On melody

What is melody? What makes melody? And how does one write melody? Does melody exist on its own, wholly independent? Does it merely coincide with the music around it, does it co-exist with the music, or is it derived from it (or vice versa)? What is the music without melody? How does one differentiate good melody from bad melody? Is there a distinction between melody in counterpoint, melody with harmony and melody alone? Do we differentiate the following: fugue subject, counterpoint entrance, aria, sonata theme group? Can we? Would we want to? Does there exist something in the absence of melody? In answering these questions, what can we say then about countermelody?

In a line, how does one emphasise the tonic? Traditionally we have used repetition of the tonic; leading tone resolving to tonic (or subtonic to tonic modally); the dominant scale degree falling or rising to the tonic. We can also rest on the tonic, mediant or dominant to imply a tonic resting point. What then of the supertonic, subdominant and submediant? Is there use of altered scale degrees to put emphasis on the tonic? Should tonic emphasis be the main focus of a line?

Re: Allowing your musical ideas to achieve their full potential

I started out writing a reply to the blog entry on the main page, but it turned into a bit of a rant, I guess, so I decided to run with it an post it as full entry on its own. Here it is:

It's strange--I have two completely different mindsets and methodologies when I'm composing "art music" versus "popular music" (I strongly dislike those terms, but it gets my point across). With the latter I have no problem repeating ideas and figurations. If I have a cool countermelody that goes on behind the vocal or main guitar/keyboard line, I'm eager to reuse it and let it go on at length. I'll bring back a chorus three times if I think it's good enough. But with the former kind of music I feel pressured to keep changing things. Why? I'm not really sure. I have to force myself to develop some ideas, convincing myself that people aren't going to be bored hearing it the second time around. Though, in both styles I'm still driven by the fear of sitting on one chord for too long (though I'm getting a little better and allowing passages of harmonic stasis). More than just worrying about whether an idea has reached its full potential (as Kim mentions), I worry about whether I should even be using my ideas. Sometimes I come up with an idea that I'm so attached to, I don't want to use it until I can write the perfect context for it to fit in. Two reasons why: the insecurity of not coming up with as good an idea again; and not wanting it to stand out against surrounding ideas that maybe aren't as good. 

Guess it all boils down to insecurity, doesn't it? It's really tough to separate ourselves from our pieces--because that's like tearing ourselves apart. Then we have to rely on our limited scope of objectivity without totally rejecting the subjective. Examining it pragmatically versus viscerally.

We also have the option of relying on an outside source of opinion. Even this presents a fair share of problems. Even if we accept external opinions, we will still weigh it against our own two views. For instance, take the following three scenarios, provided that your subjective view is that your idea is good.

-If the External matches your Objective, but disagrees with your Subjective you face your original dilemma--though possibly in a more balanced manner depending on how committed you are to it.

-If the External disagrees with your Objective, but matches your Subjective (this may seem slightly odd), it's further reinforcement.

-If the External coincides with your Objective, which also matches your Subjective, you've probably hit the spot.

There are many other situations which would arise if you feel that your idea isn't any good but think people would like it. And of course all kinds of other results depending on the circumstances.

I definitely didn't answer any questions, and have probably created a whole new level of questions, but it was good to see the questions out there in the first place and see how other people react to the same dilemma.

Finally settled?

Well, you can't say I wasn't ambitious. I initially envisioned a symphony orchestra, and then a modified chamber orchestra, but my time draws nigh, and with more than just composition on my plate I realise that it just won't be practical at this point. I really liked some of the ideas I had and I would like to come back to them in the future, but four weeks is just four weeks.

I've decided to try my hand at piano quartet. Nothing concrete yet, but I have visions of a short prelude and an adagio. If I can at least get the slow movement done for this project that should be enough. Now it's time to sit down and start working out some theme groups and how to organise the instruments. Let's see what comes out by Friday!

Fast Forward

What a great concert. I'm really impressed with everyone's work, both from the composers and performers. There was a lot of variety and I really enjoyed myself. Good job everyone!

I've been slowly working on the next project. With so little time left it's a little daunting, but I really would like to write for orchestra. I have a few thoughts in mind already. I'd like to write in (modified) sonata form. Instead of jumping in headfirst, as I think I did last time, I'm taking a more sectional approach with this one. I'm coming up with theme/theme groups first so that I know how the piece will move from the beginning to the end, and then I will develop those ideas to create all the intermediary steps.

I've already sketched out a preliminary theme 1. For my second theme group I want the melodies to be based on the traditional pentatonic scale used in Okinawa--do mi fa so ti do. I've played around with it before and it's a very neat scale. I've been listening to some traditional Okinawan music to see how it works (the melody, that is--I will probably invent my own harmonies), what kinds of rhythms they use, as well as use of percussion, if I can fit it in.

