How to compose accurately?

It's a long discussion to be had; I know a thing or two about it and I pay the "consequences" (almost a sense of guilt towards the music itself).

I hypothesize that when you think of the term "wrong," you are doing so by making a comparison with music that, as soon as it is heard, gives you back that sensation of something that fits, that works, perhaps despite the complexity of the writing.

Am I right?

The problem of developing an idea is something I also experience; I know what it is linked to and it's not "just" a matter of music, but I won't speak about it otherwise, as it would fuel controversy as usual.

Anyway, in reality there is nothing wrong, especially if you like what you do; the problem perhaps arises if you feel that what you write (even if you like it) is not capable of sparking interest or at least the same sensations that you feel (but everyone knows that everyone experiences music in their own way).

First, one must see if they know themselves well enough (I think what we think we know about ourselves is never sufficient), and consequently, one's own limits in a specific field:

for example, as far as I am concerned, I stopped at a mere hint regarding progressions and didn't go any further (it's useless to stand here debating why—again, endless controversies, I speak from experience), so it is as if I had regressed.

I have "returned" to making another type of music with which I am more familiar and in which I can imprint exactly what I have in my head, but this does not mean that I am not interested in being able to write more complex music for which greater attention is required.

They are two sides of the same coin, exactly as I experience things myself, in an ambivalent way.

What kind of musician do you consider yourself to be?

Starting from what you are, from what you know, and from what you could theoretically want and do.

I am absolutely looking for a level worthy enough for my music, otherwise I would stop at four chords with their respective arpeggios.. I feel that if I knew the laws of harmony and how it is composed, I could write valid pieces.. You yourselves told me that I have "musical taste"; the sadness is that I don't know how to apply it in composition because I don't know which path to follow in order to build even a single 3-minute piece. Every piece I compose is packed with 30-second ideas that are not connected as I would like...

For example, I have noticed that many great composers propose one or more ideas, and throughout the piece they revolve around them, reprise them, transpose them.. I don't know how to do this, how can I? Where do I learn? Thanks for the answer

PS: Regarding the genre, it would be music for solo piano, not jazz and not new-age

One of the "main" problems is taking inspiration from a certain type of work and trying to re-propose one's own point of view, but in an absolutely different context, in multiple aspects, first and foremost the approach to composition:

how do you compose?

- Does something come to mind and you try to write it down on the fly, but the result is not always the same or similar to what you had in mind?

- While trying various passages (melodic and harmonic), do you "find yourself" with something in your hands that you consider valid at the moment, but later the euphoria fades a bit and you re-evaluate everything? (It is the moment when comparison with compositions of an absolute level lashes you)

- Do you start "diligently" but at a certain point you start with "trial and error" by ear (how does it all sound?)?

In recent years I have written prioritizing the rhythmic aspect over the harmonic one (which, by necessity, I do not master), exactly what I have always done with electronic music.

I know well what you mean when you say that you could write better having more knowledge/awareness.

In short:

- art is the antithesis of what is right, so 'exact' and 'art' are not the best pairing, although I imagine you are referring to musical grammar or the syntax of languages such as tonal music

- no one can give you ideas, but it seems to me from what I am reading that you believe you have some

That being said, you probably feel that you lack technique, so you should begin a path oriented toward the study of composition. Do you plan to do it alone or to have someone guide you?

Exactly, I feel like I lack compositional technique (in fact, I have only ever taken piano lessons). And absolutely yes, I would like to start studying composition, but on my own.. for pure personal whim..

@Piccinesco I only compose when I have ideas in my head, I don't force myself to sit down. Another thing, I compose at the piano; I am not capable of composing without the piano at the moment.. partly because I have never done solfège, so I sit with Finale next to the piano and write bit by bit.

One of the causes, I think, is the fact that I only compose when I have ideas in my head; that's probably why the piece ends up being a collection of ideas..

Example: Today an idea comes to mind, G minor key, I write it down and try it out, it sounds good (and here everything is fine because we are at the first idea), the next day or even after a few hours another idea comes to mind, maybe not even in the key of G minor but I notice that it fits well with the previous one, so I transpose it into G minor and attach it to the previous one.

