Pitfalls of Composers

You forgot climax . . . what good is an action movie without a climax?

"Just because you have no apprecitation for the fine arts doesn't mean that no one else does." (Abracadabra)

I never once stated that I have no appreciation for the fine arts. If I didn't, I would not love much as much as I do.

"...suggesting that everone should view the world from your perspective." (Abracadabra)

Again, where you pulling this information? I never said I wanted everyone to see the world from my perspective. I would never dream it! Besides, it is music we are discussing here, composition in particular.

"you are ranting about some particular school of thought, rather than about music theory in and of itself." (Abracadabra)

I'm glad you finally caught on. No, of course I wasn't "ranting" about music theory itself. I am conerned that too many composers are simply limiting themselves to only what they know and have read from books. Don't mistake me again, the information is good! It's very useful and can solve many problems. I am not "dissing" theory, I'm just saying that theory is the cake, ... you just need to add the icing.

"What on earth makes you think that by knowing the "laws" or several music theories, one cannot pour his/her soul into the music?" (Nikolas)

I never once said that people who know and practice theory CAN'T put their heart and soul into their music and it not sound good. Perhaps you missed the next sentence whereby I stated that one should not limit him/herself.

"where is it that you stop accepting theories?" (Nikolas)

Again, where are you getting this? I never once stated that I stopped accepting said theories. In fact, I never stated even USING theories, although it is impossible to write music without using theory. So much has already been discovered with music, amazingly enough. I use theory in every piece I write! Of COURSE you USE theory! You can't NOT use it (forgive my double negative). Music and theory go hand in hand. Like a door and a door knob. You have to use the door knob to open the door. You have to use theory to write music. I'm expressing the fact that there are more ways to open the door than by using the door knob :)

"Weird, because I can SWEAR that you are bassing your music somewhere! On music theories!" (Nikolas)

Calm down! This is a GOOD topic. People need to express themselves, and this is, as I think most would agree, a rather interesting topic. As for the quote, I refer to what I said above. Of course you use theory. It's ridiculous to think that someone can write music without using a scrap of theory. I never said that. Simply don't limit yourself. They (Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart, Maher, etc) discovered the well-known theories of music, but don't let discovery die. Continue to press deeper into its realms. That is all :)

"Where is your own expression if you are using triads? Notes? 16ths? Allegro terms? Nowhere!" (Nikolas)

If anybody listens to my music, you can defintely hear expression. I tend to use a variety of melodic phrases rather than individual notes or chords. You are making it sound as if you can't have expression if you have triads, 16th notes, etc. And I think you'll argree with me that you must have these things FOR there to be expression? Instead of implementing interchanging melodies, I tend to write more than one melody at a given time and I alter their chord structure and their stature in the music. It gives it a kind of...reverie if you will.

"if you're a composer you should be able to appreciate just about any kind of music." (Tumababa)

I never stated that I didn't appreciate other forms of music. I said I didn't particularly like some forms of music. Yes, that is an opinion, but everyone shares that. Of course not everone likes the same form and style of music. That's what makes us human. On a personal note, as a composer I cannot appreciate some "kinds" of music, such as rap. That gets off on a whole other topic that I refuse to go into, but I'm just simply stating that not every composer appreciates all types of music. Some do, but most composers ALWAYS have that ONE song, or that ONE composer that they just can't seem to agree with. This is natural, and in fact it is why music has come as far as it is, and it will continue in that manner, which is good.

"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?" (Jo Nomad)

Nicely put. Notice "as well", meaning theory should be coupled with inspiration, emotions, passion, desire... all these things. In fact, it shouldn't be restricted to just being coupled ;) - Personal influence in music is what makes it its own. I guarantee you that if a rather good composer listened to a composition and was asked to write what he hears, there's obviously going to be differences, but the parts that aren't so much different ARE in fact, simply because of personal preferences and personal influences. Some people while writing a minor chord may simply like a minor triad while another may add a fifth or something. Everybody adds their own personal touch and influence in music, which is why I think music is so brilliant, because SO many people have such a large impact on its creation and its execution.

