Pitfalls of Composers

Having lurked around, I've come across what I feared I'd come across, and I have to say I'm quite disappointed.

Since when does the art of writing music rely so heavily upon thumbing through numerous books, copying music to learn new "theories", and using mathematical proceedures to find "interesting" chords and transgressions?

Music is all about feelings; it's about emotions. You write music from your heart, not your knowledge.

I swear, the other day I listened to a song that was composed by a very nice gentlemen, but for the life of me I could not determine much difference between it and one of Bach's, or one of Beethovens. It just...blended with the classical genre way too well for distinction.

I sat in numerous theory classes, and the instructors were always impressing upon the students the "fact" that music is this, music is that, music is not this, ... etc. I happened to disagree. I believe music is whatever you want it to be. It doesn't HAVE to be this or that, it can be anything.

I once played in a small ensemble at a piano concert not too long back. They were all my own compositions. The instrumentation was...weird. It was flute, piano, and bass clarinet. I played the piano part. The flute and bass clarinet player were both my best friends, so I wanted them to play with me, so I wrote a piano solo, a piano/flute duet, and a trio. The concert was a huge success, and I received so many good comments and nice greetings from so many of the audience members, but what hit me the most was when a little girl came up to me, about 6 or 7 years of age, I venture, and she asked me how I played so well.

Oh, lord... what to say. I sat there for a moment, and I could just see my instructor telling the little girl to go pour relentlessly over a said set of books by famous composers until her eyes bled ink, but instead I told her that I play what I feel at the time...she just nodded.

The point is, everybody knows typical concertos and sonatas, solos or symphonies. When people hear the term "orchestra", they think classical, they think "oh, honey, bring my pillow, will you?", - everybody hears it.

Over time I think some people began to lose appreciation for things like that, which is a sad fact. I don't necessarily like listening to classical music of any kind, but I'm not stupid; I KNOW those scores contain a lot of information about composing, but I can tell you - you can learn the same stuff just by sitting down at a piano and discovering mind-blowing techniques that have been used for centuries.

I know that so many people are disagreeing with this, but it is the few of us who believe in what I am saying that concern me at the moment, and those few of you have my blessings.

I'm mostly a self-taught pianist. I took lessons for two years before I gave it up for relentless practice of obsolete methodology. I started playing what I heard instead of reading piano music. It all bored me to death. It was all patterns of chords and tricky meter changes. I wanted something new... something that you could dig into. I wanted something that, when after people heard it, they would continue whistling the melody in their minds.

In my endeavor, I ran across Yanni, one of the most brilliant minds in our musical spectrum today. His music is totally different than any I've ever heard. You can find a lot of his stuff by going to youtube and typing in "Yanni". It's great music, and his writing style is open-minded. He doesn't restrict himself to dull theories and common methods of composition. No, instead he opens his score up to new depths. He writes what he feels and what he hears in his mind. It's brilliant music, I highly recommend it. My particular favorite is "One Man's Dream". For violinists out there, like myself, I recommend his "When the Rain Falls".

I will end this thread with this: If you pour your heart and soul into the music that you write, your music will be as much alive as you are. Don't restrict yourself to "laws" of music and endless theories. Broaden your musical horizon and explore whole new worlds with music.

Music is all about feelings; it's about emotions. You write music from your heart, not your knowledge.

That's your subjective view and may not be everyone's vantage point.

I swear, the other day I listened to a song that was composed by a very nice gentlemen, but for the life of me I could not determine much difference between it and one of Bach's, or one of Beethovens. It just...blended with the classical genre way too well for distinction.

Once again, this is your own subjective view. Just because you have no appreciation for the fine arts doesn't mean that no one else does.

Your rant is very self-centered. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way. I’m merely pointing out that all you are really doing here is suggesting that everyone should view the world from your perspective. I can’t for the life me of understand why you should believe such a thing.

Everyone doesn’t have the same taste in music.

Just because classical music all sounds the same to you doesn’t mean diddly squat.

I KNOW those scores contain a lot of information about composing, but I can tell you - you can learn the same stuff just by sitting down at a piano and discovering mind-blowing techniques that have been used for centuries.

