Is improvisation a form of composition?

This is a discussion from August of 2005. When I uploaded a composition to Record Hall, it made this the discussion thread for it. I have no idea why or how that happened, so I moved this discussion to Composer Headquarters, back where it was supposed to be. Now the thread appeared in both Composers HQ as well as the piano upload forum. So I deleted the composition from record hall to see what would happen and as a result the thread was lost forever. Here are the contents of the thread, minus one post:

@Derek (original poster): What is composition? Is it necessarily writing music out so that others might read and play it? Or can spontaneous improvisation also be considered composition? My own opinion is that spontaneous improvisation is simply instantaneous composition, which may or may not be transcribed or written down from memory at a later date.

: Whenever you create music you are composing, so I would say that improv is a form of composition, regardless of whether it is written down or not. Part of Beethoven's success as a "composer" came from his apparently bewildering ability to improvise at end for hours, some of the most beautiful melodies and themes according to legend and some documented proof. Just because this music was written down doesn't mean that it wasn't composed in his mind.

@jacob: I use the word "composition" whenever I wish to speak of the composer's activity and the traces left by it. The composer is motivated by a wish of bringing about that which without that composer and human intent would not happen." -- Herbert Brun

I like this usage.

: Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Aug 5 2005, 12:14 PM

It wasn't until Beethoven (ironically) and later that composers got a lot more particular about performers playing exactly what was written in the parts, and no more.� That was the beginning of the end for improvisation, and it wasn't effectively revived until the Jazz era - except in organ playing, where it has always been and remains an important part of an organist's training.� The organist/choirmaster at the church where I work is an absolutely brilliant improviser, though he's very humble about it.

Isn't someone here an organist?� Nick?� Jonathan?� I can't remember...

I just read Solomon's Mozart (great book by the way) and just to second your statement, apperently what he wrote down on paper for his piano concertos is only half of what he actually performed. It seems like a shame for us to lose what the master really wanted out of the piece just because he was too lazy and had too creative of a mind to actually write his intentions down. There are a few exceptions, true, like when he wrote a concerto for a not-so-advanced student, but for the most part we missed out.

No, I'm not a organist (thankfully). I believe Nick is though.

@J. Lee Graham: really long post that james accidentally lost.

@Marisa: Quote: Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Aug 5 2005, 11:14 AM

I heard a performance of Bach's 3rd Orchestral Suite performed by Musica Antiqua of Cologne recently.� The notes on the page were only the merest foundation for what they actually played...they improvised all the way through the piece, with the written music as a basis for it, and the result was astounding.

That's fascinating! How large is that ensemble, and how do they improvise at once as a group?

@J. Lee Graham: Quote

That's fascinating! How large is that ensemble, and how do they improvise at once as a group?

It's pretty small. The orchestral suites were written for just a little chamber orchestra - strings, oboes, bassoons, trumpets, timpani...I think that's it. And I can't imagine how they do it! There are rules and guidelines governing it, I know. They don't do it all at once, for one thing. Like in the slow part of the Overture, instead of just playing plain chords over the bass line, the harpsichordist improvises this wonderful filigree accompaniment, while the others play mostly note for note. In the famous Air, all the parts take full advantage of every opportunity for a tasteful embellishment, ornament or flourish, all seeming very much "in the moment." In the fast movements there is less of this, but still there are ornaments and flourishes all over the place that aren't in the score. It's very cool. The way that music was meant to be played.

@The Baroque Enthusiast: Quote

Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Aug 5 2005, 02:14 PM

Isn't someone here an organist?� Nick?� Jonathan?� I can't remember...

I'm an organist!!!! :D

I play organ too

I don't! :)

And immediately the delineation differentiating the new community from the old shows itself. People, the topic isn't about who plays organ or not! You're all silly.

Is improvisation a form of composition?

Sure, why can't it be?

Okay, I'll bite.

Improvisation is NOT a form of composition. Improvisation requires a completely different set of cognitive and psychomotor components than that of composition and occurs in "real-time" as opposed to occurring "over time" as composition is well-known for being a time-consuming activity.

