Do i need "Talent" to be a good composer?

I believe that it's not necessarily hereditary. Not a single person in my family was ever a musician, at any point in their life. In fact, the only thing that pulled me into music was that my best friend was in band in 6th grade, so I wanted to be in band too. I joined in the 7th grade, and I've developed a strong passion for performing and composing music.

It does indeed require some work. It takes reading, watching, and listening to other pieces. You can learn a lot from other composers. I'm not talking just about Bach or Mozart, either. People on this forum; other composers on this forum all have something to offer in terms of learning music composition.

The best thing is to just do it. Once you know enough about music to begin writing (such as reading and learning to write it), forcing your self to sit down at a piano (or whatever instrument you want) and begin is the only obstacle.

Anyone can compose music, but I believe that it comes easier for some than others. But it can still come, all the same, in the end. It's just a matter of how much you're willing to push yourself. :)

Hope that helped. ^_^ I'm sure I didn't cover anything that anybody else hasn't said already, but that just means I agree. ^_^

you must, have to and best: can force music. its hard work and sticking with it. then: revising and revisiting. one big mistake to me imho ist to everytime start something new instead of clockworking.

:huh: I can never understand a single word you say.

you must, have to and best: can force music. its hard work and sticking with it. then: revising and revisiting. one big mistake to me imho ist to everytime start something new instead of clockworking.

hit head for, cactus you testicle; tree is

be.

I mean, I understand it

You have to force music, otherwise you'll end up with either very similar pieces, very simple pieces, or the like. Even if you end up with a less-than-stellar part, you can go back to it and revisit it. IHNSHO, a big mistake is to start something new every time you sit down, instead of working on something methodically.

I kind of like the word "clockworking" hmmmm

I agree, sometimes you just need to sit down and plunk something out, even if it does suck, just as a placeholder. Problem is, when that placeholder becomes more than it is

I agree, sometimes you just need to sit down and plunk something out, even if it does suck, just as a placeholder. Problem is, when that placeholder becomes more than it is

My failing point. I am afraid to write anything that sucks. :P

hit head for, cactus you testicle; tree is

be.

Brilliant.

If it's an inate ability I'm screwed as up to now I've displayed little if any 'talent'. All I have going for me is an aptitude for learning, a genuine passion for it and the willingness to put in a f***load of work.

And maybe a tiny little bit of creativity.

Hopefully that's enough.

Definitely not in born. I didn't even start writing music until grade 10 (15 years old)

and I didn't really start taking music seriously until about the same time.

The tricky thing for me is that I could write classical music as easy as _____ (Insert something very easy) as the next bit is always waiting by the time I've conceived the first. But I really, really, really have to work to write this contemporary stuff.

I think the whole "In born" thing is more to do with how easily you go from head to paper. If you did a lot of music as a kid then you are bound to have picked up some great skills (Perfect pitch etc) which are now just reflex. So if you come up with an idea, its as simple to write it down as writing this post is for me.

Other people who weren't so fortunate have to kinda go to the dictionary and look up the write word each time. (At least in the beginning)

That is one thing I'm trying to really improve at the moment - my ability to get everything from head to paper without problem.

Chris :-)

(Did any of you pick up the pun?)

(Did any of you pick up the pun?)

Yes, it was scraggy.

Sorry. :innocent:

I don't think it's hereditary or about hard work. It's about creativity, imagination and passion. It's also about willingness to learn and absorb new things. It can be argued that the "hard work" comes from the study of music theory, but as Debussy said "There is no theory. You merely have to listen. Pleasure is the law".

Its all about heredity and pedagogy. It doesn't matter what you do as a person - it all depends on WHO it was who taught you. That is all.

Its all about heredity and pedagogy. It doesn't matter what you do as a person - it all depends on WHO it was who taught you. That is all.

This makes little sense, care to elaborate?

(Did any of you pick up the pun?)

Nobody cares if your puns were intended.

*sigh* how many times will I have to post this?

HaHaHA!! :laugh:

No such a thing as talent. Someone already said, there's the desire to write and that's it.

Just write and write lots.

I'm against any sort of musical "magic" so to speak. "Talent" usually falls into this and it's bullshit every time. Plus, it creates inferiority complexes on people who think they don't "have it" and it's impossible to fix it because it's a magical thing. You can't learn "Talent." On the other side of the scale, people who get called "talented" think it means anything, which is absurd.

And since I'm into education and so on, why the gently caress would I care about something you can't teach/learn/anything? "Sorry people I can't teach talent so you all better go home." What a bunch of scraggy.

ps: Excuse my strong language, I figure that if I haven't posted yet I might as well be a little extreme. :>

SSC!!!

