How to know when a piece is done?

[martinzufall]

Here is a question that has burned in me since I started composing. I thought maybe it would be good to share.

How do you know when a composition is complete? Is there a magic "A-Ha!" moment or is there some sort of benchmark you look for (i.e. length, adequate development, etc.)?

I ask this because in my past experiences with teachers they always wanted me to "develop more". I am not a big fan of developing for development's sake-it has to be functional. I always left those lessons asking myself "Why does that need more development?" or "How am I going to make this piece longer? Isn't x-amount minutes enough?"

For me, finishing a work is an "A-Ha!" moment. Maybe that's why I always struggled trying to appease my teachers' desires for more. Sometimes I thought the piece was done but they wanted more. I would add more but then felt the piece had become bloated.

I remember once I was doing these mock lessons for the university's hiring of a new composition professor. I brought in the third movement to my trumpet sonata (which I had completed a few weeks before) for the candidates to critique. This one candidate said the piece was very nice but that I had about ten minutes worth of musical development in just this one section. "Ten minutes!", I thought, "The entire movement isn't that long!" I just nodded my head in quiet approval and then left the piece as is.

Ten minutes...bah!

[Thorolf]

Myself also tend to compose rather compactly. As these people are used to twist and turn any theme to the max, they are foreign to the idea that a composition may consist of many ideas, not just a couple ones, with “developing” the rest of the material out of these 2+ ideas.

It’s easily likened to sex: Guys are always told that the girl want immense doses of foreplay, and then pumping on, holding back, like forever to satisfy the girl. Which might be true in some instances, but is utterly misleading in other instances. It all depends on the ignition and the urge you (and the girl!) have there and then.

Back to music: “Serious” composers rarely dare to write compositions lasting less than five minutes, I believe often to avoid being labelled as “shallow”.

And as in sex, you are “good” if and only if you can go on and on forever, before getting to the point…

Not true.

Regards

[martinzufall]

I like your reference.
If you give me the choice I would rather have 30 seconds of a well written, quality composition than 30 minutes of crap.

[MaestroX]

I ask this because in my past experiences with teachers they always wanted me to "develop more". I am not a big fan of developing for development's sake-it has to be functional.

This is the thing that really annoys me too. I would createe a piece of music and 1 and a half minutes of music would be based on 1 theme of 4 notes yet they aren't satified. Always saying "develop more" and "expand you ideas". Annoys me that.
Luckly I have me good composition tutor that likes my music and offer good advice.

[Gryvix]

Well I've learned to expand my ideas, it'll break it down more to the audience then a mishmash of pieces and new themes.
A listener wants something to cling on, even in a piece like la sacre du printemps you got that. IF they don't have anything they get lost and get bored. The audience wants to relax listening to the music, not get frustrated.
See it like this: a score of a movie, a good composer can create (together with a good orchestrator and arranger) a score for two hours the audience don't get bored even tho it only has one maintheme and 1-3 sidethemes.
Now I've seen another movie, and the acting was great, but the score was bad, they used a nice piece of chopin quite a bit.
This one was boring, why?
A filmcomposer has learnt to use few themes and see it from all perspectives and angles. The other one was just too plain, it had no variation on the themes, no different highlights on certain aspects.
Just try it once: get a melody you really like and try that one into different things, just vary with it. It isn't a shame to do so: Mozart did it(40'th symphony) Van Beethoven did it too(5th and 9th).

[Thorolf]

Originally Posted by Gryvix

Just try it once: get a melody you really like and try that one into different things, just vary with it. It isn't a shame to do so: Mozart did it(40'th symphony) Van Beethoven did it too (5th and 9th).

Indeed. This is what studying composition is all about. When I studied 2-part invention, Bach style, the first thing was to get a good counterpoint, that could be endured for the whole piece. Not too energic, and still not too plain.

I challenged myself to write not only one or two ok counterpoints for my theme, but as much as ten or more! as I thought that to be able to write a good invention, I had to know the theme, and there was no better way to learn to know the theme, than to write counterpoints for it.

But I also made me focus on the most important part: What is a good theme/counterpoint? And indeed, how much development is interresting to me?

Many classical composers doesn’t develop the themes at all some times, it’s just parts following eachother, like rondo a la turca by Mozart, or Bhrams’ Hungarian Dance.

It’s ok. It’s also ok to develop. But be good!!

Regards

[martinzufall]

I agree with you that material should be developed.

I am just not a fan of developing for the sake of development. Just because you can do all sorts of things to one simple idea doesn't mean you should. That is why Beethoven (one of the masters in this regard) struggled so much over his works. Beethoven fought with his fifth symphony for a couple of years putting it aside to do other projects and then picking it up again before finally debuting it (along with his sixth symphony and a bunch of other works).

That brings me back to my original question:

How do you (as the composer) know when your pieces are finished/complete/"perfected"? :?

[Thorolf]

Originally Posted by martinzufall

How do you (as the composer) know when your pieces are finished/complete/"perfected"? :?

When I think it’s good. Not just fairly good. Good.

When I see I still think the same, when looking at it some times later.

Some times, I think that things are good at a particular moment, and I still can see room for improvement later on. Well, then I have to revise. Sometimes it can be just changing the voicing for a particualr chord, sometimes I have to edit the whole thing. But sometimes, it can be just developing in a process, and e. g. 10 years after writing a song, I find a good 2. voice to it, to sing along with the solo singer. Whatever.

As long as it’s good.

Regards

[reith]

Originally Posted by martinzufall

How do you (as the composer) know when your pieces are finished/complete/"perfected"? :?

I honestly don't. My sin is forever revising. Nothing is ever finished but I try to force myself to draw a line under something (figuratively) and set out on a new piece. I always allow two to six months after 'completing' a work before it goes anywhere - then I go back and make final revisions.

I think if I wrote a piece I found perfect I'd probably stop.

In some ways I look on the music of the great composers as an expression of their life - one great piece divided into a number of opuses/opera. Can't say the same of all but thinking about Beethoven, yes. You see his life, his entirety expressed in all his music, right up to the weird opus 135. Is any of it perfect in an absolute sense?

So to that extent, I try to let go when something is 'good', recognising that in a couple of years I'll look back and have to accept its imperfections.

As to development, I tend to work in motifs (not always) so there has to be some development (which I understand to be variation). But if I suddenly hit on some great sound/progression/sequence that sits well, I'll use it!

Reith

[MaestroX]

Originally Posted by martinzufall

How do you (as the composer) know when your pieces are finished/complete/"perfected"?

When you don't ask the question you know its done