It's a well-written and interesting article on a topic that apparently (based on the survey's responses) is of crucial importance to composers. I include a link above, and encourage you to read it.
Here are some questions you may wish to ponder (I will share my own answers to these questions in later posts; links to my answers embedded in the questions):
- On a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), how important is form in musical composition, and why?
- Most compositions from the 18th- and 19th-centuries use a small number of existing forms (binary, ternary, rondo, sonata, variations). Does this mean that originality, when it comes to form, is not important?
- Should post-tonal music avoid forms associated with tonal music? Do you feel obligated to use "new" forms, as opposed to old forms such as sonata and rondo?
- On a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), how important is form in your compositional process? (Be clear on what you mean by "form.")
- Is it better to work out a form before composing a work, or do you prefer to create the form as you go?
- Are you actively engaged in thinking about the form of your music as you write it?
- How challenging is it to come up with a form with which you are pleased in your compositions? (Related question: How satisfied are you with form in your compositions?)
Posts
17 comments:
The concept of form plays a crucial role in my process. I say the "concept of form" as opposed to just "form," as I think there's a distinction to be made between stricter and looser form, such as sonata form vs. mobile form. Form, in and of itself, is an important characteristic of any composition, but not inherently moreso than melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, or any other musical concept. Form can be the main point of a piece, or it can be less important when compared to melody or harmony, but as a stand-alone element, it is not any more or less important.
Tonal composers were operating within a specific lineage and idiom, and so the forms that were handed down through the common practice period made plenty of sense to use and revise. That being said, originality when operating within that idiom meant sometime different than it does today. Originality was changing the key the second melodic group first appears in so that it wasn't the dominant. Originality was a recapitulation that wasn't present in the proper key. It was important to be original back then, but because the dominant dialogue with form was in regards to revising and recycling old forms, originality was tied up in that system.
In my music, it can be hard to discover a form. I like to think my forms are well-thought out, but because I want to ensure a very solid form, I usually spend a fair amount of time working everything out. At times, it can be hard to discover precisely what I want a form to be, but once I have my form, I find composing the rest of it more or less simple. I do try to come up with my own forms, though my motivation for this is often tied up with an interest in the creation of structure as a whole, less than a disinterest in old forms.
Contemporary composers may do whatever they like in regards to prefered forms, though I have to reference Boulez (it feels terrible to reference a terribly mean, spiteful person) when he talks about using forms that aren't tied up with the common practice period. Boulez has a very good point in that the drive of a Sonata or a Rondo is very key-centric, and once you're operating outside of the world of keys, the connection becomes a bit tenuous. Sure, you can compose a sonata or a rondo that utilizes differing sets or theories for each distant key you would encounter, but what made the common practice period forms work was the socialization of functional harmony. We can use old forms for new harmonic structures, but they become much harder to hear outside of a long context like the common practice.
In regards to myself, I like creating a form beforehand. It helps to give myself a roadmap, and it keeps me from getting too long-winded or using up an idea completely before it's time to move on. Wandering in the compositional dark is not fun for me. Because of my concern with structure, form is constantly on my mind. It would be interesting to try and subvert that focus, but I've not really tried.
When it comes to form, it is a huge critical aspect to any piece of music. Form defines music, and I'm starting to learn how important it is to incorporate a certain form into my own pieces. If you don't have a form, you run the risk of having all these great ideas and not being able to organize them. They are ideas, and they can be great ones, but if they are not organized, then they just get used and then it's like they are not needed anymore. Form is an important aspect to any music piece; even in today's music, you see a form. For example, "verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus." Every piece of music needs some sort of form.
Thanks so much for your detailed and thoughtful comment, Warren! You make excellent points.
With regards to Boulez and his views on the use of old forms in new music, sometimes expressed as the "foolishness" of pouring new wine into old wineskins, I have four thoughts:
1. I understand the perception of intellectual inconsistency in using new organizing principals for pitch, rhythm, articulations, and dynamics, but then not using new organizational principals for form. Basically, if you're going to use a radical new approach to the choice of pitch, rhythm, dynamics, and articulations, why not go all the way and use a radical new approach to texture, phrases (if indeed you have any), and form?
