Did you take this course with the expectation that it would afford you the opportunity to freely express yourself through music? Composition may be like no other music course in terms of this expectation, at least amongst some students.
We do not expect this freedom in performance-related courses, even if we can agree that performing the works of others can (and, IMO, must!) involve an element of personal expression, and we certainly don't have it in courses like 1st- and 2nd- year music theory, or renaissance and baroque counterpoint, where we learn (amongst other things) to compose "in the style of" other composers and periods.
The only other course I can think of where there might be a similar expectation of the freedom to express oneself is Improvisation, but even in that course there are conventions to be learned. Group improvisation involves listening to others and working collectively with what you hear more than it does unrestricted personal expression.
As I think you have all discovered, even composition courses involve some restrictions on expressive freedoms. Each of the project guidelines/descriptions in this course, for instance, set out goals and limits within which each student had to work.
There is still tremendous freedom within these limits, but they are there all the same. You couldn't write tonal music for the first project, for example (at least not if you wanted to do well in the course!). And yet, as I think we all heard during our class recital last Thursday, everybody managed to write very personal and individual music within the limits, which was great, and exactly how it should be!
The idea of compositional restrictions can come as something of a disappointment for some students, unfortunately, and perhaps understandably so, since composition, like writing stories, novels, or plays, or creating any art, tends to be regarded as an activity based on complete freedom of expression. What business do composition professors have restricting students' creative impulses? Who do they think they are, anyway???!
Well, here's the way I think of it:
If you were to write a short story and submit it to a magazine for publication, there would be an excellent chance that your story would be rejected. Famous writers sometimes keep boxes filled with rejection slips — it seems to go with the territory — as a reminder of how long they had to persevere before becoming successful.
But let's say you took your story to an experienced editor who told you in very specific terms what was wrong with it. Perhaps it was in need of plot development, or it had technical issues such as faulty grammar, overuse of the same words, misuse of other words, overuse of 'etc.,' etc. :p
What would you do?
- Decide the editor is an idiot who doesn't know what s/he is talking about, and just keep sending the same story, unchanged, to as many journals as you can think of, in hopes that someone will one day see what a great story it is (after all, someone's got to win the lottery, right?).
- Take the editor's advice to heart, and work at fixing the story.
- All of the above (i.e., decide the editor's an idiot but take the advice to heart anyway!).
- Berate yourself for allowing yourself to think that you could ever be a writer (believe me, most successful composers and writers have had thoughts along these lines at some point(s) in their lives!).
Composing music is not a perfect analogy to story-writing, of course, but there are many parallels between them. Both, at their best, represent a mixture of conventions, creativity, and technique.
My goal as a composition teacher is to (a) encourage creativity, but, more importantly, (b) help you develop the technique to express that creativity.
And that is why every project has some restrictions!
Posts
34 comments:
After I was done being confused over why we couldn't freely write what we wanted in composition class I started thinking about what we would learn if we just wrote what we wanted. The idea of having restrictions put upon compositions may seem frustrating but at the same it forces us to learn how to work with specific elements of music; so that when we do get the opportunity to write freely we have a much larger database from which we can draw ideas. Atonality for example is something that I know I avoided like the black plague, but after writing three pieces "because I had to" (in composition class) I find I'm a lot more comfortable with it and now if I ever decide to include it in my future works I feel like I can do so much more effectively.
I think that's the real point of composition class.
I totally agree with this blog. I mean, there are plenty of reasons on why to set restrictions for what we compose:
A) It keeps us on track and gives people who have never composed before something to be guided by.
B) It makes the compositions less arbitrary to be marked. For example, how do you distinguish between pieces and their marks if there were no guidelines? That would be rather tricky.
And many more...
Composition class to me is an opportunity to write beyond my comfort level (sometimes) in a limited timeline which basically simulates real life situations. I like hearing other student's compositions the most because I like to think of what can be changed or written better and i like to hear comments of others to see what I am missing in hearing their pieces.