"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." (Abracadabra)

Ah! Thus all the argument! Well said! I agree completely. Some people DO get a bit carried away with certain technicalities with music, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can make an eager composer quite irate! :D

"...doesn't satisfy the requirements of the style of music that it was supposedly written in." (Abracadabra)

Why does there have to be requirements? So that somebody can't claim they made a classical song when somebody else thinks it is something else? Isn't that a bit... opinionated; something you were harping me about? I understand your point, however. I do tend to agree with the fact that there HAS to be some clarity; that is, after all, inevitable.

"I used to think just like you... that the "rules" limits your imagination and creativity..." (Sebastian)

Ah, I never once said that rules limit imagination and creativity. In fact, I think one's "signature" in music should be support with theory. It only strenghens it. As for imagination itself, imagination has the potential to exist past any boundaries, physical or abstract. Thus is the great nature of music theory and composition.

"If you think music theory is somehow

I dont necessarily believe one can discover everything all over again himself.

Perhaps not... or perhaps so. Since there is no end to music, the person would simply be taking his or her time to refine certain things about music that perhaps he or she did not pertake the first time around. Nothing is necessarily wrong about rediscovering what has already been discovered, it's all of that person's decision, and it is biased to say that a person should spend or should not spend said amounts of time on a given subject.

----

Perhaps I should have actually addressed my view on musical theory before I "ranted" away. Please forgive me, but I do not regret the interest in the topic - as I think most all of you will agree.

As I said before, music and theory go hand-in-hand; you can't necessarily have one without the other. My biggest concern is that far too many composers are intrigued with the "wheel" that they fear venturing and discovering newer things. Honestly, I don't see why music is one of the wonders of the world. It is so fascinating, and so many people are connected through it.

Theory, as defined by google, is

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

As you can see, theory itself is a vote from the mass majority; favoritism. If a said number of people who agree with something, it becomes theory; unofficial law. Theory is not concrete; it is very much abstract. Theory becomes theory when people "accept" it, and only then can we make accurate predictions.

Theory is not necessarily law. That is why I have been quoting the word.

I do very much accept musical theory. I am just as intrigued by how certain frequencies can devise such beautiful, or even tramatic melodies. I am just as much interested in how and why some transgressions sound better than others, and why sevenths are dissonant and sixths are not so much. I love music; I would never demonish that. I am simply wanting to meander past her assumed boundary and discover theories and concepts, and would love for some company, because it gets cold out there ;)

Very interesting topic. You all had wonderful ideas, and...as much as I criticize, I shamelessly admit that I learned a thing or two from some of you. That is why these boards are here, for debating so that EVERYONE can learn. I would like to think that SOMEONE perhaps picked up a thing or two somewhere along in my statement. I will most certainly credit you all, because I know I learned a few things.

Thank you all :)

I agree with you JC92488 on the observation that people are still sounding like the classical composers in certain ways. Although I think it is extremely important to have a good background in the classics and not completely rejecting music theory, I think it is good to move on while still having past influences , like some did with minimalism and things that break the rules. I am not insulting classical at all of course, it is just nice to experiment.

I'm starting by quoting you once more and by commenting on the way I percieved your post:

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.

Don't restrict yourself to "laws" and endless theories. Thus "laws" and endless theories contradict pouring your heart and soul into the music you write. Laws and theories restrict your horizon.

"What on earth makes you think that by knowing the "laws" or several music theories, one cannot pour his/her soul into the music?" (Nikolas)

I never once said that people who know and practice theory CAN'T put their heart and soul into their music and it not sound good. Perhaps you missed the next sentence whereby I stated that one should not limit him/herself.

