# What makes it coherent?



## JulianF (Apr 5, 2018)

What makes a track/sections coherent to you?

Is it the motifs sprinkled throughout the piece? The new section containing elements from the previous? The same chord progression underneath? A simple structure that is easy to understand like AABA? etc.


----------



## carlkingdom (Apr 5, 2018)

These are all good thoughts. Any way you can make a lot of ideas “belong” together is a good thing. It’s a common frustration when listening to music... I think, “What the hell, going to this part made no sense.” Mostly in rock music. So it sounds like thinking of these things, you’re on the right track. -Carl.


----------



## d.healey (Apr 5, 2018)

There are many ways to make a piece coherent, you've suggested some. You could also use rhythmic patterns, drones, instrumentation, and dynamic level to make it seem more coherent. There isn't a single answer, it depends on the piece and the context.


----------



## gregh (Apr 5, 2018)

pieces become coherent through predictability - which leaves the mechanisms for achieving that wide open and vary for audience anyway. eg some people like Philip Glass some find him boring, some like Xenakis, some find him incoherent


----------



## Pantonal (Apr 5, 2018)

I believe predictability is the wrong concept, but you're close. When motives and themes get reused and varied that develops a familiarity (predictability), and thus coherence. However coherence is not what I consider the goal. When motives and themes are reused and varied in unexpected ways you get surprise. I think one of the best things a composer can do is elicit surprise with familiar themes and motives. It's hard to do, it takes thought and creativity, but it can be done. It doesn't rely on something completely new and novel (as in avante garde),but it gives the listener a fresh viewpoint on a familiar musical concept.


----------



## JJP (Apr 5, 2018)

Hopefully I'm not being too being too pedantic, I wouldn't use the word "predictability". I'd call it "expectation". Much of this expectation is built into Western harmony. We know how our scales work and know where the home, or resting place is. This is why certain melodies and harmonies often work the way they do. It's a shared language with a set of rules listeners understand.

We can also create expectation through repetition. Do something one way. Repeat it to establish consistency. Then the listener says, "Ah-ha. I see how this works," and expects it to continue or "watches" to see if it will change.

Once the expectation is created, you can play with it by sometimes fulfilling it, other times delaying it and going in a different direction for a while. Once the expectation has been established, it helps to maintain listener interest because when you go somewhere else the listener is waiting to see how and when, or if the expectation is finally resolved.


----------



## gregh (Apr 6, 2018)

I don’t want to get bogged down in terminology, expectations /familiarity are all good terms as well. What interested me many years ago was developing algorithms to measure predictability across multiple scales, note/section/whatever. Modulating expectation was fairly core to compositional practice and can be measured. Gtg


----------



## Pantonal (Apr 9, 2018)

So Julian (the OP), did we answer your question? Was this helpful?


----------



## Erick - BVA (Apr 9, 2018)

douggibson said:


> Yes, "varied repetition" and it's importance really can't be stressed enough. The other side of the coin to this is that
> "memory" is connected to "expectation". So in very general sense musical form is about memory and expectation.
> 
> As others have already said, the composer can play with this and confirm or deny the material. This is based on the gradient of how much variation is unfolding. Either way a composer is helped by self imposing some kind of limitation. To say this another way, and in plain english, know the core of the idea. It's a challenge to figure out what to do when "anything goes". No one will blink an eye regardless of following common practice rules, or simply a person improvising "moment by moment". We have all heard so many different style and languages.
> ...



I think all of the things you've mentioned are good, but I think they actually describe what could make music "engaging" or "interesting" or even the elements of the piece which may or may not render it "coherent." Coherence is a whole different thing to me. Coherence is an overall quality of the piece which can be applied globally. I may have lots of little sections of music which when focused in on, they aren't that interesting, or even coherent, but in the greater context of the piece, make the piece have coherence. To me, it doesn't even need to follow any convention to be coherent. It just needs to be logical in some way or another (even via assertion). I can't help but think of Rite of Spring or any number of pieces by Schoenberg. In some way these pieces were self-referential, and so the only way to really judge their coherence is by understanding the piece in its own context. Many people at the time probably thought it was nonesense and lacked coherence. Doesn't mean it did indeed lack it? So whether something is deemed to have coherence is just as much a part of the listener's opinion as it is the composer's composition.

