# Learn to compose



## camus

Hi, I really like classical music and want to learn composing. I am teaching myself music theory right now and planning on getting a digital piano, assuming that would come in handy and be helpful. 
So I'd like to know if there are resources out there for non-professional and wanna-be composers? Like online courses, books or something. My goal is to write chamber music, like string quartets or vocal pieces. 

The biggest challenge for me at this moment is polyphony. I have trouble tracking multiple lines - for example Bach's works. Any tips on this? 

Thanks!


----------



## millionrainbows

camus said:


> Hi, I really like classical music and want to learn composing. I am teaching myself music theory right now and planning on getting a digital piano, assuming that would come in handy and be helpful.
> So I'd like to know if there are resources out there for non-professional and wanna-be composers? Like online courses, books or something. My goal is to write chamber music, like string quartets or vocal pieces.


You've lost me there. On the one hand you want a digital piano, and on the other hand you want to write string quartets. If it were me, I'd spend my time trying to learn songs on the piano, to become a better pianist. And make sure most of it is done by ear.



camus said:


> The biggest challenge for me at this moment is polyphony. I have trouble tracking multiple lines - for example Bach's works. Any tips on this? Thanks!


What do you mean by "tracking multiple lines?" Do you have a sequencer, digital recorder, or computer software?

I hope you do realize that polyphony is an old way of doing things. Modern harmony is based on chords and scales, so to speak. Why on Earth would anyone want to compose like Bach, or have the audacity? You'd probably learn more by transcribing Bach, then if you have any talent, your brilliant mind will take over.

Also, why are there all these new "teaching beginners" threads all of a sudden?


----------



## pianozach

I'll assume that "tracking multiple lines" is just another way of expressing the concept of polyphony.

The art of polyphony certainly can refer to Bach's concept of the fugue, but can just as easily be referred to as counterpoint.

I accompany a couple of 6th grade choirs (that would be kids around 12-13 years old). The choir director starts them learning the concept of polyphony/harmony by teaching them *rounds*. The less musically talented can sing these, and the more musically talented start grasping the concept of hearing two melodies simultaneously.

From there she moves on to "*Partner Songs*"; chorus medleys that include a chorus of a familiar song (e.g. Yankee Doodle Dandy), and another tune that works with the same chord changes. They sing the new tune, then the old tune, then they divisi and sing both at once.

Here's one: You can sing _*Swing Low Sweet Chariot*_ and _*When The Saints Go Marching In*_ at the same time.


----------



## mikeh375

camus said:


> Hi, I really like classical music and want to learn composing. I am teaching myself music theory right now and planning on getting a digital piano, assuming that would come in handy and be helpful.
> So I'd like to know if there are resources out there for non-professional and wanna-be composers? Like online courses, books or something. My goal is to write chamber music, like string quartets or vocal pieces.
> 
> The biggest challenge for me at this moment is polyphony. I have trouble tracking multiple lines - for example Bach's works. Any tips on this?
> 
> Thanks!


Hi Camus,

Learning polyphony will be crucial to your ability to write good parts for vocal music and string quartets (and any other combinations). It is an essential technique to master along with vertical thinking so do not deter yourself or let others deter you from studying this vital technique.

Studying Bach and earlier vocal music is rewarding for many reasons, not least of all in inculcating of a sense of individual line that has purpose and flow. This will put you in good stead when it comes to your own way of writing. And so with that in mind, try these free classics...

https://www.scribd.com/document/407527317/272650942-FREE-Counterpoint-Lovelonfck-PDF-pdf

For great vocal lines, try Bach himself here....

https://imslp.org/wiki/Chorale_Harmonisations%2C_BWV_1-438_(Bach%2C_Johann_Sebastian)


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> You've lost me there. On the one hand you want a digital piano, and on the other hand you want to write string quartets. If it were me, I'd spend my time trying to learn songs on the piano, to become a better pianist. And make sure most of it is done by ear.


There's nothing inconsistent about studying theory, getting a piano, and wanting to write chamber or vocal music. Practicing the piano - reading scores, playing by ear, improvising - are all important.