2. And yet, Boulez has written three piano sonatas, a Sonatine for flute/piano, and a sonata for two pianos. Admittedly, these mostly were written before he turned 30 (although he continued tinkering with his third piano sonata until he was 38, and it is still "unfinished"), but at the very least this suggests that, early on, he was interested in playing with (or reacting to) old forms with new, serialist language. Paul Griffiths writes that the second sonata has "strong intimations of sonata form in the first movement, and of fugue in the finale." Boulez, on the other hand, has said he was trying to "destroy" sonata form in this piece.
3. Can older forms can work with newer musical language? Some composers seem to think so, and I see no reason to negate this possibility.
4. Although sonata form features a tension between "home" key and "closely-related" key, followed by the instability of more distantly related keys, (a) this principle can be applied to music that is in any sense pitch-centric, and (b) sonata form also presents thematic content of differing characters, thematic fragmentation and other aspects of development, and areas of greater and lesser tension. These aspects can be at play in non-tonal music as well.
That said, I really like this comment of yours:
"Sure, you can compose a sonata or a rondo that utilizes differing sets or theories for each distant key you would encounter, but what made the common practice period forms work was the socialization of functional harmony. We can use old forms for new harmonic structures, but they become much harder to hear outside of a long context like the common practice."
So, many thanks for the detailed and reflective comment! Much appreciated.
P.S. No need to self-identify when you leave a comment, of course, but I am curious as to who you are, and where we might be able to hear your music?
Thanks for your input as well, Byrann! We'll talk more about form in our composition class, probably this week, I think.
In the mean-time, and FWIW, all completed compositions have a form; theorists and composers are interested in how the form was/is used, does it have unexpected elements (which we tend to delight in), and, is it the right form for this piece? This last is the question that can vex composers, since we are often not using pre-existing forms.
Clark,
I'm currently an undergrad studying at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee with Christopher Burns. I've got a few recordings up at my soundcloud. I think I found your blog via stumbleupon or something similar, but at any rate, I love being prompted to think about composition.
Introductions aside, I certainly believe there is value in using old forms, even if I myself don't have much interest in it. There's something that the "symphony" can say, strictly because of the genre it is, that a "large-scale orchestral work" cannot. Even beyond that, there's still plenty of worth and meaning to be ferreted out of the actual structure of the piece.
When thinking of form in post-tonal music, I would be inclined to think of form as something that holds importance. When composing, I often tend to think of working toward a form similar to the common forms you have listed in the blog. I often do so in the process, rather than beforehand. In my opinion, form is a way of identifying a piece. It demonstrates organization and coherence within in a composition.
I would also like to know more about other types of pre-existing forms you mention in the blog.
A stimulating read. I'm interested in whether the form of a piece should be something the listener is consciously aware of. Composing is so new to me, and I haven't thought much of my audience outside of friends in my composition workshop... It's cool how every composer interviewed hesitated on the idea of the listener focusing on form, while some commented on how recognizing forms is a big part of our enjoyment of music. This info informs my own writing, actually. I'm going to think more of my "listener" from now on.
I think I've read some of your answers in previous years, but before I remind myself of them I'm going to address the questions here. Having given the questions some more thought myself, I will turn to your answers . . .
1. On a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), how important is form in musical composition, and why?
I noticed that nobody has responded to this question with a precise number yet. Form is extremely important in music. As Dr. Ross said, all music has some sort of form. Some types of form, such as the Rondo, are very clear. The listener can easily tell when the A theme comes back. Sometimes the form isn't nearly so clear. One example, because it's in my mind right now, is from Florian Hoefner's piano recital this evening. He played quite a bit of stunningly complex improvisation - some of his pieces had been partially composed with spots for improvisation, and one was all improvisation. A couple of times I wondered where in the form of the piece he was, either because something sounded like it could be a coda or a transition. I do not doubt for a second that a theorist looking at a transcription would find a form, but it was not always obvious as a listener.
