Composing techniques and Ideas.

This is of course, true, if a composer wants to broaden his 'commercial' horizons. But it's equally important to develop an aural imagination. Like I said, the greatest works of Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky etc were composed on the basis of good musical sense that turned its back on earlier guidelines.

I'd be more comfortable with saying that "... the greatest works of Debussy, Ravel Stravinski etc... were composed on the basis of good musical sense and expanding on the application of earlier guidelines."

I see nothing that rejects the "rules" of composition in the music of Debussy, Ravel, et al. What I see is frontiers pushed further.

A concrete example is that Debussy and Ravel used non-functional 9ths (ie: non-resolved dissonances) but their use of the basic rules of counterpoint remained intact, just applied on a different level. I think it's simplistic and maybe a little narrow-minded to believe that they rejected outright the rules of common-practice harmony and counterpoint.

What these composers turned their backs on was badly taught, rigid, academic rules... not principles of composition that apply to music no matter what musical language it utilizes.

Music is an art; you have a creative side all your own.

But they're right; you need to have the basics down before you can fully use the creative side.

... you need to have the basics down before you can fully use the creative side.

Exactly - it's hard to break the rules, if you don't know what they are.

I say learn the rules...be aware of them. But ignore them.

Exactly - it's hard to break the rules, if you don't know what they are.

I say learn the rules...be aware of them. But ignore them.

absolutely..

and to keep the subject as close in line with the last few posts, I'd like to add a (paraphrased, since I don't remember the exact wording of the) quote by Debussy:

"to break rules without understanding them first is nothing but clumsiness".

Which sort of puts to lie the idea that Debussy turned his back on the guidelines of the past. Besides, any reading of a biography of his will show without a doubt that he was applying all the normal compositional and harmonic guidelines he had learned, just doing it in his own way.

none of us are saying voice leading is essential, we are saying voice leading is an important part of being a well rounded composer. What if some time you get a job composing and someone wants something written in a classical style? You wouldn't be able to do it because good voice leading is an integral part of that style. You are limiting yourself way too much.

Omg, man please read my posts no where does it say I have no clue what voice leading is which is what you are saying I am. I actually stated I didn't want to use it for obvious reasons. I could compose classical but, do people want classical music anymore? Not really, and I don't either. I am not limiting myself I am actually freeing myself of the restrictions it has on you.

Please go back and read my posts if you want to argue with me or else please stop because you are actually agreeing with me in the first line.

I'd be more comfortable with saying that "... the greatest works of Debussy, Ravel Stravinski etc... were composed on the basis of good musical sense and expanding on the application of earlier guidelines."

Be my guest.

From your following:

I see nothing that rejects the "rules" of composition in the music of Debussy, Ravel, et al. What I see is frontiers pushed further.

A concrete example is that Debussy and Ravel used non-functional 9ths (ie: non-resolved dissonances) but their use of the basic rules of counterpoint remained intact, just applied on a different level. I think it's simplistic and maybe a little narrow-minded to believe that they rejected outright the rules of common-practice harmony and counterpoint.

What these composers turned their backs on was badly taught, rigid, academic rules... not principles of composition that apply to music no matter what musical language it utilizes.

That's a bit nebulous but I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. Compositional principles can be as big or small as you want.

Except

A concrete example is that Debussy and Ravel used non-functional 9ths (ie: non-resolved dissonances) but their use of the basic rules of counterpoint remained intact, just applied on a different level.

I'm reminded of an ex-student (ex- because he's probably better than me now) who asked me to 'teach' him counterpoint - i.e, just check what he was doing because he was perfectly capable. We pushed the frontiers a bit too, in the interest of composition. Then one day he asked, "Why am I doing all this?" I said, "You tell me..." I was tempted to tell him 'It's good for you. Like a cold shower.'

regards,

M

Omg, man please read my posts no where does it say I have no clue what voice leading is which is what you are saying I am. I actually stated I didn't want to use it for obvious reasons. I could compose classical but, do people want classical music anymore? Not really, and I don't either. I am not limiting myself I am actually freeing myself of the restrictions it has on you.

Please go back and read my posts if you want to argue with me or else please stop because you are actually agreeing with me in the first line.

