# On composing



## José Herring (Oct 30, 2005)

Is composing music beyond our capability to reason logically....Or is our capability to reason logically too base to include music in it's computations?

Because of Frozen's love of Bruckner I decided to take a leap and start composing and producing music based from the feelings instead of from pure reason as I have done in the past. And, I'll be damned if the music isn't coming out more interesting. Don't get me wrong I haven't complete gone over to the touchy feely side of life fully but the more I do it the better I'm liking what I'm hearing.

I don't know if a composer has to pass through the logical side of his art before he comes to the other end of it. But what's happing is all the technique and technology and skill that I have is coming together in a cohesive whole and starting to synthesizes itself into a whole new realm of creativity.

Stay tuned.

Jose


----------



## Spirit57 (Oct 30, 2005)

Absolute agreement and do it in regards to your heart and your own ear instead of 'just doing it..'

Excellent.


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 30, 2005)

This is what I always do, is there another way? 8)


----------



## FrozeN (Oct 30, 2005)

josejherring said:


> I decided to take a leap and start composing and producing music based from the feelings instead of from pure reason


Go for it Jose! :wink: 

I would use the word "intuition" rather than "feelings" though.... not much of a difference, just more politically correct! :lol: :lol:


----------



## Niah (Oct 31, 2005)

choc0thrax said:


> This is what I always do, is there another way? 8)



Exactly


----------



## jc5 (Oct 31, 2005)

I'd say that at the height of heights the two sides go hand in hand - and Bruckner really is the embodiment of that!
His music is all about expression of emotion, and in his case most definetly spirituality - yet he slaved and obsessed over structure and technical minutiae in a way that seems strange to most others (in a way that I'm not sure I ever could, or _would_).

Things like the first movement of the 6th or the adagio of the 8th (random exapmles that come to mind) simply aren't possible without that combination - those climaxes that sum up the entire (usually extensive) movement are all about emotion, but aren't possible without 'reason's mastery'. :wink:


----------



## rJames (Oct 31, 2005)

The study of music should be to free our creativity. To give us tools to get the sounds out of our imagination and into propagating waveforms. If the study allows us to express our ideas then it is a good thing.

BUT your reasoning side can be quite an effective creative tool. It is one thing to be able to imagine shelter as an idea. It is altogether another one to build a structure. And a quantum leap further to (using reason and creativity together) design the Guggenheim Bilbao Museoa.



josejherring said:


> Is composing music beyond our capability to reason logically....Or is our capability to reason logically too base to include music in it's computations?



No to both.

Music is nothing more than reason. Once the reasoning becomes second nature, you can freely express yourself.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 31, 2005)

rJames said:


> ....And a quantum leap further to (using reason and creativity together) design the Guggenheim Bilbao Museoa.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So they say and so I thought, but curious thing is that there are starting to be levels of understanding beyond the level of logical reasoning that aren't in themselves illogical :? 

To tell you the truth I really can't even think of any logical reason why music even works in the first place beyond the "reason" that some people find somethings pleasurable and somethings ugly and that these things change overtime and culture to culture and isn't based on anything logical really beyond peoples perceptions of them which isn't absolute.

Jose


----------



## FrozeN (Oct 31, 2005)

josejherring said:


> that some people find somethings pleasurable and somethings ugly and that these things change overtime and culture to culture and isn't based on anything logical really beyond peoples perceptions of them which isn't absolute.


Britney Spears is a classic example OMG!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## rJames (Oct 31, 2005)

josejherring said:


> To tell you the truth I really can't even think of any logical reason why music even works in the first place beyond the "reason" that some people find somethings pleasurable and somethings ugly and that these things change overtime and culture to culture and isn't based on anything logical really beyond peoples perceptions of them which isn't absolute.
> Jose



Now you've really touched a nerve.

The following will be full of exaggeration and simplification-so be warned.

I believe that there is a scientific physics to music. That music is what it is because of certain physical attributes including the overtone series. I felt this way before beginning composition lessons in a method that is, IMHO, built upon this music=physics theorem.

Just like waveforms make up everything from energy to matter to light, musical waveforms interact with and are a different version of the same components. Waveforms interact in a predictable manner (although the only being that could predict the outcome at this time is God).

