Musical Rules...

[Exen]

I was just thinking, when writing our music down, and listening to it in our head do we put it to paper as the rules dictate or do we keep what we have in our head and write it the way we hear it?

I was just thinking over it because some of the music I hear in my head and I write down doesn't always conform to the theoretic rules that we have pound into our heads, no parallel fifths no this no that. Maybe its just me, but in the end who's music is it? Ours? Or some crusty old man who says we have to do it a certain way?

Not to mention music is ever-evolving whether we want it to or not, so what do you trust, a two-hundred year old rule, or your ears?

[Elmer]

I don't think you're a real composer until you can break the rules and then forget them completely! Along with every piece of music you've ever heard!
Over my long life- 66 tomorrow (or actually, today, since the GMT clock above this post says 3 am)!- I've heard and studied so much music by other composers that it's just been in the last five years that I could finally discover my own style that is really original and that I like. Some of the composers I've had master classes, private lessons, whatever, with include Penderecki, Robert Ward, Russel Peck (I bought his lunch while waiting for a flight and he read through my scores!), Vladimir Ussachevski, Lucien Cailliet, et. al., and I learned to write just like all of them. I was very clever and could out-Stravinsky Stravinsky (in several styles, too!) or even out-Cage Cage while I was in college.
But it never made me really happy until I turned off listening to everything I ever heard and everything I was ever taught. Then I finally started writing my own music. The first piece I composed in twenty years was given an Honourable Mention in the Amadeus Choir (of Toronto) Christmas Carol and Chanakah Song Composition Competition, so I figure I'm on the right track now!
Elmer

[Exen]

That's what I like to hear, composers composing for their own sake and not because the rules tell them as such. Happy Birthday Elmer!! Heres to many more years of music and enjoyment.

[MaestroX]

Hi Exen,

In reality there are no rules when it comes to contemporary composition. None whatsoever. Its up to the composer to decide and dictate which rules he/she may want to follow.

Also when referring to rules I find it easier to think of them as frameworks. Building your own framework can be a successful way to compose your own works within your own style. For example at the moment I've been working on a piano and cello piece. The harmonic and melodic material I used is derived from my own invented scale with invented harmonies. So when composing I find it useful to create the foundations and have a reference to look-up and further develop a piece.

Also remember that if you have trouble notating something, most likely you'd be better inventing a notation and providing a glossary with the score.

[VicDiesel]

Originally Posted by MaestroX

Hi Exen,

In reality there are no rules when it comes to contemporary composition. None whatsoever. Its up to the composer to decide and dictate which rules he/she may want to follow.

...

Also remember that if you have trouble notating something, most likely you'd be better inventing a notation and providing a glossary with the score.

But before you invent your own notation, better study up on what's been done before. Too many people who claim to be revolutionary just reinvent the wheel.

Also, breaking rules and making up new ones is fun, but only in retrospect can you say which unstated rules you were still following. People have said "that's not music anymore" of Beethoven, Wagner, Webern, .... and with the benefit of hindsight we still see that they only went that far beyond their times, but that there was still plenty of room for further exploration.

Victor.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Exen

I was just thinking, when writing our music down, and listening to it in our head do we put it to paper as the rules dictate or do we keep what we have in our head and write it the way we hear it?

I was just thinking over it because some of the music I hear in my head and I write down doesn't always conform to the theoretic rules that we have pound into our heads, no parallel fifths no this no that. Maybe its just me, but in the end who's music is it? Ours? Or some crusty old man who says we have to do it a certain way?

Not to mention music is ever-evolving whether we want it to or not, so what do you trust, a two-hundred year old rule, or your ears?

I'd like to offer the following for consideration:

Yes there ARE rules.

Whether you follow them or not is up to you.

Chris (Maestro) mentions "no rules" in contemporary composition. That's actually always been true. HOWEVER, many composers historically have chosen to work within the confines of an existing style.

This is what people don't understand. Rules are not something a "crusty old man" comes up with. Rules are note rules. They are stylistic conventions. If you want to connect the chord C with D, and do it:
G A
E F
C D
That's fine. But do not complain when it doesn't sound like Bach. Bach didn't do that. So what these "rules" are is not something "we" or a "crusty old man" invents, but simply things we OBSERVE about a particular type of music. The "rules" are those musical elements that we can observe that are consistent enough to produce a STYLE.