One can use methods of improvisation in the activity of composition, and one can, I imagine, 'compose' an improvisation of a melody over a harmonic progression or vice versa. To call improvisation something like -composition- as we refer to it today is pluralistic, entirely subjective, and if you want to be absolute or certain that improv is comp then so be it.

Just realize that the cognitive and psychomotor activities within the brain are doing something completely different when you improvise as opposed to when you compose.

And that's my argument -opposing- the interchangeable usage of improvisation and composition. Truthfully, I think it splits hairs, but there it is...

What's in a definition? If you go with antiatonality's definition of composition that's fine. I go with a looser definition... something like "any potential collection of notes is a potential compositon; any realised collection of notes (be it in performance, or on paper, or in head, or any other way) is a composition", and this definition trivially includes things like 4'33 as an empty set.

I just hope people realise they when debating this issue, they may just be debating which definition of "composition" is right... an unanswerable question, perhaps.

Improvisation requires a completely different set of cognitive and psychomotor components than that of composition

Notice that by comparing improvisation to composition, you have already decided they are not the same thing. And anyway, writing an imitative (fugal) motet to a Latin text uses a completely different set of cognitave components to writing a pleasing capricious piece for guitar solo. This doesn't prove that one or other isn't composition.

and occurs in "real-time" as opposed to occurring "over time" as composition is well-known for being a time-consuming activity.

So you have decided that composition is defined as occuring "over time". That's fine, as long as you realise that it's an arbitrary choice, and anyone else can choose to lose that particular phrase.

Just realize that the cognitive and psychomotor activities within the brain are doing something completely different when you improvise as opposed to when you compose.

They are different, but not completely different.

Truthfully, I think it splits hairs, but there it is...

Agreed :D

What's in a definition? If you go with antiatonality's definition of composition that's fine. I go with a looser definition... something like "any potential collection of notes is a potential compositon; any realised collection of notes (be it in performance, or on paper, or in head, or any other way) is a composition", and this definition trivially includes things like 4'33 as an empty set.

Any potential/realized collection of notes could be a scale, which in and of itself is not what most would classify as "a composition" but instead "a scale." Universally, your definition is no more adequate than mine, but I won't sit here and tell you your definition is completely wrong either.

I just hope people realise they when debating this issue, they may just be debating which definition of "composition" is right... an unanswerable question, perhaps.

Hence why I said that the position is entirely subjective AND pluralistic.

Notice that by comparing improvisation to composition, you have already decided they are not the same thing. And anyway, writing an imitative (fugal) motet to a Latin text uses a completely different set of cognitave components to writing a pleasing capricious piece for guitar solo. This doesn't prove that one or other isn't composition.

Perhaps we shouldn't confuse overlapping patterns of thought (the pluralism I speak about) when identifying two different terms of music discourse. I've decided that they are not the same because you can improvise without actually "composing" a thing just as you can "compose" without improvising. Improvisation more often occurs in the moment, during a rehearsal or a performance. Composition more often occurs outside of these venues. They are certainly not mutually exclusive of one another, but they are not one in the same either. Hence why we need to make the distinction at all.

So you have decided that composition is defined as occuring "over time". That's fine, as long as you realise that it's an arbitrary choice, and anyone else can choose to lose that particular phrase.

Sure, composition occurs over time, and we often consider it to be a -process- of creative thinking about musical ideas and how to organize/notate them for performers to reproduce the most accurate representation of our ideas. This certainly doesn't exclude improvisation as being a methodological component of the composition process or even being "the only method" of the process. But improvisation, as opposed to composition, is a method... not a process. It is a useful tool -of- the process, but it is not -the- process of composition, which is another reason we make the distinction.

They are different, but not completely different.

For the reasons I mentioned above, they are completely different. But they are mutually beneficial to each other.

Agreed :D

Now you got me interested in splitting hairs about this (purely for the joy of debating something, I suppose). I really wasn't intending on arguing the distinction at all, but now I'm having fun.

