The great problem.... of creativity

A question that may seem stupid and useless... whose theme is it?

Interesting discussion, I opened a thread on creativity some time ago, I'll send you the link

http://www.pianoconc...tivo-in-musica/

Obviously the scope is different but I am looking for "relationships" between the 2 topics.

To return to the topic, I think the theme is the context; the composer (as I think Natan wants to remember) declares the stylistic boundaries, the scope, the "rules," and within these same rules provides an outlet for fantasy by developing elements of the theme itself that they have indeed presented.

Feldman wrote:

the remaining part is nothing more than its development.... so I wonder, how much does the issue of creativity, of the "fantastic" way of developing something, hold up? Are a composer's choices "free" or otherwise constrained by very close relationships with the theme?

Writing a theme capable of sustaining half an hour of music certainly requires imagination. Or rather, imagination is precisely what is needed in elaborating that material for half an hour... of course imagination is needed. Otherwise, given a theme, all developments would be the same, but instead there is a distinguishing factor, what is it? Precisely the composer's imagination and technique; technique is at the service of imagination... so Fantasy remains.

Furthermore, in long-form pieces, there is more than one thematic idea.

Interesting topic.

And, as always, the issue is historicized.

When we talk about forms, we should not forget the fact that there are also compositional principles at the base of forms. That is, a romance is a romance, and it is a form in every sense, but an isorhythmic motet or a parody mass are forms based on compositional principles closely linked to specific musical elements. One of the "founding myths" of almost all theories of form, then, is organicism—the idea that form develops as the composition progresses but that, in nuce, it is all contained within its beginning. That is, what Feldman said in the first message. There are styles, techniques, and forms that do not follow this principle (the famous "Durchkomponierte" forms, for example, such as madrigals), but it is undeniable that organicism is very present in music history

A bit enigmatic for me, your intervention Thallo, sorry ... I wasn't able to follow, too concentrated for me

Music is language (at least according to the still prevailing opinion) and as such it cannot do without form (otherwise it becomes incomprehensible).

A work of art is substance and form. Creativity therefore expresses itself necessarily through a determined form. Creativity is a matter of ideas and feeling; form is a matter of technique. The creative process starts from an idea that acquires form through patient and skillful "craftsman-like" work. Technical tools (if we wish to speak of musical "craft") represent a formidable instrument at the service of creativity and allow one to authentically express and develop one's own ideas, and sometimes they even suggest them.

For example, Bach's ease in composing (even improvising) fugues arose from an extraordinary familiarity with contrapuntal technique... Beethoven created gigantic architectures starting from a theme, or even from a simple motif, which was fragmented and dissected to the point of paroxysm through a technical procedure (identifying the characteristics of the theme, the individual motifs that compose it, the rhythmic and harmonic aspects, the possibilities for variation, reharmonization, modulation, etc...).

Without taking anything away from so-called "genius," for both it was a technical, "formal" matter that (if we want to be paradoxical) gave them an infinite freedom of expression.

In total agreement with pestatasti!!

pestatasti wrote:

Music is language (at least according to the still widely held opinion) and as such it cannot do without form (otherwise it becomes incomprehensible).

books upon books have been written on all of this. And, believe me, no opinion is settled, especially the one that music is a language.

The work of art is substance and form.

as above.

Besides, I continue to think one thing... it's fine that we have terrible teaching methods in Italy, but when they told you at school "it is like this and that's that," were you happy? Assertions must be argued; I'm not saying proven, but at least argued.

In over 2000 years of philosophy, there have been HUNDREDS of definitions of form.

As for everything else, therefore, the same judgment of genericity applies...

I am also responding to Aspirante.

Can you tell me what you don't understand? Perhaps by quoting my message, I don't know... it isn't that long.

I will repeat the key concepts anyway.

There are "formal principles" and there are "forms."

The formal principle is, in the words of Plotinus ( http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotino ), the unity to which the manifold is reduced. The idea that an entire piece is built on a few elements, or even on a single element, is a direct consequence of Plotinus's philosophy of form which, rather than speaking of forms, speaks precisely of formal principles. I don't like making those parallels like "Plotinus lived in the Middle Ages, therefore medieval music follows Plotinus's theorization". It doesn't always work that way; on the contrary. But there are compositions, even medieval ones, in which it does work that way. Much ancient polyphony has unifying formal principles, and the isorhythmic motet (a genre) rather than having a form, has a series of formal principles.

