Change over time

I'm not sure if this is the right section...

This may seem like an odd question, but stay with me.

How does one keep the same method through a piece? I find that when I'm writing, or arranging, a piece of music the way I orchestrate, etc a part changes as I learn and progress through the piece. I don't mean to say that its a bad thing, it adds some variation, but it frustrates me a little when I go back and am then unhappy with the beginning.

Am I the only one who does this? It does seem to be happening less pronounced as I learn more and develop a style. What about in a symphony that takes years to write? :blush::unsure:

I have this all the time. Usually when I get to the editing stage of a piece, I end up completely changing the exposition... It is just that I can include material that will be heard later and I end up making a better flow. But... That isn't always the best solution.

I find that if you look at a piece wholly, it is very easy to see which parts fit and which don't. You have to be objective and let yourself change things. If something doesn't fit, you'll know it if you have a half decent ear.

the quickest solution would be to write faster... hehe i'm clever

seriously folks,

i think thats part of being a "young composer" each work shows growth and even work within the individual piece shows growth. I agree with morivou, editing is key here. re touching the exposition, beginning, what have you is the best way to solve this "problem"

also, be grateful that this is the "problem" your facing in your music. you're growing so quickly that its apparent within a piece. thats a good "problem" to have...

also, be grateful that this is the "problem" your facing in your music. you're growing so quickly that its apparent within a piece. thats a good "problem" to have...

I guess you learn fastest at the beginning :P

Well, Bruckner changed his symphonies over and over again, so none of them were actually ever truly "finished". Others simply let stuff rest, knowing that it's "not up to one's current standards", but decided simply to leave it behind and work on new things. Mostly a matter of personal preference, I think.

Concerning the process of writing one long piece, it also depends a bit on how you write it. If you take three years writing a large-scale orchestral piece by starting at the beginning and slowly working towards the end, it's only natural that your perspective will change during that time and you probably will have a slightly different approach at the end than you had at the beginning. This is not per se a bad thing of course. It actually may even be a quality of your piece that it doesn't just stick to one point of view for an hour, but actually begins to change its perspective on the same material over time, and maybe even involves a critical review on what you wrote first.

But a lot of composers approach such a piece a lot differently in the first place. Instead of writing a piece one bar after the other over a long time, you might approach it from a more "global" perspective, spending your first months on thinking about the larger ideas and questions then begin to plan actual formal structures, and slowly go down to the details. By concentrating on the large aspects first and slowly going down to the more concrete and detailed things like this, it probably will be much easier to maintain a coherence in a piece that takes a long time to write. And while you still may "grow" during the process of writing the piece, this won't have the effect of disrupting the actual flow of the piece.

Personally, I can -only- compose like that when I'm writing something a bit bigger. Otherwise I get lost in details much too soon, before I even know for sure what I want with the whole piece.

Well, Bruckner changed his symphonies over and over again, so none of them were actually ever truly "finished".

that's just false. sorry, but yes, some of his symphonies, he edited over and over again. Like the 1,2,3rd,4th,8th (mainly the early ones) But, a few he didn't do anything to, like the 5th(2versions, but the other version was edited by Schalk), 6th, 7(also edited by lesser minds). Not surprisingly, these were his best works. So to claim that "none of them were actually ever truly finished" is simply not true.

It's like making crepes or blintzes: the first one always fails, gets overdone or underdone or ends up deformed. Consider abandoning the first thing you did and replacing it with something new that matches the flow you discovered while working on the rest of the piece. Some major historical writer (I forget who; Wilde maybe?) even insisted that the results of one's first idea must be abandoned and phased out of the work in order for the work to be truly finished.

Some major historical writer (I forget who; Wilde maybe?) even insisted that the results of one's first idea must be abandoned and phased out of the work in order for the work to be truly finished.

I agree with that. I always spend tons of time on my initial ideas, throw it out, then write the piece. It is actually a really good way to get to know the system you're working with (be it A major, an all-interval 12-tone row, or 31-tone equal temperament) and actually get comfortable with it. Once you're comfortable, you're actually able to write something worth wile, something a little more than just playing around with your material.

that's just false. sorry, but yes, some of his symphonies, he edited over and over again. Like the 1,2,3rd,4th,8th (mainly the early ones) But, a few he didn't do anything to, like the 5th(2versions, but the other version was edited by Schalk), 6th, 7(also edited by lesser minds). Not surprisingly, these were his best works. So to claim that "none of them were actually ever truly finished" is simply not true.

My apologies. You are of course right. I actually only wanted to say that he often revised his works, without making an exact statement (and without actually having studied the history of his symphonies in depth). "None of them" was more meant as a broad colloquial remark than a precise statement. But you are of course right by insisting on the exact facts.

do revise your work, and put all those plans that you really wanted for.