I apologise if i misjudged you. You gave the impression that you were mearly saying you didn't want the effect of good voice leading because you couldn't be bothered to learn good voice leading, like all the punk guitar retards who say being technically good has no 'feeling' or 'emotion' becase they're too lazy to learn how to play their instruments properly.

Could you post any examples of your music that contain good voice leading to prove this latest development?

Omg, man please read my posts no where does it say I have no clue what voice leading is which is what you are saying I am. I actually stated I didn't want to use it for obvious reasons. I could compose classical but, do people want classical music anymore? Not really, and I don't either. I am not limiting myself I am actually freeing myself of the restrictions it has on you.

Please go back and read my posts if you want to argue with me or else please stop because you are actually agreeing with me in the first line.

I often work in an idiom in which classical voice leading has no place. But that doesn't mean that voice leading doesn't exist. Voice leading is INTEGRAL to the formation of a compositional language that you will work in, whether it be classical voice leading, or a set of guidelines you yourself have set down. Let me give you an example, from one of my own sketches for a loosely serial piece:

VOICE LEADING

No voice may contain three step-wise notes in a row unless two other voices leap simultaneously at the same time as the third step.

No voice may play a pitch twice except that no other voice has played it for at least three notes, or a full tone-row has been executed in said voice, or the confluence of these rules makes following them impossible.

Etc.

Upon listening to your piece, I found that you neither achieved a sense of disconnection from classical music, nor a sense of disjointedness. I liked your use of dissonance, where it occurred, and the way you built textures and layered them was good. However, I felt the piece was stagnant and repetitious. A little more variation would be helpful.

Except Well, okay, if you consider that the basic rules of counterpoint can exist intact 'at a different level', then by all means... Excuse me, though, not seeing it quite the same way. Thanks.

if you thoroughly understand the rules of counterpoint, then you can easily understand how and where they are applicable outside of common practice harmony.

If you put on blinders and read the rules in a fashion not intended, then yeah, it becomes difficult to see how they can apply outside music of that particular period.

But then, this is where the proper teaching of counterpoint and harmony leads to a proper undertanding of WHAT makes those rules valid or usable and under what circumstances.

if you thoroughly understand the rules of counterpoint, then you can easily understand how and where they are applicable outside of common practice harmony.

If you put on blinders and read the rules in a fashion not intended, then yeah, it becomes difficult to see how they can apply outside music of that particular period.

But then, this is where the proper teaching of counterpoint and harmony leads to a proper undertanding of WHAT makes those rules valid or usable and under what circumstances.

I am in complete agreement.

if you thoroughly understand the rules of counterpoint, then you can easily understand how and where they are applicable outside of common practice harmony.

If you put on blinders and read the rules in a fashion not intended, then yeah, it becomes difficult to see how they can apply outside music of that particular period.

But then, this is where the proper teaching of counterpoint and harmony leads to a proper undertanding of WHAT makes those rules valid or usable and under what circumstances.

Look, I know you're a teacher and you have more degrees than a thermometer, which you have taken pains to point out, but PLEASE READ WHAT I WROTE. I'm not setting up as a litigator - ok? But I have never ONCE refered to RULES or BLINDING FOLLOWING THEM.

I have said: "Well, okay, if you consider that the basic rules of counterpoint can exist intact 'at a different level', then by all means..." By which I meant, if you want to look at it that way, then fine by me.

Then I went on to be polite, even to the extent of saying thank you. "Excuse me, though, not seeing it quite the same way. Thanks."

I also said further up that these things indeed have their place but one also has to develop a good aural imagination. I still stand by that.

Many members of this forum are students having to learn it as part of a composition course. In 10 years time, those who go on to compose will have achieved some independence and know what I mean.

I am happier to look upon Debussy and Ravel, some of Stravinsky, Revueltas, Villa-Lobos, Delius et altera as driven by good musical sense rather than the alternative which I won't state again because you will misquote me again. They were not good students of traditional methods. That's why they were as they were - and why their music is rarely chosen to illustrate academic examples of "proper" whatever traditional. That is my view. Please don't come back and say it's wrong, because it isn't. It's my view - you are entitled to yours. There is no right or wrong. Countless composers have got by without "being taught" the stuff you're talking about (or took little heed of it) - and countless other composers have NEEDED to be taught it.