> I hope you do realize that polyphony is an old way of doing things. Modern harmony is based on chords and scales, so to speak. Why on Earth would anyone want to compose like Bach, or have the audacity? You'd probably learn more by transcribing Bach, then if you have any talent, your brilliant mind will take over.


Polyphony has been "a way of doing things" for about 900 years. What it's a way of doing is setting one component in a musical composition against another. A composer ought to be able to think of things happening simultaneously. Polyphony doesn't have to sound like Bach, but Bach has a few lessons to teach, including showing how harmony and polyphony are integral to each other (mikeh375 expresses this well above). Ignoring polyphony and "basing music on chords and scales" may be someone's idea of "modern music" (it sounds like what I hear coming out of the ceiling at the local supermarket), but it's a very limiting idea of music and a crippling limitation on a composer's education.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> *Polyphony has been "a way of doing things" for about 900 years.* What it's a way of doing is setting one component in a musical composition against another. A composer ought to be able to think of things happening simultaneously.


That's right. Consider, for example, *Ligeti's* _San Francisco Polyphony_ (1973); clearly "an old way of doing things", huh?


----------



## Woodduck

TalkingHead said:


> That's right. Consider, for example, *Ligeti's* _San Francisco Polyphony_ (1973); clearly "an old way of doing things", huh?


Perotin would understand (well, maybe...)


----------



## millionrainbows

> Ignoring polyphony and "basing music on chords and scales" may be someone's idea of "modern music" (it sounds like what I hear coming out of the ceiling at the local supermarket), but it's a very limiting idea of music and a crippling limitation on a composer's education.


Polyphony is heard coming out of 900-year old churches. I wonder if you don't hear Bach coming out of the ceiling at the local supermarket is because it's 900 year-old church music? Would you be happier if it was? Anyway, supermarkets are more essential than churches.

CP doesn't teach 'chords & scales' as implied. It's the major/minor system, extremely limiting.

Oh, yeah, Ligeti is really "steeped in tradition." is TalkingHead on your side or against you? I can't tell from this example. At any rate, he's ruining the asymmetry of the discussion.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Let me get the smelling salts, he's fainted again.


Incisive as ever.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Polyphony is heard coming out of 900-year old churches. I wonder if you don't hear Bach coming out of the ceiling at the local supermarket is because it's 900 year-old church music? Would you be happier if it was? Anyway, supermarkets are more essential than churches.


Polyphony is also heard coming out of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, Strauss, Debussy, Schoenberg, Bartok, Stravinsky, Hindemith, Britten, Boulez...

I would be happier to hear any of these coming out my supermarket ceiling than the "modern music based on chords" (and damned few of those) that I do hear. Even the celery would taste better.


----------



## millionrainbows

Polyphony is overrated. Counterpoint is too strict. If you've got melody on the brain it's for you, but Debussy? Was his music full of counterpoint? Satie?

There's really no need for "counterpoint" as a separate category, now that _harmony_ has progressed to the point it has now. What used to be a "passing tone" B-C is now a major seventh chord. 
You polyphony guys are old hat. The study of it is really more of a historical pursuit than it is a vital, living style of music.

Row, row, row your boat, gently into obsolescence.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Polyphony is overrated. Counterpoint is too strict. If you've got melody on the brain it's for you, but Debussy? Was his music full of counterpoint? Satie?
> 
> There's really no need for "counterpoint" as a separate category, now that _harmony_ has progressed to the point it has now. What used to be a "passing tone" B-C is now a major seventh chord.
> You polyphony guys are old hat. The study of it is really more of a historical pursuit than it is a vital, living style of music.
> 
> Row, row, row your boat, gently into obsolescence.


The self-appointed voice of the culture. We know how quickly history sends those into obsolescence. If you had a shred of perspicacity or shame you'd save history the trouble and yourself the embarrassment.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> The self-appointed voice of the culture. We know how quickly history sends those into obsolescence. If you had a shred of perspicacity or shame you'd save history the trouble and yourself the embarrassment.


