A try at contemporary.

My band director is making us listen to contemporary music as a test grade. we have to recognize the title and composer, which gets on my nerves because I see no need for it, its their favorite music, not everyone else's.  Beside that, I made a piece called "A weird dream last night" because the music is vague, so the tittle can be as well. Did I serve the genre appropriately? My motivation is to see if they will let me have the band preform it.(something I'm trying to convince them to do with my more classical music).

Here we go, I'll attach a PDF if anyone cares for the score.

Not a bad start. I think you have a lot of ideas in here. Eventually, as you learn to write more and more in this style -you'll find that you want to focus on fewer ideas. That said, one suggestion I can make is to get rid of the key signature. Keep the transposition key sigs -but don't think of the piece in any given key. It makes the process a little more easier and constraint free -which is important.

Agree with @jawoodruff on the key signature. Just make it unkeyed.
Perhaps the trombone glissandi are used too much. I understand it's attempting to develop an unsettling motive but it doesn't come across that way without analysis.
Also, people would likely laugh or be confused at the ending. It's so out of nowhere that the "schema shift", as David Huron would put it, would result in a jarring feeling going the opposite direction. 

2 minutes ago, Monarcheon said:

jarring feeling going the opposite direction

I thought that was the point of this style. But I'm no expert.

37 minutes ago, i(don't)suckatcomposing said:

I thought that was the point of this style. But I'm no expert.

 

That's not the point of the style. I hate to use the phrase but.... once you open your ears to more modern sounds, you'll find that it's not as jarring as it may seem. When I first moved towards more modern sounds, it took a lot of patience and learning. Listen to lots of works, keep an open mind, try note and intervallic combinations that you hadn't considered before, experiment with every component of music from rhythm to rest to key signature, and explore the spectrum. You'll find once you do those things, you'll begin to get a better ear for understanding and developing this type of musical language. 

I would love to see the score

4 hours ago, maestrowick said:

I would love to see the score

 

Just got back from work, its up.

happy reading!

I like this very much.

I agree there are many glissandi. Oh, I love the ending part.... Suddenly is like choral.

some great ideas here.  What I would do is focus one idea and develop it more. Your sound spectrum is amazing; however, get your themes centralized.  You have enough themes for a four movement work here!

I used to make new themes in my classical music because I have no form, now I make temporary music with classical form. something is wrong with me or in 100 years from now, people will see this and think  this is brilliant use my style.(wishful thinking).

Thanks guys!

main take away's for me: develop one theme over the entire piece, get loose with the form, have less trombone sound effects, introduce more sounds effects with other instruments, and be atonal(get rid of instrument transposing key signatures).

13 minutes ago, i(don't)suckatcomposing said:

, introduce more sounds effects with other instruments, and be atonal(get rid of instrument transposing key signatures).

 

HA!!! Being atonal and not have a key signature aren't the same, boss!!

35 minutes ago, maestrowick said:

HA!!! Being atonal and not have a key signature aren't the same, boss!!

 

Well yes that's true, but to be atonal there has to be no key signature, right?

And obviously not in a mode that makes use of no sharps or flats, so basically use any chord how ever you want.

9 hours ago, i(don't)suckatcomposing said:

main take away's for me: develop one theme over the entire piece, get loose with the form, have less trombone sound effects, introduce more sounds effects with other instruments, and be atonal(get rid of instrument transposing key signatures).

 

One theme would work if it presented textural variability and could be manipulated enough to provide contrast.

I'll touch form last. 

Sound effects and extended techniques: to be honest, I'm not a fan of overly using them or using them for the sake of it. I've seen lots of crummy pieces that hide the crumminess with extended techniques -and people swoon! To me, its disingenuine and poor craftsmanship. That doesnt mean the technique is baseless -you can certainly create awesome material with it- just dont try to hide mediocrity behind it.