I thought that you did, and according to the above quote, I replied accordingly. ;)

"where is it that you stop accepting theories?" (Nikolas)

Again, where are you getting this? I never once stated that I stopped accepting said theories. In fact, I never stated even USING theories, although it is impossible to write music without using theory. So much has already been discovered with music, amazingly enough. I use theory in every piece I write! Of COURSE you USE theory! You can't NOT use it (forgive my double negative). Music and theory go hand in hand. Like a door and a door knob. You have to use the door knob to open the door. You have to use theory to write music. I'm expressing the fact that there are more ways to open the door than by using the door knob :)

Yet, again, it seems that this is what you said. Sorry but I'm not alone at this. You tried to make point that the laws and theories restrict the composing, and seem to be doing more harm than good. I dissagree.

"Weird, because I can SWEAR that you are bassing your music somewhere! On music theories!" (Nikolas)

Calm down! This is a GOOD topic. People need to express themselves, and this is, as I think most would agree, a rather interesting topic. As for the quote, I refer to what I said above. Of course you use theory. It's ridiculous to think that someone can write music without using a scrap of theory. I never said that. Simply don't limit yourself. They (Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart, Maher, etc) discovered the well-known theories of music, but don't let discovery die. Continue to press deeper into its realms. That is all :)

I was making a point, based to my assumption that you don't find useful the laws and theories that you are actually using them, thus they are useful.

"Where is your own expression if you are using triads? Notes? 16ths? Allegro terms? Nowhere!" (Nikolas)

If anybody listens to my music, you can defintely hear expression. I tend to use a variety of melodic phrases rather than individual notes or chords. You are making it sound as if you can't have expression if you have triads, 16th notes, etc. And I think you'll argree with me that you must have these things FOR there to be expression? Instead of implementing interchanging melodies, I tend to write more than one melody at a given time and I alter their chord structure and their stature in the music. It gives it a kind of...reverie if you will.

Again more examples. And yes I've heard your music, but didn't come here to analyse it at all.

My biggest concern is that far too many composers are intrigued with the "wheel" that they fear venturing and discovering newer things.

This, on the other hand, proves to me that I (and others) may have misunderstood your initial post. Or maybe your initial post was not as clear.

Now this is a very legitimate concert, that bothers me as well.

I will also agree with you that being obsessed with the laws or theories is not really that good. When it comes to feedback though, if I ever make a comment "counterpoint is missing", or something simmilar, it simply means that I "could" hear some melodic movement that wasn't there, and I felt it was needed.

If someone proclaims that they wrote a Bach-style choral, I will "tear it apart" with the laws and theories. Why? Because there is the stylistic issue at hand, and since Bach wrote in a very precise manner, and especially his chorals, it is safe to say that after 300 years, people have read, studied, and made "rules" out of what he did. Following those rules will get you closer to how Bach wrote (or rather the outcomes of his composing). Of course they will suck compaired to Bach, since Bach is only one, but never the less, the stylistic issue will have been tackled.

I'm glad you finally caught on. No, of course I wasn't "ranting" about music theory itself. I am conerned that too many composers are simply limiting themselves to only what they know and have read from books. Don't mistake me again, the information is good! It's very useful and can solve many problems. I am not "dissing" theory, I'm just saying that theory is the cake, ... you just need to add the icing.

Ah but you did,…

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

If I have mistaken what you’ve say, perhaps it may be because you have not voiced your thoughts ideally.

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.

Just sounds to me like you had teachers who weren’t necessarily the best at conveying knowledge in a positive way.

If there was any misunderstanding in your OP I suggest it was created by your very own self, and allow me to explain further,…

You chose to use as a title of this thread “Pitfalls of Composers”, and much of your post did point at the music theory as being a “pitfall”.

If you would like to present your ideas in a more positive manner I would simply suggest that you begin with that attitude. You could have instead started a thread entitled “Putting Emotions to Music” and then simply focus on discussing how you feel that can best be done, and perhaps asking others how they do it.

