How do you obtain success in music?

<comment deleted>

An important part of getting there is knowing where to get. What should your music be like when it is where i needs to be. I don't know if Beethoven knew he'd write something like his grand fugue when he was sixteen. I mean this style-wish. But to get there requires to know where to get. Then there is how to get there. What is the difference between what you have now and what you have when you are "there". What steps do you need to take in, what order and is it even possible. This goes for everything you want to achieve i think. It's not the only way, but it surely helps.

Wheter or not you need to be born into music in order to be successfull has an asnwer of it has it's advandges but it's not "the only possible option". To be a very good composer you need experience and in your childhood you learn easier then in a later stage of life, but wheter you gain experience from your second upto you fourteeth or from you eighteenth upto you sixteeth is a minor difference.

So you need to be born with the possibily and work hard to make advantage of it. This train of though isn't statisticly underpind as well as the only truth but rather just optional ideas.

Mozart and Haydn believes each other was the best composer.

You really cannot fake a Beethoven type personality. It takes a lot from you and high expectations of yourself is tiresome. It really takes a toll on you, so if you are not naturally that kind of person, don't bother.

You want success in music? What kind? Personal success? Finical Success? Music Revolution? To make it in music, in my humble opinion, you need a strong belief in yourself that your music is good, despite what people say at times. You need to constantly be improving your style, and you have to be able to offer something that other composers cannot offer.

Take a look at a lot of the composers here. Their work sounds nice, but it's painfully clear that the majority are amateurs. You can bring their work to the general public and they might be fooled, but all in all, none of it sounds really different from each other. With a few exceptions, most composers sound exactly the same. Prevent that and still sound good, you'll do fine.

You don't. There is a conspiracy theory behind composers. It's all lies. There is no such thing as a composer. When the time comes, you'll find out (oh, and take the blue pill...)

You can read all about composers here

It's hard to compare success in composition in Beethoven's time to success in composition now for several reasons. The primary reason is that, simply put, the people paying for new music are not usually paying for the kind of music most people write.

There are exceptions to this, of course, but I would say that most new music enthusiasts are NOT neo-Romantics. This means, for the hordes of people that are writing in the harmonic language of 1600-1800, they're going to find a very hard time trying to stay afloat. Why pay for someone's bad imitation of Mozart when most Mozart is in the public domain? etc.

The second reason, unfortunately, is that we no longer have a culture that truly supports the fine arts. Instead, the "ivory tower" institutions (Universities, conservatories, "arts groups", cultural societies, etc) carry the weight of most of the classical music world on their shoulders. If you want to write music "for the public", you'd be better off writing pop.

Sorry if this seems like a cynical view, but It's as accurate as possible. Unless you either meet the right people or compromise your integrity, composing as a living can be very difficult. Your best bet would to either become a resident artist or endowed artist from a university or conservatory. It usually requires teaching as well, but you'd be getting paid to create, and you'd have the school's resources (music collection, printing/copying, software, etc) available to you. To try to achieve this, however, you truly need to develop your own voice. For many people this won't be very realistic, since it will require acknowledging the advancements of the arts and culture after the year 1850.

Oi, touche...

I was about to apologize, but I'm not going to. I write music not for fame, but because I enjoy what I do, I want to help build up the repetoire available for neglected instruments, and I want to make new music that is accessable to students.

I, however, am a violist, and as such fit the stereotype of a bad composer.

It's hard to compare success in composition in Beethoven's time to success in composition now for several reasons. The primary reason is that, simply put, the people paying for new music are not usually paying for the kind of music most people write.

There are exceptions to this, of course, but I would say that most new music enthusiasts are NOT neo-Romantics. This means, for the hordes of people that are writing in the harmonic language of 1600-1800, they're going to find a very hard time trying to stay afloat. Why pay for someone's bad imitation of Mozart when most Mozart is in the public domain? etc.

