Ideal Composition Lesson Series

Dear composers,

A question: What do you think would the ideal series of composition lessons teach the student, and in what order? Why?

An idea: Let us build an "Interactive Composition Self-Study Forum".

In it a composition student can progress from 0 to 100 all by himself, by personal initiative without a personal tutor. The idea is that it would be a place where every composition student would find what he/she needs, no matter what his/her level of knowledge. We have a great opportunity to collectively create such a series of lessons. What is more, the students will provide feedback and the lessons will improve and be refined with time and student-provided feedback.

I am suggesting this because of:

1) Several shortcomings of the lessons that are provided via student-teacher pairs:

a) They are taking very long to progress.

b) There may be a lot of repetition across the lessons of different student-teacher pairs.

2) The student may know best what he or she needs and can find it in a self-study program, while the teacher knows best what the average student needs and can provide it for a self-study program.

Luder Artinian

I'm all for this (as a [potential] student).

but that takes away the point of the lessons. we don't care about the average student, we care about 1 student. it is important that the teachers assess where the student is, and then tailor challenges and lessons to that skill level. also, a form like this may inspire bad habits to continue. for example, with no feedback, that person who thinks he's doing alright may be totally off track, or vice versa, you see where I'm coming from?

But I still think it will provide a good basis from which to branch off into individual lessons.

Luder

I will disagree vehamently with the OP of this thread.

Generally, the student is the LAST person who "knows best what he needs" in a composition lesson. As a matter of fact, most students of composition barely have any conception of what is lacking from their craft without the assistance of a teacher. Without feedback from a teacher, as has been rightly mentionned, there is no way for the student to KNOW whether or not the application of technique is being done correctly or in the right context.

I think, though, that he is suggesting the teachers do it... otherwise, you are right, it would be lame.

I think this could work, if it were only on basic stuff, and we kept the teaching system for working on a project of the student's.

I think most teachers will be glad to cooperate together to contribute to something more ambitious and lasting alongside their contribution of teaching individual students. The web provides for such cooperation. The teachers will also learn from each other as well as from their students. And the students may learn something more from a group of cooperating teachers than they would from a single teacher.

Luder

I think that a list of lessons for what an absolute beginner should go through is more ideal. For example the list might look like:

Basic theory

Harmony

Structure

etc.

The reason for this is because, as pointed out, the student does not know what's best for themselves but then neither does the teacher sometimes on an internet forum. It is not the same as a face-to-face lesson where the teacher can gain a better understanding of their student's needs therefore they do not always teach what is best. The internet may be able to bring people from other continents together but it also limits conversation. A list of the order of lessons a student should go through means that a student can see exactly what they need to learn and what they may want to patch up on. The way the lessons are structured currently do not allow this as the teacher can only have an idea of their student's level and do not know if all the basics and fundamentals have been taught to an acceptable standard.

A one-size-fits-all type of lesson defeats the whole point of what the forum is trying to do. Instead, a guideline for students can enable them to choose a subject that will help them develop as a composer in the best possible way. Once they have decided on what they want to study, students can find teachers who will be able to tailor lessons according to their ability and needs.

As I can agree with that a beginner composer does not necessarily "know best what he needs", I would still be interested in something like a collaboration on various areas of composition with the intent to broaden the knowledge that we have and make it easily reachable, cause I realize that we have some really skilled and experienced composers here, and it'd be really great if they'd share their knowledge for the larger masses. I'd say no to wasting the student-teacher pairs as I believe most people need some guidance to get somewhere with their composition (including me).

I think this might work with some basic composing aspects, but in general I think that as students they do need teacher input desperately.

Like with everything else in life, everybody is different and therefore, need different things.

It has also been proven that different people progress better under different teaching conditions/methods of explanation.

So in my humble opinion, I think student-teacher works better.

Plus, if everyone posted answers to exercises, they could learn from each other, and a "teacher" could understand their weaknesses and then go off and develop a more specialized lesson based upon where that leaves the student.

