Create your Composition Program Here

So, many composers out here on the forums may teach composition one day (well, we can always hope they won't have to if they don't want to, but if it comes down to it...), so for fun, let's just imagine we're a composition teacher and have our first student. If you could do anything, ANYTHING you wanted in terms of teaching composition, how would you do it? What amount of time would you dedicate to the specific needs of individual composers? What activities might you have them do to improve their knowledge and skills?

In general, take the reigns and teach music composition. How would YOU teach it? Assume you could do anything you wanted, structuring your own program. Money is no issue either, and select whatever (undergrad, masters, doctoral... pre-college even) student classification. Make your own classification if you want to. No rules here. Be as creative, as humorous, or as serious as you want.

The sky's the limit!

1. BENCHMARKING

I would hope that I, as the teacher, would have something to do with choosing the potential students. While this does not happen at undergrad level, very much, it does very much happen at postgraduate level, so it makes sense.

I would try and see the potential of the students, and in all honesty, would hope for the students to have preacquired knowledge.

I'm assuming that prior knowledge of harmony, counterpoint, some orchestration, at least, form and music history (not too much 20th century), is essential.

First lesson Includes knowing each other, listening to the works of the composers, getting them to feel comfortable, speaking about what they wish to become, what they're after, etc...

Along those terms I would attempt to persuade them that 'everything is music', it doesn't matter if it's rock/pop/lounge/avante garde/baroque or else. I would try and get a striking example to get them to realise that it's not only the techniques that matter, but personality as well as, what I call, the personal filters of each composer: Give them the same technique, and get vastly different results.

YouTube - Olivier Messiaen, "Louange

Give them the same technique, and get vastly different results.

YouTube - Olivier Messiaen, "Louange

I'm starting my first piano lesson as a teacher next week, so i've been thinking about how to set up a teaching program. I've come to the conclusion that I want my student to be "in control" of the program.(You should know about the problems if been thru trying to make this last sentence not sounding like something sexual/child abuse-like) The first lesson I will ask her what she wants to do. "What song do you like best?" and learn her that song. In order to learn here the notes to that melody she likes, I can teach her what the names of the notes are and so on. I think this way there's a good change she stays motivated, because she can choose what she wants to learn.

I think I would go the same way about teaching composition. Let the student tell you what he/she wants to learn. If he/she wants to learn how to write a Mozart sonata, you could start by learning him about who Mozart was. Then what his place in the history of music is, namely classical. Learn him what sets classical music apart from, let's say, baroque and continue this till he can write something in the style of Mozart. If he wants to learn about Wagner afterwards go there. The point is I think students stay most motivated if you learn them what they want you to learn them.

The link between those pieces is octatonicism, yes?

gijs: You're referring to one to one lessons, right? to private tuition of some sort... I was referring to a whole years course, or similar.

Ah, i see. Anti is speaking about a course. I have no idea how to fill that up really.

I have no idea how to fill that up really.

Nobody does.

That's the biggest problem about this whole thing.

Well, there are composers teaching composition nowadays aren't there? They must have there ways. Or am i missing the point?

A good composition program will be tailored to the individual student. So for the instructor to create an effective program, he first has to study the student's previous work, test the student's practical knowledge, gauge the student's interests, and develop a plan to help focus the student into a competent composer.

Well, there are composers teaching composition nowadays aren't there? They must have there ways. Or am i missing the point?

That's the thing, everyone's just trying to do their job which is to earn money teaching "composition," but in reality it's just up to each teacher to see what they do with that time. There's no real curriculum, nothing, just everyone winging it.

Some wing it much better than others, needless to say. But there's no such a thing as a "good composition program," as much as there are helpful composers or teachers. No matter what you plan, if the teacher's personality isn't there, or you can't see eye to eye, it's all a waste of time, lol.

Because the personality of both the student and the teacher are so important, plus also what the student wants, there's no way to really predict how it'll turn out. Being a "good composer" ensures absolutely nothing when it comes to pedagogy, at that, so yeah. Old topic really there's another thread which talks about this (also muddled by AA's nonsense, sadly)

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/extract-translantion-theo-brandm-llers-article-composition-13134.html

A good composition program will be tailored to the individual student. So for the instructor to create an effective program, he first has to study the student's previous work, test the student's practical knowledge, gauge the student's interests, and develop a plan to help focus the student into a competent composer.