Starting a thread entitled “Pitfalls of Composers”, and then pointing to the “laws” of music theory as being the pitfall was simply a poor choice to base your presentation on if your intent was to address the brighter side of emotional compositions.

So perhaps none of this has anything to do with music. Maybe a course in effecting writing is in order?

You can’t blame your readers for taking what you’ve said in a negative way if that’s precisely how you present it.

So, yes, I’m sure there are misunderstandings as to what you may have intended. In fact, I’m pretty sure I actually do understand what you “mean”, but that’s NOT what you wrote. You clearly implied that using the rules of music theory is a pitfall whether that was your intent or not.

Music theory is what you make it out to be. If you think of it as restrictive, then it will be restrictive.

I prefer to think of it as descriptive, rather than prescriptive. Once you get past a fairly basic level of study, most of the music theory you learn will be drawn from musical examples. The idea of studying music is to identify devices that have worked before, and more importantly, to understand why they work well. It never has been a strict formula that composers have to follow.

Oh, and STOP INDISCRIMINATELY CALLING PIECES "SONGS". It's irritating. The word "song" has a specific definition, which is a short vocal piece.

You do write music from your knowledge. You know how to use an instrument, or a voice, or a technique, or a harmony. You know that some notes will sound natural moving to certain other notes, if not from theory then from experience and hundreds of years of western music history. Not to mention, every piece of music comes out of some philosophical standpoint, whether implied or explicit. Think about the sonata form; it was invented as a musical mirror to the ideals of the Enlightenment. Early Gregorian chant and organum was written to reflect, in musica humana, the music of the spheres through which the celestial bodies moved in concord. John Cage's chance music was designed to reflect Zen Buddhism in its elimination of the ego from the music.

So it's not all emotion. I don't write from my emotions. I write from what I want to say. But it's not all math. And it certainly is knowledge.

So it's not all emotion. I don't write from my emotions. I write from what I want to say. But it's not all math. And it certainly is knowledge.

This is so true. I believe that much of my interest in music is actually based on a mathematical or intellectual level more so than an emotional level.

However, having said that I'm sure that everyone's view of what is meant by 'mathematical' is quite different as well. For me personally, mathematics is an extremely abstract art form. It's not just a cold rigid way to calculate numbers. In fact, I don't even think in terms of numbers at all when thinking mathemaically. It's all about abstract shapes, forms and relationships that don't even need to be remotely physical.

So everyone doesn't limit their view of music solely to the realm of emotion. That's merely one aspect of it.

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

Ah, good question. What if, in your "reeinventing of the wheel", you discover something you personally like better that you might not have discovered had you not "reeinvented the wheel"? - Not to disagree completely with you, because I do agree with some of what you are saying. Now, I am not "reeinventing the wheel" with my style or form of music, or even the way it is designed. In fact, my music is actually quite practical and involves some interesting theory; some of which I didn't even know I put in there! I discover something new almost every time I listen to it. And what does it take to be self-taught? I think it takes patience, obviously, but also an undieing passion and desire for mucic, which, I think as composers, none of us are concerned about (:`)

You said

Well, before you reinvent the "wheel" you must comprehend and LEARN it's principles and purposes (obviously, the "wheel" it's just a metaphor)... It's almost fullish to be so stubborn that you will base your entire imagination and creativity on "intuition"...

I agree with you that the "intuition" in music is the most important tool!(it's not exactly what you wrote, but I can assure you that the quality that you are referring to is the "intuition" )

And this is not said by myself, but by Aurel Stroe, the greatest Romanian Composer after Enescu...

OK... We need intuition, but we also need other tools, like theory (that I agree, can be learned without a teacher, or even a manual at some point), harmony (here you'll need a professor, it's the best and easiest way to understand it), orchestration (that can be can be self-thought too) and others...

These tools are a necessity! Why wasting time being a self thought, when you have the possibility to learn quicker and more efficient?

