"Younger" composers biting off more than they can chew

I see A LOT of the younger composers on this board (let's say ages 14-17) posting music they write and they're always for these large ensembles! Bands, orchestras, operas, these attempts at just large scale works, and it really just made me want to say something.

When you're developing as a composer in your younger years, I really can't stress how important it is to get a handle on counterpoint, motivic development, and all the other intricacies of writing music. Hell, even strip away counterpoint, you will learn more about yourself as a musician AND as a writer from writing some kind of solo or unaccompanied piece when you're younger as opposed to trying writing a symphony. I just find it odd to see so many attempts at creating works for large ensembles that seem lackluster and not enough writing for chamber ensembles. Handling a big ensemble WELL takes a lot of skill and experience, I hope more experienced composers than I (I'm sure Nikolas and QCC can add something) can share their experiences in "growing up" and coming into their own as writers. The thought of even writing a work for a larger ensemble hasn't even crossed my mind until recently, as I prepare for my senior project recital. For the past 4 years or so I've just been focusing on chamber music, and trying to write for these different assortments of instruments, or instruments I'm not familiar with and getting out of my comfort zone. If it's not learned now, if you pursue composition in a university/conservatory setting, your professors will definitely beat it into you then.

I hope this doesn't sound "preachy" or anything, I just wanted to provide a platform for discussion of this. And I personally find threads on subjects like this MUCH more interesting and productive than "What's the best Piano Concerto!??!" or "Why Mozart rules" or "Who's the best composer on the planet ev3r!?"

I totally agree. I mean i have written one piece for orchestra, but now I'm focusing on chamber music, songs, and choral music. My composition teacher brought me down to Earth after I realized how horrible my attempt to write a symphony was. I burnt it, and looked at it as a jump start to do serious composition. So I wont be writing for a large ensemble for a long time. I learned a valuable lesson: You need to learn to walk, before you can run.

This is true to some extent, but I also think that you learn by doing, and what is writing for large ensembles going to hurt? I'm 16, and I just finished my first orchestrated work. It's not great, or professional, but I learned a lot from doing it. It seems like you look at it as a progression from solos to small ensembles to chamber works to orchestration, but I don't know if that's really how it is. My composition teacher sometimes says that two part or three part writing is the most difficult kind of writing.

I think it would be bad if people JUST wrote large orchestrated works, but i think it's best to dabble in all kinds of instrumentation so that you can learn how to do a variety of things. They won't be perfect, but they aren't doing any harm.

It may not hurt things, necessarily, but it can be much quicker and easier to learn those techniques from smaller instrumentation, as opposed to a big cumbersome beast that is difficult to manage.

As to why composers do this, I think it might be that younger composers (or, actually, composers in general; it just manifests more in the younger ones) tend to write for what inspires them. Generally you don't find chamber music being glorified in high school you usually encounter larger ensembles.

This is true to some extent, but I also think that you learn by doing, and what is writing for large ensembles going to hurt? I'm 16, and I just finished my first orchestrated work. It's not great, or professional, but I learned a lot from doing it. It seems like you look at it as a progression from solos to small ensembles to chamber works to orchestration, but I don't know if that's really how it is. My composition teacher sometimes says that two part or three part writing is the most difficult kind of writing.

I think it would be bad if people JUST wrote large orchestrated works, but i think it's best to dabble in all kinds of instrumentation so that you can learn how to do a variety of things. They won't be perfect, but they aren't doing any harm.

As Tenor said, you have to walk before you can run. I mean really, I wrote about 12 minutes total of large ensemble music in high school (10 minutes of suite for band and scraps of an orchestra piece) and I wouldn't even dare even show those things to anyone in any context. Now were they terrible? No, but were they helping me become a better composer? Eh, not really. To be honest, anyone can make a huge score in Sibelius, copy-paste an ostinato about 500 times, slap some sappy oboe solo on top of it with some brass chords and call it Symphony, and that's the danger of abundance of access.

I like how you bring up the 2-3 voice writing too, because I think that's kind of a schlock statement. When you start learning counterpoint, they don't throw the Art of Fugue on your lap and wish you luck, you start with simple 1:1 counterpoint, and you move up from there! I mean, the same goes for anything, you didn't learn how to add by trying to do physics problems, that's preposterous. Same goes for music.

