Ostinatos; making a lot from a little (2. Rite of Spring)

Further to my previous blog entry…

If the 339 consecutive repetitions of a 2-bar rhythmic ostinato pattern in Ravel's Boléro (1928) don't constitute overuse of an idea, then what does?

Or, to rephrase the question in a less acerbic way, Ravel's Boléro is his most popular work (according to Wikipedia), yet from start to finish it repeats a 2-bar rhythmic pattern without change or interruption; how does Boléro maintain our interest? Why are most listeners not bored, troubled, or driven mad by the 339 incessant repetitions of this ostinato rhythm?

The explanation is that there are other musical aspects that change and evolve continuously throughout the work, and these are what sustain our interest, such as: 

1. It begins almost inaudibly (so quietly that, when I worked as a record department sales clerk as a student, many people who purchased the album tried to return it, thinking there was something wrong with the audio), and grows steadily and inexorably over its 15-16 minute length to become as loud as possible at the end; it is a study in how to write an extraordinarily-long crescendo for orchestra; 
2. As such, it is a masterpiece of orchestration, filled from start to finish with colour and texture changes that reflect Ravel's brilliance as an orchestrator. The two-part theme is repeated many times, but each presentation uses a different orchestration (and hence a different colour), and the orchestration also changes within thematic presentations as well.
3. Its form is essentially a theme and variations, and just as in the best examples of this form, our interest is sustained by hearing many permutations of the main theme, instead of becoming annoyed that a given theme is played over and over again. The unusual aspect in Boléro is that the pitch content of the theme is never varied (except for a modulation in the final 40 seconds), just the colour (orchestration and texture) and dynamics. 

• This idea is not original to Ravel, however; another mono-thematic work that begins quietly and, over the course of multiple thematic repetitions, eventually becomes very loud, is Grieg's "In the Hall of the Mountain King," from Peer Gynt (1875), composed 53 years earlier.

If Boléro consisted only of 339 repetitions of a short idea, and nothing else, I'll go out on a limb and speculate that the composition would be less popular.  😄

Or perhaps it would have become celebrated as the grand-daddy of minimalism… 😴

---

Igor Stravinsky: The Rite of Spring

Igor Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring (1913) makes extensive use of ostinati, and, more generally, repetitive elements, so today we will look at some of the ways Stravinsky used one particular ostinato, the repeated four-16^th-note idea in the excerpt below.

It is introduced at the end of the first section (Introduction) of Part 1, played by pizzicato violins, while a clarinet sustains a lengthy trill (this is at about the 3-minute mark in the YouTube video at the end of this post; all other timings indicated below refer to this video):

It is a pretty simple idea by itself, but its simplicity makes it useful, because it works well with many other ideas. Therein lies one of the keys to writing a good, multi-purpose, ostinato: While good music can be written with longer and more complex ostinati, a short, simple idea is probably more flexible, because it can support a variety of other ideas.

The above excerpt introduces the ostinato somewhat hesitantly, instead of introducing the idea and immediately continuing with almost incessant repetitions, as we found (see previous post) in Boléro. Stravinsky is saving more regular repetitions of this idea for the next section. He is "planting a seed," giving us a taste of an idea that will become increasingly prominent and repetitive.

Sure enough, about 10 seconds later, he gives us a somewhat longer version of the ostinato, which leads to the strongly-rhythmic bitonal (E (enh.) in the lower strings, Eb7 in the upper strings) chord repetitions that are one of this work's most memorable features, which mark the start of the next section, Augers of Spring/Dances of the Young Girls. This starts at 3:20 in the video below:

Incidentally, for those interested in "golden mean" ratios, note that in its first three presentations, the ostinato is heard twice, once, (thus three times so far), and Five times, adding up to eight times, all of which are numbers in the Fibonacci series (1, 2, 3, 5, 8…). Sadly, the next time we hear the idea (see excerpt below) it is only presented four times, which is not a Fibonacci number. 😢 It is used eighteen times consecutively the time after that (part of which is two excerpts below), and this too is not a Fibonacci number. 😭 This is a work clearly in need of a revision! 😎 [Okay, I promise to insert no more emoticons in today's post. The are very useful, though…]