Expressing yourself through composition puts you in an exciting yet vulnerable situation surrounded by "critics". It is so challenging to put your creations out in the open and hope not to crash and burn.
I was one of those people who were saddened by the fact that we couldn't write what we wanted. (This was at the beginning of the term.) Now, I understand much better why it was necessary to be this way. To me you're being even more creative if you have to work with these rules and guidelines because you need to abide by the rules and be creative at the same time.
At the same time, I don't think there needs to be an atonal section in everyones piece just to be creative and different. I think someone who has a completely tonal piece can set up unexpected passages just as well. It seems like a lot of people are going for an atonal section as their unexpected part within their piece. (I'm doing that!) I think it would be cool if there were some pieces that didn't do that.
I'm not knocking atonality. I like it. I'm just having a bit of a rant here! :)
EDIT: I posted a reply here on November 15, but I just now noticed that it was in need of an edit in the last paragraph, without which the paragraph did not make much sense! So, here it is again, slightly edited:
In response to Melissa B's comment ("At the same time, I don't think there needs to be an atonal section in everyones piece just to be creative and different. I think someone who has a completely tonal piece can set up unexpected passages just as well"), I agree completely!
I hope I haven’t been conveying a sense to the class that all pieces in the current project must veer into atonality, because I certainly don’t feel that way.
However, when I wrote the above blog I was becoming concerned that, in the early stages of this project, some of the pieces I was hearing did not seem to be venturing very far beyond the cliché or idiom upon which they were based — If I were to listen to those pieces without knowing that they were intended as a recontextualization exercise, I wasn’t sure I would have been able to figure it out.
While it is clearly possible to write good music within a particular style or cliché, that was not the point of this project, so the possibility that some compositions might not have been heading in this direction concerned me. One of the primary objectives in any of the composition assignments I give is to get students thinking about music in a way they might otherwise not do, AKA “thinking outside the box.” If a composition is not clearly distinguishable from the style or idiom upon which it is based, it probably means the student composer was not thinking sufficiently “outside the box” when writing it.
Which, to bring this back to Melissa’s comment, is why I so often encourage/coerce students to consider introducing atonality into their compositions. It is a way of recontextualizing a cliché or idiom.
There are other ways, of course! But, quite frankly, I think that introducing atonality (or at least something other than diatonic or chromatic harmony) into the composition makes the task of recontextualization a lot easier in most cases than not doing so.
I'm not sure I think of these guidelines as "restrictions", but maybe more as just that, guidelines. It's like creating anything, unless you have a clear direction for what you're creating, it becomes very easy to fall off track. A professor who tells their students to write a paper on ANYTHING would be faced with some seriously confused and frustrated students. When I'm given guidelines like those given in the first project, I find it much easier to focus on specific creative goals like character or mood.
I think the restrictions/guidelines for this course were great! It challenged many people to step outside of their comfort zones and try things (such as atonality) that many would normaly avoid. Just look at all of the great music that has been created! We can can compose what we want, with no restrictions all of the time outside of this class, so this opportunity allowed us to learn and grow as musicians and composers.
I know that i've learned a lot so far and I appreciate the "push" that this course provided myself and others into the realm of composition.
Dr. Ross, I think you (along with everyone else's comments) hit the nail right on the head.
It was hard to accept at first the we were going to have boundaries. I guess we were all too naive to think that we could actually do whatever we wanted and still learn something.
I took the Jazz Improvisation course last year, and there are more rules in that course that some other of the textbook guided courses. There are more rules that one can imagine, it almost seems overwhelming.
After hearing everyone's piece this past weekend, and hearing how different they were from one another, its hard to imagine what the class could come up with if there had been no restrictions at all.
Also, I think the process of composing would be even more tedious if we were beginning with no boundaries.
That was a whole lot of ideas in one chunk... sorry if it's incoherent. ha. But yeah, the guidelines really made it easier I think to begin with composing.