I think it would just save some time spent on the redundant parts of teaching, and then focus the lessons on the parts that really need work.

Most importantly, such a system would serve as a platform for teacher-teacher, student-student and student-teacher/teacher-student collaboration for the creation or discovery of the best teaching methods and the best lessons.

I propose the following titles for collaboration between composition teachers, and teachers and students:

First Lesson of Form

First Lesson of Harmony

First Lesson of Counterpoint

First Lesson would mean something like: the most fundamental skills concerning.

I look forward for suggestions for each title from composers, as well as the ideas of students as to what they would expect to learn from that section.

Luder

If you're going to do that, you may as well have it as a requirement for students that they have read a certain list of textbooks.

You know what? This would be better if it was an integrated method. What I hate most about most composition books is that they talk about form for about a year, and miss the more important things, like harmony, counterpoint, etc.... I also hate that they don't allow the student to do anything. they are just sort of big books of useless information.

I would be all for this if it was written with integrated topics and had exercises in every lesson.

Maybe the best way we can realize this idea of the "Ideal Composition Lesson Series" would be by having viewers rate individual lessons by the different teacher-student pairs (in the Interactive: Lessons section) about the different aspects of composition (according to how much they benefited from reading them) and putting together the highest-scoring lessons for self-study.

.......

2) The student may know best what he or she needs and can find it in a self-study program, while the teacher knows best what the average student needs and can provide it for a self-study program.

Luder Artinian

Can't agree with all the assumptions in that. What's an average student? What do you want to turn out? Average composers?

The only aspects of music that can be taught are rules. The rest has to come from the student.

Ferneyhough had it about right.

Can't agree with all the assumptions in that. What's an average student? What do you want to turn out? Average composers?

No. What I would like to do is to narrow the gap between composers and non-composers. I would like to create music literacy just as there is language literacy. Even though there are only a few great writers, the average man knows how to write and if called upon or inspired can even try his hand at poetry. Shouldn't it be the same with music? Why should the average man be nearly illiterate in music? Why should music be an 'elitist' language accessible to only a few and with difficulty? Why should one have to embrace composition only as a career and not be able to easily learn it as a language for self expression?

Luder

No. What I would like to do is to narrow the gap between composers and non-composers. I would like to create music literacy just as there is language literacy. Even though there are only a few great writers, the average man knows how to write and if called upon or inspired can even try his hand at poetry. Shouldn't it be the same with music? Why should the average man be nearly illiterate in music? Why should music be an 'elitist' language accessible to only a few and with difficulty? Why should one have to embrace composition only as a career and not be able to easily learn it as a language for self expression?

Luder

In which case I basically agree. Apologies for a misunderstanding. There's a difference between the artist and creator; and non-artist, non-creator (or lesser creator) in music just as with drawing or literature/poetry or any of the arts. With tuition and practice a non-artist can become first class which does not make them artists even if more literate in the particular art.

Elitism: Unfortunately while verbal communication is necessary for any kind of interpersonal interaction (or to supplement it) and is inhered through most children's growth, music is not perceived as important - much the fault of our education system. (When it is part of family life, children become at least familiar with it.) Learning music, particularly performance, needs an instrument (usually lessons, and these don't come cheap these days). There's little sense in attempting to compose until one has had some experience of playing - a genius might do it but we aren't addressing them. The expense generally puts music out of reach of lower-income families - not entirely because one exceptionally finds an aspirant from such a background, someone who gets their hand on (or makes) an instrument. So, inasmuch as it needs either good family support, the parents are usually reasonably educated, and a little money, it leans toward elitism.

However, there are several levels of "teaching" composition: awaken most people's dormant but natural musical skills - people sing, they can make up tunes; teach them academically as far as possible, assuming they can develop an aural imagination; or the Ferneyhough way which is in some ways an extension of the first but without necessarily requiring (at the outset) any knowledge of music theory which he sees as a possible hindrance (in that technical issues may frustrate the course of expression). An idea I'm increasingly leaning toward.

