So In The Process Of Composition, How Much Does Technique Play A Part?/Do Composers, In 2008, Need Technique {2}

[Steve Moshier]

Do Composers Follow A 'Process'?

[Elliot Cole]

"To be original is to return to one's origins." Narcis Bonet

This is encouraging to me these days, when all I want to do is work on my figured bass and write Sarabandes . . .

[Brian Vlasak]

I would imagine that one of the reasons we have technique drilled into our heads in the academy is so that way we avoid having to reinvent the wheel with every stroke of the pencil. Unfortunately, I find myself being bogged down by technicalities in my own process and it's like pulling teeth to put anything of substance (according to my own internal censor, mind you) down on the page.

That being said, I rather shocked myself by having an extremely productive composition day just a few hours ago.

[J.C. Combs]

Hi Brian. Grats on the composition! This is the third time, I think, "reinventing the wheel" has been brought up in this thread. I simply don't see the connection that example has to art music. With every stroke of the pencil or touch of a keyboard, reinventing the wheel is what makes new music. First we should accept that not abiding by accepted techniques will not deflate the wheel or make the wheel square. However, (as I think I've stated previously) If you are referring to someone modeling their composition directly after someone else, then I absolutely agree that composer should stick with the type of wheels the other composer uses.

Of course, that's just my 2 cents.

P.S. I can't wait until this conversation gets into style!

Brian Vlasak said:

I would imagine that one of the reasons we have technique drilled into our heads in the academy is so that way we avoid having to reinvent the wheel with every stroke of the pencil. Unfortunately, I find myself being bogged down by technicalities in my own process and it's like pulling teeth to put anything of substance (according to my own internal censor, mind you) down on the page.
That being said, I rather shocked myself by having an extremely productive composition day just a few hours ago.

[Brian Vlasak]

Oh, yes -- point of clarification: I meant "writing-someone-else's-music-without-knowledge-of-it-even-existing" reinvention of the wheel. Agreed that with every stroke of the pencil (literal in my case!), it's a reinvention of the wheel ... lest we be stuck with Pythagorean tunings and monophonic songs for eternity. ::: grins :::

[Riccardo Massari Spiritini]

!Very good remark indeed!
It is still good, and it works for many...
thanks for posting!
Spiritini
PS: ...but... ;) ... what can we say then about Philip... He used more or less the same material ( technique/ language) for 30 years!!!!!!!!! passing from modern Farfisa organs to traditional Simphonic Hall Orchestras... it is indeed a paradox that that comment comes from him... :D

Shane W. Cadman said:

I think technique is essential. How do you know how to break the rules without knowing the rules first? If you don't know, then you usually just end up reinventing the wheel. As the great and powerful Kenny once said: "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em."

A quick story here. In 1989 I was in a master class with Philip Glass in the CSU Summer Arts program. One of the students in there used noise (white, pink, etc.) as his musical materials. He explained his philosophy as a composer, which included refusing to learn theory, counterpoint, etc. as he felt it would negatively influence his artistic expression. He then played his piece for Philip and the class. When it was over, Philip said (and I'm paraphrasing here, as my memory is a bit faulty when going back that far), "That's an interesting piece, but what are you going to do when you're tired of working with noise?" Well, there it is.

[Riccardo Massari Spiritini]

A process must exist. A technique must exist.
Process is always the thing bounding a piece together.
It is the process that can "tell", if analyzed properly, the "story" of a composition, the reasons, the subliminal and hidden inputs to it.

The Technique is an accident of the times in which the artist is living. Technique is a result of the combination of the means you can get in your place and time you live in. You need it, like you need a body for your existence.

The main problem is how to use the means for a purpose... and for a purpose of a certain necessity to others, to say something that you think is really needed... otherwise is just talking (and making art) without reason.

Doing things we dont need:
We are full of things: art, music, poems, songs, anything... it is so important to limit ourselves to the essential...
I sometimes see that someone did or is doing something I imagined I would have liked to do, then I think "great, he did it, also for me"...it is such a good feeling.
Then I can dedicate time to something else which I see is not on the list (jet) of someone else!
This is also technique, it is called "compensation"...

and then... I begin to think there are no "rules to brake".... unfortunately there are no more rules, maybe the only rule left is "try to be coherent with yourself". Culture is sailing to new lands, where our western-based rules and references for Art will not work by themselves, we will need a new passport this time I am afraid...