It may not hurt things, necessarily, but it can be much quicker and easier to learn those techniques from smaller instrumentation, as opposed to a big cumbersome beast that is difficult to manage.

As to why composers do this, I think it might be that younger composers (or, actually, composers in general; it just manifests more in the younger ones) tend to write for what inspires them. Generally you don't find chamber music being glorified in high school you usually encounter larger ensembles.

That's too bad. My high school music program pushed a lot of people do district and state solo and ensemble events, not to mention our actual school concerts which featured performance of chamber groups. I do totally understand why it happens though, to some extent. Again, the over access is part of it too. If we didn't have Finale, and kids had to write...you know..the old fashioned way, it'd be a lot different.

While I agree, doing exercises and is boring. It doesn't hurt writing for an orchestra. You learn much more than if you didn't write for it. My second composition was a 3movement clarinet concerto and my third was a 4 movement symphony (20 minutes), and it got me into uni. I learned so much by trying it and then have someone look over it. If I hadn't written it, I would not have learned anything.

It is more beneficial than not doing it. While it wasn't his first pieces, how old was mozart when he wrote his first symphonies and operas?

While I agree, doing exercises and is boring. It doesn't hurt writing for an orchestra. You learn much more than if you didn't write for it. My second composition was a 3movement clarinet concerto and my third was a 4 movement symphony (20 minutes), and it got me into uni. I learned so much by trying it and then have someone look over it. If I hadn't written it, I would not have learned anything.

It is more beneficial than not doing it. While it wasn't his first pieces, how old was mozart when he wrote his first symphonies and operas?

It's more beneficial to read a book on Quantam Physics than not to but that doesn't mean you should.

In addition, you can't compare people to Mozart. We are in an incredibly different time period that Mozart was, and how many people started writing at age 3? And wrote pretty much the same piece over and over? And over?

We had solo/ensemble stuff as well, but when you're in high school, you don't (at least I didn't) think "Oh I want to write for a wind trio" because those types of works weren't focused on, except to recieve your medal. I personally thought they were for mostly educational purposes; I didn't realize that chamber music was performed so widespread.

Well, yah, if you are a physics student, why not read a book on quantum physics?

It's more beneficial to read a book on Quantam Physics than not to but that doesn't mean you should.

What meaningless dribble. If we were in a physics forum then it wouldn't be. It is very beneficial to composition. And if you are on this forum, and if you enjoy composition then you should. If you prefer physics than composition read Quantum Physics. Of course then there is the fact that Quantum physics is considerably more complicated than orchestra writing.

In addition, you can't compare people to Mozart. We are in an incredibly different time period that Mozart was, and how many people started writing at age 3?

I did. I know many that did. And rather than stating something and leaving it at that, tell me why you can't compare two people who start as children.

And wrote pretty much the same piece over and over? And over?

Well Mozart didn't.

We had solo/ensemble stuff as well, but when you're in high school, you don't (at least I didn't) think "Oh I want to write for a wind trio" because those types of works weren't focused on, except to recieve your metal. I personally thought they were for mostly educational purposes; I didn't realize that chamber music was performed so widespread.

It's more beneficial to read a book on Quantam Physics than not to but that doesn't mean you should.

lolwut?

In addition, you can't compare people to Mozart. We are in an incredibly different time period that Mozart was, and how many people started writing at age 3? And wrote pretty much the same piece over and over? And over?

Oh right, the "Oh my god that one composer I don't like writes stuff that all sounds the same". I mean, in a way, all music is the same. I mean, smart people know that isn't true, but that's another discussion for another time. I just love when people on this board are like, "Yeah I don't think Mozart was that great!" Wynton Marsalis addressed that in the context of some jazzers back in the day talking crap about Charlie Parker. It's always the people who aren't getting gigs who are gonna talk crap about the people who are, he basically said. And it's true, I mean yeah, you can not like something, but just to blatant talk crap about someone who is Mozart, or Charlie Parker, whoever is just ridiculously funny, I don't care who you are.

