Composition Grammar

[rodcencko]

I follow with interest the topic about "How to get inspiration", but rather than inspiration I've some trouble to find a compositional "grammar" to use with my ideas. I've tried to look around on the net and I ask already in another forum without any concrete answer. It seems that especially in the field of the experimental music none has tried to give a kind of rules for putting ideas in an structured context. When I asked the same question in another forum the the typical answer were: Let the music flow or Don't give to your creativity a cage etc.etc.
I hope I was clear enough when I say Grammar I mean a set of rules to use for give a finish structure to a music composition

Suggestion are welcome

[elektro80]

hey rodcencko!

This is very interesting. I have been thinking about these things myself a lot. I guess you are right about that grammar missing, in the sense you are using the term.. and also a proper "modern" terminology to describe both the process and the methods. I guess we have to invent something then..

[deknow]

this is interesting, and something i have given some thought to over the years.

there is an illusion (i think) that there are "rules" for other forms of music (specifically in the classical tradition)...this is no more than an illusion. what matters about music is what it sounds like. there are times when methods and/or process are also importnat, but if the music doesn't convey something auraly, then those things are irrelivent (imho). for instance, one can compose with a tonal or serial approach....but if the music sucks, who cares.

certainly, harmonically and structurally speaking, physics is probably the best language to describe what is going on. the "rules" that are learned by every music theory student are simply an analysis of what bach did by ear....and he did this because of how it sounded, not because he had an arbitrary set of rules to follow, but because of how differant pitches and overtones interact, and how they are percieved by the listener. in the case of these "standard rules", it was rameau who (many years after bach's death) analyised his style, and was able to codify it into a set of rules that achieve a similar effect...but anyone who has done projects for a class based on these rules knows that this process is _not_ the same kind of creative process of composition (in almost all cases), but more like following a set of rules. of course these can be applied brilliantly, just as the rules of how to move chess pieces can be simply following rules, or they can be used to do brillaint and elegant things.

i have a free improv band that has been playing together for several years (and most of that time, we rehersed once a week). this experience has lead us to develop our own vocabulary. we can talk about what we do, but in general, it is easier to keep that discussion in the musical domain (we express them through playing, not by talking about them).

i think the only answer to your question is that there is no grammar (outside what record collectors use...which, like rameau's analysis of bach looses much of the creative "meat" in the discussion) for most forms of modern music. much of the academic "notation" for modern music seems to me to be bridge between the time when music could only be recorded by notating it for others to play, and the modern time where music is recorded directly by the composer (and there are certainly other approaches, especially when dealing with groups...but this is again notating for others to play). the only solution is to actually record something (anything), and then, as your own "audience", evaluate what you like, what you don't like, and devise ways to get closer to your goal. as you get closer and gain more experience, you will be able to ask specific questinos....some more tangible than others ("how do i make the bass meatier...more "menacing", or "i really like the quality of the drum sounds in such and such a track...how do i get these drums to sound more like that). in the jazz tradition (before people went to expensive university to learn "jazz theory"), transcribing (writing out) solo's of other's recorded works that accomplish something that the "student" wanted to learn has always been to learn...i think "making a house track" or "recording a drum and bass sequence", or even (as sheridan has done) "sythesizing real sounds" is probably the most valuable thing you can do. looking for a vocabulary that someone else has devised only insures that you will work within their limitiations.

deknow

[Kassen]

Deknow, I think rodcencko actually *wants* a grammar, something along the lines of the demand that a Fugue introduces the theme in a certain way or the need for a kick on every count with a relatively high pitched countraccent in the lead or bass of house and the "pitch everything up a semitone somewhere at 2/3 of the track" of 80's pop or the rules of twelvetone music, except for electronic experimental music.

I can well see the demand for this; we are so insanely free that it make smaking choices hard. Inherently, for experimental music, such a gramar would be personal; however where to look for such a grammar? I have to think about this but it's certainly a excelent question.

[deknow]

well, i think record collectors do this...but i also don't think it's particulary useful if one is working with "experemental" music, as collectors can only really describe what has already been done, and only describe the result, not the process. if one works only within the framwork of what other's have described/defined, it doesn't seem very experemental to me.

as you said, it must be a personal lexicon....and that is only developed (i think) by doing actual experementation.

deknow

[egw]

Structure or "grammar" shouldn't restrict the creative flow unless it's too heavy handed. It may even help inspirationally by providing a context or starting point. In most types of music some amount of structure, or conventions, are given. But in experimental music, I think the structure itself is part of the creative process. So feel free to devise your own.

[elektro80]

[elektro80]

I don´t think our new friend is thinking grammar=conventions as in "I love those dull genres and I am too lazy to figure out something smart I can call my own." It is more the other way around I guess.

Speaking of conventions, there are at least two sides to this. Ultimately we have to use some conventions in order to get the music accepted as music. I don´t think that is an act of evil. It is all about making the listeners accept the premises and then make them listen. It is of course quite true that it is not a valid claim that all music should be loved by everyone.

[elektro80]

[rodcencko]

"I think the structure itself is part of the creative process. So feel free to devise your own"

That's what I heard so many times.

But, must the experimental composition be a kind of "Nobody's land" where everyone find his own way or maybe it should have at list one or more defined macro-structures where I can put my compositional elements?

[paul e.]

seems like a good time for this link

http://solomonsmusic.net/vartech.htm

[Kassen]

[elektro80]

[Kassen]

[elektro80]

Perhaps unrelated but I did smile when I saw the inital post in this thread.
You all might remember the painting "The Poinless Composition" by Rodchenko.