It all sounds rather ambitious, I know, which is why I will try to get the theme groups ready as soon as possible and start looking at instrumentation. If I don't have that moving relatively soon, then I might keep the same ideas/structure and look at perhaps using a smaller ensemble.

Composition Redux

It's been two weeks since my last in class performance, and my piece has gone through some major changes. After the last presentation I ran into a brick wall and got "writer's block"--possibly as a result of hitting the wall. I use quotation marks because I don't think it was so much a block as it was feeling inhibited. I had several ideas, but they either didn't make any sense, or wouldn't work with what I already had. I knew if I wanted to move forward I had to make some big changes.

I'm in unfamiliar territory, using a foreign music vocabulary, and the harder I fought against it, the worse it seemed. I knew I had to find something that would tie into the familiar and give me something on which I could build.

My first order was eliminating the voice. It was causing too many problems, including pitch location and the fact that I had originally only written a few lines of text to go with this music. I replaced it with an english horn, both for its sound and to pair with the clarinet. After a few attempts at starting something completely new, I realised I was better off salvaging some of the material that I've already written and presenting it in a new way. I had become just too attached to the chorale that I couldn't let it go. However, instead of being opening material, it is now the climax and end of the piece. I decided to take the first half the fourteen bar section and turn it into a kind of passacaglia. This allowed me to have a "form" and material to fall back on, but it was already different than your typical ground: seven measures long, in duple meter and with interludes between repetitions rather than a continuous approach.

Now the ideas were starting to flow more freely. I had something to tie the piece together. My idea was to interweave the instruments over the double bass during the ground, never having them all together, until the final chorale. I wanted a sense of everyone trying to come together, but never quite making it, one voice dropping out just as another enters. Unfortunately, as I discovered today in class, it lead to too much confusion. I have the basis for what I want, but now it needs more coherence. There is really only one section where there is a focus on one instrument (e.horn), so now I have to go back and tweak, creating different levels (not just through dynamics).

Speaking of which, the score is pretty much bare at this point in terms of phrase markings, dynamics, etc. I sketched everything out by hand this time, and then entered it into the software, and didn't have time to make those notations before giving the performers the music. Not an excuse, but something I need to fix. I mostly know where it's going, but it still needs to be done. I'm still on bad terms with music notation software. If there's one thing I've learned in the years of using it, it's that it stifles creativity and only complicates the task. I finally see that I have to write things out by hand first if I want to keep things flowing.

So, major points to focus on:

-dynamics, notation, phrase marks, etc.

-fleshing out the piano (it's pretty scarce right now, and could be used in a lot of places for colouristic effects and reinforcing the double bass)

-coherence in each part and through the parts

I'm also thinking about using a white noise machine as another kind of ground. I'll have to wait until a rehearsal before I know if it will work or not, but I think it could. Using a kind of "surf" noise that creates a secondary, uncontrollable ebb and flow to the music.

Quintet

I'm really glad I got to hear the instruments live today. While I was partly focused on playing my own part correctly, I got enough of an idea of how it's flowing. I really think the instruments work well together; there was a really rich sound. I can't wait to hear the voice on top of it. I liked how the imitation came out, and we'll be able to see more of it with the voice, too.

I need to fix the score order and label them properly. I'm still learning how to get my way around the software, so my primary concern was getting notes on paper, but it's something to keep in mind (and labelling will be important for next time so people know which voice they're following).

There's room to play around with voicing now. I need to decide soon if I will expand on this section or create other "movements" to flow into and out of it. Part of me wants to keep the piano part identical in the second half--this gives a kind of centre that the other instruments can gravitate around. On the other hand, it's worth trying out different spacings for more colour. Same goes for the other instruments.

Quatrain

The middle section is done. For now. Edits are inevitable at this point; I know I can do something more with it, but I'm going to have to hear it live first to get a real sense for it. Unfortunately we won't have a vocalist this week, but I can still get a general idea. Midi files will never do a piece justice.

The Rondo form has definitely gone out the window. I'm now fairly set on a through-composed piece, with three contrasting sections. I have the text written and set to music for the middle section (which will be presented tomorrow sans voice), most (if not all) of the text for the opening section written, and a general idea for the third part.

I've always been uncomfortable showing incomplete sections of my work, especially when they will be as out of context as this will be tomorrow. I'm not sure how the text will be received either. Still, I need to hear what this all actually sounds like--it will give me an idea if the other thoughts I have are feasible and whether they fit in or not.

I'm still mulling over ideas for "aleatoric elements" and extended techniques. I have plans for an ad lib section in the final part. I want to be actively thinking of places to use--shall we say--"new" techniques, without going overboard, or even just for the sake of using them. If I can use them, that's great, but if they don't really work, if they don't really make sense, then I don't want them. I like to keep things streamlined.