So, "Have at you, DJ!" :P

You can "improvise" all your "compositions" for all anyone cares, the only way for them to know is to actually have been there unless you tell them. A little like Scelsi, eh?

In effect, this is just a semantics thing since you can arbitrarily say "no that's not a composition then" but it can as well become one in retrospective. You can notate an improvisation--or not even have to if it's electronic or you don't want people to play it themselves.

I don't see any difference. Yeah sure improvising is a way of composing that is different than sitting on a table and writing, but so is writing in a ton of other different situations. It doesn't make it less of a "composition" really.

If you choose the write a novel, starting on page one, continuing until you have finished it... perhaps along the way, using a few stock characters or plot devices, or using vague conceptions devised previously, or ideas from your real life... surely this is still concidered writing; and the output is still concidered a novel. It may not be interesting in the way a musical improv. can be but we're talking just of categories here.

Any potential/realized collection of notes could be a scale, which in and of itself is not what most would classify as "a composition" but instead "a scale." Universally, your definition is no more adequate than mine, but I won't sit here and tell you your definition is completely wrong either.

Well yes. That's how I view things anyway. Surely some modernist moron could publish a work which is just a C major scale - a sarcastic statement on the music industry perhaps. By my definition it would be a composition - totally devoid of interest and art, but a composition nonetheless. Otherwise, how do you explain "compositions" like John Cages 4'33"? I mean, it's possible he improvised it :rolleyes:. Of course plenty of people don't consider it a composition, and to debate such a linguistical point only serves to distract from actual music (much like Cage's composition itself!).

Perhaps we shouldn't confuse overlapping patterns of thought (the pluralism I speak about) when identifying two different terms of music discourse. I've decided that they are not the same because you can improvise without actually "composing" a thing just as you can "compose" without improvising. Improvisation more often occurs in the moment, during a rehearsal or a performance. Composition more often occurs outside of these venues. They are certainly not mutually exclusive of one another, but they are not one in the same either. Hence why we need to make the distinction at all.

I'm sure there are many overlaps in brain behaviour between improvising and longer-term composition. Infact, sometimes in my style of composition (perhaps it is different for others), compositing is a series of mini improvisations which I then consider more broadly and consctruct into a whole. And a skilled improviser is also considering the whole, just simultenously as playing it.

Now you got me interested in splitting hairs about this (purely for the joy of debating something, I suppose). I really wasn't intending on arguing the distinction at all, but now I'm having fun.

So, "Have at you, DJ!" :P

Haha, I'm glad it's staying cordial :D

In effect, this is just a semantics thing...

Of course it is... it's more like a discussion about why we call improvised music "improvisation" and composed music "composition." What's the difference between improvisation and composition??

...since you can arbitrarily say "no that's not a composition then" but it can as well become one in retrospective. You can notate an improvisation--or not even have to if it's electronic or you don't want people to play it themselves.

Then why use words like -improvisation- and -composition- at all then? Surely there's a reason we use one word or the other in a given context. Is Beethoven's Ninth Symphony -an improvisation- or -a composition- and why do we call it one or the other?

I don't see any difference. Yeah sure improvising is a way of composing that is different than sitting on a table and writing, but so is writing in a ton of other different situations. It doesn't make it less of a "composition" really.

The only distinction I see is the difference between method and result. The -method- could be improvisation that brings about the -result- of a composition. But I have to wonder if we could actually discuss music intelligently without the distinction at all. Is it valid to describe a piece you have diligently worked to create over several months of revision an -improvisation- or a -composition- of music? If it's perfectly subjective, there would be no need to make the distinction, but we do anyway. I find the distinction between both to be perfectly reasonable and entirely valid.

Well yes. That's how I view things anyway. Surely some modernist moron could publish a work which is just a C major scale - a sarcastic statement on the music industry perhaps. By my definition it would be a composition - totally devoid of interest and art, but a composition nonetheless. Otherwise, how do you explain "compositions" like John Cages 4'33"? I mean, it's possible he improvised it :rolleyes:. Of course plenty of people don't consider it a composition, and to debate such a linguistical point only serves to distract from actual music (much like Cage's composition itself!).