Those who haven´t studied art history can read more about the dude here:
http://www.bookrags.com/biography-alexander-mikhailovich-rodchenko/
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/rodchenko_alexander.html
http://www.gyro.co.nz/pages/rodcko.html

[elektro80]

Moma has a subsite about the dude too, based on the 1998 Moma exhibition: http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/1998/rodchenko/

[opg]

When I got more into experimental music (which wasn't as deep into it as most of the members here compose), my first question is, "What do I want to hear that I haven't heard before or enough of?" I'll then begin fiddling with sthose sounds I want to hear.

But then I get to the actual structure of the song. I usually end up following a more traditional pop song format, the whole "A - A - B - A" garbage, because most of my songs focus on rhythm. But what about those more ambient, abstract songs? After I have decided what I want to hear, I then ask myself, "Well, what would be BORING? What would I NOT want to hear my sounds do?" I usually follow these rules:

1. At the beginning of the song, you should give the listener a sense of space and/or sound quality. That is, if you don't start the song with loud drums with reverb or a crazy-panning synth drone, your opening sound should have an ear-catching CHARACTER to it. I like to start off with a messy analog synth rhythm/arp that's got a lot of tape saturation, bit reduction, etc. If this rule isn't followed, it's difficult to catch your listener's attention or not have your sobg sound like General MIDI/musak. (But keep in mind, rules and structure are meant to be broken).

2. Be careful how long you focus on a certain loop/instrument/sound. Even if you have some really organic bubbling synth that's constantly changing in terms of panning, HP/LP filtering, phasing, volume, etc., it could very well be interpreted by the listener as THE SAME SOUND, and therefor repetitious. Of course, it can hurt you in just the opposite way. If you make too many changes too fast, the listener won't have time to enjoy those sounds that you want to have heard (this is usually a problem for me personally).

3. Just like stand-up comedy, things should usually be re-introduced throughout the song - not a strict structure like "A - A - B - A," but at appropriate distances away from when you first heard them. By "them," I mean either a sound or melody. With electronic music, there is so much that could be your "hook" that the choices of what should be re-introduced can be maddening.

This is probably not the best way to go about answering the question, but I worry about structure all the time, especially when I have to figure out how to transition from one section to the next. Right now, I think most of my songs are over-structured and don't flow very well.

I think after deciding what "type" of music the song you're working on is (meaning: has a beat through most of the song, very organic and ambient, crazy glitch, etc), you will be able to apply these rules. And then later know when to break them.

[Kassen]

Great post, OPG. I think that one of the main things that remains the same everywhere is that good music has a ballance between elements that are expected by the listener and elements that break this expectation. THis holds true for everything from sound design to conventional meloldy.

It would follow that to have this "expected" element we need some rules that the listener can detect in some way and that provide the structure.

[paul e.]

don;t know if this is totally on point to the discussion..


but is is interesting to observe that traditional blues has the same basic structure each and every time, yet the variations and permutations of this form are quite vast ..

most blues musician draw on internal experience and feeling ..

so perhaps 'structure' is less important and 'inspiration/emotion' is the real driving force behind composition

the 'rules' of music are simple and self-evident..not even 'rules' but more like natural laws..

maybe it's not only intellectual, but more importantly, emotional forces that guide the composition

[opg]

Just don't forget that there are so many subgenres of electronic music. One in particular, minimalism - how does this fit in our discussion? This is not a subgenre I'm interested in because it violates Rule #2

[dmosc]

this is a very excellent thread.

I think rodcencko is hitting on a major point here. How open ended should things be? If you have your instruments be "experimental", as well as your rythems, your tempos, your harmony, your structure, etc... you can be overwhelmed with the composition and it can come out lifeless and unfocused.

I love when Amy Newburg expressed in her talk at EM05 that sometimes the technology's capabilities/limits were central themes in a given composition. I think many composers try to do too much, be too "original", and fail not out of lack of inspiration or creativity, but lack of focus.

I had the pleasure of studying with Dr. Payne at Bucknell University for 4 years. He is a renound handbell composer and I had the unique experience of observing him both as a composer and as a conductor. It amazed me that some of his favorite and most popular works were not his most detailed. Before my last year, he wrote a very simply structured piece in basically ABA form which he claimed he wrote 90% of in the course of 15 minutes on an airplane. The piece wasn't technically easy by any means but after some work on the group's part, it quickly showed itself as a wonderful piece. I think the trend in his work of pieces that I liked were when the compositions themselves were not too auspicious and accepted the limitations of the handbells, even embracing the restrictions of the players. After all, in handbells, it's very limiting. Each player only has 2 hands and takes a certain time to put a bell down and pick a bell up. You can learn some amazing techniques but you're not going to create every possible sound you could imagine like a synth. My point is, that the limiting capabilities, rigid structure, and traditional voicings of the bells was a compositional tool, not a thing to be struggled against.

There is great wisdom in seeking a structure before beginning a composition. Imposing limits on your work's scope and allowing more specialized roles for experimentation can have great results. I feel sometimes the community here is too quick to burn the bar lines, notes, rythems, tonality, instrumentation, and anything else you would recognize as "played out". I'm not saying experimentation is not a wonderful and needed thing in this day and age, but you often see more looking through a window than stading outside.

[Kassen]

[Kassen]

[opg]

[elektro80]