[Fwd: theory/composition]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: theory/composition
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:15:12 -0700
From: Neil Haverstick <stick@uswest.net>
To: tuning@egroups.com

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

Neil,

I think your message got posted twice, but what the heck, I had a
question anyway:

Looking at your post (and knowing a bit about your music), it seems
like virtually everything you've done, in terms of "composition", has
come from literally having a guitar (of some sort!) in your hands. If
this is the case, what would you do if you had to compose some music,
and all you could use was a:

1. keyboard
2. pencil and paper
3. ???

Have you, in the past, 'written' music (or had music come to you)
that you were able to successfully realize *without* the use of a
guitar?

Just curious, but you are definitely in the camp of the
performer/composer -- which is just fine, but might go a bit of a
ways in explaining how it is that you come up with the music.

Cheers,
Jon

P.S. good luck on your "theatre music" debut...

In a message dated 3/11/01 3:31:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, JSZANTO@ADNC.COM
writes:

> 1. keyboard
> 2. pencil and paper
> 3. ???
>
>
Jon, this was good advice for Neil. I would like to hear more music that is
not instrument evolved/devolved.

As with J.S. Bach, my advice is to skip the keyboard, or any instrument you
play. When the fingers do the talking, the mind is "chained." Granted there
are steps to attain. However, even from the earliest stages, it is best to
wean from any instrument when composing, especially the one most mastered.

Suggestively, Johnny Reinhard

J sand J!
hmm. would you suggest such a thing to Partch. How about Chopin, or
Stravinsky who wrote at an instrument. If the end result is good music
who cares. If Neil writes nothing but guitar music, is this any
different than a painter who prefers a few colors?

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 3/11/01 3:31:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> JSZANTO@ADNC.COM
> writes:
>
>
>
>> 1. keyboard
>> 2. pencil and paper
>> 3. ???
>
>
> Jon, this was good advice for Neil. I would like to hear more music
> that is
> not instrument evolved/devolved.
>
> As with J.S. Bach, my advice is to skip the keyboard, or any
> instrument you
> play. When the fingers do the talking, the mind is "chained."
> Granted there
> are steps to attain. However, even from the earliest stages, it is
> best to
> wean from any instrument when composing, especially the one most
> mastered.
>
> Suggestively, Johnny Reinhard

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

In a message dated 3/11/01 10:58:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,
kraiggrady@anaphoria.com writes:

> J sand J!
> hmm. would you suggest such a thing to Partch. How about Chopin, or
> Stravinsky who wrote at an instrument. If the end result is good music who
> cares. If Neil writes nothing but guitar music, is this any different than
>

Kraig, one can advise from an optimal point of view, whole hog,
idealistically. It is not a strength to write from a crutch. The advice I
gave is general composition advice. It is directed to people who lean heavy
on the ax they have played all their life. I would agree with you that
Chopin's piano music is superior to his non-piano music. Partch needed aids
to find notes (as with his brads in the viola) even though he had perfect
pitch. And that's okay...with 43 new notes nobody else heard.

Stravinsky is an interesting example. Period. And yes, this is different
from an artist who prefers a few colors. It is the very technique that
begins to dictate art....which I don't think is what composers prefer.

Johnny Reinhard

I have to chime in some more thoughts on this .

Now more than ever, music should be written directly on the
instruments that will play them. Working with new tunings results in all
types of unpredictable things that happen on the level of acoustical
phenomenon. The resulting music is in many instances inaudible from the
point of view of what is on the paper. One can not use different tunings
without interacting with the way the tuning works and the sound space it
creates. This is why i object to so much the discussion of common
practice harmony. These harmonies mean something different when you
change the tuning. This requires new tempos, ranges, timbres, resolution
to make it work. Bach is irrelevant to our situation

Kraig Grady wrote:

> J sand J!
> hmm. would you suggest such a thing to Partch. How about Chopin,
> or Stravinsky who wrote at an instrument. If the end result is good
> music who cares. If Neil writes nothing but guitar music, is this any
> different than a painter who prefers a few colors?
>
> Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 3/11/01 3:31:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>> JSZANTO@ADNC.COM
>> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> > 1. keyboard
>> > 2. pencil and paper
>> > 3. ???
>>
>>
>> Jon, this was good advice for Neil. I would like to hear more music
>> that is
>> not instrument evolved/devolved.
>>
>> As with J.S. Bach, my advice is to skip the keyboard, or any
>> instrument you
>> play. When the fingers do the talking, the mind is "chained."
>> Granted there
>> are steps to attain. However, even from the earliest stages, it is
>> best to
>> wean from any instrument when composing, especially the one most
>> mastered.
>>
>> Suggestively, Johnny Reinhard
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20083.html#20089

> I have to chime in some more thoughts on this .
>
> Now more than ever, music should be written directly on the
> instruments that will play them.