History? There is no history anymore. Perspicacious? No, I simply know how you think, and it never goes past Wagner. Self-appointed voice of culture? No, I'm simply taking over the valuable real estate you have so foolishly abandoned.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> History? There is no history anymore.


If there's no history, then polyphony can't be "old hat."



> *Polyphony is overrated.* Counterpoint is too strict. If you've got melody on the brain it's for you, but Debussy? Was his music full of counterpoint? Satie?
> 
> *There's really no need for "counterpoint" as a separate categor*y, now that harmony has progressed to the point it has now. What used to be a "passing tone" B-C is now a major seventh chord.
> *You polyphony guys are old hat.* The study of it is really more of *a historical pursuit* than it is a vital, living style of music.
> 
> Row, row, row your boat, gently into *obsolescence.*


Camus, the junior member who opened this thread, expressed an interest in learning theory and the techniques of composition, and mentioned his difficulty in following polyphonic lines. That would seem to be a request for direction in finding good instruction. So why are you telling him that what interests him is "overrated," that there's "no need" for it, that it's "old hat" and "obsolescent"? How can you justify responding to him that way? (Mikeh375, btw, being a real composer, responded to the OP in a knowledgeable and encouraging way. You're the only one who felt it necessary to tell him that he's "obsolete" before he even begins.)

What I'm sure Camus was NOT looking for was to be treated to your musical prejudices and limitations. How can you "rate" polyphony when you don't even seem to know what it is? You did hear, somewhere along the way, didn't you, that polyphony doesn't have to mean Palestrina or Bach? That it doesn't have to mean strict species counterpoint? That it exists even in many forms of non-common practice, non-Western music? Listen to any gamelan lately? But that aside, strict counterpoint is a matchless discipline for the mind of a composer. Some composers still think that mastering a full range of techniques sharpens their minds, equips them best for their work, and provides them with the greatest richness of possibilities from which creative thought can arise. Lounging in a warm bath of "chords" doesn't get one far.

If I were new on the forum and got a response like yours, I might think twice about sticking around. He's being quiet now. I wonder if he's planning to come back?


----------



## mikeh375

Perhaps MR's right Woodduck. I'm going to write a string quartet and give a lead line chart to the leader and the rest can have chord symbols with slashes in every bar. My next symphony for a full orchestra of 90 players will be known as Symphony no2 'The Busker'. Regardless of it's title, I wont compromise and will retain a tight control. Even single note instruments will be expected to play the chords. I'll want Dm13, F7b9, Bbmin/maj7 etc. you know, all that good compound stuff on each instrument. I mean what other harmony is there? 

_Jam_ sandwiches will be served in the interval to all the best soloists and barre chord charts handed out to the crap ones who think they should have actual lines of music to play.

Camus, if you are still with us, do consider the advice of the pros more so than the armchair thinkers.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> If there's no history, then polyphony can't be "old hat." Camus, the junior member who opened this thread, expressed an interest in learning theory and the techniques of composition, and mentioned his difficulty in following polyphonic lines. That would seem to be a request for direction in finding good instruction. So why are you telling him that what interests him is "overrated," that there's "no need" for it, that it's "old hat" and "obsolescent"? How can you justify responding to him that way? (Mikeh375, btw, being a real composer, responded to the OP in a knowledgeable and encouraging way. You're the only one who felt it necessary to tell him that he's "obsolete" before he even begins.)


Too much drama for me. If he studies polyphony, I suggest he do it with a more flexible musical thinker than you have been shown to be in these discussions on "diatonic" methods.

I did not call MikeH "obsolete." As usual, you are distorting and dramatizing.