Very soon after the previous excerpt, at about 3:35 in the video below, the heavily-accented repeated chords are interrupted, and we hear the first presentation of the ostinato figure with counterpoint, consisting of an arpeggiated chord in the bassoons, which is itself repeated. Notice that the bitonality continues, this time between the ostinato (Eb7) and the counterpoint below it (E enh.):

This next excerpt, which starts at about 3:45 of the video, gives us another melody, once again with repetitive elements, this time above the ostinato. Note the frequent colour changes in Stravinsky's orchestration of the melody; the reduction below does not accurately reflect this, but there are 6 colour changes to the melody in 6 bars. When you listen to the full orchestra version (in the video below), note as well that the ostinato at this point is buried in the texture, almost inaudible within the heavily accented chord repetitions (not shown in this example, but the chords are the same as in the last 2 bars of the previous example):

New melodic fragments are superimposed on the 4-note ostinato over the two minutes that follow the previous excerpt, one of which is this one, which is again repetitive, and occurs at about 5:25 of the video:

Please suggest other works that make prominent use of ostinati – one such piece is Stravinsky's, L'Histoire du Soldat – and I will possibly (see explanation at the end of this post) discuss them in future blogs… At the very least, I can compile a list with your suggestions. If you can, try to be specific about where the ostinati occur within the work you are citing. In the mean-time, I already have an idea for a third post in this series.

---

Below is a recording of The Rite of Spring on a video that shows the score. Try to find other uses of the ostinato discussed above. As well, try to listen to it more than once, in order to find other ostinati, and the degree to which repetition of musical ideas is used. If you don't have enough time to hear the entire piece, listen to at least the first 6 minutes; all of the above examples occur within that time.

---

Explanation of my use of the word "possibly" with regards to doing more blogs on this topic:

My only hesitation is that the amount of time involved doing a post such as this one is daunting. It involved making score reductions in Finale of the sections I wanted to use as examples, saving them as GIFs and importing them into this blog, recording the musical examples, importing them into Audacity and splicing them into sections that corresponded with the notated examples, saving them in two different audio formats (MP3 and OGG) because not all web browsers read MP3s, uploading the audio files to my website, and then inserting the code that lets the Blogger website read and play audio files on all major web browsers. Plus the time spent fixing things that didn't work along the way. Not complaining, mind you! I enjoy doing this, but it is time consuming.

That said, and to repeat what I wrote above, I do have another post in the works on this topic, so there will be at least three in the series, and possibly more if people make suggestions regarding other works with prominent use of ostinati.

Ostinatos; making a lot from a little (1. Boléro)

An ostinato is a musical idea that repeats immediately (as opposed to returning later in the composition) and persistently (it usually is repeated more than once). It can be melodic or rhythmic, and is usually fairly short – one to four bars – but it can be longer. Kids love 'em.

And not just kids; it is widely used in many musical styles and periods.

The attractiveness of ostinati for composers is easy to understand; you can generate a lot of material from a relatively short musical idea, and, if you do it well, audiences may respond well to the music.

With the advent of computer-notation software, and, more specifically, the "copy" and "paste" commands in those programmes, it has become extremely easy to use ostinati in compositions. And, with programmes like GarageBand, which comes bundled with every Mac computer, you don't even need any musical knowledge to write loop-based music; in this context, "loop" and ostinato mean the same thing.

The downside of repetition, however, is that too much can make a composition overly predictable, unless the composer finds ways of varying, interrupting, growing, evolving, or otherwise adding interest to repeated patterns; music that is overly predictable can lose the listener's interest.

An example of how to successfully repeat an idea to an almost absurd degree is Ravel's Boléro. It uses the two-bar rhythmic ostinato figure below throughout the work; this two-bar rhythmic unit never stops repeating until the work's (very loud) conclusion, about sixteen minutes later:

There is even further repetition within this two-bar ostinato: The rhythm on beat one is used on the first two beats of each bar; four of the ostinato's six beats are identical. This is repetitiveness ad absurdum, and I won't stand for it!!! [Just kidding, of course; the piece is awesome.]

