Sparks of Genius

In the book Sparks of Genius, the authors indicate the tools for creativity;

observing (perhaps watching someone else perform, practice or compose)

imaging (replaying what you observed)

hearing (attending a performance, listening to CDs)

feeling (noticing what your body does while playing an instrument)

abstracting (making things simpler)

recognizing patterns (Seeing that a pop song usually has at least 2 sections and each section usually has at least two phrases etc...)

pattern forming (composition or improvisation)

body thinking (proprioception=our bodies know how to do things and we don't know that until after we've already done them.)

analogizing (composition is like a recipe, composition is like a language)

empathizing (knowing that what makes an emotional response in oneself is also what may work for others)

dimensional thinking (depth and space of instruments when engineering a recording)

modeling (building models based on theories and then testing the theories to see if they work in the real world)

playing (with distinctions, boudnaries, unassailable truths and limits of utility)

transforming (inversion, retrograde, retrograde-inversion etc..)

synthesizing (sense impressions, feelings, knowledge, and memories come together in a multimodal, unified way)

A realization came to me that when the Gongster is making a list of rhythms or most common solutions to the melodic puzzle, that is the act of abstraction: simplifying things which was based on patterns recognized in the research cited and will be available for use when reaching the stage of new pattern formation.

The tiles with all the rhythms and melodic cells written on them are the same as models, just like the authors talk about. The model was built to test my theories in the real world. We can experiment with combinging them in different, hopefully surprising ways (retrograde, rhythmic mode, simultaneous) which would be the act of play.

Here are my new rhythmic tiles for just such a purpose and an example combination creating an a), b), c), d) arrangement.

We can experiment with combinging them in different, hopefully surprising ways (retrograde, rhythmic mode, simultaneous) which would be the act of play.

Interesting. My preference would be to simply write canons which also forces on to work within certain constraints. Music without constraints is just noise.

uh huh...

"The Gongster" strikes again...

Did you actually just call yourself the Gongster, or did I imagine that?

Also wanted to mention interlocking rhythms as something to play with.

uh huh...

"The Gongster" strikes again...

Did you actually just call yourself the Gongster, or did I imagine that?

*control+f*

A realization came to me that when the Gongster is making a list of rhythms or most common solutions to the melodic puzzle, that is the act of abstraction:

When will this nightmare end!?

I cannot help myself I have to tear into this --- I mean little sticks of wood inscribed with a code without a cipher --- well why don't I proffer my stupendously genius spiderweb arrangements of used dental floss to signify the melodic/rhythmic patterns of the garbage trucks and shrieks of misbehaved children in the streets on a summer city afternoon I recombined! Yes this should enlighten and inform us all!

What the hell? For real, every post I've seen you make has some wack-donkey theory in it and a picture of rhythms that you can pick and choose from. Why not post some of your own compositions instead of these weird, formulaic theories you come up with for music. You're going about this in an a + b = c way and it just looks ridiculous...

...little sticks of wood inscribed with a code without a cipher?

What code? It's just rhythms, right?

Sure....it's useless, but it's not indecipherable.

:whistling:

What..... why?

robin -

If it is not indecipherable then please translate those sticks.

robin -

If it is not indecipherable then please translate those sticks.

they're just basic rhythms.

nothing TO decypher.

look at them, quarter notes (well, the stems), 8ths and 16ths...

I've actually used something similiar to this when writing, but only when I want the illusion of chaos - usually for background figures. I'm nowhere near obsessive enough to go to the trouble of drawing up a huge list however... it seems as if one would waste more time preparing to write than actually writing.

I would think that one would show genius more readily if one finishes what one starts, rather than theorizing one's self into a corner.

EDIT: We are not amused.

It kind of reminds me of my preliminary work for my last orchestra piece, where I sat down to write big rhythm tables for a month or so. And that was just the rhythmic concept. Although, I wrote them on paper, not wood. Interesting choice, that!

This "series" of posts reminds me of what i did in math for a year and half. I decided to figure out how to square and cube a number "without out squaring or cubing them" (makes just as much sense, I know) I ended up filling pages after pages of numbers and patterns... like our friend here.

I did.. but the squared one was simple and irritatingly something i should have noticed an hour into it rather than 6 months. and the cubed one was huge, in deep need of simplifiaction and useless... but man did i feel smart for a little while... lol.

Note: I am too lazy to hunt up the formulas at this point... if someone really, truly wants to see them, let me know... (I'll only complain a little.)

... or maybe I'll make a post something on here, complete with pictures, ramblings, and rhetorical questions... maybe...

"without out squaring or cubing them"

By adding them?

lol, i didn't want to do that either. I went out of my way to make it complicated-ish...

This. Guy. Is. HILARIOUS!!!

I think it might be productive to engage in a discussion every once in a while rather than trying to gradually accumulate yourself a textbook from your various musings and expermients conducted with tiles.

Trust me, Beethoven would have been RUBBISH if he spent all his time tile-arranging. I think if you want to consider yourself an authority on music you should spend your time dilligently composing it like Mich does, don't come on here reading books at us.

I'm reminded of a philosophy forum I was on... instead of engaging in any kind of discussion there was this guy who would just come into threads or start his own typing out passages from the bible.

Long story short, please please PLEASE stop preaching at us.

robin -

If it is not indecipherable then please translate those sticks.

Are you serious? It's easy, because:

they're just basic rhythms. nothing TO decypher.

look at them, quarter notes (well, the stems), 8ths and 16ths...

^^^

Does that answer your question composerorganist?

:whistling:

Trust me, Beethoven would have been RUBBISH if he spent all his time tile-arranging.

Well, you never know that. And he and many other composers probably did spend a lot of time on thinking about structures before writing down a symphony. Some composers did it more, some less. But of course eventually they all wrote down some music.

So, I don't think it's bad if you spend a long time thinking about the foundations of your piece, but you shouldn't get lost in it if you actually want to compose. And of course, for outsiders such as us in this case, it's much easier to get a connection to such theoretical ideas if we see them in the context of an actual piece.