You dont have to be atonal at all. What I mean by not using key sigs has nothing to do with writing tonal or atonal and more to do with freeing up self imposed restrictions. You put a key sig up and you're going to box yourself in. Key sigs that indicate tonality are not the same as transposition key sigs -you should use the latter (unless you know your musicians can transpose without them -but, even then, you should still add them).

Now, form:

One error I see time and again on this forum is people discounting the importance of form in modern music. This is pure b.s. and should be called out thoroughly. Form is still extremely important. The one difference is that often the material itself dictates the form. You don't have to subscribe to the T-D formal structures of the classical and romantic periods but you should adapt and utilize the forms inherited from those periods. Again, let your material help strengthen your formal considerations.

9 hours ago, i(don't)suckatcomposing said:

And obviously not in a mode that makes use of no sharps or flats, so basically use any chord how ever you want.

 

I often take great care in choosing chords and progressions. So, I would argue against using any chord however you want. Despite lacking tonic resolution, every chord should add to some sort of tension and relief. Again, you have varying degrees of tension and relief. So, still give thought to your chords.

On 3/4/2020 at 10:09 AM, jawoodruff said:

 

Now, form:

One error I see time and again on this forum is people discounting the importance of form in modern music. This is pure b.s. and should be called out thoroughly. Form is still extremely important. The one difference is that often the material itself dictates the form. You don't have to subscribe to the T-D formal structures of the classical and romantic periods but you should adapt and utilize the forms inherited from those periods. Again, let your material help strengthen your formal considerations.

I often take great care in choosing chords and progressions. So, I would argue against using any chord however you want. Despite lacking tonic resolution, every chord should add to some sort of tension and relief. Again, you have varying degrees of tension and relief. So, still give thought to your chords.

 

GREAT WORDS SPOKEN!!!!!!!

So what would be an appropriate form for modern music? I don't think the romantic/baroque forms are appropriate, or are they? 

Many of the pieces I'm playing in my opinion have a form of something like:

quiet and atmospheric entrance from percussion -> A solo instrument states the theme -> The rest of the band joins and throws the theme around the sections -> reaching a climax, but it's deceptive because there is still 7 mins left in the piece -> a long, soft, quiet section, very atmospheric -> rest of the band joins in slowly, a few sections at a time -> themes restated, sounds like something you heard earlier but there are noticeable changes to make it different -> now we are reaching a climax, but only 30 secs left -> A really long chord with the theme being stated, with the percussion just smashing everything -> the last note of the piece.

I don't know if I can call it a form. maybe: Percussion-Solo-A-Climax-Quiet-A-Climax-Percussion (PSACQACP)

I think maybe my form analysis was too detailed and its more like : ABCBA

I don't know, is there an appropriate form? or can the form be anything that's logical? But no form is bad?

2 hours ago, i(don't)suckatcomposing said:

So what would be an appropriate form for modern music? I don't think the romantic/baroque forms are appropriate, or are they? 

Many of the pieces I'm playing in my opinion have a form of something like:

quiet and atmospheric entrance from percussion -> A solo instrument states the theme -> The rest of the band joins and throws the theme around the sections -> reaching a climax, but it's deceptive because there is still 7 mins left in the piece -> a long, soft, quiet section, very atmospheric -> rest of the band joins in slowly, a few sections at a time -> themes restated, sounds like something you heard earlier but there are noticeable changes to make it different -> now we are reaching a climax, but only 30 secs left -> A really long chord with the theme being stated, with the percussion just smashing everything -> the last note of the piece.

I don't know if I can call it a form. maybe: Percussion-Solo-A-Climax-Quiet-A-Climax-Percussion (PSACQACP)

I think maybe my form analysis was too detailed and its more like : ABCBA

I don't know, is there an appropriate form? or can the form be anything that's logical? But no form is bad?

 

Several different forms, really. I utilize sonata-allegro, rondo, variational forms, binary, ternary, fugue, canon, through-composed (yes, it can be it's own form), and various sectional forms. 