Form, on the other hand, is generally a model according to which the parts of something follow one another. More or less this definition is Aristotelian (Aristotle speaks of the form of tragedy in Poetics). When we speak of tripartite or bipartite forms, we are actually speaking of external forms. Forms are recognized from the outside, in a certain sense. Formal principles from the inside. I don't know, it would be like saying that forms are cookie cutters, which do not hold the dough together but delimit it. In reality, however, the dough stays together because you chose to combine butter, eggs, and flour, and this union is the formal principle, the structural constant of the cookie.

Almost all musical forms are a union of external forms and formal principles. Sonata form, as is known, is tripartite. But the fact that it is bithematic has nothing to do with the external form; it is rather a formal principle.

When I speak of organicism, I am speaking of that particular union between external form and formal principle that exists in living beings. Think of DNA. DNA is a formal principle; that is, it is not visible from the outside but it is the principle by which everything takes shape. The idea that a well-written composition has at its base a formal principle so strong that it is the only thing from which it develops is a founding myth of much classical music (and of much musical analysis). Schenkerian analysis itself, an analytical technique we have often discussed on this forum, is based on the idea that at the base of EVERY tonal composition there is the same formal structure.

I agree, interesting Topic, dozens of books would be needed but the first thing that caught my eye is this part of Pestatasti's post

pestatasti wrote:

Music is language (at least according to the still-consolidated opinion) and as such it cannot do without form (otherwise it becomes incomprehensible).

I would like to provide some elements for reflection. That music can be assimilated into a language may be true, but some necessary clarifications are needed. While there always exists a code (and in the 20th century there was the maximum openness of codes) and a syntax, the absence of semantics leads this art to have sense rather than meaning.

In fact, music is connotative but does not denote. The connotation of musical language means that I can change, for example, a melody by giving it distinct senses. Precisely: music, more senses and no meaning

pestatasti wrote:

The work of art is substance and form. Creativity is therefore necessarily expressed through a determined form.

And here one would need to find a way to include Messiaen, and being aware that the discourse cannot be universal, Western reality does not exist alone. To make ourselves understood, we write from left to right but in other parts they do the opposite... everyone writes, reads and understands each other... so the discourse becomes increasingly muddled. The invitation is to provide a context

pestatasti wrote:

Creativity is a matter of ideas and feeling; form is a matter of technique. The creative process starts from an idea that acquires form through patient and skillful "craftsman-like" work.

I would say that writing is the emotional acceptance of a balance between thought and energy (sound), an operation that occurs through craftsmanship.

The reflection, however, is this: when thought is introduced (we are always talking about the 20th century), the emotional aspect is significantly cracked.

Furthermore, in the second half of the 20th century, the "sublime" starting object does not exist; there is only the starting material

pestatasti wrote:

Technical tools (if we wish to use the term musical "craftsmanship") represent a formidable tool at the service of creativity and allow one to authentically express and develop one's own ideas, and sometimes they even suggest them.

Agreeable

thallo wrote:

no opinion is consolidated, especially that music is a language.

In effect, as I was saying, I feel I can only speak of asemantic codes.

To respond to our friend Feldman, often the answer lies in asking good questions

Feldman wrote:

what do you think about creativity in compositional choices?

Let's reflect on the term "choices"; if options are not given, creativity is required to seek them... but also technique for their feasibility; I will return to this later.

Feldman wrote:

In your opinion, based on what criteria did the great composer of the past (from any historical era) establish the thematic structure, modulations, and everything else within a composition?

Given that in the term "past" I also include all (I repeat, all!) of the last century, and it seems to me you understand this from the underlining "of any historical era," I think you are referring to theme and modulations in a broad sense. Therefore, theme vs. material or modulations towards translation, transposition of an eventual series, etc., to follow.

I think everything can be summarized with aesthetics, which is obviously a whole world unto itself, but it guides the musician's instinct to write music of their time—and I am not referring to the adjective/adverb "contemporary," but to the modernity in which the artist positions themselves responsibly toward tradition and nourishes it (without commodifying it).

Feldman wrote:

I read in a text, the name of which I cannot recall right now, that in the pieces of great authors such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc., everything (but truly EVERYTHING) is contained within the theme and the remaining part is nothing more than its development.... so I wonder, how much does the issue of creativity hold up, of the "fantastic" way of developing something? Are a composer's choices "free," or are they nonetheless constrained by very tight relationships with the theme?

This, on the other hand, is a narrower field. The music of this period depends precisely on the starting "sublime" object. Music lives for that object, so creativity is oriented toward developing and transfiguring precisely the theme or subject, whatever it may be.

Pity that for many, musical composition is not just fantasy, not just inspiration... most of it is very technical work, a technique that takes taste and aesthetics into account, but it is always technique.