Indeed. But like I said, it's a good PLAN, but how it really works is up to who's teaching and who's studying. It's unpredictable like that.

I think I regard my first post as an possible way of creating a composition teaching program. Let the student tell you what he wants and find ways to get him there. In this case you don't even need to set up a program.

An important aspect in this view is the the idea of progression. If you as a teacher feel you need to teach your student something pre-though, the idiom i'm speaking about isn't possible. If you are willing to accept every outcome of the program you can let the student choose the program. I'm not sure if it's a straight comparison, but in psychology an import aspect of problem-solving coaching is being behind your client, in terms of setting the pace. The client starts a new subject when he, well, does. The difference is that a psychologist participating in such a coachingsstyle does know where he wants to go to ultmimately. He wants to make the client responsible.

Since a composition student isn't in need of a sollution, like a client would be, it would be possible to just let him set the program and support him in reaching those goals.

I've never before thought about this subject so don't mind me rambling abit.

Yeah, see, the issue with all that is that how are you supposed to apply "exams" to such a concept? How do you grade compositional output? ETC. It's all rather difficult to define, and even more so complicated to execute.

Either the way of handling education for composition must be entirely different from, say, instrumental instruction or music theory/musicology, or you have to establish arbitrary things along the way that you can "grade" later. I obviously hate the second option since you end up with bullshit like "you're not a qualified composer until you've written 10 string quartets, 1 symphony in 1800s style, bla bla bla" which is nonsense.

I'm more for not setting those idiotic standards and instead just taking it wherever it goes, no matter where it goes. This IS art we're talking about, after all. Something many people seem to forget as they want "results." Maybe for some people even "studying" composition is a bad idea, who knows?

Very very complicated issue, and one that faces every single music institution these days, specially now that there's no "common practice" (cringe) to speak of, so who is to say what should be mandatory? Even as music theory at all?

Why palestrina and not penderecki? Why counterpoint and not serialism? Why X and not Y, if they're pretty much the same? This is one part of the academic world which sorely needs a kick in the donkey.

I've already said it before though, the reason a lot of this stupid scraggy persists is because people want "results." The institutions can't take this problem seriously (even if it is a REAL problem, with tangible results!) because it would mean re-thinking EVERYTHING concerning music education, and nobody wants that. Institutions after all aren't places for this, they just provide a service (that people learn what is most popular and thus more "practical" to learn) which doesn't depend on what is particularly logical with respect to the actual world of contemporary art.

That's why, really, there's no guarantee. You can go into a composition program and get scraggy, and it's not really your fault as a student, nor is it precisely the teacher's either, but of everyone involved in this bullshit for not really caring (caring doesn't bring in moneys or diplomas. :<)

Yeah, see, the issue with all that is that how are you supposed to apply "exams" to such a concept? How do you grade compositional output? ETC. It's all rather difficult to define, and even more so complicated to execute.

Either the way of handling education for composition must be entirely different from, say, instrumental instruction or music theory/musicology, or you have to establish arbitrary things along the way that you can "grade" later. I obviously hate the second option since you end up with bullshit like "you're not a qualified composer until you've written 10 string quartets, 1 symphony in 1800s style, bla bla bla" which is nonsense.

I'm more for not setting those idiotic standards and instead just taking it wherever it goes, no matter where it goes. This IS art we're talking about, after all. Something many people seem to forget as they want "results." Maybe for some people even "studying" composition is a bad idea, who knows?

Very very complicated issue, and one that faces every single music institution these days, specially now that there's no "common practice" (cringe) to speak of, so who is to say what should be mandatory? Even as music theory at all?

Why palestrina and not penderecki? Why counterpoint and not serialism? Why X and not Y, if they're pretty much the same? This is one part of the academic world which sorely needs a kick in the donkey.