I will agree with you on this. If music sounds good then it sounds good period. However, if it does sound good chances are that music theory will explain why it sounds good.

I think you might have the wrong idea about music theory. The idea behind music theory isn’t to make people into musical robots, but rather to help them gain an insight into why certain harmonies work and others do not.

I will further agree with you that many educational institutions do often become a bit stuffy about rules and regulations. That’s usually inherent to the fact that they need to test people in order to rate them for credit, etc.

The competitive nature of educational institutions is sad across the board, not just for music theory, but for all areas of mankind’s knowledge. The competitive nature of education just plain sucks.

Finally, some people need more technical help than others. You may find it easy to just improvise what you want. Others may find that approach difficult and non-intuitive so they need a more structured approach.

In short, you can’t expect the whole world to view life from your perspective. If all this comes easy to you be grateful for your talents. No need to rant about the fact others may not be as blessed.

It's great music, and his writing style is open-minded. He doesn't restrict himself to dull theories and common methods of composition. No, instead he opens his score up to new depths. He writes what he feels and what he hears in his mind.

I just thought I'd add that this is what you are supposed to do with music theory. Music theory itself doesn't restrict you in anyway or dictate what you should write. It's just a tool that can help you to achieve that goal.

Music theory is akin to architectural theory. It gives you a knowledge of all the tools and materials that are available. But it doesn't tell you what kind of buildings to build.

It sounds to me more like you are ranting about some particular school of thought, rather than about music theory in and of itself. Some teachers and/or institutions can be pretty stuffy. But you shouldn’t push that onto music theory. Music theory is like mathematics. It just organizes what *can* be done. It doesn’t tell you what to do.

Music theory is like mathematics. It just organizes what *can* be done. It doesn’t tell you what to do.

Wisely said, I should tell that to my students when I become a compositions teacher :(

I know that so many people are disagreeing with this, but it is the few of us who believe in what I am saying that concern me at the moment, and those few of you have my blessings.

What? The rest of us will go to hell????!?!?!? (joke)

In my endeavor, I ran across Yanni, one of the most brilliant minds in our musical spectrum today. His music is totally different than any I've ever heard. You can find a lot of his stuff by going to youtube and typing in "Yanni". It's great music, and his writing style is open-minded. He doesn't restrict himself to dull theories and common methods of composition. No, instead he opens his score up to new depths...

Ouch!

My personal opinion of Yanni, is that he pretty much is NOT good at anything pretty much. And if you think that I don't know him, or not heard his music, I have. He is Greek (and proclaims so), and thus I know him, being Greek myself.

I would recomend listening to 1000s of other composers, groups, etc, to search for the most brilliant mind of our musical spectrum today.

Of course the above is personal. :(

I will end this thread with this: If you pour your heart and soul into the music that you write, your music will be as much alive as you are. Don't restrict yourself to "laws" of music and endless theories. Broaden your musical horizon and explore whole new worlds with music.

Now this is the fun part.

What on earth makes you think that by knowing the "laws" or several theories of music, one cannot pour his/her soul into the music? What is this misconception about all things? You accept learning the notes. That's one theory, you accept learning the rhythms, there's another, you accept the Italian terms, tons of things to know, you accept tons of stuff, why not the idea that there is a major and a minor chord? Or maybe you accept that? Where is it that you stop accepting theories? Is it just about tonality and then it's off? Is there some place else?

By your words you should either:

a. Write your own music, no minor, major, no tonality, no NOTHING. Your OWN music, or

b. Know about music, wrtie everything and be a heartless scum who does not pour his soul into his music.

Weird, because I can SWEAR that you are bassing your music somewhere: On some music theories! (why? Because your music is based on normal minor/major works. I've heard your works :))

So where is your heart and your soul? Where is your own expression if you are using triads? Notes? 16ths? Allegro terms? Nowhere!

Do you see what I mean?

If you can accept certain theories by default, like the scales, the tonal theories (since you do use them), then why not other things as well?

Man, I'm not even sure where to begin. It's probably better if I just say nothing. These kinds of arguments go nowhere. I guess I'll go nowhere with you guys for now....