We can all quote bits and pieces of a composer's work to suit our arguments but I did say GREATEST works, which in this context, to suit the litigators, I mean as works that have found most favour with the public in the long term through concert or recorded performances, or citical appraisal; allowing for administrative issues like cost of staging/recording; difficulty of performance et cetera. You'll know the ones I mean.

My personal experience has been that once in receipt of my diploma, the traditional, formal stuff needed to get it was of limited use. In fact, it was constricting. It pretty-well cost me my interest in music. However, the training, rather than the product, helped me develop a reasonably good ear and enough of an analytical eye to know what to look for when I want to find out how something's done. I am NOT saying it's useless - I'm saying it has its place. It taught me control.

Thanks but no more.

Montpellier.

there's really nor reason to be rude, I'm sorry if you feel that somehow I've been rubbing in my formal education. I was under the impression we were talking simply about music and not my degrees.

But it's equally important to develop an aural imagination. Like I said, the greatest works of Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky etc were composed on the basis of good musical sense that turned its back on earlier guidelines

lead me to understand that you believe those composers denied their formal training.

you yourself took my "blinders" comment out of context.. or added context that was not present when I wrote it. I apologize if you read it to mean I was accusing you of wearing blinders. That was not my intention. While part of my comment was in response to you, part was a general comment related to the general topic of conversation in this thread. I believe that if you read it that way, you will see that no insult was intended.

if I misunderstood your take on it before, you have MORE than amply explained your situation and your reasons for your opinion here.

but let's say that I'll disagree with you as well, and leave it at that.

**

For everyone else following the conversation and maybe interested in it, there are times when we might think a certain piece "breaks" with tradition, and in one way it might. But when one examines it more closely one realizes that the "break" is more of an extension than an actual break.

The idea is to look at any of the rules of "previous" harmony or counterpoint within the context of what the "next" composer might be doing. For example, direct octaves are expressly forbidden in common practice 4-part harmony, but in reality, it's the "effect" of the direct octave that is what is forbidden... and you end up finding that there are pretty much no direct octaves in non-tonal music as well, unless a very specific "effect" was what was being sought.

Logic's a bit weak there. No use saying that because YOU view the development of a composer's/work's harmony/structure a certain way, that the composer saw things the same way. Do you really imagine the Symbolist, Debussy, sitting there smoking his opium and wondering how to represent Mallarm

and now look who's misunderstanding whom.

I haven't mentionned consecutive 5ths. :huh:

The "logic" as you call it is fine.

Debussy may not have sat there "thinking about his parallel 5ths" (actually, he DID think about them as they were an integral part of his harmonic evolution).

For the simple reason that he had assimilated his craft completely and no longer needed to do so.

I think you misinterpret my words. I am not affirming that the great composers sat there and concentrated on the rules of harmony/counterpoint when they composed. Far from it.

Once those rules are assimilated, the mind's eye knows where the "errors" are, where "breaking/bending the rules" will give a certain effect, etc...

The idea is to look at any of the rules of "previous" harmony or counterpoint within the context of what the "next" composer might be doing. For example, direct octaves are expressly forbidden in common practice 4-part harmony, but in reality, it's the "effect" of the direct octave that is what is forbidden... and you end up finding that there are pretty much no direct octaves in non-tonal music as well, unless a very specific "effect" was what was being sought.

I always like to think of composition as telling a story, it has a general objective and may have moments of tension/release. Good voice leading and other techniques can help your listener determine the plot. The rules aren't necessary, but without them it would be much harder to understand the piece.

Flow techniques not only apply to music, they also apply to other areas such as animation and artwork. For example, there exist techniques for drawing a frame of a comic strip so that the reader's attention is directed to a person, action or object. For example, to emphasize a character sitting on a couch, the lines of perspective for the wall will be directed toward the person. You can occasionally break the frames to portray chaos. I remember a Spiderman comic featuring the Joker which did this very well.

I guess in short what I'm trying to say is that you should learn the rules before intentionally breaking them. Then you could increase the effect upon the music when they are broken :huh: BTW I did like your intentional dissonance in the beginning. I began to hear a melody around 0:55. Anyway, I please post when you're finished.