Re: What do you think is necessary in order to have an excellentcomposition?

[kkissinger@kevinkissinger.com]

Quoting Richard Sales <richard@glasswing.com>:

> It's good to know the rules, like Picasso or Michaelangelo or Mozart or
>  Coltrane or Charles Ives... but then it's good to throw them at the
> wall when they get in the way.  I tend to like the music of folks who
> know the rules - from folk art skank delta blues rules to Bach - and
> then walk over them.

Great post!

I tend to do the opposite.  I don't worry about "the rules" at all  
when I compose.  To work with Cubase really liberates me from the  
score and I can do things by ear.  However, when I encounter a  
"problem", say an awkward passage or a progression that just doesn't  
"sound" the way I want it to, the "rules" are there to help me find a  
solution.

(This was a tough journey from the time I graduated.  I had to  
'liberate' myself from the expectation that every new work had to be  
something completely 'new' ... or as I would say, 'novel'.)

I marvel at people like Frank Zappa who wrote orchestral compositions  
(that would be graduate level work) without ever getting formal  
training.  And, heck... Mozart reportedly wrote a symphony at age  
four!  Since I am not a genius, the training in theory, harmony, and  
form has enabled me to write music that is much better than what I was  
writing before I got the training.

Actually, what we call "rules" I view as "tools".  Or perhaps, "tools  
of the trade".   Thus, I utilize voice-leading, harmony, texture, and  
other techniques to serve my music without feeling like a slave to  
"the rules".