Immediate Notes

Ok, so you log on to Young Composers, and see the most recent posts and there is...I dunno...a string quartet or something. So...that sparks your interest and you click and open it to listen. The midi loads with dignified speed, and you await the piece to start. It does, and your interest plummits upon hearing the first 10 notes...

At the beginning of this year, I went to an Australasian piano Summer School (a selection of auditioned kids have masterclasses for a whole week) and we had a very awesome pianist take masterclasses with us every day "Michael Leslie" was his name. One of the things he taught us, and probably the thing that stuck with me the most was, "Make the first note count".

This is an opinion, but see the logic behind it:

The first note of a piece is the note that everyone hears...well...first. Duh. So, with this note, you as an instrumentalist/composer need to make this the foundation note of your entire piece. No matter if the piece is Tempo 400, or Tempo 30, the first note needs to lay the foundation for your listeners. Think of it as: You have one Bar to grab the audience attention. If you fail at doing this, the rest will suck unless you play the Recapitulation with your feet.

So...the point of this post:

Firstly: Post your opinion; either for or against mine.

Secondly: Please Please Please - GRAB MY ATTENTION WITHIN THE FIRST BAR. Yes, this is possible with a Midi recording. This is your foundation bar; the bar where you say: I AM A MUSICIAN!

bump

The only issue I see with this is the danger of falling into a formulaic "movie music" type of writing.

Sometimes, something worth saying starts with an introduction, and doesn't really "get going" for a bit. However, for the satisfaction of the over all form it works with that lengthy introductory passage.

It might also be important to note that something that doesn't catch YOUR particular attention immediately MIGHT catch someone else's.

I can't say that I agree that the "first note" should be the foundation of an entire piece. It might work for a brief piece, or for a movie cue, but for a lengthy work it isn't necessarily the wisest move. Large forms take time to establish.

Hmm, i actually like what you guys have to say.

QC: Yea, i agree that what i may not find interesting may to someone else appear interesting. Hence, it becomes a personal judgment. But as to the comment of 'greater/larger scaled' works taking longer to start up...i kind of meant my 'first bar/10 notes' comment to be taken relatively; a small 32 bar work vs. a large 3560 bar work...pretty much...the first 1.75% of the piece.

But yes...personal opinion. I think what sparked this post is actually the fact that I listened to a piece that was just uninteresting. The start was just blase' and too sudden...the chord progression 'pop'-ee. However, this then goes into discussion of the composition ability of people...so I'll stay away from that.

But yea, personal opinion.

Personally I find the beginning of pieces extremely important too. And the ending. However, for me that doesn't necessarily have to mean "grab ones attention". It just needs to be thought about with great care. (And that can even mean deciding on a beginning that is meant to sound almost arbitrary and without a clear direction, which might then slowly gain a direction, or something very concrete breaks in, or maybe it even stays rather vague and nothing "exciting" happens at all.)

But generally I prefer a piece that gets more and more interesting the longer it lasts to a piece that starts with a "Whoah"-effect and then gets boring. ;)

I totally get what you are saying goodridge!!! Its so important.

If my song is playing on the radio and the first bar doesn't "grab" the listener and they change stations, so be it. Hell, at least my song made it to the radio!

But I mainly live in the world of live performance. One hopes that the audience is there to listen to the music and not dismiss it after one bar. This is not to say that every note shouldn't count, because it should, but a song is a journey. And when I say "song" I mean that in the most vague way possible, be it string quartet, symphony, choral piece or pop song. I wouldn't say you need to "grab" the listener, but you do want to make them want to listen. One also wants to be careful about putting the "best part" first, thereby diminishing its power and rushing the piece.

I agree with both opinions. The piece should build and develop, drawing the listener along...but also needs to provide something for the listener to latch onto at the beginning. It doesn't need to be the most amazing or spectacular introduction, but something that grabs their attention and sucks them in.

...

Within the first bar? No. Unless My first bar is 132/4 at 60 bpm, then sure:).

Well, the piece should have an idea of what it's doing right in the first bar... like I guess it should in every bar. If it does that, I suspect that it will be interesting. Same goes for performers, although in that case it requires so much concentration to get it right without relying on an already existing "flow" that it makes very much sense to think of the first note as just about the most crucial one.