-Melissa
Let the tumult of comments from delinquint bloggers begin!
i think even within the guidelines of the projects in this course, creativity is a powerful force that needs harnessing. For me, complete freedom in a project would be dangerous since i already have a hard enough time commiting myself to developing ideas and creating coherence in music. Not to say that if we had complete freedom we wouldn't be able to compose coherently, but i think it was enough trying to achieve that within the boundaries. I think most composers have some sort of sense of purpose or function of a piece before they begin...i think. but of course i'm not a composer so I really have no idea.
I appreciate the value of constraints, especially in a learning exercise. People often learn the most when working in unfamiliar territory, and without constraints forcing them into it, might be just as inclined to follow familiar grooves.
Of course, it can be rather less pleasant if the constraints require you to write in a style or context that you actively dislike. I'm not sure how much I'd appreciate a project that required writing rap, for example. I'm sure whatever came out of it would be as far removed as I could possibly get away with...
The atonality project was a good example of beneficial constraints, though. I had my share of misgivings at the beginning (like many people), and it's not something I would have tried unless I had to, but I definitely feel I benefited from the exercise once I'd managed to find some bearings in unfamiliar territory.
Of course, people often bring their own constraints to creative projects, even if no external ones are provided. If this project had been "Compose whatever you feel like", people would probably still have settled on ideas or styles that have some definition, and then worked within those.
I found the comment Dr. Ross made about the Jazz Improvisation course interesting, and I hope to strengthen his blog's argument with this comment. Like Melissa, I took the Jazz Styles and Improv course last year or so. I found that there wasn't much room for personal expression in that course! The course focused more on different styles of jazz, or what notes or scales you could play over certain chords than emoting through your solo. I find that learning to perform a skill and expressing your deepest feeling through it are two completely different things. After all, as a children we usually learn to speak using one word at a time, not by writing poems to express ourselves.
A neat thing about the organ repertoire that doesn't seem to have trickled down into the other areas of western music is the importance put on improvisation. The neat fact about this is the fact that most famous organ composers were improvisers, and they would make up music that expressed themselves or a text or whatever. They would then write down this improvisation and sell it as music. Much of the organ rep is like this, from the Baroque to Modern. Louis Vierne, for example, was a blind organist, who would play into a gramophone. Then scholars would take the records and transcribe them. So from this example I think we can take the importance of improvisation and not look down upon it. Often people look down on jazz musicians for they 'make everything up' but maybe more people would respect them if they knew the role of improvisation in the organ world :)
writing within "restrictions" or "guidelines" has been a great exercise for me in MUS 3100. Almost all the music I had previously written had no pre-determined goal.. I usually just start, see what comes out, and work with it until I'm finished. I like this process too, because I will often surprise myself, and I feel I've managed to improve and be versatile without thinking within guidelines.
However, the reality of writing music at a professional level is that you are going to need the skills to be able to write well within certain contexts. If one were to write a film score, you would have to assess the scenes and what type of mood to create, and how through harmony/rhythm/instrumentation you would do that. Being commissioned to write for specific ensembles is another type of guideline composers always have to deal with. It's a great system for us as artists, and for an academic course that requires multiple projects for grading purposes.
When I was taking 3100 I remember feeling something like this, a little bit stifled, that is. I understood that there had to be some restrictions but I wasn't quite expecting the restrictions that were presented. Mostly the atonality thing and all. Looking back at it though I feel like that course was very well structured towards breaking me into the world of composition. When Phil Nimmons and David Braid came here earlier in the term David gave a sort of master class on improvisation, which is, in my opinion, essentially the same as composition, just on the spot. But one thing that he said that I thought was interesting was his theory that what holds many of us back from being a better improvisor than perhaps we'd like to be was that we just know too much. We have all of these musical possibilities at our fingertips, so many, that we can't decide what to do or we try to do too many of them. So his suggestion was that a great way to help improvisation was to set parameters for yourself. Things like only playing within three seitones on either side of a note, and that's all the notes you get. I think that a composition course is much the same way, if we were just left to ourselves to figure it all out without restrictions then it would certainly take much longer for us to figure out how to just take a couple of ideas and develop them. I heard someone say once that the best art comes from limitations. I think there's a lot of truth in that.