That is roughly how I compose, and I feel that it is wrong.. What I would like is to give sense to my compositions, not make them look like a pile of ideas thrown together randomly. Personally, I think that taken as individual ideas they are beautiful, but what comes out in the end makes no sense, because they just seem to me like many ideas piled up

In music, what is beautiful is not always right and vice versa, but while beauty cannot be taught (up to a certain point...), correctness can.

In my opinion, a good starting point is the STRUCTURE of a piece. Start with a simple structure, for example, the exposition of a romance, and try to stay within a fixed number of measures. For example, if your initial idea in G minor is 4 measures long, construct a response to this idea that is also 4 measures long. Do not think in terms of duration—2 minutes, 3 minutes, no—think in terms of measures, of structure. If in the initial idea you say something, for example: "Hi, how are you?", in the response you will say: "Fine thanks, and you?", so that the response moves onto chords that the proposal does not touch; it is a simple way to avoid being repetitive while remaining in the same key.

After the first back-and-forth, re-propose the initial idea slightly varied, in the sense that you can add some flourishes to the melody, a few extra notes in the accompaniment, but with the same number of measures, and then a second response, of the same number of measures, which is also different from both the main theme and the first response.

In practice, it is the scheme: 4 bars T (theme) - 4 bars R1 (response 1) - 4 bars T' (slightly varied theme) - 4 bars R2 (second response).

This should already work. Make sure that the last chord of each section connects well to the first chord of the next section.

To this basic scheme, you can add variations before and after: a small introduction or a small coda; often pedals work well as an introduction and coda—that is, staying on the same bass note while changing the harmonies above; the most used pedals are the tonic (I degree) and the dominant (V degree).

You could have a short piece of 16 measures, which with an intro and coda could become 24-26-28... then perhaps the theme will start to be 6 instead of 4 measures; in short, there will be ways to increase the proportions.

This is just one of many schemes that can be followed.

I often have students who have ideas but do not know how to develop them and literally limit themselves to "jamming" them together: this happens because they do not think in terms of structure; it is like wanting to build a palace without a project, but simply starting to mix some bricks with lime and seeing what happens.

Over time, you might discover that sometimes "to sink in this sea is sweet" and letting fantasy lead you wherever it wants is not bad, but to avoid drowning in the early days (and even the second and third...) it is better to follow a structure.

One last thing: even when you have learned to master compositional technique, orchestration, and so on, you will continue to feel like a microbe compared to the great composers, because that is where a completely uncontrollable factor comes into play, personal and outside of any dynamic related to teaching: the sacred fire of GENIUS.

You can write the most "correct" fugue there is, with the most "accurate" counterpoints, then you listen to the counterpoint in Bach's The Art of Fugue and you say: "Well, we were just joking", close everything, and laugh and cry at the same time.....

pianothor wrote:

sento che mi manca la tecnica compositiva

Allora sei fortunato, la tecnica si impara.

Thank you so much everyone! I will start by following Geppino's advice, and, as soon as I am more free I will get some books to read about it.. Unfortunately, right now I am still quite busy with studying :|

This topic was useful to me

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2885-romanza-senza-parole

If the idea were just a melody, here are some suggestions that were passed on to me back in the day

www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1238-scrivere-laccompagnamento-ad-una-melodia

Well, since you say that you don't lack ideas, you should start studying harmony, which is somewhat the vocabulary of a composer. The more you know, the more you can afford to create and dare (perhaps by breaking the rules; the point is that a rule, before being broken, must be known)... At the same time, since your biggest problem is that your piece lacks formal "coherence," I would tell you to also start studying form (Bas is an excellent treatise)... Knowing musical forms and how they can be structured is fundamental to giving organic unity and completeness to a piece. It is the basis for being able to eventually arrive, if you wish to do so one day, at writing movements in sonata form that last even 15/20 minutes.

Analysis is also fundamental. Start with simple things, perhaps with sonatinas themselves if you don't want to start with actual sonatas, or with Mendelssohn's Romanzen ohne Worte (Songs Without Words). The rest will come naturally; plenty of listening and plenty of study—few are those who "are born knowing".

“Everything I write is different from everything I listen to, so there is definitely something wrong.” What more could you want from life? Don't throw away this precious thing by going to study under a teacher who—if all goes well—will make you write “correct” things, identical to things that already exist, useless. The case of good old Geppino is a perfect example.