Yes, there are many harmonic systems and scalar systems throughout the world. But the system that prevails (maybe for resons other than what I am basing my thesis upon) is based in a naturally occuring scale.

Music becomes a careful manipulation of that one scale which is really just one tone (and its overtone series). When the "music" comes closest to this naturally occuring scale, the human brain (every brain [just like every brain thinks that sugar is sweet but that doesn't make it pleasing]) hears calm/rest/consonance.

Certain other combinations of root tones and overtones (and mixed up to a high degree) sound ugly or unrestful or needing resolution).

Play with the combination of overtones over time using rhythm, add various timbres in various combinations and you have music.

Carefully done, it sounds captivating. 

Woke up this morning feeling a bit philosophical...


----------



## bugs (Oct 31, 2005)

Heart on fire, brain on ice.


----------



## Scott Cairns (Nov 1, 2005)

I agree with what everyone has said here, I think the study of music helps us to realise an idea when inspiration strikes.

But I also firmly agree with what Ravel said; "Music must be emotional first, intellectual second" or something like that. 8)


----------



## FrozeN (Nov 1, 2005)

The original quote goes "Music, _*I feel*_, must be emotional first, intellectual second"

Sorry for picking on the two missing words but I was rather inspired by the "I feel" part... that he wasn't saying "I think". :lol: 

It's very personal, and a matter of choice/taste though and like Schoenberg gonna be frowning on that quote! 8)


----------



## rJames (Nov 1, 2005)

I know plenty of you will be saying, "Shut up," to me right now. But I've never been one to listen to the crowd.

There have been a few times when I've asked Jose for a critique (and I enjoy and listen carefully to every word) and, in my opinion, he puts the music into a box. "Well, that is romantic era music so it should be more this or that."

What that tells me is that we humans tend to categorize things based on our experiences. And so, we are playing to our audiences prior experiences.

And I think that is what coming from emotion is. Emotion is based in our experiences.

I wonder if when we are coming from emotion first, if we are not just coming from our memories? Aren't we just sort of regurgitating what we have heard in a blurry sort of way?
(that is the most commercially viable method of writing music because people want to identify with the music)

What do you think, "coming from emotion," is?


----------



## Journeyman (Nov 1, 2005)

I've always operated under the concept that the whole idea was to master the intellectual (logical) tools of the trade, and make them second nature. Then and only then can one set them aside and be free enough to compose using one's emotional side. Jose (and I don't say this to be antagonistic), you've got me wondering what you've been doing up until this point. Isn't emotion the whole point?


----------



## José Herring (Nov 1, 2005)

Journeyman said:


> . Jose (and I don't say this to be antagonistic), you've got me wondering what you've been doing up until this point. Isn't emotion the whole point?



Yes and no. I, to this point, have very consciously used my knowledge and skill to craft a communication. That communication being emotion sometimes but not all the time. Sometimes that communication is an idea, sometimes an emotion sometimes both.

I ran across a book once by a Harvard prof. from the 1920's describing aesthetics. He said that aesthetics where the replacing of an actual experience to a artistic experience. So I did an experiment and came up with a piece that was an experience of a wall. It worked. I was able to communicate a wall through music. It had the idea and some emotion I'm sure.

I like that definition of aesthetics. It's workable. Not all that true but workable for sure.

Now I'm composing music directy from a spiritual center. Not necessarily using my mind*. It's wierd because I'm going out on a limb way more and more interesting things are comming. But I don't think I'd be able to do what I do now without first having know the tools consciously.

Jose

* I'm going on the assumption that mind, body and spirit aren't the same thing. To avoid argument or confusion though I fully respect people that don't necessarily think that way.


----------



## Journeyman (Nov 1, 2005)

Interesting perspective. I'm coming at it from "the other side". For me, the logic or intellectual side of the equation is mostly unconscious, and the goal is to communicate as directly as possible from the emotional, creative side. I find that I'm most often able to "surpass myself" in this manner.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 1, 2005)

Journeyman said:


> Interesting perspective. I'm coming at it from "the other side". For me, the logic or intellectual side of the equation is mostly unconscious, and the goal is to communicate as directly as possible from the emotional, creative side. I find that I'm most often able to "surpass myself" in this manner.



hmmm, very interesting indeed.

