and can even set the machine up for immediate playback.

One of the more wonderful things about this type of composition is its accessibility. I don’t know if any of you have attempted to read Xenakis’ “Formalized Music,” but it gets pretty involved in the math that he used (Xenakis was also an accomplished architect). UPIC brings the sounds of Xenakis to a level that anyone can work with. In fact, the UPIC was used to reach out to young children and get them interested in musical creativity. Anyone that can draw can get a meaningful result from this graphic system. Even the simplest pictures can be translated into interesting sounds.

While the large scale UPIC table is not readily available to most of us, there have been several attempts to create software that accomplishes the same tasks. What I have been using, and has been working very well for me so far, is the program HighC created by Dr. Thomas Baudel. Dr. Baudel has done the leg work in creating software that includes many of the synthesis ideas of Xenakis while giving us a friendly user interface that is as easy for a kindergartener to use as it is for a college student.

The interface for HighC is a lot like the Paint accessory that comes on a PC, and waveforms can be chosen from a menu and color coded according to the composer’s preference. Time is a variable that can be a little confusing to get right with this program, since it is set to conventional meters and beats per minute. I did, however, find it fairly easy to set the timescale to seconds, which makes more sense when working with free sounds over larger timescales. The samples on the website offer some good examples of what the software can do, but are not very involved as far as compositional ideas or structure. Of course, the deeper you get into the sounds and software, the more intellectually gratifying the results can become.

A cool effect of working with graphics to create sound is the possible acquisition of slight synesthesia. When you can draw a picture of a mountain, tree, or river and have it translated into sound, it can be possible to “hear” the sounds of the objects you see every day. Not that everyone will necessarily hear what they see, but it is pretty cool that people can be trained to connect sight and sound in such a different way.

The original piece created graphically with UPIC was Xenakis’ “Mycenae Alpha” (1978). I have posted the link for your listening/viewing pleasure. Enjoy!

Mycenae Alpha on YouTube

 

 

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.

 

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!

 

It’s impossible for us as listeners to be aware of every development in new music. There are some great sites, like NewMusicBox, that do an admirable job of covering new music, but it’s just too large a subject. We have to make some decisions about how much time and energy we spend on it. I always like to look into the winner of the Pulitzer each year. Unlike Pulitzers for journalists and authors, there’s only one Pulitzer for composers. This (over)simplifies things greatly. But each year when the winner is announced, I try to track down some recordings of music by the winner. I don’t think I need to like it all, but I do think that anybody who self-identifies as a composer should know at least a little bit about the people being recognized as the best in our field.

In 2008, the Pulitzer went to David Lang for The Little Match Girl Passion. When read that, I was embarrassed that I had never heard of him before, so I immediately went to find a recording of the piece. Unfortunately, it didn’t exist yet. 1 But it does now!

Lang uses the chamber singers as a kind of hybrid between vocalists and instrumentalists. He creates textures the same way he might in a chamber orchestra. Sometimes the texture is complex with dense counterpoint, and at other times, the whole ensemble is like a Greek chorus, all sounding together as one. Also, how about singers that sound like people and not whatever traditional “bel canto” opera singers sound like? Check out this fantastic recording from Amazon: David Lang: Little Match Girl Passion.

Notes:

  1. The Pulitzer goes to a work that was either performed or recorded for the first time in the last year.
 

Greetings fellow composers! In the last few weeks I’ve been pondering about writing a blog post that would thrill all readers with a smorgasbord of insights, entertain with refined literary prowess, and revolutionize intellectual thought through a synthesis of musical topics with ideas from the world around us. Perhaps I shall prepare such a feat for my next post. However, for my introductory comments to this blog, I felt that you and I should get to know one another a little better through the sharing of musical interests. Thus, allow me to introduce you to a composer I’ve been listening to quite a bit the past few months.

Eric Mandat is an acclaimed clarinetist/composer. Now, lest ye are tempted to run for cover under threat of 30 minutes of a tertian, classical concerto of mind-numbing boredom, please note that Mandat’s music is very different than any Weber or Mozart you might hear coming from any run-of-the-mill clarinet recital. Mandat is an avant garde composer who uses contemporary techniques and tone colors to shape stories, images, and experiences that successfully transport the listener to another plane for the entirety of the piece. Especially when watching his live performances, as I was privileged to do at a clarinet festival in Spring 2010, the listener is easily mezmerized by his stunning sound displays.

