Naming a piece of music?

Although I know I've made almost zero posts in this forum and never presented you all with any of my work, I consider myself a fairly decent (if not good) composer. However, there is always--ALWAYS--one part of composing music that causes me problems: naming a piece.

What are you methods for naming a piece? I usually find myself getting angry and deciding on something like, "Woodwind Quartet No. 1 in Eb Major," which is, of course, not exciting by any means.

Thanks in advance. :blush:

1 - Be creative. I can usually come up with something that the music reminds me of. If not, it may not be very interesting music. It doesn't matter if the music reminds others of the title, just that you name the piece.

2 - Open a nearby book to a random page. Place your finger on a random part. Proceed until you find something acceptable.

I usually think of a title first and then write the piece. So titling a piece is not reaaally a problem for me. It's the deadlines that are killing me.. :P

Thanks, guys. That helps. =]

Finding titles is a huge problem for me too and often others (teachers, collegues, family, etc.) have found a title for one of my pieces that I liked and chose to keep.

If I think about titles I never try to "summarize" my piece with it. That is futile anyways, since there's no way you can pack an entire piece of music into a single word (with the possible exception of some extremely conceptual stuff). I therefore don't see my titles as a description of the piece, but merely as one more element that comes to it, opening a range of contexts in which the piece may be understood, or offering new positions from which the piece might be regarded. Therefore they tend to be very open.

I don't like it when a title anticipates the whole listening experience, i.e. already offers so clear and restricted images that the piece only can be heared as a part of these images and as nothing else. This is especially the case when a title matches common connotations of the musical content of the piece too closely. For example if I had a short piece beginning with a glissando, after which a really loud bang and noises follow and I'd name it "Car Crash", that would - for my taste - just be too close to a very typical connotation to the music, or in other words: It would fit so well that it would nullify any subjective experience and phantasy for the listener, and it would be hard to listen to it as -music-, as all you'd hear would be "Car Crash". And if you named the same piece "Hiroshima" the connotations would be different, but also very clear and might lead to a very one-dimensional listening experience.

If, however, you'd name the same piece "Daffodils" it probably would just sound random to the listener and she or he couldn't relate it to the music at all. A title like "Convolution", "Pause" or "Sudden Intensity" however (sorry, I'm just making up stuff quickly. None of these are actually good titles...) can be connected to the sound, yet is vague enough to allow for many different interpretations and listening perspectives, favouring a more eclectic way of listening. Therefore I usually just take one single aspect of my piece and go through metaphors and various connotations to find a title that sounds good (I find that one very important!), has some relevance to the piece or adds something to it in another way, but isn't too clear and concrete.

Personally I rather stay on the vague side, as I have a bit of a problem with pieces where the connotations in one direction are too strong. Many pieces of "musique concr

Very well thought out post, Gardener!

In my experience, I've found out that 'less is more' for titles. When I first started composing, I used very descriptive titles. These days, those descriptive titles are generally only for my eyes... when I make the final copy of the work, I invariably replace my titles with a more generic one - unless I'm specifically creating an 'impressionistic' work.

For example, my latest work for strings, nuages, is highly impressionistic, with movements titled brume, brouillard, and temp

Gah! I hate entitling my works.

Thus, most of my catalogue is made up of "sonata", "symphony", etc... all names based purely on the form.

As a matter of fact, I have exactly... umm, let me count... uh... one! work in my catalogue that is in any way programmatic. So finding pretty names seems sort of pointless to me... well, in regard to my music I mean.

Unless the piece of music REALLY means something specific to you, why bother with "finding a title". When the right title comes to you, you will know. Meanwhile, you won't sound like a pretentious jacka** with pseudo-scientific titles for works that have absolutely nothing to do with the title.

If anything, nicknames have a way of attaching themselves, much to the chagrin (I think) of the composers.

Some very interesting ideas. Really guys, thanks. Some of the things you've said have made me think about exactly what a title means to me, which really helps with the problem I was having. Thanks again. =]

There's always the Zappa method. Who can forget titles like "Peaches en regalia" or "Duodenum"? Titles like this activate the 'wtf?' factor. I'd be more inclined to listen to them than to 'Sonata No. 55,000 in d#m'. I have followed this method in titling my own pieces. I've written "Millet+2" and "Yummy Pizzicato", to name a couple. The second is sort of midway between Zappa and normal, as far as its nomenclature.