Jose


----------



## rJames (Nov 1, 2005)

Journeyman, are you talking about writing or playing?

Because to me they are related but not brothers.

When I used to play, the notes would just come out. (at least when everything was working right)

But I can think way more than I can play. I don't have an instrument. I can play guitar - but I would never hire me (except for the fact that I am so available for recording dates).

If I want to score to picture (which I only get to do for practice) I will watch and a melody will come to mind, or sometimes a 3 or 4 note harmony (as I can manage that on a keyboard). 

then I fill-in the music by letting the music appear. But I must use intellect to make the natural lines flow and work with the whole.

Journeyman, are you still taking EIS? EIS is a great arrangers tool. But it can be a great idea tool as well.

Sometimes I have an inspired idea that is something like; I want a sparkly complex harmony to descend into the melody. I have to think it out. Then I have to use other timbres to fill in the frequencies that I want filled in. The melody might even have to change slightly to accomodate the new structure. 

But even a fully blown intellectual piece comes from an idea. And that idea is emotion. It comes from where the past experiences meet the current situation. As much as blowing through a solo comes from past experiences meeting current circumstances.

I never understand this idea of emotion vs intellect. Now if we are comparing how a machine can play a violin vs how a human can play it--then I understand the idea of emotion vs intellect.

BTW Jose, I'd love to hear "Wall". Maybe it does create the idea of a wall and maybe it doesn't.

I always say that I can never determine the effectiveness of my work. It can only be done by others. 

We are not capable of critiquing ourselves. AS far as I have been told, this is a well known fact in psychology.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 1, 2005)

rJames said:


> There have been a few times when I've asked Jose for a critique (and I enjoy and listen carefully to every word) and, in my opinion, he puts the music into a box. "Well, that is romantic era music so it should be more this or that."
> 
> What that tells me is that we humans tend to categorize things based on our experiences. And so, we are playing to our audiences prior experiences.



Jeez! Don't ever accuse me of being human :x 

Joking.

If you're going to invoke a certain way of writing then if you break from it then you'll through your listener into disagreement with your piece. That's all. So if you're using chord progressions then you logically have to follow each chord progression to it's conclusion. If you deviate then it will sound out of place. You know it's like putting a Picardy 3rd in the middle of a miles davis tune. Doesn't fit unless it's specially prepared.

That's the only thing that I hear a little too often in your pieces. Things that tend not to belong in the same section or piece together.

If you want to be original as they say then believe it or not you have to adopt a language that lends itself to something different or use extended harmony in a way that it's not quite certain that there is an underlying harmony. Jazz guys are great at that and it gives jazz a certain freedom. 

I'm wierd because I invented my own musical language from combining my own thought and studies so I don't really know where I fit in. All I know is that people that don't know anything about music usually like it and people that do usually don't know what to make of it.


----------



## rJames (Nov 1, 2005)

josejherring said:


> So if you're using chord progressions then you logically have to follow each chord progression to it's conclusion.



What is a chord progression?


----------



## SteveDunster (Dec 2, 2005)

Sorry to ressurrect an old thread, but this was such an engaging read I just had to respond. [I wasn't around when you guys were posting]

I had a classical and technical upbringing. I used to think practice enough technique and the music will happen. I used to think any musical feeling we get is purely a learned conditioning.

I am now a father, a conductor and composer and I am now so convinced I was totally wrong.

There is something VERY deep and basic about music (I think it was somebody else's realisation of this that started this thread).

Technique versus Emotion:

1. Music is a combination of technical correctness and emotional content
2. If a composition or performance isn't sufficiently technically correct, the emotional content will have problems getting through - so ensure that there are no distracting technical issues first
3. Without the emotional content to music - it is pointless

Emotional Content of Music:

I used to think all music did was to trigger a conditioned and learned response. In other words, I thought we had learnt that some music is sad and diffferent music is happy.

WRONG: When my son was but a baby, I was playing a tape of a recent concert I had conducted - every time we got to Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines he would burst into uncontrollable giggles all the way through the track. He hadn't seen the film (or any film for that matter), he didn't know it was supposed to be funny. He hadn't heard us laugh when we played it. My conclusion is that the feelings we experience when we listen to music aren't "learnt", they are already there - even as a baby.

I know you can analyse it all down to physics. But music is a million times more than physics - I am now certain of that.