Your arguments are most thought-provoking! Interesting.

In which case I basically agree. Apologies for a misunderstanding. There's a difference between the artist and creator; and non-artist, non-creator (or lesser creator) in music just as with drawing or literature/poetry or any of the arts. With tuition and practice a non-artist can become first class which does not make them artists even if more literate in the particular art.

However, by the same token a potential gifted composer (artist) can be prevented from realising his potential for lack of sufficient literacy or adequate tuition in music, whereas if he wanted to be a novelist he could count on his writing ability. With composition it is as if a child were left alone to learn the alphabet and making words and sentences (let alone writing an essay) and could not count on his education to provide him with that ability.

Elitism: Unfortunately while verbal communication is necessary for any kind of interpersonal interaction (or to supplement it) and is inhered through most children's growth, music is not perceived as important - much the fault of our education system. (When it is part of family life, children become at least familiar with it.) Learning music, particularly performance, needs an instrument (usually lessons, and these don't come cheap these days). There's little sense in attempting to compose until one has had some experience of playing - a genius might do it but we aren't addressing them. The expense generally puts music out of reach of lower-income families - not entirely because one exceptionally finds an aspirant from such a background, someone who gets their hand on (or makes) an instrument. So, inasmuch as it needs either good family support, the parents are usually reasonably educated, and a little money, it leans toward elitism.

However, there are several levels of "teaching" composition: awaken most people's dormant but natural musical skills - people sing, they can make up tunes; teach them academically as far as possible, assuming they can develop an aural imagination; or the Ferneyhough way which is in some ways an extension of the first but without necessarily requiring (at the outset) any knowledge of music theory which he sees as a possible hindrance (in that technical issues may frustrate the course of expression). An idea I'm increasingly leaning toward.

Your arguments are most thought-provoking! Interesting.

Thanks. My frustration - as an amateur aspiring composer reluctant to make composition into a career (possibly) only to discover (after finally having mastered the language) that I do not after all have the necessary talent or find myself confronted with a writing block- drives my arguments. I even fear that academic training will dry up my inspiration.

Luder

Several factors come into play here. Would you be prepared to teach? If so, would you want to teach as a hack or develop your own tutorial style?

How insistent will you be on artistic integrity? E.g. would you be prepared to compose to order (commissions) in the style required by a client rather than only accept commissions giving you carte blanche to work in your preferred style? Would you be ready to follow a popular trend while composing works in your 'true' style in the background, hoping to slide them into concerts etc where you can. Holst worked along these lines, thinking he'd cheated himself with the popularity of The Planets.

Seems best to be adaptable both as composer and with work to supplement income (if necessary). I copped out. Though I wouldn't like to teach classes I still occasionally teach privately 1:1 a mix of the satisfying work of helping develop compositional skills; and processing others through their theory exams. However, I chose a 'career' rather outside music. It's always best to have something to fall back on if fates treat you unkindly though. I'm thinking of the hundreds of composers displaced by the sudden explosion of "new music" in the 1960s. That flurry over, some are now reclaiming their ground, alas many of them dead.

My concerns were similar to your own except for writers' block, substitute will-power. There seemed little point in going into composing for fame and money. Perhaps 1:5,000,000 aspirants achieve one or both in their lifetimes - as dependant on who you know as blood sweat and tears - and being famous when dead affords little satisfaction to me. But there's nothing to stop anyone treating music as a serious hobby while making money where possible. It helps to be adequate enough a performer to play in at least the lesser accomplished orchestras or in an intermediate level ensemble - often sources of getting works performed especially an ensemble so you can stage events yourself.

cheers,

Montpellier

Do you agree to have the individual lessons rated by viewers as a first step towards the implementation of the Ideal Lessons plan?

If so, how can we make it possible for viewers to rate the lessons?