Rivising Old Creations

As some of you may know, tomorrow I am having my composition "Hypnosis" performed at the recital tomorrow at 8pm. The most challenging part about this writing the piece is that when I wrote it to be performed tomorrow, I did not start from scratch--I decided to revise what I had completed back in January. It was performed then too, but since then, I had given this piece a rest as it was in what seemed to be a pretty "final" version at the time. Considering that this is the most I have ever revised one of my pieces (I believe I began writing it in October 2009), much of the music has changed despite the fact that my vision for it has remained the same, and I have acquired many new skills since I began writing it.

Since I wanted to retain my original vision, I realized that I had to retrace the development of the music and reevaluate the reasons behind the choices I made as a composer. For example, many of the melodic lines are designed to run contrapuntally in order to convey how the mind often has multiple trains of thought occurring at once, even at the subconscious level. When I revised the piece, I noticed that some sections were strictly homophonic, which contradicts this idea and hinders the development of the piece. Also, some melodies repeat by moving to other instruments while new ideas are explored on top of that framework. Therefore, when I altered the development of the work, I had to maintain the concept of "recurring thoughts" within each section of the piece. As a result, each section has some aspect that hints at or is reminiscent of earlier themes. (I would not, however, classify the overall work as "theme and variations" sort of piece.)

Part of the reason why I chose to revise this piece is because I believe that it is, so far, the most pivotal work that has defined my voice as a composer. Out of the several compositions that I have created which have also upheld a determined vision, this one reflects how I have been much more meticulous with making sure that the development and character of the piece remains consistent and focused. In addition, I decided to revise it because I aspire to create several more movements of this work, and quite simply, the end of it was repetitive, far too resolved, and banal (oh those lovely authentic cadences!). I also found it ironic that the authentic cadence, which strongly set it in a key, resolved a piece which in the middle began to wander far out of its original key and did not have a well-established tonic in the first place.

One question that I have for you all is, how do you approach revising a piece if your original vision has changed?

Sakari