The Composer's Survival Kit?

Don't take this as being off-topic, but has anyone here ever read the book, The Animator's Survival Kit by Richard Williams?

I have, and I can safely say that it's the most comprehensive and complete book on the subject. It is very well-written and everything is explained in a manner that sparks epiphanies like fireworks during a 4th of July celebration. But while it is a great source of information and inspiration for artists and animators, it just so happens to be about a subject I'm not actively pursuing. Bah.

So, is there such a thing as "The Composer's Survival Kit"? A well-written and intuitive resource for budding musicians and composers who want to learn everything there is to know about musical composition? A one-stop shop for all the principles and tricks of the trade...

I have been searching online for quite some time and have had no such luck... I've only ever found cluttered fragments on counterpoint that assume I know what I'm doing, and the classes at my local university lack anything beyond the absolute basics.

So, if you know of this holy grail of musical knowledge that could be comparable to a Composer's Survival Kit (a book, website, tutor you know, college course you've taken, anything), please don't hesitate to share in this thread!

No, this doesn't exist.

Yes, believe us, if there was such a thing, we would have already found it. And Young Composers probably wouldn't much need to exist. Through our endeavors with the wiki and site store we hope to eventually graze the surface of what you could call a "one stop shop", but even for such an individual and specific cause as musical composition, you simply cannot put everything together in one place and make it understandable on any- and everyone's level.

I see. So much for an easy transition from CS to music major.

Then with what free time I have, I'll read through the wiki and compare notes with various other sources I've collected.

Just in case, I think I'll keep a journal as well. Maybe I could use it as a basis to write something like a Composer's Survival Kit in the future... all musical styles have the same sort of science behind them anyways, right? .. I hope?

I really wouldn't read through the wiki. Or actually try to learn from most of the things said on here, you'd be getting false information from people who mostly don't know what they're talking about. Go buy books.

lol

so true

My proffesor wrote one for us at Stephen F. Austin. It was mainly written for us and the composition program here though.

http://www.music.sfasu.edu/prospective_students/composition/pdf/Survival_Guide_Sp08.pdf

In in it has our degree requirements and policies, but it also has stuff about how to be a successful composers and what jobs await someone after college. Plus a formula on how to charge for commissions and transcriptions.

But like I said, it is mainly tailored for the students at SFASU. In fact most the things that are in there, like rules and policies, were made because of what previous students have done.

I really wouldn't read through the wiki. Or actually try to learn from most of the things said on here, you'd be getting false information from people who mostly don't know what they're talking about. Go buy books.

thirded. On the other hand, you can gain a lot of referential knowledge through this site, and there are a few shining examples of people with half a clue.

I see. So much for an easy transition from CS to music major.

...

Just in case, I think I'll keep a journal as well. Maybe I could use it as a basis to write something like a Composer's Survival Kit in the future... all musical styles have the same sort of science behind them anyways, right? .. I hope?

Heh.

As to the first part, what brought you to a music major? And are you doing a composition degree or a music degree? You might want to look at ways to combine your CS interests with music... Taking a look at Princeton's (or Tulane's, we've been doing some cool research) music technology programs might help, and with a basis in CS, the stumbling blocks most of us music people have with programming in Csound or Puredata disappear.

What I think you're having trouble with is that merge between the art and "science" that music is often portrayed as. IMNHO, the strive for a "science" of music broke down as the industrial revolution stopped being relevant, and so what you're looking for isn't a terribly popular idea.

What I'd do is this:

Look for suggestions of books in the threads here

read Adler's Orchestration and Read's Notation books, so you know what's possible on the instruments and how to notate it

voraciously devour any and all music you can find, listening actively

I really wouldn't read through the wiki. Or actually try to learn from most of the things said on here, you'd be getting false information from people who mostly don't know what they're talking about. Go buy books.

I'm actually not so sure about that. I think wikis/wikipedia and other resources created by amateurs have one great advantage: They don't instill a false sense of security and trust in expert knowledge, but make it immediately clear that you have to question everything they say.

