My guideline: Awareness of what you're doing is more important than strict rules; because rules are fossilised versions of that awareness from specific points in history.
UA-cam recommended this to me. I am 20 years old, a trumpeter with no formal education of it, and am trying to arrange a piece at the moment in intermediate difficulty as well (I am also self-taught in it). This is sound advice and is very timely. Thank you very much.
Yes as long as it is playable by the instruments you are writing for, sounds good to your audience and don't copy melodies (quotations are allowed though). Music theory is just a summary of what other composers did that worked out. And there are more theories as well. West and East for example. And even in the west there is a huge amount of dialects of, for example, Baroque, Romantic , Post-Romantic (ie Liszt and Wagner) and modernist an Avant Garde theory (anything from Stravinsky to Penderecki to Julia Wolfe).
You're allowed to compose whatever you want, but your audience is allowed to not like what you've composed. And if you write something unplayable, it won't be played.
Good advice! This is why composers should study orchestration to learn the natural limits of instruments, music education to learn the natural limitations of human beings, and psychology to better understand perception. It doesn’t hurt to also study philosophy & aesthetics to get a broader view of balancing artistic elements.
When I was in middle school orchestra I had an ancient copy of PrintMusic (one of Finale's products) that I used to write stuff - I still don't have any formal training past that but it's still a passion. Anyway, I tried to get a quartet together from the school's orchestra to play a few of my pieces and found immediately that it was basically impossible for that age group to attempt the pieces. They were in the right range, any easy key, etc. -- but they also had instruments trading beats in pizzicato, which of course could render into MIDI without any challenge at all, but each individual instrument had a challenging time counting the beats and getting the timing right. Since then my gauge has always been "can I actually play this myself?" and if the answer is "no", I just assume it probably is too hard for my target performers. (Although since middle school my target performers are... myself. But such is the life of a hobbyist.)
Rule to live by "Just because you can doesn't mean you should." This is true in nearly every area of life, work, and creativity. I appreciate your statement that "practice time is finite." Anything we create for ourselves is okay but not necessarily ready for the world. When we approach the things we share with others with a "You Only Live Once" attitude, we risk being isolated from our friends, consumers, and potential partners. Sure, we can find validation in some people; even the worst of humanity finds others that like their ideals. Remember who you are writing for. Remember who you are creating for. Music is not music until it is heard. A song is not a song until it is sung.
"Most choirs are not used to singing this kind of harmony." Well, guess what? If they are always given music they can sing, they're never gonna be used to singing it (or really anything beyond their comfort zone). Had Mozart not written "Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen", no soprano would probably have bothered herself to ever learn to hit that high F6 or do those crazy passages, in general (Yes, we can probably find other similar examples in classical repertoire that challenge sopranos' high register or any type of performer, but you get my point). And he didn't stop there! In Requiem, he challenges not a singer but an entire choir with "Kyrie." Is it the most convenient piece for singing? Definitely, no! The responses, in particular ("Christe Eleisons") resemble a motif you would write for an instrument, not a voice. Yet, he did it, and we have one of the most genial pieces of music ever composed. So, my point is this - as a composer, you can write (you should write) anything you want, anything that you hear inside, because that's what you hear inside you - pretty self-explanatory, huh?-as long as you are sure that it is playable or singable. Not by a particular band, ensemble, or choir, but in general. One ensemble may have trouble performing it; another one will reject it, but eventually, it'll hopefully be performed by some capable performers...
But this depends on whether your music is going to be performed by professional musicians or by students. Basically, the point of the video is, know your audience. If you are writing a "level 3" piece, then it needs to be suitable for "level 3". That's not the right context for pushing the boundaries of music/technique. Mozart wasn't writing for students - he was writing for professional musicians. And that's an entirely different context. And even then, there are going to be things that don't work that well, and probably easier ways of achieving the same effect. Not always of course (like if you actually need that high F, then that's what the music needs). But one should also be critical of their own musical decisions - is this the effect that I'm actually after, and would there be a simpler way of achieving that sound?
This is a good video. As a composer and musician who deals only in extended Pythagorean tuning it is a good thing to consider, though almost all of my music is for me to perform, or people in the future, more so than for people today. I am currently working on an arrangement of an old hymn in Fb major, video soon to come on my channel. This is not an awkward spelling of E major, but an enharmonically distinct key from E major. Fb major is 23.46 cents lower than E major, as in Pythagorean tuning every pitch class sounds distinct, there is no enharmonic equivalency. Writing it in musecore for SATB choir, making the key signature Cb major and then just adding in the Bbb's when they occur, I realize that for a piece like this to be performed today, would be very annoying to directors. Also, if I were to write the score for real on paper or where I had control over the key signature, I would just write a double flat on B and have no other accidental in the key signature. it is obvious if you are familiar with keys in true intonation, that any time you have a double flat, all the other notes are automatically flat. if you had a triple flat in the key signature, all other notes would be double flat. This is obvious to me and it would be a lot clearer on the page, with less flat symbols. But no one is taught this in schools. But if performed today, the piece would have to have an educational preface to the score, so that the musicians would know and understand how to read and play and tune the music. The average musician is not really taught about Pythagorean tuning, the intricacies of using double and triple flats and sharps, enharmonic unequivalence, etc. I think in time, and with recordings and scores of more unusual things becoming available, and education of true intonation (Pythagorean) becoming more wide spread, the ability of the average musician could be able to accommodate things in scores that in the past they could not, simply because it was never a part of their education, though it be essential to the music.