Looking at this blog now while at the end of my 2nd semester of 4100 and over a year since 3100, I do see why it was necessary to set restrictions on assignments....to a degree...
I do think it was a great idea for the first assignment in 3100 to be based on a chord progression that we had to create using non-standard chords. It forced us out of our happy-place, and into a more uncomfortable world of......atonality......
This was a great creative assignment for me, especially since I really had not done any sort of composition before AT ALL. It was something brand new, and I was starting with a clean slate. I was able to create things which I probably wouldn't have thought of or dared to try, which is a great thing.
Setting such a restriction though, did leave a permanent scar, or impression, that I am still battling with today. The fact that we had to write outside the box, under "penalty of death"... (taken from blog comment: "You couldn't write tonal music for the first project, for example (at least not if you wanted to do well in the course!)"
This hindered my understanding to whether it was acceptable as a composer in the 21st century to write with a tonal frame of mind. This restriction put a stain on my thoughts of composition which I am still battling with today. I would sit down, and think of writing a piece, and say to myself...."Oh, that is in D major, I can't write like that." This is a shame, and it is probably based on a misinterpretation on something that happened a over a year ago, but I did stick with me, nonetheless.
Throughout these composition courses, I have learned to expand my mind past the realm of tonality (partly because I wanted to get a good mark in the courses due to the above quotation), something which I am happy about, and might not have been able to do otherwise, but I do still have the task of convincing myself that tonality is still a possibility...
I am very happy with my output in these composition course, and with the advise and helpful tips that I've learned along the way, but it would seem that after these semesters of composition, my comfort zone is now geared more towards the contemporary music and my uncomfortable thoughts are where I was before I began in first place.
I was glad to stumble upon this blog post, especially since it was a question I asked following the first class this year. As someone who has not spent a lot of time composing original works at all, I was excited to start on some ideas I had. I expected to be able to write anything I wanted, what with this being a seminar class and all. I was disappointed by the prospect of the first project. However, after developing my chords begrudgingly, and starting my actual composition, I realized that in many ways this was a great way to start really "composing". I was in boundaries, but without them at the same time. I am enjoying what I am creating. This project is allowing me to experience the choices and experiences of a composer without the fuss of tonality.
And, with the help of the comments on this blog post, many other highlights have time to mind, and things to think about. I love the variation of pieces we are getting, even at the very beginning of the project. Guidelines help a lot, as long as you can still go on without them later. The same goes for tonality/atonality... After this, I still need to be able to sit down and be able to feel like I am able to write something tonal.
I don't think that I at any point felt as thought I needed to "express" myself through music, to be honest. Or at least, I haven't thought of it this way. Thinking back to the beginning of the course when we had to write a atonal piece, I was initially taken aback. But this was not because we were being asked not to express ourselves, but because I personally had never done it before and was afraid that I would hate what I would write.
Also the "atonal chord" progression we did to start was fairly open. We could use expressive chords in our atonal pieces. I think that there's a huge amount of freedom within the parameters of a guideline.
A great post Dr. Ross! Like Tony said, I too was happy to find this post as I think that expressing youruself through your compositions should definitely be a priority when composing. Who you are and your personality really do show through your works and we can never get away from that personality so it's bound to present itselff in what we do.
As for the guidelines for each project, I don't view them as a hinderance to the creative/expressive process at all! Rather, I think these guidelines channel the expressive process in such a way as to get us going in some sort of direction, so that we aren't at a loss as to how to begin or go about composing the work. As relatively new composers, I do think that we need guidance, and the guidelines provide this. There are numerous ways to go about expressing our own individual tastes, likes, preferences etc. within some sort of "restriction." All it takes is some contemplation and exploration!
I suppose that the reason for taking composition in school is to develop technique, and to familiarize myself with idioms and new styles that I have never attempted to write in.
Personal expression is something that will always be there, and I feel that without using restrictions to steer you towards unbroken ground, there is a good chance you will continue to write the same kind of music you always have before.
My attitudes towards the project guidelines have varied all semester long.
