Thread: Composing exercises

What are your opinions about composing exercises? I have decided to dedicate the next couple of weeks writing works for a solo instrument (a single line, not keyboard etc.) so that I can learn more about melodic construction, and to try and help me learn to write in a lucid style. So far I think it is helping.

Of course I think they are generally considered the only way to learn counterpoint. Bach Chorales are a common exercise to do but I personally have found them a bit boring. I have recently finished the prescribed exercises in Fux's The Study of Counterpoint (Haydn style) and have moved on to Fugue. I have learned much more from these.

I think it is important to approach exercises as a work of art, even if it is limited in scope. There is no merit in learning to write pieces of no art but follow the rules, and I think associating artistic endeavor with compositional skill is a good thing.

Any thoughts/suggestions? Anyone find them useful?

Originally Posted by Ramako

I think it is important to approach exercises as a work of art, even if it is limited in scope. There is no merit in learning to write pieces of no art but follow the rules, and I think associating artistic endeavor with compositional skill is a good thing.

That's a perfectly valid stance to adopt, in my view. However, I would point out that, if you have two different objectives - (a) learn and grow, (b) create a work of art, whixh are not the same thing, you'll find it much harder to satisfy both and, therefore, to progress to your satisfaction. You could be easy on yourself and just set your objective as learning and improving. After all, if you're learning the piano, and you practise your scales, is that a performance? Really? Does it have to be?

Originally Posted by Ramako

What are your opinions about composing exercises? I have decided to dedicate the next couple of weeks writing works for a solo instrument (a single line, not keyboard etc.) so that I can learn more about melodic construction, and to try and help me learn to write in a lucid style. So far I think it is helping.

Of course I think they are generally considered the only way to learn counterpoint. Bach Chorales are a common exercise to do but I personally have found them a bit boring. I have recently finished the prescribed exercises in Fux's The Study of Counterpoint (Haydn style) and have moved on to Fugue. I have learned much more from these.

I think it is important to approach exercises as a work of art, even if it is limited in scope. There is no merit in learning to write pieces of no art but follow the rules, and I think associating artistic endeavor with compositional skill is a good thing.

Any thoughts/suggestions? Anyone find them useful?

I don't quite agree with this. Music is an art, but it has technical things too. I consider that some technical exercises are useful.
When I was learning the piano, I spent a fraction of my practising time in doing purely technical exercises. They are exercises, their unique end is the perfectioning of some skill.

Originally Posted by aleazk

I don't quite agree with this. Music is an art, but it has technical things too. I consider that some technical exercises are useful.
When I was learning the piano, I spent a fraction of my practising time in doing purely technical exercises. They are exercises, their unique end is the perfectioning of some skill.

Those counterpoint exercises can be very useful, because you learn to write it fluently. I remember when i first started with counter point it gave me a headache because i had to think every note&interval very carefully, but now i am a lot faster&fluent etc... But i am still very bad compared to pro composers.

Originally Posted by aleazk

I don't quite agree with this. Music is an art, but it has technical things too. I consider that some technical exercises are useful.
When I was learning the piano, I spent a fraction of my practising time in doing purely technical exercises. They are exercises, their unique end is the perfectioning of some skill.

I agree that one should use technical (uh) techniques to support artistic aims and that they are important, but I am opining it is no use avoiding parallel fifths, using amazing harmony etc. if you're just going to write an awful piece: they are of secondary consideration to trying to write a good piece of music.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Marchant

That's a perfectly valid stance to adopt, in my view. However, I would point out that, if you have two different objectives - (a) learn and grow, (b) create a work of art, whixh are not the same thing, you'll find it much harder to satisfy both and, therefore, to progress to your satisfaction. You could be easy on yourself and just set your objective as learning and improving. After all, if you're learning the piano, and you practise your scales, is that a performance? Really? Does it have to be?

I suppose what I mean is that when doing counterpoint, I want to learn not only which progressions are bad but which ones are good, and also there are some which are allowed but don't sound great. Obviously this can be taken too far - not to agonise over them like a symphony - but I found by taking this attitude that I could learn about texture and melody as well in doing counterpoint, and it helped me try to avoid lesser evils (hidden octaves etc.) rather than just letting them pass.

Technical exercises are not art. Definately not art.
Guitarists play 120 exercises for the right hand of Giuliani and the exercises consist of a V-I cadence and nothing else, but practicing them for an hour a day is a miraculous cure for all right hand problems.
Ask any pianist if they consider Hanon's exercises as a work of art. I bet they don't.
Having played both of them I can say that exercises are not art and even attempting to fusion art and technique at such a primitive level of pure technical exercises is going to result in a complete failure.

I am so sorry I misread your post. I thought you were talking about technical and not compositional exercises.
My apologies.
I think now is the right time for me to shut up.

What is art?

Originally Posted by Krisena

What is art?

The Encyclopædia Britannica Online defines art as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others"

I was arguing that putting more effort into exercises, specifically attempting to explore some of the potential uses of the things being practiced, is a more helpful way of doing things. I am going to assume you are being cynical, but I'm sure there are plenty of other people here who will argue with you more effectively about aesthetics than me, and so I will leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Ramako

The Encyclopædia Britannica Online defines art as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others"

And a dozen other encyclopedias give different definitions. :/

Originally Posted by Ramako

I was arguing that putting more effort into exercises, specifically attempting to explore some of the potential uses of the things being practiced, is a more helpful way of doing things. I am going to assume you are being cynical, but I'm sure there are plenty of other people here who will argue with you more effectively about aesthetics than me, and so I will leave it at that.

I think I agree! I read an interview with a living composer a while ago where he adviced aspiring composers to write lot's of detailed smaller pieces with a healthy dose of longer pieces without much detail in-between. Smaller pieces will develop your attention to detail while still being able to practice different styles because you can write many of them, while those long pieces will train your ability to think in long lines and make coherency out of big forms. Fleshing out the long pieces is a waste of time, unless it's a serious piece, because the experience you get from it is more efficiently practiced with smaller pieces. At least that's what he said. I think it's sound advice, personally.

Originally Posted by Krisena

And a dozen other encyclopedias give different definitions. :/

Well, I am a pedant by nature, not desire. I just copied the first thing from wiki.

Originally Posted by Krisena

I think I agree! I read an interview with a living composer a while ago where he adviced aspiring composers to write lot's of detailed smaller pieces with a healthy dose of longer pieces without much detail in-between. Smaller pieces will develop your attention to detail while still being able to practice different styles because you can write many of them, while those long pieces will train your ability to think in long lines and make coherency out of big forms. Fleshing out the long pieces is a waste of time, unless it's a serious piece, because the experience you get from it is more efficiently practiced with smaller pieces. At least that's what he said. I think it's sound advice, personally.

Thank you! The purpose of making this thread was to share some ideas on how to improve composition. This does seem a good idea.

I have now been doing counterpoint exercises for months and think they are very useful. I am almost ready to progress to fugue.

I learnt a lot about melodic organisation while studying at Uni. Knowing how to write several melodic fragments and lines which can be given to any part (soprano, alto, tenor, bass) in any combination (eg. double/triple counterpoint) is incredibly useful. What you learn through practice is entirely technical, but after making "soulless" skills second nature in your writing it becomes easier to get ideas out of your head and onto paper with little compromise.