Composers in the Middle Ages consistently used Modes. Thus a "Rule" is, "when emulating Middle Ages music, one must use Modes".

The key point here is - "when emulating". Musical study is often approached by emulating (or performing, etc.) existing pre-defined styles.

Here's the problem:

You can compose anything nowadays right?

What about a kid who wants to play guitar? Yes, artistically, they can tune it any way they want, pull out whichever frets they want, finger it in any way they want, strum it with a live cat if they want.

But it ain't gonna sound like Jazz. In order to play Jazz, you have to learn the stylistic conventions that make Jazz Jazz, and not some other style. That doesn't mean you can't "break the rules" within that style, just that once you ignore too many rules, you end up playing something different than Jazz. That's fine, but don't call it Jazz or you'll end up with a lot of confusion.

There's two problems here Exen:
1. People think that by "breaking the rules" they're somehow doing something "better" or "new" etc.
2. People think they're breaking rules, when what's really happening is they're showing their ignorance of them.

For example, many people try to write counterpoint, and have parallel parts happening. To excuse it, they say "but I'm breaking the rules". But the primary rule of counterpoint is that parts maintain their independence. Parallelism destroys independence. That means you are breaking the one primary stylistic convention of counterpoint - therefore, you aren't writing counterpoint. That's fine, but don't call your piece a "Fugue".

So yes, you can try to out do the Da-Daists or Cage et al, and just write what I've heard called "plink plunk" or "squeaky gate" music. But composers may want to put food on the table using their craft, and if the film company calls you up and says we want a Jazz score for this film we're making about the 1940s, you need to have a decent command of the Jazz vocabulary to produce a decent result.

Here's the main point Exen: Learning the "rules" to any style will not hurt you. You can always choose to not implement a rule when you're composing. But, not knowing a rule can cause you two problems: 1. you can't write in a specific way if you need or want to, and 2. you may be using or avoiding a rule and not knowing it, and it makes your music sound amatuerish rather than good.

This is why so many people point out things like Parallel 5ths in people's pieces they post in places like this. The problem is, the music is SO close to being typical classical, that the parallel 5ths are an ERROR, not "a composer breaking the rules for artistic reasons".

So that brings up another point - breaking "rules" should be done for artistic reasons, not because of ignorance.

Best,
Steve

[MaestroX]

But before you invent your own notation, better study up on what's been done before. Too many people who claim to be revolutionary just reinvent the wheel.

Of course, I'm a firm believer in studying the past before you can move things into the future.

The primary reason I (and many other composers' noweradays) have to invent notation is because many extended instrumental techniques have not been standardised or indeed used before. So obviously to go about this its best to look whats been done before and how the notational problem has been solved in the past (if it has indeed been encountered in the past).

Stevel hit on many excellent points.

So that brings up another point - breaking "rules" should be done for artistic reasons, not because of ignorance.

As composers' we should be looking at how we can push music further and explore different sound worlds and ideas.

[Exen]

I don't mean to say break rules just to break them, I mean break them when there is a need to break them, but more importantly, listen to what your head is telling you. Simple as that really.

As for the styles statement, I think it's a given to use the conventions of the time period in which you are writing music to sound similar to going against it is just being bullheaded and not using common sense.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Exen

I don't mean to say break rules just to break them, I mean break them when there is a need to break them, but more importantly, listen to what your head is telling you. Simple as that really.

As for the styles statement, I think it's a given to use the conventions of the time period in which you are writing music to sound similar to going against it is just being bullheaded and not using common sense.

I see now you agree Exen, but many people don't often realize this, so I always feel it's worthy of mention.

best,
Steve

[Exen]

Originally Posted by stevel

I see now you agree Exen, but many people don't often realize this, so I always feel it's worthy of mention.

I assure you it's worth mentioning quite a bit, it keeps young composers, such as myself, directed where they need to be if their compositions are to be taken seriously.

I had a discussion with the head of our music department at college a few months ago about the title of "composer" and to say the least, unlike many other forms of art, we felt that it is the one title that someone else must give you. The title can't be bestowed by ones self, it takes others to recognize the maturity of a person's compositions and where they are headed and if they are worthy of the title. But this is a whole other thread.

Regardless, the "rules" are in place to lend unity and cohesion, but one must always follow their ear, and to some extent, especially if they are neo-romantic their hearts and mind. Worth mentioning many times.