Structure and Form

[Charles Céleste Hutchins]

When you compose, do you start with the form or with the content? Do you decide on the structure before you gather materials? Do the materials suggest a structure to you or vice versa?

What pieces are best to study for cues into form and structure? What are good books that discuss this?

I misspent my youth and don't have enough of a clue about structure and am looking to correct this.

[Brian Vlasak]

Hmm. I actually start with a timeline that I parse out into smaller subdivisions ... not necessary "A-B-A", but more like "MM=60, MM=92", etc ... Then I fill it in with textures, key verbal phrases. We'll worry about the notes last.

I say go back to the oldies-but-goodies: Mozart Symphony No. 39, Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 3, Stockhausen's "Kontakte", phrase analysis of Ockeghem, etc ... But that's just me ... an old war horse. ::: grins :::

[Shane W. Cadman]

I function similarly, though I will sometimes start with a germ of a musical idea (usually from goofing off on the piano until I hear something I like). One of the first things I decide is: how long do I want this piece to be? From there, architecture, then notes. I used to be rigid about my structures, particularly if I'm dealing with the Golden Mean, but now I try to be more flexible, should the muse inspire.

This goes back to earlier topics regarding not reinventing the wheel. Study forms. Pick up a book or two on it and learn what you can. Sometimes I become intrigued by a particular structure and that becomes my starting point. I think the best thing any artist can do is start with certian limitations in place (form, instrumentation, harmonic materials, etc.) and then create!

Brian Vlasak said:

Hmm. I actually start with a timeline that I parse out into smaller subdivisions ... not necessary "A-B-A", but more like "MM=60, MM=92", etc ... Then I fill it in with textures, key verbal phrases. We'll worry about the notes last.

I say go back to the oldies-but-goodies: Mozart Symphony No. 39, Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 3, Stockhausen's "Kontakte", phrase analysis of Ockeghem, etc ... But that's just me ... an old war horse. ::: grins :::

[Jeff Harrington]

I think that the best approach is thievery - but thievery from folks who are doing things like you. Studying the past, is always a good idea, but I think it can be confusing when our materials are so different.

I'd suggest you find recent pieces whose forms you think work well and emulate them. Then try doing something different, but you need to be able to feel form, I think and feeling it through listening to composer's forms you admire is a good way to start. Then, you need to be able to feel how your music could be formed, through listening.

I deeply feel that arbitrary, non-musical, or numeric approaches to form are wrong. The ear (your musical imagination) should be your only guide. How do you know when to use assymetry to your advantage? How do you know when it would be best to use a traditional formal approach? Only by listening, I say. Listening to folks whose work you believe has good formal qualities and listening to the materials you had in mind for the piece in progress.

Also, don't neglect thinking about other temporal media for formal ideas. Literature, film, poetry. They all can provide clues as to when to surprise, when to return, when to jump, when to fly, etc.

[adam kondor]

Does this mean that you're planning to write longer-than-1min pieces, Celeste? :)

Try this:
- first create some short musical event, which in itself can be a satisfying, finished whole. Let's call it a 'sentence'.
- Then create an other sentence and define its relation to the first one (decide their order).
- Now, either continue creating more sentences this way, or take the first two sentences as a whole and react to it.
- And so on. ..
At any point there are possibilities to grow into different directions, so a piece can easily evolve into several "forms"... and that is a good educational tool, also.
You can use coins or I ching or whatever to help you decide.
Don't be rigorous! Flexibility is all!


(btw, this is one of my favorite - and already longer than 1min)

[Charles Céleste Hutchins]

Yes, I'm looking to extend to durations greater than one minute, or greater than 10, even.

The piece that you link to was essentially improvised and was therefore flexible. :)

Thanks

adam kondor said:

Does this mean that you're planning to write longer-than-1min pieces, Celeste? :)

Try this:
- first create some short musical event, which in itself can be a satisfying, finished whole. Let's call it a 'sentence'.
- Then create an other sentence and define its relation to the first one (decide their order).
- Now, either continue creating more sentences this way, or take the first two sentences as a whole and react to it.
- And so on. ..
At any point there are possibilities to grow into different directions, so a piece can easily evolve into several "forms"... and that is a good educational tool, also.
You can use coins or I ching or whatever to help you decide.
Don't be rigorous! Flexibility is all!


(btw, this is one of my favorite - and already longer than 1min)

[Charles Céleste Hutchins]

Are there any books in particular that you would recommend?

Shane W. Cadman said:

I function similarly, though I will sometimes start with a germ of a musical idea (usually from goofing off on the piano until I hear something I like). One of the first things I decide is: how long do I want this piece to be? From there, architecture, then notes. I used to be rigid about my structures, particularly if I'm dealing with the Golden Mean, but now I try to be more flexible, should the muse inspire.

This goes back to earlier topics regarding not reinventing the wheel. Study forms. Pick up a book or two on it and learn what you can. Sometimes I become intrigued by a particular structure and that becomes my starting point. I think the best thing any artist can do is start with certian limitations in place (form, instrumentation, harmonic materials, etc.) and then create!

Brian Vlasak said:

Hmm. I actually start with a timeline that I parse out into smaller subdivisions ... not necessary "A-B-A", but more like "MM=60, MM=92", etc ... Then I fill it in with textures, key verbal phrases. We'll worry about the notes last.

