Leaderboard

Well the issue of teaching composition is very, very complicated and it varies greatly from case to case. So, my outlook is going to be unfortunately generalized when in reality a set of case studies would be required to really point out all the nuances. In any case, I think that first of all it's a mistake to say composition can be "taught" or that one "teaches" composition because there is no curriculum that can be set considering all the thousands of variables. There isn't "things you have to know" that relate to anything, even technique or instrument handling. This is to leave those "tradition" things out in their respective categories, rather than mixing them with composition. The reason is, the moment you're talking about artistic freedom regardless to which degree, you have to allow questioning everything and build a space where that is both OK and encouraged. Actively searching for individual answers to the questions that come up ("Violin or garbage truck??") is a really important part of any composition/creative process. Second, in light of this, the work a teacher must do is similar to that of a good psychologist or a therapist. They'll listen to you, see what you're saying, try to help in some way they. What "helping" means here is as variable as the content you can deal with, which can be having arguments about aesthetics or looking over other composers' scores to commenting on the newest pop phenomenon or a movie (or personal issues, if the relationship is good.) This is also why so many people are completely unfit to be composition teachers in spite of their technical education; they simply don't have the mindset you need to have (that of a therapist or a psychologist.) So really, anyone going to "study composition" really should be aware that what they'll get out of it is going to depend directly on themselves and who they're dealing with and how good that person is in the role of a psychological/emotional support. It goes without saying this is only added to the already obvious technical background a teacher needs to have (which is already a crazy requirement by itself.) And, of course, ignorance of these aspects will lead to problems down the road (or instantly, as the case may be.) Composition and playing an instrument even if both are taught alongside eachother are totally and entirely different things and this is also something people need to be aware of. Both in teaching and in seeking education the point is that education in both is and must be different for the reasons mentioned above. A composer is more an architect, an instrumentalist is the "grunt work" to get it done (and has to be trained like any physically demanding activity needs to be trained, the requirements are set out by the needs of what needs to be accomplished.) But while an architect has rules they have to follow for their building to not fall to pieces, composition (and arts) can take the liberty to dismiss and/or make up rules arbitrarily. Obviously, here a valid comparison between the composer and the instrumentalist can be drawn since both need to "get used" to their tasks. While it may sound good on paper that you can "do whatever," the truth is that there's nothing harder than having to deal with every single element and put everything in question. It can take a while to get used to it, just like it will take a while until the pianist's fingers are used to playing scales and octaves. Both require practice. Just what that practice is though, is exactly the main difference that makes the approaches to teaching/studying these things so very different. "Practice" for a pianist may be playing a particular repertoire, scales of all sorts, finger exercises, etc. While for a composer "practice" is the actual intellectual exercise that can only be practiced by actually composing and actively exercising that intellectual capacity. That's why even though a teacher has no particular "curriculum" they have to teach, they should have still a plan that is based on various factors. One of which is really how much is the student really exercising their intellect and how much they're actually thinking about what they're doing. Thinking should really be the keyword here, as that is what makes all the difference. Ultimately the goal of all this is to teach the student to do things because they actually want to, rather than because they can't do anything else. The inability to do anything else can creep in even if a person is technically knowledgeable. The point is not simply knowledge, but also the capacity for adopting multiple view points different from their own and learn to look at things from different angles in spite of their personal opinion which can also be influenced by which angles they choose to view something through; hence the importance of this as a strategy. The questions that composition as a process tackles by default are not easy, and overlooking them is what most do by instinct. After all if you just sat for weeks, months and years and didn't write anything because you were unsure if you would REALLY liked it or not is defeating the purpose and like I said before, you don't get any practice by doing this. However, the measure by which you think vs what you settle down to write is of course variable and in these instances a teacher would come in handy. A second person may perhaps see where maybe you'd be wasting time for no reason or where you need to be more active and actually write things. But yeah, before this gets TOO long, there's really no replacement for having hands on experience with the matter since even the best guide can't prepare anyone for all the different things that can (and will) happen. -- Edit: I'm going to probably make a separate post to address the crap that has been said already, but right now I didn't feel like doing that so there you go. Pshaw wikipedia is more accurate than learning at a goddamn university. Probably if the university is a piece of scraggy, sure.