> What I'm sure Camus was NOT looking for was to be treated to your musical prejudices and limitations. How can you "rate" polyphony when you don't even seem to know what it is? You did hear, somewhere along the way, didn't you, that polyphony doesn't have to mean Palestrina or Bach? That it doesn't have to mean strict species counterpoint? That it exists even in many forms of non-common practice, non-Western music? Listen to any gamelan lately? But that aside, strict counterpoint is a matchless discipline for the mind of a composer. Some composers still think that mastering a full range of techniques sharpens their minds, equips them best for their work, and provides them with the greatest richness of possibilities from which creative thought can arise. Lounging in a warm bath of "chords" doesn't get one far.


My views are more progressive than yours, and I hope camus will seek out a flexible teacher, not someone who comes across as a nun, complete with guilt-tripping and knuckle-rapping.
Sure, I know what polyphony is, and how it could be transformed into some conservative version of what you think it should be. Also, I think you should not teach any guitarist if your main instrument is piano. Yes, "warm chords" are nice, but from what you have said, you would not encourage free-modal thinking, and in fact discourage it, as we just heard. You prefer Wagner to Debussy, after all.
Whatever suits your taste.



> If I were new on the forum and got a response like yours, I might think twice about sticking around. He's being quiet now. I wonder if he's planning to come back?


Too much drama and guilt-tripping. You're just as bad. Stop thinking about me, and start thinking about what I have said: you need to get flexible in your thinking about music.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Perhaps MR's right Woodduck. I'm going to write a string quartet and give a lead line chart to the leader and the rest can have chord symbols with slashes in every bar. My next symphony for a full orchestra of 90 players will be known as Symphony no2 'The Busker'. Regardless of it's title, I wont compromise and will retain a tight control. Even single note instruments will be expected to play the chords. I'll want Dm13, F7b9, Bbmin/maj7 etc. you know, all that good compound stuff on each instrument. I mean what other harmony is there?
> 
> _Jam_ sandwiches will be served in the interval to all the best soloists and barre chord charts handed out to the crap ones who think they should have actual lines of music to play.
> 
> Camus, if you are still with us, do consider the advice of the pros more so than the armchair thinkers.


Here, camus, listen to this guy, Rick Beato. He knows the difference between classical and jazz theory, and he plays the guitar as his main instrument. The rest of this forum negativity is irrelevant in-fighting. Ignore the exaggerations of the others here.They could try to be a lot nicer.


----------



## mikeh375

...well Camus, I also know jazz theory being an ex-jazz guitarist myself. The difference between me and Million is that I also know how to write for orchestral instruments and have learnt many compositional techniques from CP through to more contemporary practices, through to scoring for any combination of instruments. I am also a professional and know what it takes to actually be reasonably good at this music thing. 

MR, I'm sure you'd agree that offering advice to a newbie is a serious issue and one to be considered responsibly. It's not a time to be settling or pursuing agendas and whilst Camus may well decide to follow a different route to the one many composers do, your dismissing of something you have no proper experience of and fail to understand the benefits of to a novice, is misleading.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> ...well Camus, I also know jazz theory being an ex-jazz guitarist myself. The difference between me and Million is that I also know how to write for orchestral instruments and have learnt many compositional techniques from CP through to more contemporary practices, through to scoring for any combination of instruments. I am also a professional and know what it takes to actually be reasonably good at this music thing.


You don't even know me. You have no idea as to what I can and can't do.



> MR, I'm sure you'd agree that offering advice to a newbie is a serious issue and one to be considered responsibly. It's not a time to be settling or pursuing agendas and whilst Camus may well decide to follow a different route to the one many composers do, your dismissing of something you have no proper experience of and fail to understand the benefits of to a novice, is misleading.


Then you should suggest to Woodduck as well that you both let-up on your bullying and invalidation of my postings. I can't recommend him to a newbie if he refuses to engage reasonably in discussions. Anyway, I think Rick Beato's video lessons are more valuable, and since I share many of Beato's views and flexibility of thought, I assume that WD and EdwardBast would be "against" Beato. I've heard RB dissed by EB in the past.


