What Are You Practising / Composing Now?

[BBMmk2]

I’ve had a commission from the Indiana State Wind Symphony, for Tchaikovsky’s Finale from his Symphony No.5! They will also play another one I’ve done, the Rondo Alla Zingaresa from Piano Quartet in G, Op.25.

[Dave2002]

They will also play another one I’ve done, the Rondo Alla Zingaresa from Piano Quartet in G, Op.25.

Ah - following in Schoenberg's footsteps. I look forward to that.

[Pabmusic]

Hi - nice to see you back in these parts. i was beginning to wonder if you'd disappeared.

Not disappeared, but maybe a bit jaded.

[Dave2002]

I haven't written any music in a long time and am honestly not sure if I'm going to do so again—have a few things that I've started and should finish, but I think my problem is that I honestly evaluated the quality of the music I've written in the past and found it inferior to what I'd like to be capable of. Also it's much easier to just listen to music other people write since chances are they have more original ideas than I do.

Have been spending a bit more time playing the piano instead and finding that I have the same problem (inferior to what I'd like to be able to do) but at least with that I have the excuse of only practicing about an hour a week. I think I've been resisting setting up an everyday practice regimen because I'm afraid that I won't improve enough, since my goal would be to play at a professional level, and that's not particularly realistic for a 28 year old. Current repertoire that I've been working on is Beethoven Op.109, Ravel Alborada del gracioso, Schumann Kreisleriana and sometimes bits of Scarlatti or Bach as warmups or to practice specific techniques.

There are several issues here. Firstly, you hint at your age. Very possibly you're not going to become a professional performer, or composer, but you have many years in which to decide what you want to do and actually achieve or create "something". I guess you have more years ahead of you than behind, which is perhaps not the case for some round here - certainly me.

Isn't that something that most of us face, in all fields of life? People who want to play football, or cricket, or act, or paint, or do film making etc.? Few people are going to achieve high "status" - whatever that is - in whatever field. Does that mean we should all give up, and become consumers, rather than producers instead? Isn't there something to be gained by trying to do things, even if one ends up not doing whatever they are very well - at least in fairly "absolute" standards? One might at least be able to do some things better than before even attempting such challenges.

There might be enjoyment to be gained even just by trying, and most likely some proficiency - even relatively small - will be attained.

The other two points to pick out are: "results are poor" and "originality".

Regarding the quality of output - again - does it matter? Well - it would be good to do better, but again isn't there something about trying to do things which confers value. What does quality mean anyway? I think it's perfectly possible for people to write music which they themselves don't like - they write it, then decide aferwards it was either not what they "meant", or they just don't like it. It's also possible, though maybe not too likely, that other people will enjoy it.

The other issue - originality. A lot of what is written is not strictly original, but derivative. Does that matter? Maybe you could write something which sounds a bit like something by someone else. This could be subconscious absorption of ideas, or in some cases deliberate plagiarism, or merely "re-arrangement".

Building on work and ideas of others is often a sensible way forward anyway. That's why there are so many teachers and courses etc.

Assuming that one isn't intending to gain an advantage from someone else's work, does it really matter that some pieces sound similar? Would you rather hear a truly original piece which to most people would sound dreadful, or something which is similar to other works, but which people - including yourself - might like?

[Cockney Sparrow]

I agree with the sentiment of trying something and keeping with it if it gives pleasure or reward - even if high level results don't come forth easily, or at all. Otherwise everything one does is as a passive recipient.

I often switch off "The Infinite" Monkey Cage" (don't like the relentless jokey interventions) but yesterday whilst working away we left it on. Whilst I can't say I fully got all the points, they were suggesting taking up new challenges - they were talking about the areas of the Brain that were challenged, and the effect it might have of deferring onset of Alzheimers (or Dementia?). IIRC they suggested for maximum effect the new activity, once mastered, should be replaced by another new struggle. (Piano playing specifically referenced I think).

