The Duration of a Piece.

[Thorolf]

Thanks everyone for contributing to this discussion!

Why think of the audience? Nothing is cool, just because you wrote it! It is cool because you like what you do! And if you don’t like it yourself, why bother to present it to others?

If I hear someting I like, I often think “could I do this?” Often I can, and what makes the other work appealing to me, I try to reinvent myself. If the thing I dig is cool, and my stuff does the same, my thing is cool. Simple.

I often compose insanely slow, and the only way I can complete something big (so far!), is to make it multi-movement. Then, smaller stories build like chinese boxes, and (if I’m lucky) yield some synergic effects. Not different from composing a novel, or a movie.



Regards

[Peter Bolton]

Originally Posted by stevel

I think you have to be careful here Peter - people work under the assumption that all citizens of Vienna were all packing in to see Mozart's lastest piece.

They certainly did not but although there are far more people around now with, shall we say, an intellectual, interest in music you made some good points about the increase in competition. Another factor is that although a city's population may have increased from 100,000 to one million, it will still only have one concert hall.
If I were attempting orchestral pieces, I would aim for from 10 to 15 minutes. it takes a brave man or woman to try and out-Mahler Mahler.The question of holding attention is one of form. Study form and let it permiate your creations in a multi-layered manner and half the battle is done. Much the same applies to art. If a painting does not have balance, it will not work.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Thorolf

Thanks everyone for contributing to this discussion!

Why think of the audience? Nothing is cool, just because you wrote it! It is cool because you like what you do! And if you don’t like it yourself, why bother to present it to others?

Regards

I play in a rock/pop band in addition to my other more academic pursuits. This same philosophy is apparent there. The people in the band want to play some obscure song by some obscure band. I keep telling them, that's great, but if you're going to do that, you might as well play it at home in your basement, because no one is going to care to hear it. Your audience wants to hear songs they know! If they themselves wanted to hear a band performe songs they don't know, they could stay at home and randomly download songs from iTunes!

I don't think a composer should necessarily cater to an audience, but I do think a composer should be aware of their potential audience. It's like any product - if you want to market chocolate covered ants, that's fine, but you need to be aware that they're probably not going to seel very well unluss you can find a market for it. Big businesses work on the philosophy that if a market doesn't exist, they can create one. Which rarely works. Artists are unfortunately often working under the same philosophy (but don't have the financial resources to back themselves up), but you can't force an audeince to like Schoenberg. You can educate them to see beyond their prejudices, but you still can't make someone like something they just don't like.

So anyone who wants to compose however they like, feel free. Just don't complain when others don't like your work. I've been more satisfied in writing works that not only I like, but that I've found a fair portion of the audience enjoys as well - and over time, I hope to build from there. But chasing them out the exits is a little counter-productive to me :-)

Steve

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Peter Bolton

If I were attempting orchestral pieces, I would aim for from 10 to 15 minutes. it takes a brave man or woman to try and out-Mahler Mahler.

Yes - again, this is where Romanticism rears its ugly head. People are stuck in this "I must out-Mahler Mahler" idea. MOST, symphonies are longer than other forms (that being part of the nature of the form) but are not on average, over 30 minutes. I think 10-15 minutes is perfect for a "larger form" orchestral piece today.

It's unfortunate that people are so indoctrinated in this Classical-Romantic brainwashing. Hey, how did Handel make a long work? Anyone? Where's Debussy's Symphony #1? Anyone? Webern gets as much press time as Mahler - what's the difference?

Basically, it boils down to, length does not equal quality, and used improperly (i.e.too long) length will do more harm that good.

So everyone, stop writing Symphonies and String Quartets (the form, not music for that ensemble), and try a dance, or a song, or a scherzino, or a scene, or anything besides these overly romanticized visions of perfection based on quantity rather than quality.

Best,
Steve

[Thorolf]

Originally Posted by stevel

I don't think a composer should necessarily cater to an audience, but I do think a composer should be aware of their potential audience.

Very true. But there is a slightly other point I’m going for…

My main audience is myself! And I’m very hard to please… …so if I’m content, all my experience says that others are content, too.

This is of course not true for unfinished works and sketches, where I have simply stopped composing before the form is right. Earlier, I sometimes enjoyed making these kind of B-compositions, partly as practice and experiment, partly because they simply had very good moments, although the form wasn’t satisfying. Now, I know when a piece takes a wrong turn, and never composes on till it’s fixed.