One of Mandat’s most thrilling pieces is a new, three movement work entitled “Double Life.” Mandat dedicated this piece for fellow clari-comp (clarinetist/composer) William O. Smith. The three movements personify different elements from William O. Smith’s rather unusual personality.

Clips from Eric Mandat’s “Double Life” as performed by Robert Spring on Youtube.

For more music by Eric Mandat, check out his two CDs, Black Swirls and The Extended Clarinet

 

Hello MSU composers! For those of you I haven’t had the pleasure of meeting my name is Tim Patterson. I’m the red headed guy that has been coming to your studio class. Thank you for allowing me to join you and letting me share my thoughts in this blog post!

I moved here with my wife Sarah in August so she could obtain a masters in violin performance studying with Dmitri Berlinsky. So far East Lansing has treated us well and we’re looking forward to the upcoming few years in store at MSU.

-

ANYWAY, on to the topic I wanted to present: Ethical Schmoozing. In my short time pursuing composition I have had the pleasure of studying with a very talented composer named Forrest Pierce. In addition to teaching composition Dr. Pierce spent a good amount of time teaching his students about what it means to be a composer and what one must do to be successful in todays competitive world.

Ethical Schmoozing is one of the greatest concepts that I took away from our time together. I’m not talking about schmoozing in a manipulation sense but more in a networking way as to build relationships to advance our professional lives as composers.

As composers we depend on other people to play our music. The exception to this of course is the composer that can also play their own music on the desired level necessary. In my experience this is rare. We spend most of our time writing/listening to music or being in class where at the end of the day a three hour practice session isn’t at the top of our list.

Okay, so I need players. No problem, I can just hang around after an orchestra rehearsal and hand a complete stranger the score and ask them if they have time to practice my piece then perform it. How often have you attempted this or something similar and end up being turned down or get a VERY rough performance? My guess is more times than you’d like. The first part of this hypothetical thought was on the right track though… “okay, so I need players. No problem, I can just hang around after an orchestra rehearsal…” then… MEET PEOPLE! Pick a section and introduce yourself to about 5 people and just simply get to know them. Ask them about the piece that they’re rehearsing in orchestra or a solo piece their teacher has them working on. GET TO KNOW THEM, BE INTERESTED, BE CHARMING, NERD OUT ON THEIR INSTRUMENT, ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT WHAT THEY SAY! Out of the 5 people that you meet you will probably keep one or two of those connections. You have just planted the seed of a relationship that could very well bring you great success in the future.

The next time that you are walking down the hall and you see said performer say hi, wave, acknowledge that you met them and want to continue the friendship. Dr. Pierce used to say, “Whenever you introduce yourself to anyone remember that this person you are meeting could very well be your best friend some day.” I’m not saying that you need to be best friends with every performer that you meet but friendship is ESSENTIAL. When someone is your friend and you know them past “here’s the score, can you play? ” they will put soooo much more effort into your music and you will get a beautiful performance/recording.

You don’t necessarily need to meet people either. Think about a class you have, say music history, and think of the four people that sit around you. They are most likely musicians and you have most likely talked to them once or twice. Find out what they play and go with the serendipitous flow of life and eventually ask to write them a 3-4 minute piece. Doing this you will learn how to write for that instrument, make a new musical connection and most importantly make a new friend.

When any of the grandmasters of composition wrote a concerto it was NEVER just a piece they wrote that someone eventually decided to play, it was a piece written FOR somebody. I’m sure there are exceptions to this but I would argue 99% of the time the piece was born out of a flourishing, close musical friendship. In my 4 years as a young composer any great performance/recording that I got was from a friend. Check out my profile page and listen to some of my recordings, lots of practice and good rehearsals went into those. Over the summer I wrote a piano piece for one of my groomsmen and I’m now starting a cello sonata for a friend. These friends will work hard on these pieces because they know that I value and love them and put loads of work writing a piece just for them.

