What makes a Composer a true composer?

So... when are you a composer?

When you receive fame? I doubt. Bach never got much fame until he died.

When am I a true and complete composer?

Well... I think it's up to you!

I set pretty high standards for myself and won't consider myself complete until I'm able to write to the absolute best of my abilities and I don't see that happening for a while. I suppose the status of 'complete' will never truly be acquired. Even the most revered composers probably felt that they could have improved even the best of their compositions.

learn to get on without compliments!

You`re a true composer when you compose/create original music(or sounds that might be thought of as music).

Of course, "original" doesn`t mean you can`t borrow to a certain extent.

I agree with Mahler (not the composer, the member here!).

However, a composer is someone who writes music, original or not. When I say "not" I mean pastiche (copying another style or period of time).

When taking an existing tune and 'composing' around it, I suppose that would make you an arranger.

Now, there are levels of composers - amateur, semi-pro and pro. They are still composers, but some get paid for it whilst others write for fun/pleasure etc...

So, if you write music, whether you are famous or not, you get paid or not, you get it performed or not, you are a composer. Whether you are any good, this is a different matter! LOL :)

I seriously hope I'll never be "complete" as a composer. Probably my major incentive to compose is that I have unanswered questions, that I still want to explore certain aspects of music that I don't yet know or understand. It's this sense of wonder and excitement of experiencing and learning something new that keeps me going, and this is somewhat contrary to "knowing how to compose" or "being complete".

I'm also highly sceptical of any composer who considers her- or himself "complete", since often that means they stop evolving and compose the same things over and over again. I don't find that particularly interesting, and I think with the vast amount of music we have at our disposal today it's somewhat futile to routinely mass produce even more music, instead of carefully creating new musical experiences and going into territories that you may not have "mastered" or even tapped into before, even risking to expose your own weaknesses.

Because I think that whenever somebody thinks they have "mastered" composition/music/art/whatever, that generally only means they have limited their scope to a very small range.

The question of being a "true" composer, is much more vague of course. I think there's the aspect of "honesty to yourself" there, as well as being demanding and critical of yourself. I can't really say those are elements that are needed to be "true", but they are aspects I personally find important in a composer. To continuously strive to make your "best" music, to work on it, to question it, and not to settle for the minimum out of convenience or laziness. (While realizing that at the same time you will probably always have to settle for less than the "perfect" too. You have to find your own limits up to which you are willing to compromise there.)

All comments good. I'm not a complete composer yet. BUT I am a composer. Thank you guys!

If you now something about music which is a bit more and different. I don't say that your music has to be different, but the knowledge.

You're a true composer when you have a piece of paper from a university that says "I R COMPOZERZ!!!"

You write music?

You're a composer.

It's that simple. Any other definition cuts out too many composers.

When you're trying to say you ''are'' something, you're doing something wrong. Just ask ask yourself what you're doing instead. Meh, at least that's what i think.

You write music?

You're a composer.

It's that simple. Any other definition cuts out too many composers.

And even that is cutting out composers who don't write down their music, but pass it on verbally or through other means (such as tapes, drawings, etc.).

:P

i agree with ferkungmabooboo

i think it all circles back to finding your own compositional voice, which is subject to perpetual growth and maturity; that is to say, true completeness is an unachievable goal. rather, you should focus on whatever resonates with you and trying to translate that from emotion to sound.

its a process like everything, first on your own stuff, then on others, which is harder because you still have to find your own voice and be a slave to the system you serve.

and this is also a political thing, how much power the composer have over the director, or the producer, this power gives him more freedom in his music.

composer is.

heh thats all i can think of.

That's highly subjective. Firstly, the mere act of composing makes you a composer but i don't think that's what you were asking. There are elitist snobs who turn their noses up at composer hacks. I think a "true composer" doesn't define one's self by the shortcomings of others, the accolades and fame, the superior talents, or education--but by the noble integrity of what it is to be a flawed human who has been given a special voice in this life-his voice, not the voice of what he thinks others want to hear or others sound like, but a voice that can express his existence like a unique fingerprint and touch others in a way that music truly is. It's not who you are or what you do that defines you, it's how you do it.

You write music?

You're a composer.

It's that simple. Any other definition cuts out too many composers.

If you use this definition, then we could use it on music in general. You play music? Then you're a musician. But what is playing music? Tapping on your knees? Humming the Jeopardy theme? Both are musical acts, but just because someone taps their knees while sitting on the bus does not make them a musician.

I certainly don't have anything against people that don't make music their life, or even understand what's happening in music, for these people can make amazing things happen.

But I think in a practical sense, a musician can best defined as someone who spends a significant portion of their time creating music. Likewise, a composer can be someone who spends a significant portion of their time creating new music. I don't think a necessary quantity needs to be assigned to 'significant' - each person can determine if how much they spend time 'writing' music is significance or not, thereby determining if they consider themselves a composer. This mindset simultaneously deters any potential music snobbery by not attempting to specify exactly what a composer or musician is, yet it also allows some narrowing down of people who would not consider themselves composers.

