Improvising over the semiquaver accompaniment for section B. I was hoping to create a melody I could use. I ended up using the bit at 0:12 (octave jump up from G to G, followed by D) in my comp as it related closely to my original idea 2 in section A.
Category: Comp Reflections
Doing my own ‘Baby Steps’ worksheets (3/11/19)
Experimenting to Attempt Unity
I do realise one major flaw in my baby steps now: there isn’t a way I can connect sections A and B in the piece. I failed to mention to incorporate ideas from A into B and I have seen the consequences of that in my current comp.
Below are 3 different parts in section B of my current draft, with the same (or similar) semiquaver repetitive accompaniment figure in the left hand.
The 1st picture is the original section B, with a new melody, unrelated to section A.
The 2nd picture is idea 1 from section A. The next picture uses fragments/developments of idea 2 from section A in the right hand acting as the melody.
The 4th picture is idea 2 from section A. The next picture shows developments of idea 1 from section A used in section B. I’m currently liking this idea more as it uses idea 1 in a completely different colour to section A, whereas I haven’t done much new with idea 2 when I experimented with it.
Baby steps draft: Reflections on Peer feedback workshop
Peer feedback general points: (all on section B of the piece, mostly structural things)
- More in page 2 to set up the new section (putting the repeated semiquaver sections together?)
- Take advantage of more range of the piano!
- Bring back material from Section A e.g. triplets against the semiquavers
- Texture thins at 47 but waiting for it to come back again
- Think about stuff I don’t need, there are too many changes
- Think about cohesive whole – structure
- Fix up the notation of bar 37
Self-reflection (listening to my comp after a week of not touching it):
Section A seems ok and cohesive, but B seems to keep flicking back and forth unconvincingly . Also too much going on, use less ideas and develop them a but more effectively. Definitely need to scrap unnecessary bits. Below are some corrections I will make in section B particularly (from bar 23).
Baby Steps – Why and How?
In creating these ‘Baby Steps’ I was challenged to explore how best to support students when composing. Composition comprises of both freedom and constraints and it is the teacher’s responsibility to design appropriate, well sequenced tasks that allow encourage composer autonomy. Views on how this looks practically are very much divided. For example, Kratus (1989) advocates limiting tools and materials to make tasks approachable, while Paynter (1992) believes that in doing so, artistic freedom is hindered. (Kaschub, 2009, pp. 55-56). Wiggins and Medvinsky (2013) presents an approach where the composer’s ‘voice’ is honoured and at the core of the creative process. The role of the teacher is to foster student success without asserting their own influence. I have attempted to do so through the boundaries I created.
In section A, students create 2 ideas that complicate and develop as they alternate back and forth, before conforming and coming together. To get students started, they are given notes from the A minor pentatonic scale and make a pitch collection by rolling a die. The ‘chance’ element allows students to have decisions made quickly and not be overwhelmed by choice. This gives students a starting point where they can experiment and change elements at their own discretion. Creativity is encouraged as students experiment with rhythm and have the option of choosing a note that is not from the scale if they roll a 6. Even if students don’t follow what the dice dictates (like pretending to roll a 6 so they can add a different note), this process has actually been successful because it shows that students have experimented, improvised and ultimately made decisions to compose. The point is not using the dice to dictate and create the composition, but using the dice as a starting point for students. Also the terminology I used here is ideas (not motifs or themes) because I don’t know what students will produce! They may start with a motif and build upon it or easily make a full-fledged theme and pick it apart in fragments and build up to their theme. Personally, when applying my baby steps I did it in both directions (I created an idea and took it apart to have material to precede the idea in the composition and then expanded my idea to create material after.) To help students follow this process, I have two templates for students to have the option to both expand and simplify their ideas, depending on where their idea is it.
Section B’s primary focus is the articulation of an ostinato. Similarly to Section A, it incorporates the use of dice and follows the same basic outline of improvising, recording, notating and developing. The aim here is for students to understand that even with repetitive and supposedly simple material, the use of articulation can be very powerful. Students are encouraged to consider these expressive techniques in future compositions.
References:
Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. (2009). Minds on music: Composition for creative and critical thinking. Lanham: R&L Education.
Wiggins, J., & Medvinsky, M. (2013). Scaffolding Student Composers. In Composing our Future: Preparing Music Educators to Teach Composition. Oxford University Press.
Inspiration Behind ‘Baby Steps’ Section B
Section B is inspired by Stravinsky’s Augurs of Spring from The Rite of Spring. In the excerpt below, Stravinsky repeats a one bar idea, but the material does not sound the same at all! Accents are used strategically (not the same place every bar) to create a sense of rhythmic displacement and heightening the feeling of unease. On top of this, other solo material interweaves in and out. Continuing with the element of chance from Section A, students will use a dice to explore the use of articulation in my ‘Baby Steps’.
The Making of ‘Baby Steps’: First Draft (Section A)
My ‘Baby Steps’ task is inspired by Fantasia 2 by James Humberstone (more specifically, the Allegro Moderato e Pesante section)! The way I saw the compositional process of this section is that it starts off with the switching between two small, contrasting ideas (bar 1 and bar 2). As they come back, they develop , expand and build in tension before coming together at bar 14. I will be using this process as a model.
