Leaderboard

As my comp prof says occasionally: "Jazz is not pop." He couldn't be more right.

What kind of music do you make? What kind of organization have you worked for as a composer?

I have Bachelor of Music and Master of Music degrees from Royal Holloway, University of London (note: U. of London is a bit like OxBridge in that the 'university' is a collective of several colleges, each with different combinations of courses available. RoHo is more of an arts and humanities college, hence a strong music department. It's also not, geographically speaking, in London). Both degrees are not specifically in composition: the BMus is a general course in which I elected to do composition, performance and a dissertation as my Honours modules, and the Mmus was half composition and half performance (unusually for a postgrad degree, the course had elective modules with a small compulsory course). However, the level of tuition I received is equivalent to an art music composition degree, something which I am unsure is actually offered in any UK institution. The rest of my studies are also indispensable to a composer. I intend to do a doctorate in composition in the future. I also have a Diploma of the Royal Schools of Music in cello performance. As my performance experience is the better part of my compositional training, I regard this as a qualification in this field. We neglect in this poll to acknowledge the benefits of countless hours spent rehearsing, performing, messing about, practising and listening to music. These are also an invaluable part of my compositional education. I maintain that being able to perform is a large part of being able to compose, as nothing else can teach you about the capabilities of real musicians as being one yourself. In addition, it is a very good way to find out the mechanics of writing and how composers do things to create a certain effect. What styles do I like to compose in? - my own. Not a flippant response, I hope, but I don't like to divide the world into 'schools' or position myself as belonging to a particular direction. I take ideas from Janacek, Sibelius, Thomas Ades, James MacMillan, Elgar, Nielsen, Bach, Bartok and Lutoslawski (those are the ones I am aware of ) but I try to avoid sounding like a pot-pourri of existing music. That said, I actively seek out music that is unfamiliar to me to get new ideas. Things that interest me in my own and others' music are concealed subtleties - symbolism, clever games, tricks -; interesting and individual orchestration; novel harmonies; and ensuring every aspect of the composition is used to a worthwhile effect. It is important to me that music actually means something. What do I like to compose for? - ideally the orchestra, be that that a chamber ensemble or a full symphony orchestra. I love orchestration and with the large ensemble many more things become possible. What I regard as my best work to date is an orchestral piece. But I also like to try out chamber groupings, often with more unusual combinations of players. I sometimes write for a single-line instrument, unaccompanied, which requires a very disciplined and inspired approach to write well with such a small resource. I seem to compose for choral groups quite a bit, although I find certain aspects of the vocal ensemble frustrating; the more limited range and technical abilities compared to instruments; the need to find pitches; the process of fitting the music to a text. I don't think I enjoy the sound of a choir as much either. Solo vocal music is a little different as one can combine voice and instruments, which produces more interesting effects.

Schoenberg, Webern, Scriabin, PS. Liszt is circus music.

Well, I've read enough books on music theory to sit through a music theory 4 class (for a bachelors program at a college for a weekend thing) without learning anything I didn't already know. I had to restrain myself from correcting the professor as well; he was talking about tuning theory, and he not only claimed that Bach used equal temperament, but got his terminology mixed up as far as commas go. I know less about orchestration, but I'm learning; inter-library loan is an awesome thing. “If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library.” - Frank Zappa

I'm just curious, what do you mean by this?

You'd hope that, as pop music does contain tonal harmony (somewhat less complicated than Bach for the most part, but still), stuff like harmony and writing cadences would still be part of the curriculum, but no. Apart from the fact that far too many students base their worldview on guitar chords, meaning stuff like four-part voice-leading isn't even on their radar (OMG im like the first person ever to discover power chords! Wooo! rock n' ROLL!!!!), pop and jazz gets taught via a 'social' perspective: i.e. the fact that a song influenced/was influenced by the Velvet Underground (everything leads to the Velvet Underground eventually) and influenced a stoner in a North London squat who then invented pscho-trance-punk for a few months in 1979 before dying aged 19 from an overdose, is all waaaaaaay more important than how the chords move into one another, or the interval between bass and melody. Anything even vaguely connected to social rights or politics, or Nirvana, is untouchable and heretics are burned by a mob for uttering a word of dissent against it. It's often rather laughable how some derivitave pop landfill is elevated to the status of some seminal and massively-important-to-your-education monument, yet no proper analysis can be done on it because there's nigh-on nothing to analyse. Three chords, over and over again. Pop and rock is fun to dance to. But it doesn't offer much to study academically. Yet students are increasingly taking these 'soft' options and missing out on dull-but-important things like chorale harmony. This does apply more to the sixth-form, but as first-year undergrads have only just finished the upper sixth, the problem lingers into university. Lecturers are aghast at how much they overestimate what first-years can understand and simply can't teach at a higher level. Some students do work, though, and as you say a lot of the 'chaff' gets weeded out pretty early on. But universities are businesses now, and they don't care too much who comes as long as they pay. The rot seems to be spreading though. I am being utterly truthful when I say that a lecture on 'Gender sterotypes in Missy Elliot's 'Work It' video' was held at Senate House in Bloomsbury last year. This from a serious and prestigous academic institution.