They also referred to research which found Nuns in convent who, on autopsy were found to have diminished brain functions but it had not been apparent they were suffering dementia. They explain it by the daily round of different tasks, the support socially within the convent and daily interactions. Compared with the stages of those within the community who, even if living as a couple, often spend latter years living on their own.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08kn47j

It was both informative and a humourous programme - they had an American comedian as well as the usual one.

"Brian Cox and Robin Ince look at the amazing capabilties of the super adaptable, ever changing human brain. They are joined by US talk show host Conan O'Brien, and neuroscientists David Eagleman and Gina Rippon to find out how the 3 lb organ that sits in our skull allows us to live on every corner of the planet, adapt to any habitat, argue with each other, and ourselves, and think about ideas such as free will. They learn whether being a successful comedian is really down to having a brain disorder and how the connections we make in our brain are changing and forming throughout our life, not just when we are young, so you really can teach an old dog, or human, new tricks. And talking of old dogs, a surprise guest makes a genuinely unexpected special appearance!"

[Richard Barrett]

Can I assume that it would be madness to have some transposing instruments notated as at concert pitch and others not?!

In a word, yes, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that. I think these days on balance most composers present their scores at concert pitch (but the parts at transposed pitch of course). The reason I personally don't do this is that, at every stage in the composition process, I want to see what the performer sees, for example when writing for clarinet to be able to work out immediately what the fingering of a note is, and in rehearsal to know which note he/she is referring to without having to convert it to concert pitch first.

[Richard Barrett]

Regarding the quality of output - again - does it matter? (...) The other issue - originality. A lot of what is written is not strictly original, but derivative. Does that matter? (...) does it really matter that some pieces sound similar? Would you rather hear a truly original piece which to most people would sound dreadful, or something which is similar to other works, but which people - including yourself - might like?

When writing music yes, everything matters. Otherwise why bother? Also, there is no sense in wondering whether "most people" will like something or find it dreadful. How can one possibly know? If it's something that "matters" to the composer, the fact that deep down human beings have much in common with oje another means that it could possibly "matter" to someone else, or possibly to many people.

[Dave2002]

When writing music yes, everything matters. Otherwise why bother? Also, there is no sense in wondering whether "most people" will like something or find it dreadful. How can one possibly know? If it's something that "matters" to the composer, the fact that deep down human beings have much in common with oje another means that it could possibly "matter" to someone else, or possibly to many people.

I didn't mean that it didn't matter to the composer, or others, but rather that if one never did anything because the output/results are "no good" - one would never get started, and never do or make anything. I also meant that giving up an activity - which one might enjoy purely as an activity - because other people could do it better is not a particularly optimistic way to live - that would "condemn" many of us to be consumers, rather than active participants.

Another reason for trying to do things - perhaps a circular argument - is because even if we don't do things particularly well, we can learn aspects of whatever it is, and then maybe understand/appreciate the activities of others who do perform better than we do.

For professional composers indeed it must matter that the results are good - though what "good" is may vary from one to another. There are also practical matters such as "how long should one spend on something to aspire to perfection?". Sometimes the Swedish word lagom - effetively "good enough" or "fit for purpose" is helpful. This applies to many aspects of life , not just music.

[peterthekeys]

I think these days on balance most composers present their scores at concert pitch (but the parts at transposed pitch of course). The reason I personally don't do this is that, at every stage in the composition process, I want to see what the performer sees, for example when writing for clarinet to be able to work out immediately what the fingering of a note is, and in rehearsal to know which note he/she is referring to without having to convert it to concert pitch first.

As far as I know, most composers still notate parts for transposing instruments in the full score at transposed pitch. I know that notating them at concert pitch has been tried, but it was found that conductors hated it because it caused chaos during rehearsals (e.g. conductor accuses player of playing a wrong note, and eventually realises that the note that he's looking at in the score is at concert pitch, rather than transposed pitch, which is what he's used to seeing. Conductor's made to look like a fool - never a good move - and sorting out the confusion eats into precious rehearsal time.)

I've just started buying the Shostakovich symphonies in the new complete edition. They're all newly typeset, and the transposing instrument parts are at transposed pitch.