The problem is, as nikolas mentioned, everything you've said is your opinion. If some guy who is raised on gamelan music comes to north america and hears your music and poo poos all over it because to him, "All north american composed music sounds the same" does that make our music less than we perceive it? If I go to India and listen to a singer and scraggy all over them because they don't sing as well as B.B. King or Howlin' Wolf does that make Indian singing less than someone raised on that music would perceive it? Your taste in music reflects your cultural upbringing. Nowadays, it's not so much of big thing with the advent of the internet but there are still boundaries.

I myself, have a hard time appreciating country music. Bluegrass I dig, but bonefied country music I haven't quite grown to grasp yet.

I would also like to think that if you're a composer you should be able to appreciate just about any kind of music. Hell man! Music is your life!

Wait a minute . . . I can kind of see where he's coming from.

Granted, this is from a person who has never had any training in music theory or composition. All that I know of music, I learned on my own. Notice however, that what I've discovered follows basic theory.

I have noticed that it is a tendency of composers to nit pick at a piece that does not follow theory. They analyze the piece from a technical point and forget to listen to it. Music would have never progressed anywhere if no one questioned or pushed the boundaries of theory.

I do agree that theory can be a very useful tool and that many, many works owe their outstanding sound to it. But music requires inspiration as well. You cannot produce a piece worth listening to through mathematics because it requires no creativity, and then what is the purpose?

Granted, this is from a person who has never had any training in music theory or composition. All that I know of music, I learned on my own. Notice however, that what I've discovered follows basic theory.

The problem is, as nikolas mentioned, everything you've said is your opinion. If some guy who is raised on gamelan music comes to north america and hears your music and poo poos all over it because to him, "All north american composed music sounds the same" does that make our music less than we perceive it? If I go to India and listen to a singer and scraggy all over them because they don't sing as well as B.B. King or Howlin' Wolf does that make Indian singing less than someone raised on that music would perceive it? Your taste in music reflects your cultural upbringing. Nowadays, it's not so much of big thing with the advent of the internet but there are still boundaries.

Taste and aesthetics can be taugth and be trained as well (by the person having them that is).

I would also like to think that if you're a composer you should be able to appreciate just about any kind of music. Hell man! Music is your life!

This is the political correct thing to say and do, but I find it hard to do it. I can honestly send a youtube link and see if you can value that.

I have noticed that it is a tendency of composers to nit pick at a piece that does not follow theory. They analyze the piece from a technical point and forget to listen to it.

I have to agree with this. Sometimes people do tend to get carried away with the technical aspect and forget to just relax and listen.

However, there are also times when it's appropriate. For example, if someone is claming to have written a piece of music in a particular style, (say classical), and someone else tears it apart because it doesn't fit that style. That doesn't mean that they are saying that it's bad "music", all they are saying it that it doesn't satisfy the requirements of the style of music that it was supposedly written in.

That's not the same as saying that it's "bad" music. So sometimes you need to step back and think about the context in which the assessments are being made.

I would also like to think that if you're a composer you should be able to appreciate just about any kind of music. Hell man! Music is your life!

I compose as a hobby. I'm actually more into physics. :(

There's a LOT of music I don't like.

In fact, there's very little that I actually do like. But I have come to appreciate classical music. Although I must confess that I believe it more of a mathematical appeal that draws me to it than a musical appeal.

Musically, I like 'spacey' music or 'fantasy' music. I'm not even sure what they call it. The kind of stuff they play on Hearts of Space on NPR if you've ever listened to that.

I can honestly send a youtube link and see if you can value that.

There you go! There are A LOT OF people listening to this, but I can't help but feel it's crup! And for the record (because it's greek), the song goes: "Pare mou mia pipa" , which means "give me a blowjob". yay for all music! :(

All hail the almighty Tasos Bougas!

LOL! Man, this is so low that I even like it! What a crap festival!

But I prefer "Ela ston pappou" (come to grandpa)! :)

As far as the actual thread topic is concerned, there's nothing that Nikolas and Abra didn't already cover, as far as my opinion is concerned. :(

I will end this thread with this: If you pour your heart and soul into the music that you write, your music will be as much alive as you are. Don't restrict yourself to "laws" of music and endless theories. Broaden your musical horizon and explore whole new worlds with music.

