Melody and Phrasing

[Osorio]

I know this gets asked a lot, I have seen it before but couldn't find it now that I need it... Sorry for posting about this yet another time.

I need some help with Melody writing and phrasing. I get the basic idea, I know how the basics work, but I have a really hard time trying to make phrases that "flow". I also have problems with "interlocking" phrases, doing variations and such. I feel like went I sit to write, I can't seem to know what I want out of a phrase. I tend to really dislike playing fast, so phrasing like Bach's inventions won't do me any direct good, I find the relentless onslaught of 16th notes terribly annoying.

Could also be worth mentioning that my problems escalate exponentially when writing multiple parts. I can sometimes luck out and make some vert cool 3 part harmony phrases, but if I try to add a forth, more often than not it will destroy everything.

Entirely not sure about what it is that I'm looking for... Maybe some tips on how to develop a better melody? How to juggle multiple parts? How to develop material in a non-extremely-tiresome manner. I'll take what I can get at this point... My studies of counterpoint are not exactly going as far as I would want them to because of this barrier I seem to have with phrasing.

EDIT: Thought I would add some insight into how I write, since some problems could be identified there, or at least ways I could do stuff differently:

I'll start off by saying that I literally WRITE music; and I am generally not near any instrument as I do it. I pick a key (I'll be honest here, it is generally C Major or A Minor, since I know those keys very well and they allow me to write music fairly quickly and visualize the relationships better, I'm also a huge fan of D Minor, but don't generally go there while writing. I am a fan of transposing to it though).Then I choose an "intent", and based on that intent I choose tempo, time sig, etc. I'll generally do a rough draft of how I want the song to go, at least the first "theme" or whatever... meaning "from slow to fast, to consonant to dissonant, from soft to loud" (or the other way around) and etc. Them I build a chord progression. Something that I really do that might be getting in my way is that I don't really deal with MELODY in a very strict sense... I start out with the chord and voice lead them in 4 part harmony until I get something I like... them I get only the bass and soprano voice. From there I built my melody. I generally just "progressively embellish" it. This goes like this: It starts as probably a Whole note / per / chord. Then I turn it into two notes, then 4, then 8. I generally won't go past 8, as it starts to sound very convoluted. I generally do the same thing with the bass, but not necessarily in this order. The end result sometimes sounds great, sometimes the magic of the harmony gets lost in the melody (I'll be generally be either playing or programming it at this point to hear how it feels... I'll leave the "basic" chord progression ringing in the background, as the bass and soprano play over their lines, and it generally displeases me).
I've also got some problems with length, as I'm never sure when I should start developing new ideas or changing into new chord progressions. I'm never sure how much development is enough, or even if what I'm doing could be called "development" in the first place. After about 12 measures, the progression has started to "show its age" and I fell like it could change, but at the same time, I'm not sure if it is too early or if I left the melody too underdeveloped and unexplained...

 

[Matt1the3Beast]

I will usually start with a nice bass line then build harmony off of it. Try to make the harmony as "smooth" as possible. Don't forget about using inversions, they can be really helpful! Also, Really concentrate on the chords you are constructing, avoid doubling the fifth, and avoid parallel fourths, fifths, and octaves.

EDIT: Forgot to mention to not over complicate more than one part in the melody. This will make a lot more difficult than it has to be. Also, avoid making all parts have the the same note lengths. This will make the harmony sound strange and uncreative.

 

[The Reverend]

I really like just plain playing with a melody. If there's a line I like, I'll inverse it, or transpose it into a different key while also making it major or minor or just generally taking the heart of it and making it intriguing to listen to.

Your problem is similar to one I started having once I learned theory. Once we've become accustomed to writing within these rational guidelines, we sometimes forget to actually 'hear' the music in our heads when writing it. Instead of working from the ground up, establishing key and tempo, try working from melody down. Sing or hum a melody that really appeals to you, then write it down. Next, work out where it is so you can put some chords behind it. Perhaps avoid all eighths, unless you're doing this for a lesson or something. Sometimes we want to hear a note longer for a whole bar, or perhaps when you're sliding around dominants and sub-dominants you increase the note value of the fifth for emphasis. Rhythm will also shape how you use chords.

I don't know, man. If anything you'll be in a funk until you're out of it, but look around for different inspirations. Try analyzing and transposing someone else's music to see what they do, perhaps. Or give yourself a challenge by writing in a style or using scales you're not familiar with. It's up to you and the simultaneous blessing and curse of time to figure out.

 

[birch]

You could try looking at what beat/ note combinations sound good and get used in what you listen to. Like in jazz, for the very basics it might be chord tones on beats 1 and 3, and then scale tones or chromatic tones above or below the chosen chord tones to embelish.
You could give yourself some limitation excercises to force new ideas into your playing too. Like forcing yourself to write a melody with phrases that start on a certain beat in the bar, or phrases that use a certain rhythmic density or whatever you want. You might end up with lots of really forced sounding melodys that arnt great, but it might expand your vocab with a few cool ideas.

 

[Mr. Big Noodles]

When I started composing for fun, I found it difficult to get ideas (and still do). When I started composing for school, deadlines took care of the ideas but I then found it difficult to overcome my technical deficiencies as a composer. Those deficiencies, specifically, were a lack of development in my material and things being too static. I have since gotten much better with the development thing, because I learned about form and found some good musical role models, but nobody could tell me why they said my music was static, so I was a little slower at picking that up.

Eventually, I identified two factors that contribute to musical movement: harmonic motion and rhythmic motion. Quite simply, if your harmony and melody stay all in one place, and if your rhythm stays all in one place, then the music will consequently stay all in one place. For this reason, I don't advocate repeating chord progressions. If you're trying to write an entire composition with a four chord phrase, you easily run the risk of becoming harmonically static. It is so easy to turn a four chord phrase into eight chords, sixteen chords, or thirty-two. I generally try to write an entire section through with a single harmonic progression (that is to say if the section is 32 bars long, the chord progression is 32 bars long, most likely with a period structure to sustain interest). Rhythm is tougher, because it depends on what you have done and what you will do. I won't go into too much depth with this right now, but suffice it to say that a homogenous rhythm or an extremely downbeaty rhythm will quickly wear on the ear. Illogical rhythms also present difficulties - two 16th notes followed by a half note followed by an 8th note followed by a quarter note followed by three 32nd notes followed by a breve followed by an 8th note followed by four quarter notes is a shitty rhythm; there is no logic to it. I find that you can't make rhythm too logical, though, because as soon as our brain can tell what's going to happen three or four steps ahead, it becomes complacent and is easily bored. Make your rhythms fit the music, and use a good mix of syncopation and downbeats.