As a conductor I spend many hours trying to work out where the composer is coming from. Every note, every effect is specified for a reason - it is my job to find out what that reason is and project it onto the audience.

If you let yourself relax when you listen to someone's music, you can actually hear the emotions of the composer - you can also hear if it is just a technical exercise - applied theory instead of composed music.

I have spent many a happy forum hour interpreting people's musical postings, only to be told I had a special insight - how could I possibly have gleaned so much information from the music alone.

I think music is conduit between souls - indeed the same could be said of all the arts.

Technique can help you with your spelling, but it can't help you tell a good story.

When I take my band for rehearsal, after the first five minutes I can tell what sort of day everyone of my players has had. They are all fine musicians, they all play correctly what is written, they all conform to the correct style - but that is all technique, the rest is a window on the soul and it is there for all to feel.

Sorry about the ramble, but this thread touched on something which has gradually revealed itself to me over the past two or three decades.

An instrumentalist will play, 
your ear will pick up the sound waves, 
your mind will determine the pitch, volume, durations of the notes

...so WHO IS LISTENING, that would be your soul!

...and it is only interested in listening to music for one thing, and one thing alone - to listen to another soul.

I know it is a terribly personal view, but I wanted to share

Steve


----------



## StrangeCat (Dec 2, 2005)

you guys sure make it sound complicated haha!
Music is an expression of the musician and the composer. There are many styles to compose and play in, each style has a certian tecnique to create that music, but it's up to the composer to add there creativeness(there passion and there soul) to the technique and make something out of it. The musicain? it's up to them to interpret that music and also bring out something from themselves to the audience, the conducter? it's up to them to interpret the music and make the orchestra bring something out of the music.
Soooo....it all come down to feeling the music^_- No matter what you are creating(as a composer a composer should be able to write every style in all ensembles for all instruments because everything is related)
For a composer what you hear in your head what you feel is how your going to compose the music and that is why everyone has there own style(what i call your own voice)
Anywayz cool discussion


----------



## KevinKauai (Dec 5, 2005)

*This "just in" from Gustav Mahler ...*

I have been developing more and more respect for the composer Dmitri Shostakovich over the past decades and have recently begun to do a bit more study on what this brave soul persevered through - - including living under the almost constant threat of Soviet dictator Stalin and the very real possibility of death or being sent to the gulag FOR HIS MUSIC!

In one of the books, I found a wonderful quote from Gustav Mahler: ?Starting with Beethoven, there is no new music that does not have an internal program. But any music in which the listener must first be informed what emotions it contains, and correspondingly what he is expected to feel is worthless.?

I think Mahler?s point really is that as composers we should resist painting pretty pictures and emotionally loading up the listener with a lot of our baggage. Music is inherently abstract. Let the listener paint his or her own pictures without prejudice or presumption. If there is form that resonates with the listener, those listeners will find that, but ?word pictures? (for example, ?and in the second section, the bear chases the foxes across the meadow ??) are bunk except for purposes such as ballet.

I?m also beginning to feel that words (such as hymn texts, the various forms of masses, etc.) are less and less interesting as the same ?fault? applies - - loading up the listener with words imbedded into the music that are meant to evoke specific responses. Worthless!

I?m in a minority, for sure. Of course, music for films and other collaborative purposes lies outside Mahler?s pronouncement, but as a community of composers, I believe we need to take a second look at Mahler?s evaluation with twenty-first century eyes.

At least, that?s my $0.02 for tonight ? KevinKauai


----------



## StrangeCat (Dec 5, 2005)

this is true...but....there are certain formulas that work and are part of the music and will always bring out that certian emotion no matter who hears it will always be that emotion, generally it will bring out someones feelings from some experience or whatever. ok here's an example.
Romantic thematic style: 
Strings play melody, winds take it up, strings are now cressendoing to a high octave, brass enter to from a pedal tone(some supportive harmony), harp enters cressendo, cymble roll enters with timpini trill underneath, Bam full orchestra as Forte playing the whole melody, with brass answering phrases between the winds, strings play in a higher octave.
yea so that's one example we could call a cliche' we could call it a formula too(on a large scale), it will always make the listener feel that passion that falling feeling or uplifting feeling whatever. So keep going with the emotional bagage^_*


----------

