"Younger" composers biting off more than they can chew

How does it matter anyways. That's the real question. Who gives a damn if some composer thats 14 writes for an orchestra of 150 instruments? Im fairly certain we're allowed to do whatever we want to do, and if someone wants to do that why not? Damn, maybe that kid will grow up to be the next great orchestrator, and write a hundred symphonies of incredible magnitude, all because he/she got a taste for it when they were a teenager.

that... was... an epic statement... Seriouly, in this day and age, composers of old-fashioned music are not going to get the limelight. A young composer can write 10 symphonies (all not very good) and nobody (general public) will care. Also, I think that many young composers realize that their work is not very good at all. They have bit off more than they can chew and they'll probably just shove whatever they wrote in a corner somewhere.

Of course they are learning something, albeit little, from such huge endeavors. I learn something every time I write a phrase. I don't think that writing complex, long music is really going to take anything away from the learning process. Some might argue that writing for orchestra instead of smaller ensembles is bad because of the lack of experience resulting in a crap product, but I am sure that these young composers realize that their music is bad.

Why should'nt these composers be allowed to learn from their own mistakes and become better when they are in college and wish to pursue a composition degree?

Lol, why do I get the feeling that this thread is directed partially towards me? :mellow:

I learn something every time I get yelled at by gms lol

But yeah, I see a lot of new composers writing "symphonies" and I want to hit them.

I learn something every time I get yelled at by gms lol

But yeah, I see a lot of new composers writing "symphonies" and I want to hit them.

Please don't hit me. :(

All joking aside, I don't see any harm with exploring and tinkering with large ensembles regardless of ones knowledge of counterpoint... ect. It helps get an early feel for the big ensembles when one DOES become a more advanced composer. Plus, I personally have found that I am better at writing for orchestra than for solo piano. As of now, I stink at writing for piano, but I can handle an orchestra better. So, different people have different preferences. ;)

Come to think of it... yeah! If you don't know basic counterpoint or voice leading or orchestration or thematic development... then don't friggin START learning with a symphony. I'm not saying I'm an expert or anything, but my first... 12 pieces were for small ensemble (not to mention the 80 or so failed attempts)

All joking aside, I don't see any harm with exploring and tinkering with large ensembles regardless of ones knowledge of counterpoint... ect. It helps get an early feel for the big ensembles when one DOES become a more advanced composer.

Writing for a large ensemble when you don't even know where to start doesn't help you at all. You should know how to write for small ensembles first, so you do know where to start when you get to more large-scale pieces.

Writing for a large ensemble when you don't even know where to start doesn't help you at all. You should know how to write for small ensembles first, so you do know where to start when you get to more large-scale pieces.

I mean... Learning the basic principles of composition and starting with small ensembles, but also experimenting and exploring larger ones at the same time. I believe it is a good combination.

Why doesn't even matter? I'm a fairly new composer working on a "symphony" of sorts (though I'd hesitate to call it that...) and I realize it probably sucks, but I want to do it anyway. Once my skills improve I can go back and fix the more mediocre parts. I'd rather be writing a large ensemble piece that I have somewhat of a connection to than a solo piano piece that I don't just because I'm not "experienced" enough to write for orchestra.

Hi. Let's see...

I think the main problem is that, while writing orchestral pieces and such other quasi-nonperformable pieces is fun and all that jazz, you need to write stuff that other people can play too. I mean, sure, write electronic music and get rid of musicians all you want, have them samples play them orchestral pieces.

But in the end, you need both things, and it's also considerably more likely that a small ensemble piece or a solo/duet get performed if the chance arises, than something for 100 people orchestra.

On the other hand, I don't care if kids want to write 10 symphonies before they're 20. It's good practice, just that they should also shoot for writing things that have a chance at being played by live musicians at some point, or that they can play themselves even.

Plus, the modern curriculum is really impossible to set down, since there are simply too many techniques, styles and directions. All of what I'm saying and this has been posted before in other threads, so c'mon.

As far as "Biting off more than they can chew" I don't know. That really makes no sense, since you can't really fail at music composition. It's all pretty subjective, etc etc. "OH no, I wroet an orchestras at age 8!!!!11" "wunderkinds" be damned, they'll figure what they want to do eventually, so why bother screaming about it?