----------



## camus

Thank you all for your advice! I know different people have various and sometimes, opposite opinions on things. I am a newb so I will learn whatever I can learn. As for the particular question I asked about polyphony - I think my first goal is to be able to distinguish multiple lines, piano, strings, voices or other instruments, doesn't really matter, as I see it a crucial skill for composing, whether I use counterpoint or chords. 
So more specifically, I found it really hard to capture the middle part. For example, in a string quartet, violin I and cello could stand out sometimes but violin II and viola are always lost to me. I know they are makings sounds as the music sound 'rich' but I am not able to track the line. 
As for chords - I am able to identify a simple broken chord, but not a regular chord in immediately when all notes come out together. I say immediately because if the chord is played multiple times (as my ear training app does), I will eventually be able to tell, especially if I can also play the notes on the keyboard. But when I listen to music I can't always pause and go back. I am just following the app's exercise list now but the progress seems very slow.


----------



## camus

Also mikeh375 - I listened to some of your works on your website and I love them!


----------



## Guest

camus said:


> Also mikeh375 - I listened to some of your works on your website and I love them!


Yep, MikeH375 is what we call a "Pro", and his advice is well worth following.


----------



## Woodduck

camus said:


> So more specifically, I found it really hard to capture the middle part. For example, in a string quartet, violin I and cello could stand out sometimes but violin II and viola are always lost to me. I know they are makings sounds as the music sound 'rich' but I am not able to track the line.


Don't fret. Middle parts are normally harder to hear than soprano and bass lines, and since so much music is defined structurally by the top line and the bass, middle parts often don't amount to much more than harmonic filler. You'll notice them taking on more independence, more melodic interest, as the string quartet developed from early Haydn through Beethoven.


----------



## mikeh375

camus said:


> Also mikeh375 - I listened to some of your works on your website and I love them!


That's very kind of you to say so Camus, thank you.


----------



## mikeh375

TalkingHead said:


> Yep, MikeH375 is what we call a "Pro", and his advice is well worth following.


Thanks TH, I do what I can, but I'm not the only one around here that is qualified (you for one) and it is readily apparent that there are others too. The standard of theory posting is very high.


----------



## hammeredklavier

millionrainbows said:


> Debussy? Was his music full of counterpoint? Satie?


It's kind of ironic Woodduck includes Debussy in the list of exemplary polyphonists, after telling me (I'm not accusing him of anything, I just think it's cute) :



hammeredklavier said:


> Homophony/polyphony is not necessarily what divides Classical/Baroque.
> 
> 
> Woodduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but *it tends to*, and it certainly does in this work, in which the second section is in typically Classical homophonic style, not the least bit Baroque.
Click to expand...

We should remind ourselves the "Classical" guys (whom Woodduck would classify as downright "homophonists"), namely Bach's sons (ex. CPE Bach Magnificat, JC Bach Dies Irae), Haydn's brother, Mozart's father (ex. Litanies of the Sacrements) also generally wrote far more rigorous counterpoint than Debussy did.






Aside from the couple of fugues Debussy wrote for Prix de Rome, his first Arabesque to me is as 'polyphonic' as he got. I would have thought Debussy had some respect for voice-leading principles if he didn't write those parallel chords all the time.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Camus I recommend you to start not with Bach but with Palestrina, where polyphony is both the only compositional process and the end result.

If you pick up (online for free, for example) the Jeppesen book *Counterpoint: the polyphonic vocal style of the sixteenth century* you will learn step by step the ways and rules Palestrina used to set a Latin text. That can be your first compositional task.

After that you can easily move on to harmony and Bach, having mastered the essential technique of voice leading and even some points on imitation. You will be able to pay attention and grasp the constraints and freedoms each composer imposes on themselves at the time of composing.

Studying the literature will inform you on how practice and theory have evolved, ending with was is possible and fashionable now.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> It's kind of ironic Woodduck includes Debussy in the list of exemplary polyphonists, after telling me (*I'm not accusing him of anything, I just think it's cute)* :
> 
> We should remind ourselves the "Classical" guys (whom Woodduck would classify as downright "homophonists"), namely Bach's sons (ex. CPE Bach Magnificat, JC Bach Dies Irae), Haydn's brother, Mozart's father (ex. Litanies of the Sacrements) also generally wrote far more rigorous counterpoint than Debussy did.
> 
> Aside from the couple of fugues Debussy wrote for Prix de Rome, his first Arabesque to me is as 'polyphonic' as he got. I would have thought Debussy had some respect for voice-leading principles if he didn't write those parallel chords all the time.