One thing that my jazz arranging professor talked about was how to rewrite the lame rhythms one finds in The Real Book. Take Autumn Leaves, for instance:

The top staff is how it appears in the published version. The bottom staff is the reworked rhythm. If you need it, I've provided audio here (Aut1 is the top staff, Aut2 is the bottom). Keep in mind that these are swung eighths (or at least as near as Finale's Human Playback approximates them).

The basic idea that my professor expounded is that you're fine playing on upbeats, but downbeats kill the momentum. You either want to nudge beats 1 and 3 forward a little, or back a little. You see that in this example, I've taken the note on beat 3 from the original and moved it to the "&" of 3, and since each phrase ends on the downbeat, I've moved the note that was on 1 to the "&" of 4 in the previous measure. However, you don't want to always have the same rhythm, so I change it up every now and then. Measures 1, 3, and 7 are all different rhythms for what is essentially the same phrase. Note that in bar 7, I have something playing on beat 3. This is fine occasionally, particularly if it's surrounded by syncopated rhythms. However, I don't want it to sound totally dead with the last downbeat, so I move that over to the "&" of 4.

====

A word on motivic development: it's hard to get the hang of, but the more you focus on it, the easier it eventually gets. I have to get to bed soon, so I won't go into any sort of crazy analysis, but I'll share a brief monophonic piece of mine to demonstrate a couple of principles.

Audio here.

This is the opening of a trio I started writing a little over a year ago, and I never really got around to finishing it. Or fixing some of the notation errors, apparently. Maybe some day.

Anyway, it opens with a very raw and exposed cell. I'm way outlining the tritone here. I believe there was a conscious effort to have the D before the C, because C D F# is awful and the way I have it written is better. The ear likes little turns - going all in one direction sounds too samey. After the initial three note cell, there is a descent that acts as an answer to the ascent part. Then a repeat of the first cell at the same pitch level. That's all I'm going to give you of that. My next objective is to move the melody into a different register, because it gets boring at this tempo if you stay in one place. That figure with the feathered beaming is the inversion of the tritone from the first cell. I kind of regret my choices for the next part, but the basic idea is that the descending figure at the beginning of the second system is an answer to the ascending thing from just before (the contour of this piece is very pyramidal), and I wanted some other color, so it's played with flutter tongue. There is a repeat of the end of that figure right after, played ordinarily. In my opinion, one of those needs to change or otherwise have something done to it. It's a timbre thing. Alas.

At this point (measure 5-6), I have modulated. In measure 7, we get the first cell again, played pretty straight, but at a different pitch level. Once you've played anything in one key, you have to make a decision as to where it is going to sound when you play it again. There isn't much room in this short introduction, so putting it at the same pitch level is a waste of space. Besides, with an exposed melody like this, you need to think that everybody is going to be watching it through a microscope. The descending portion is modified: I've extracted just the chromatic bit from the very first descent (D D♭ C) and expanded it with some more angular intervals. There is a repeat of that figure with different rhythm, and my performer made a good decision in playing it with a softer dynamic and ritardando. I really should write that in. Notice also that in measures 8 and 9, I go one step farther than I did in measure 7. Making it just a little different.

The figure in 10-11 serves to move the melody into a new register again, this one being more piercing than the darker areas we were at previously. The wide leap is derived from the first cell (the tritone is expanded to a minor ninth, and I'm omitting the opening note). The following two measures are new material, to give the ear something new to grab on to. The new melody is left undeveloped, a little mystery. In actuality, this introduction contains most of the materials that I use in the rest of the trio, so that new melodic material has formal significance. In my mind, I like to think that a listener would pick up on that: "That's something new, and it's in a higher register than everything I've heard before, so it must somehow be important." I like it when composers drop a tiny hint on me, so I'm emulating that pattern. The last measure is an intervallic expansion of the opening cell, once again at a different pitch level, and ending with the highest note so far.

If I were to do this again, you'd see much more inversion and such. However, for a short melody, I think it uses its materials fairly well. What I wanted to show you with this is that you should repeat your ideas, but never in exactly the same way. Redundancy, after all, is redundant. You want to make copies, but think of each copy as a handcrafted replica, so it has its own unique differences. You can manifest those differences with pitch, rhythm, timbre, tessitura, whatever. And if you ever get stuck, "go crazy", as my teacher put it every other day in counterpoint class. Don't get stuck at one pitch level or at one register.

 

[Osorio]

If you're trying to write an entire composition with a four chord phrase, you easily run the risk of becoming harmonically static. It is so easy to turn a four chord phrase into eight chords, sixteen chords, or thirty-two. I generally try to write an entire section through with a single harmonic progression (that is to say if the section is 32 bars long, the chord progression is 32 bars long, most likely with a period structure to sustain interest)

I get this. When I try to develop further into the song, I try creating longer "sentences" as well. I have a lot of difficulty on "introduction" sort of sections, where I would want it to be purposefully less complicated and more palpable, generally a four chord structure on the first pass, then on the repeat, I'd add some secondary functions, but I get super stuck with how to manage everything… In all honesty, I try to do something that is succinct but it generally ends up sounding as not NEARLY enough.
It's very basic, but I have wrecked my brains out trying to make good I-V-Is for introductions and failed.

Thanks on all the instruction on rhythmic displacement. I was familiar with the "theory" of it, but had completely forgotten about it, since it had been so long since I actually tried to use it. I'll try to implement it more going forward.

A word on motivic development: it's hard to get the hang of, but the more you focus on it, the easier it eventually gets. I have to get to bed soon, so I won't go into any sort of crazy analysis, but I'll share a brief monophonic piece of mine to demonstrate a couple of principles.

