Leaderboard

I like that too. I like to call it a "harmonic 2nd." :) As far as motion goes, I like the motion of a perfect 5th even better than that, though. As far as block sonority, I like the major 9th and minor 2nd. Hard to decide.

If it was only the case that "no confusion arises" if a conductor uses strictly transposed note names. But alas, that often isn't the case. When I'm reading a horn part in an orchestra and communicate a note with other musicians, I instinctively always transpose my score to C. I always communicate sounding notes, not written. Many conductors do the same -even- if they are reading from a transposed score, and personally I think that's the clearest way of communication: "Your sounding D" is crystal clear. "Your written E" -may- be clear, but there are always cases when, say, the conductor is reading from a different edition than the player where a specific place might be notated differently. That's why I find, in order to avoid confusion, it's best to always talk about the sounding notes, not a specific notation. This becomes especially pronounced when a conductor is talking to a whole group of instruments. He won't say "please, woodwind section, play this chord for me that is an E-major chord for you Bb clarinets and a D-major for you bassoons and an A-major for you Englishhorn". He'll say "play this D-major chord", and the players are supposed to transpose this, because honestly, that's the quickest, most efficient way to communicate this information. It is, in such cases also -important- that the musicians don't just read their note and play it, but understand its function in the current harmony. A Bb-clarinetist who plays a sounding F# in said chord will have to realize that he's playing the third of a D-major chord and not just "a written G#".

I have long considered writing some kind of manual suggesting exercises to practice composition. I think being exposed to, and trying out, as much as possible is key - far too many young composers simply imitate one or two favourite composers without bringing anything new, and as a result their work just sounds second-rate and derivative. In general you should try and do exercises that introduce ideas so far unfamiliar to you. For example, writing for untuned percussion forces you to think about using rhythm and timbre as the main variables, rather than harmony or melody. One thing my second-year composition teacher had us do was write pieces that were a maximum of ten seconds in length. This again forced us to focus on devising very small units of material and condensing ideas as far as possible. So, off the top of my head, I would reccomend: - Write for instruments you have little or no knowledge of. This will make you read up on their capabilities but also introduce new sounds. - Write exercises in which a certain parameter is fixed or removed (melody, timbre, note values, etc). This will make you more creative with the other variables. - As above, write very short pieces, maybe a few seconds in duration, for as many sizes of ensemble as possible. How can you use a full orchestra in ten seconds? - Experiment with following historical forms to the letter (serialism, sonata forms, rondo) then write something that deliberately subverts the rules of these forms. - Orchestrate music by others. This will not only help your learn about instruments but give you an intimate knowledge of the work being done. The purpose of these exercises is not to make your music into some kind of eclectic post-modernist grab-all that doesn't have any individualisty, quite the opposite. If you experiment with as many ideas as possible you can decide what you want to use and what to reject. And don't worry if anything you write sounds terrible, because it's just an exercise. No-one cares about student pieces or exercises, they care about the good work that eventually results from doing all of that.