Baby Steps Draft 1:
- Make a pitch collection of notes based on the minor pentatonic scale by rolling a die
1=A, 2=C, 3=D, 4=E, 5=G, 6=your choice (ext: note not from minor pent scale)
215325 = CAGDCG, extra note is Db - Play around with order of notes and improvise until you have material you like. (If you’re indecisive with rhythm, make a code to correspond note values with die numbers. After getting values, you can change it around for easier phrasing)
- Play it over and over
- Notate on Sib (record on phone beforehand in case you forget)
- Make a contrasting idea with the same pitch collection (repeat steps 2-4). You can contrast in pitch range/level, dynamics/expressive techniques, duration, texture, performing media etc. (Make a die code if indecisive.)
- LH part pitch contour is asc. instead of desc, pitch range, dynamics
Feedback from Alex Chilvers:
- The ideas in my draft comp so far are clear! Yay!
- Don’t use metronome marks as indication of getting faster – as a pianist, some variation of ‘accel’ would make more sense.
- It’s important to have a direction and a plan so I should think about the final developed idea.
- I had an idea with rolling dice and the number would dictate which notes to put accents on. It is a bit too much to add this directly to these 16 bars (good thing I didn’t get to this yet!). This could however be a starting point for another section of the piece. It would work well in a different texture – spread it out.
How Far I’ll Go
MUED3603 Composition in Music Education Assessment 1 Reflection
From Draft to Final; the making of the arrangement
The process of getting from Draft 1 of ‘How Far I Go’ to the Final was longer and required more components of thought and detail I didn’t expect. What I envisioned was making sure parts were in appropriate ranges, but by draft 2, there were more issues than that. Here are some annotations from my 2nd draft.
Pedagogical Aspects of the Arrangement
The high school music classroom consists of students of a wide range of musical abilities and experience. My arrangement includes the following parts: melody (to be sung or played by an instrument in concert pitch, Bb, Eb or F), harmony 1 (for concert pitch, Bb, Eb, F, viola), harmony 2 (for concert pitch, Bb, Eb, F, viola), piano, guitar, ukulele, bass line, hi hat+crash symbol and bass drum. I have three versions of the full score: a percussion score, ostinato scores (except the melody part) and detail scores.
In the percussion score, the Orff pedagogical concepts of body percussion and rote learning are combined. Augustyniak (2009) describes rote learning as the “basis of all learning”, as it acquires students with a “music memory from which to choose ideas from when improvising and composing”. Additionally, the kinesthetic process of body percussion influences students’ “creative and artistic abilities” (Augustyniak, 2009, p. 56). Since everything but the melody of ‘How Far I’ll Go’ is based on ostinati, the playing of the song can be preceded by body percussion, taught aurally. All parts but the melody and the piano can be learnt as such before being transferred to instruments as pitched ostinatos, as seen in the body percussion score (above). Here, groups can play their part as follows, while a group sings the melody.
In the ostinato scores, all the parts (except for the melody) repeat the same 8 bars within each section (8 bars for both verses, 8 bars for both pre-choruses etc.), making it appropriate for aural/rote learning and for students who cannot read Western art notation.
The detail scores are very specific and more complicated. They allow for variation in the song include add minor details. The detail scores are designed to be optional for students that can read sheet music and want to contribute to some variety in the music. In a sense, the detail score is optional and does not have to be followed strictly. It instead gives ideas and scaffolds improvisation; it is a resource for students to see an example of how musical material and motifs can be developed and changed. Students may choose to play from the ostinato score, but incorporate elements of variation in an improvisatory manner based on manipulations that they observed in the detail scores. Students may also choose to play from the detail score, using it as a guide or playing exactly as written.
Here is a comparison of both scores, referring specifically to the verses of Harmony 1 in concert pitch.
In the ostinato score (above) there are the same 8 bars, starting from mf with a crescendo in bar 8.
In the detail score (above) there is implied growth in texture, starting from longer sustained notes, developing to notes with more movement. There are also more dynamics within phrases .
Even if students do not use any score at all, it is important to also verbalise musical goals and performance directions to students. “Because Orff often incorporates rote learning and memorization of layered ostinati, it is very easy for teachers to focus on procedural instructions about who plays which part and when, rather than more important musical directives” (Donald, 2011, p. 33).
In addition, the final chorus is a great opportunity for more advanced students. With the quick and more complicated chord changes in the last few bars, students can be challenged and motivated to practice and improve. For students playing the melody parts, there is a section for improvisation after chorus 1, using the chords from the verses. The notes of the chords are provided as cues in the melody part. Students may start by improvising with just the chord tones before experimenting with passing notes.
References:
Augustyniak, S. (2009). From Here to Modernity: Formal to Informal Oral Music Practice and Back Again – the Influences of a Carl Orff Approach. Musicworks: Journal of the Australian Council of Orff Schulwerk, 14(1), 55-59.
Donald, M. T. (2011). Orff Ensembles: Benefits, Challenges, and Solutions. General Music Today 25(3), 31-35.
Melody's Music Tech Blog 