Question: Was this something you improvised and transcribed, or composed and recorded? I'm not sure if it makes a difference to you, or if it should make a difference to me, but I'm just curious. (question answered further down the post, yay). Nevertheless… I really liked it. Even before you said anything, the melodic / motivic development of it was apparent to me (not that your explanation didn't elucidate things I completely let slip by, like the contrasting directions of the melody. My ear hears it, but my conscious self didn't register it, I'm afraid&#8230. Really well done. Despite being really short. I wonder if I should focus on doing something similar, in the sense of more condensed melodic movement, that changes faster from one "shape" to the other. Not sure I would know where to go from that there, though. You touched on something that I find interesting and have tried to do but to no success: Material presented in one piece being "hinted at" in order for it to have development later. I really enjoy the concept as well, and have tried to use it, but, as already mentioned, it didn't feel too natural. Probably because the material surrounding the idea was not particularly well executed / written.

 

[Mr. Big Noodles]

I get this. When I try to develop further into the song, I try creating longer "sentences" as well. I have a lot of difficulty on "introduction" sort of sections, where I would want it to be purposefully less complicated and more palpable, generally a four chord structure on the first pass, then on the repeat, I'd add some secondary functions, but I get super stuck with how to manage everything… In all honesty, I try to do something that is succinct but it generally ends up sounding as not NEARLY enough.
It's very basic, but I have wrecked my brains out trying to make good I-V-Is for introductions and failed.

I thought very much like this once. Don't be afraid to be complicated in the beginning. After all, you want to give a good first impression for your music.

Question: Was this something you improvised and transcribed, or composed and recorded? I'm not sure if it makes a difference to you, or if it should make a difference to me, but I'm just curious. (question answered further down the post, yay).

I had been working with the same cells for about a month and a half, and I either came to them from improvising at the piano first or transcribed what I heard in my head without touching an instrument. Somewhere, I have a pencil sketch of another piece that uses the exact same material. I spent a lot of time with the cells, determined that I was going to make music out of them. Usually, I will spend a lot of time in my head with the basic materials, then I'll write the entire thing (or at least one movement, in this case two) in a night.

Nevertheless… I really liked it.

Thanks.

Even before you said anything, the melodic / motivic development of it was apparent to me (not that your explanation didn't elucidate things I completely let slip by, like the contrasting directions of the melody. My ear hears it, but my conscious self didn't register it, I'm afraid&#8230. Really well done. Despite being really short. I wonder if I should focus on doing something similar, in the sense of more condensed melodic movement, that changes faster from one "shape" to the other. Not sure I would know where to go from that there, though.

It might be an idea. I find that I write more easily for solo instruments, because I don't have to worry about everything else going on around them. Lets you focus on what's in front of you.

You touched on something that I find interesting and have tried to do but to no success: Material presented in one piece being "hinted at" in order for it to have development later. I really enjoy the concept as well, and have tried to use it, but, as already mentioned, it didn't feel too natural. Probably because the material surrounding the idea was not particularly well executed / written.

I've found that one can be surprisingly literal with recapitulated material. Some of my favorite examples of this happening:


Béla Bartók - String Quartet No.4 - Mvt.1

(Check out how short and simple the themes are in this movement. This was an influence on me when I wrote that trio - not a long melody to be found.)

Here are the themes:
0:16 - theme 1
0:31 - theme 2


Mvt.5

(The first half of this movement gives me the distinct image of being chased by velociraptors.)

Now listen for how he brings back that material at 1:56.

More Bartók.

Béla Bartók - Music For Strings, Percussion, and Celesta - Mvt.1

The entire thing is a fugue on a single subject, so remember the melody. At 7:24, the celesta enters as a wash, unfortunately rather subdued in this recording.


Mvt.3

At 2:18, the subject appears again, augmented. At 3:48, it happens again, followed by a transformation of the celesta wash at 3:55. Another recapitulation of the subject at 5:43.

Mvt.4 - 3:23

Weird fermata at 6:49 - I'm pretty sure that's not in the score. By the way, I've mentioned it before in another thread, everybody should really listen to Charles Dutoit's 1990 recording of this piece.

Johannes Brahms - Symphony No.4, Mvt.1


At 6:52, the end of the development section, there are these weird ethereal dominant chords that swell up out of nowhere and move around the orchestra, somewhat like pointillism. It's a really cool effect when you're listening to a live orchestra play it.

Mvt.4


2:36 - Of all the things Brahms could have recycled, I think it's interesting that he chose those chords. However, they're low-key enough that they don't attract a lot of attention, they can be easily adapted for any situation, and to zoom in on such a small part of the work really shows a huge respect for detail on the composer's part. It's really not verbatim, but the spirit of the original is there.

I don't know many examples of this level of recapitulation occurring outside of classical music. Genesis did it a couple of times during the Phil Collins era. They particularly use the technique to bookend an album, i.e. the first and last track contain the same melodic material at some point.

A Trick Of The Tail
Dance On A Volcano - 0:46
Los Endos - 1:56

Wind And Wuthering
Eleventh Earl of Mar - 0:00
... In That Quiet Earth - 2:40, 4:31

On the metal side, it's hard to find groups that know what a theme is. Xanthochroid recycles themes all over the place, though more as an idée fixe than anything else.

 

[Osorio]

I think I first saw your post a few moments after you posted it, but it just takes a while to digest something like this.

Thanks for going into your compositional habits. I find it very interesting to see how different people tend to their creative needs.

I find that I write more easily for solo instruments, because I don't have to worry about everything else going on around them. Lets you focus on what's in front of you.

I generally try to write with the Piano in mind, mainly because that's mostly what I have been playing (and the other instruments I can play don't really apply to what I want to write). I have been seriously considering going back to String Quartets (something I used to do all the time when I was younger) because I will literally have one staff for each voice, whereas in the Piano I have everything mixed up.
Sure, I could keep the piano simple enough and do one voice per hand (per staff), but more often then not, that doesn't sound very authentic and the end result is but a fraction what it could be...

*musical examples*

I may have stumbled upon the Bartok pieces before, they sound oddly familiar. Maybe in another post of yours. I'm not entirely accustomed to hearing music like his, and since the stuff is so "out there" (for lack of a better term) harmonically, I get somewhat lost, even with the notation (that I honestly can't even read THAT well to begin with).
I'm was entirely sure I saw the repetition on Movement 5. Had to go back a few times to sort of get it. It was not quite as literal as I expected it to be. Even after returning to the original material to check it out. It became more obvious later, but again, I return to the option of me simply not being used to the material. Need to study more throughly, but I didn't want to delay a reply any longer.
Totally agree on the velociraptors though.

