Does 'Practicing' Really make you Better?

I just had a thought... everyone knows "practice makes perfect," but does the same logic apply to composing?

For example, if I go out all spring break (which is this whole week) and write a ton of stuff... not necessarily finish it all but write it nonetheless and try a whole bunch of things I've never tried before... different mixtures of instruments... different sizes etc. would that make me any better at the end of the week? Would it not change me at all?

I personally would think it wouldn't change me much because if I just write things without any guidance I'm not going to get any better. Sure I might learn a few things.. like "oh! this set of instruments playing sounds a lot like this" or "hey! This chord gives that kind of feel" or "hey! that rhythm makes the whole group sound a lot better!"

But without someone saying "Yes, it might give it that feel/sound, but you should do it this way to make the flow better" or something like that.

So I know I would figure a few things out on my own, but collectively if I (or anyone for that matter) do this for a straight week (and obviously beyond that) would it make me a more mature composer?

I just want to see your alls thoughts on this. I have to write a piece anyway so I am planning on writing a bunch of thigns and going with whatever I like best.

Mathieu

I just had a thought... everyone knows "practice makes perfect," but does the same logic apply to composing?

Undeniably - Yes.

okay :D *runs off into a dimly lit cave and is never seen again*

I'll just add a little thought. When I played soccer, my coach used to say, practicing doesn't matter if you practice incorrectly. What makes the difference is perfect practice. So how do you know you are doing stuff correctly? You ask other people.

It's important to work on ideas, but it is equally important to have other people work with you to help progress.

*continues Cursive's thought*

...like learning any skill - practicing incorrectly will result in detrimental development of bad habits and improper technique...

Practice wisely, and yes, heed advice from those more experienced than you...

yeah, my swim coach would say the same thing "practice doesn't make perfect -- perfect practice makes perfect"

I don't know, I guess it was a dumb question... I just wanted to see what others had to say :P

Practice doesnt make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Not the same cant necessarily be said for composing because there's no muscle memory involved.

That being said, yes, composing makes you better, but only if, like when practicing an instrument, you are evaluating yourself for improvement constantly. Simply churning out music because it feels good isnt necessarily going to do anything.

Composition isn't the only part of practice. I think there's a major part of the feedback loop missing -- the performance. You must hear the "final product" to understand what is and isn't "good" practice.

Of course, if you're an electronic composer (whatever that means) then it doesn't matter, since you're hearing the product.

Practice doesn't make perfect. Consistent practice everyday makes as close to perfect as one can get.

The same applies for composing.

Eventually, after practicing enough, one must perform to test out their practice's result.

The same applies for composing.

Performance: yes, practice makes perfect - but one also wants to listen to works as well!

To clarify why I say this, one can learn all he/she wants from a textbook and

get a good knowledge of the instrument and develop skill at performing it BUT

other things come by listening to how the instrument has been played and

watching how others perform it.

Composition: I think the best think to say on this aspect, is their really is no 'practice'

per se where composition is concerned. One must finish a piece though.

Whether that piece is simple or complex, is mediocre or really good - you'll

grow more when the piece itself is finished. Then you can go back and

see where you made mistakes. See which parts of the piece you excelled

at. etc.

Donatoni said “For me, now, composing music is very physical. And it is important to do it every day. I am an artisan – a craftsman – and I have to practice my craft.”

John Cage famously was asked about his encounters with Zen Buddhism, "So, do you meditate every day" and he replied "No - but I compose every day".

Also, I remember reading somewhere that J.S. Bach said that if someone wants to be a great composer, they have to compose every day.

But I doubt they know anything about composing music.

To answer your question, then: No, absolutely not.

You know what makes you better?

Sitting on the floor staring at the ceiling until you go mad.

But I doubt they know anything about composing music.

To answer your question, then: No, absolutely not.

You know what makes you better?

Sitting on the floor staring at the ceiling until you go mad.

What's the point of being condescending? He asked a simple question that deserves a simple answer, not mockery.

Anywho...