The second reason, unfortunately, is that we no longer have a culture that truly supports the fine arts. Instead, the "ivory tower" institutions (Universities, conservatories, "arts groups", cultural societies, etc) carry the weight of most of the classical music world on their shoulders. If you want to write music "for the public", you'd be better off writing pop.

Sorry if this seems like a cynical view, but It's as accurate as possible. Unless you either meet the right people or compromise your integrity, composing as a living can be very difficult. Your best bet would to either become a resident artist or endowed artist from a university or conservatory. It usually requires teaching as well, but you'd be getting paid to create, and you'd have the school's resources (music collection, printing/copying, software, etc) available to you. To try to achieve this, however, you truly need to develop your own voice. For many people this won't be very realistic, since it will require acknowledging the advancements of the arts and culture after the year 1850.

Some very good points there. I'm just not sure about the "no longer" having a culture to support the fine arts. It was always "ivory tower" institutions that supported the arts, be that nobility or the church. The number of truly independant artists was extremely sparse. (Beethoven was pretty much an exception there, being able to make a living without being employed, like Haydn or Mozart always were.) And people like Wagner would never have been able to write and perform the big stuff they wrote without the support of wealthy sponsors.

Also, it's not quite accurate to say "the fine arts" in general. There is a large market for contemporary visual arts, and it has become a very economic business, in constrast to "contemporary classical" composition which has only a very small market. Which, in my opinion, has beside the drawback of not making much money many positive effects too, as art is immediately endangered the moment it becomes too market-driven.

Regardless of whether universities, the church, the nobility, or the free market support composers, the problem remains that it's almost impossible to be "independant".

Depends what you define success. I'd consider myself successful if some people remember my music after I die, but I'm not sure if I would consider myself successful if I just made a lot of money from composing.

My view on life is that money is just something that you need to get through life, but once you're dead for 200 years how important is money? If you wrote something really great 200 years later people would still be listening to it. And I consider that successful.

How do you get there? Write something great :P.

Notice my use of modifiers like "truly", "generally", "mostly", etc, etc, etc. I'm making generalized statements that should be understood as such. Yes, I know visual art (especially outsider art) is still thriving.

Also, I wouldn't call the "ivory tower" institutions of today comparable to the institutions that financed art up to the 19th century. The church and the royal governments endowed and paid musicians because the the music was publicly accepted, and the institution wanted control over that art. Modern institutions endow musicians because they practice an art generally unfavored by the public and their residency is the only thing that will keep them eating. I know it's a broad generalization, but for most composers-in-residence, this is fairly true. If it weren't for their university jobs paying the bills, many of them would not be doing what they are today.

Funny how Beethoven just works like that, though. Nearly every composer after Beethoven has been notably influenced by him, and no other composer in his time (or really after his time) enjoyed the independence and success he was afforded (the the possible exception of Mahler, who was able to make a living conducting half the year and compose free the rest of the year).

When Beethoven was first emerging as a composer, a Prince asked if he could retain him as a court musician/composer like Haydn had been. Of course, Beethoven turned him down, and asked why, he replied (somewhat liberal translation, but it's as close as I can remember) "Kind sir, princes will come and go, but there is only one Beethoven." (I'm fairly sure that's out of Music in the Western World, if anyone wants to look up the text).

Gardner, if you're interested, I recommend you look at Jaque Atalli's book "Noise". It's a study of politics through musical economy. Wonderful stuff. We used it in my junior seminar, and it talks a lot about art and the power those who control it can wield. Great stuff.

Notice my use of modifiers like "truly", "generally", "mostly", etc, etc, etc. I'm making generalized statements that should be understood as such. Yes, I know visual art (especially outsider art) is still thriving.

Also, I wouldn't call the "ivory tower" institutions of today comparable to the institutions that financed art up to the 19th century. The church and the royal governments endowed and paid musicians because the the music was publicly accepted, and the institution wanted control over that art. Modern institutions endow musicians because they practice an art generally unfavored by the public and their residency is the only thing that will keep them eating. I know it's a broad generalization, but for most composers-in-residence, this is fairly true. If it weren't for their university jobs paying the bills, many of them would not be doing what they are today.