We had solo/ensemble stuff as well, but when you're in high school, you don't (at least I didn't) think "Oh I want to write for a wind trio" because those types of works weren't focused on, except to recieve your metal. I personally thought they were for mostly educational purposes; I didn't realize that chamber music was performed so widespread.

Then your music director didn't do a very good job, that's all I have to say. I wouldn't exactly call the Bartok quartets "for mostly educational purposes".

Aren't you one of the people on this board that's all into marching band and whatnot?

While I agree, doing exercises and is boring.

What?

While I agree, doing exercises and is boring.

Writing counterpoint exercises isn't exactly enthralling.

Writing counterpoint exercises isn't exactly enthralling.

The study of counterpoint is a pretty essential thing in the study of theory and composition.... Aren't you studying composition? Do you not have to take classes on counterpoint, it's pretty much a standard thing at pretty much every school I've ever come across, no matter the country...

yes, but they are assignments. They are not pieces we write because we want to and find them fun. They are compositions we HAVE to do, but they are not our compositions.

yes, but they are assignments. They are not pieces we write because we want to and find them fun. They are compositions we HAVE to do, but they are not our compositions.

Says you

Music is music.

I am not saying it isn't music. But most people, maybe you are different, prefer writing music that they enjoy. Most people do not like writing music that they are forced to write.

Yah, why does everyone have to pick at that? It's not even really relevant to the topic at hand.

I am not saying it isn't music. But most people, maybe you are different, prefer writing music that they enjoy. Most people do not like writing music that they are forced to write.

Why, if refining your counterpoint skills are that much of a chore to you, perhaps you should take up pottery. Everyone does it, Bach did it, Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Brahms, Wagner, Verdi, Stravinsky, Carter, do I need to go on? I've never heard such an adamant outburst against something like counterpoint before. By a composer no less! No no people, I think this is very relevant to the topic at hand. The "I don't wanna do what I don't wanna do" kind of mentality.

"I don't wanna write chamber music!"

"I don't wanna write in a non-common practice language!"

"I only wanna listen to bombastic Russian Romantic music!"

"I hate Mozart he's boring wahh wahh wahh he doesn't have enough FFFFFF cymbal crashes!!"

It's like a physicist who hates doing math, guess that guy should go into law, no?

Yah, why does everyone have to pick at that? It's not even really relevant to the topic at hand.

Quiet you

There's nothing wrong with disliking counterpoint. I personally like it and have done a vast amount of studying on it. But if someone could approach me and tell me why they dont like counterpoint, and back it up with some theory or something, good for them. Counterpoint has been around since Bach, maybe its time some said enough is enough. Us composers are known for pushing the boundaries, why not with that? Maybe it's time a some new form of linear harmonic ideas came about. Course this is probably just the ramblings from three in the morning. But ohwell.

What the hell are you talking about? Why are you inventing stuff?

I never said I dislike counterpoint. I like including complex counterpoint in pieces that mean something to me, projects that I enjoy working on, not assignments. I do assignments because they help my real compositions. I got news, Beethoven hated doing the counterpoint studies that Haydn made him do.

I love counterpoint, but assignments are not real compositions, they are small composition etudes.

I like how you give some members an inch and they take a mile.

I never said that I like Quantum Physics.

I never said that my likes/dislikes correlate with a particular composer's skill.

I never said the Bartok String Quartets were for educational purposes.

My first point was that just because doing something does not necessarily "harm" you, doesn't mean it's a good idea. If you're not ready to write for orchestra, then you shouldn't. Yeah, we all want to write an orchestra piece because writing for orchestra is fun; you have tons of different sounds possible. I can't wait to write an orchestra piece. But I'm not doing that right now, because I know I can get so much more out of writing for smaller ensembles (orchestration, form, and general motivic development.) So my point with the Quantum Physics business was to point out how ludicrous it is to make that statement. I agree that there is no technical "harm" in writing for an orchestra. But if I wrote an orchestra piece now as opposed to a year ago, the piece I'm writing now would be so much better, and not just due to normal personal/professional growth. I've grown so much as a composer because I've started to develop the basic abilities, not because I've jumped into a giant piece which I'm not ready for yet.