Most of the time they frustrate me, making me really feel that I am doing a school assignment more than I am composing. I know, however, that this is silly.
On a good day I recognize come benefits of these parameters: 1) w/o these parameters I doubt I'd ever finish a piece entirely in a couple of weeks 2) I'm forced to approach each piece in very different ways 3) my compositional vocabulary is stretched each week as I work within some rules and incorporate suggestions.
Although with each project I will undoubtably become frustrated by certain constraints I do understand that I am acquiring the skills to being a more well-versed and efficient composer. Though I must say, in the best way possible, this intro to composition course makes me long for the the semesters end when I can approach my works as my own rather than just assignments and begin to really find my voice/purpose as a composer.
Personally, I appreciate the restrictions placed on our assignments. Never really having composed anything before taking this course, I was very uncertain of how to begin a composition. I was relieved that our first assignment was required to be a progression of atonal chords. For me, it took off a lot of the stress of where to even start. Instead of struggling to come up with ideas for the first assignment, I enjoyed experimenting with different tonalities, having a purpose: finding chords not used in tonal music. I find having clear guidelines in terms of tonalities and such in all of our assignments has helped in bringing ideas into focus. Arguably, this takes away from the creativity of the compositional process, but (as was mentioned in previous comments) for me, it has been very helpful in developing different techniques. I think many composers have to be flexible to the demands of those buying their music (at least at some point in their career). As such, it is useful to develop a way to express oneself while still working within constraints.
Now that it is the end of the semester, looking back over my projects I can see how with the first project I was so afraid of "breaking the rules" that I didn't have any expression in my piece. As I began to compose more, and play around with what I was writing rather than just focusing on making sure I had all aspects of the project involved, and writing to meet those requirements, I found I was liking what I was writing more and more, and could find my creative flow much easier. Much like many others in this course, I find the guidelines for a project very helpful. I fear that without these guidelines I would become overwhelmed and never actually finish a piece, only have beginnings of ideas that could never be formed into full thoughts.
I think expression is definitely an important part of music, and that in playing music I tend to perform much better when I'm playing a piece through which I can put some of my own musical expression. It is the same with composition!
I don’t want to express myself through my music. That is not why I compose.
I was unhappy when I was in 3100 to discover that I wasn’t going to be able to write any tonal music. I wanted to work on that skill, as I still do to this day. However, I was also relieved that the first assignment was not allowed to be tonal, and had the specific requirements that it did, because it removed some pressure to create a masterpiece.
What I had a harder time with, and still struggle with, is the need to have creative titles for pieces. I am not a big fan of the idea that music should express something other than music itself. Good programmatic music is still good music when you take the program away, but I generally prefer music that is not programmatic. I prefer a piece to be called “Symphony” or “Sonata” or “String Quartet,” with numbers, keys, and opus numbers appended, then something like “Symphonie Fantastique” or “The Path Ascending” or “The Four Seasons.”
I find it interesting that there seems to be an expectation that composers want to express themselves in the music that they compose. I want to create music, and I want to create music that I like to listen to, and music that performers will hopefully enjoy performing and that audiences will be happy to listen to.
I think the most important thing to note here, is that above all else, if an experienced and successful editor were to give you feedback on a composition, one would be foolish not to take into account what they have to say. As we try to express ourselves, or create pieces that people enjoy, we should be weary that their are techniques, as with any craft, that require precise execution in order to be successful. As composers, yes, it is the objective to create something unique and original, but more often than not, we should adhere to the advice of those who have been successful, and to the use of technique in our compositions in an original and creative way.
I remember feeling very disheartened on the first day of MUS 3100 after finding out that the whole course was devoted to post-tonal writing. However, you (Dr. Ross) once explained that the reason why the course does not focus on tonal writing was because many students would get caught up in wanting to express their creativity that they would not learn the necessary skills needed for composition. In a tonal setting, the student would eventually be more focused on small details, like not writing parallel fifths, instead of focusing their energy on forming and developing a musical idea. Much of the skills that I learned in 3100 can be applied to tonal music, and I gained exposure to concepts that I had no knowledge about, such as the added-value rhythms and the Messiaen modes. I have learned to appreciate the limits placed on all of the composition projects, and though they can sometimes be a nuisance when I have a cool musical idea that would not work for the musical setting, I think that they certainly help with guiding new comp students on a certain path while not hindering their creative thought in the process.