I'm not really saying "anything goes." Sort of, but not really haha.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Apr 9, 2018)

JulianF said:


> What makes a track/sections coherent to you?
> 
> Is it the motifs sprinkled throughout the piece? The new section containing elements from the previous? The same chord progression underneath? A simple structure that is easy to understand like AABA? etc.



There are so many things...yeah..what an answer..

Actually there is the point, I don´t know anything about your background, but when I speak for myself: I actually need (ed) to learn the absolute basics before starting to write any sophisticated stuff, because at that time where I didn´t match to write any basics all my so called sophisticated stuff was "pseudo" sophisticated and just utterly nonsense. Having said that: Start (I think you want to know more about how to create this) with simple short pieces which of course why not features an idea twice, and a b section then returning to the core idea back. It is as simple as it sounds but when you don´t train the basics don´t be a chopin or rachmaninoff..thats´the point. So start simple and basic. Study thefore song / music literature, transcribe also music. Find out why pieces work. There are things in music history which apear over and over again in one or another form. Sure Doug gave a very good idea and thoughts which are much more in depth already.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Apr 9, 2018)

douggibson said:


> Nothing you have said directly responds to, or refutes, what I wrote. After the 2nd sentence you use musical examples that directly illustrate what I wrote. Stravinsky and Schoenberg are great examples of the techniques outlined above. Thus I am at a loss for what your argument is.


I don't have an argument. It's simply not one. I liked your post. Perhaps I worded it in such a way that it sounded like I was "refuting" what you were saying. Not at all. I was just emphasizing that for me, the whole of the parts is what makes something either coherent or incoherent. So I guess what I said was more of a musing based on what you said (whether I realized it at the time or not).


----------



## JulianF (Apr 9, 2018)

Pantonal said:


> So Julian (the OP), did we answer your question? Was this helpful?


Yup. I was just letting replies come in so I didn't say anything.

I welcome any more if you've got something


----------



## AdamAlake (Apr 10, 2018)

Short answer: Every new thing must be related to what came before.


----------



## Pantonal (Apr 10, 2018)

AdamAlake said:


> Short answer: Every new thing must be related to what came before.


While there is some truth to this statement I disagree with such a blanket statement. Sonata form in general has two theme groups, so by definition some of them are unrelated. Also, sometimes a major change to unrelated material is what's called for in music. Contrast can be a very important a feature in music. Making a coherent piece with contrasting sections is more of a challenge but one many composers have explored in depth for centuries.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Apr 10, 2018)

Pantonal said:


> While there is some truth to this statement I disagree with such a blanket statement. Sonata form in general has two theme groups, so by definition some of them are unrelated. Also, sometimes a major change to unrelated material is what's called for in music. Contrast can be a very important a feature in music. Making a coherent piece with contrasting sections is more of a challenge but one many composers have explored in depth for centuries.



I think it's like telling a story though. Eventually those things do become related, either over the time of the piece, or by reflecting on the meaning of it all together after listening to it. But yea, if you simply go into it thinking linearly, I agree with you there.


----------



## DoctorGuitar007 (Apr 16, 2018)

But isn't the 2nd subject in sonata form still related to the first, in that it contrasts it? They may be--should be--different, but nonetheless still related. If two composers were to collaborate on a symphony one couldn't write a 2nd subject without knowing what the first subject was (or vice versa).


----------



## Pantonal (Apr 16, 2018)

DoctorGuitar007 said:


> But isn't the 2nd subject in sonata form still related to the first, in that it contrasts it? They may be--should be--different, but nonetheless still related. If two composers were to collaborate on a symphony one couldn't write a 2nd subject without knowing what the first subject was (or vice versa).


Isn't that like saying I'm related to you because we're not related?