Too much hatin', not enough music, imo.

Well said, imo

Damn, maybe that kid will grow up to be the next great orchestrator, and write a hundred symphonies of incredible magnitude, all because he/she got a taste for it when they were a teenager.

Yeah, but chances are they won't.

Let me tell you a story of what I did this summer.

I signed out from the music library two books, "Rennaisance Counterpoint", and "Classical Counterpoint / Fugue" or something like that, both by Thomas Benjamin. Brilliant books.

They'd explain all the different methods of composition, how palestrina would compose his melodies, and the assignments were, "write a melody using the typical contours of Palestrina. The other book taught me chapter by chapter two species counterpoint, invensions, all the way to fugal writing, in a very friendly fashion. I've learned so much in a very brief period of time, but I usually learn better when I read things by myself, have one-on-one lessons, as opposed to group classwork.

I will admit that no less than last year I was an ardent Romantic-style fellow. I've since changed. I still have the Romantic mentality - as in, love of nature, expression of emotion, love of mythology and heroism - but my pallete includes everything from jazz, Berg inspired Expressionism, and all of the other isms that there are. I love all music, not just the stuff that's written down, or Western Music, but I have CDs of Ghanese tribal dances, Japanese taiko drumming, Gregorian chant. even four hours of soundscapes, "Whales Wolves and Eagles of Glacier Bay," and "Voices of the Arctic Refuge..." CDs that while I work play nothing but rain, birdsong, wolf howls, whale song...

I'll tell you the one style which I have yet to appreciate, based on principle. That is minimalism. I don't like its concept, when taken to the extreme. But I still can listen to Steve Reich, I just personally - and this is just personally - I feel that it is an expression of the repetitious nature of the machine, which I feel is very inhuman. Like, I like Steve Reich and the minimalists for five minutes, but I don't like twenty minutes of the same motif phase-shifting. It grinds me. But anyway, that's the only thing.

So, that's my plotless story. The point being, why do you have to treat counterpoint assignments as annoying? You're a composer. A student, but still a composer. I used to have the same mentality, why can't I do what I want. But then, I came to a revelation: I'm in university. I'm here to learn as much as I can about music composition. WHERE ELSE will I have the opportunity to write a serialist composition? Or, why can't I find fun in my assignments? You MAKE it fun.

Love.

I dunno, I don't see a problem with it, but there are caveats.

It is important to understand orchestration for large works - I feel THAT is the most key skill. Understand how instrument groups are and work from there. In a post-tonal musical world, there's no necessity to learn specific former techniques outside of expansion of palette. However, without an understanding of how an oboe sounds, how a horn will sound over an oboe at the same dynamic, how rhythmic figures are possible on a viola, and how low a contrabass clarinet will actually go, you won't be able to provide expression in a easily recognizable sense.

Course you can not want to do that too.

The term symphony no longer specifically refers to a 4-mvt sonata slow dance sonata form, and it didn't originally, and it won't in 300 years. It has become a title only.

Yeah, but chances are they won't.

Yes, logic is astounding. If there is a chance you won't make it, then don't try. GIVE UP NOW!

Are you done?

Get a room, you two, please. This is getting obscene.

Why is sarcasm obscene?

However, without an understanding of how an oboe sounds, how a horn will sound over an oboe at the same dynamic, how rhythmic figures are possible on a viola, and how low a contrabass clarinet will actually go, you won't be able to provide expression in a easily recognizable sense.

Yeah, what you say is true. However, don't you think that listening to master composers for at least 7 years and playing in ensembles for at least 7 years gives you at least a LITTLE experience in that field. It's not like younger composers (let's say 17 year olds) have gone their entire life listening to crappy music and therefore have no idea how to orchestrate a melody.

A couple of points:

Writing for a large number of instruments doesn't necessarily imply a large or complex form. Of course, if you start out by writing a 3 hour opera for large orchestra you've set yourself quite a huge task. But what about doing an orchestration of an existing piano piece? Or some short orchestral sketches? Are these really "harder" than writing a long, complex piece of chamber music?