As Jordan said in a previous comment, it is important to take criticism from others. It is very important to note, (and most people miss this point) that criticism does mean you have failed. When someone offers you constructive advice, they want to see you succeed. Most criticism given to a composer is not meant to discourage, but to help the creative process. Although there are times that I do not always agree, I love to hear comments on my pieces from other students during class. Furthermore, I at least consider each suggestion. If I am absolutely against it, I can always change it. All great composers have learnt and borrowed from other composers. Although it is important to be creative and take an individual approach, I also see the benefit of looking at your work critically.
That is an interesting analogy between story-writing and composing. I believe that it is essential to recognize the advice of an experienced expert and take their criticisms seriously, even if it is a deeply personal project you are working on. Doing so has been most helpful in refining my own compositional technique. The point made about freedom in performance-related courses is also very interesting. When performing the works of others, we obviously must adhere to the score and do our best to follow the composer’s instructions to the best of our abilities, but even with this restriction, one can still make the performance their own and offer some form of individual expression. All my favourite recordings of very well-known works have offered this, and I believe they are recognized as such masterful recordings for this reason. The same can be said for any great composer.
Learning to shape the ideas I wish to express within certain parameters, be it concrete limits (ie the range and character of orchestral instruments & the playability of passages on those instruments) or more ‘arbitrary’ limitations intended to induce creative problem solving (ie compositional challenges presented to us by our profs over the course of our studies) has been among the most rewarding and fulfilling aspects of my short time studying composition thus far. It feels, to me, like one of the most necessary skills a composer can develop, since working collaboratively (be it through a commission, film scoring work, or any other work that isn’t 100% personally conceived) requires an ability to consider someone’s opinion or feedback, synthesize it with your own ideas about the project, and produce something that is meaningful to both you and your collaborators. Even when it is a purely personal work, I feel it is always creatively fruitful when the performer of the work has active input, especially if the piece is being written specifically for that person.
I think the reason that a lot of people end up going to music school is because they are passionate about how music lets them express themselves, then when they actually get there, they realize there are entirely too many restrictions on expression in this institutional setting. At least that is my experience, especially in applied study. Sometimes when I am playing slow, lyrical pieces, I feel like I get to express myself a bit, but those pieces become less and less acceptable the further into your degree you get. When you get into third and fourth year, they expect you to really show off your technical abilities, and how am I supposed to think about self expression when I have to focus on all those finger movements, breathing, dynamics, articulations…
Composition has given me that chance to express myself that I was really hoping for when I applied for music school. In atonal music, I have found “compositional restrictions” very minor - they don’t bother me at all. And when my classmates and profs give me notes, I do not see them as an idiot editor, I see it as them adding and improving to the story I am writing. I think that is partially due to the positive and constructive environment our cohort has nurtured over the past few years. I am happy to be doing composition with these people, they are lovely.
I used to not get the idea of putting restrictions on students who were trying to aspire to be composers. As I got older and had gone through more courses on compositional topics and had actually composed for actual competitions, I realized that it is imperative that we have restrictions of some sort to focus on a pattern that we want to develop. If we are fully free to do what we want we remain with putting too many ideas into our compositions or we could't develop interconenctive patterns like the good ol' 014 pitch set. I do also believe on the other hand that we should have some surreptitiously implied freedom to express ourselves as composers within the confines of the assignment that we are working on at the time.
In terms of tonality vs. post-tonality, I am a fanatic for implying tonal relationships in compositions that are on the whole, post-tonal. This allows me to express myself to the fullest degree of my being but make sure I am doing what the assignment requires of me.
