A question to composers: Do you feel moved by your own music?

[Guido]

Thinking more about the subject I come to the conclusion that perhaps I am moved more often than I admit but in a slightly different direction - not towards tears but towards a sort of amazed elation (a sort of "this is wonderful!" state)...

Yeah, thats more what I mean. yeah definitely!

[Mark G. Simon]

That was a very interesting post Mark. Would you care to post the works that you mention online?

I've just added "In Your Two Arms" to the iDisk here:

http://snipurl.com/1mp9d

This was recorded at the wedding. The singer hadn't sung it with piano until the rehearsal the day before, so he's a little bit tentative.

I'm still waiting for a performance of the Dickinson songs.

[Haffner]

excellent thread, Mr.Osa!
that's interesting about Shostakovich.....

i chose: Yes, Often...... but definetely not always. All of the ten works i've written have completely different moods, except for a few which i think sound similar (and are probably the most characteristic of my style).

actually, now that i think about it, it's during the time that i'm composing the music that i feel the most affected, though it diminishes over time  in fact, i can remember a few moments where it seemed i was writing some of the greatest moments in music i've ever heard! But now that i revisit those moments, they just seem distant, and they're not at all bad, just something i can't understand right now.

I'd love to hear your work, Greg!

[Haffner]

As lame as most of my music is, there are many parts which...well, surprise me more than anything else. I guess I'm so used to being turned off by what I've written that I'm kind of shocked by anything that actually sounds "good".

[Montpellier]

I am talking about wether or not composers write for their own satisfaction/love of their art (of course they do) as well as wanting to be heard, surely that is the aim of any composer, who would compose today and simply shove it in the draw without trying to get it performed?...but sadly, if you haven't got an audience or means of performing your works...

I think it's a mix of both, the need for self-expression, having something deeply inward to express that words and the visual media can't handle though it might be allied to these.  One wants to please an audience while knowing that not everyone will be pleased unless the audience is specialised - one hopes the communication basically works.  But if the work arises from a commission or invitation then pleasing the client is paramount.  

As a composer (of no great merit - won't pretend otherwise) I'm more likely to be moved by something that eventually impels me to compose.  If and when I hear a performance, any 'moving' comes as a reflection of the source, provided the act of composing wasn't too cathartic.   Some compositions aren't meant to be particularly moving; some cause enough frustration that I've been glad to see the back of them.  Sometimes a piece just doesn't work at all.

As to "if you haven't got the means of performing your works", joining an ensemble; starting one might help then write within the limits of its capabilities - hardly ideal unless you're an accomplished performer but it's a start.  

[matti]

I am not a composer, but I do tunes, sometimes. I did a tune once and it was to be sung by about 50 singers, a vocalise (end eventually it actually was). After the first rehearsal on my way to the cafeteria I heard several people humming the melody, nobody having the faintest that the tunesetter was around. That was moving to me, not the music itself.

[c#minor]

Interesting topic.

I have thought much about this and thought that i might have a problem because my music does not move me often. But i think i know why it does not move me.

My compositions derive from MY emotions, which i have already felt. When i listen to a work that moves me, i am moved because i am sympathizing and relating with the emotions put into the piece. This brings the question; can i sympathize with my own emotions?

Nevertheless, i am sometimes moved while turning these emotions into music, but after that it is gone. It is like i am putting these emotions into music to relieve myself of them, so when they are in the music, i do not have to feel them as strongly as before.

[greg]

Interesting topic.

I have thought much about this and thought that i might have a problem because my music does not move me often. But i think i know why it does not move me.

My compositions derive from MY emotions, which i have already felt. When i listen to a work that moves me, i am moved because i am sympathizing and relating with the emotions put into the piece. This brings the question; can i sympathize with my own emotions?

Nevertheless, i am sometimes moved while turning these emotions into music, but after that it is gone. It is like i am putting these emotions into music to relieve myself of them, so when they are in the music, i do not have to feel them as strongly as before.

well, it could be that sometimes you just don't want to listen to certain music at the time, and that certain music includes the overall sound of what you wrote, maybe.

can i sympathize with my own emotions?

i think this is a question that really doesn't make any sense, but in short: i don't think you can't sympathize with yourself.

maybe you're just writing music that you want to like but actually don't like, i know exactly what that's like 


today, i did a little bit more thinking about what i've been writing recently. Will I be moved by it/have I been? YESSSSSSSSSSSSS 

[Maciek]

My initial intention was, of course, to discuss vaguely "positive" feelings (like those described in the Shostakovich quote). But now I wonder... "Moved" does not have to mean something positive, does it? At least if taken in a very general sense. (Or maybe it does. Never mind, that's not the point.) I wonder how many composers are repulsed by their own work? While they work on it? Much later? Immediately after deciding they've finished? Is there such an ambivalence? Is it a sort of love-hate situation? I hate it, but I love it? I don't want to do it, but I do (I need to do it)? I'm bored with it, but I'm excited with it? I guess vaguely ambiguous feelings about all sorts of things are pretty commonplace, but I wonder if some composers experience a sort of extreme conflict within, a sort of creative love-hate ferment (with a possible self-destructive facet)...