I've already said it before though, the reason a lot of this stupid scraggy persists is because people want "results." The institutions can't take this problem seriously (even if it is a REAL problem, with tangible results!) because it would mean re-thinking EVERYTHING concerning music education, and nobody wants that. Institutions after all aren't places for this, they just provide a service (that people learn what is most popular and thus more "practical" to learn) which doesn't depend on what is particularly logical with respect to the actual world of contemporary art.

That's why, really, there's no guarantee. You can go into a composition program and get scraggy, and it's not really your fault as a student, nor is it precisely the teacher's either, but of everyone involved in this bullshit for not really caring (caring doesn't bring in moneys or diplomas. :<)

I think we need to distinguish composing as an hobby from composing for a living here. If you want to teach students how to compose for the sake of composing, anything goes probably and you don't need grades or what so ever. Yet, if you want to learn composers how to make a living with there compositions it's a whole other story. And this is were the shoe hurts, i feel.

I've been talking to some student composers lately and if heard a similair story. This is not to say that it's the same everywhere, but i feel there is a sertain tendence in the world of college based music education. What i've distilled from these conversations is that college teachers in compostion are primarily concerned with progression. Expanding compositional techniques, moving away from the well-know etc. Whereas, i think, they should be concerned with giving their students knowledge in how to make a living out of there education. Every other college, even eduction, is formed around this concept. I think it's strange that this isn't were the empasise of college based composition teaching is.

Like i said I've only spoken to some student composers, so this might not apply to all composition colleges. But the idea that this unprofessionalism is the case in a few colleges is strange i'd say.

Whereas, i think, they should be concerned with giving their students knowledge in how to make a living out of there education. Every other college, even eduction, is formed around this concept. I think it's strange that this isn't were the empasise of college based composition teaching is.

That's also a silly issue, it should be an OPTION. If you WANT to earn money composing, fine, but if you don't nobody should force you to do that scraggy, nor should you simply have no place to study because you happen to have a different career and you want to study composition because you like to compose (or whatever other non-monetary reasons you may have.)

These things need not be mutually exclusive.

PS: This is all assuming that anyone has any idea of what you need to know to "earn money" with composition, hahehaha. Or that any of that has anything to do with composition at all; it may as well be just exercises with the purpose of emulating popular trends, that's it. Would work just fine for jingles, popular music, movie music, etc etc. After all, it's more about market research then than art (we make money, not art.)

That's also a silly issue, it should be an OPTION. If you WANT to earn money composing, fine, but if you don't nobody should force you to do that scraggy, nor should you simply have no place to study because you happen to have a different career and you want to study composition because you like to compose (or whatever other non-monetary reasons you may have.)

These things need not be mutually exclusive.

If heard composers say there teacher only wants them to compose in a certain idiom. A guy i can remember wanted to learn how to compose like Wagner. His teacher "forced" him to compose in a more modern style, because this was more what that teacher liked to hear.

That's amazing. That's comparable to a college professor in economics telling a student not to learn about macroeconomic politics, because he's more a fan of microeconomic policies. How can the taste of a teacher be a deciding meausure in what a student should learn?

I want go to a conservator next year, but i begin to feel it might not even contribute a lot. I will go anyway, since i will not rely on others statements. But it sounds like a strange situation music education is in.

If heard composers say there teacher only wants them to compose in a certain idiom. A guy i can remember wanted to learn how to compose like Wagner. His teacher "forced" him to compose in a more modern style, because this was the what the teacher liked to hear.

That's amazing. That's comparable to a college professor in economics telling a student not to learn about macroeconomic politics, because he's more a fan of microeconomic policies. How can the taste of a teacher be a deciding meausure in what a student should learn?

I want go to a conservator next year, but i begin to feel it might not even contribute a lot. I will go anyway, since i will not rely on others statements. But it sounds like a strange situation music education is in.

Before you go, you would do well to spend a lot of time with whoever is going to teach composition, if that's what you'll be doing there. If only to see if it'll work or not.

As for the taste thing, I've always argued that taste has no place in education, but of course that's quickly misunderstood. The deal is that taste is a guide, but not the law. The teacher has provide stuff which helps reach whatever the student intends to do, but he can't turn a blind eye to someone who has no knowledge/practice of any given (and always different) number of things. However, he can't simply force it. Here's where the pedagogy/personality thing come in. If the teacher is FORCING something on the student, then that's already an issue, if it has no solution then that's just bad.