Before i go on and read all the other posts, i wanna go back on what i said after corbin and QC.

No I dont agree with what you say in regards to a piece grabbing people's attention later on in the piece, because the beginning needs to build. Lets say that 1 minute and 45 seconds into the piece, it really starts to pick up in this large scale work and is so penetrating to grab attention...the beginning was warming us up...; unless that 'warm up' is well thought out...you have wasted 1:45 of time in music. These warm up notes can still grab attention too.

By attention I dont mean you need massive harmonic blasts and God-like Orchestration, but they need to be well articulated enough to seem like important notes. I dislike when people say that 'this note was not so important, as it just had to lead on to this more important note'. GOSH. every single note in your score needs to be important...its then a matter of what ones are meant to stand out the most, and what ones are there to support them.

Moldau from Smetana...the river one...now that is an example of a well thought out and attention grabbing 'warm up'. The first notes are given dignity, and are not unimportant. They paint a picture (duh, its a symphonic poem) of a trickling stream. This is not to say that your notes HAVE to paint a picture when you place them, but make them interesting.

Bleh - its hard to argue my point when its my birthday, and its early, and i cant be stuffed.

All the above...personal opinion.

Lets say that 1 minute and 45 seconds into the piece, it really starts to pick up in this large scale work and is so penetrating to grab attention...the beginning was warming us up...; unless that 'warm up' is well thought out...you have wasted 1:45 of time in music.

Damn kids today, give it to me now or never bullshit.

...yea, but if you composed the stuff before it, would you be happy if someone told you that is was non-interesting, and then at 1:45 it was awesome. My point is that the immediate notes shouldn't be crap, and even if they are not as interesting as the part at 1:45, they shouldnt be a waste of the composers time. He may indeed need to build it up, but that can be done well.

Plus if the 1:45 part had of caught my ear due to everything else before it, then the stuff before it must have been thought out well enough for me to have lasted as long as 1:45.

If a piece of music is good, it should inherently grab your attention, regardless of whether or not it has an epic opening. An opening shouldn't be strained to accomodate the "wow" factor.

I see what you're saying, but just having some massive/important few notes at the beginning can't account for the rest of the work, even though it may grab attention. But if it fits your intentions, then go ahead.

I guess what I'm saying is don't come up with some contrived introduction and then fail to back it up musically.

...yea, but if you composed the stuff before it, would you be happy if someone told you that is was non-interesting, and then at 1:45 it was awesome. My point is that the immediate notes shouldn't be crap, and even if they are not as interesting as the part at 1:45, they shouldnt be a waste of the composers time. He may indeed need to build it up, but that can be done well.

Plus if the 1:45 part had of caught my ear due to everything else before it, then the stuff before it must have been thought out well enough for me to have lasted as long as 1:45.

If I compose everything before 1:45, I would inform whomever told me the music was non-interesting prior to that point that 1:45 is only interesting because of everything before it.

You're right. The immediate notes should not be "crap" but something is crap only within context. I can take a random measure from an atonal composer and without context say, this is crap! However, when placed into the proper place in the music, it can become magically wonderful.

It should be said that even though it doesn't catch your attention, it might catch someone else's attention. I am not a fan of Mozart, but people say his work his brilliant. I don't care. I understand why his work his brilliant, but it doesn't catch my attention. Using your definition and your logic, then his work isn't very good. We know that's a lie. His work is masterfully crafted and my opinion doesn't change that.

In the same way, just because the first measure doesn't make you feel anything doesn't mean that someone else won't feel something from it.

Aw you're sweet. Make sure he knows it and buys me stuff.

Bigger breast than brain? Yes I know them.

In the same way, just because the first measure doesn't make you feel anything doesn't mean that someone else won't feel something from it.

It might also be important to note that something that doesn't catch YOUR particular attention immediately MIGHT catch someone else's.

Great minds think a like? Perhaps you should listen to them.

Two of the sexiest people on the board have the same belief. Coincidence? I think not!

So the dot signified disagreement? I really haven't kept up with the latest developments of internet jargon.