[Pulcinella]

As far as I know, most composers still notate parts for transposing instruments in the full score at transposed pitch. I know that notating them at concert pitch has been tried, but it was found that conductors hated it because it caused chaos during rehearsals (e.g. conductor accuses player of playing a wrong note, and eventually realises that the note that he's looking at in the score is at concert pitch, rather than transposed pitch, which is what he's used to seeing. Conductor's made to look like a fool - never a good move - and sorting out the confusion eats into precious rehearsal time.)

I've just started buying the Shostakovich symphonies in the new complete edition. They're all newly typeset, and the transposing instrument parts are at transposed pitch.

They sound tempting, but I imagine that you need a second mortgage to afford them.

[Richard Barrett]

As far as I know, most composers still notate parts for transposing instruments in the full score at transposed pitch.

I think you and I must know different composers then!

[Dave2002]

Trying out ideas. Wrote a fragment for string quartet, then decided to redo it for wind quartet - which was fairly straightforward and took hardly any time. Some notation has to be changed - for example bassoons don't distinguish between pizzicato and arco. Other articulation could be used instead, if desired.

I was slightly surprised at the result - arguably it sounds better on the wind combination - somewhat different character. That is partly to be expected, but I felt that the change was greater than I thought it would be.

Now wondering whether to give up on this, or rework it a bit. Several issues here. I'm sure more experienced composers will have a feel for whether it's worth abandoning something, or trying to modify it into something longer and perhaps more interesting. or maybe just more interesting. I hadn't really considered the concept of taking a piece and then modifying parts of it significantly before, but perhaps sometimes even small changes can make a difference. Changes may also spark off ideas for development and further changes.

One very specific issue which is not a problem for virtual instruments is how playable the parts are. Looking at the flute part, I think it is playable, but I might not be able to play it! I think a professional player should be able to manage it. I'm less sure about the oboe part - my feeling is that the oboe as an instrument is less agile, so runs which will work on a flute won't on an oboe, so might have to be replaced by triplets or other variants to be possible.

Another point is whether parts should be interesting for the players. Again - with virtual instruments - they "just do what they are told", but the clarinet part which was added in just to fill out the sound is just plain boring - though shouldn't present any playability concerns. The same might apply to the bassoon part, but perhaps bassoon players (like cellists) are used to long periods of relatively boring bass lines. I suspect that to motivate human players some attention to how the players will enjoy playing their parts might make a difference.

[peterthekeys]

I think you and I must know different composers then!

Probably the case. Can you quote some examples of composers who write parts for transposing instruments in the scores at concert pitch?

The reasons which I gave for notating them at transposed pitch are valid. Anyone used to reading a full score assumes parts for transposing instruments will be given at transposed pitch, and automatically applies the transposition mentally. If the parts are written at concert pitch, this causes confusion - particularly if the harmonic idiom is complex. Reading a full score is difficult enough without adding extra complications.

Of course it would be great if all conductors and musical scholars could all be simultaneously brainwashed into expecting transposing instrument parts at concert pitch - but that isn't going to happen. And the best way of achieving a performance of a work is to provide the conductor with a score which he or she will find easiest to use.

[Richard Barrett]

The reasons which I gave for notating them at transposed pitch are valid.

I am fully aware of that - as I said before, I do it myself so I don't need convincing.

Can you quote some examples of composers who write parts for transposing instruments in the scores at concert pitch?

As I said, very many composers since the middle of the last century have thus notated their scores. Some well-known names (whose scores I happen to have to hand) would be: Berg (Violin Concerto at least), Berio, Birtwistle, Henze, Holliger, Kagel, Ligeti, Messiaen, Nono, Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Xenakis... and no doubt hundreds of others, but I guess that will do for now! In my experience, conductors aren't too bothered one way or the other.

[Dave2002]

In my experience, conductors aren't too bothered one way or the other.

I’ve heard that some players, particularly brass players aren’t too bothered either and can transpose into just about any key, and know what to play on each instrument. Other players are not usually so versatile.