Extract (and translantion) of Theo Brandm

Thanks to Gardener for the translation.

"Specifically the latter [academic education] is sometimes prone to actually spoil composing for people, to put it blantly. Orthodox guardians who think of composing as some kind of "ultra-theory" or "super-theory" might sniff at that. But it just isn't the case that for example the quickness of modulating from Gb major to F# major has to be a significant indicator of compositional talent. Is the subject of music theory therefore too limiting, binding, irriatting, even nonsensical, or is it necessary for composing? The "ancients" (rightfully) couldn't give a clear answer to this question. In the music of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century there was a quasi axiomatic fundamental vocabulary, that had to be accepted and in some way mastered as a prerequisite to composing, as this knowledge could (uncontradictedly) add up to the "compositional product". Needless to say that this level of bindingness has diminished for the finding of a personal style today, or even vanished: The existence of many coherent, but also open, "composition systems" and esthetics oblige an "educated" composer to learn about them, but without the necessity of mastering the reproduction of these various idioms.

Without Richard Wagner's "fugue exercises" one could not admire the contrapunctual mastery of the "Meistersinger", nor the same trait with, say, Mendelssohn, Bruckner, or Cesar Franck, where it is even a stylistic feature. The mastered craft had by it's clearly symbiotic meaning a clear function; a function, which however has today lost (and had to lose) this clear symbiotic meaning in favour of the much more open kind of "com-ponere".

For finding talent, the realisation should therefore prevail, that the search for a style, courage for an original solution, courage to experiment, courage to be unorthodox should have an increased value. Like this, penetrating the material of composition would lead to more problem-aware composition, than if one (also with beginners) based it only on style copying. (Recognizing the "catalytic importance" of such practices.)"

The original in German can be found Komponieren kann man ohnehin nicht lernen - here.

I have to say that I entirely agree with what he says.

Well SSC - His comments have alot of merit though I have concern about some musicians being so excessively couragous with their pursuit of unorthodoxy, individual style, experimentation that it becomes recklessness. I have hears some anecdotal evidence of this happening at a few American schools in the 1970s. Nevertheless, the author ONLY advocates courage and is NOT dismissing study of traditional forms if I am correct. I think there is a balance between the two tendencies to reach one very important lesson the author sees as most important for the composer to learn:

Problem - awareness.

Now, that is a nice summation of what makes a great composition teacher - he or she presents students the problems each composer faces and offers examples as only possible solutions to inspire rather than copy.

Well SSC - His comments have alot of merit though I have concern about some musicians being so excessively courageous with their pursuit of unorthodoxy, individual style, experimentation that it becomes recklessness. I have hears some anecdotal evidence of this happening at a few American schools in the 1970s. Nevertheless, the author ONLY advocates courage and is NOT dismissing study of traditional forms if I am correct. I think there is a balance between the two tendencies to reach one very important lesson the author sees as most important for the composer to learn:

Problem - awareness.

Now, that is a nice summation of what makes a great composition teacher - he or she presents students the problems each composer faces and offers examples as only possible solutions to inspire rather than copy.

Well, the main point is that there is really no other way when there cannot be an uniformly acceptable and practicable curriculum for studying composition and that composition should not be simply another level of "theory" but rather it should be coupled WITH musicological fields (history, theory, etc) to give the composer the weapons to properly tackle their compositional issues or devise new answers to old problems when the need arises.

Thanks to Gardener for the translation.

"Specifically the latter [academic education] is sometimes prone to actually spoil composing for people, to put it blantly. Orthodox guardians who think of composing as some kind of "ultra-theory" or "super-theory" might sniff at that. But it just isn't the case that for example the quickness of modulating from Gb major to F# major has to be a significant indicator of compositional talent.

I don't know that anyone is making (or has ever made) such a claim in all seriousness. Wow, we're off to a great start aren't we?

Is the subject of music theory therefore too limiting, binding, irritating, even nonsensical, or is it necessary for composing?

Therefore? Because of the sarcastic comment about Gb to F# MODULATION? You must be joking...

Do you agree that the subject of music theory is too limiting and unnecessary for composing, SSC?

