Compositional Tendencies/ Musical Signature

What are your compositional tendencies and characteristics? What is the one or more things that are almost of a feature of your work, such as favoring openness in your orchestration, favoring a particular instrument even in large ensemble works, favoring ostinato patters, favoring a specific key or keys, utilizing particular electronics, over or under orchestrating, ect..

What I am basically asking is, what is it that you do in the majority of your piece that could be considered your musical signature, the one thing that an audience would recognize as something you would do, be it intentional or accidental?

And

What are some of the things you are experimenting with in your music?

I'd say mine is having a strong melody and using minor keys...Lots and lots of minor keys...

Also, I write generally for the piano, if that counts.

I've been trying to use more than the i and V chords in my songs, so that's what I've been experimenting with because I'm still new to composing. :)

I do the "pretty dissonance" thing, in choral and band writing, though I'm currently pushing the boundaries to full-on polytonality. I especially like the major/minor chord with the same root (like Bb Db D F for example).

What about you, HMMMMMMMMMM?!?!?!?

Lots of tritones, major sevenths, minor seconds...pointillistic writing. Extended technique and clusters.

Well, there are recurring ideas in my pieces, but they are usually on a rather abstract level that you wouldn't usually perceive just by listening to them. And they aren't "signatures" anyways, they are just the things that preoccupy me for a while and mutate all the time into slightly different things.

I actually try to avoid things like signatures. It may sound weird, but I'd like nothing more than never having a distinctly audible style. Of course, I know I can't totally avoid that, but I'd still love it if each of my pieces sounded completely fresh and new.

I definitely favor lower voices for more complex parts. (I am a bassist, after al :))

Lots of voice independence.

Conceptual over practical.

Brief moments of melody broken up.

Non-western influence.

Low orchestration, more like voicing than orchestrating.

I tend to make ostinato patterns in my solo and chamber works that have a piano which tends to piss off piano players when they have a page of the same thing (-.-)b.

I just recently got out of an Atonal period and have slowly drifted into a very some very loose tonalities.

Im also a fan of muddiness, I tend to write pieces with the basses being thirds and seconds apart from each other. There is something about that I just like.

My biggest flag that screams "THIS PIECE WAS WRITTEN BY THIS GUY" is that I tend to over orchestrate. In a large ensemble piece of mine it can be pretty much expected to hear 4 or more main melodies and every instrument playing at the same time of large portions of the piece. I once considered it a really bad habit of mine that I tried to fix but now I kind of embrace it to the point to were I kind of encourage it.

Some things I am trying to experiment musically is electro-acoustics. I have done a piece that was for Tape and Voice but I would like to delve into it some more.

I would also like to try incorporate narration in some of my pieces in the future.

Im also trying to use more quintal and quartal chords as well as parallel perfect fifths and fourths to make more ambiguous keys. I recently tried this with a latest choral piece and I liked it a lot.

I'd say mine is having a strong melody and using minor keys...Lots and lots of minor keys...

The same with me......and the usage of the 4th in minor chords....

My comp. style is VERY difficult rhythms. It may not LOOK like it when you look at it for the first time... but in reading and actually playing, even I have difficulty with my own stuff. But, it isn't difficult as much as complex. About a year ago, I was told that my rhythms were too simple... and as such I have broken that habit. ALSO, I tend to be VERY influenced by strong dissonance (I am currently writing a theory textbook called the Consonance of Dissonance). Finally, I tend to favor the modern idiom with pseudo-classical techniques... which I find to be very pleasing to the ear because it's relatable, it has form, but it has a contemporary sound that won't be 15 violins screeching at their highest note... :)

I have an obsession with repeated notes - there are a lot of passages in my pieces where one note is played over and over again for a while. That's not really a "musical signature," though.

I have an obsession with repeated notes - there are a lot of passages in my pieces where one note is played over and over again for a while. That's not really a "musical signature," though.

It can be very characteristic if you use similar patterns.

my tendency is to write almost everything in a minor... i dunno why..

also i noticed that i tend to write things for things of like concert pitches.. if that makes sense.. like write for 4 clarinets, or clarinets and trumpets.. or anything else Bb...

also.. a bad habit of mine is to use playback too much and get distracted from my original idea and my piece turns to rambling...

As Messiaen said "It's always dangerous to speak about oneself" but I'm bored so why not?

