Performance

[Marco Raaphorst]

If you are creating a performance, a recording, you are focussing on how it sounds. You might think of notes, of chords, of rhythm, on pathes, on compression, but mostly you are concerned about the result: how it sounds.
Composition used to be thinking about notes and harmonies. But who's composing now without thinking about sound?
It's all form, it's all sound.

[selig]

If you are creating a performance, a recording, you are focussing on how it sounds. You might think of notes, of chords, of rhythm, on pathes, on compression, but mostly you are concerned about the result: how it sounds.
Composition used to be thinking about notes and harmonies. But who's composing now without thinking about sound?
It's all form, it's all sound.

Not sure I follow…sometimes I write sketches on piano without thinking of sound (unless I’m writing FOR piano). But the moment I begin arranging, which 99% of the time is when I’m writing, I’m thinking of sound.

I would suggest that composers have pretty much ALWAYS thought of sound when composing. Classical composers were always searching for new instrument combinations that created new “sounds”.

The idea of unisono (unison) is one example, which can be used to create different tone colors by combining different instruments in unison or octaves to create an effect that is greater than the sum of the parts (hey, what happens when flutes and violins play the exact same melody line?).

Then there is the advancement in techniques that produced new sounds from existing instruments over the years.

All to say, as far as I’m aware composers have always thought about sound when composing in most cases, in addition to melody/harmony/rhythm and of course emotion.

So yes, how it sounds is important (as is how it feels), and the melody, the harmony, and the orchestration all contribute to the final result.

Marco, have you never hummed a melody with no regard for what instrument might eventually end up playing it (assuming it worthy of pursuing)?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Marco Raaphorst]

Not sure I follow…sometimes I write sketches on piano without thinking of sound (unless I’m writing FOR piano). But the moment I begin arranging, which 99% of the time is when I’m writing, I’m thinking of sound.

I would suggest that composers have pretty much ALWAYS thought of sound when composing. Classical composers were always searching for new instrument combinations that created new “sounds”.

The idea of unisono (unison) is one example, which can be used to create different tone colors by combining different instruments in unison or octaves to create an effect that is greater than the sum of the parts (hey, what happens when flutes and violins play the exact same melody line?).

Then there is the advancement in techniques that produced new sounds from existing instruments over the years.

All to say, as far as I’m aware composers have always thought about sound when composing in most cases, in addition to melody/harmony/rhythm and of course emotion.

So yes, how it sounds is important (as is how it feels), and the melody, the harmony, and the orchestration all contribute to the final result.

Marco, have you never hummed a melody with no regard for what instrument might eventually end up playing it (assuming it worthy of pursuing)?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Yes I can totally relate to that. Most composing is done while thinking about sound, playing an instrument or singing. All methods for generating sound. I guess you can't even compose without creating sound. Even in your own head you are imagining sound.