I personally think composers should try to learn to PLAY as many
instruments as possible, and get them right in their HANDS. I own an
old violin, flute and guitar, in addition, of course, to the piano.
I use them ALL THE TIME when I'm writing pieces that involve them. I
would like to learn to play more instruments if I could find the time.
If I CAN'T, that's my OWN limitation...

If you can't find time to play all these instruments, one should find
friends, associates who DO, and work with them closely. In fact,
sometimes SOLO pieces are the best way to REALLY learn instruments.
There's nothing like having somebody demonstrate and work directly
with all the ranges, etc.

I keep telling composers this who seem to want to write for
abstract orchestra since they somehow think it's more
"sophisticated..."

It ISN'T. ANYBODY can write for orchestra. ANYTHING sounds pretty
good with an orchestra. Even a SINGLE NOTE sounds superb! A big
blast. It means nothing.

Only a person who can REALLY write for INDIVIDUAL instruments knows
his "stuff..."

Whether one actually writes WHILE PLAYING an instrument is a little
more immaterial to me... but it probably doesn't hurt. However, I
could see that when using NEW instruments it would be an absolute
imperative.

What is music just in the abstract?? Not too much...

_______ _____ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson

In a message dated 3/11/01 11:41:15 AM Eastern Standard Time,
kraiggrady@anaphoria.com writes:

> Now more than ever, music should be written directly on the instruments that
> will play them. Working with new tunings results in all types of
> unpredictable things that happen on the level of acoustical phenomenon. The
> resulting music is in many instances inaudible from the point of view of
> what is on the paper.

Nothing takes the place of experience. Bach played all the instruments he
wrote for, practically. He was a violist by preference, but a violinist,
too. His brother was a top oboist. His keyboard playing is legend, but did
you know he had these scholarships for his boy soprano voice?

Obviously, I recognize the value of exploring instruments for what hidden
treasures they possess. In my methodology, I always compose for specific
people and include aspects of their personality, and specific idiosyncrasies
in their technique. You are right to point out that different styles of
music require different preparations. But Bach always applies to me, and I
believe to Neil.

One cannot use different tunings without interacting with the way the tuning
works
> and the sound space it creates. This is why i object to so much the
> discussion of common practice harmony. These harmonies mean something
> different when you change the tuning. This requires new tempos, ranges,
>

I am living the vision of J.S. Bach every single day of my life. And I am
both aware and do marvel and the changes in tempo, phrasing, meanings, and
colorings.

Kraig, couldn't one split the exploration of sounds and acoustic phenomena
with the actual composition of a work, pencil or not, all in the head and
away from said instruments?

Johnny Reinhard

Johnny,

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Jon, this was good advice for Neil.

Whoa!!!! Lock up the women and children!!!!! Message misread -
message misread!!!!!

I wasn't offering *advice* AT ALL, Johnny. I'm glad you think it good
advice, and it *is* the kind of thing that I think is beneficial, but
I really only wanted to hear Neil's own thoughts on such a scenario.

I would never, unasked, give advice to another on how to compose, or
compost, or compromise...

But glad you like it...

Cheers,
Jon

Kraig(!)
--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> J sand J!
> hmm. would you suggest such a thing to Partch.

Please note in my reply to Johnny that I did *not* intend to suggest
anything to Neil, I simply was curious if he had asked himself that
question, or tried such an avenue. He was wondering 'aloud' himself
and I thought it would be of interest to hear him wonder on this as
well.

Never, *ever* meant to suggest a "better" way or anything!