----------



## DoctorGuitar007 (Apr 16, 2018)

I don't think so. You and I are not related (other than having some shared interests, based on us both being on this forum), so if we were characters in a play, it is as if the author has randomly pulled our personalities, beliefs, characters, etc. out of a hat. We are not related: the attributes assigned to you have no impact on those assigned to me; just as with you and I in real life. If we were put together on a stage for two hours and told to talk it might be dramatic or it might be boring; we might agree on everything, disagree to the point of fighting, or just ignore each other. If I left the stage and someone else took my place, you'd still be the same. That's "not related".
If I was a playright though, I wouldn't be choosing my character's attributes randomly. Even if my two characters are completely different, they would still be related; designed to sometimes contrast, sometimes compliment. If I fundamentally decided to chage one of my characters after the first draft, I'd almost certainly have to change the other as a consequence. They are related, even if fundamentally different.
And two characters stuck on a stage together having a discussion or argument = sonata form.


----------



## Pantonal (Apr 16, 2018)

I get your point, you're saying that themes and musical ideas are related by virtue of their ability to contrast with or complement the other musical ideas in a work of music. That doesn't really answer the OP's question. How does a composer do that? Most composers might suggest using common motives or harmonic progressions or making themes workable as counterpoint. In my way of thinking that is what constitutes a relationship between musical ideas. However, two ideas that simply contrast each other in the same piece in my way of thinking can be unrelated and yet still enhance the coherency of that piece. This is what I believe the OP was asking, how does a composer accomplish that?


----------



## DoctorGuitar007 (Apr 16, 2018)

I don't want to get too hung up on the idea of "related to" as I think we're just splitting sematics. Even if two ideas "simply contrast" and don't share common motives or harmonies, etc. they are still related--if not, they don't belong in the same piece of music if the composer is aiming for cohension. 
Chances are, in the pieces you are thinking of where the second idea is 'unrelated' to the first, the two musical ideas still have much in common. Different key, different melody, different rhythm, etc. but the same style / genre and/or same instrumentation. (Even harmonically, you might use completely different chords in a different key, but more often than not you'd keep the same basic idiom, not suddenly switching from a vocabularly of diatonic triads to chromatic extended and altered jazz chords.)
You wouldn't change from an A theme based around a Romantic waltz to a B theme that was styled on 80s synth pop. (Well, you might; could be an interesting effect, but not if cohesion is your goal.)
The trick, I think, is deciding what to change and what to keep the same, and making sure that the balance between the two is right. 
As a starting point, I would decide what the parameters are for this piece--what am I trying to do? What is the mood, the style, the emotion? This in turn tells me what harmonic language I am using, what instrumentation, etc. basically the stuff that will remain constant throughout.
I would then take one element of my first theme--whatever it's most definining feature is--and write a theme that is the complete opposite in just that one respect.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Apr 16, 2018)

DoctorGuitar007 said:


> I don't want to get too hung up on the idea of "related to" as I think we're just splitting sematics. Even if two ideas "simply contrast" and don't share common motives or harmonies, etc. they are still related--if not, they don't belong in the same piece of music if the composer is aiming for cohension.
> Chances are, in the pieces you are thinking of where the second idea is 'unrelated' to the first, the two musical ideas still have much in common. Different key, different melody, different rhythm, etc. but the same style / genre and/or same instrumentation. (Even harmonically, you might use completely different chords in a different key, but more often than not you'd keep the same basic idiom, not suddenly switching from a vocabularly of diatonic triads to chromatic extended and altered jazz chords.)
> You wouldn't change from an A theme based around a Romantic waltz to a B theme that was styled on 80s synth pop. (Well, you might; could be an interesting effect, but not if cohesion is your goal.)
> The trick, I think, is deciding what to change and what to keep the same, and making sure that the balance between the two is right.
> ...


I think it's a delicate dance.
The ultimate cohesion? Holding the same note played with the exact same dymic for the entire piece. There's some cohesion.
But in order to be interesting, music should go somewhere (doesn't necessarily need to be a lot of places, either). Sometimes less is more.
Talking about cohesion, and I think a great case study would be Sibelius' Symphony No 7 (a one movement symphony).
I tend to agree with Debusy when it comes to music in general: beauty is the law.
If it touches the emotions, if it's compelling, if it sounds good....it's good. The end product is all that matters (as far as how it is judged). I think if we go too far with this we get paralysis by analysis. It is good for learning purposes sometimes, but I also like a little mystery and intrigue (spontanious inspiration?) as well


----------