Funny how Beethoven just works like that, though. Nearly every composer after Beethoven has been notably influenced by him, and no other composer in his time (or really after his time) enjoyed the independence and success he was afforded (the the possible exception of Mahler, who was able to make a living conducting half the year and compose free the rest of the year).

When Beethoven was first emerging as a composer, a Prince asked if he could retain him as a court musician/composer like Haydn had been. Of course, Beethoven turned him down, and asked why, he replied (somewhat liberal translation, but it's as close as I can remember) "Kind sir, princes will come and go, but there is only one Beethoven." (I'm fairly sure that's out of Music in the Western World, if anyone wants to look up the text).

Gardner, if you're interested, I recommend you look at Jaque Atalli's book "Noise". It's a study of politics through musical economy. Wonderful stuff. We used it in my junior seminar, and it talks a lot about art and the power those who control it can wield. Great stuff.

Film composers still live a generally independent life. They look around for projects and then once a project is done they can either stop for a while or find another.

One thing that's incredibly changed nowadays compared to, well ten years ago, is the accebility of music. The internet has giving us tremedoes oppertunities for obtaining people willing to invest in you, or knowing where you music might be wanted. This site being a great example of the new possibilties. I don't study music in a school, or even know composers i can touch. I mean i could look in the eye. To make clear to those with a perverted mind.

After a day of study(psychology that is) and working a part time job. I click my mouse three times a can see what other composers are doing, what they think about and so on. If i'd written anything near as good as beethoven( oke, or bach, mozart and you can name the rest) i'm sure a lot of people would know this. Far more then anywhere befor the introduction of the internet, giving the start-up time it took to get it generaly accesible :-) Post it on youtube and you'll be at oprahs before you know it.

What i mean is that the possiblities for getting an audience willing to pay for you are more numerous then ever before. I mean type in Kyle Landry at youtube, if he'll give out a cd for a reasonble low price, he could make a nice buck out of it. That's an foresight, not a fact i know. Yet my point is clear i think. There are a whole lot of new possiblities for us!

What is having succes is a personal preference. But making money to have more time to compose is something a lot of would like i'd quess.

Film composers still live a generally independent life. They look around for projects and then once a project is done they can either stop for a while or find another.

But they're amongst the least independant composers when it comes to which music actually to write. In most cases you pretty much have to do what the director wants you to do. In the end, your "musical vision" doesn't really matter (unless with certain directors), it's all just to serve the pictures, storyline, and the ideas of the director, and your ability to accurately put these into music. Of course, a great film music composer might be able to make good music on top of that, but he's still very much bound by the demands of the project.

Succcess in music is when you write something you yourself can still stand listening to after it's completed. I've yet to achieve any level of success in music.

That's not a very good phrase :(

Succcess in music is when you write something you yourself can still stand listening to after it's completed. I've yet to achieve any level of success in music.

I guess that's one definition...

Sadly, I know this 75 yr old guy, who pumps out a new piece of "music" every morning while having a crap or while shaving or while burning his toast...

The old fart just re-writes the same tired old chord progression, and quite honestly, if I never hear another one of his "masterpieces" again I'll die quite happy.

He thinks of himself as a success, by your definition. Come to think of it, he thinks my music is pretty much all just noise. Mind you, I get performed by professional musicians. He doesn't. Is he a success? or am I?

I don't even think I'm a "successful" composer yet. I want to be SO busy that I have to refuse commissions. THAT is my idea of success. But that ONLY applies to me, because it's my goal in life as a composer.

So, for the OP:

how to gain success?

Write well.

Whatever style of music you write, do it to the utmost. Learn all teh techniques involved. If you write tonal music, well, be individual about it, don't copy others. learn your harmony, go beyond it, understand it. Learn your counterpoint, learn how it applies to all music in SOME way.