When I decided to start taking composition courses, I knew that the things I would be writing wouldn't align perfectly with my own compositions that I had made on my own time. What I didn't know, however, was just how far we would deviate from it during the semester. I had never listened to, written, or even really heard about post-tonal music until taking intro to composition this semester, and being able to switch to that particular style of writing was something I found a bit difficult.
That being said, I don't think being able to express yourself only comes in forms of music that we are comfortable writing in. Over the course of this semester, I have learned how to express my own creativity and ideas in my post-tonal works. Even if the ideas and inspirations are quite a bit more subtly done in comparison to when I'm writing more modern music with lyrics, they are still there and allow for my own style to shine through in a small way when I complete any given work.
In the end, I think we can express ourselves easier through mediums we are more comfortable with. Public speakers are better at expressing themselves when speaking to an audience, painters are better at expressing ideas on a canvas, and us composers are better suited with our preferred style of music. The more we can become comfortable with styles of artistry that we aren't used to, the more willing and able we can become at expressing our own creativity.
As you say, I believe that material restrictions are of tremendous value for helping to cultivate a more informed creative practice.
In many cases, the integrity of a developing composer's taste will far exceed the scope of their technical facility. There may well be a great many people who are readily moved by a work by a Beethoven, or a Scriabin, for instance. There are far fewer who can fully recognize and appreciate the material processes at work therein, and fewer yet still who could replicate them in an original and aesthetically sound way.
It is thus of paramount importance that the burgeoning composer accumulate experience with a reduced arsenal, working within different self-imposed forms of creative asceticism in order to develop familiarity with various material processes and techniques. In this way they may cultivate craftsmanship with a broader expressive palette, gradually collecting the devices which may become characteristic of their personal sound and practice.
I think that, although they can feel frustrating at times, limitations can actually help to make a piece more creative. When I am writing a piece without limitations, I tend to revert to tonality. I have a few favourite chord progressions, and much of my music written without limitations tends to end up falling into those progressions, sounding kind of the same. However, when I am given an assignment with a limitation (such as using a particular tone row or motif), it forces me to think more about what I am writing. This thinking usually tends to lead to me coming up with creative ideas on how to make the piece interesting within the limitations, thus leading to a more creative piece. In fact, one of the things I enjoy most about being a composition student is getting to write pieces with limitations and different prompts. For example, I never would’ve thought to write a piece using only the all-interval matrix had I not taken the Advanced Post-Tonal course. Yet this piece became one of my favourite pieces that I’ve written, and I even got to present on it in a lecture-performance at the Newfound Music Festival this year! Using limitations helps me to stretch my boundaries and grow my skills as a composer beyond what I might’ve thought possible without the limitation.
I think I may feel a little bit different about this topic than others might. I often feel like without some kind of boundary or limitation I tend to struggle and feel a little lost. I'm a person who very much prefers rules and processes, and I find that having no limitations is very overwhelming and never really ends up well. I agree with what Emma said, I find that when I'm experimenting with songwriting and improvisation I often revert to the same tonal chord progressions and get stuck in a loop. What I've really enjoyed about the intro to comp course is learning how to be creative and experimental with all of the different boundaries we have to work with.
Also, this discussion reminds me of a point that Dr. Staniland brought up in the composition interview this afternoon, about being a versatile writer. He said that when working as a film scorer, they will often ask for different, specific styles/genres and you have to be prepared to work under those limitations. Working within these boundaries from day one in an introductory course is a great way of fostering this skill, and I honestly don't mind it at all. I find the restrictions fun but challenging, and it forces me to think outside my little box of what I'm comfortable with.
Interesting post! I have grown to realize that limitations can really bring the most out of a composer. When I don't have any limitations, I sometimes find myself to be directionless when composing, limitations can make the process more linear. A weird example of limitations boosting creativity was a video game I played when I was kid. Basically the game was about building a video game, but each day you played, you would get more tools to make the game. 10 year old me thought that was dumb and found a way to get all the tools at once. This made the game soooooo much harder, because I didn't know where to start. To me, this is the same for composing, so I embrace limitations that can help me try something new!
Post a Comment