A word of caution though. Make sure you know your friends ability. Sit down with them and have them show you how their instrument works. Have them play a piece they’re working on. Consider yourself a tailor that is designing a dress or a suit. It would be a shame if you finished it and it was too tight or fell right off them! :)

To conclude I wanted to reiterate the importance of knowing people correlating to your success as a composer. A musical friend you meet now might be in a future interview 10 years down the road or might be a world famous flautist in 20 years that is recording a CD of new works. You never know.

Once again thanks for letting me join your studio class and letting me blog. I look forward to hearing the concert tonight! I also look forward to meeting you, if I haven’t already… :)

 

I’m currently chin deep into a research project studying the Totalistic movement of the 90s. In short, the Totalistic movement was based in downtown NYC and involved postminimal composers interested in creating music that appeals to casual and serious listeners using a minimalistic backdrop. Unfortunately, there isn’t too much written about this movement beyond the writings of Kyle Gann. With this is mind, I am having to broaden the research back to minimalism, which led me to a book titled “Repeating Ourselves, Minimalism as Cultural Practice” by Robert Fink. Even though though this is a fascinating read, most of the musical examples provided in the book are staples from the minimalistic movement. I already know these, and it’s nice to stumble across pieces I’m not familiar with. Today one example that I’m not familiar with appeared in a chapter comparing minimalism to TV advertisement. Finally, something new to me! (Maybe I like minimalism/postminimalism a bit too much).

Anyways, the piece is call “Hoketus” by Louis Andriessen. The title reveals the technique used to construct the piece. The technique is borrowed from old Medieval music called the hocket. This is cool technique where composite rhythms and melodies are generated by alternating patterns.

I particularly enjoy the shifts starting at 8:00 in Part I. It’s also really awesome listening with nice headphones.

Original blog.

 

After seeing “The Social Network” this weekend, I’ve solidified the long-developing conclusion that determining music’s effectiveness is much different than determining its sophistication. Throughout my compositional training (and perhaps everyone’s), the idea of development has rung with me as most crucial. A student in composition must learn to mold a line, motive, or harmonic texture into more than it is when first stated. These are good skills to have in your bag and are effective in many contexts. Beethoven was the ultimate craftsman; he could take a 5-note motive and create a substantial work from the scraps of a line (this technique resonates in nearly all of his works). Since Beethoven, the composition world has seen a bell curve of harmonic and rhythmic sophistication, however, the acceptance of different styles today is varied.

Depending on where you are or what school you come from, the perception of a composer’s music might range from simple and unworthy to glorious and meditative. It should be noted that the most popular and successful composers today come from the minimalist and fusion camps. John Adams, Steve Reich, and David Lang are still the talk of the composition world and one can frequently find their works being performed all over the world. These are composers who did not follow the extreme chromaticism of early Cold War writing and, yet, have found a great many admirers despite many academic institutions holding on to a sense of that past. Without diminishing the worth of highly chromatic and complex rhythmic music, we all could gain from minimalist influence.

Believe it or not, someone once told me that there is no place for major chords in today’s music. Fortunately, I can disregard that person as a complete dumbass (his score sales aren’t that great). While this is a pretty extreme position, it’s one that is partially supported by many modern composers whether they realize it or not. I suspect many young composers do want to embrace more repetition or tonality in their writing not because it’s easier, but because they find it more appealing as a listener. However, people are afraid of appearing too simplistic and fear they won’t be taken seriously if they don’t throw in a few 11/16 measures or the like. Above all, a composer must remember that music is an aesthetic. It doesn’t matter how sophisticated it looks on the page; if it doesn’t sound good then it’s a failure as a piece. If you like to write intricately complex music, then that is also fine – it depends on your own taste. I’m the kind of person who can listen to Fratres without getting bored, but that might not be for everyone. Unfortunately, in many schools, writing something with an idea similar to that piece would be unacceptable. It shouldn’t be. If you like listening to it (most importantly) and a number of other people do, too, then it can be considered a success. Many instructors of composition have taken to teaching taste instead of craft. I’m lucky to have had open-minded teachers in my compositional training, but some promising composers have been ruined by this idea of “modern music.” Let’s change that. If a broader sense of acceptance grows in the academic community we might even see the audience of art music grow, as well. The most dangerous and hurtful idea we, as composers, can have is that “the audience simply hasn’t grown up yet.” I can’t think of a more damaging mentality.

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