Arianna Bailey

I don't think there's a right or wrong process. It's not as though what you're building requires a specific process such as a piece of architecture. So long as you wind up with something decent, how you got there doesn't matter. When I write music I generally write it in the same way you might write a research paper. The process involves about 35% study, 20% research, and 30% brainstorming and maybe 15% writing actual drafts. When you write music this way, the first three questions you might ask yourself is "What is my score trying to accomplish - what are some good examples of some songs that accomplish this fairly well - What is it about these songs that make them work?" You might also ask what era the music is trying to depict if any or what kind of culture might have spawned this kind of material. Basically, you can use this as the basis to transcribe and examine, and write down chord progressions, techniques, and ideas. You'll end up with a strange mix of influences and ideas that you can use as a foundation. From here, it's just a matter of coming up with a strategy to string them together coherently.

There are a number of different chord progressions and musical devices that are used over and over in all kinds and types of music. This is part of writing and theory. I've never unintentionally written a phrase or motif that was so specific and elaborate that it could be narrowed down to a specific song. At that point, I think you'd usually know right away.

This is a sort of strange question. It's almost like asking if you will one day exhaust your capacity to feel emotion. Creativity is pretty regenerative. I don't think you can bankrupt you supply indefinitely as much as you might just exhaust yourself.

Anything can be called a fad because nothing lasts forever. I enjoyed listening to Gangnam style. It provides some pretty clever social commentary without feeling the need to be pretentious about it. Its fun and catchy dance music not meant to be taken too seriously. If your criticism of the song is pretty much that it seems superficial, just know that it also seems pretty self aware of this.

Generally the answer is good combination of cultural significance and universal appeal. Some of the most critically acclaimed music becomes engrained in history not just because their material is particularly good, but because it best represents the attitudes and values of the era it was written. If you look back at any jazz standard, the 60s counter-culture era, or any classical period, you'll find music that resonates with people from those times - and that's significant because it tells us of the hopes/dreams/values/aspirations of the period. That's why we value and remember it.

Sometimes in order to become a better composer, you have to spend more time listening to good music than you do composing - just so long as you're "listening" to the music, absorbing what you're hearing, and applying it, and not just enjoying the music. For this reason, I don't think you can seperate the process of listening to music to the process of writing it too much. Some songs do have a mind of their own. They don't always want to be finished right away. I've revisited material that I originally wrote nearly half a decade ago before. Its only when you try to force it does bad material happen, and it's not worth writing bad material just so you can get pieces done sooner.

I think if you're a decent composer, your material should be a very intimate account of who you are as a person. You will probably never be able to tell what a composer's favorite color might be just by listening to their music, but you should get a strong idea of how they perceive the world around them. For example, if you ask me to write a very heroic song, I will write something that bears witness to what I think heroism is. You'll probably hear music that will bounce back and forth between melancholy, audacity, and hopefulness because I think courage has to do with being bold enough to face your deepest fears. If you think bravery is fighting a whole bunch of thugs at once or something, you might write something that is forceful, strong, and a bit audacious as well.

@Austenite I wouldn't go that far. It depends on what you want to compose. I don't think it's realistic for even seasoned professional to make a living solely on composition work ( A lot of people do mixing, rent out their studio, sound design, and etcetera ), but the work is out there for composition. Without knowing an instrument, finding a good teacher has become a bit challenging, though. @Phil A google search wouldn't have given me the answer siwi did. Sometimes it's worth it to hear someone's point of view. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Furthermore: "It's a little irking when I'm working my donkey off towards starting my own career and someone prances along trying to do what I want to do, though clearly putting 1/100th of the effort in." Was that called for? With all due respect, you don't know me. It sounds like you're trolling.

Thanks, siwi. That puts a lot into perspective. I already work in marketing/branding/entertainment so I don't intend to leave that industry. I'll probably maintain commercial work and won't be working as classical musician. You can say my relationship with music is weird this way. A lot of musicians learn music by using their instrument as the foundation to how they learn theory. I tended to gravitate towards computers/software and eventually sound programming. I studied theory and composition without an instrument because I didn't feel like I needed to. Now that's starting to bite me in the donkey as I look for teachers. I appreciate your input, it was very insightful!

Thanks? I'm talking more along the lines of whether or not it's realistic to pursue a music major with just a portfolio, or whether or not I should probably go back and focus more time and energy on performance. I guess I'm sorry I asked :longface:.

I've practiced composition since I was about 13 years old on my computer, but I only just took up playing an instrument seriously a few months ago. I've decided that I wanted to be a career musician and sound designer, but most of the composition programs I've seen require an audition of an instrument during admissions. I'm nearly 24 years old right now and I'm attending a community college with hopes to later transfer to a music college on a composition major. Have I just missed the boat here? I was never too interested in performing but I always made time to write. Is it impossible to be a career composer if composing is in fact the only thing you know how to do?