Practice makes better, not perfect. Humans are imprefect. No matter how much you practice, you will never be "perfect." Composing every day is necessary to keep the creative juices flowing. I've written a whole load of, well...let's just say, stuff I'd would never post on here in the name of composing every day. But that is part of the learning process. To weed out the bad stuff and enhance the good stuff with fertilizer. I'm still learning this every day.

Also, you're idea of guidence has some truth to it. Without the guidence of a teacher, the learning process will go much slower than usual. So if the resources are available to you, do get a composition teacher.

Practice does indeed make better. Not perfect. And you have to really love what you do.

I think that, listening to music, is the best thing a composer can do. Also getting better at instruments is a really good thing.

And enriching yourself mentally in general. Read a lot, be interested in other arts, live a healthy life, all those things have enormous impact on any creative output.

My opinion is that for a composer being able to get in the mood, to get the inspiration is the most important thing. You need to practice that.

arvo part has quit writing music for years untill he came with his famous tintinabuli style and is known to have said, that he writes very seldomly and in bunches.

so, thinking is good enough.

the best writers are not the ones who put out 10 pages a day.

this would make them at best - pretty enjoyable graphomaniacs.

My opinion is that for a composer being able to get in the mood, to get the inspiration is the most important thing. You need to practice that.

Nonsense, "inspiration" has nothing to do with practice. If you plan to compose by sitting around waiting for "inspiration", you'll waste a lot of time. Composing is a lot a "hard work", not "inspiration".

Nonsense, "inspiration" has nothing to do with practice. If you plan to compose by sitting around waiting for "inspiration", you'll waste a lot of time. Composing is a lot a "hard work", not "inspiration".

agreed:thumbsup:

Nonsense, "inspiration" has nothing to do with practice. If you plan to compose by sitting around waiting for "inspiration", you'll waste a lot of time. Composing is a lot a "hard work", not "inspiration".

Well, yes, indeed it involves a lot of hard work, but if you just compose without a goal or idea you'll just end up making lots of emotionless generic stuff.

Well, yes, indeed it involves a lot of hard work, but if you just compose without a goal or idea you'll just end up making lots of emotionless generic stuff.

Again, that does not mean you have to wait for "inspiration" to write with a goal or idea in mind.

And I have listened to some of the most amazing emotionless music in my life from some composers.

I think you're taking too much as granted when implying that all music has to be emotional in order to be good. Baroque music or classical music wasn't written to stir emotions, neither did music after about the 1940's. In fact, some romantic music and film music is all I can think of as "emotional", which again is highly subjective (a minor chord can sound as "sad" to someone but as "happy" to someone else; so if the composer wanted to evoke "sadness" by using a minor chord, but a listener interprets that as "happiness", how much has he succeeded? is it bad music because it failed to communicate the "sadness"? or is it good music because it evoked an emotion?)

When Louis Andriessen was asked "To what extent is it possible for music to express extra-musical meanings?", he replied:

I've read that quote by Adorno before, but I think it's possible to listen to music both intellectually and emotionally. Infact I can't listen to music solely on an intellectual basis and it doesn't matter if the piece wasn't meant to be emotional, all music has emotional connotations.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having a good cry to music, it is thought to be very therapeutic. I don't think anybody could really listen to music solely on an intellectual level, otherwise a person would get the same enjoyment from reading essays on a piece of music as they do from listening to it. But then again, this is just the way I have experienced music and cannot possibly hope to understand even a single other person's musical experiences unless I literally get inside their head, which is impossible... literally.

By the way juji I can appreciate what you are saying or at least what you are inferring, but I don't think a non-musician or at least an 'average human without ear training' can be expected to listen to music consciously on an intellectual level. I think everybody does it unconsciously to some extent.

Steering it back to the original post, I would argue that practice does improve a composer's skills. However it is just important to train one's ear! Without a brilliant ear or a good sense of relative pitch it will be very difficult to notate your 'musical thoughts'. You may be incredibly inspired but without traditional aural skills, you will never reach your potential.

I just had a thought... everyone knows "practice makes perfect," but does the same logic apply to composing?

