A question of accompaniment
One of the problems we face as composers is that sometimes our technical ability as performers too strongly informs our composition. In the realm of song writing todays accompaniments tend to be very uniform in nature that is very similar. This is because song writers, even successful ones, are not encouraged to create anything more then a melody and a simple chord accompaniment. One reason for this is that advent of the professional studio musicians and producers who can transform bare bones lead sheets into a fully arranged and accompanied songs. It is the studio musicians job is to improvise, read charts (or some of both) to create a finished musical accompaniment to a song in the desired style. The producer picks the musicians or creates the arrangement or remix themselves using electronic instruments and computers etc.
In the theater, there is a precedence for the composer not composing their own accompaniments That is, being separate from the arranger. Because of time, composers rarely orchestrated their own works for the stage (even Bernstein), so accompaniments were to some extent the work of others. This used to be the job of orchestrators and arrangers. As this is no longer the case it should not be surprising that song accompaniments have become much less interesting, especially if one does not have access to studio musicians.
Counter melody and the “fill”
Besides basic style production which includes Instrumentation, vocals and backup vocals, counter melodies and fills are what arrangements are all about. Popular music at this time doesn’t use counter melodies all that often except for classical, some Broadway, and the so called “art rock” 1970’s 1980’s. A counter melody can also be a strong riff or ostinoto, separate from the bass or melody that repeats throughout a song. The guitar part in the Stones “Satisfaction” for example. All songs have fills of one kind or another, bass, drum, keyboard, guitar etc. Fills usually lead to downbeats and go with the rhythm. If a fill is too constant and breaks the rhythm it is too busy. The classic example of the too busy bass is the bass line of Melonie’s “Candles in the rain.” On the other hand one might ask can a hit song be wrong? Listen for the minor bass fills against major chords in Bette Midlers Friends. Anyway, Jack Bruce and Paul McCartney were experts at filling, placing major 9nths and 6ths just right. Ringo Starr’s drum fills are widely imitated and sampled. Florid melizmas are the character of vocal fills. Too many fills of the same type can get dull in a hurry. Listen widely, chose well.
The Transition
Nothing is more the purview of a composer then the transition.
Though melody and accompaniment or common to all musical styles, the transition is not. It does not lend itself easily to inspiration even though Brahms transitions can be the most beautiful sounding part of his work. A transition is a musical construction that is designed to fit between sections so that the change between them is smooth. They can be very short or a section to itself.
Songwriters don’t need them, music theater types tend to make them very short and use harmony almost exclusively. In theater stage action effects time so sometimes a transposition or key change will do.
Since most compositions are different each transition will also depend on the materials at hand. The simplest way would be to use some of the old section’s musical materials, transformed, to overlap into the transition and then into the new section. This creates continuity. In vocal music transitions can also depend on the text or the vocal form; aria, song, ABA etc. In instrumental music it is all design.
How are fills and transitions different?
One can certainly hear some “fills” in Mozart. It is not a new idea to embellish a composition with attractive details. These ideas are related in that both the fill and the transition are composed, both are used between sections. But the fill only effects an instrument or two and the transition effects everything. Also, the fill is usually created by somebody other then you.
Creative or resourceful?
Again and again I read and hear about the need for more “creativity.” How to teach it etc.
Yet on closer look I find that it is not creativity that is desired at all (as creative answers are always difficult or seemingly wrong) but merely resourcefulness. Being resourceful is to be able to synthesize a correct understandable answer to a problem from knowledge and experience. To be creative is to answer correctly, or partially, a problem that has not yet been asked and may not as of yet not be understood. Its no wonder that creative people are not valued. For example, it was creative for the McDonald brothers to invent their fast food restaurant. They were despised by Ray Kroc, who with resourcefulnesses created an empire through them. Creative marketing is not creativity. Creative people invent institutions resourceful people run them. Since we live in a capitalist society a few words on the subject of business may be revealing.
Investors (curators, impresarios) can make the rules.
Since all artists must market themselves one way or another projecting personal “creativity” is a good thing. Yet, being artistically creative can be bad for business because creativity doesn’t always fit the desired profile. Since Vincent Van Gogh is the most valuable artist around, Investors go looking for anyone who might fit his artistic profile. Since his art did not sell in own his day and he was self destructive and acted out, this also becomes part of the required profile. Do we judge books by their cover or what? Ironically, this search tends to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. It creates a lot of career pressure that Van Gogh never had. Art take time to develop and nurture.
For some, creativity in business seems to be nothing more than finding new ways to game the system. For example; Enron. So it seems odd then that business people still persist in forcing a business model on the public schools (which are never used in the private schools that their own children attend).
Resourcefulness is by its very nature safe, creativity can be dangerous.
Its just as true for the arts and the so called “creative” fields. Much work is now being done to remove creativity from the teaching profession, and in the name of creativity itself! Consider the arts. The fact that a profession is “creative” does not automatically make its practitioners so. One would think that all professional composers were creative people. Actually, it depends on the question that a particular composition is supposed to answer. A commission is a question. A composition is the answer to that question. What is the answer? Is it resourceful or creative? Creative visionaries like Varese and Shapey are idolized and then ignored. Resourcefulnesses becomes the currency of the day when familiar answers are the only ones requested and familiar answers the only ones given. You can be artistically unique as long as your part of the team and you don’t interfere with comfort zones. That is, as long as your not unique. Join the club people!
As Emily Peck once wrote; “Everyone parrots be yourself be yourself, what is this precious self anyway?”