Looking back at some assignments I did that were supposed to be written within the parameters of modality or tonality, one thing stood out. I was always in a rush to push the boundaries of the tonal framework. There are instances where it was obvious I was just dying to include a bII in a major key, or I just had to quickly modulate to bVII, or I thought it would be fancy to include some extra secondary dominants. And mostly it's not bad....just really obvious--especially as I listen to them because I know what that person was thinking. I hear those sections and they make sense, and they're "legal" moves, but it feels like the notes were just hovering over all the previous notes, waiting for an opportunity to leap in and add a little spice to the mixture.
I believe I was too eager to do something that would make the piece stand out, when in fact it just ended up making the section stand out. There's no subtlety. And I understand that at the time I was thinking, "I couldn't possibly write another ii-V-I. I haven't included a borrowed chord or altered dominant, that must be what's missing." And of course I was wrong. I think I was trying to "fix" a section, or make it "more interesting" without necessarily listening to the overarching scheme.
In fact, as listened to one piece I distinctly remember thinking to myself that I /had/ to include a particular progression. And it is so obvious. I hear it in other music too. Using "special" vocabulary really requires a lot of care. If I'm listening to a piece in common time that switches to 7/4 and I don't notice because it sounds so natural, then the composer has done his or her job. It really sounds so basic when I say it that way, but it's true. More and more I'm coming to see that organic composition is the key. You can throw pretty much whatever you want in a piece, and as long as it sounds like it belongs there, the end result will sound much more satisfying.
No comments:
Post a Comment