My second point, about Mozart, is that (as much as I dislike listening to more than one of his pieces a week,) he was a prodigy; everyone recognizes this. His output was staggering, from an early age. I don't know about anyone else here, but I certainly didn't start writing as a toddler, and my parents certainly didn't encourage me to do music until halfway through high school. Maybe if they'd started me as a three year old I'd be amazing; I doubt it though. I'm not built that way. I'm not jealous at all because I think that my music is far more interesting than Mozarts (and actually you can put almost anyone in the place of 'my' and it will still be true.) My main point is that if you start writing music at age five, and have it performed (something that many young composers don't get done) then it's not at all surprising to see a larger scaled work by, say, age 8. I would like to point out that the orchestra Mozart started writing for was 9 parts, two oboes, two horns, and strings. ( Symphony No. 1 (Mozart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) ) The orchestra of that time was quite a bit smaller and much less diverse than the orchestra we employ today, and as such, it must be treated more carefully.

My third point was that in high school chamber music is not focused on. I still maintain this point, and don't appreciate the assumption that my music director was not very good. I stated that largely, smaller ensembles were only focused on around solo/ensemble time. We'd have marching band - no time then for solo/ensemble, then once concert band started, we'd have solo/ensemble sign-ups, but I, as a percussionist, rarely encountered any such ensembles, as we have our own percussion ensemble program and would do our own stuff. Therefore, I would never have heard a group rehearsing Bartok string quartets. In addition, I thoroughly enjoyed how you blithely assume I'm into marching band. Actually, I didn't enjoy it, and I found it quite irritating.

I have to say that I believe its actually advantageous for a young composer to write for a large ensemble. Its a combination of many instruments, timbres, and musical ideas which can really teach a younger composer about everything (If they do it right). Granted, if they do it the wrong way, they would get so much less out of it. Whats the right way then? Well It would be individually researching each instrument, orchestration techniques, and the "basics" (melody, harmony, counterpoint). I can promise you that it will not turn out fantastic, but so much is learned if applied the right way.

That being said, its probably best for younger composers to write for smaller ensembles. The reason-Its easier to get performed! In my opinion, the greatest asset to ANY composer would be to get a piece performed. Hear it with their own ears, hear what works and what doesn't, hear influences and what went wrong! That is the single greatest learning event of composers young and old. Now, if you can get a large ensemble to play your piece....than yes! Write for the big ensembles! There are so many chances for learning in a big group.

Just my 2 cents :toothygrin:

I've never learned anything from hearing my piece performed. I hear it anyway. I only like having it performed because I know others can't here it when on icky MIDI.

I love counterpoint, but aknowledge that it's not something everyone finds hugely enjoyable. A detailed knowledge of counterpoint makes writing both small and large ensemble works much more fruitful, but I don't think it's any more of a prerequisite for writing large works than smaller ones. In fact, I think it's probably easier to botch a large scale work if you don't understand counterpoint than a chamber piece.

I find I get much more done (and hence learn more quickly) writing for smaller ensembles than larger ones. Also, most of my inspiration as a composer comes from composers who did not write for huge orchestral forces. Studying Scarlatti hasn't helped me write for large ensembles, and analysing Bach has given me no indication as to how a symphony should be constructed; hence I write in forms that are more familiar - the sonata, invention, fugue and so on.

If you've spent a great deal of time listening to Beethoven symphonies, it makes sense to try emulating that style of composition. In my opinion, this is a much more important issue. Emulation and imitation are vastly undervalued in this community, and the forum seems to have partially divided itself into Neo-composers and Traditionalist composers, both of whom feel a sense of pride in either consciously trying to invent a new style, or write music that might be mistaken for Mozart. I consider both approaches to composition vitally important, and although it'd would be ridiculous for a teenager like me to comment on the vicissitudes of being a composer, I will anyway. When beginning to compose, imitating those whom you admire (at least for a while) is good, not bad. It gives you a barometer by which progress can be measured, and allows for a great degree of self-assesment, via comparison with the original. What it does not do is produce great art.