So now, there is always people that get back to me with the feedback that my works are good/creative/fun etc. Both musicians and audience.



Regards

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Thorolf

Very true. But there is a slightly other point I’m going for…

My main audience is myself! And I’m very hard to please… …so if I’m content, all my experience says that others are content, too.

This is of course not true for unfinished works and sketches, where I have simply stopped composing before the form is right. Earlier, I sometimes enjoyed making these kind of B-compositions, partly as practice and experiment, partly because they simply had very good moments, although the form wasn’t satisfying. Now, I know when a piece takes a wrong turn, and never composes on till it’s fixed.

So now, there is always people that get back to me with the feedback that my works are good/creative/fun etc. Both musicians and audience.



Regards

Oh, absolutely. People think I'm crazy, but I always tell them I go over my pieces with a fine-tooth comb and make sure every note is exactly what I want. I make sure I'm happy with every single aspect of the piece before I call it "finished".

I think you're right in that your audience will be able to understand (maybe subconsciously) that you've crafted every single note, and that craftsmanship comes across. Yes - if you put your work in it, it will show, and others will appreciated that.

Steve

[reith]

Hmm, you couple of guys are lucky...I don't think I'll ever be 100% satisfied with a piece. There's always something that niggles but one has to draw the line and move on. If a composition gets too troublesome. I'm probably trying to force the plot so I drop it....don't throw anything away though. In a different situation it might be re-workable.

I try not to soliloquise because I still believe in live music and know that any audience will make like/dislike/indifferent judgements. I don't think I always have "something to say", sometimes music just happens. Sometimes I'm lucky enough to get invited to write so the result ultimately has to suit the client (and doesn't always, first shot).

[Peter Bolton]

I've had second thoughts about this because I don't see why popular culture should have all the best new songs. It must be a good thing that so much music is readily available for enjoyment, even if most of it leaves me cold. In any case many good musicians are attracted in that direction because of the money.
I do very much appreciate romantic German lieder, which I regard as one of the highest summits of Western musical achievement. That is in the past of course but why not a new school of song based on modern poetry? Naturally this involves the human voice along with perhaps some small ensemble. No piano, I think - a break with the past. Definitely not guitars! Careful about woodwind, can be intrusive against the voice. Looks like strings could be the favourite, but there are other possiblities.
This will normally bring duration down into single figure minutes - unless you fancy setting an epic!

[stevel]

Hmm, you couple of guys are lucky...I don't think I'll ever be 100% satisfied with a piece. There's always something that niggles but one has to draw the line and move on.

Well, sorry if I didn't make that observation - yes, I'm never ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT statisfied - if I were, I think I'd stop striving to improve myself on the next attmept - and there'd be no next attempt!

But what I mean is, I make sure it is what I want to be, to the best of my ability. One has to realize one's own "line" as you say, and put a double bar at the end and call it finished. Looking back on earlier pieces, I realize I could do them better today, but I was satisfied in general with the piece at that time and that's a pretty solid guidepost for me.

If a composition gets too troublesome. I'm probably trying to force the plot so I drop it....don't throw anything away though. In a different situation it might be re-workable.

I absolutely agree - as soon as you start forcing it, it seems to end up sounding forced! - even to others. But I see every experiment as a learning experience. I've not re-used any material ever (I just don't do that) but I will let something sit until the solution to completion presents itself, or I'll use the general concepts and things I've learned from the material in other settings.

I try not to soliloquise because I still believe in live music and know that any audience will make like/dislike/indifferent judgements. I don't think I always have "something to say", sometimes music just happens. Sometimes I'm lucky enough to get invited to write so the result ultimately has to suit the client (and doesn't always, first shot).

Well I think you're looking at the distinction (albeit a blurry one) between what I call "practical" music and, "self" music. If you're contracted to write something for a commercial, you pretty much have to satisfy the client. It's great if it also satisfies yoursel as well. Many people might say this is "selling out" but we don't live in an age where music composers are some of the most revered personages on the planet! You gotta put food on the table sometimes. You can be audience pleasing, self pleasing, and possibly a mixture of both. But where I see the real flaw is just in those people who complain about audiences not liking their music when they're being self pleasing - well, what do you expect! I think pandering to an audience just to do it is not so great, but pnadering to yourself for egoism, or for some self-guided idea that you're not pandering to the audinience is not really any better!

So I do try to keep my audience in mind - whether that audience is the general public, select colleagues, or just myself :-)

Steve