context is king chords and notes are what a composer builds music with . keys and text book music theory are no more or less than AI . WHAT A GREAT COMPOSER does is make the melody and chords his very own . once heard never forgotten
Lol...at any rate, 0:39, yes, anything can suceed anything in music, but still...if you put the "wrong" note/chord, etc (according to prevalent taste, and there is usually a prevalent taste in a given period, lol) it will sound wrong, it won't sound as good as a "correct" note/chord, lol...I mean...and that goes for many other things...after repeated listening, you might get used to *some* "wrong"things, but some are still wrong, according to prevalent taste...close-mindedness, lol, perhaps, some might see it as, but it's a real thing, nonetheless...
music is in the eyes of the beholder, but the beholder doesn't always know what he's looking at... You can pretty much write anything, but you have to be sure that everything makes sense and is playable. Furthermore, writing special kinds of pieces requires more strictness, like say a sonata, symphony, etc. I believe that no one should be able to tell a person how to write their music, or even how it sounds, unless it is clearly just impossible, or in incorrect formatting.
The second major add 4 chord sumg by the choir is beautifully microtonal, inflecting the fourth to the 11th harmonic and transforming the original dissonance to a more consonant version. I like that.
i conducted a choir that can automatically sing from p to mp converting everything that is on the score. You don´t need to write any F or mf, or pppp: everything goes back to p or mp. It is a naturally compressed choir .
i'm glad you decided to put this video together. i'll add, putting slowly changing captions throughout a whole video that don't match what you're saying isn't wrong, but is it wise? as a neurodivergent person, i need to look away from the screen so i can actually be able to tell what you're saying, so all that effort on those captions is gone, and now i can't see your facial expressions while talking! 🤍
My guideline: Awareness of what you're doing is more important than strict rules; because rules are fossilised versions of that awareness from specific points in history.
Very true, gotta follow your inner ear
UA-cam recommended this to me.
I am 20 years old, a trumpeter with no formal education of it, and am trying to arrange a piece at the moment in intermediate difficulty as well (I am also self-taught in it).
This is sound advice and is very timely.
Thank you very much.
youtube recommended me this
Me too 😅
Same
Yes as long as it is playable by the instruments you are writing for, sounds good to your audience and don't copy melodies (quotations are allowed though). Music theory is just a summary of what other composers did that worked out. And there are more theories as well. West and East for example. And even in the west there is a huge amount of dialects of, for example, Baroque, Romantic , Post-Romantic (ie Liszt and Wagner) and modernist an Avant Garde theory (anything from Stravinsky to Penderecki to Julia Wolfe).
You're allowed to compose whatever you want, but your audience is allowed to not like what you've composed. And if you write something unplayable, it won't be played.
Good advice! This is why composers should study orchestration to learn the natural limits of instruments, music education to learn the natural limitations of human beings, and psychology to better understand perception. It doesn’t hurt to also study philosophy & aesthetics to get a broader view of balancing artistic elements.
I play classical guitar and haven't the foggiest idea wtf is going on, this video is refreshing and timely, subscribed, thank you.
That sounds like good advice, thank you!
You can write what you want if you use MIDI instruments to perform it.
When I was in middle school orchestra I had an ancient copy of PrintMusic (one of Finale's products) that I used to write stuff - I still don't have any formal training past that but it's still a passion. Anyway, I tried to get a quartet together from the school's orchestra to play a few of my pieces and found immediately that it was basically impossible for that age group to attempt the pieces. They were in the right range, any easy key, etc. -- but they also had instruments trading beats in pizzicato, which of course could render into MIDI without any challenge at all, but each individual instrument had a challenging time counting the beats and getting the timing right.
Since then my gauge has always been "can I actually play this myself?" and if the answer is "no", I just assume it probably is too hard for my target performers. (Although since middle school my target performers are... myself. But such is the life of a hobbyist.)
Rule to live by "Just because you can doesn't mean you should." This is true in nearly every area of life, work, and creativity. I appreciate your statement that "practice time is finite." Anything we create for ourselves is okay but not necessarily ready for the world. When we approach the things we share with others with a "You Only Live Once" attitude, we risk being isolated from our friends, consumers, and potential partners. Sure, we can find validation in some people; even the worst of humanity finds others that like their ideals. Remember who you are writing for. Remember who you are creating for. Music is not music until it is heard. A song is not a song until it is sung.