Form is a difficult topic with contemporary music (as the term seems to be used in the UK, as opposed to modern). As developments broke with tradition those traditional forms were eroded or abandoned leaving composers to work out things for themselves – if they found it necessary.

To me, it’s feasible for the form of a contemporary work to be unique, a one-off, especially with through-composed works where proportion and episode are more relevant than traditional structural components. It isn’t saying that a contemporary work shouldn’t fit a traditional form just that it’s less likely to – and may actually be formless beyond its internal logistics – how the material is drawn together.

On setting out on a new composition the last thing on my mind is its formal construction.  However, proportion and contour (particularly in dynamics and timbre) are very to the front along with how well motifs can be exploited.  

Form makes one be disciplined, especially in young composers.  It makes their ideas become cohesive (ideally) and stick to connecting everything.   I'm all for it!

On 3/8/2020 at 6:14 AM, Quinn said:

Form is a difficult topic with contemporary music (as the term seems to be used in the UK, as opposed to modern). As developments broke with tradition those traditional forms were eroded or abandoned leaving composers to work out things for themselves – if they found it necessary.

To me, it’s feasible for the form of a contemporary work to be unique, a one-off, especially with through-composed works where proportion and episode are more relevant than traditional structural components. It isn’t saying that a contemporary work shouldn’t fit a traditional form just that it’s less likely to – and may actually be formless beyond its internal logistics – how the material is drawn together.

On setting out on a new composition the last thing on my mind is its formal construction.  However, proportion and contour (particularly in dynamics and timbre) are very to the front along with how well motifs can be exploited.  

 

There's definitely psychological and anthropological background to the use of form and pattern repetition in musical and visual arts. Humans, innately, seek to find patterns and recognizable instances of repetition in abstract places. Check it out for yourself: listen to static (like the old 1950s television static with the white pixelated screens). Give yourself about 20 mins -your ears will notice patterns and try to latch onto patterns (even when those patterns aren't really there in the first place). Same thing happens when you stare at a canvas filled with dots and lines. Your brain will look for patterns and coherency -even when your just staring at a bunch of random lines and dots.

Form, in music and visual art, developed due to this natural tendency. Composers sought to capitalize on this to convey their ideas across in a manner that spoke to this natural tendency. Even when you look at medieval forms, you see a natural repetition to the music. Estampita, chaconne, canonic forms, etc. ALL did this. Personally, I think that's where 20th century composers lost the ball. In the march to define and create something new, they often abandoned the natural, biological origins of human spoken and musical language (keep in mind, music dates back all the way to the most archaic species of humans -with bone flutes dating to around 400,000 years ago). There's nothing wrong with this at all -within reason. But, at the end of the day, look at the large amount of music from the 20th century that sits gathering dust on shelves. It may look amazing on paper.... but people won't program or perform it -let alone listen to it. And that is coming from someone who draws a lot of inspiration from those works within his own musical vocabulary.

Going back to your comments, though, I think one area you should consider is how proportion, contour, and episodic material are all chief elements of form. Through-composed forms from the 19th century capitalized on this to the extreme. However, it's important to note that most works that use through composed forms also repeat material or focus on smaller amounts of material that can be easily picked up by the listener as the piece goes from point to point (hence why this type of writing is considered a form).

Yup, there's form and form....

I've spent the evening listening to / talking about two through composed pieces from Villa-Lobos: his Quinteto em forma de chôros and his Nonetto, There's form and form and the form of both is unique as far as I can see (which is fine - no doubt word-play could lead a graduate looking to write their doctorate thesis to try to generalise from some unique form but whether that's useful or not I can't speculate. Probably isn't for me although I respect the views of others. 

There are a lot of very different contemporary styles (what do Pärt, Adams, Schnittke and Boulez have in common?), just find the one you like writing the most.

This piece is not bad, got good rhythmical and harmonic energy.