I'm sure they do.

Why am I even writing this?

(How's that for a sample? )

[greg]

all of the above, negative and positive?

[Maciek]

You mean I should add that to the poll?

(EDIT: I did.)

(EDIT no. 2: And added the possibility to change your vote.)

[rappy]

Yes, but not as in 18th and 19th century music.
I mean, as much as I like a piece by Rihm or Xenakis (just two examples), I do not burst into tears which can happen if I listen to D960 or Tchaikovsky etc.
It's a different feeling being "moved" by contemporary music (such as your own) and being moved by Romantic music. Or Mozart
Which is not a judgement.

[greg]

You mean I should add that to the poll?

(EDIT: I did.)

(EDIT no. 2: And added the possibility to change your vote.)

changed.
hehe

[Maciek]

changed.

Comment, please!

[greg]

Comment, please!

It just depends on which piece, and when I'm listening. Just like any other composer.

[Maciek]

More, more!

[greg]

a'ight.......
well, i generally am inspired after I listen to my first 3 opuses, but I have a couple pieces that are more interesting that just enjoyable.
My "We'll See", which is a reworking of Terry Riley's idea sheet for In C,  is probably the best for always inspiring me, every time, no matter what. 
I suppose the best way I could explain it to you, Maciek, if I can do it right, is like this- it depends on how you're thinking while composing.

The worst scenario is when you're not up to writing, and you do it anyways. The results are rarely good, and I always end up erasing what I just wrote.

Then there is writing just because you feel like it, even though you aren't an expert on all the possibilities in music. I think this applies to Saul- i hate to say this- but his stuff almost reminds me of when I used to have a serious habit of drawing cars back in 5th/6th grade. They were all 2D, but very detailed. However, I just kept on drawing because I had a compulsion, but never took the time to learn how to draw impressive 3D models that people draw for entering car design competitions. In this case, it may be appreciated by artist, because the artist may have special insight into it, but a "serious" work of art it is not. I know I liked my car designs- but I know they weren't on the level of professionals.

The next level up is the artist who studies a bunch of scores, and actually does know quite a bit about the possibilities of music. So they write, and it may sound convincing. But not the highest level of art. I suppose this is me so far.

The highest level, I guess may be the artist who makes "genius" his habit. He seriously evaluates his music and figures he must take certain elements of music and emphasize them to create his own style- to say what he HAS to say. But I think this can only be fully developed and realized after he's conquered every step before this. He habitually forces himself to think in terms of certain harmonies and ideas, instead of going to the piano and playing whatever comes out. I think only artists of this level can fully be satisfied with their own music when compared to other composers (though they have to have heard enough in the first place), although this type can be perfectionistic in the works enough to nitpick and never be satisfied even if their stuff is genius anyways.

Not sure if it made any sense, but oh well. I'm going to to watch South Park now, a show that always manages to make me feel better ........

[Maciek]

Thanks for that!

[Maciek]

I digress, but anyway: a reworking of In C sounds extremely intriguing!

BTW, was it Schumann who said something to the effect that talent means seeing the summit and trying (in vain?) to reach it, while genius means already being there?

Nabokov rarely read his old work, but sometimes he had to (galleys) and he was quite satisfied - he liked discerning in his early works traits of the future great author he was to become. Kind of like what Luke has been doing recently on his thread.

Of course, Nabokov is a case of an author aware of his own greatness. The more common case is a mediocrity "aware" of his/her own greatness and a genius in doubt about it. Or maybe not. Maybe the latter case is in fact rare. It would perhaps be difficult to create anything artistic unless you believe that you have something important to do/say/communicate/show etc...

It would be nice to stir things up a bit here, but that seems to be the most provocative statement I'm capable of at the moment....

[Haffner]

I sometimes get more embarassed the more distance I give my pieces. That's why I don't just officially "release" any yet. They all have to go through a)distancing, then b)frank reappraisal, finally c) things are edited/added-on/taken out. And then I take another vacation from the piece.