Often, chamber music is much more complex and "refined" than orchestral music, as it is much more "compressed". Generally chamber music can be more techically challenging for the performers than orchestral music, where you can't expect the same level of preparation and dedication of all performers. Haydn's and Beethoven's string quartets for example are much more complex, original and radical than their orchestral music. And four part motets are generally much more contrapuncually refined than motets with more voices.

There are many things you can only write in chamber music, and others that are only doable in orchestral music, so it just doesn't cut it to regard chamber music as "small scale" orchestral music (in most cases at least). Most composers write chamber music very differently than they write orchestral music. Therefore you also can't really learn how to compose for orchestra by just writing pieces for a small ensemble. You learn other things about composition that will help when composing for orchestra, sure, but there are still things about orchestral music that you will only learn by writing for orchestra. But as I said, that doesn't necessarily have to be a huge "symphony".

About getting performed: It's certainly true that this is much harder when you write orchestral music. And for me too, actually -hearing- my pieces is one of the most wonderful experiences, so I'd much rather write a solo piece that I can hear performed than a huge orchestral piece where I'm stuck with midi forever. This is however something individual. If one really has the drive to write a piece for orchestra and doesn't mind if she or he can never listen to it, that's fine. Of course you will miss out on something if you are -never- actually able to hear something of yourself (which is also a learning opportunity, as no matter how good your musical imagination is, it will -always- sound somewhat different to actually hear it). It's your own choice though. (And of course, if you -do- get the chance to write an orchestral piece that will be performed, grab it, by all means! It doesn't happen too often.)

Personally, I prefer if people try out stuff and maybe "fail", than to stick to a curriculum like a language learning course without any initiative of their own and end up as mere imitators of what has been around before. And if you really "bite off more than you can chew", you'll realize it yourself, and will continue differently in future.

I really don't think we have to be such buttoned up puritans wearing a tie, when it comes to musical education. As professional composers to-be, nothing's more important than learning to be proactive and learning to learn and explore for yourself.

Why do you care so much, these young composers who are 'developing' the 'wrong way' are only hurting themselves. They aren't affecting you in any way. They aren't hurting your chances to get into university. If they're intelligent enough, then they'll realize they fucked up and start to learn from doing it the 'right way'.

I'm 16, and I write for concert band, as well as for chamber ensembles. I enjoy my music, and other people enjoy it, so I'm going to continue.

Why do you care so much, these young composers who are 'developing' the 'wrong way' are only hurting themselves. They aren't affecting you in any way. They aren't hurting your chances to get into university. If they're intelligent enough, then they'll realize they fucked up and start to learn from doing it the 'right way'.

I'm 16, and I write for concert band, as well as for chamber ensembles. I enjoy my music, and other people enjoy it, so I'm going to continue.

Well since I obviously don't know what I'm talking about, junior ;)

What's been going on with all the animosity towards the younger composers on here? Who cares?

Seriously - when I was 16, I was doing the exact same thing these guys are doing. Sure, I'll try to write an orchestra piece here and there, finish one or two, whatever. But I'll also write tons of other stuff, and succeed with those pieces with just about the same success ratio. The fact that I only wrote 3 or 4 large scale pieces before coming to a conservatory hasn't made too much of an impact on me. What, would I be so much better at chamber music right now if that's all I focused on? Really?

Before coming to college I only had 3 pieces of mine performed - a piano quartet, a violin duet with piano and a large-scale piece for my high school concert band. All three were equal successes in their own rights, and all three were greatly supported by the music faculty at my school. I have 1 finished, large-scale work from that time that has not had a performance. But once I got to Peabody? I wrote a couple other large scale works, and each one has benefitted from the experience I had while writing the last. There is no denying this. The orchestra piece I have in Major Works right now is my latest. Of course noone else will be able to, but I can clearly see the progression from my earliest stabs at a piece for orchestra, through my concert band piece, to this piece. I learned so much through DOING, not giving up just because it's not the most practical thing to do.

And dude (GMS) - you're 20!!! How are you not a young composer?!??! I'm a year older than you! ;) But really - do you write large-scale pieces? What was your experience with writing something larger than you could handle, or did you avoid it and stick to smaller pieces?