Since it's unavoidable, I'm tempted to say 10. However, I don't think it is necessarily important to always think about form . . . good natural instinct could provide enough form to hold a piece together. That being said, I'm very aware of form in my composition. I also do not like the implication that giving form a 10 might mean that it's the most important thing in a composition. Which I definitely do not think is true. My number might be different if I were writing this tomorrow, but for today, I'm going to give it a 9.
2. Most compositions from the 18th- and 19th-centuries use a small number of existing forms (binary, ternary, rondo, sonata, variations). Does this mean that originality, when it comes to form, is not important?
I think that the originality in the material that makes up the form is important, not the form itself. Whether it is binary, ternary, rondo, variations, etc. I think the form is the glue that holds the ideas together. Sure, you can try to avoid them and use more original formal structures, but I do not think that music that uses these tried and true forms are necessarily any less original. I won't say any more, as I think this question has been answered quite well in previous comments.
3.Should post-tonal music avoid forms associated with tonal music? Do you feel obligated to use "new" forms, as opposed to old forms such as sonata and rondo?
Absolutely not! We still use instruments that were invented long before Sonata Allegro form (even if they do look and sound a bit different). We don't stop using pencils because it is no longer original to do so. I consider these forms to be tools that we can use to the benefit of our music, and I think there is absolutely no reason to stop using them. An atonal sonata form will look much different than a tonal one, since there is a harmonic structure embedded in the form, but a rondo form won't. We don't have to use these forms all of the time, but I think they have an important place in new music.
4.On a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), how important is form in your compositional process? (Be clear on what you mean by "form.")
Thinking about how what I'm writing relates to the overall form of the piece often helps me to keep things connected. At least, when I'm writing a longer piece. For example, in the flute choir piece that I'm currently working on, I'm constantly thinking about form , and where what I'm writing fits within the form. I feel like I need to understand it's place in order to make a unified six minute composition, which is how long it will be if I follow the map that I've drawn up so far. However, in the three short pieces that I wrote at the beginning of the semester, I don't remember thinking very much about form. However, before I started writing the second one I had an idea about the macro form of the three pieces as three movements and how I wanted them to go together. I also love the fugue form and am really interested in becoming more adept in writing fugues, but I'm not sure if that's directly applicable to the question . . . Ultimately, I think I'll give this an 8.
5.Is it better to work out a form before composing a work, or do you prefer to create the form as you go?
Once I have some motivic ideas, I start figuring out what my form is going to be. I start with vague ideas and the form becomes more detailed as I write more notes . . . A significant determining factor for me is how long I intend the piece to be. My flute choir piece started out as two ideas, and I the first became an A B A' and the second became C, and I decided that I wanted a coda to include aspects of all three previous sections. If I had been thinking about writing a shorter piece, it probably would have just been A B. I might even have made them different movements or compositions. Sometimes I like to get a sense early on in the composition process of how long every section is going to be, to help with pacing.
6.Are you actively engaged in thinking about the form of your music as you write it?
Yes (I think I already answered this ;))
7.How challenging is it to come up with a form with which you are pleased in your compositions? (Related question: How satisfied are you with form in your compositions?)
I don't find it particularly challenging to come up with a form I like. I wasn't very pleased with my first attempt at writing in sonata form with my string quartet in the winter semester, but I am not unsatisfied with the form, just how I used it. Probably my favourite composition to date had quite a strict form that I was very satisfied with it. It is a percussion quartet made up of 'unpitched' percussion instruments and based on fibonacci numbers. The number of bars in each section was determined by fibonacci numbers, as well as the number of bars in the work and where the significant moments were going to be.
Personally, I think atonal music should avoid the use of standard forms that one would find in classical music and other genres. I believe atonal music in itself, is meant to go beyond and outside of 'normal' music conventions. My logic being, if we don't retain rules and conventions with regards to parallel 5ths, voice leading, etc. why would we restrict ourselves with preconceptions about form? In my mind, all rules are breakable when it comes to atonal music, so I see no need to be selective about the form. I do, however, believe that the music should have consistency and unity, whether that is created by altering ideas throughout the piece, or by using structures that resemble standard forms. But no, personally I do not worry about form as much when I write atonal music, as I do the fluidity/tension/climax/unity/cohesion of the music itself.