You think you'll be more original? Sorry...but if you are using only triads, you are not in the innovative aria... To be in this aria you must know what others in the past discovered for us, and then, you will have the chance to "reinvent" the "Wheel"... until then you will risk getting in "the dark aria", where the huge gaps of "un-knowledge" will make you think that you are different from the others (in a good way), special, "rebel", maybe even an "out-of-the-ordinary" huge talent that doesn't need theory classes, or harmony lessons... But is merely an illusion (I'm not saying these things to you :laugh:, I've just enumerated some general defects that are specific to this kind of attitude), and an act of egocentrism, or just a shield/protection against the incapability (of certain reasons) of studying music normally as it is done in our days!

I'm don't have anything against you :toothygrin: , I respect your decision, but I can advise you, that this rebellion is not good for your compositional career (if you want one)...

If composition is just a hobby to you, then good luck with the self-thought,but don't try to make the young-ones (that want a career in composition) doing the same thing like you...

I agree with you JC92488 on the observation that people are still sounding like the classical composers in certain ways. Although I think it is extremely important to have a good background in the classics and not completely rejecting music theory, I think it is good to move on while still having past influences , like some did with minimalism and things that break the rules. I am not insulting classical at all of course, it is just nice to experiment.

Well said! One of my teacher said about Mozart that is a museum piece... And I said to him: "You've just offended one of the greatest composers of all times"! And he said to me: "OK... He's one of the most beautiful and interesting museum pieces"

And that really made me think that this is the way that the most composers thought about their previous masters: "They are great and greatly appreciated, but we must look towards the future!"

So... Lets start learning and then innovate! :toothygrin:

"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." (Daniel)

No, no, forgive me, but since when has one's knowledge or lack of knowledge of said composers ever had a judgement call on his or her own musicality? I believe that is quite biased, in my own opinion.

If you had understood my post, then you wouldn't have brought up this point.

Typical.

*leaves discussion*

1. 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?

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

/snip...

3. 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.

/snip

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

/snip...

9. 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 was going to completely ignore this thread, but since you are launching into a tirade of accusations and insults against my chosen profession (I AM one of those "professors" of whom you speak) I will respond to a few of the "choicer" morsels you have dropped by the wayside in your urge to spew you ignorant rhetoric.

1. "the art of writing music" appears to be something quite different from the art of composition. Anyone without any talent or training can "write music". However, to compose one needs a good background to UNDERSTAND what it is one is doing, what has been done, what CAN be done, and where one can push the limits. Else you are only going on the information you have gleened by ear. Why do I think that composing "by ear" is not good? Because you are basing what you are composing on what you have heard before without UNDERSTANDING what it is you have heard. Fine, cite a dozen composers who had no formal training, and I will cite for each one a dozen BETTER composers who DID have formal training.

2. Yes, as the young ones say "d'uh!", of course music is about emotions and feelings. However, if you can't write a sentence without mixing up verbs and nouns then you won't be able to express those feelings in a letter, will you.

It's all very well and nice to want to write a symphony, however, if you have no idea WHAT constitutes a symphony (and I mean more than just "uhhh, it's like 4 movements, like, you know? fer sure...") then you will only be rambling aimlessly on for the entire duration of your composition. It will be music for orchestra that will probably leave the public bored out of their collective gourds.

3. Ah yes, here we come to the truth of your entire statement. You, sir, are a dilettante - a dabbler. You "sat through" which means ou closed your ears and learned nothing.

4. You obviously either had the worst teacher in teh world or actually know nothing about teaching.

If a child asks "how do I become good at the piano?" a teacher will answer "you need to practice long hours and work very hard... it's like being good at ANY thing you do in life." Your snide remark is both asinine and an insult to all the teachers out there, as well as to those on this forum who are already teaching. Go parade your ignorance elsewhere.

5. Maybe in your little circle people are bored with "classical" and "orchestra", but not in all circles. Don't donfuse your own limited little world view with THE REAL WORLD.