The above pattern is repeated 339 consecutive times in Boléro (yup, I counted), which means that the rhythm on beats one and two of each bar is heard 1,356 times.

That's a lot of repetition!

One can argue that the uninterrupted repetition of the same short rhythm for sixteen minutes in a composition is a bit much – or a lot much – but Boléro is Ravel's most popular piece, so clearly, millions of people have no issue with it. Indeed, its popularity may in part be due to this rhythmic ostinato!

So, the question I have for you is this: What makes it work? What does Ravel do to keep our interest despite the 339 ostinato repetitions? Why do audiences cheer enthusiastically following the conclusion of the work, rather like sports fans cheering an exciting overtime win by their favorite team, instead of standing up to boo the repetitiveness?

I once listened to a radio documentary on Ravel's Boléro in which orchestral musicians were asked to give their thoughts on the work. Many said that they don't look forward to performing it because they perform it so often, there is such a high degree of repetitiveness, and, in some cases, once the piece starts they have to wait an extremely long time before they get any notes to play. However, once  rehearsals begin, they gradually feel their resistance melting and become ensnared by the hypnotic power and beauty of the work, to the point where they feel like standing up and cheering along with the audience after reaching the triumphant final chord.

Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Here's a performance of Boléro, conducted by an unshaven man with a toothpick instead of a baton,  if you wish to have a listen:

Music Notation Software – Pros and Cons for Composers

There are several music notation programmes available for computers and tablets, but the brands that I suspect most composers use are Finale and Sibelius. Another excellent notation product is Notability Pro (for Mac only), which some composers I know swear is the best product out there, and is now free.

In today’s post, I will explore how the use of notation software can affect the composition process, in ways we may not realize, both positive and negative. The first seven points below list many of the unambiguously-positive aspects of using notation software, and the remaining points concern some of the potential challenges that can arise from its use, some of which we may be unaware of.

If any readers can think of pros and cons not listed below, please let me know via the "comments" area, and I'll add them to the list if merited.