About the second piece... As I began to listen to it, I thought it was a bit weird that you would call it a fugue, I would have never known otherwise. I really did try to pay attention throughout the thing to see if I could get the contrapuntal nature, but it didn't work quite well. Maybe "subtle" is not the exact, right, word, but it really is the only one I can offer. Maybe because the work is not blazing fast and with drastic alterations of note value on each part (like some of Bach's fugues).
I couldn't follow the subject at all during Mvt. 3. Had even less success with Mvt. 4... Best I can say is that I did notice the contrapuntal "effect" reoccurring during several points in the last movement, but that is pretty much it. I can notice the piece in itself signifying something important, but I can't quite grasp the melody itself as something recognizable. It takes me a while to assimilate music, I'm afraid. I've found the score for it and will try again later on, see if I can be more successful with the notation in front of me.


At any rate, love me some Brahms (not that I have any dislike towards Bartok, just not used to hearing his stuff). I think I started to notice my taste for his work after you pointed me to him multiple times. I was studying his Symphony No. 1 a few days ago... I'm ashamed to say that I had to turn to a piano reduction of the work so that I could effectively follow it on paper. Reading 4 bars per page spread across 12 staffs of different instruments doing slightly different things was proving quite difficult... Maybe once I get more acquainted with the material I can go back to the full score.
I've read several times during the last few weeks, that I have been digging deeper, that Brahms Symphony no 4 was his best. I really enjoyed the movements you linked. I'll definitely look deeper into it sooner rather than later. The passage of the chords you highlighted was really interesting, too bad the recording doesn't replicate the effect with some stereo imaging (or if it does, the effect is really subtle and I didn't really took notice). Definitely a lost opportunity, production wise, there.

I don't know many examples of this level of recapitulation occurring outside of classical music. Genesis did it a couple of times during the Phil Collins era. They particularly use the technique to bookend an album, i.e. the first and last track contain the same melodic material at some point. (...) On the metal side, it's hard to find groups that know what a theme is. Xanthochroid recycles themes all over the place, though more as an idée fixe than anything else.

I used to be very much into metal, wanting to write it and perform it... Such urges have subsided a fantastic deal. I still enjoy playing my 8 string (or the good old Les Paul), but more often than not, I see myself using it in a Jazz context, or just doing things that would be far less complicated on the piano.

EDIT: This is just something I thought was funny. I was looking for a picture of Brahms to use as cover for his work on my iTunes library, so I went to google for a search, this was what I found:

 

[Solodini]

OP, regarding development, it may help you to consider your melody as a journey and the story you tell of this journey. You may have to cross the street to see a neighbour, or you may have to go from sea level to 600 feet above. Either way, you have a starting point and an end point.

In terms of taking the journey, if your destination is near, it could be pretty boring to spend ages getting there, focussing only on the physical aspect of the journey; if your destination is the top of the mountain, trying to sprint up it could be exhausting and leave you dying and frozen half way up. Stretching the story of crossing the road would be dull to hear, but so would the story of your ascent to the peak of the mountain, if you didn't fill it in with any more than "I climbed that mountain."

It's useful, however, to give people an idea of start and end points, so they can have an idea of how far through you are and whether there might be new interesting things to come. You might start telling them that you had to cross to road to your neighbour's house. You need to borrow some milk. Nothing too interesting but it gives a bit more information. On the way, you see someone running down the road. Who are they? Why are they running? Where are they running to? There's now a second journey (variation on the idea?) influencing your primary journey. They could be someone out training for an event and collapse and have a heart attack. They could be a criminal running from the police. They could be running to give someone a kicking. They could be running to tell someone they're sorry for whatever act of stupidity they are guilty of and that they love the person affected.

You can still refer to the main ideas of the journey (melody) with elements of the core idea and add little details in to elaborate on what's happening where, what you see, how you feel.

The running person could run up the driveway of the house next to the one you're going to. They may stop to catch their breath. They may bang on the door angrily. They may ring the bell and drop down on one knee. They may smash the window. You're nearing your friend's door. You knock on the door but try not to draw attention to yourself, so there's some tension there and your theme may diminuendo/decrescendo. [I was highlighting in different colours to show different small possible motifs and things you could elaborate on or vary. I can't be bothered to highlight the rest of the post. You can probably see the possible connections yourself, anyway.]

What was the end of the previous theme is now the staple of the current idea: You're at the door so do you stay outside and see what is going on or do you hurry in to avoid any potential fallout? What do you see and hear? Does the person faced by the runner come out or shout from the top window? Do they argue or weep? How do you react? You can see your home still so your theme may be in retrograde as you consider grabbing some milk quickly and hurrying home. There may be accellerando and stacatto elements flitting back and forth from looking at the scenario playing out and at your own front door. The police may arrive or the situation may resolve itself.

How can you detail your story? Look at the Lord of the Rings for how you can make 3 books out of people "walking to a ....ing volcano" (thank you, Randal).

Also, think about different routes you could take on your journey. You might get halfway, realise you meant to go somewhere different from the first time as you need to pick up a present for someone en route to meeting them at your regular haunt so you double back on yourself, go off somewhere a bit different, to a nicer part of town, look at all the pretty things, end up just buying a guitar strap, instead. You take a different route to the usual haunt and see your destination a bit differently from before, as you're approaching it from the opposite direction. It's familiar but a bit different (inversions?). You arrive, give your friend the present and they react as though you had bought them all the pretty things so you have a blend of motivic material from the pretty things and the guitar strap to create a hybrid of feelings.

You go to see them at home a couple of weeks later, walk into their room and see the strap you bought on their favourite guitar. You have a sense of pride that they like it and have the pretty things feeling yourself but in a different context.

If you develop small motivic ideas then you can refer to them in a huge variety of contexts and approach them differently. You can use them to punctuate an idea and add detail. This may create familiarity in a new concept, as though drawing a comparison.

Try to think of what you're trying to express and how you can develop on that idea. Developing a musical idea can be quite difficult if you're just trying to add or change things without much idea of what's core, what's descriptive, what you should be adding to or changing or replacing.

