Is it good to Break the rules in Music composition?

[Wolfy]

You have the right to break the rules in composition as the masters do, but you must first know how to break them. If you do not know how you must be able to feel how to do so. How do YOU do it ?! And why?

As a guide to composition in the modern style, the old teaching has become utterly useless. If you agree why so?

[Jeff Hayat]

You have the right to break the rules in composition as the masters do, but you must first know how to break them. If you do not know how you must be able to feel how to do so. How do YOU do it ?! And why?


There are rules that one MUST adhere to when writing for an orchestra - one good example is range; you can not write notes that the musician can not physically play. Other not-so-steadfast rules, say for instance, "never orchestrate this instrument with this instrument",can be broken at times - personally, I find that breaking these rules can be refreshing, as long as the peice is musical.

Of course, when you are writing for an orchestra of samples, rules can easily be broken - ranges can be extended (to a degree), instruments that wouldn't normally be heard can be made louder....(a soft alto flute playing a melody over the entire brass section playing forte)....one can tweak more and break more rules, but this means that the peice will sound that much more unrealistic to a person who knows very well what a real orchestra is supposed to sound like.


As a guide to composition in the modern style, the old teaching has become utterly useless. If you agree why so?

Completely disagree.

Cheers.

[Dannthr]

There is no orchestra, when you realize this, then it is not the orchestra who is bending but you.

[Andrew Sigler]

This thread is destined to be a colossal waste of time

[nikolas]

You have the right to break the rules in composition as the masters do, but you must first know how to break them. If you do not know how you must be able to feel how to do so. How do YOU do it ?! And why?
so mainly a huge tutorial on how I compose, right? ;)

Yes I break all aesthetic rules, but do try and keep in range. :P

[Wolfy]

The reason for this new thread is to illustrate all open minded and educated colleagues and to exchange opinions in which the process of music creation takes place.
some have the Spiritual point of view others the Money making point of view others Love, etc etc. please do read carefully, with out labeling.

[Dave Bourke]

There is no orchestra, when you realize this, then it is not the orchestra who is bending but you.
Dan, I think you maybe watched a bit too much "Kung Fu" when you were younger, Grasshopper. :)

Kind regards.

[fongi]

This thread is destined to be a colossal waste of time


You got that right ! I´m with you on this one.

[nickysnd]

The reason for this new thread is to illustrate all open minded and educated colleagues and to exchange opinions in which the process of music creation takes place.
some have the Spiritual point of view others the Money making point of view others Love, etc etc. please do read carefully, with out labeling.
I think Wolfy has a point with his question, and I will try to explain why I think so:

First premise: We are all making music, right? Second premise: Some people do have a theoretical background, some people do not have. People from the first category have two options: either to bend to the safety of rules (clichés), or to bend those rules to their own imagination. Similarly, people from the second category have two options as well: either to leave their imagination and musical sense to guide them completely, or to mix it with some learned rules, which they noticed that were working well in similar situations (at other composers, or even in some manuals).

While I do believe in the usefulness of musical knowledge, when it comes to the practice of composing music, the rules should lose their established meanings. I think it's good to know the rules, generally, but I also think that is better to question the rules and their usefulness in one particular context or another. The rules should behave more as letters within new words, thus contributing to new meanings.

So my answer to Wolfy's question would be: rules are clichés, and they can be useful sometimes, when combined in an imaginative manner. OTOH, imagination that relies exclusively on itself, while completely ignoring rules/clichés, well, that type of imagination could lead to very original pieces of music. Most of the times - too original, i.e. meaningless to other people.

Regardless our background, we should all aim to be, in Wolfy's words:
open minded and educated
colleagues. I mean - it is as bad when the educated is not open minded, as it is when the open minded is not educated.

Finally, I will let Monsieur Debussy to express his opinion on the matter: "Works of art make rules; rules do not make works of art." (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/claudedebu204267.html)

[Dannthr]

Eventually you come to a point where you realize that there are no rules, there are simply conventions.

[Scott31]

"There are rules that one MUST adhere to when writing for an orchestra - one good example is range; you can not write notes that the musician can not physically play."

This is true, however, don't many film composers that record with a live orchestra sometimes overdub things into the mix? Seems like you might be able to have the best of both worlds.

For me, it really epends on the application. If I know I will only use my sounds to produce a piece of music for someone, I work with my own creativity within whatever parameters I am given for the music. Of course, there are always those "What do you think of this variation?" moments to see how much flexibility I have. When I am writing something I just want to write for me, the only rules are:
1) Does it feel good?
2) Does it sound good?
3) Does it convey the message or emotion I want?
If the answer to those questions are "Yes" then I am happy with what I have done. No other rules apply to me.

[fongi]

"There are rules that one MUST adhere to when writing for an orchestra - one good example is range; you can not write notes that the musician can not physically play."



Wolfy was just referring to compositional rules I think? he wasn´t talking about orchestration !

[Wolfy]

Wolfy was just referring to compositional rules I think? he wasn´t talking about orchestration !


Rules in composition. that sounds to me much like an open topic to me. Orchestration is a part of composition, and a MUST. Great point colleagues.
And if we look deeper we will hear much more. Composition is an Art, and to describe Art it is quite difficult, but it seems that we are in the right path.

[Kaatza_Music]

I know the rules having studied composition, theory, counterpoint and orchestration for a long time. I also break the rules all of the time, but I usually know when I am doing so.

The only thing that really matters is the end result. I would rather have a piece full of parallel fifths that people go "wow!" when they hear it, than a piece with perfect voice leading that makes people yawn. Same thing with orchestration. Only thing is, if you are using real players, it has to be playable. Other than that a Kazoo concerto would be just fine :D