1. On a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), how important is form in musical composition, and why? For me, I would say form is about a 7 for me. Form can have much importance in specific styles of writing, and while I do much writing that concentrates heavily on formal aspects, there are several composers who compose with form far-removed from the foreground of the compositional process. I guess it is dependant on the style of music and the overall goals of the composer, along with musical intentions for the works.
2. Most compositions from the 18th- and 19th-centuries use a small number of existing forms (binary, ternary, rondo, sonata, variations). Does this mean that originality, when it comes to form, is not important? Yes and no. Yes, because I think that from a historical standpoint, it is interesting and fascinating to see that composers stuck to certain forms during different eras, and the development of musical form is in itself a huge topic for research and discussion. Also, many of these forms have proved to remain very popular in modern contemporary compositions. I constantly try to make myself avoid writing a ternary form (ABA). At the same time, no, because trying new formal ideas is yet another way that composers can expand their craft and skills.
3. Should post-tonal music avoid forms associated with tonal music? Do you feel obligated to use "new" forms, as opposed to old forms such as sonata and rondo? I don't think that post-tonal music should avoid these forms, no. I have written many successful pieces using forms from tonal music. Form is only but a singular aspect of a piece and as composers we can draw on so many other ideas and concepts to create a post-tonal work, so no, I don't think the separation is necessary. I would not say that I feel obligated either to use new forms, but definitely find myself constantly making tweaks to existing tonal music forms in my writing.
4. On a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), how important is form in your compositional process? (Be clear on what you mean by "form.")
Is it better to work out a form before composing a work, or do you prefer to create the form as you go? This one is very hard to answer. I will say 5, from a neutral perspective, because this importance can shift drastically from piece to piece. It is all dependent on the thematic material, the inclusion or exclusion of melody and harmony, and so on and so forth. The countless other factors at play in the compositional process all affect how much the form will be prioritized. I don't think that either way is better than the other, although I am sure some people would find one way easier than the other when composing.
5. Are you actively engaged in thinking about the form of your music as you write it? Yes. If the piece has a specific, thought-out form, then yes, I am actively thinking about it as I write and thinking about what I can do to make the form interesting.
6. How challenging is it to come up with a form with which you are pleased in your compositions? (Related question: How satisfied are you with form in your compositions?) I do not find it hard to come up with forms that I am pleased with. I gravitate towards ABA constantly, and am always thinking of new ways to alter this basic form to make it fresh. Recently, I wrote a formless movement of a piece, and also wrote a concert band piece in rondo form. I enjoy trying new ideas with form, but am also satisfied with my current forms that I use in my music.
As I am just beginning my larger piece for this term, I am finding myself thinking quite a bit about what type of form I will use, so I thought it may be useful to look at some of these posts about form in Post-Tonal Music so that I can organize my thoughts. Here are my answers to the questions you have written (I have not yet read your answers in the other Form posts)
1. I would say around an 8, however it’s difficult to quantify how important form is in musical composition. Like every element of musical composition, a piece’s form varies in importance based on the context and style of the piece that is being written (in my opinion). I think form can be a very useful tool in keeping a piece unified, and it is an important aspect to consider when trying to surprise the listener or keep their attention. However, there are many different ways to unify a piece and keep it interesting.
2. I think that, though the forms of 18th and 19th century compositions are defined by these small number of forms, there is still lots of variance within the rules of these forms from piece to piece. Binary or Sonata form are pretty broad, and there is a lot of room for a composer to be original while staying within these forms. One of the best ways to keep a listener engaged in a piece is to use a form they are familiar with it, but break the “rules” sometimes to keep things surprising and exciting. I think that the broad form (e.g ABA) is not necessarily as important in terms of originality as the variance within the broad form is.