 

[Osorio]

OP, regarding development, it may help you to consider your melody as a journey and the story you tell of this journey.

I don't know if you know (or even if what I'm about to say is completely accurate), but what you are describing could be interpreted as "program music". I've had many encounters with the concept and it was my main method of composition for larger forms for years. For reference, I'm 25 years-old.

When I was 17, I tried to write and EP that was based around a story I wrote, it was supposed to have 7 tracks, with the story spread out amongst those tracks. I was very into that concept and even designated specific instruments to represent each character, each having their own themes and variations. In the end, I wrote 5 out of the 7 tracks, only 2 of which pleased me to any degree. I spent about 10 times more time writing the story and making it compelling than writing the music I wanted to write in the first place...

Ever since, I've tried to approach this method less and less, and the every time I try to go about realizing something in that direction, I seem to make even less music out of it. I have sketches about a suite on the five stages of grief, and following the monomyth... My most recent attempt at a "conceptual" work was based on the emotion circumplex by James Russell.

I don't devalue what you are saying, but right now, all I want to do is write something as close to "absolute music" as I possibly can. Thinking about all that it can mean and how to see music as "not music" has done nothing for me.

 

[Solodini]

Yeah, I'm kind of pushing it in that direction but you can have a picture of what elements need developing to at least give you an idea what needs to be built upon and what is core structural material which is best left alone. It doesn't necessarily need to be a huge concept album but even if you just have 2 notes as your start and end points, there are so many ways you can approach moving between them and having a visual representation for that sort of development in other media can be quite useful, I find.

The trip to meet the friend, then go to the shop and meet them the next time and approach from the other direction could be stripped down to: linear ascending line,starting ascending half way, descend a bit, go off on an arpeggio from the 2nd, a turn and trill, 3 note descending line to the ending note.

Is that useful to you? I don't know haha.

 

[Osorio]

Not me, particularly; I'm quite used to seeing things being talked about in that manner, and to a degree, thinking along those lines myself. I'm sure it helps some people, but I just sort of find it distracting from the actual music. I tend to simply want to hear where the music is and where it wants to go, and then either fulfill or frustrate that expectation. My problem lies in how to effectively do both, but I do know when they are needed.

EDIT: I would like to point out that, as I said earlier, I don't devalue your contributions, Solodini. Even if what you saying may not be the fix to my problems directly, I still think that everyone that has some ideas on the subject SHOULD post in this thread. It's not really about MY benefit. If we can amass a considerable sum of information on the subject, further questions could be answered here, and referred to, in the future.

 

[morethan6]

Just want to say that I fricken love the fact that I'm reading about composition on SSO - the fact that someone just posted Brahms' 4th as a reference on a seven string guitar site drenched in the purest metal genuinely gives me faith in humanity. You guys are the future.

That is all *wipes away tear*

 

[Osorio]

Stick around, it happens quite often around the Theory sub-forums. Courtesy of SchecterWhore, most likely.

 

[Mr. Big Noodles]

I may have stumbled upon the Bartok pieces before, they sound oddly familiar. Maybe in another post of yours. I'm not entirely accustomed to hearing music like his, and since the stuff is so "out there" (for lack of a better term) harmonically, I get somewhat lost, even with the notation (that I honestly can't even read THAT well to begin with).
I'm was entirely sure I saw the repetition on Movement 5. Had to go back a few times to sort of get it. It was not quite as literal as I expected it to be. Even after returning to the original material to check it out. It became more obvious later, but again, I return to the option of me simply not being used to the material. Need to study more throughly, but I didn't want to delay a reply any longer.

Check the last few notes of both movements. That's the most obvious place.

Totally agree on the velociraptors though.

Clever girl.

About the second piece... As I began to listen to it, I thought it was a bit weird that you would call it a fugue, I would have never known otherwise. I really did try to pay attention throughout the thing to see if I could get the contrapuntal nature, but it didn't work quite well. Maybe "subtle" is not the exact, right, word, but it really is the only one I can offer. Maybe because the work is not blazing fast and with drastic alterations of note value on each part (like some of Bach's fugues).

It's different from a Bach fugue, but it is a fugue nonetheless. A damn good one, too. I'll walk you through the first bit of it.

It might help out if I demonstrate the intervallic content of the subject. This is the first motive of the subject as it appears in the viole at the beginning: A B♭ C# C B. In the key of A, this is 1 ♭2 3 ♭3 2. Go to where the 3rd and 4th violins enter, at the pickup to measure 5. This is what they're playing: E F G# G F#, or in the key of E, 1 ♭2 3 ♭3 2. Same thing, a perfect fifth higher than the original (A). Bach does the same, but Bartók continues with the idea. The cello enter at the pickup to measure 9: D E♭ F# F E. In the key of D (a perfect fifth below A): 1 ♭2 3 ♭3 2. Where the second violin comes in (pickup to measure 13), it's B C D# D C#, or 1 ♭2 3 ♭3 2 in the key of B, a perfect fifth higher from E.

So now you can see that it is an imitative texture. I'll take a moment to point out Bartók's pitch scheme, because this is beautiful. Since you have the score, find all the entrances of the subject and take note of the key. For those of you who don't have it, you have it now. This is what you should come up with (I am approximating the pickups by numbering them as the following measure):

mm1 - A
mm5 - E
mm9 - D
mm13 - B
mm17 - G
mm27 - F#
mm27 - C
mm34 - C#
mm34 - F
mm36 - G#
mm37 - B♭
mm45 - E♭

If you look at what's going on, he is expanding by perfect fifths in either direction. I have highlighted some of these pitch centers because Bartók uses those areas as a pitch axis. A is the tonal center of the entire work, then we get two subjects entering in the same measure for the first time in measure 27, in the keys of F# and C. The tritone is significant because it divides the octave into two symmetrical halves. After F# and C enter, the entrances come faster until, after covering every other key, they reach the destination of E♭ in measure 45. This is what this path looks like if you lay it out on the circle of fifths:

Remember, E♭ is a tritone away from the tonic of the piece, A. It is also following the E♭ entrance that we finally get percussion in measure 51, culminating in a climax on measure 56, where all instruments suddenly come together with E♭ in octaves in the upper strings. If you array the two tritones that make up our points of interest so far, you end up with these relationships:

These minor third relationships divide the octave into four equidistant points, composed of two equidistant pairs.