Music Notation Software
Pros								Cons (or commentary on pros)
1. Can produce polished, publication-ready scores.								1. This is indeed true. However, it takes considerable skill, and the knowledge of all the minutiae of notation conventions, to produce publication-ready scores, whether one uses notation software or not. Because a score produced with notation software generally looks far better than a hand-copied score (although some highly-skilled hand-copyists can also produce beautiful scores), we may be seduced into thinking our score is as good as it needs to be, when in fact it may need a lot more detailed work to reach a point of being truly publication ready.
2. Scores look better than hand-copied scores.								2. This is generally true. I doubt that many students are trained in the art of hand-copying music any more (I was, which reflects the period in which I was trained (cretaceous)) – but it isn’t always true; a sloppy computer-notated score looks far worse than a beautiful and meticulous hand-copied score. Again, this is more a product of the user's limitations than of the software, however.
3. Pitches and accidentals are notated clearly and correctly.								3. No disadvantages! Here are some of the reasons this is such a valuable advantage for notation software: • Sometimes, in hand-copied scores, pitches are less than 100% clear because they are notated in such as way as to "spill" into the territory of an adjacent pitch. • Notation software also notates 2nds correctly. Sometimes, in a hand-copied score, students attempt to vertically align notes that are a second apart, which looks very messy. • Notation software also aligns accidentals correctly (again, students sometimes try to fit them on top of each other, causing collisions and all manner of visual mayhem).
4. Other score information, such as text and articulations, is clear (hand-written text can be somewhat challenging to read if a composer has poor calligraphy skills).								4. This again is generally true, unless the composer uses a font or font-size that is difficult to read.
5. You can remove or add bars without recopying entire pages. • It is also easier to change/add/remove notes and any other score information (such as dynamics, slurs, articulations, text, etc. • Software also lets you do A/B comparisons, listening to a version with bars added, and then comparing with a version with those bars removed.								5. This is a huge advantage of notation software; having to recopy an entire page by hand in order to add or subtract a few bars is such a hassle that it can become a disincentive to make such changes. Anything that gets in the way of making even small improvements in your compositions is a significant problem. •And yes, the possibility of doing numerous A/B listening comparisons is a tremendous advantage in using notation software.
6. Parts can be generated automatically. • This is a huge advantage in using notation software.								6. Generating parts can still involve some work, however, because you may need to adjust the layout, number of bars per system, fix any new collisions that may have shown up, plan page turns, do any necessary last-minute edits (you sometimes notice problems in parts that you didn't notice in the score), etc. But there's no question that generating parts is a much faster process with notation software.
7. Transpose, Invert, Retrograde, and other commands, as well as plug-ins. • Did you know that Finale has commands for melodic inversion, and retrograde? These (particularly inversion) can be useful when considering possibilities of how to grow/extend/transform a melodic idea. • There are also third-party plugins available, such as Patterson Plug-Ins for Finale,  which are designed to speed up and generally improve workflow.								7. Composers can obviously do these things without a computer, but the computer does them much faster. Plus, having these options so readily available makes it easier to try them in order to see if they can be used in your composition.
8. Dynamics look as they should, and are usually well positioned.								8. Notation software does indeed produce dynamics that are beautiful. • They are not always well positioned however; in Finale, you have probably found many cases where a dynamic collides with something else, such as an accidental, note, or slur, which requires the user to re-position the dynamic, or the other objects with which it collides; I'm not sure this happens as frequently in hand copied scores. • One potential issue to be aware of is that in some software programmes, a dynamic intended for one instrument (e.g., below the flute staff) in an orchestral score can show up in an adjacent instrument's part (e.g., above the clarinet) when parts are generated. When positioning a dynamic, Finale uses a temporary dashed line to indicate the note to which the dynamic is attached, which reduces the likelihood of misplaced dynamics. • There are potential playback issues in the use of dynamics, described in section 9.
9. You can hear what you write as you write it, performed at the indicated tempo, or at a slower tempo if you prefer, which allows you to listen repeatedly, carefully, and critically. • You can also hear and evaluate any indicated tempo changes (including rit. and accel.), and dynamic levels (including cresc. and dim.). • You can also listen to the composition, or a section thereof, repeatedly, tweaking it until it sounds as good as you can make it, no matter what time of day you play it, and no matter what your mood is.								9. Being able to hear an approximation of what you write in real time is a huge benefit of notation software. • There are, however, significant issues or limitations in relying too heavily on MIDI playback as a realistic indicator of what your music will sound like; these include: Unwittingly writing parts that are either extremely difficult or even unplayable, because the computer plays them without any problem whatsoever (!). A computer plays unidiomatic lines flawlessly, while a performer might struggle in attempting to play them, or even refuse to play the piece. The computer can lull the user into thinking that the line is perfectly idiomatic, when in fact it is extremely difficult or even impossible. I am not sure how much different this would be in a hand-copied score, but in producing a hand-copied score, a composer usually spends hours playing each line, usually on a piano, which might flag any such issue; Balance problems: The balance in a MIDI ensemble is often not very realistic;  Further to  balance problems, sometimes, in an attempt to bring out a line that is insufficiently prominent, we may temporarily give it an extreme dynamic boost, such as marking it fff instead of f, so we can hear it better in the MIDI playback, but then forget to change the dynamic to its correct value (fff back to f) before giving the parts to the performers, resulting in performers blasting the heck out of that line in the first rehearsal, when all we intended was for it to be more prominent than the lines around it. Or sometimes, an inexperienced composer may use an extreme dynamic boost (e.g., f to fff) intentionally, thinking it necessary to bring out the line to the desired level, perhaps not realizing that if a line is marked  f, while the other instruments are marked mf, the performers and/or conductor will make sure that the f line is heard more prominently than the others. It is also possible that the previous example (extreme dynamic boost) might be the result of poor orchestration; if a musical line is insufficiently prominent in MIDI playback, perhaps it needs to be reinforced in some way (e.g., octave doublings, or the addition of other instruments to that line), or perhaps the material around it is too busy and needs to be thinned out in some way. Unrealistic representation of the nuanced colour and dynamic changes in different registers of an instrument or voice;  MIDI playback is only as good as the quality of the samples  in your computer's sound-bank.  Glissandi, heard through MIDI playback, usually elicits a chuckle from class members, presumably because it often sounds so unrealistic or even ridiculous. The computer will play any glissando, even impossible ones, which may entice composers into writing impossible glissandi. We need to be aware of the possible glissandi for different instruments; always show your work to a performer of that instrument to be sure.
10. Copy and Paste. • Musical material, from the smallest ideas to entire sections, is often repeated, either immediately or brought back later; the Copy & Paste functions let you do this with great ease.								10. Again, a very useful tool. I recommend exercising some restraint in its use, however. • One of the most wonderful attributes of great classical compositions is that ideas are often altered in some way when repeating or recapitulating them. This provides both the comfort of familiarity, since we recognize the ideas, but also an element of surprise, if we recognize that some aspects have been changed. • You can make such modifications when repeating ideas in notation programmes, of course, but, at least in student work, it seems as though the ease with which the paste command can be executed often leads to not making modifications. • My advice to students is to explore modification possibilities when re-using (pasting) an earlier idea into a later section.
11. Other limitations and challenges.								11. Using different metres in different staves simultaneously, and having bar lines that don't necessarily line up with each other (vertically).
12. Other limitations and challenges.								12. Using a time grid at the top of your score (e.g., a grid in 5 second increments), with no bar lines. • You can hide bar lines, of course, and create a graphic to represent the time grid, but this involves more work than it would if done by hand.
13. Other limitations and challenges.								13. Graphic notation can be difficult or even impossible. • Again, you can create graphics on a computer, but it takes some skill to do this well, and doing it by hand is often faster.
14. Other limitations and challenges.								14. Oversize metres in orchestral scores (e.g., a large 4/4 that spans the height of the entire woodwind section) are either impossible or very tricky. Oversize metres are generally much appreciated by conductors, because they can be easily read at a glance. When my orchestral music has been played, I often get the score back with oversize metre changes written in by the conductor.
15. Other limitations and challenges.								15. Unless you invest in an expensive sample library that includes extended techniques in all instrument families, your MIDI playback will probably not be able to reproduce such sounds. This is not necessarily an impediment to using extended techniques, but I suspect they would be used more if we could hear a reasonably-accurate reproduction of these techniques during playback of our scores. These performance techniques include: col legno, col legno battute, sul pont., sul tasto, different mute types for brass instruments, hand-stopped notes (for horn), play with bells in the air, multiphonics, flutter-tongue, harmonics, harmonic gliss. ("seagull effect") for strings (particularly for cello), senza vibrato, scraping sound created by heavy bow pressure and slow bow speed, a myriad of sounds available by slapping, scraping, muting, picking (with a guitar pick) strings inside of a piano, prepared piano sounds, etc.

