theory/composition

I've been half watching the exchange between Joseph and Dan, so I
won't try to comment directly. I do want to say a word or two about
composition, as I've really been heading into new territory the last few
months (on fretless and 31 eq), and creating some quite new (for me)
music. First, the fretless piece...I tuned the guitar to various
harmonics, so the usual, guitaristic patterns that I usually deal with,
were not there anymore...in fact, intellectually, it took me a while to
even understand the tuning...I just liked the SOUND of it (now I KNOW
what it is). But, at first, I was going entirely by ear...which I have
done most of my life.
Then, a small pattern, made of 3 harmonics, somehow appeared as I
was putzing around, then a little 2 note shape, but that was about it
for almost a year. Then, in the fall of 2000, all of a sudden one day,
as I sat down to putz some more, a virtual flood of ideas, melodies, and
patterns showed up, one after the other, for several days in a row...I
mean, riff after riff, variation after variation...I was able to get a
10 minute piece together for Microstock 6, and the ideas were still
pouring out...I had to edit them down to get the piece together. In
fact, to this day, everytime I work on this piece, ideas are STILL
flooding through this body.
The point, for me, is this..."I" did not "think" of 99% of these
melodies/riffs; I found my hands literally playing them, somehow, while
"I" watched...THEN, later, I would go back and intellectually figure out
the names of the notes, etc...in fact, I still do not know the scales I
am playing in this piece...and, I really don't care. But, it is
cohesive, has a good shape, and I consider it one of my better
compositions. (Oh yeah, it also evokes really deep/profound feelings and
images for me as well...that's how I ultimately judge my work...).
As far as I am concerned, I did not write this piece...somehow,
ideas came to me from somewhere, and my hands "did" it...so, where was
I, where is this place, and what does it have to do with
theory/intellect? After 35 years of playing, I'm not exactly sure, nor
do I really care...al I know is, creativity, for me, seems to reside
somewhere in the Universe, and once I "get" to that place, I've hit the
big number, and "I", as a composer, can create a new piece.
Same thing happened last week with 31...I was sitting, putzing
around, when my hands started playing a riff...I said, "that's it!," and
THEN stopped to count out the rhythms, and "learn" what I was already
doing. Again, I did not think of this riff beforehand...somehow, it
appeared while I was playing. Now, I CAN use my intellectually learned
concepts of variation, etc., to expand on it...but, the initial idea had
nothing to do with that part of me which I think of as my intellect.
And, knowing me, I won't be using the intellectual side much to expand
on it, either.
In fact, when I look back at all of the tunes I've written (which is
a lot), I cannot remember EVER using the intellectual part of myself to
compose them...it seems like all of a sudden, there's a piece, and I
cannot remember how it got there. Yet, I've studied and practiced a lot
over the years, so I know that process certainly aids in the final
result. Yet, I don't seem to use it in the actual process of composing;
at least, not consciously.
And, this is not a new story, for sure...many artists have remarked
that, at their best, the music seems to be coming through them, from
somewhere else, and that "thinking" stops it. Joe Pass often talked
about that, as well as many others, and I agree, for my part.
Composition is a rather mystical event, for me, and I am certainly
curious as to how others compose, as well. Many people have remarked how
all ideas already exist, and we, as artists, just go get them, somehow,
from somewhere. Maybe so...these things are not only hard to prove,
they're impossible to prove...and, that's why I like being an artist so
much. I enjoy the realms of the unknowable, and feel most comfortable
there...Hstick

--- In tuning@y..., "Neil Haverstick" <STICK@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20047.html#20047

Thank you, Neil Haverstick, for your interesting composition post. I
*love* composition posts, that is, unless the "exchangers" get so
personally tied up in things that they refuse to post anymore! :)

There is an interesting painting from the 7th Century AD which shows
St. Gregory (of Gregorian Chant fame!) taking down his chants from a
little white bird that is perched on his shoulder. (Fortunately, the
bird was "minding its manners" so to speak)

This little bird, a not too subtle reference to the "Holy Spirit" did
all the composing for St. Gregory. These chants were quickly
dictated, then, to Gregory's "scribe."

Are you sure this is not what's happening to you?? :)

Seriously, though, I would say that you probably do LOTS more
"pre-compositional" work than you think. There is all the extensive
"improvising" that you do... there is all the thinking about tunings
and the "putzing" (from the Yiddish) that goes on.

Although I have no background in psychology, I would venture that,
possibly, you do most of your composing in your SLEEP.

I'm serious. There is a lot of "pre-compositional" stuff going on in
your subconscious that combines with all your earlier experiences and
then SUDDENLY (to YOU, maybe, but not to your subconscious) appears.

I don't want to get too O.T., but, thinking about things
"scientifically" in a Dave Keenan way, it really is AMAZING how much
we "know" that we DON'T "know."

In other words, your body knows how to do much. It's moving atoms
around, fighting disease, etc., etc.

We *DO* this, we *KNOW* this... but just not consciously...

Therefore, is the "conscious" mind basically just a little mirage, a
tiny, partial reflection of the "real" reality??.... It's all we
really "need" to know in order to function... but the TRUE person,
and the TRUE universe is ENTIRELY beyond our grasp.