6. This is the funniest thing in your entire post. Yes, you could re-invent the wheel. You could spend years and years noodling at the piano until you got good voice-leading and resolved a perfect cadence so it sounds right... and you could learn it in an afternoon with those DREADFUL books and HORRIBLE teachers upon whom you keep casting aspersions. You are basically saying that you are too lazy to sit through a course and learn things, that you'd rather spend your time trying to figure it out by yourself? Well, have fun! I'm just happy that no one on this forum takes you seriously.

7. Yes, those few who are too lazy to LEARN what they need and too lazy to WORK at their music to become as good as they can be.

8. Well, I'm sorry you were too lazy to continue your studies, but, doing what you are doing is only going to make it more difficult. You are basically trying to learn how to make fire from scratch while ignoring the guy holding the matches. Sure, lightning strikes every once ina while, and sure you could actually come up with some good ideas if you are talented... but if you had the training, you wouldn't NEED to rely on lightning strikes!

9. And here, without even understanding what it is you are talking about, you still manage to speak a bit of truth. Yes, pour your heart out into your music. Don't rely on rules when you write. Create the sounds you want to create.

HOWEVER... understand those rules and why they existed. Understand WHY they existed and you will see HOW you can supercede them.

If you ignore the fact that the wheel exists, you won't be able to produce a better wheel. Blindness isn't a solution.

I was going to completely ignore this thread, but since you are launching into a tirade of accusations and insults against my chosen profession (I AM one of those "professors" of whom you speak) I will respond to a few of the "choicer" morsels you have dropped by the wayside in your urge to spew you ignorant rhetoric.

1. "the art of writing music" appears to be something quite different from the art of composition. Anyone without any talent or training can "write music". However, to compose one needs a good background to UNDERSTAND what it is one is doing, what has been done, what CAN be done, and where one can push the limits. Else you are only going on the information you have gleened by ear. Why do I think that composing "by ear" is not good? Because you are basing what you are composing on what you have heard before without UNDERSTANDING what it is you have heard. Fine, cite a dozen composers who had no formal training, and I will cite for each one a dozen BETTER composers who DID have formal training.

2. Yes, as the young ones say "d'uh!", of course music is about emotions and feelings. However, if you can't write a sentence without mixing up verbs and nouns then you won't be able to express those feelings in a letter, will you.

It's all very well and nice to want to write a symphony, however, if you have no idea WHAT constitutes a symphony (and I mean more than just "uhhh, it's like 4 movements, like, you know? fer sure...") then you will only be rambling aimlessly on for the entire duration of your composition. It will be music for orchestra that will probably leave the public bored out of their collective gourds.

3. Ah yes, here we come to the truth of your entire statement. You, sir, are a dilettante - a dabbler. You "sat through" which means ou closed your ears and learned nothing.

4. You obviously either had the worst teacher in teh world or actually know nothing about teaching.

If a child asks "how do I become good at the piano?" a teacher will answer "you need to practice long hours and work very hard... it's like being good at ANY thing you do in life." Your snide remark is both asinine and an insult to all the teachers out there, as well as to those on this forum who are already teaching. Go parade your ignorance elsewhere.

5. Maybe in your little circle people are bored with "classical" and "orchestra", but not in all circles. Don't donfuse your own limited little world view with THE REAL WORLD.

6. This is the funniest thing in your entire post. Yes, you could re-invent the wheel. You could spend years and years noodling at the piano until you got good voice-leading and resolved a perfect cadence so it sounds right... and you could learn it in an afternoon with those DREADFUL books and HORRIBLE teachers upon whom you keep casting aspersions. You are basically saying that you are too lazy to sit through a course and learn things, that you'd rather spend your time trying to figure it out by yourself? Well, have fun! I'm just happy that no one on this forum takes you seriously.

7. Yes, those few who are too lazy to LEARN what they need and too lazy to WORK at their music to become as good as they can be.