I say go back to the oldies-but-goodies: Mozart Symphony No. 39, Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 3, Stockhausen's "Kontakte", phrase analysis of Ockeghem, etc ... But that's just me ... an old war horse. ::: grins :::

[adam kondor]

Xenakis' Formalized Music
Schoenberg: Style and Idea
Celeste Hutchins said:

Are there any books in particular that you would recommend?

[adam kondor]

1001 Sonate by Boudewijn Buckinx. A 24 hour long cycle of relatively short pieces.

Celeste Hutchins said:

Yes, I'm looking to extend to durations greater than one minute, or greater than 10, even.

[Shane W. Cadman]

Here's the one I used in college: http://www.amazon.com/Form-Tonal-Music-Introduction-Analysis/dp/003... It's a place to start. There are a few more out there. Also, study music (scores, listening).

Celeste Hutchins said:

Are there any books in particular that you would recommend?

Shane W. Cadman said:

I function similarly, though I will sometimes start with a germ of a musical idea (usually from goofing off on the piano until I hear something I like). One of the first things I decide is: how long do I want this piece to be? From there, architecture, then notes. I used to be rigid about my structures, particularly if I'm dealing with the Golden Mean, but now I try to be more flexible, should the muse inspire.

This goes back to earlier topics regarding not reinventing the wheel. Study forms. Pick up a book or two on it and learn what you can. Sometimes I become intrigued by a particular structure and that becomes my starting point. I think the best thing any artist can do is start with certian limitations in place (form, instrumentation, harmonic materials, etc.) and then create!

Brian Vlasak said:

Hmm. I actually start with a timeline that I parse out into smaller subdivisions ... not necessary "A-B-A", but more like "MM=60, MM=92", etc ... Then I fill it in with textures, key verbal phrases. We'll worry about the notes last.

I say go back to the oldies-but-goodies: Mozart Symphony No. 39, Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 3, Stockhausen's "Kontakte", phrase analysis of Ockeghem, etc ... But that's just me ... an old war horse. ::: grins :::

[Jeff Harrington]

A vastly underrated book about musical form: Structural Functions in Music by Wallace Berry. It's also very cheap and has one of the only pedagogical approaches I've ever seen concerning the analysis of texture.

I used it in grad school, FWIW when I studied with Barbara Jazwinski.

Shane W. Cadman said:

Here's the one I used in college: http://www.amazon.com/Form-Tonal-Music-Introduction-Analysis/dp/003... It's a place to start. There are a few more out there. Also, study music (scores, listening).

Celeste Hutchins said:

Are there any books in particular that you would recommend?

Shane W. Cadman said:

I function similarly, though I will sometimes start with a germ of a musical idea (usually from goofing off on the piano until I hear something I like). One of the first things I decide is: how long do I want this piece to be? From there, architecture, then notes. I used to be rigid about my structures, particularly if I'm dealing with the Golden Mean, but now I try to be more flexible, should the muse inspire.

This goes back to earlier topics regarding not reinventing the wheel. Study forms. Pick up a book or two on it and learn what you can. Sometimes I become intrigued by a particular structure and that becomes my starting point. I think the best thing any artist can do is start with certian limitations in place (form, instrumentation, harmonic materials, etc.) and then create!

Brian Vlasak said:

Hmm. I actually start with a timeline that I parse out into smaller subdivisions ... not necessary "A-B-A", but more like "MM=60, MM=92", etc ... Then I fill it in with textures, key verbal phrases. We'll worry about the notes last.

I say go back to the oldies-but-goodies: Mozart Symphony No. 39, Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 3, Stockhausen's "Kontakte", phrase analysis of Ockeghem, etc ... But that's just me ... an old war horse. ::: grins :::

[Steve Moshier]

Early on I kept coming back to: Fundamentals of Musical Composition by Arnold Schoenberg

Jeff Harrington said:

A vastly underrated book about musical form: Structural Functions in Music by Wallace Berry. It's also very cheap and has one of the only pedagogical approaches I've ever seen concerning the analysis of texture.

I used it in grad school, FWIW when I studied with Barbara Jazwinski.

Shane W. Cadman said:

Here's the one I used in college: http://www.amazon.com/Form-Tonal-Music-Introduction-Analysis/dp/003... It's a place to start. There are a few more out there. Also, study music (scores, listening).

Celeste Hutchins said:

Are there any books in particular that you would recommend?

Shane W. Cadman said:

I function similarly, though I will sometimes start with a germ of a musical idea (usually from goofing off on the piano until I hear something I like). One of the first things I decide is: how long do I want this piece to be? From there, architecture, then notes. I used to be rigid about my structures, particularly if I'm dealing with the Golden Mean, but now I try to be more flexible, should the muse inspire.

This goes back to earlier topics regarding not reinventing the wheel. Study forms. Pick up a book or two on it and learn what you can. Sometimes I become intrigued by a particular structure and that becomes my starting point. I think the best thing any artist can do is start with certian limitations in place (form, instrumentation, harmonic materials, etc.) and then create!

Brian Vlasak said:

Hmm. I actually start with a timeline that I parse out into smaller subdivisions ... not necessary "A-B-A", but more like "MM=60, MM=92", etc ... Then I fill it in with textures, key verbal phrases. We'll worry about the notes last.

I say go back to the oldies-but-goodies: Mozart Symphony No. 39, Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 3, Stockhausen's "Kontakte", phrase analysis of Ockeghem, etc ... But that's just me ... an old war horse. ::: grins :::

[Johnny & Faith]

'The Tao Of Physics" by Fritjof Capra discusses a different kind of form and structure, but it never fails to get me in the mood to make aural fixations