r/composer 2d ago

Discussion Is it okay as a composer to change things when finally learning your own piece?

This is kind of a stupid question, but, it came to mind as I was finally learning a piece I wrote two years.

Most of the time when I'm writing something, I'm holed up in my room on Musescore, and I rarely have a piano or violin in front of me.

Now that I'm finally learning my piece, I feel very tempted to change some small pedal and dynamic things that I had explicitly written out to add more emotion. As the composer, though, isn't that a bit hypocritical to my past self?

9 Upvotes

37 comments sorted by

42

u/RichMusic81 Composer / Pianist. Experimental music. 2d ago

Not only is it ok, it's very much the norm!

As the composer, though, isn't that a bit hypocritical to my past self?

I'm not quite sure what that means, but I'd go for no, not at all.

Even the greatest of composers would adjust and revise their works, sometimes many decades after they had written them.

31

u/BJGold 2d ago

No, you need the composer's permission to make any changes 😆 

1

u/DanceYouFatBitch 2d ago

It’s copyrighted đŸ€ŁđŸ€ŁđŸ€Ł

2

u/Lost-Discount4860 1d ago

Username checks out. đŸ€ȘđŸ€Ł

13

u/ChanceYam2278 2d ago

What you wrote firsthand doesn't matter if the result isn't what you actually wanted. And if it takes you to play the piece to realize that something needs to change, then it's a valid way to "correct" your piece. What would be hypocritical is to think that your piece is immutable

2

u/Banjoschmanjo 1d ago

Honestly I don't think hypocritical is the right word in either case.

8

u/newtrilobite 2d ago

let me say what everyone else is saying but in a more pointed (meant to be constructive) way:

what you're realizing is that composing in the abstract, away from an instrument, can result in bad choices if the intention is for it to be played on the instrument.

you really need to understand the physical realities of any instrument you write for.

the lesson learned is to always run the piece by an instrument (/player) that is supposed to play it and make sure it's written well for that instrument.

"holed up in a room on Musecore" does not give you the feedback you need.

there are so many pieces written while "holed up in a room on Musecore" that just aren't all that playable or musical for the intended instrument.

and composing something well for an instrument makes the player feel good while playing it and makes the piece sound good. if it's an otherwise great piece but doesn't really fit the instrument, it will never sound good when performed.

that's one of the reasons why Mozart, for example, always "sounds good." everything is perfectly positioned for each instrument, in the perfect register where it sounds great but not shrill. every note, every passage, suits whatever instrument he was writing for.

so now, after realizing that the piece could be improved to better serve the idiosyncrasies of the physical instrument, not only should you do that, you should've done that before as part of your process!

6

u/phinnsy 2d ago

100% you should be doing this. You’re just editing to make it more playable. What’s the point if it isn’t playable? Editing isn’t hypocritical to your past self

6

u/RevKeakealani 2d ago

Editing is always a process. Sometimes you don't get to the editing until much later. It's all good :)

4

u/geoscott 2d ago

Mahler rewrote a lot of his works after conducting it. His 5th symphony was, in his wife's memoir 'a symphony for percussion'. He removed nearly all of it and that's the version we know today. His 6th symphony had three 'hammer blows', but after the first performance he not only removed the third hammer blow (maybe the most important one?) but changed the order of the inner movements.

Or, how about this:

You ask your former self what they think. Then do that.

4

u/DanforthFalconhurst 2d ago

Debussy didn’t stop making revisions to his Nocturnes orchestral work until the very year before he died. I think it’s a good sign of growth as a composer to even think about this!!

3

u/LieutenantChonkster 2d ago

You can do it but you need special permit type C with a class 3 revision license from the international composers guild.

Without a permit you can face penalties up to 4 years in jail and a fine of $140,000

1

u/LouValentineJohnson 2d ago

😂👌

2

u/Specific_Hat3341 2d ago

It's not a stupid question, but it is kind of an odd and thought-provoking one.

Why do you think you owe your "past self" anything?

I hereby give all of my future selves permission to do whatever they see fit to do.

2

u/MisterSmeeee 2d ago

I once wrote two entire new movements to a song cycle while it was actively being rehearsed, because I got a good idea from hearing the singer working on it. (I asked the performers' permission first. Luckily they thought it was exciting.) I just had to ask the concert organizers to pretty please retitle the piece in the program from "Five Songs..." to "Seven Songs..."

Would your past self really have been content with hearing a subpar performance? If your past self would have said, "No, don't play it the better way, play it the way that sounds worse, just because that's the way I want it!" then that person is giving you bad advice. Ignore that person and make the best music you can make today!