Excuse me for exposing your carelessness, genius, but if you're going to talk about other members' views, you need to be sure that you understand what they've actually written. I did not "include Debussy in the list of exemplary polyphonists." My statement, which you're apparently unable to read, was:

_"Polyphony is also heard coming out of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, Strauss, Debussy, Schoenberg, Bartok, Stravinsky, Hindemith, Britten, Boulez..."
_
Where do you find the concept of "exemplary polyphonists"? Other than in your head, that is? And did you even look at the context of the conversation in which my statement was made? Do you even care?

I also have to ask where you got the notion of "downright homophonists," which you also attribute to me.

If it isn't too late to go back and remove all references to me from your post, I suggest you do it now. Lying about what others have said, and then pretending you're "not accusing them of anything," is not "cute."

I would add that, as a rule, it's best not to talk about other members in the third person, or to try to represent their views.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Excuse me for exposing your carelessness, genius, but if you're going to talk about other members' views, you need to be sure that you understand what they've actually written. I did not "include Debussy in the list of exemplary polyphonists." My statement, which you're apparently unable to read, was:
> 
> _"Polyphony is also heard coming out of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, Strauss, Debussy, Schoenberg, Bartok, Stravinsky, Hindemith, Britten, Boulez..."
> _
> Where do you find the concept of "exemplary polyphonists"? Other than in your head, that is? And did you even look at the context of the conversation in which my statement was made? Do you even care?
> 
> I also have to ask where you got the notion of "downright homophonists," which you also attribute to me.
> 
> If it isn't too late to go back and remove all references to me from your post, I suggest you do it now. Lying about what others have said, and then pretending you're "not accusing them of anything," is not "cute."
> 
> I would add that, as a rule, it's best not to talk about other members in the third person, or to try to represent their views.


I think you need to concede the point, and admit that you contradict yourself at your own convenience. Don't get accusatory, just "man up."


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I think you need to concede the point, and admit that you contradict yourself at your own convenience. Don't get accusatory, just "man up."


His "point" is wrong. I did not say the things he claims I said.

Try to develop a sense of when your presence in a conversation is useful or appropriate. And don't troll me.


----------



## mmsbls

This thread asks about composing in general and specifically about polyphony. Stop talking about each other and comment on the thread topic.


----------



## millionrainbows

I never said I didn't 'appreciate' old polyphony; I just think its obsolete as a style and a method.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> I never said I didn't 'appreciate' old polyphony; I just think its obsolete as a style and a method.


it's obsolete as a style, but not a method because that method has enormous developmental potential for a novice.


----------



## millionrainbows

What does Hammeredklavier have to say?


----------



## hammeredklavier

millionrainbows said:


> What does Hammeredklavier have to say?


MR. MR, I hate to say this but I can't agree with some of the things you say in this thread. (Don't feel so bad about it. I still think you and your contribution to this forum are awesome-keep it going)

https://books.google.ca/books?id=jbXtxJezk5cC&pg=PA173
Schoenberg: "My teachers were primarily Bach and Mozart... From Bach I learned: 
1. *Contrapuntal thinking*; i.e. the art of inventing musical figures that can be used to accompany themselves. ..."





"The initial ideas are not always "themes," but *contrapuntal combinations* of melodic lines or particular harmonic sequences."


----------



## Phil loves classical

Polyphony is never obsolete.


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> Polyphony is never obsolete.


Okay, then, prove it. Show me some rap music that's polyphonic.


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> Okay, then, prove it. Show me some rap music that's polyphonic.


Rap is obsolete already. But this is one


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> Rap is obsolete already. But this is one


Yes, this decisively proves the point that polyphony can be applied to modern music. I stand corrected.


----------