"Most choirs are not used to singing this kind of harmony." Well, guess what? If they are always given music they can sing, they're never gonna be used to singing it (or really anything beyond their comfort zone). Had Mozart not written "Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen", no soprano would probably have bothered herself to ever learn to hit that high F6 or do those crazy passages, in general (Yes, we can probably find other similar examples in classical repertoire that challenge sopranos' high register or any type of performer, but you get my point). And he didn't stop there! In Requiem, he challenges not a singer but an entire choir with "Kyrie." Is it the most convenient piece for singing? Definitely, no! The responses, in particular ("Christe Eleisons") resemble a motif you would write for an instrument, not a voice. Yet, he did it, and we have one of the most genial pieces of music ever composed. So, my point is this - as a composer, you can write (you should write) anything you want, anything that you hear inside, because that's what you hear inside you - pretty self-explanatory, huh?-as long as you are sure that it is playable or singable. Not by a particular band, ensemble, or choir, but in general. One ensemble may have trouble performing it; another one will reject it, but eventually, it'll hopefully be performed by some capable performers...
But this depends on whether your music is going to be performed by professional musicians or by students. Basically, the point of the video is, know your audience. If you are writing a "level 3" piece, then it needs to be suitable for "level 3". That's not the right context for pushing the boundaries of music/technique. Mozart wasn't writing for students - he was writing for professional musicians. And that's an entirely different context.
And even then, there are going to be things that don't work that well, and probably easier ways of achieving the same effect. Not always of course (like if you actually need that high F, then that's what the music needs). But one should also be critical of their own musical decisions - is this the effect that I'm actually after, and would there be a simpler way of achieving that sound?
Framing this as being economical with rehearsal time is very clarifying
This is a good video. As a composer and musician who deals only in extended Pythagorean tuning it is a good thing to consider, though almost all of my music is for me to perform, or people in the future, more so than for people today.
I am currently working on an arrangement of an old hymn in Fb major, video soon to come on my channel. This is not an awkward spelling of E major, but an enharmonically distinct key from E major. Fb major is 23.46 cents lower than E major, as in Pythagorean tuning every pitch class sounds distinct, there is no enharmonic equivalency.
Writing it in musecore for SATB choir, making the key signature Cb major and then just adding in the Bbb's when they occur, I realize that for a piece like this to be performed today, would be very annoying to directors. Also, if I were to write the score for real on paper or where I had control over the key signature, I would just write a double flat on B and have no other accidental in the key signature. it is obvious if you are familiar with keys in true intonation, that any time you have a double flat, all the other notes are automatically flat. if you had a triple flat in the key signature, all other notes would be double flat. This is obvious to me and it would be a lot clearer on the page, with less flat symbols. But no one is taught this in schools.
But if performed today, the piece would have to have an educational preface to the score, so that the musicians would know and understand how to read and play and tune the music. The average musician is not really taught about Pythagorean tuning, the intricacies of using double and triple flats and sharps, enharmonic unequivalence, etc.
I think in time, and with recordings and scores of more unusual things becoming available, and education of true intonation (Pythagorean) becoming more wide spread, the ability of the average musician could be able to accommodate things in scores that in the past they could not, simply because it was never a part of their education, though it be essential to the music.
Very good advice.
Can you write anything you want? If you know what you are doing and know your players, yes.
context is king chords and notes are what a composer builds music with . keys and text book music theory are no more or less than AI . WHAT A GREAT COMPOSER does is make the melody and chords his very own . once heard never forgotten
Lol...at any rate, 0:39, yes, anything can suceed anything in music, but still...if you put the "wrong" note/chord, etc (according to prevalent taste, and there is usually a prevalent taste in a given period, lol) it will sound wrong, it won't sound as good as a "correct" note/chord, lol...I mean...and that goes for many other things...after repeated listening, you might get used to *some* "wrong"things, but some are still wrong, according to prevalent taste...close-mindedness, lol, perhaps, some might see it as, but it's a real thing, nonetheless...
music is in the eyes of the beholder, but the beholder doesn't always know what he's looking at...
You can pretty much write anything, but you have to be sure that everything makes sense and is playable. Furthermore, writing special kinds of pieces requires more strictness, like say a sonata, symphony, etc.
I believe that no one should be able to tell a person how to write their music, or even how it sounds, unless it is clearly just impossible, or in incorrect formatting.
yes
The second major add 4 chord sumg by the choir is beautifully microtonal, inflecting the fourth to the 11th harmonic and transforming the original dissonance to a more consonant version. I like that.
i conducted a choir that can automatically sing from p to mp converting everything that is on the score. You don´t need to write any F or mf, or pppp: everything goes back to p or mp. It is a naturally compressed choir .
i'm glad you decided to put this video together.
i'll add, putting slowly changing captions throughout a whole video that don't match what you're saying isn't wrong, but is it wise? as a neurodivergent person, i need to look away from the screen so i can actually be able to tell what you're saying, so all that effort on those captions is gone, and now i can't see your facial expressions while talking!
🤍
Interesting issues. A small point- I think Persichetti's name is pronounced -Per-sih--ket-ti.
Short answer. Yes.
Possibly the most clueless question currently on UA-cam (which is really saying something.)
What a depressing video.