For example, if I go out all spring break (which is this whole week) and write a ton of stuff... not necessarily finish it all but write it nonetheless and try a whole bunch of things I've never tried before... different mixtures of instruments... different sizes etc. would that make me any better at the end of the week? Would it not change me at all?

You want to become a better composer in a week? Are you serious?

Yes, the same logic that applies to the performing arts also applies to composing. Now imagine an amateur pianist coming to you and asking:

"If I go out all spring break (which is this whole week) and play tons of stuff on the piano... Nothing focused, I'll just try a whole bunch of things I've never tried before... Would that make me a better pianist at the end of the week?"

You'll send him straight to the looney bin, right? Everybody knows that in order to be a half-decent pianist, you must practice daily (or almost daily) for many years. So why would you think that composing is any different?

There is one cavet to what I've said:

if you continue to compose and practice your composing technique after the said week is over, than such a week of intense unfocused experiments can benifit you in the long run. But you won't see the imporvement immediately, no matter what you do.

Again, that does not mean you have to wait for "inspiration" to write with a goal or idea in mind.

And I have listened to some of the most amazing emotionless music in my life from some composers.

I think you're taking too much as granted when implying that all music has to be emotional in order to be good. Baroque music or classical music wasn't written to stir emotions, neither did music after about the 1940's. In fact, some romantic music and film music is all I can think of as "emotional", which again is highly subjective (a minor chord can sound as "sad" to someone but as "happy" to someone else; so if the composer wanted to evoke "sadness" by using a minor chord, but a listener interprets that as "happiness", how much has he succeeded? is it bad music because it failed to communicate the "sadness"? or is it good music because it evoked an emotion?)

When Louis Andriessen was asked "To what extent is it possible for music to express extra-musical meanings?", he replied:

"

I'm perfectly aware of what you are saying, and I agree (on some points).

But I have a question.

Would you really compose a piece that doesn't mean anything? At least to you? Given the fact that nobody paid you to do so, or just out of practice or something like that.

"mean something"?

sure lots of composers write pieces that have no hidden "meaning", it's just a piece, in a form.

That doesn't stop you from pouring your heart into a piece, even if it has no particular significance.

I can tell you that when I wrote my counterpoint exercises in university, I put the same passion and effort into them as I did the works that would be part of my final dissertation.

"mean something"?

sure lots of composers write pieces that have no hidden "meaning", it's just a piece, in a form.

That doesn't stop you from pouring your heart into a piece, even if it has no particular significance.

I can tell you that when I wrote my counterpoint exercises in university, I put the same passion and effort into them as I did the works that would be part of my final dissertation.

Exactly. Meaning does not have to be hidden. But when they created something they must have had a goal. A need to create something, whether it was a vase, a painting or a piece of music. I think that (I repeat I THINK) that whenever an artist creates the art will in some way reflect the emotional state of mind of the artist.

I cannot imagine someone creating a piece of music just for the heck of it and feel proud about it. I mean, whats the point there? (exercise excluded)

I may be missing something really big here, but I really don't understand why would anyone engage in any kind of art if he doesn't wish to say something trough that art. It's like writing a book about.... nothing??

not all music flows from some mysterious" urge to communicate emotion/feeling/message".

some music is just.. music.

I wrote my Symphony in C simply because I wanted to write a work in that form. I had no meaning, no message, no particular emotion.

At one point, I toyed with the idea of adjusting the form to conform to an extra-musical idea (dealing with grief), but I didn't. It didn't really reflect WHY I wrote the piece.

I wrote to have something to listen to. Not to "feel" anything.

Now, on topic:

YES, "practice" makes you "better" (not "perfect"... if you're perfect, you don't really NEED practice do ya!)

Writing compositional exercises of any sort will improve your ability with whatever aspect of composition is involved.

Composition exercises with fugue will improve your facility with fugal writing.

Compositional exercise with harmony will improve your ability with harmony.

The more you DO something, the greater fluidity you gain from doing it.

This is part of learning your craft.

I haven't written a piece YET with any emotional meaning. I just write cause it sounds cool. To me.