I do think that a teacher should fight ignorance, specially of his own students. However, the method in which to fight it is where the problem often lies.

Okay then. I'm a firm believer in structure and discipline, so my approach is probably different than many here. I'm not really a big fan of exclusively private lessons as an approach to composition to begin with, so maybe a lot of where I think time should be spent is in a music library. Augusta Reed Thomas once told me that her first-year composition students don't compose music at all in their first semester. She requires them to listen to music in lessons with her and go over the analysis of scores. For the first semester, the whole point is to explore the 19th and 20th Centuries to find an aesthetic (or aesthetics) that will be explored through the remainder of her program. For each aesthetic a student selects, she will select another, and so on until she is satisfied that the student is ready to begin and will have a thorough knowledge of composition styles when they leave.

I think that's just an outstanding approach. But the objectives are established for the student before they are ever set in motion (of course, deadlines and other sorts of curricula-type things aren't set in stone, but at least the stage is set for the student). This keeps the new student from walking in on his/her first actual day of composition lessons and not having any clue what he or she will be doing. It's all right there on paper.

A "curriculum" like that sounds much too rigid for me. Maybe it's right for some students, but forbidding all of them to start writing music right away? For some, the approach through experimentation is important in order to actually understand what you want. Just studying other music won't always tell you what you really want to get into and you actually have to dive through the matter yourself, with pen and paper in order to gain your personal approach to composing.

I also don't see the point to strictly "stick to an aesthetic". Personally I'm more for trying out a lot early and seeing where it leads you to. Which doesn't mean blindly trying out things without reflecting on it, or ignoring historical context. This is all important, but should (IMHO) be handled on a case to case basis.

But I can actually understand extremely well that this is Thomas this is coming from - because her music strikes me as exactly that: A very distinct and developed aesthetic, great knowledge about techniques and their effects and a certain sense of smooth beauty - but somehow, for my taste, too much lacking any harsh edges, an experimental drive, a radical vein. (Which of course doesn't mean I don't enjoy her music at all.)

Okay then. I'm a firm believer in structure and discipline, so my approach is probably different than many here. I'm not really a big fan of exclusively private lessons as an approach to composition to begin with, so maybe a lot of where I think time should be spent is in a music library. Augusta Reed Thomas once told me that her first-year composition students don't compose music at all in their first semester. She requires them to listen to music in lessons with her and go over the analysis of scores. For the first semester, the whole point is to explore the 19th and 20th Centuries to find an aesthetic (or aesthetics) that will be explored through the remainder of her program. For each aesthetic a student selects, she will select another, and so on until she is satisfied that the student is ready to begin and will have a thorough knowledge of composition styles when they leave.

I think that's just an outstanding approach. But the objectives are established for the student before they are ever set in motion (of course, deadlines and other sorts of curricula-type things aren't set in stone, but at least the stage is set for the student). This keeps the new student from walking in on his/her first actual day of composition lessons and not having any clue what he or she will be doing. It's all right there on paper.

Where I went to school, score analysis was carried out in theory class. You had a private teacher for piano, your primary instrument, and composition. I liked the 1 on 1 interaction afforded in private instruction. For one, you had no one else in the room with you but your teacher. Their attention was solely on you and no one else (which, to me, was really nice because I am a very shy performer.. I play my best when it is just ME!) Composition wise, I liked it because I got to ask the questions solely (I always hated in theory class listening to the same question being asked by everyone else in the class - despite the fact the answer was something simple anyway).

When I taught viola, I preferred the 1 on 1 approach. When you get more than 1 student at a time, your attention is divided and you really can't teach thoroughly enough (especially with such young students, as I had).

A "curriculum" like that sounds much too rigid for me. Maybe it's right for some students, but forbidding all of them to start writing music right away? For some, the approach through experimentation is important in order to actually understand what you want. Just studying other music won't always tell you what you really want to get into and you actually have to dive through the matter yourself, with pen and paper in order to gain your personal approach to composing.