Cheers,
Jon

In a message dated 3/11/01 12:48:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
JSZANTO@ADNC.COM writes:

> I really only wanted to hear Neil's own thoughts on such a scenario.
>
>

Then shouldn't this have been a private question for Neil?

Johnny

Johnny,

> > I really only wanted to hear Neil's own thoughts on such a
scenario.
>
> Then shouldn't this have been a private question for Neil?

What? <sigh> All that happened was Neil 'thinking out loud' on the
list (publically), which I always find interesting, and I wanted
the 'conversation' to flow some more, possibly in another direction.

It was not some deeply personal exposure I was asking. Delete the
message if it intrudes on your space...

Johnny!
I respect that you strive to write away from the instruments. I have
no desire to. I am interested in making music not notes on a page. One
has time for one or the other. The latter I do only what is absolutely
necessary to repeat what is essential. I live surrounded with the sound

Like yourself, I compose (organize) with specific individuals in
mind. I attempt to search out what it is they like to do or chose them
knowing this beforehand. I have no interest in creating works that
outlive me as a performance activity. I desire only that the listening
of the works might be of some use. Even this is of more use now than
later.

If we look at the fact that there are more people alive now than the
sum of all those who have lived, it is possible to assume that there are
more great music makers than have ever lived. Why are we bogged down
with such musical necrophilia? It is at the expense of the living

It is more important to me that those after me might take up the
spirit of what I do.
I forgot about being a composer. I now organize music that allows
talented individuals to as many parts of themselves to come out. A
response of my work over the last couple of years (recordings are not
available yet) is that people cannot tell if it is improvised or
composed. It is both, yet each work remains recognizable. A possible
analogy might be how a raga is recognizable, but the timeless power of
these collective creations to transcend eons of change is beyond our
individual grasp.

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> Kraig, couldn't one split the exploration of sounds and acoustic
> phenomena
> with the actual composition of a work, pencil or not, all in the head
> and
> away from said instruments?

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

cool, Kraig!

Johnny

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

<<ANYTHING sounds pretty good with an orchestra. Even a SINGLE NOTE
sounds superb! A big blast. It means nothing.>>

Unless it means something, I guess...

<<Only a person who can REALLY write for INDIVIDUAL instruments knows
his "stuff...">>

Joe, you must be high -- in fact, I think I'm going to have to
repossess your lava lamp!

Come on man, who's going to tell me they've got the definitive skinny
on who can "really" write... and what "stuff" would they really know
even if they do?

Look, a competent artisan is a competent artisan, and a awkward
dilettante is an awkward dilettante. But an inspired one from any side
of the fence is a whole other ball o' wax in my opinion!

Is it fair or even sensible to call Hindemith and Johnny Cash both
"composers"? I think it has to be for the term to have any real
meaning or importance.

--Dan Stearns

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20083.html#20129

> Joseph Pehrson wrote,
>
> <<ANYTHING sounds pretty good with an orchestra. Even a SINGLE NOTE
> sounds superb! A big blast. It means nothing.>>
>
> Unless it means something, I guess...
>
>
> <<Only a person who can REALLY write for INDIVIDUAL instruments
knows his "stuff...">>
>
> Joe, you must be high -- in fact, I think I'm going to have to
> repossess your lava lamp!
>
> Come on man, who's going to tell me they've got the definitive
skinny on who can "really" write... and what "stuff" would they
really know even if they do?
>
> Look, a competent artisan is a competent artisan, and a awkward
> dilettante is an awkward dilettante. But an inspired one from any
side of the fence is a whole other ball o' wax in my opinion!
>
> Is it fair or even sensible to call Hindemith and Johnny Cash both
> "composers"? I think it has to be for the term to have any real
> meaning or importance.
>
> --Dan Stearns

Hi Dan...

You and I obviously have different definitions of "composer" and
"music," so we'll leave it at that, I guess...

I've enjoyed very much listening to what you do, so, my personal
definitions don't really affect my "enjoyment" of it, per se.

HOWEVER, my comments about composition are mostly involved with
traditional instruments and traditional training and writing and such
like.

I believe there are SOME people on this list who are interested in
this. There are also some, obviously, who are not...

So my posts about traditional "craftsmanship" and traditional
instruments are directed to those interested in this kind of thing...

Obviously, it isn't the ONLY kind of music, and I am glad to see
there are many different "camps" here.