I used to think just like you... that the "rules" limits your imagination and creativity... But, after I had my lessons with my harmony teacher I've discovered that thinking like that is a BIG mistake!

Let me explain it to you...

My first pieces were composed with a lot fear and incertitude... And I am sure that lots of folks without some training are also surrounded by these feelings... They have only their passion, and MAYBE they will even succeed (in music history we have the Russian composers - Borodin, Cui, Korsakoff , Mussorgsky etc. that didn't had the musical training that Ceaikovsky had for example))

BUT

WHY SHOULD YOU REINVENT THE WHEEL?

And that's the question that really matters!

OK... the wheel from the Neanderthals has changed a little lol :laugh: , but the principle is the same... And if you learn those principles you can improve them and got yourself a new "wheel"!

If you'll learn theory, harmony, etc. as much you can, you will have certitude, confidence in your own skills and you'll have all the tools you need! Including the tool to create "tools" and innovate the music as you know!

Sebastian

:thumbsup:

I used to think just like you... that the "rules" limits your imagination and creativity... But, after I had my lessons with my harmony teacher I've discovered that thinking like that is a BIG mistake!

Sebastian summed it up in a nutshell.

If you think music theory is somehow “restrictive” you’re just looking at it all wrong is all.

I think everything I feel on this issue has been said, either by nikolas, or Abra.

"Theory is only limiting if you make it so."

I swear, the other day I listened to a song that was composed by a very nice gentlemen, but for the life of me I could not determine much difference between it and one of Bach's, or one of Beethovens. It just...blended with the classical genre way too well for distinction.

I'm just going to jump in to make a little oblique pot-shot, and then leave again (as I do).

Forgive me if this has been said already, but if you can't distinguish a piece as being not Bach or Beethoven, then there's a question mark on your musical judgement.

The difference between the music of Bach and Beethoven is astronomical - if you can't decide if a piece is like one or the other then who are you to say which methods do and do not work in classical music, if you don't even have a basic knowledge of it yourself?

Of course not everyone knows every composer, but you criticize methods etc. that are used to write this same type of classical music, and you can't tell between Bach and Beethoven?

Forgive me if I got you wrong, and you meant two different piece, but I don't think that's what you meant.

now this is a good thread! heres my 2 cents. Could mozart bach or beethoven or brahms have written the (EMOTIONAL) music that they did without the practical musical training that they recieved. (counterpoint, harmony etc.) I daresay not.

Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But in my opinion, when it comes to classical music, truly the most beautiful works there are are ones that have the most inherent and coherent structure. Who said beauty couldn't have structure? Look at Bach's well tempered clavier and tell me thats not beautiful and yet one of the most well thought out pieces of art every created. Even Mozart who many non musicians claim to be their favorite composer, yes he wrote emotional music.. but it also always made sense.. it is wrong to say that one cannot have passion and order, actually I believe without the combination we just get chaos... Even Schoneberg isn't that! and I like schoneberg

Could mozart bach or beethoven or brahms have written the (EMOTIONAL) music that they did without the practical musical training that they recieved. (counterpoint, harmony etc.) I daresay not.

Actually some of the Masters were the ones that established through their works: rules, boundaries and kept most of the characteristics of the musical period in which they lived... Those Harmony tractates (or treaties?) wrote by Zarlino and later by Rameau weren't that popular, so the real lessons that they received ("lesson" not in the usual definition of the word, because those lessons were 90% practice and 10% theory... Bach established the tonalities, so he couldn't learn about them lol) was from their close ones (like Mozart that had his father to teach him; also Beethoven had a father to teach him... in a.. rough .. manner) or to learn through experience, through practice and copying the ones that were successful in their time (like Bach copied Vivaldi).

So I daresay that, YES, THEY could've written the (EMOTIONAL) music without a formal musical training for counterpoint, harmony etc.