"Modernist moron"? Oh boy... that's going to raise some eyebrows :huh:

I'm sure there are many overlaps in brain behaviour between improvising and longer-term composition. Infact, sometimes in my style of composition (perhaps it is different for others), compositing is a series of mini improvisations which I then consider more broadly and consctruct into a whole. And a skilled improviser is also considering the whole, just simultenously as playing it.

Yeah, but do we call the parts of the whole "The Whole" or do we call the parts -the parts- and the whole -the whole- when we discuss music? I think that's what the distinction really comes down to. If Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is nothing more than years of various improvisations and revisions of them, is the entire work improvised? No, we call Beethoven's Ninth a -composition- for a reason, because on a much larger level of abstraction, it is a work that may or may not be comprised of various improvisations of material. We can refer to the parts of Beethoven's Ninth as improvised, but the whole symphony is a composition regardless of how much improvisation was used in creating the work.

Thus, method and result. Improvisation may be one of many -methods- that were used in producing the -result- of a composition. But calling the method the same thing as the result is tantamount to calling a Pine Cone a Pine Tree.

"Modernist moron"? Oh boy... that's going to raise some eyebrows :huh:

Haha! To clarify, I'm not against modernism or postmodernism; I'm against morons of all kinds :D

Yeah, but do we call the parts of the whole "The Whole" or do we call the parts -the parts- and the whole -the whole- when we discuss music? I think that's what the distinction really comes down to.

That's true. You're answer to this question decides your whole opinion.

If Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is nothing more than years of various improvisations and revisions of them, is the entire work improvised? No, we call Beethoven's Ninth a -composition- for a reason, because on a much larger level of abstraction, it is a work that may or may not be comprised of various improvisations of material. We can refer to the parts of Beethoven's Ninth as improvised, but the whole symphony is a composition regardless of how much improvisation was used in creating the work.

But to confirm that Beethoven's 5th isn't improvised, does in any way suggest improvisation is not composition.

Thus, method and result. Improvisation may be one of many -methods- that were used in producing the -result- of a composition. But calling the method the same thing as the result is tantamount to calling a Pine Cone a Pine Tree.

I like this anology. And for my feeble improvising it is true. I improvise only pine cones which I must then combine into something treelike. But real improvisers can improvise trees :)

But I think the analogy is wrong since a single melody (a pine cone) can be considered a self standing composition. But my argument ran it's course a few posts back. I will say no more in the topic, heh.

...real improvisers can improvise trees.

Done and done.

Well put.

Listen to Keith Jarrett's Koln Concert.

Haha! To clarify, I'm not against modernism or postmodernism; I'm against morons of all kinds :D

Indeed. Stupidity sucks!

That's true. You're answer to this question decides your whole opinion.

I guess I have trouble understanding how someone can rationally believe a pine cone -IS- a pine tree.

But to confirm that Beethoven's 5th isn't improvised, doesn't in any way suggest improvisation is not composition.

BUT, to confirm that Beethoven's Ninth is a composition and NOT an improvisation DOES indicate a distinction we make between composition and improvisation. Again, the pine cone is not a pine tree.

I like this anology. And for my feeble improvising it is true. I improvise only pine cones which I must then combine into something treelike. But real improvisers can improvise trees :)

Sure, I'm accounting for improvised works that are also compositions. But I'm making the distinction that just because it's improvised and a composition doesn't mean we use "improvisation" and "composition" interchangeably. There is a difference, right?

But I think the analogy is wrong since a single melody (a pine cone) can be considered a self standing composition.

Okay, so we can take a part of something and call that part "a whole" in and of itself. It doesn't make a difference, does it? After all, pine cones have "parts" as well that make the pine cone look like it does. So, if I improvise a melody and call it a composition, all I'm doing is employing a method to produce a result. The improvisation is the method, the composition is the result. That's the distinction.

But my argument ran it's course a few posts back. I will say no more in the topic, heh.

:(