The "ancients" (rightfully) couldn't give a clear answer to this question. In the music of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century there was a quasi axiomatic fundamental vocabulary, that had to be accepted and in some way mastered as a prerequisite to composing, as this knowledge could (uncontradictedly) add up to the "compositional product". Needless to say that this level of bindingness has diminished for the finding of a personal style today, or even vanished: The existence of many coherent, but also open, "composition systems" and aesthetics oblige an "educated" composer to learn about them, but without the necessity of mastering the reproduction of these various idioms.

I categorically agree and disagree with this. If it's an indicator of anything, it's that composers have become lazy where mastery of these systems is concerned. This is where the magic happens and where we get the contemporary masterworks of today - from these systems and the twists these composers made to these systems.

Without Richard Wagner's "fugue exercises" one could not admire the contrapunctual mastery of the "Meistersinger", nor the same trait with, say, Mendelssohn, Bruckner, or Cesar Franck, where it is even a stylistic feature. The mastered craft had by it's clearly symbiotic meaning a clear function; a function, which however has today lost (and had to lose) this clear symbiotic meaning in favor of the much more open kind of "com-ponere".

I'm not sure I quite understand what the author is trying to say here... but let me see if I get it.

Had to lose... why did we have to lose the symbiotic meaning of a clear function? What is it about the functionality of the fugue or its symbiotic language that we had to relinquish - that we couldn't build around and beyond - instead of developing the style further? Building upon what we "already had" has been happening, over and over again, for hundreds of years. Now, all of a sudden, we "had to lose" this functionality?

Explain why.

For finding talent, the realization should therefore prevail, that the search for a style, courage for an original solution, courage to experiment, courage to be unorthodox should have an increased value. Like this, penetrating the material of composition would lead to more problem-aware composition, than if one (also with beginners) based it only on style copying. (Recognizing the "catalytic importance" of such practices.)"

The original in German can be found Komponieren kann man ohnehin nicht lernen - here.

I have to say that I entirely agree with what he says.

Yeah, I believe about half of what he says has merit but there is something fundamentally wrong with this position. What is "unorthodox" today? This all depends on your frame of reference and level of abstraction. Elaborate and qualify what you think it means to be unorthodox when we've already relinquished functionality and with it everything that created an orthodox method of creating music.

No such orthodoxy exists today. How can we have "courage to be unorthodox" when there's no "orthodox" practice?

The entire framework of this discussion falls in on itself. It's a bit lackluster.

EDIT: I'm not advocating that we keep the fugue or just keep making the same old music either. I'm pointing out the paradox that courage can be assessed and valued based on being unorthodox when no such orthodoxy exists today.

We have no system of composition today. It's all experimentally driven. There is no necessity for courage because no system is in place to weigh against the composer.

I don't know that anyone is making (or has ever made) such a claim in all seriousness. Wow, we're off to a great start aren't we?

Therefore? Because of the sarcastic comment about Gb to F# MODULATION? You must be joking...

Do you agree that the subject of music theory is too limiting and unnecessary for composing, SSC?

---

Explain why.

I'll try to be brief about this.

Can you take anything for granted in composition?

If your answer is "yes" then you WILL miss the point. If you said no, you'll readily understand how these functions, meanings, etc had to disappear. Sure, you can learn about'em historically, but they are completely optional today.

And yes, there ARE people who believe far too strongly that mastering X types of things makes you automatically "better." Or that being good at theory is any measure by which to judge a composer. These people exist and I've had to deal with them much to my dismay.

As far as you thinking composers are LAZY, well, I'm not sure what kind of half-donkey education YOU had but style recreations as means to expanding the compositional vocabulary of a student has ALWAYS been an option. Of course the question of whether or not it's always relevant is very different than it's application altogether.

But there's something intrinsically problematic if you don't understand why the "mastery" of old styles or techniques is not only unnecessary but also quite impossible. You do NOT live in Mozart's time to really understand and have the full weight of all the influences that led to that level of composition. Certainly, the same can be said for the 1960s and other times past. What one can do with a history book and literature examples is quite different from what those living in those times could do, as the composition of music does not exist in a vacuum. No matter how authentic your recreation is, it is simply a copy based on incomplete knowledge. Believing one can "master" these things is only in metaphorical sense, then, as what's really being said is that you have to do your research but any other expectations must be left out because they're quite unreasonable.