3. Definitely not. I think one of the main ideas behind post-tonal music is that there aren’t really any strict rules as to what you should and shouldn’t do. I also think that these forms established within tonal music work so well, that it would be limiting to avoid them entirely. Most music is divided into sections in some way, so it is important to just use whatever form you think suits your composition the best. Using a form associated with tonal music won’t make your piece sound tonal if you are using post tonal harmony. There are many great examples of post-tonal pieces which use forms associated with tonal music.
4. Form has an importance of around a 6 or a 7 in my compositional process. Typically, I begin with an idea of how I want my form to be. However, I don’t like to be too strict in sticking to the form that I lay out as I don’t want my creativity to be limited by arbitrary rules I set. I do still always try to keep the form of my piece in mind though, and if I break away from the form I planned, I want there to be a specific compositional reason for doing so.
5. I use a hybrid approach, as mentioned above. I like to have an idea of the form I will use in mind, but allow myself the freedom to break away from that form if I feel like the piece wants to.
6. Yes, I am always thinking about form as I like to keep some element of structure to my compositional process, and I find that thinking about form helps me do that. I also find form is helpful for knowing how far along in my piece I am, which is a very important thing to know when working towards a deadline.
7. I don’t find it to be too difficult, as long as I don’t use ideas of form that are too strict. Usually the forms I use are pretty basic, and they are just a tool to keep the piece relatively organized. Often I will use an ABA form or some variant of Rondo form, meaning that the A section almost always comes back at some point. I find forms with an A section that returns are generally very satisfying and pleasing to me. If I end using material that comes from what I started with, it gives a nice sense of cohesion to the piece.
1. 9. Form in post tonal music is everything. Where a lot of post tonal music uses textures and notes that are harder to wrap your head around, repetition and development in form is vitally important. However I would argue that the lack of form can be a compositional tool.
2. I don't think originality is important, period.
3. I think recontextualization is a great tool! Using old forms in new ways can be a fun experiment and produce quality compositions.
4. I would say 5. I tend to be absolutely engrossed in notes, extended techniques, textures, and form tends to take a backseat in my mind.
5. I prefer to write my form as I go, because it allows me to switch things up mid-composing. I tend to think of form as an afterthought, which is admittedly not the best way to go about it. However I really dislike the feeling of being boxed in, and I trust my present intuition over my past intuition.
6. As mentioned above, not enough. I would love to think of form more often. That being said, there is merit to keeping form in my subconscious. It allows it to be more natural, which may make it sound more natural as the piece unfolds to a listener.
7. I tend to use the same form very often, without consciously making an effort to do so. I think as I progress as a composer this should be my primary goal; to improve my efforts surrounding form. This form often resembles ABA, but maybe is more accurately described as A-B-A', where A' is usually more of a full, climactic texture.
I think form is an interesting thing that I am excited to read more thoughts on the form as I go through these. But my general thoughts before going to the specific posts are...
1. 3-8 I think it really depends on the piece.
2. I think originality is in general just a cherry on top.
3. No.
4. 6-7 I feel like my writing ain't great so I kinda rely on using a tried and true form like ABA to make it sound not too shabby.
5. This again I think also depends on the piece.
6. Usually I am pretty heavily considering it.
Form is important in musical composition because it creates the overall structure of a piece. Whether intentional or not, there is always a form to a piece, regardless of how random it may seem. A good form is one that emphasizes the flow the of the melodies, development of ideas, and creates expectations for the listener that can be either met or subverted. Forms can evoke certain styles, for example a frequently recurring section can be reminiscent of a chorus in a song. For good music to be made, you don’t necessarily have to be thinking about form in classical music theory terms as there are equivalent ideas in all types of music making. In some genres of metal music, it is expected that there will be a breakdown at the end of the song. This is a section where the rate of activity slows down dramatically and emphasizes heavily distorted low notes and guttural vocal drones. Composers can remain true to the genre while being creative by changing how they approach the breakdown. If the breakdown was not there, it would completely change the piece. Fans of the genres that use breakdowns are usually excited to hear the breakdown, so the form can create anticipation by delaying it, or by otherwise subverting the listener’s expectations.