And I can give you the most notorious example from the music history"

"The Group of 5" :

- Balakirev (the group was built around him, being the initiator of the group)

- Cesar Cui (that was an officer all his life, besides being a composer)

- Modest Mussorgsky (also in the army, and you know how AMAZING he is!)

- Alexander Borodin ( a scientist, and a Sunday composer)

- Nikolai Rimski-Korsakov - had only the desire to compose, and he is one of the greatest orchestrators of all times!

All of them are self-thought, but they had the element of the group that was extremely important! They would correct themselves, criticize themselves, even change certain aspects of each other's work! They were proud of being self-thought, but still, Korsakov wrote a treaty about orchestrating, so that means that we DON'T need to be self-thought, we can learn what others had discovered, and then innovate ourselves if we can and want!

My initial point was that existed GREAT composers that didn't had the need to study a manual of harmony, counterpoint or orchestrating! They had their passion and talent, their friends and close-ones support!

One can do the same: being a self-thought!

But WHY wasting time looking for already discovered things? Why shouldn't we accumulate as much information we can from these "guys" :thumbsup: that really had what it takes to be a self-thought?

good response.. although I must clarify, mozarts musical training was fairly formal for that period... differnt from this ... and I think Beethoven studied counterpoint with Haydn for a period and others, not much so with his nutty alcholic father, he was too busy getting beaten In the EARS nonetheless :thumbsup: my premis there was not that you couldn't be self taught but that in the great composers they all had to learn the basics in one way or another, wether that be a crash course in harmony or studying composers before them, I hope that clarifies it. So in this case.. by practical musical training I didn't necesarily mean formal musical training.. the key word there is practical, meaning something that can be applied to other things. (basic knowledge of harmony in composition) well thats my deffinition anyway

one more thing. fux's gradus and parnassum I am pretty sure was very important to composers such as beethoven bach and mozart.. meaning they actually learned and read it. and I think even Brahms (so one can say that you have to start from somewhere, how does one define formal training than?) is it being book learned really self taught? or is it as formal as getting a lecture I dont know, I guess it would be less formal because the teacher isn't there to correct your mistakes but there is still that guiding light..

good response.. although I must clarify, mozarts musical training was fairly formal for that period... differnt from this ... and I think Beethoven studied counterpoint with Haydn for a period and others, not much so with his nutty alcholic father, he was too busy getting beaten In the EARS nonetheless :thumbsup: my premis there was not that you couldn't be self taught but that in the great composers they all had to learn the basics in one way or another, wether that be a crash course in harmony or studying composers before them, I hope that clarifies it. So in this case.. by practical musical training I didn't necesarily mean formal musical training.. the key word there is practical, meaning something that can be applied to other things. (basic knowledge of harmony in composition) well thats my deffinition anyway

one more thing. fux's gradus and parnassum I am pretty sure was very important to composers such as beethoven bach and mozart.. meaning they actually learned and read it. and I think even Brahms (so one can say that you have to start from somewhere, how does one define formal training than?) is it being book learned really self taught? or is it as formal as getting a lecture I dont know, I guess it would be less formal because the teacher isn't there to correct your mistakes but there is still that guiding light..

I do agree with you ... ;) Most of the composers you mentioned above took lessons from their contemporaries, and I agree with you that the basics must be learned (and in Bach's period of the time, the most common way was to copy someones work, and by doing that will accumulate an important amount of knowledge; another thing is the music family legacy that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven had it)...

It is curious that you left out the "GROUP of 5"... As a general statement: isn't Korsakov one of the greatest?

Maybe you'll answer: "Yes, but Beethoven is greater!"...

Maybe... But, for example, in the XVI-th - XVII-th century, the musical world was convinced that Claudio Monteverdi will be considered the greatest composer of all time for a long period of time... But.. as you well know, the world has changed and it still changing and so will tastes and human mentality!

My point: maybe after 200 years, Korsakov will be at the height that Beethoven is for us now! (just an example) - Stravinsky will be, I'm sure of it :laugh: !

After all, we agreed that a composer needs a basis in music... If in the past were exceptions, where they were self-thought, that doesn't mean that all "rookies" must reinvent the wheel! So we either choose the rough, time-consuming, INEFFECTIVE (and useless, I might add) path of self-thought, where you are consumed by incertitude and an enormous amount of self-doubt, or you can choose the rough, time-consuming, EFFECTIVE (and efficient) path of taking lessons, where you accumulate information, opens up your mind and perspective!