Good on ya!

If your in education, I strongly suggest you grab a copy of one or both of the Evelyn Fletcher books from the following link:

Research concerning perfect pitch

They were written quite a long time ago by Fletcher who was strongly concerned that the way music was being taught was completely destroying the experience and enjoyment for hundreds of thousands of people who were teaching music with the same old Rhetoric in mind...

Unfortunately the books are still 100% relevant today and still need to be addressed.

The $3.00 one alone should really help you take your teaching to the next level for your students!

i still and forever will (until it's changed) hate the title of this thread. The grammar is shocking.

SSC!!!

Good on ya!

If your in education, I strongly suggest you grab a copy of one or both of the Evelyn Fletcher books from the following link:

Research concerning perfect pitch

They were written quite a long time ago by Fletcher who was strongly concerned that the way music was being taught was completely destroying the experience and enjoyment for hundreds of thousands of people who were teaching music with the same old Rhetoric in mind...

Unfortunately the books are still 100% relevant today and still need to be addressed.

The $3.00 one alone should really help you take your teaching to the next level for your students!

Well I know about this, but I really don't like how she still talks about heredity when in reality she isn't really. What sort of difference does it make to call "heredity" something that everyone might as well have?

I don't disagree with what she's saying though. I've worked people who knew nothing about music and never cared but with the right motive were capable of producing some really interesting music. Likewise for just about anything artistic, I'd say.

And yeah education is generally castrating in a lot of ways, specially to children. Supposedly musical education should correct all the wrongdoing of school systems and other such things that encourage not-thinking. Problem is, of course, that getting a proper curriculum that does this is tough.

Personally, while there are a lot of studies about musical pedagogic and psychology I have never really seen it put into much use. It seems like this area of research and well yeah it's there, but it never penetrates the actual system very much.

Specially not when talking about group teaching and so on, when it's individual 1x1 teaching it's something else entirely.

I'm mostly concerned for people who AREN'T children. I have a friend who is 24 and he wants to sing baroque oratorios, but it's very tough for him to be accepted at any uni or conservatory here in Europe because of his age even though he does sing already somewhat he's still a beginner.

A lot of institutions work on the basis of "Well if you're above X age, you missed the boat, bye." Either you start very young, or as time passes on it becomes increasingly difficult to get an education. This does a lot to discourage people who aren't in the whole artistic/music circle to try to do their own thing or really pursue what they want to do since they have to seek education privately most of the times.

Clearly, it'd be great if children were led properly to understand that art is overall accessible to everyone and they are free to do whatever they want, but this isn't the case and we (educators) must deal with the consequences of this not being the case. It's extremely hard to shake up a grown person's beliefs on what "music" should be or how it should be done even if they have no idea themselves.

The common popular image of musicians is damaging to those outside of it, or not "in the known," in my opinion. Particularly of composers. I have had people approach me after they have heard a piece I wrote and ask me with all honesty "How did you DO that?" When really it's the simplest thing in the world, but that is hard to see if you don't know.

I work with people with the mentality that everyone can learn everything I have learned and therefore I should facilitate that to those who want to learn it. Moreover, they should be able to learn far more than I have if they want to and that's fine.

I've met teachers who actually "compete" with their goddamn students! A teacher-student rivalry is the worst possible thing you can end up with, because of the psychological problems that causes. It's never an even thing, nothing good comes out of it in the long run and it's plain irresponsible of a teacher to engage in scraggy when they should be teaching.

Anyways, that's enough of that. ;P

thank you all for your replies

i.m in a long trip and i could nt access the internet for 2 weeks

i have read all your replies thank you very very much

soon ill post my first work i hope that someone .d see it and give me his opinion

thanks

Well I know about this, but I really don't like how she still talks about heredity when in reality she isn't really. What sort of difference does it make to call "heredity" something that everyone might as well have?

Yeah, I know the general concept you are referring to.

However, I took it to be a sentiment similar to that of, "You are human, so you have the right to ____"

So when she says it's hereditary, but all people have it, I believe that she means that music is at the core of the human spirit (along with other art forms etc) and that such a fundamentally human thing IS and SHOULD BE a right of all humans, and that no person should be denied this part of themselves.

Whether the determent comes from criticism, lack of education or awareness, some rhetoric born of century-old pedegogy etc it shouldn't be permitted to happen.

I think the worst thing you can say to ANY ones, is "No" or "Not yet" etc

If a student came to you and said I want to learn Beethoven's Piano Sonata no.8 in Cminor (Pathetique) then that's what you should help them with.