The more one progresses, the more one consolidates their own style, and the more "circumscribed" fantasy becomes, the more work remains... and the greats knew this too; I remember this open discussion by Carlos and the surprise in reading some of Mozart's thoughts regarding the objectives he set for himself in terms of usability.

http://www.pianoconc...va-anche-mozart

That is, a consecrated genius, wondering how to arrange notes in a row to reach an objective closely tied to the aesthetic sense of his period.

Ergo, much technique (oh!, He, the supreme one, used to attend lessons from Padre Martini) aimed at bending the material to tell (good old times when music was solely of a narrative character) something to his peers.

Even the fact that the flute does not play below C is a technical implication that guides fantasy toward perhaps other instruments (but even here, how would Lachenmann fit in? Eh..eh)... and it digs, and digs... the technique is very substantial. It is practically an iceberg; you see the tip, the most exterior part of the piece, but all the technical work is submerged and must be so... otherwise, it remains an exercise.

Let's say that mine are free reflections expressed from the point of view of a composer with a bit of historical consciousness... what do you/you all think?

Thallo, Frank, I thank you for your learned critical clarifications, which I largely share.

Thallo, the reference to organicism is more than correct; moreover, Feldman referred to composers "of the past" by citing the three great myths of the Baroque and Classical periods. The composers of that period were very careful to ensure that the development of a piece did not compromise its unity or even its formal symmetry. This occurred thanks to the use of motivic elements of the theme (or themes) - and in counterpoint, the subject and/or countersubject - with which phrases were constructed that, in turn, gave life to the periods of the entire composition. Every phrase was different from the others, yet they all maintained a single imprint and matrix (whatever the structure of what you call "external form" might be: sonata, concerto, dance, fugue, etc...)

Regarding music as a language, I respond to you like this: I am aware of the complexity but I reject relativism. Of course, I would have been better off using the term "form of expression" instead of "language" (which is linked to the concept of tongue/speech). It seems objective to me that music (and art) is a form of expression, that is, a means of expressing oneself and therefore establishing contact (I would say communication, obviously non-verbal) with the listener. This is also confirmed by terms such as "artistic expression," "with expression," "with sweetness," "agitato," etc... The question rather is: what is it that communicates, what is it that music expresses? A theory, a concept, a feeling? Obviously, a (non-trivial) answer to this question does not exist because what music communicates, the sense of which Frank speaks of, is ineffable, unspeakable in words but quite clear and present to the spirit of the listener.

I believe therefore that if the composer does not intend to lock themselves into artistic solipsism (which could also be an absolutely legitimate choice), they must necessarily accept expressing themselves in a "form" that is recognizable and intelligible to others. It is natural, then, that there are countless forms different from one another depending on the musical genre and cultural context, and it also seems true to me that—forgive me if I say something foolish—modern art has put the concept of "form" into crisis, but I will stop here as I do not wish to delve into a field that I do not know...

p.s. I think I have argued my point and anyway expressed my thought (take it for what it is) obviously in a non-academic way, not intending to discourse on the HUNDREDS of definitions of form that have been given over more than 2000 years of philosophy (furthermore, I would not consider this the most appropriate venue)

just to close the discussion.

Look at the fragment of Mozart's K332.

Why repeat do-fa do-fa with only an octave difference?

how many composers would have used only one of the two chords, perhaps the first one?

playing the sonata without one of the two passages, it doesn't work, whereas this way everything flows perfectly.

http://www.darlin.it/lifestyle/15-cose-che-i-creativi-fanno-diversamente-dagli-altri/

Very true

rstrauss wrote:

just to close the discussion.

Look at the fragment from Mozart's K332.

Why repeat C-F, C-F with only an octave difference?

how many composers would have used only one of the two chords, perhaps the first one?

playing the sonata without one of the two passages, it doesn't work, whereas this way everything flows perfectly.

What is said to be genius, and what might perhaps be more appropriate to define as refined, is to vary the musical discourse as much as possible without compromising its coherence.

It is exemplary how, here, the simple literal repetition of the cadence an octave lower creates variety while maintaining coherence, emphasizes the closing, makes the contrast with what follows more "effective," and all this without the same repetition of the cadence resulting in monotony or being superfluous.

Mozart often avoids monotony even when literally repeating the theme... an octave lower, inverting the accompaniment chords, or simply doubling the bass or using forte/piano contrasts.

This too is technique, which Mozart obviously knew how to use with sophisticated refinement and exquisite taste.

That is another thing: regarding what guides every composer in the creation of themes and melodies, here personal intuition makes the difference.