“What I would like is to give meaning to my compositions, not make them seem like a pile of ideas thrown together randomly.” Take a single idea. Do not try to connect it to other ideas. Concentrate only on that one, until you truly understand it. How can you make others understand this idea too? Try to find a solution. Take your favorite pieces and try to understand how real composers do it.

“I really like the ideas I have.” The only advice I could give you is: learn to truly believe in these ideas. When you let an “expert” listen to your music, they will point out all the mistakes you have made. You will have to fight to defend your ideas, and to find the strength to fight, you must truly believe in them—otherwise, it will be of no use.

But Red, I've heard a couple of his pieces; in my opinion, it's not that he doesn't hear different ideas... but the elaborative process of the idea itself which he practically doesn't do. Ergo, we have all studied under a teacher.... so it doesn't seem so off-target as a suggestion

If anything, not all teachers are Masters.... so it happens that they teach you to be a shadow of yourself. But perhaps that is too advanced a discussion, here we are at the ABCs.

From my point of view, Mozart studied with Padre Martini, Beethoven with Haydn, Liszt with Czerny, Berg with Schoenberg, Grisey with Messiaen, etc. ... therefore, a Master never hurts; rather, the problem is the composer's lack of personality in failing to make their own ideas and imprint credible (and recognizable). Although it is also true that there are suffocating personalities, often there are non-composers who compose

Say nothing! Who today are teachers of the caliber of Haydn, Schönberg, Messiaen?

I have had several masters, but only one - with a single 2-hour meeting - gave me a true lesson in composition (by the way, by actually explaining to me how one works on an idea).

For me, there are plenty of great living artists; the point, in my opinion, is a bit different. Beethoven didn't have his first lesson with Haydn.... and so on for the others.

And if one wishes, Boulez is alive and well, as are Part, Gubaidulina, Penderecki, etc.

I have the impression that my thought only arrived halfway.

RedScharlach wrote:

Say nothing! Who today are teachers of the caliber of Haydn, Schönberg, Messiaen?

In Messiaen's hands passed almost everything from the '900, there is an entire book of names ... but in fact, who are they? Exactly.

I doubt that Haydn had only one pupil and I also doubt that Schoenberg had only two; all this tells us that it is not enough to go to Haydn to become Beethoven. And indeed I was writing:

Frank wrote:

the problem is the lack of personality of the composer, which fails to make one's own ideas and imprint credible (and recognizable).

Having clarified this, it seems imprecise to me to neglect Father Martini or Czerny in my post, who would be of what caliber? And yet Mozart is Mozart and Liszt is Liszt just the same. But there are a million examples (one only needs to think of Rossini and many others, all geniuses who nonetheless went to lessons from unknowns) and indeed what I wanted to say is that even the greatest minds in music went to lessons; I see nothing wrong with going or in suggesting it. Regarding this part of the post

RedScharlach wrote:

I have had several teachers, but only one - with a single 2-hour meeting - gave me a true composition lesson (moreover, by explaining to me exactly how to work on an idea).

I would refine the suggestion by saying to choose the Master well (even if the capital M is never accidental): one who does not stifle you, but makes you work on your own ideas.

In fact, I was writing that the author of the topic is, in my opinion, lucky because they only lack technique... they have the ideas.

I am sorry that I often encounter musicians who needed to go through many teachers before finding the Master, and indeed Red also feels they have found it (in short, who has never gone to lessons? It can't be a sin, can it?). Frankly, I make one work exclusively on ideas, even if it were just a vulgar melody, a chord, a sound, a noise, etc. Today it can be said that even the "only" material can be the idea itself. The fact is that no one can give you the idea; how to turn it into a piece of music, yes; at the beginning, one will have the impression that the compositional technique is that of the teacher or of the great Masters, but over time, if the Master is good, it should essentially become useless and the pupil, well-supported by analytical listening to repertoire pieces, infinite examples, and great work of internalization... will have all the means to take their own path.

It sounds like a fairy tale, yet it is very difficult to hear it being told.

Anyway, this is just my pedagogical thought; I am certain there are different examples that can support other ideas.

Natan wrote:

And if one wishes, Boulez is alive and well, as are Gubaidulina, Penderecki, etc.

As I was saying, it's not that anyone who goes to Gubaidulina becomes the greatest composer on earth; it's probably a lot if one even manages to follow her lead