Immediately following the octave E♭'s, the subject enters again, but in inversion. The first happens on E♭ in 57 (in 3.4.Vl., 1.2.Vcl. and 1.2.Cb., including the pickup to that measure), the second is on A♭ (perfect fifth below E&#9837 in measure 59, and a slightly transformed version of the inverted subject on B♭ (perfect fifth above E&#9837 starting at the end of 62. So it's reflecting the process that we used to arrive at E♭, but turning back on itself. At the pickup to 65, there is a rapid series of entrances of the inverted subject alternating in C and F# (remember: part of our pitch axis).

Bartók brings together the prime and inverted forms of the subject at the pickup to 76, where they both occur on A (another member of the pitch axis), and where the celesta finally enters. The celesta part is an ornamented octave E♭ (yet another member of the pitch axis). In 86, after everything has died down, the prime and inverted subject are put together in contrary motion, without anything else sounding, concluding on a unison A, which is about as consonant as you can get in an interval.

The pitch system for this piece is built on tritones and perfect fifths, and in the first movement, it's all about getting to the tritone by way of the perfect fifth. Want to know something else that's amazing? This system of intervals is reflected in the subject itself. Check out the highest notes of the subject:

The melody starts on A. The first peak is E♭ (tritone) and the second peak is E (perfect fifth). The subject spans a perfect fifth, so it never gets higher than that.

The pitch axis is referred to again on many different occasions, most obviously manifesting in the keys of the movements (1 is A, with a bit of E♭, 2 is C, 3 is F#, and 4 is A again). I'll spare you the complete analysis, as I've gone on long enough.

I couldn't follow the subject at all during Mvt. 3. Had even less success with Mvt. 4... Best I can say is that I did notice the contrapuntal "effect" reoccurring during several points in the last movement, but that is pretty much it. I can notice the piece in itself signifying something important, but I can't quite grasp the melody itself as something recognizable. It takes me a while to assimilate music, I'm afraid. I've found the score for it and will try again later on, see if I can be more successful with the notation in front of me.

The entire work is contrapuntal, so you're going to hear counterpoint all over the place. What you want to listen for is the "inverted chromaticism", as my teacher calls it. This is when the melody has one set of pitches ascending, and then the descending pitches fill in the spaces between the ascending ones, resulting in what is ultimately a chromatic collection. Rather, it's a chromatic collection that is broken up into two interlocking parts.

The subject in the other movements:

In Mvt.3: the pickup to measure 19 in the first viole and violoncello.
In Mvt.4: The pickup to measure 204 (one after F) in the second string group. First group joins in at 210.

At any rate, love me some Brahms (not that I have any dislike towards Bartok, just not used to hearing his stuff). I think I started to notice my taste for his work after you pointed me to him multiple times. I was studying his Symphony No. 1 a few days ago... I'm ashamed to say that I had to turn to a piano reduction of the work so that I could effectively follow it on paper. Reading 4 bars per page spread across 12 staffs of different instruments doing slightly different things was proving quite difficult... Maybe once I get more acquainted with the material I can go back to the full score.

There's nothing wrong with reading a piano reduction. Reading a full orchestral score is a pain in the ass, especially if the copyist leaves a bunch of empty staves everywhere. I don't know how conductors do it regularly.

I've read several times during the last few weeks, that I have been digging deeper, that Brahms Symphony no 4 was his best. I really enjoyed the movements you linked. I'll definitely look deeper into it sooner rather than later. The passage of the chords you highlighted was really interesting, too bad the recording doesn't replicate the effect with some stereo imaging (or if it does, the effect is really subtle and I didn't really took notice). Definitely a lost opportunity, production wise, there.

It might be an older performance. And production has always been a weird thing in classical music. I have recordings of piano pieces done in the 2000's that sound like they were done at the other end of the room using a wax cylinder inside of a garbage can, without any compression, then mixed to a single channel by a mixer who didn't have any monitors. Mind you, in classical recordings, the emphasis is on replicating the performance rather than fixing things in post. Still, I've never understood why so much classical music has such awful production, considering that its listeners are generally better trained than your average pop audience.

EDIT: This is just something I thought was funny. I was looking for a picture of Brahms to use as cover for his work on my iTunes library, so I went to google for a search, this was what I found:

That's funny, my search led to Raisin Brahms.

 

[CD1221]

Hey there, SchecterWhore, just want to say thanks for your contributions to this little corner of the web. I've learnt a hell of a lot from your posts, even if it does often take several reads to grasp it all.

Cheers!

 

[Osorio]

Sorry about the delay once again. It takes time to really grasp some of this stuff (or to come to the conclusion that I really don't understand it and need some extra help).

It's different from a Bach fugue, but it is a fugue nonetheless. A damn good one, too. I'll walk you through the first bit of it.

Goddamn. Thanks a lot for that incredible lesson.

But this brings me to a few points:

I'm conflicted as to what is the actual definition of a fugue. I came to understand that I wouldn't be able to write or identify one upon request. What makes a work "contrapuntal"? Is it "just" the "abuse" of a given subject throughout a variety of keys and inversions of itself? Isn't that fairly similar to the concept of Twelve-Tone rows? Composing work that is mostly motivic in nature…? Bartok's fugue certainly appeals more to the serialist in me than the tonal-freak (even though the harmonic movement is undeniable, as you very aptly demonstrated).

(As we were talking about, regarding Schoenberg & cia., maybe this would indeed be a good place to elaborate on some of the pieces. The Webern one was particularly interesting to me, though I can't pinpoint what exactly about it was so fascinating. I've listened to Verklärte Nacht before and it just didn't sound jarring at all to me… Made perfect sense. But I read that the piece faced refusal from being performed when it was debuted. So I guess I may be very well missing something very important there.
When I started this thread, I really had no idea that this would have been its development. I've been increasingly interested in some of the 20th century music departure from common-practice harmony, but I never would have guessed it would be so closely related with subjects I have such difficulty grasping, which are somewhat all rooted on classical harmony. The irony.)

I'll spare you the complete analysis, as I've gone on long enough.