I don't really want to claim that I HAVE a style yet as I recognize I am still very young and inexperienced but a few tendencies I've noticed in my music:

An obsession with the Ionian and Lydian modes (Eb Major in particular I appear to be attracted to)

Very frequent modulations

Little to no resolution in harmony whatsoever

Frequent seventh and ninth extensions to chords (and to a lesser degree, tritone extensions)

Large amounts of development with little source material

The manipulation of two rhythmic cells where one is always left intact while the other can be manipulated by augmentation and diminution

Loose time signatures

Syncopation

An increasing interest in contrapuntal textures over homophonic

Well, there are recurring ideas in my pieces, but they are usually on a rather abstract level that you wouldn't usually perceive just by listening to them. And they aren't "signatures" anyways, they are just the things that preoccupy me for a while and mutate all the time into slightly different things.

I actually try to avoid things like signatures. It may sound weird, but I'd like nothing more than never having a distinctly audible style. Of course, I know I can't totally avoid that, but I'd still love it if each of my pieces sounded completely fresh and new.

In my ears, this is a very "abstract" post. I wonder what your "things" are, musically? Particular motives, phrases, melodies, harmonies, rhythms, meters

In my ears, this is a very "abstract" post. I wonder what your "things" are, musically? Particular motives, phrases, melodies, harmonies, rhythms, meters – or nothing of that at all?

Oh yes, it's certainly abstract. The point is, if there are such things I'm not consciously aware of them, or at least I don't remember them right now. The "recurring ideas" are more the theoretical and structural backgrounds of my pieces than any concrete musical elements. And they are too vague and broad to be able to sum them up quickly.

The only thing that comes to mind is, that your

Oh yes, it's certainly abstract. The point is, if there are such things I'm not consciously aware of them, or at least I don't remember them right now. The "recurring ideas" are more the theoretical and structural backgrounds of my pieces than any concrete musical elements. And they are too vague and broad to be able to sum them up quickly.

OK then, "theoretical and structural backgrounds". Could you elaborate a bit on this (even if they are too vague and broad)? Because I'm really courious.

As Messiaen said "It's always dangerous to speak about oneself"

And then he went and wrote an entire book...about himself.

Hansen: Well, I don't want to seize this thread with my stuff, but since it still more or less falls under the question of the OP, I'll give you a quick example:

One recurring topic that has slowly emerged over the last two years or so is the question of how observation and description change the objects they focus on and how the discrepancies between different representations of the same thing can turn into an artistic structure of their own. So there are often processes of analysis, dissection or (since you speak German and I don't know a good English equivalent of it) "Rasterung" in my pieces, which break down some (often relatively irrelevant) material into little analytical slices, in which I try to focus on the actual process of dissection and neither the original form nor its final results. But see, even if I give an example it stays very abstract and probably won't tell anyone how my music sounds. It's just the thoughts that drive me in the process of composition.

There are also often very graphical aspects in my composition process, i.e. I like to visualise my ideas as graphical, often threedimensional forms which then somehow get projected into a piece of music. But again, this is all "behind the scenes" stuff, which is probably not an actually audible property of my music (even if it certainly influences these audible properties to a great degree).

If you want to know more, we can discuss it in PMs, in order not to further sidetrack this thread.

And then he went and wrote an entire book...about himself.

In fact, that's actually how he *opens* the book. ;)

Hansen: Well, I don't want to seize this thread with my stuff, but since it still more or less falls under the question of the OP, I'll give you a quick example:

One recurring topic that has slowly emerged over the last two years or so is the question of how observation and description change the objects they focus on and how the discrepancies between different representations of the same thing can turn into an artistic structure of their own. So there are often processes of analysis, dissection or (since you speak German and I don't know a good English equivalent of it) "Rasterung" in my pieces, which break down some (often relatively irrelevant) material into little analytical slices, in which I try to focus on the actual process of dissection and neither the original form nor its final results. But see, even if I give an example it stays very abstract and probably won't tell anyone how my music sounds. It's just the thoughts that drive me in the process of composition.

There are also often very graphical aspects in my composition process, i.e. I like to visualise my ideas as graphical, often threedimensional forms which then somehow get projected into a piece of music. But again, this is all "behind the scenes" stuff, which is probably not an actually audible property of my music (even if it certainly influences these audible properties to a great degree).

If you want to know more, we can discuss it in PMs, in order not to further sidetrack this thread.

As far as I understand you, are you basically involved in the process of composing, in the ideas which further composition, in the inner working of your musical mind?

This is very much similar to my thinking. If I had to describe my "peronal style", or my "musical signature", then I would say, I have none so far. And there's an easy way to explain this: I'm primarily a "re-composer" of Mozart pieces, in particular by completing fragmentary works of Mozart as playable pieces. Since I try to compose as strict as possible in the style of Mozart, I can't have a personal style and I don't want to have one. On the other hand, I have definite ideas of composing in a contemporary style [based on my ideas for a new theory of harmony, the isocord theory] where I could devise a musical signature of my own. But I'm unsure how it should develop, since composing with isocords in a strict way is rather new anyhow.