We don't NEED to know it consciously for our survival and, thereby,
don't even have the TOOLS to know it...

That's what I'm beginning to believe. And yet, we're so
"well-tuned!" (See, I got back to tuning...)

best,

______ ______ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

Neil Haverstick wrote:

> I've been half watching the exchange between Joseph and Dan, so I
> won't try to comment directly. I do want to say a word or two about
> composition, as I've really been heading into new territory the last few
> months (on fretless and 31 eq), and creating some quite new (for me)
> music.

(snip)

>
> Composition is a rather mystical event, for me, and I am certainly
> curious as to how others compose, as well. Many people have remarked how
> all ideas already exist, and we, as artists, just go get them, somehow,
> from somewhere. Maybe so...these things are not only hard to prove,
> they're impossible to prove...and, that's why I like being an artist so
> much. I enjoy the realms of the unknowable, and feel most comfortable
> there...Hstick

One of the best ways to compose in a new tuning on the guitar, given that you have good technique,
is to immerse yourself in it for a few weeks or more till, as Neil says, the riffs come along (
old riffmeister Keith Richards acknowledges this). I've done this with a 22 tet guitar, then I
record long structured inprovisations to DAT and score them out, composing as I go. What comes out
sounds totally fresh, at least to my ears. The hard bit is the 'fixing' of the finished article.
The improvisations are so enjoyable. But when you've emptied yourself of all the desires to sound
like somebody else, you really can find your own voice, and that really is the best offering you
can make.

Best Wishes

>

> From: jpehrson@rcn.com
>
> I personally think composers should try to learn to PLAY as many
> instruments as possible, and get them right in their HANDS.
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

>> Now more than ever, music should be written directly on the
>> instruments that will play them.

> From: "Neil Haverstick" <STICK@USWEST.NET>

> I find this process fascinating..I do, indeed, feel, at times, like
> someone on the other side of this life, is showing me ideas/concepts,
> and guiding me do do the things I do.

I have to agree with Joseph, Kraig and Neil. While I am quite glad that I
studied enough theory and ear training so as to be able to compose with
nothing but paper and pencil (and especially an eraser), and have used this
method where it seemed the right way to compose particular pieces of music,
for the most part I prefer the hands on an instrument approach to music
composition. I think the guitar lends itself particularily well to this
method. The best compositions for guitar do tend to be written by players,
or by composers working very closely with a players' input.

Years ago, I found that my best compositional ideas happened by trying to
play on instruments that I didn't know how to play. So I'd buy old funky
instruments and improvise on them to come up with new ideas that I'd bring
back to my primary instrument which was, at that time, the acoustic steel
string guitar. The end result some 25 years later is that I can play a
number of other instruments well, and am constantly learning to play others.
To this day, I gain great insight into pieces I'm working on a given
instrument by playing them on other instruments.

Seth

--
Seth Austen

http://www.sethausten.com
emails: seth@sethausten.com
klezmusic@earthlink.net

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause
and reflect."
-Mark Twain

Hey,

As a composition student, who must finish many works, and assignments... I
feel that much of my inspiration comes from working with raw material, pitch
sets, scales, tone-rows, interval cycles, or patterns. I have a book of
randomly generated tone rows that I improvise on and 'dig into' to get
musical ideas. I have generated some of my best works through these
means... I am usually working on three or more works at a time that are
vastly different in technique and style. I am very into 'algorithmic
compositions' and cannons, pieces in which the whole music is designed or
engineered, and the resulting work is just a working out of a process. This
stems from my love for Ligeti, and Xenakis, and my fondness for
'hyper-strict structures'. I am at the same time usually writing a piece of
serial music, where I use loose serial rules, and free atonality at the same
time. My other style is usually more naturally born from inspiration or
improvisation... and these usually consist of writing a few melodies,
motivic ideas, and generating harmonies, but never is the whole piece born
in an instance, and I will always impose my theoretical know-how's to the
'naturally' developed material. My compositions that I hate the most though
are the works that I applied little theoretical know-how to, and just wrote
what my 'ear told me to'. So, either this means that I have a bad ear, or
am a bad composer. I think that all great composers truly combine elements
of theory and intuition in their works... many composers though have theory
embedded in their intuition, or have a unique theory of their own. For me,
composition that simply writes what the ear states, is simply written
improvisation... I believe that most composer are intuitive, but use theory
own theoretical conceptions to mold their materials into a structured
composition.

Here's a little side track. This is why I like set-theory, it is the only
universal theoretical language. The application of set-theory to the study
of Schoenberg and his disciple's atonal music is known... but set-theory can
reveal all relationships between all pitches in any temperament. Set-theory
to me is not a mathematical machine, but a very powerful tool that examines
a composer's material and what can be done with it. Set-theory is almost
like a programming language for music theory and analysis, it is so
fundamental and the rules are so general that they can be applied to all
music tonal, atonal, modal regardless of atonality. I use set-theory in all
of my compositions, but I doubt that any theorist could ever find out how,
especially in my impressionistic and tonal works.

Steven Kallstrom