Please don't! If you ever have the time to elaborate, I'd love to hear the rest of it. It takes me some time to go through all the text, but it is ever so worth it.

What you want to listen for is the "inverted chromaticism", as my teacher calls it. This is when the melody has one set of pitches ascending, and then the descending pitches fill in the spaces between the ascending ones, resulting in what is ultimately a chromatic collection. Rather, it's a chromatic collection that is broken up into two interlocking parts.

That's an interesting way of doing it. I need to get onto that whole-tone scale idea I talked to you previously about. If anything, this indicates that it would work quite well if handled with care.
Bartok seems to be quite into the polytonal stuff, and I am not surprised that this kind of bitonality would be familiar to his works… I'm rambling by this point. The prospect of possibility amazes me.

There's nothing wrong with reading a piano reduction. Reading a full orchestral score is a pain in the ass, especially if the copyist leaves a bunch of empty staves everywhere. I don't know how conductors do it regularly.

That's good to know… Because it really was the only way I could hope to follow. I honestly don't know what I prefer in regards to orchestral score. I think I got lost a couple of times on the one I have because the paging was "irregular". Some times it would have empty staves, other times, things would be properly condensed to what was actually playing… I may have gotten confused because, as I began to read it, I sort of expected every single page to be filled with all of the 12 instruments doing 4 bars, even if they played nothing, so I may have lost some phrases…
On the other hand, I can see why it would be a hassle to more experienced readers. Like reading a book with too many paragraph breaks, I suppose.

Still, I've never understood why so much classical music has such awful production, considering that its listeners are generally better trained than your average pop audience.

I've some "problems" with this as well. My recording is from 2002 in Netherlands (which has some EXTREMELY classy concert rooms) yet it sounds like from the 50s. You would think that people would want to have the experience of the conductor or musician (on a solo instrument), the best sound possible, yet there is this recurring trend in classical recording to just let stuff disappear in the room…
I remember a while back, I was reading up on acoustic engineering and I saw an article of a group of engineers that was recreating classical recordings by having them play at a famous concert hall, and have the recorder inside of a piece of "plastic" that was shaped as a human head and had the orifices of the ear perfectly emulated.
I'm sure there is some very cool justifications to have it done that way, but I could not help but imagine just how shitty would the end record end up sounding, by the standards of music production in general… I just can't understand how it is that the sound would not be completely funneled in and washed out on the end product. At any rate, it goes through the same process from the speakers to our ears when listening to a recording, so it just ends up being excessive compression, despite intend (unless there is something MARVELOUS at work there. But the physics of it are pretty clear)

That's funny, my search led to Raisin Brahms.

Fantastic.

 

[Ibz777]

I’ve studied music theory quite a bit over the years, it can be the roadblock.

Music theory is a way to define what we hear and play.
But the key work is hear-
Hum or sing music that you would play on any given instrument to see if it sounds good.
If you know theory well enough, you’ll be able to put it on the instrument and paper, without any delay.

I like to start with the tempo and feel of the music.
This sets the mood for a piece.

Good Luck, I hope this helps.

 

[Mr. Big Noodles]

I'm conflicted as to what is the actual definition of a fugue. I came to understand that I wouldn't be able to write or identify one upon request. What makes a work "contrapuntal"? Is it "just" the "abuse" of a given subject throughout a variety of keys and inversions of itself? Isn't that fairly similar to the concept of Twelve-Tone rows? Composing work that is mostly motivic in nature…? Bartok's fugue certainly appeals more to the serialist in me than the tonal-freak (even though the harmonic movement is undeniable, as you very aptly demonstrated).

Allow me to answer just a part of your question. Counterpoint is the simultaneous occurrence of two or more independent melodic lines.

#1 is not contrapuntal, because both voices are playing the same melody in octaves. They will not be heard as independent. #2 is a harmonized line, and you might think that this constitutes two independent lines because the notes are different, but they are really heard as a single element. This is because they share the same rhythm and contour. In #3, there are finally two independent lines, because the rhythm and contour are obviously different and each line sounds like a different voice. I've distributed the rhythms equally in an effort to be fair to each voice, since you don't want a situation to develop where one line is subordinate to the other (More than a philosophical ideal, it sounds like shit when one voice is clamoring for attention above the rest.). It is also possible to have homorhythmic counterpoint, but you have to pay attention to contour.

Let's play "find the parallel octave".

This is the sort of thing you learn in species counterpoint. Each line has a separate contour, and they're actually going in contrary motion, so your ear will pick up on them being two separate lines. The last four notes are consecutive thirds, and my counterpoint teacher frowned on a chain of thirds or sixths that went more than three notes (because they end up in the homorhythmic/same contour zone), but I think it's okay here since they approach a cadence.

It is also possible to construct a single melodic line that contains two individual melodic lines.

1:45

This is what we call a "compound line": two melodies played in different registers, but in the same instrument, creating what we perceive as a second voice. The bass voice is fairly simple, just a chromatic descent from the tonic to the dominant. Notice that those three measures are a sequence - a hallmark of Baroque melodic writing. In measure 4, we're back to a single line on the upbeat of beat 1, and at the C#, it breaks up into a compound line again: voice 1 is C# E, and voice 2 is A G. On the cadence, it's back to one voice again. Cadences are where you can insert or remove voices.

Our modern counterpoint is a descendent of Baroque counterpoint, and one of the most used devices of Baroque contrapuntal music is imitation. What this means is that a melody is heard in one voice, and then a second voice imitates the first.

In the above example, you can see that the bass voice plays what the soprano was playing a couple beats before, but down an octave. When you start dealing with imitation, you are also dealing with motivic writing. Remember that motivic writing is a process of multiplication: you take one idea, then reiterate it so that you get a large amount of material out of a single idea. To get an idea of the sort of economy that this compositional style allows, take a look at Bach's two part inventions.

J.S. Bach - Two Part Invention No.8

I've color-coded the score to show how the melodic materials are utilized. This is a particular kind of contrapuntal work called an "invention", which is generally a short imitative two-voice piece that has an exposition, a development, and a recapitulation. "Exposition" in this style of music refers to a musical subject, unlike in music of the Classical period where "exposition" referred to a whole section of music. The subject of this invention consists of an ascending arpeggio with a pedal tone (green), then a descending scale (red). The countersubject, which is less significant, though still a potential source of developmental material, is that figure in blue. The tonal scheme of the exposition is from the tonic to the dominant key (or to relative major, if the invention is in a minor key), then the exposition is an exploration of other tonal areas, concluding with the recapitulation in the tonic key.