Have I missed any significant advantages or disadvantages in my list? Are there times when you feel the notation software is pushing you to notate an idea in the way that it wants, as opposed to the way that you want? Please let me know in the comments section below, and thanks for reading!

Group Composition Lessons - Pros and Cons

Learning composition in a class format has its plusses and minuses. I've been thinking about this for a while, so I thought I would try to list a few, and ask for your thoughts on the issue.

Plusses:

• Students get to hear each other's work on a weekly basis, which can create a sense of shared mission, and can foster a supportive and positive learning environment.
• Hearing others' works in progress can give us ideas we can use in our own compositions.
• Commenting on the works of others can help develop critiquing skills, and the more developed these are, the better we can critique our own music.
• Students can draw upon classmates' performance skills to arrange readings of works in progress, and to get tips on how to write idiomatically or use extended performance techniques for the instruments they play.
• Feedback given to any particular student is often relevant to other students.
• It gives students multiple perspectives on their compositions, which, since perspective about one's own creations is easy to lose, is particularly valuable.

Minuses:

• There is less time for individual feedback.
• It makes it harder to deal with details, and, as I think everyone understands by now, details are of tremendous importance in composing music.
• The peer feedback process works really well when you get useful feedback, but it works less well when people either don't comment, or don't feel comfortable saying anything 'critical' about others' work.

Any other plusses and minuses you can think of?

What do you think of the the group composition class format?

Composition Issues (4)

[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.)