# Naming one's own classical-styled pieces



## unaCorda (May 7, 2010)

I find that the hardest part of composing my piano pieces is to try naming them. I want a name like 'Impromptu-Nocturne' or 'Rêverie' or an entirely new name(most preferably in Italian, German or French), but I always run out of imagination.

Any tips?
And how do you come up with names for your pieces?


----------



## MJTTOMB (Dec 16, 2007)

Generally speaking, the title says something about the piece without necessarily exposing an extramusical programme. A good place to start is by describing the mood of the piece, the form of the piece, the tempo of the piece, or a combination of the three. Examples would be along the lines of "Valse Grotesque", "Morceaux Folkloriques", "Lumineux", "Tres Lente", etc.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I will toss out the word "Interim" for your consideration. I thought it sounds vaguely musical like a more modern Intermezzo, and I wanted to use it as a term for pieces I was writing "in the mean time." I have already composed my Interim No. 1, but trust me it will never surface. I am not really a musician.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

If you have one-movement piano piece then you can call it prelude. Preludes are not defined, some composers wrote sets of many short etude-like preludes, some composed long, stand-alone pieces and also called them preludes... anything can be prelude. And you can always add a subtitle, like: Prelude in F minor, _The Mad Guineafowl at Norwegian Fjord's Edge_.

Thinking too much about title has no point. Older composers could write piece with just formal title that would make people imagine milion pictures in their heads, every single on totaly unlike the others, now we have och-so-witty-brilliant (read: pretentious) titles given to pieces that can hardly make any impression.

So better focus on composing and write piece that won't need any title except the one required for identification.


----------



## MJTTOMB (Dec 16, 2007)

Aramis said:


> If you have one-movement piano piece then you can call it prelude. Preludes are not defined, some composers wrote sets of many short etude-like preludes, some composed long, stand-alone pieces and also called them preludes... anything can be prelude. And you can always add a subtitle, like: Prelude in F minor, _The Mad Guineafowl at Norwegian Fjord's Edge_.
> 
> Thinking too much about title has no point. Older composers could write piece with just formal title that would make people imagine milion pictures in their heads, every single on totaly unlike the others, now we have och-so-witty-brilliant (read: pretentious) titles given to pieces that can hardly make any impression.
> 
> So better focus on composing and write piece that won't need any title except the one required for identification.


Precisely. As composers, it's okay in some instances to make a title that says something about the imagery of the piece (especially if you're writing an opera or a vocal work that has a libretto), but in the end much of the music you will write will be absolute music, that is, it is music for music's sake, not music based on a story. Well-written music needs no title.

As Aramis stated, there are several forms that really can be applied over virtually all single-movement works, such as _Pieces_, _Preludes_, and _Morceaux_. Similarly, Fantasy, Impromptu, and Nocturne are also very vague titles that server to give some idea of the piece's mood without forcing the piece into a rigid form.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Well, besides the genre for which a piece is named (e.g. Nocturne, Concerto, Prelude, Fugue, Mass, etc., etc., ad infinitum), you could try naming the piece in English, then translate it into the language of the country the style of the piece came from (e.g. translate "October Roses," a piece in a Germanic style, to the German "Oktober Rosen"). Simple! Or you could stick with genre names. Genre-based names work great, too.


----------

