[From a 9-part handout for my introductory composition class.]
| 4. The pros and cons of development | |
|---|---|
|
(pro) Do not abandon your babies! • Think of your musical ideas as your children (or, if that is too mind-boggling, your pets!). It is your job to help them grow and develop; be a responsible parent/custodian/pet-owner! |
(con) Don't let ideas overstay their welcome! • Not all musical ideas need to be developed to their maximum potential. In fact NO idea ever needs to be developed to its maximum potential; there's no such thing! If there were, it would bore your audience to tears! There needs to be a balance between the familiar and unfamiliar. (See below for more on this:) |
| • Growth is of fundamental importance to the European classical music tradition. It is essential to extend, develop, or otherwise 'grow' your musical ideas throughout the course of a composition. | • Is growth of equal importance to other musical traditions? Can a long(-ish) composition that totally disregards the growth principle be considered to be good? |
| • How to grow: After you have identified musical ideas you have created and labeled them (idea 1, idea 2, (2.1, 2.2 for variants) etc.), try to extend them. There are many, many ways to do this (see next entry), but the starting point is to want your ideas to grow. Yes, just like the How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? joke… (For those unfamiliar with this joke, the answer is: Just one, but the lightbulb has to really want to change.) | • (i) Composers all limit the growth of any idea, probably because to do otherwise would make compositions sound like pointless academic exercises. (ii) Consider Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. Is it a model of economy of means? If not, is it "bad?" (HINT: No. It is good.) What about Mozart's Pno. Cto. #21? What about "A Day in the Life" by Lennon McCartney? The "woke up, got out of bed…" section has nothing to do with any previous or subsequent idea… is the song therefore bad? (HINT: No. It is good.) |
Posts
8 comments:
I checked out this post because I was curious about how there could be a "con" to development. In my head it was the mark of a good composer to be able to milk everything he can out of a single idea.
But there's another point, too. Another mark of a good composer might be to know which ideas to milk...
This a topic I spend a lot of time thinking about. I suppose Beethoven is a prime example of how to use growth in a composition. His music seems to unfold so naturally, and has so much momentum that is created organically.
I do feel that limiting your ideas is a good practice, but I also feel that it is good to explore how contrasting ideas can relate to your initial one during the exploration of ideas process.
Sometimes musical material can all be derived from a single idea, but it does not necessarily honor the tendency of that initial idea, or does not treat it in a way that creates a living flow of music. In these instances, the development can sound a bit stale, and as Dr. Ross mentioned, like an academic exercise.
I always struggle to find the balance between the two. In the beginning I try to write as many ideas as I can but as it goes on I struggle with deciding to develop or just write new material. Pros and cons list should help me going forward.
I think that an idea should continue to be developed as long as it continues to generate interest, and in the best cases, continues to communicate meaning. A repeated idea takes on added significance and lends a greater power to a piece as well as providing a consistent aural touchstone for the listeners. However, all ideas reach a point where there have run their useful course. It all comes down to one's ability to present an idea in new, interesting, and valid ways. I often leave ideas too soon, and those I do repeat don't always develop as much as I would like them to. This is a technique I want to improve in my composition.
I'm interested by the question "Could a person write a good, extended composition that totally disregards the growth principle?" I don't see how you could COMPLETELY disregard the growth principle, but it would be interesting to see to what extent you could disregard it and end up with a good, extended composition. However, I'm not completely sure what it would mean to not have any motivic growth in a composition . . . how would you know that it was all supposed to be one composition, just the fact that the performer didn't stop (but if there were rests, maybe even that wouldn't be clear . . .). Maybe I'm taking the question too literally, but that seems like an argument for development to me!
I think I'm getting better at developing my ideas, but I have to keep the balance of contrasting ideas and developed ideas. Sometimes it feels like you have to experience going too far in each direction, writing things that have an overwhelming number of ideas and things that take one idea a bit too far in order to figure out approximately what balance of development and contrast is 'just right.' It seems to be that the balance that is 'just right' could be very different for two different compositions, depending on the length of the composition and the motive itself. This balance seems very hard to quantify, and I wonder if you have to develop an almost intuitive sense of when to continue developing an idea and when to move on to other ideas. Another reason to compose more!
I absolutely agree that ideas shouldn't be abandoned. But, when composing, sometimes another idea comes up, and it sounds a lot better, and you vibe with it a whole lot more than you did your previous idea. However, sometime later, you could come back to that idea, with a fresh perspective! Ah, the never-ending art of creating and composing.
I also like the idea of not letting musical ideas overstate their welcome. It is important to let musical ideas flow off of one another, however, leaving some hints of a previous musical idea in a new musical idea, for continuity purposes, and such.
This is an interesting post, as I’ve thought a lot about how much time I should spend trying to develop certain ideas. Early in my composing journey, I assumed that I had to develop my ideas in every way possible, but I like your point about choosing how you wish to develop your ideas. There are so many possibilities for one little idea, and having too much development will make the piece convoluted and repetitive. I also agree with you that it’s important to decide which ideas you want to develop, because not everything in a piece needs to grow.
As some others here, I checked out this post after pondering what a "con" of development could be. I can definetely follow the line of thinking set down
here.
I would raise a semantic point. When speaking of an idea "overstaying its welcome", perhaps this in fact marks the point when an idea ceases to be able to be developed effectively. I mean to suggest that developing an idea in itself is never necessarily a bad artistic approach, but that rather there comes a point where it is no longer possible in creative terms.
Post a Comment