If you said "no" or "not until you can sight read and play at X grade level" etc you can pretty much guarantee that the student in question will have quit within a couple of months lol

What I think makes more sense is to say "Okay" even if it is way beyond the student. Perhaps get them to just work on short passages and supply them with exercises which ultimately help their goal and tell them this.

Within like 3 months of my first piano lesson in high school (grade 12) I was able to play the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata, which while slow, is no mean feat! I worked on it and improved at piano a lot over that period of time. I ultimately ended up discontinuing my piano lessons though because my teacher moved back to Canada and I didn't really want to study with the person who was replacing her. (Plus, not enough time with all the rest on my school work etc)

I'm not saying this to brag or anything (if you knew how much work it took you'd know that isn't my point) but because I was working on something I WANTED to it was easy for me to be motivated. If my teacher had've said no to my crazy ambition I doubt I would've taken lessons for more than a month.

And to hark back to the original composition-related question, 'talent' doesn't exist, it is just the perceived effect of fulfilling some dream or ambition you have. That feeling where you really want to do something and often you forget to eat, drink and sleep while working on it.

That is talent.

But if there were ever a well-suited Synonym for talent it would be love.

Success, in my opinion, doesn't take a single milligram of talent. Just a LOT of love.

I think Mozart said it absolutely perfectly:

“Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius.” - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

Chris :-)

However, I took it to be a sentiment similar to that of, "You are human, so you have the right to ____"

So when she says it's hereditary, but all people have it, I believe that she means that music is at the core of the human spirit (along with other art forms etc) and that such a fundamentally human thing IS and SHOULD BE a right of all humans, and that no person should be denied this part of themselves.

Whether the determent comes from criticism, lack of education or awareness, some rhetoric born of century-old pedegogy etc it shouldn't be permitted to happen.

Yeah. I agree with this.

I disagree that there is no talent SSC. There is talent. Some people are better at things than others, naturally. That is talent at work. Talent = natural ability. Talent != success. Hard work > Talent. Talented Hard workers > Hard workers.

To say that there is no such thing as talent is blatantly false. Some people are better than others. For some, it's because they worked to that point. For some, it's because they're just good at it, and for some it's a mix of the two. But talent exists. It's very real.

I disagree that there is no talent SSC. There is talent. Some people are better at things than others, naturally. That is talent at work. Talent = natural ability. Talent != success. Hard work > Talent. Talented Hard workers > Hard workers.

To say that there is no such thing as talent is blatantly false. Some people are better than others. For some, it's because they worked to that point. For some, it's because they're just good at it, and for some it's a mix of the two. But talent exists. It's very real.

Amen! Preach it brother!

lol

I disagree that there is no talent SSC. There is talent. Some people are better at things than others, naturally. That is talent at work. Talent = natural ability. Talent != success. Hard work > Talent. Talented Hard workers > Hard workers.

To say that there is no such thing as talent is blatantly false. Some people are better than others. For some, it's because they worked to that point. For some, it's because they're just good at it, and for some it's a mix of the two. But talent exists. It's very real.

Well, no.

Talent isn't measurable, it's questionable at best what "talent" is supposed to be, and moreover it's entirely irrelevant to actually teaching anyone anything. It's nice to see someone learns quickly or they have an affinity for X or Y, but it really doesn't go beyond that.

Anyways, it's nonsense to talk about talent because what it tends to do is to discourage people who think they "don't have any" and feel excluded, inferior, etc, when in reality that's nonsense. I've seen enough of this to know nothing good comes out of talking about "talent" other than convincing people they can either do things easily without effort or that it's impossible for them to do anything. It's real bad if you create bias like this for no real reason other than some popular notion that "talent" means anything.

Like that woman talks in the book and stuff a few posts up, it's unwise from a pedagogic point of view to instill any sort of biases when it comes to teaching and learning. There are people who learn faster/are better at something than others and there's a thousand motives for this. Even so, there's no point in using exceptions like this to coordinate what is proper when teaching.

So, "talent" is irrelevant if the same methods apply with or without it. Why bother even considering it?

Anyways, read up the stuff posted a few posts up.

The main reason is because it is not quantifiable in any real why. It's almost impossible to distinguish what effects environment, talent, hard work, and luck played.

Usually people that like to say its "talent" are those that don't have any. It's an excuse for them not being good. For those that are good and claim to have talent is a way form them to feel special.

I agree that since one cannot distinguish it from any of the others and because one never knows until after the fact that it's useless to use. We've all heard of the stories about people who were told they would never amount to anything but eventually did... and all those people who had "talent" but didn't amount to scraggy. What this means is that there is something else going on and obviously no one knows how to quantify it... so its kinda pointless.