I don't think the idea was to not allow kids to write or experiment. I think Thomas actually never 'assigned' for new students that they come to her with music in their first semester. I don't think it actually prevented them from bringing her music sketches and pieces to discuss. But the primary focus was building the ear's knowledge of different aesthetics that exist.

I also don't see the point to strictly "stick to an aesthetic". Personally I'm more for trying out a lot early and seeing where it leads you to. Which doesn't mean blindly trying out things without reflecting on it, or ignoring historical context. This is all important, but should (IMHO) be handled on a case to case basis.

I imagine that's the whole point, but not doing it 'blindly' as you put it - rather with intent. This shouldn't mean a student can't try out a lot early to see where it leads either. Just doing it with a more informed ear seems more productive to me.

But I can actually understand extremely well that this is Thomas this is coming from - because her music strikes me as exactly that: A very distinct and developed aesthetic, great knowledge about techniques and their effects and a certain sense of smooth beauty - but somehow, for my taste, too much lacking any harsh edges, an experimental drive, a radical vein. (Which of course doesn't mean I don't enjoy her music at all.)

She actually commented on my Clarinet and Piano work, Characatures, that it sounded like it was well-rooted, aesthetically. I was the only one in the master class she said this to, which gave me a bit of pride in my work. I like her for it :)

But I understand what you mean about your impression of her work, too. I get the impression in her work that she has a great interest in elegance. Her works reflect this, and if I remember correctly, Luciano Berio complimented her for that very feature in her works as well in a note on one of her scores. Good stuff!

I kinda like where I'm at presently, as a student.

I'd like to have a studio that is diverse, that has regular concerts. I'd like the students to be able to write what and how they want, provided that by the time they graduate they have a decent feel for most common instruments. I'd also like for there to be other opportunities through the school of music, such as orchestral and wind ensemble readings.

So yeah, basically where I'm at. I think it works really well, and I think you get a lot of different experiences.

Sadly, the worst scenario in any composition program is the teacher making copies of himself/herself through their choice of study plans. That, I think, is the biggest enemy.

Plus gently caress not composing for an entire semester. I would've shoved that idea right up her donkey. All that makes are students composing behind her back, lol, which is undesirable to say the least... but with such a program, who knows?

Sadly, the worst scenario in any composition program is the teacher making copies of himself/herself through their choice of study plans. That, I think, is the biggest enemy.

Plus gently caress not composing for an entire semester. I would've shoved that idea right up her donkey. All that makes are students composing behind her back, lol, which is undesirable to say the least... but with such a program, who knows?

Because I've just been dying to say this to you... if you have a problem with it, TAKE IT UP WITH AUGUSTA REED THOMAS! I'm just the messenger, and I'm sure she'd love to show you how successful she has been using the method she uses.

And really, really. Your disagreement is suspect, considering your distaste of anything I seem to agree with... as annoying as that is... but this isn't the time or place for debating more of your petty arguments. And I'm the last person you should be taking it up with anyway.

I have a feeling, though, that Augusta R. Thomas would PWN you on all counts, so I really could care less. :)

I have a feeling, though, that Augusta R. Thomas would PWN you on all counts, so I really could care less. :)

I guess we'll never know that, eh?

Besides, she can as well punch people in her classes, I don't care. I'm just saying that considering what you describe, it seems pretty scrafty though I personally don't know the person myself so your description may not so accurate.

Some people (e.g. Boulez) go as far to think that composition cannot be taught, and that the only think that can actually be taught is approaches of analyses of pieces, which will provide a tool to the students to go off and take as much as they can/want from the pieces they want and do whatever they feel like with what they've learned.

So I think the real purpose of a teacher is to provide the student composer with tools, answer any questions he can (and discuss about questions he cannot), and ask the student questions that the student will probably not think because of inexperience/whatever (and on that matter, also share his personal experiences with the student, again not in a dictative way but as something that has taken place, which the student can take and examine and see what he can take out of it). What's important for the student is to be able and connect with the teacher but also have a clear mind and not just blindly (or not) copy the teacher.