Then write music that is impeccable. Invest every ounce of your energy into every note you write. NEVER just "toss off" a new piece while taking a dump. Construct your music, then nurture it, build it, design it, AND feel it.

Write FOR performers.

Don't write for sopranino trombone and kazoo band UNLESS you actually HAVE a sopranino trombone and kazoo band ready to perform your music.

Write for ensembles you know.

If you don't KNOW any, then write for traditional groupings of instruments: flute/piano, violin/piano, piano trio, string quartet, piano solo, etc...

And hold off on the symphonies and concerti. Those are the MOST difficult to get performed.

Write vocal music! Are you a pianist? then write song cycles and find a singer you could accompany in concert. They are always happy to have an apportunity to sing their own repertoire in concert, so adding your pieces to a programme becomes a win/win situation for both of you.

Do you sing win a choir? Write a short piece of them.

The whole idea is.. try to write for people you CAN have access to.

Get performed.

See the majority of the above. Remember, sopranino trombone and kazoo band = not good. Piano solo = good.

Clean scores, well-written scores, neat parts... ESSENTIAL to getting prformed.

There is a thread somewhere on this forum, where someone asks "is good notation important to you?" Well, guess what? Regardless of what anyone answers, take this advice to heart: good clean notation is ESSENTIAL to getting performed. It doesn't matter if you wrote the most brilliant piece of genius if it's notated like a 3-yr old did it.

Get asked to write new music BY those performers.

Obviously, this is the step that comes AFTER the above steps have been done. No one is going to come looking for you if they don't know you exist. Cultivate friendships with musicians. And don't ask favours of people. When you get people wanting your music, they are doing you a favour.. but at least THEY are the ones coming to YOU.

As long as you are hunting for performers, you are not a success. When the performers are hunting for you, THEN you are a success.

But the thought did occur to me...

... I was born in a non-musical family. BUT during pregnancy my mother listened to a LOT of classical music. As a baby, Gran saw me swinging my head to the music of "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik". So, she took me for piano lessons. We had difficult times when my parents had to give up ALL luxuries (Sweets, a new house, even a car!) just to pay my piano lessons. And yes, it was difficult - but praise God for them. They gave everthing so that I can have everything someday...

... After 15 years of music, I am a young pianist, ardent composer and love them just as much. Beign home schooled, my earlier days was spend playing the piano for hours on to end. And after all... My passion, inspiration and motivation comes from my parents. (Thanx mom, dad xxx)

And also, a loving family who always motivates me and supports me.

It all depends on what you consider "being a success".

Once you determine what that is, there are myriad paths to get there... or not. That's a fruity answer, but seriously - even those who put their heart, soul, knowledge, and skill into becoming a success can still fail. Or succeed and then fail.

Life has no guarantees.

I almost was going to say "except for death", but then I realized that out of all humans who have ever lived through ten thousands of years, quite a significant number is still alive (let's say 10%), so statistically speaking we can't say for sure that all humans die! :D

Of course this looks different if we take other life forms into account :(

I almost was going to say "except for death", but then I realized that out of all humans who have ever lived through ten thousands of years, quite a significant number is still alive (let's say 10%), so statistically speaking we can't say for sure that all humans die! :D

Of course this looks different if we take other life forms into account :(

I think what he meant is that life has the guarantee that it, if unaided, ends sometime. Unaided by which I refer to immortality pills, which I take every morning. ...And have for thousands of--

I view success as a close cousin of achieving goals. I view musical success as accomplishing what my goal is; therefor, my definition of success is an ever changing thing. For instance if my goal were to write something other than a string of formless eighth notes and i accomplish this, then i have reached a momentary success.

I kind of fear reaching a "perfect" success (and becoming complacent), because for me that means not having a goal. This is where my writing would become static and lose it interest. I have nothing to strive for.

Finally: I guess my view of success is never reaching success. <-- yeah, like that isn't confusing. lol