The thing is that the same applies to "expert resources" (books, dictionaries, etc.) just as well, just that most people are much more willing to trust them blindly. Sure, often they are better researched and there is more experience and expertise behind them, but far from always. There is a frightening amount of blatantly false information in many such resources, and it would be wise not to take anything you read there for granted and approach them not much differently than you'd approach a wikipedia article.

It is for the reasons that Gardener said that I would recommend anything by any notable composer. Tchaikovsky wrote Guide to the Practical Study of Harmony, Rimsky-Korsakov wrote Principles of Orchestration, Berlioz wrote Treatise on Instrumentation, there's a Study of Counterpoint from John Fux's Gradus Ad Parnassum, Rameau wrote some treatise, etc. I think if the author of a composing book is a well-respected composer, then it's pretty safe to listen to them.

Hmm, actually I'd take it with a grain of salt no matter how notable the composer is who wrote it. First of all, many of those composers lived in different times in different environments, and what they "knew" may not apply to us as directly anymore. They all just wrote from their respective points of view. Second, being notable doesn't say too much about "expertise" on a broad level in the first place, since there are so many different things involved in why one person becomes famous and another doesn't, most of which have almost nothing to do with "musical knowledge". Music is such a wide and open field that nobody really can "know everything" there anyways - and certainly not composers, who are after all are not famous for what they knew, but for what they composed. Frankly, when it comes to well-founded knowledge, I'd sooner trust a musicologist than a composer.

Lastly, "expertise" is a very questionable thing when it comes to art anyways, where every "truth" that was once taken for granted was sooner or later questioned or pushed over by others.

By all means, read those books and learn from them, but question what you hear. No matter whether it comes from your composition professor, wikipedia, or Berlioz.

My proffesor wrote one for us at Stephen F. Austin. It was mainly written for us and the composition program here though.

http://www.music.sfasu.edu/prospective_students/composition/pdf/Survival_Guide_Sp08.pdf

In in it has our degree requirements and policies, but it also has stuff about how to be a successful composers and what jobs await someone after college. Plus a formula on how to charge for commissions and transcriptions.

But like I said, it is mainly tailored for the students at SFASU. In fact most the things that are in there, like rules and policies, were made because of what previous students have done.

Oh my lord! That guide makes me want to study composition SOO badly... SOOOOO very badly.. haha.

While not all that complicated(read: Not at all) Aaron Copeland's "What to Listen for in Music" goes over a lot of the basics.

While not all that complicated(read: Not at all) Aaron Copeland's "What to Listen for in Music" goes over a lot of the basics.

I just bought that book.

the strive for a "science" of music broke down as the industrial revolution stopped being relevant, and so what you're looking for isn't a terribly popular idea.

On the contrary, with psychology, neurology, and pattern recognition technology rapidly approaching their golden ages, the quest for a science of music is a far more plausible endeavor than ever. Currently though, an anthropological perspective best directs us towards the universal principles of music.

Ok, as usual Gardener offers the best advice about your research.

As for info on YC there are decent sources -

A) Flint and QC posted great Masterclasses on orchestration. Covers essential basics.

B) Graham offers a nice topical intro to fugue writing

C) I have posted extensive threads and discussions on 16th century 2 voice counterpoint (eg modal counterpoint) 1st and 2 nd species and melody writing for 3rd species. I'll do my best to continue these. But give these a try.

D) Read the more through commentary in the various forums. Pay attention to comments correcting notation or explain in detail why they like or dislike a piece ("I like the smooth transition of your harmonies and the contours of your melodies. The mixture of stepwise motion and leaps in the bassline and the melody's gentle variance in curvature I especially admire. I think you switch your harmonies without sufficient preparations compared to what you had going on previously in this section around msrs 84 - 100 because you move suddenly from one root position chord to another. If this is intentional then why does this not recur?" is far more helpful than "I liked most of it - reminded me of Schoenberg until the middle part where it got too jumpy and then I thought it was too mario brothers videogamish" - both do involve the listener's preference but the first example clarifies these preferences much better than the latter).

If there are other constructive threads I have missed please provide them.