[Shane W. Cadman]

In terms of my music (which is all I feel comfortable addressing), I don't think that each stroke of the pencil is reinventing the wheel. I'm working with a certain harmonic language in a certain harmonic universe (that I did not create) and my only desire to express what I want to express. I couldn't care less about coming up with something that's never been done before (in terms of developing a new musical "style"). Most people work in a system/style that has already been started by someone else, so again it goes back to knowing the fundamentals of that musical language/system/style and then going from there.

As for Philip's comment: he hasn't gotten tired of the language he uses. At least he knows his options and could use them if desired.

I often tell my students that it must have been nice to be Haydn, where a comment that his music sounded like Mozart (and vice versa) would have been considered a compliment and not an insult. Nowadays so many artists are driven by the need to be unique, as opposed to writing "original" music. A sad state of affairs indeed. The most liberating thing that ever happened to me as a composer was to learn to stop being concerned with the drive to be unique and just make the music I want to hear.

Riccardo Massari Spiritini said:

!Very good remark indeed!
It is still good, and it works for many...
thanks for posting!
Spiritini
PS: ...but... ;) ... what can we say then about Philip... He used more or less the same material ( technique/ language) for 30 years!!!!!!!!! passing from modern Farfisa organs to traditional Simphonic Hall Orchestras... it is indeed a paradox that that comment comes from him... :D

Shane W. Cadman said:

I think technique is essential. How do you know how to break the rules without knowing the rules first? If you don't know, then you usually just end up reinventing the wheel. As the great and powerful Kenny once said: "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em."

A quick story here. In 1989 I was in a master class with Philip Glass in the CSU Summer Arts program. One of the students in there used noise (white, pink, etc.) as his musical materials. He explained his philosophy as a composer, which included refusing to learn theory, counterpoint, etc. as he felt it would negatively influence his artistic expression. He then played his piece for Philip and the class. When it was over, Philip said (and I'm paraphrasing here, as my memory is a bit faulty when going back that far), "That's an interesting piece, but what are you going to do when you're tired of working with noise?" Well, there it is.

[Riccardo Massari Spiritini]

thank you Shane!
I agree with you. I got to the same feeling when I realized that the best is to be coherent with oneself... anything you chose to do! ... certainly I am too much used to analyze socially any phenomena, and for my music it is an important aspect the "technique" like for a painter: a mean (an orchestra, a piano, a soprano singer, a classic violinist, a set of speakers...) is also about itself.... it is in a cultural "place", (also the process is seen this way in many pieces of mine) and I just refuse to use means and manners which I don't find in accord with my way of seeing the word, life in any sense... maybe I too much complicated, I should be more relaxed and less idealist...

Shane W. Cadman said:

In terms of my music (which is all I feel comfortable addressing), I don't think that each stroke of the pencil is reinventing the wheel. I'm working with a certain harmonic language in a certain harmonic universe (that I did not create) and my only desire to express what I want to express. I couldn't care less about coming up with something that's never been done before (in terms of developing a new musical "style"). Most people work in a system/style that has already been started by someone else, so again it goes back to knowing the fundamentals of that musical language/system/style and then going from there.
As for Philip's comment: he hasn't gotten tired of the language he uses. At least he knows his options and could use them if desired. I often tell my students that it must have been nice to be Haydn, where a comment that his music sounded like Mozart (and vice versa) would have been considered a compliment and not an insult. Nowadays so many artists are driven by the need to be unique, as opposed to writing "original" music. A sad state of affairs indeed. The most liberating thing that ever happened to me as a composer was to learn to stop being concerned with the drive to be unique and just make the music I want to hear. Riccardo Massari Spiritini said:

!Very good remark indeed!
It is still good, and it works for many...
thanks for posting!
Spiritini
PS: ...but... ;) ... what can we say then about Philip... He used more or less the same material ( technique/ language) for 30 years!!!!!!!!! passing from modern Farfisa organs to traditional Simphonic Hall Orchestras... it is indeed a paradox that that comment comes from him... :D

Shane W. Cadman said:

I think technique is essential. How do you know how to break the rules without knowing the rules first? If you don't know, then you usually just end up reinventing the wheel. As the great and powerful Kenny once said: "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em."

A quick story here. In 1989 I was in a master class with Philip Glass in the CSU Summer Arts program. One of the students in there used noise (white, pink, etc.) as his musical materials. He explained his philosophy as a composer, which included refusing to learn theory, counterpoint, etc. as he felt it would negatively influence his artistic expression. He then played his piece for Philip and the class. When it was over, Philip said (and I'm paraphrasing here, as my memory is a bit faulty when going back that far), "That's an interesting piece, but what are you going to do when you're tired of working with noise?" Well, there it is.

[Andrew Violette]

Technique is absolutely essential. But, as Proust said, if you have to point it out it's like wearing something with the price tag still on.