I can say that I tried both... that's why I support the second choice.

:laugh:

Sebastian

I took 2 or 3 months of piano instruction when I was young. Since then I have basically had no training in composing. This helps in some ways, since I don't have anyone sitting over my shoulder saying "you can't do that". On the other hand, I work 10 times harder at finding notes and phrases then those who are trained, simply because of my lack of training. I have no problem writing melodies, but harmonies are my hardest job. No one has ever told me what works easily and what doesn't work.

It is a lot easier to ignore knowledge and work on a piece then it is to not have the knowledge and try to work thru your ignorance.

We're not ignorant. We're explorers ;)

You said you don't like it when instructors tell people how to write and how not to write music.

Then, you told us not to use so much theory, and only to write through emotions.

But wait! Aren't you just now telling us how to and how not to write music?

Quit being hypocritical, sir! According to your post, just like we shouldn't listen to those professors, we shouldn't listen to you. Well. Nice argument there, genius.

that is for sure.. i mean look at bach he is the prime example of someone who learned from others... the forms he used had ALL been used before but he jut put his own take on them.. after all, the composers we have mentioned are working in the same language, that is the language of tonality.... it is quite a complex subject to try and tackle on ones own! even if your mozart it cannot be done.. even he.. the so called GENIOUS From birth had to learn the stuff that went into his compositions.. it honestly didn't come out of nowhere.. it may seem like it since he was so gifted but he was really rigourosly tutored in music by his father leopold.. the concept of tonality took literally thousands of years to fully develop! I dont necessarily believe one can discover everything all over again himself ..unless ur aristotle or something thats my last word on the subject =)

We're not ignorant. We're explorers ;)

We discover because we explore.

We explore because of our ignorance.

To the Original Poster,

I think the problem that has occured from your judgements etc is a lack of understanding of WHAT musical theory is and HOW it came to be considered 'correct'...

Someone didn't just sit down one day and go

"mmm... I think the last movement should be called a Rondo and should be structured like this ..."

The theory of the classical era and of today's composers isn't rules like mathematics - they are fairly accurate guidlines of the shape and form that 'natural western music' takes. Theory is the result of similiar trends in 1000's of compositions.

And those trends occured because, to us and our culture, they are what was most instinctive!

There was a heck of a lot of trial and error on the part of early composers to find out what worked!

So in the time of Haydn, it was logical to write a piece with three movements, each of varying style and structure - BECAUSE THIS WAS THE BEST WAY OF WRITING LENGTHY MUSIC WHILE KEEPING THE AUDIENCE'S INTEREST!

Theory in music is no different to the theory behind a movie's storyline. Go watch 3 action movies and write down an overview of the plot of each and compare them - They will be remarkably similar!

The Action Movie:

Intro - presents the characters as ordinary people

Grabber - something happens which calls the characters, whom are ordinary people, into the midsts of the action

Problem - The fate of the world (or microcosm) end's up resting in the central character's hands as he is faced with a problem only he/she can solve

Resolution - The main character survives many tests of his strength and courage (fights etc) and saves the world

Conclusion - The movie resolves normally with something which shows the growth of the central characters compared to the intro... Moves back into the realms of the mundane life in an attempt to establish a sense of reality.

Almost every movie or book of a similar genre will have a similar overall storyline. The difference is the specifics - Who is bad, who is good, what problem must be overcome... etc

And this has been the case for at least 3000 years! It was an ancient greek who first discovered this when analysing myths.

Music is like this. There is a structure which creates unity and completeness but the internal workings and the ideas are vastly different. I'd wager that there is a structure present in almost every composers works whether they realise it or not - albeit a loose one.

And like Daniel said: If you can't tell the difference between Beethoven and Bach then you need to do some serious listening and understanding because there a far more differences than similarities between them!

You might have well have just said that Jazz and Pop are the same Genre!

Or that Action and Fantasy are the same genre.

Chris :-)