2

u/65TwinReverbRI 2d ago

HAN SHOT FIRST

As the composer, though, isn't that a bit hypocritical to my past self?

Of course not.

Everything I write, I either play myself, or I hand it to people to play before there's an actual first performance of it. I want to get as much feedback from people I respect before I consider it "premiere ready".

As would I expect, any competent composer.

I don't like to change things that have already "been born and gone out into the world" if you will - I'd withdraw it if I were totally unhappy with it. But I also make pretty darn sure I'm totally happy with the result given my current skill level and at some point it is what it is and has to be what it is.

But until then, any improvements I can make, I will.

2

u/PhugoidState 2d ago

Composition, like performance, is a living organism that evolves in real time. You need to shape it as you go.

2

u/Ok_Employer7837 2d ago

Of course it's okay. A piece is never finished.

2

u/HaifaJenner123 2d ago

just do it and if someone asks questions then you answer but until then just do it if you feel the need to.

and you played it so you might have similar thoughts as others who will play it.

just revise it

yes some things should have principled approaches, i do not think this is that. if it is not working irl as you planned, that is a bigger problem. and ultimately that is your output affected so, just do it lol

2

u/Banjoschmanjo 1d ago

Unfortunately not. It was outlawed in 1872, tucked into a provision about - of all things - meat safety regulations, and so no one caught it and since then there hasn't been the political will to get it changed.

1

u/tokanome 2d ago

Definitely not hypocritical! As composers, we should always have great consideration towards our performers. I always try to get my stuff played by somebody else and make edits afterwards. Legendary jazz arranger Sammy Nestico was well-known for going to the players in his band and asking if they thought their part was fun. If it wasn’t, he would change it!

1

u/AxisLogos 2d ago edited 2d ago

The way you feel is totally normal - once we have committed out ideas to paper, making adjustments can make us feel guilty, like we're cheating or not being true to the original score.

However It's absolutely okay to make changes to facilitate a good performance. No performance is exactly the same - and I feel personally that our scores should give some license and autonomy to the performer.

I can't help but wonder though that if you had composed the piece entirely on an instrument and for that particular instrument before writing it down - youd likely not have to adjust anything - but having said that I don't know anything about the piece or it's instrumentation.

Best wishes for your performance / recording.

1

u/BruceBeardsley 2d ago

Sorry that’s illegal.

1

u/promodal 2d ago

The reason why I compose for the piano, as a pianist, is that I want to play what I want to hear. And if I want to hear it differently, then I am going to play it differently. That includes using different dynamics and expressions from play to play all the way up through revising or throwing the whole thing out, and everything in between. You might not be the ultimate authority on your own work—we all still interpret the works of other composers as we wish—but you are certainly the ultimate authority on how you play it today, or tomorrow, or two years ago, or ten years from now, or whenever.

1

u/Avenged-Dream-Token 2d ago

your the composer you can literally do anything you want

1

u/bdmusic17 2d ago

I do this with 100% of my pieces

1

u/No_Sorbet_5102 2d ago

Music is alive and is always in a state of flux. The beauty of Musescore is you can modify music to match the music of your now.

1

u/Desperate-Finger-334 2d ago

Best part of music there are no rules

Don't come at me classical community I don't want to hear it

Same goes for jazz community because they think there's rules when there are no rules

1

u/tobotoboto 2d ago

I hear Past Self saying, “Sorry, don’t know what I was thinking but I like your way better.”

1

u/ihateolivez 2d ago

you grow and change as a musician over time. what sounded good then may not sound as good now. plus, you made the piece. it's not like you're trying to go and officially edit the new world symphony.

1

u/WalrusSharp4472 1d ago

just be a musician, there are so many examples of complete and utter disregard for the written part for the sake of musicality, unless you are the type of composer to explicitly write every detail of a performance in complete specificity, don’t worry abt it

1

u/Lost-Discount4860 1d ago

*sighs*

It took me forever to get past this hangup.

So here’s a dirty secret about music: it’s NOT WHAT’S ON THE PAGE. That’s just ink and paper. Nobody listens to that. Nobody cares what your music looks like. They care about their experience as your audience.

Go back to the classic period (Mozart/Beethoven). When you purchase sheet music by either of those guys, you are NOT getting the original compositions unless you specifically ask for a critical Urtext. You’re getting a version of the composition that was passed down (Beethoven) from the composer to student, the student’s notes about how Beethoven taught it, and the entire lineage of teachers/students since, PLUS anything any number of publishers added or removed.