8. Well, I'm sorry you were too lazy to continue your studies, but, doing what you are doing is only going to make it more difficult. You are basically trying to learn how to make fire from scratch while ignoring the guy holding the matches. Sure, lightning strikes every once ina while, and sure you could actually come up with some good ideas if you are talented... but if you had the training, you wouldn't NEED to rely on lightning strikes!

9. And here, without even understanding what it is you are talking about, you still manage to speak a bit of truth. Yes, pour your heart out into your music. Don't rely on rules when you write. Create the sounds you want to create.

HOWEVER... understand those rules and why they existed. Understand WHY they existed and you will see HOW you can supercede them.

If you ignore the fact that the wheel exists, you won't be able to produce a better wheel. Blindness isn't a solution.

Well said!

Too bad that you're not in my area to have you as my professor! :D

I just wanted to add a comment on this topic.

I’m sure there are a LOT of people who have attempted to compose using nothing other than their own artistic creativity. The bottom line is that the vast majority of those people ultimately fail to produce really great and consistent works.

After all, if that method worked it would become the standard way to do things. The reason that it hasn’t become the standard way to do things is because it doesn’t work with any dependable consistency.

It’s not that there aren’t people out there trying to work that way. They just aren’t succeeding is all.

I was going to completely ignore this thread, but since you are launching into a tirade of accusations and insults against my chosen profession (I AM one of those "professors" of whom you speak) I will respond to a few of the "choicer" morsels you have dropped by the wayside in your urge to spew you ignorant rhetoric.

1. "the art of writing music" appears to be something quite different from the art of composition. Anyone without any talent or training can "write music". However, to compose one needs a good background to UNDERSTAND what it is one is doing, what has been done, what CAN be done, and where one can push the limits. Else you are only going on the information you have gleened by ear. Why do I think that composing "by ear" is not good? Because you are basing what you are composing on what you have heard before without UNDERSTANDING what it is you have heard. Fine, cite a dozen composers who had no formal training, and I will cite for each one a dozen BETTER composers who DID have formal training.

2. Yes, as the young ones say "d'uh!", of course music is about emotions and feelings. However, if you can't write a sentence without mixing up verbs and nouns then you won't be able to express those feelings in a letter, will you.

It's all very well and nice to want to write a symphony, however, if you have no idea WHAT constitutes a symphony (and I mean more than just "uhhh, it's like 4 movements, like, you know? fer sure...") then you will only be rambling aimlessly on for the entire duration of your composition. It will be music for orchestra that will probably leave the public bored out of their collective gourds.

3. Ah yes, here we come to the truth of your entire statement. You, sir, are a dilettante - a dabbler. You "sat through" which means ou closed your ears and learned nothing.

4. You obviously either had the worst teacher in teh world or actually know nothing about teaching.

If a child asks "how do I become good at the piano?" a teacher will answer "you need to practice long hours and work very hard... it's like being good at ANY thing you do in life." Your snide remark is both asinine and an insult to all the teachers out there, as well as to those on this forum who are already teaching. Go parade your ignorance elsewhere.

5. Maybe in your little circle people are bored with "classical" and "orchestra", but not in all circles. Don't donfuse your own limited little world view with THE REAL WORLD.

6. This is the funniest thing in your entire post. Yes, you could re-invent the wheel. You could spend years and years noodling at the piano until you got good voice-leading and resolved a perfect cadence so it sounds right... and you could learn it in an afternoon with those DREADFUL books and HORRIBLE teachers upon whom you keep casting aspersions. You are basically saying that you are too lazy to sit through a course and learn things, that you'd rather spend your time trying to figure it out by yourself? Well, have fun! I'm just happy that no one on this forum takes you seriously.

7. Yes, those few who are too lazy to LEARN what they need and too lazy to WORK at their music to become as good as they can be.