Your point about orthodoxy misses the simple fact that music education (theory, specifically) when institutionalized is not nearly as free as the study of composition is. Therefore, orthodox means what must be left in the curriculum as obligatory (based on statistics of what people want/think is important/etc) and this frames his argument quite well.

this one was never taught anything meaningful in his classes, insofar as learning traditionally.

this one wishes he was.

I don't know that anyone is making (or has ever made) such a claim in all seriousness. Wow, we're off to a great start aren't we?

I don't think the point is that people are making exactly this claim. This is just used as an example for taking certain musical techniques and using them as a quality indicator for composition. The point is that whenever we speak of something like "compositional talent", we are often basing it on quite specific technical abilities, which is a very questionable practice. It might be "the ability to orchestrate in a transparent way so that every voice is clearly audible and dynamically balanced to the rest" or "the ability to develop musical ideas throughout a piece and create a coherent musical structure" or even "the ability to write a memorable melodic line". There are certainly some people who would make these latter claims. Brandm

I don't think the point is that people are making exactly this claim.

I just fail to see how this claim is worthy of discussion if no such claim has been argued under such pretenses. Even as an example, it is a foolish example that says nothing.

This is just used as an example for taking certain musical techniques and using them as a quality indicator for composition. The point is that whenever we speak of something like "compositional talent", we are often basing it on quite specific technical abilities, which is a very questionable practice. It might be "the ability to orchestrate in a transparent way so that every voice is clearly audible and dynamically balanced to the rest" or "the ability to develop musical ideas throughout a piece and create a coherent musical structure" or even "the ability to write a memorable melodic line". There are certainly some people who would make these latter claims. Brandm

No man is a walking encyclopedia of every single style ever written so, really, good luck finding such super-man. It's impossible to expect this from anyone, that's why institutions have multiple teachers with specialties, plus a lot of the scraggy you say has to do with music THEORY, not COMPOSITION.

The style crap? That's the realm of THEORY, composition is the application of whatever and the production of an artistic product. If people should be learning "all styles ever" then you really have no idea just how insane that is (or you simply didn't really read what Gardener posted!)

Sure, you can bring in an expert on each style, but that speaks zit for composition proper. Plus, you're still using terminology that you yourself don't define and is at best simply subjective, like:

"Xenakis may be relevant to the student who, after a solid theoretical exploration into music, found his voice is more well-suited to such mathematical models."

What the hell is "solid"? Theorical exploration of what exactly? Your idea of what should be explored? Who decides what is "solid" here? Why should Xenakis come AFTER all this and not BEFORE all this? Who decides this, you? On what concrete objective grounds, honestly?

Obviously, you're ill-equipped to handle this, as you have always shown to be. I suggest nobody waste any more time replying to your stuff; it's simply throwing time away on someone who simply has no idea.

Plus, you're still using terminology that you yourself don't define and is at best simply subjective, like:

"Xenakis may be relevant to the student who, after a solid theoretical exploration into music, found his voice is more well-suited to such mathematical models."

What the hell is "solid"? Theoretical exploration of what exactly? Your idea of what should be explored? Who decides what is "solid" here? Why should Xenakis come AFTER all this and not BEFORE all this? Who decides this, you? On what concrete objective grounds, honestly?

Really? You have a problem with someone becoming more informed before deciding on how to approach their craft?! I recall you AGREEING with someone else who stated as much in another thread...

Theoretical exploration... IN MUSIC THEORY!

Who decides what is "solid"? - I dunno, Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny? What a ridiculous question...

Who decides this, you? On what concrete objective grounds, honestly? - Do you really just not comprehend, or do you intentionally take an issue with the words I use just to have something to disagree with me about?

One has to wonder...

Obviously, you're ill-equipped to handle this, as you have always shown to be. I suggest nobody waste any more time replying to your stuff; it's simply throwing time away on someone who simply has no idea.

LOL!!! ROFL!!!

Read. Comprehend. Rinse and repeat. It's that simple. I do it all the time. You can too... :)

Who decides what is "solid"? - I dunno, Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny? What a ridiculous answer...

Corrected.

Stupid questions deserve ridiculous answers.