Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge compositional methods

I did say that it was based on my experience.

The idea is that if I sit to work on a piece prematurely (or when I don't have enough time), perhaps the quality will deteriorate and as such the piece will be "lost", in a sense that it will be done and thus not to be revisited again.

In other words it's better, for me, to wait for the right circumstances, or for me to create the right circumstances anyhow (which is difficult enough as it is).

I don't know if I'm making much sense right now... too early in the morning.

That can't be true, because I don't think I am one of the best composers.

At some point it's time to move beyond short pieces, though. Writing a melody and short pieces is only the first step in a composer's development. Once you advance beyond that to longer pieces it is not an option to make a complete piece in one sitting. For me the process usually starts with brainstorming and coming up with a lot of ideas and save them for later. Then I start going through these to see which could work together to make a coherent piece of music.

Very rarely do I start from the beginning and write bar by bar until the end. That would only happen occasionally if I work on some short <5 minute piece.

Who wants to break the news to Chopin?

I doubt an example v is any kind of an argument.

What is an "example v"?

Poly, that may be your modus operandi, but I always save it for later. My pieces are built up over lengthy periods of time. I don't believe I've ever composed any piece in one sitting. However, I also don't consider myself one of the best composers either. It strikes me that this is simply a difference of working methodology. I count on the different perception of things a day later to add insight into the finished product. I find the concept of inspiration of the moment to (for me) be overrated.

This is why I refer to you as a troll. If you're not going to contribute, if you're simply here to be disruptive, then bugger off.

I don't think you can generalise about methods of composition without putting your foot in it. Approaches to writing music are probably as varied as the number of people working at the craft.

Songwriting is a simple case in point. Some begin with the music, some with the lyrics, some work on both simultaneously, some still take a stab at textual declamation as they're writing, most modern popular songwriters have never heard of it. Some prepare before writing by setting the situation and/or mood. Others wait for the "right time" and/or situation. Some feel a deep need to travel, and write about experiences along the way. Others lock themselves in a cubicle with no windows go to work at it like composers back in the old Tin Pan Alley days.

I never work from "inspiration" because the kind of ideas that come to me when I'm feeling inspired are appealing but lacking in substance. But I'd never claim this is true of everyone, because it's easily demonstrated that it's not.

It's always a mistake to assume that what works well for yourself would work well for others.

A real typo, because I was typing from my phone!

Other than that, you still don't get what I'm saying?

I believe I was very careful to NOT generalize. I was simply comparing the two methods as I perceive them and what I believe to be (for me) the benefit of my modus operandi. I really don't understand how you missed that.

An opinion that it is naive to compose short pieces cannot be taken seriously.

Your reply about Chopin, was a reply to RogerW. I can't see the word "naive" in his post, or actually any kind of meaning close to that.

More over he, as well as me and as well as Steve are talking from our own perspective and are very clearly stating so. I don't know what's so wrong about that!

*I think* that the idea about short pieces vs large pieces is that a large piece eventually will need some development, while a shorter one can be "just" the melody and a counter melody and that's it. Nothing wrong with any of them, and I love them both (considering what I've been composing), but perhaps this is what Roger and Steve are saying (?)

I wasn't commenting on your post, Steve.

Development is more an attribute of 19th century music and earlier. Later composers (late 19th century, early-to-late 20th century) wrote more programme and programme-like music that was through-composed.

What are all the things you can do to a melody (just thinking out loud, here)? Original, retrograde, inversion, retrograde inversion, augmentation, diminution, reharmonisation . . . you can play with the harmonic rhythm, the melodic rhythm, you can write the melody at a different scale degree or using a different scale altogether . . . change the time signature, expose it as a single melody with or without accompaniment or weave it into a contrapuntal texture . . . then there are the various melodic shapes, there is reorchestration . . .

None of which addresses the use to which the end result is put.

For example, who among us can write a scary melody or piece of music? Something that strikes a visceral fear into the listener.

Maybe we should have a series of contests or challenges. Beginning with writing something truly terrifying.

H'm . . . you know, off the top of my head, I can't think of a single piece of really scary music. Can you?

I have no idea where you read that opinion. I can also say that it is normal for a pianist to start by learning short pieces, then eventually progress to learning longer pieces. That doesn't mean that I think it is naive to perform short pieces by Chopin.

The dictionary meaning of composition is "the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole". The quite natural progression when learning something like this is to start from the smallest elements. You first learn to combine notes to form a melody (or rhythmic patterns, harmonies, textures, soundscapes etc.). Next you learn to combine these new elements, melodies with harmonies, rhythmic patterns and other textures to form a bigger whole. Then you learn to combine these larger chunks into larger pieces of music. There's really no way around this. You can't write a sonata unless you first learn how to write the smaller elements of a sonata. And Chopin was very able to compose sonatas, so I really don't know what news you want to break to him.

Hi Roger,

Maybe there is an art to the appropriateness of particular musical material for various durations of music? The opening of Beethoven's Hammerklavier sonata is "obviously" (but not necessarily) the start of something other than a prelude, and as well of something other than a work with for instance only 20 minutes compass. Some composers seem to have issues in one extreme or the other - Chopin is great in both, but for instance Schubert seems to have had some issues in composing for large multi-movement forms.

I don't know if originating one type of material vs. the other, and either of the needed quality, is easier, maybe shorter compositions with more concentrated focus just need a different type of effort rather than being intrinsically easier to pull off.

Some composers seem to be most secure with the monumental and gargantuan, and to possibly have issues with the miniature (with Wagner and Bruckner there are examples of this).

This is all a very general observation, and very roughly sketched out, yet maybe there is something to it? As a professional composer maybe you have some insight about this.

Hi Michael,

Regarding material suitable for long or short pieces, I think proportions is the most important word. There needs to be no difference between a 3 minute or a 15 minute movement when it comes to form, they might both consist of the same structural elements, but the individual elements are longer and more expanded in the latter. An 8 bar main theme that ends with a perfect V-I cadence would for example be very difficult to use as base for a large scale piece.

Composing good music of any length is not easy by any means and it would be wrong to claim that anyone composer writing mostly short pieces is less worth, if those short pieces are of great quality. Some composers will find that they like one or the other more, which is good, because we need all kinds of music. We wouldn't want all novelists to churn out only >2000 page epics either.

The difference between long and short pieces music can often be likened to the difference between novel writing and poetry.

It's often said that the best writers (both novel-writers and poets) have more written about them than their own total output.

Several cases in point- a number of very short compositions by both Schumann and Debussy. Their very brevity is the reason they're used as examples for analysis in university. Bach's Chorals, Inventions and Symphonias would qualify as well.

Thanks Roger!