I think a truly effective composer is one who does his or her best to write with full knowledge of instruments being used, while showing attention to melody, rhythm, harmony, texture, color, and form, as well as development and clarity, and attempts to fill a missing niche in repertoire.

I guess it depends on the person ... The first time I really thought of myself as a composer was when a YC performed a piece of mine - first performance made the difference between a dabbling and composing.

I think I'll consider myself a true composer when I have completed by postgrad "studies" and am in the position to be offered commissions.

If you use this definition, then we could use it on music in general. You play music? Then you're a musician. But what is playing music? Tapping on your knees? Humming the Jeopardy theme? Both are musical acts, but just because someone taps their knees while sitting on the bus does not make them a musician.

I agree! Perhaps it may seem unfair to say that one act is greater than another, (or one person's expression) but life is unfair! Infact paradoxically, being unfair is far fairer! To attain such a revered title as musician or composer, should not be easy! It should require work, dedication, meeting certain standards. If we change the meaning of musician or composer to mean "just anybody" then it loses all meaning and that is unfair!

What makes a composer a true composer?

My answer is " feelings "

Best wishes,

Hakan

www.hakanyurdakul.com

I think you'd have to be performed, for an audience, to be considered a composer by anyone other than yourself. Which, if you think about it, really IS what matters. I can think I'm whatever but it's irrelevant unless I can "prove" that label to the general public.

If we change the meaning of musician or composer to mean "just anybody" then it loses all meaning and that is unfair!

Well, I'm not sure whether the terms musician or composer ever had that much meaning in the first place. Maybe they did, in certain places at certain times, but for every example of a requirement one might give for what is required to be a "musician" one could give numerous counter-examples. What is the 17th century contrabassist, who generally was pretty much an amateur, not good enough to play the violin, but still was the "musician" who played Bach's pieces? Or on the other hand a composer who wrote only very few pieces in his lifetime, but ones that were (or are) considered exceptional masterpieces? Etc.

I don't think "musician" is a "title" that has much meaning, and "composer" even less so. No amount of time spent studying, no diploma, no huge work catalogue is any guarantee for quality. In the end, it doesn't really matter whether you call yourself a composer, or not, or whether others call you a composer. The only thing that matters is what you compose. One might call that "unfair", but personally, I find it fairer to "judge" the actual music instead of the title of its creator. Art is just not the kind of field where you can comfortably lean back on your position, and every person who chooses composition as her or his path must realize that she or he's in one huge pot with PhD's and Garageband-kiddies alike, and must find an individual way of sticking out there. (If that's what you want.)

I think you'd have to be performed, for an audience, to be considered a composer by anyone other than yourself. Which, if you think about it, really IS what matters. I can think I'm whatever but it's irrelevant unless I can "prove" that label to the general public.

I don't think there's a way one can ever prove that to the general public. If you can't even prove a scientific thing like evolution to the general public, how could one ever hope to do so for a highly ambiguous thing as composition? :P

"Getting performed" is awesome, but not really that hard, depending on how you go about it. But to me, it means a lot less than your personal mindset you approach composition with.

True composers, well i dont belive there anything like a true composer. Either you are a composers or you are not. everyone can learn to compose and do it to some degree, but few can compose great, so its like this, if you have the talent you are the composer, if not you are something else. Its like that with everything in the world, everybody can play piano, football, videogames, etc. but few are great :) But who is great? that is another question, Belive you are a composer, do what you can and enjoy the music, thats my motto :)

I didn't read any previous posts but I was thinking that:

A composer is the person who is able to transfer what is inside him/her to other people through sound/music. Through any means, whether a recording, a score, or some other kind of discription.

Now, what is inside them is what makes a good or bad composer I think. ;)

I have been writing string quartets and string trios for weddings for years now and I have made a nice business for myself. I currently have clients for a wedding in 2 weeks. This is financial success, but I think it is the fulfillment my music gives me that makes me a 'true' composer.

Anyone agree?

Thank you Nikolas, I was about to say the same thing not quite as elegantly. Somebody said something along the lines of "Oh, but is a person who taps their feet on the bus a musician?" Short answer: no. I think in saying that you're assuming that anybody that carries out a vaguely musical act is a musician. It's as simple as a person who intends to perform music for an audience. Don't make it any more difficult than that. If somebody finds your heel taps really cool and people start watching you do it and you think it's cool to do it in front of people, you've just become an artist, performer, or musician, however crude. Same thing applies to a composer. You intend to compose music for other people (or yourself) in a tangible form (i.e., not just in your head). Just like you can't say a painter isn't a painter just because his paintings never leave his basement. And music you compose needn't be expression like nikolas said, it can be any purpose. Maybe you just want to play around and write fugues or inventions or preludes and not worry about transferring what's inside you to a tangible medium - you just want to put notes on a canvas. Still a composer. You're a composer when you decide "hey, I like doing this... " It's that easy.

Them's my thoughts. ;)