8. Well, I'm sorry you were too lazy to continue your studies, but, doing what you are doing is only going to make it more difficult. You are basically trying to learn how to make fire from scratch while ignoring the guy holding the matches. Sure, lightning strikes every once ina while, and sure you could actually come up with some good ideas if you are talented... but if you had the training, you wouldn't NEED to rely on lightning strikes!

9. And here, without even understanding what it is you are talking about, you still manage to speak a bit of truth. Yes, pour your heart out into your music. Don't rely on rules when you write. Create the sounds you want to create.

HOWEVER... understand those rules and why they existed. Understand WHY they existed and you will see HOW you can supercede them.

If you ignore the fact that the wheel exists, you won't be able to produce a better wheel. Blindness isn't a solution.

Michel, my respect for you grows every time I read one of your posts, just as it does whenever I listen to your music.

"If you ignore the fact that the wheel exists, you won't be able to produce a better wheel."

"Go parade your ignorance elsewhere."

I am inclined to translate those into latin and quote them at opportune moments :P

Michel, my respect for you grows every time I read one of your posts, just as it does whenever I listen to your music.

"If you ignore the fact that the wheel exists, you won't be able to produce a better wheel."

"Go parade your ignorance elsewhere."

I am inclined to translate those into latin and quote them at opportune moments :P

well, the "parade" remark, out of context, really sounds considerably more insulting than it was intended to....

What I find in this sort of post (the OP, I mean) is that most, if not all, of the assumptions (as they are nothing more than assumptions) are actually based on nothing more than ignorance of reality.

How seriously can we take the comments of someone who does not differentiate between Beethoven and Bach, yet advocates Yanni as some sort of paradigm of compositional quality?

These can only be the words of one who has not sufficient background to even START such discussions. It cannot be taken seriously by anyone with even a modicum of musical knowledge. It is reverse elitism at its worst.

"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 do that, 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 so hypocritical, sir!" (djsell)

Once again, nonexistant information is being implied from my statement. I never stated that I didn't like it when instructors told students how to write and not write music. I said I was disappointed in the fact that they told students what music is and what it's not (indirectly, of course).

Wait, wait, wait...I don't see how you're proving my statement wrong. Okay, so you're just disappointed in what they've done...then aren't you disappointed that you've done the same thing? Also, you haven't seen my edited post, have you?

You can't tell someone what music is or isn't.

You told us music is all from emotions and not knowledge:

You write music from your heart' date=' not your knowledge.[/quote']

That's pretty much telling me what music is: if it's written that way, it is that way. My post still stands.

I somehow doubt we'll get any sense at all out of this guy now.

I somehow doubt we'll get any sense at all out of this guy now.

Well one thing is for sure, he can't hold his arguments.

We interrupt this thread for the following important message:

Will all abled-body music theory instructors please report to the following thread to assist in a modulation emergency on a plucked-string piece called Repikulous. The poor composer is stuck in the key of G and can't seem to regain harmonic consciousness.

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/many-ways-modulation-11025.html

Thank you.

Everyone else may return to this regularly scheduled senseless rant

Abra, I think that this is BY FAR the best SPAM I've seen! Well done! And my 2nd tab is already at that thread!

IMPORTANT NOTICE!

We interrupt this thread for the following important message:

Will all abled-body music theory instructors please report to the following thread to assist in a modulation emergency on a plucked-string piece called Repikulous. The poor composer is stuck in the key of G and can't seem to regain harmonic consciousness.

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/many-ways-modulation-11025.html

Thank you.

Everyone else may return to this regularly scheduled senseless rant

HAHA :laugh: I am so going to vote for you as the Spam of the Year :toothgrin:

I actually thought that something terrible had happened :thumbsup::)

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.

These are the times that I miss Nico most....

These are the times that I miss Nico most....

Sorry to go on a tangent, but this thread doesn't seem like it's going anywhere anyways.

Before i joined the forum I saw his posts and they seemed to be quite well informed. I don't understand - why does it say he was banned? If this is an inappropriate question or an inappropriate place to ask it, apologies in advance.