Your idol, Charles Ives, as you know, had a VERY traditional
compositional background at Yale and although he rejected much of it,
he still didn't renounce some of his early works, like the First
Symphony written under Horatio Parker. A more "traditional" work I
cannot imagine... As you know, it's still performed frequently in
it's
"original" state, and also as part of the 1st String Quartet.

Regarding the "technical" discussion, I was only comparing the idea
of writing traditional works in an orchestral form as contrasted with
writing for individual instruments. Many beginning composers think
that writing for individual instruments is "easier." That's all this
was about.

It has, obviously, nothing to do with the kind of music you write, or
what you are trying to do, so I don't really understand why you
bother to comment on it...

_________ ______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

<<You and I obviously have different definitions of "composer" and
"music," so we'll leave it at that, I guess...>>

If that's the case (that we have different definitions here), I still
think it's okay to talk about it, if it's all not too far off topic. I
think it's interesting to see and hear about the different ways folks
see these things.

<<HOWEVER, my comments about composition are mostly involved with
traditional instruments and traditional training and writing and such
like.>>

So formal composers are the only composers? I know that might read as
sort of a hostile interrogation <G>, but I'm calm, cool, collected,
and really just trying to fleece out a few things I guess...

<<It has, obviously, nothing to do with the kind of music you write,
or what you are trying to do, so I don't really understand why you
bother to comment on it...>>

Well, again, I'm just trying to get a better handle on the points
underlying your "you and I obviously have different definitions of
composer and music" type comments.

So in your view, what's a composer and what's not a composer... what's
music and what's not?

--Dan Stearns

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20083.html#20145

>
> <<HOWEVER, my comments about composition are mostly involved with
> traditional instruments and traditional training and writing and
such like.>>
>
> So formal composers are the only composers? I know that might read
as sort of a hostile interrogation <G>, but I'm calm, cool, collected,
> and really just trying to fleece out a few things I guess...
>
>
> <<It has, obviously, nothing to do with the kind of music you write,
> or what you are trying to do, so I don't really understand why you
> bother to comment on it...>>
>
> Well, again, I'm just trying to get a better handle on the points
> underlying your "you and I obviously have different definitions of
> composer and music" type comments.
>
> So in your view, what's a composer and what's not a composer...
what's music and what's not?
>
> --Dan Stearns

Hi Dan...

Actually, I probably misstated my intention in some of my original
comments on "composers..." Frankly, I am rather open minded on the
subject, and believe that many of the so-called "musique concrete"
composers like Pierre Schaffer and Pierre Henry (are they always
"Pierre??") are quite fine composers. I have no problem with that.
I believe these two particular individuals, however, also wrote some
traditional instrumental music, for what it's worth.

No, if it was implied that I thought that one had to write for
traditional instruments in order to be a "composer" then I have
misstated my intention. My point was only that for the composers who
CHOOSE to write for traditional instruments, the best way is to write
lots of good SOLO pieces and to try to PLAY the instruments as well,
if at all possible. It's much harder to write a good piece for a
solo
instrument than to spash gobs of paint on an orchestral canvas. And,
in my opinion, practically ANYTHING sounds good with an orchestra...
even a SINGLE note!

I would certainly call a "composer" a person who assembles sound
collages like YOU do... with or without formal training. But why,
exactly do you even WANT to be called a "composer??" Many fine
composers have not. Edgar Varese hated the term, if you will recall.
He prefered that he be called an "arranger of sounds" or "sound
engineer." He believed that the term "composer" had too many stuffy,
dated and historically-related implications that he would rather
avoid.

So now why do YOU want to be called a "composer" again??

__________ ______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

<<But why, exactly do you even WANT to be called a "composer??" Many
fine composers have not.>>

Hi Joe,

I'm not so sure that I do, but if I do it's a convenience thing...
composer, guitarist, microtonalist. Something like that would work if
it had to, but I don't think I've ever referred to myself as a
"composer" unless it was necessarily useful to do so.

Being able to do this or that because it is the mark of real
competence (or some such thing) means nothing to me in and of itself.
My own interests are simply in something "interesting"... in other
words something that light me up somehow. And it's been my personal
experience that that can come from most anywhere.

--Dan Stearns