Maybe you're right, we should exchange ideas in some PMs

Well for one thing, I am obsessed with metric accuracy. I cannot stand the loose piano-player tempo and such. May have something to do with me being a drummer... Also I like to mix rock-electronic and cinematic orchestral music and that is kind of my goal whenever I create something which is not asked to be strictly "that-and-that" genre. Also I'm very fond of sus chords, they grew on me ever since I discovered them, although they give me some trouble with progressions. Strings, horns and choirs, together with synths, electric guitars and drum sets are my instruments of choice. Sometimes a flute here and there... :)

I have several compositional tendencies, and unlike Phantom I tend to be obsessed with metric inaccuracy, while at the same time the groove needs to be tight ....HAHA!!

• Emphasis on bass movement over static harmony. Not necessarily changing the "root" but having some melodic content in the bass.
  
• Strong rhythmic content - I tend to develop a lot of my material through rhythmic devices.
  
• Melodies tend to be longer, and "floaty" - something that fascinates me is having freely interpreted melodies over strong rhythmic textures.
  
• Harmonically: Phrygian, specifically 7sus(b9) voicings, and Aeolian, min(b6).
  
• Harmonic/rhythmic/melodic textures tend to be dark, heavy and ominous... lots of low end, powerchord/open-5ths on the bottom with really close voicings.
  

My my, this is not the thread for me!

I want to say, like Gardener, that I really don't have any style or musical signature that easily identifies my music as my own, but not for the same reason Gardener says it. As far as compositional process I am the complete opposite. I write notes. Doesn't get much simpler than that. When I write my music, I try not to think too hard and let the music do what it wants to, and that must only be true because if you asked me about my compositional process, I really have nothing else to say. As a result, I think my pieces tend to be rather diverse, though they typically avoid certain genres, such as "atonal" music, avant-garde, electronic, etc.. I've written Mozartian classical music, a baroquian/romantic recorder etude, random early baroquian other stuffs, jazz/swing/bluseian stuff, incidental/videogameish music (often), but a blanket term of "19th century" tends to capture a lot of my music, even my band music, according to some people.

If I could cite any tendencies...

• Strong emphasis on a single distinct tonality at any given time.
  
• Mostly diatonic material. I rarely play with chromaticism.
  
• Resolution. If I incorporate dissonance, which I love doing lately, I usually find a way to resolve it. Lately I've had more interest in playing around and throwing in dissonant chords for the hell of it, and to me it only sounds complete once resolved or taken in some direction immediately.
  
• V-I and V-i
  
• Emphasis on vertical thinking underneath an effective theme, motif, or melody. I'm often very good at thematic material, but I lack the horizontal inclinations to compliment the material I come up with - so everything has to fit in a definite chord structure for me.
  
• Never giving boring parts to instrumentalist. Since I know how to play the instruments, I know how to write for them, so if I find myself giving somebody a boring part, I find them a place to give them something interesting and balance it out.
  
• No fear of extreme registers and giving horns parts that are easy with alt. fingerings but look hard at first glance.
  
• Distinct sections. I don't like long fuzzy transitions, or material that muddily doesn't seem to fit one section or another. I like my listeners to know when I go from (A) to (B), damn it!
  
• Short sections/movement/pieces. Right now the longest piece I've written that wasn't in multiple movements was eight minutes or something. And that was a theme and variations where each variation resolved into the next very directly. This may be mostly because I think I have ADD and can't write a melody longer than 4 measures. :pinch:
  
• Many ideas, but lack of development.

Like James, I just write notes. Then I add nice descriptive titles.

• Rhythm: I often make use of complex time signature changes (e.g. 7/8 to 10/8 to 5/8 etc.), short rhythmic motives of maybe 4-5 notes and repetition of melodic motives with slightly different rhythms.
  
• Dissonant harmonies (usually with 4-6 separate pitches in a chord, sometimes more) but with occasional "nicer" chords like major 7ths and minor 7ths to provide some resolution.
  
• In my faster music, I like to have a short, catchy melodic idea that comes back in a variety of different forms throughout the momement or work.
  
• Lyrical slower melodies, generally shifting in tonality very frequently.
  
• I tend to favour ternary form - even when I use a freer form the opening idea usually returns in its original form (or almost in its original form) somewhere towards the end. This is an area I'm working on expanding in.
  
• Imitative counterpoint (fugues, fugatos, canons, things resembling canons and fugues etc.) as well as some homophony and occasionally more complex polyphony.
  

I won't specify, but I do have compositional 'signatures' in all of my works. I have a certain way of constructing certain harmonies and voicings; I use it as a form of copy-protection. If anyone ever tried to steal something I wrote, I could easily point out my constructed signatures. :)