The exposition goes from measure 1 to 12, and up until measure 8, the left hand is one measure behind the right (that is to say that it plays the exact same thing, but a measure later and an octave lower). The material is very tight, on account of Bach belonging to the Society of Badasses, Leipzig Chapter. To write something like this, you would probably write the first measure, then transpose it to the left hand, write the counterpoint above that, then take what you just wrote and write counterpoint to that, and continue in that fashion until you're done. There is an intuitive sense about the music, and once you've done counterpoint a million times, you don't have to compose every single measure after the preceding measure.

One thing that I love about this exposition is the smooth transitions that the canon facilitates. In measure 4, listen for how the bass moves into place, ascending into a new register. Then when measure 5 rolls around, the two voices are in harmony. When the soprano is done with the countersubject in measure 7, the bass keeps the energy up with the sixteenth notes. Measure 7 is made more exciting, because this is also where the modulation to the dominant occurs. The left hand's material belonged to the tonic key one measure ago, making the process of recycling even more cool.

When we begin approaching the first cadence, starting in measure 10, have a look at what happens with the soprano line. Nothing is color-coded here because there isn't really any connection to the subject or countersubject. You can think of the motivic stuff as pushing forward, and the cadential figure as slowing everything down. I'll call attention to the compound line in the soprano voice. If you include the bass at the measure leading up to the cadence, we're up to three voices. Only one of them continues to the following measure, though, as the left hand gets the subject, and the subject starts with a rest.

We are in the development area now. What happens at this point is that the invention begins again, in the dominant key. Bach switches hands to keep things interesting: the exposition begins with the subject in the right hand, so the development should begin with the subject in the left hand. In measure 15, we get an interesting use of a developmental device. Remember the pedal tone from the subject? It is isolated here in both the right and left hand while a fragment of the countersubject, in blue, is played in between. This happens a couple times more on page 2, where there are a lot of sequences and tonicizations.

The way that Bach returns to the tonic key is pretty brilliant. By measure 24, we've modulated to the key of the subdominant, B♭. If you look at B♭'s relationship to the tonic (F), you'll see that it is a fifth below. Remember how we modulated to the dominant key, C, back on the first page? C is a fifth above F. Now go to measure 26. Wuuuut, countersubject. He's basically using the same modulating sequence that he used in measure 4, but instead of going from F to C, it's going from B♭ to F. The melodic material is the exact same stuff, just a perfect fifth lower. And the final cadential figure has that compound line thing again, but he ends with a big chord instead of a single note this time. He even adds in another voice from nowhere to make the harmony sound nice and full.


====

Counterpoint doesn't have to be the "abuse" of a subject through different keys and inversions, etc., but I think that the ear holds on to melodic ideas that it recognizes and can relate to the fabric of the music, so contrapuntal music tends to deal with economic use of limited materials. Besides, recycling will get you into the aforementioned Society of Badasses.

(For those who want to hear what this sort of thing sounds like on electric guitar, here is a video of Paul Gilbert giving his thoughts on playing this invention. I think it would sound cleaner if he articulated differently and sacrificed a bit of the 80's speed metal vibe in the soprano part, but you might think differently.)

I might break apart a Bach fugue for you all if I have the time. Fugues are similar to inventions, in that they are based on imitative counterpoint and tonal manipulation of subjects. Usually, a fugue is understood to involve more voices and to have a greater harmonic and formal scheme than an invention. I should note that the great fugal composers all demonstrate different approaches, so it is difficult to make a concrete definition of a fugue. Just know that there is a lot of imitation in different keys.

As for the relationship of counterpoint to twelve-tone rows: it's not the material that makes the music contrapuntal, it's what you do with it.

(As we were talking about, regarding Schoenberg & cia., maybe this would indeed be a good place to elaborate on some of the pieces. The Webern one was particularly interesting to me, though I can't pinpoint what exactly about it was so fascinating. I've listened to Verklärte Nacht before and it just didn't sound jarring at all to me… Made perfect sense. But I read that the piece faced refusal from being performed when it was debuted. So I guess I may be very well missing something very important there.

I'll address some of these later. Unfortunately, my new job doesn't leave me much free time. It's interesting that Schönberg faced such resistance with his music. He was a very accommodating guy, yet hecklers showed up at his performances all the time and started fist fights and such. Everything in its historical context, I guess; I can only get through about five minutes of Verklärte Nacht before I start yawning.

When I started this thread, I really had no idea that this would have been its development. I've been increasingly interested in some of the 20th century music departure from common-practice harmony, but I never would have guessed it would be so closely related with subjects I have such difficulty grasping, which are somewhat all rooted on classical harmony. The irony.)

At some point, I think we have to acknowledge that all music is basically the same: the medium is time and air, and the way our physiology works kind of pushes us to reach similar conclusions to the same questions. And since you're looking at what is really a specific brand of music - harmonic music - that is the child of Western musical culture, it's not so surprising that Bach and Bartók share similar ideas (it helps that Bartók studied Bach, too). And while imitative counterpoint is more concentrated in classical music, you can certainly find it in other places.

Alan Ferber - The Compass


7:09 - The band starts playing the head, but with different groups of instruments starting at different times, resulting in big pileup of the tune. All on the same pitch level, though. A little difficult to hear in this recording, but if you PM me I can send you a score to follow.

I remember a while back, I was reading up on acoustic engineering and I saw an article of a group of engineers that was recreating classical recordings by having them play at a famous concert hall, and have the recorder inside of a piece of "plastic" that was shaped as a human head and had the orifices of the ear perfectly emulated.

Binaural microphones.

I haven't had the chance to listen to anything recorded using this technique. It's supposed to be pretty cool. Gotta wear headphones, though.

I remember one of my recording professors talking about a some classical recordings that were done in an anechoic chamber. The thought of a professional orchestra going mad amuses me.

 

[bondmorkret]

I tend to find that targeting chord tones on strong beats is the best way to create cohesive melodies. Also think about contour, a good melody should have a good flow.