Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge a hypothetical question for all composers . . .

Let us suppose that you had just composed a 32 measure composition of the short sketch-book variety . . . and let us suppose further than within it is the germ for a new type of music.

What you do with it? Would you just scan it and put it out there, or maybe put it into Finale first?

Would you hold on to it, greedily fearful that others would be the first to develop the ideas it contains?

What if it were equivalent to having the first tone cluster oriented composition ever on paper, or the first serialist tone row composition on paper . . . the first impressionist Debussy/Ravel type work . . . the first composition to use thematic transformation . . . what if it is without key signature yet tonal and uses tonality in an entirely new way with tremendous and unheard of compression and release of harmonic power . . . what would you do?


Mvh,
Michael

I guess it depends on how prolific and powerful a composer I were. I wouldn't hold on to ideas too long otherwise, although I might hold on to them for a year or two. But then I'm a believer in minimum intellectual property rights and maximum freedom of information, and this includes musical ideas and material.

Michael,

Two comments if I may.

1. It's extremely rare that one is actually conscious of their masterpiece! I don't think I've ever written a masterpiece, yet I'm very defensive of a few works of mine, as if they were such!

2. You CANNOT protect technique and ideas. They CANNOT be copyrighted! So the minute you show it to the world, or have someone to play it, you're done with: Everyone will want to copy it (if it's such a great idea). Do you think that Pederecki and ligeti are happy that everyone is using quarter tone clusters in the strings and micro-polyphony? I doubt that! Or that Stravinsky gets SO copied in film music?

Thanks for the comments Medium Heights and Nikolas.

Part of the issue is that this year's compositional effort since late April has focused on composing with maximum self-honesty, and this little piece is so inwardly honest that the outwardly facing musical aesthetic has been minimized to what is purely essential as indistinguishable from the content (the two are merged fully) . . . a part of me dreads what some others might think of it . . . it's not a masterpiece, just a short untitled composition of the sketch-book variety.

In principle the last thing in the world I would want to do is impinge on the flow and free association of ideas, yet one must have pragmatic self-regulation to some extent, I don't believe that everything a person sees, hears, thinks, feels and knows should be out there (including in music). Some structure, selectivity and order of procession are needed.

There can be the music sketch book of spontaneously received ideas, the musical sketch book composition (as with Beethoven's one page piano pieces from the 1820s, surely that is the function those served), the true musical miniature, the longer form compositions . . . I don't think many persons want to compose with someone looking over their shoulders . . . regardless of this I've put a little music out there not really meant for others' eyes thanks to the recurring question if I were to die tomorrow would I have preferred this to be out there, so perhaps that is how this little novelty should be managed as well?


Mvh,
Michael

I once had an interesting conversation with a friend. I'd said, "Can I be honest with you." His response was interesting, " Do you mean you weren't being honest before?" When it comes to instrumental music is it even possible to be too honest? Can mere notes sounded by an instrument (not words sing by a voice) reveal anything potentially embarrassing?

I get the concept of a sketch book. I agree that music requires form and structure. I'd even agree that a miniature piece can be significant, though the only one that comes to mind right now would be Chopin's Prelude in E minor. I just don't see anything new in this.

By trying to keep your secret, you've ended up expressing nothing. There are two ways to protect your idea, 1) keep it a secret forever, 2) write a longer form piece that demonstrates the idea to such great effect that the concept is forever recognized as yours.

And also maybe by that criteria the C Minor one if the E-natural as intended is applied, not the E-flat that is in most (all?) editions? This E-natural replaces the E-flat in the third measure, fourth beat, right hand chord (same inversion as in the erroneous editions).

You do have a point: as an example, Liszt's Bagatelle sans Tonality doesn't establish him as an atonal composer but if he had written some major works or at least one major work of considerable power and length in that vein then maybe.

There is much to think on and evaluate here.

Thanks for the observations Steve!

M.

Also Steve, the likelihood of effective duplication is minimal. Page two defies any attempt at an intellectual or conceptual frame of reference for understanding what is happening - though the presence of order and structure is clear, new theoretical tools would need to be devised to describe it with comprehension.

And I think this music would invite a barrage of criticism because it cares nothing for any established norms or expectations of construction and effect whatsoever and creates its own law. Surely there would be few who would even want to consider the prospect of emulation in that context!


Yours,
Michael

Define significant.

I would keep it to myself and work on it, but not (necessarily) because I would be worried that it was worth stealing. If it really is that new and strange and unique, other people won't only not steal it, they will probably walk right past it or think it's not worth bothering with. Only after something new has been worked out for a bit by the original person do others cotton on, when it's a truly new idea. The truly new is often ignored and has to be shoved down people's throats.

Personally, I keep my riffs and ideas to myself only because I prefer to work in isolation and find too much interaction to be distracting and irritating. I don't like to get dragged around by other people's opinions.

There's also the chance that the idea isn't as "new" as you think, and that it's just sort of "time" for it to appear, culturally. In that case, a few others may be mulling it as well, and if you put your idea out there, you may find it disheartening to see that someone else has already thought of it. Also, if that other person then puts their idea out there, you may suspect (with or without cause) that they ripped you off.

So I would keep it to myself. I can't possibly see ANY good coming from sharing an idea before it's been developed. There are few good reasons to be very open about your process, and many good reasons not to.