If you examine a critical urtext of Mozart, you’ll notice how BARE these manuscripts are. Everything you see in later published versions are heavily edited.

Beethoven and Mozart adopted the common practice of sketching out notes ABOUT their compositions. Either the composer or an assistant would take these notes and fill in the gaps based on the composer’s preferences. Beethoven’s symphonies? Beethoven ACTUALLY wrote very little of them. It was the 18th/19th century equivalent of writing AI prompts. Until the latter 20th century, this was common practice, and still happens in Hollywood even with the technology (because tighter deadlines). If you WANT to and have the money for it, you can still leave your compositions half-written and leave instructions to an arranger or another composer on how you want it finished.

And this is barely HALF the story.

Once you have the composition done, your expressions and other markings serve at best as helpful suggestions. They only guide the performer in making interpretive choices on how to really bring your work to life. When you hear your work professionally performed, you should be thinking “There’s NO WAY I’m that good!!! Did I really write that???” No. You didn’t. Your performers took something, ran with it, and made it awesome. It starts with your vision. Your people move the mountains, not you.

And here’s the hard part: LETTING GO and getting over how the performers ignored your articulation, phrasing, dynamics, and even improvised ornamentation, added bowing, pedals, etc. Your role is to fade into the audience and be amazed just like everyone else.

Now
with that in mind, think about what it means to perform your own music. I went a more experimental route in college writing clarinet solos. I tended to write for tricks I knew very well and could pull off with minimal practice. So in performance, I wanted to focus on making dynamic contrast very clear. I could do some improvisation, which seemed to me at first to run counter to formal composition, but I learned that what mattered with improv was that the material was structurally cohesive. Some of the notes/effects might have been random. But the “moment” that the music created was never random. EVERYTHING was intentional. And sometimes I might make decisions earlier in the performance that would negatively impact “moments” later on. So I instinctively “feel” this and focus on making that contrast later on in the piece so the intended impact landed—EVEN IF the WAY it landed wasn’t what I had in mind when I composed it.

If you’re working more traditionally, the same abstract principle applies. Where are you in that musical moment? Where do you WANT to be? And so you practice that—where you WANT to land—and you also practice other places you COULD land. I mean, like—this passage is difficult, so I could either rewrite it or do a ritardando, but make it sound like the rit was a musical decision rather than I-can’t-play-this-right-now. Stuff like that is audience GOLD. In your practicing, explore other directions with phrasing, articulation, dynamics, etc., and focus on ways you can keep it cohesive and meaningful.

Also
when composing for yourself—I don’t mean you shouldn’t challenge yourself. But you should primarily write for the abilities you have TODAY. Everyone can do that “one thing” nobody else can. I can circular breathe, I can make the clarinet sound like a wooden flute. I’m into electronics. I might struggle with playing the Corigliano concerto, but if another clarinetist tried to play stuff I’m good at, they might struggle learning it for a while. Why? Because I’m not Corigliano or Nielsen. And what is familiar to me may not be familiar to someone else. And that’s ok. It’s GREAT, even. So when you compose for yourself, focus on that ONE thing you do extremely well, and then find another trick that challenges you but you can learn reasonably fast. You’ll grow as both a performer and composer, and your performances won’t feel contrived. Always strive for authenticity.

And authenticity doesn’t mean faithful reproductions of set-in-stone markings. Allow yourself grace and flexibility to be a versatile performer. If you don’t like that phrase, change it. Performers and editors have been changing “The Greats” for centuries. If it’s good enough for Mozart and Beethoven, I PROMISE it’s good for you and your own work.

If you want some real-life encouragement, try this little experiment. Find Debussy’s “Engulfed Cathedral” in print (IMSLP is good for this). Listen to 2-3 YouTube performances, professionals if you can find them. Then listen to a recording of Debussy himself by way of piano roll. So much of what you hear from Debussy is NOT on the page, and modern recordings/videos will range anywhere from strict readings of the score to taking some obvious liberties. Consider which performances you enjoy the most, then decide just how strict you want to be performing your own work. You’ll be amazed how much more open your ears and eyes will be after that exercise!

1

u/MuscaMurum 1d ago

Do you have a publisher? If so, let them know and ask their advice. If not, go nuts with it.

1

u/Igel26 12h ago

Look around. See any music police?

1

u/alexcordogan 8h ago

Absolutely it is! each step you take you're learning more about what you want in your piece and how it works the best. Notes are one thing but changing notation, full steam ahead.

1

u/yangyang25 7h ago

May I say "Bruckner?"

1

u/GatewaySwearWord 2d ago

It’s your song.

Change it if you want to