In case you don't know who Frank Zappa is, enrich you musical knowledge by watching

I submitted a piece to a competition called Xabejmrl.

It won (it was on YC actually) but I was told to get a real title.

I refused.

There's always the Zappa method. Who can forget titles like "Peaches en regalia" or "Duodenum"? Titles like this activate the 'wtf?' factor. I'd be more inclined to listen to them than to 'Sonata No. 55,000 in d#m'. I have followed this method in titling my own pieces. I've written "Millet+2" and "Yummy Pizzicato", to name a couple. The second is sort of midway between Zappa and normal, as far as its nomenclature.

In case you don't know who Frank Zappa is, enrich you musical knowledge by watching

. A good taste of his music, and his sense of Dadaist humor.

I sort of follow that method, but my titles are sometimes weirder and not just random.

I also named pieces after badass psychological terms.

I title my works usually mid-way through the writing, and they're quite often based on a concept that appears during the writing process. For instance, my solo organ piece "Memeplex," was titled just before I wrote the final coda, when I realized that, like a memeplex, my piece was made up of a bunch of smaller, more fundamental concepts, to form one big one.

My string quartet, in three movements, was based on a quote from William Faulkner, and that happened after the first movement was completed. After that, the quote ("And maybe when He says rise, the eyes will come floating up too, out of the deep quiet...") became the impetus for the last two movements.

My most recent small-instrumental work, "Mr. Smith's Amazing Flying Bicycle," for flute and piano, was named after the composition was complete. It was just an impression I got from the sound of the music.

what does the piece remind you of?

have others listen to it....what does it remind them?

When the right title comes to you, you will know. Meanwhile, you won't sound like a pretentious jacka** with pseudo-scientific titles for works that have absolutely nothing to do with the title.

Quite funny to see a moderator swear! Hahahaha!!!

Anyway, I name mine "Wedding Music Suite" (for my sister wedding), "Concertino for Recorder and strings" ; "Scherzo (no 1 - 24) ; "Sonata in C# minor" ; "Recorder Bravura # 1 - 3" (ect) ;

A simple name, yet add something more to it. As in "Wedding Music Suite" or "Recorder" what? "Recorder Bravura!

Hope it helps!

I suppose it depends on what style your writing- I find it's a lot easier to write the piece after you've had the title than the other way around.

But sometimes it doesn't work like that, which is when I pull out the most rediculous pun from my hat (Cafe Salmonella, Contemplations in J Minor, Black Thursday, Nothing Kid, Anti-Gone). You might name it after someone you know (Lysa) or just open a dictionary and use whatever word pops out (Orange), or a place (Hotel Monday) or an entirely made-up word (The Gagiloglex Society).

That's just me.:whistling:

But does depend on the style- Groovement wouldn't work for a piano trio, and Sonata No. 3 in C#minor wouldn't really work for a nine-piece heavy metal group.

~Kal

Sonata No. 3 in C#minor wouldn't really work for a nine-piece heavy metal group.

Mekong Delta begs to differ.

Mekong Delta begs to differ.

Pictures at an exhibition....wow.....

~Kal

Did you forget a [sarcasm] tag?

Did you forget a [sarcasm] tag?

Lol, no, I thought it was pretty cool;).....

~Kal

Tight.

Tone is hard to discern on the interwebs.

Tight.

Tone is hard to discern on the interwebs.

Did you forget a [sarcasm] tag?

~Kal

lol, j/k:P

Most of the time, titling a song is the first thing that I do, therefore, it gives me something that I actuallly care about enough to continue writing. I've written about emotions. I'm working on compositions that have many parts, but they're all based on different human emotions. IE...humor, pain, depression.

I guess that would work too, but I wouldn't know. I've actually started working on pieces for a play that I'm writing. It's about a group of friends that have their first band camp even though they are juniors and seniors in high school.

For me,

I usually, like many of the other young composers I've read in this thread, come up with the title first. Now, I like to come up with titles that I feel will be exciting to both the audience and myself. For example, I currently writing my first symphony entitled "Symphony No. 1 - The Dark Years. Now, that title could mean a lot of things and that's what I try to convey, but, the title is really about one idea. I don't really want to share the idea because I will end up giving away everything I'm working so hard on. So, I'll leave it at that.

To help you out, try thinking really hard about what you want to convey and come up with a generic title that seems to suit the work for the time being. After you have finished with the work, you could either keep the generic title or come up with an even greater title that you feel successfully captures the essence of your work.

Peace,

C. Winston