Post-tonal composers are often trying to subvert expectations and to create something unique. While this can be done by having an unusual form, if that form does not serve the musical ideas in the piece, the effect is lost. Form is important, but it is heavily related to what ideas you’re using, how you’re using them, and how you want them to change throughout the piece. Form is nothing without musical ideas, but musical ideas without a form that serves them well are not very satisfying. This is why I don’t agree that form is the most important aspect in music, but it is equally as important as things like the strength of musical ideas, proper thematic growth, etc. They’re all important because if one is screwed up, it can ruin the piece.
1. I think the importance of form varies depending on what type of music you are composing. If you are trying to create a sonata, obviously there are some rules that must be followed. However, in atonal music, it is much more free and you are able to create something that has a looser form structure or is through-composed. I think for me personally, the importance of form would fall somewhere about a 5 - so right in the middle.
2. I think originality is less about the form and more about the music. I think the fact that these forms were used to compose so many pieces that are still famous today show that it wasn't about the form, it's about what was happening inside ht perimeters of that form. While I love hearing originality and different forms, in reality, there are really only so many combinations you can do to make new forms, which is why I don't it's a big deal that these forms were used often.
3. I don't think that post-tonal music should feel the need to conform to anything, and I also think that composers should be free to use whatever form they want. If a composer wants to create their own form, they should go ahead. But if another composer wants to create a piece in ternary form that is atonal, they should go right ahead as well. I don't think there should be any rules surrounding what post tonal composers should and should not do. Personally, I do not feel obligated to use any one type of form.
4. For me, form is low, probably around a 1 or 2. I don't stress myself out over it, I just write what I like the sound of. If it ends up being in a form, great! If it's through-composed, that's okay with me too.
5. I personally prefer to create the form as I go, as I find I gives me more freedom and allows me to be the most creative and unique version of myself.
6. I don't really think about the form as I am composing. So far, everything I've written has been through-composed, so I guess it's not something that I really worry about much when I am writing music. I prefer to just write what sounds good to my ear.
7. So far, I am very satisfied with the form I use in my compositions. I enjoy my approach to writing and I find it freeing. In theory, we are caught up in all the rules, but in this class, I get to do what I please.
On a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), how important is form in musical composition, and why?
I believe form is important to the extent that there should be repeating ideas from time to time in a piece. Obvious bi's and ci's don't necessarily need to be present if you're not writing a piece that requires them, but some sort sense of consistancy is always nice. Thus, I say probably 7.5 to 8 out of 10.
Most compositions from the 18th- and 19th-centuries use a small number of existing forms (binary, ternary, rondo, sonata, variations). Does this mean that originality, when it comes to form, is not important?
Using existing forms is definitely okay, though I do think that being original with respect to form from time to time is ideal.
Should post-tonal music avoid forms associated with tonal music? Do you feel obligated to use "new" forms, as opposed to old forms such as sonata and rondo?
I do not believe that post-tonal music should avoid tonal form, but I do not feel obligated to use them when composing post-tonal music myself.
On a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), how important is form in your compositional process? (Be clear on what you mean by "form.")
I hardly compose with form in mind when it comes to labels such as binary, ternary, etc., however, my pieces tend to have some sort of A - B - A form to them, especially as of recent. Thus, I would rank this at a 7 out of 10.
Is it better to work out a form before composing a work, or do you prefer to create the form as you go?
I personally prefer to create the form as I go, but sometimes that leads to the complication of trying to figure out what I just wrote after the piece is complete.
Are you actively engaged in thinking about the form of your music as you write it?
When I compose, form isn't something I usually think about apart from some variation of the arch form (A-B-A/A-B-C-B-A).
How challenging is it to come up with a form with which you are pleased in your compositions? (Related question: How satisfied are you with form in your compositions?)
If I am used to writing with a given form, this is not difficult at all, but if I am writing with a form I've never written with before, it can be challenging. Overall, I am satisfied with the form of my compositions.
Post a Comment