How much of a composers skill is born with them?

Ok, sorry if this is already has a thread but I've been wondering:

-How much of a composer's future skill is with them when there born (not that they are a skilled composer at the age of 1 week, but that they are going to begin to compose at a very early age and at very high quality).

-How much of a composer's skill comes from just hearing other music and studying music?

-Can a person start composing at a very high proficiency level when they're ol without having any previous training or even a thought about music and is there anyone out there who did this?

I'm just wondering this because I don't know how many of you know about Jay Greenberg, this young composer (around 16 or 17 I think) who's written 5 wonderful symphonies already (like "being performed by the London Philharmonic Orchestra" wonderful). And he wrote the first couple of these I think without any previous theory knowledge. Now how does he, with tremendous skill and knowledge that appeared to have just been born with him, compare to someone like Eric Whitacre, who started composing in College without any previous classical music at all?

I don't even know what you mean with "skill." And you don't need to know anything about music theory or even music at all in order to compose music that someone may like/enjoy. In fact one might as well argue that having an education helps composing as much as reading helps you talk. Sure you may get more vocabulary and be more informed, but tsk you can talk without knowing how to read and chances are to a lot of people it makes no difference.

But I'll be honest, to me children can't really be actual composers (or musicians period.) They're more like machines repeating what they get from the environment. Regardless of the music they make, they're really incapable of even grasping 90% of the things an adult would in terms of psychology, etc etc, they'll just spit out what you tell them and that's it. Sure the music may be interesting, but in the same way that traffic may be interesting; there's little there to do with the kid's conception of music and more with what you may like (or not like) in it.

As for Jay Greenberg, yeah well, so what? If he was 40 nobody would really care about his music and it's only because he's young that he's getting any attention; it has nothing to do with music at all. I mean a child could as well write something that sounds like Ligeti or Cage and they would never be labeled "The next Mozart" or bullshit like that. It's the obvious "classical music" crap bias that ends up making the news, it's not interesting to me in the least.

Now I have no clue how his symphonies sound like and I only found a few clips on youtube, all of which sounds exactly like you'd expect of someone being called a "genius" by people who think the old warhorses are a symbol of greatness, but honestly I'd wait until the kid's at least in his mid 20s before I pay more attention and even that may be still too young.

By skill i mean "the ability to compose music that is complex and also sounds good." And though I do see what you mean by saying that education helps music like reading helps talking, I don't know of any highly regarded composer that never studied theory or the more technical aspects of music. And also may I point out that while reading doesn't help talking, debate and speech will greatly help someone to become a good speech-giver.

I agree with you in that most children composers (and especially intstrumentalists) just repeat what they hear. But I only would bring Jay Greenberg back into this (I also haven't heard more than about 20 minutes of his work) because I read in a interview with him that almost all his music comes directly from his head and straight down onto the manuscript. He said that he doesn't even have to try to get it to come; sometimes he has to shut it out. That doesn't seem like an automated child just spitting out knowledge put into them by someone else. And this is what I'm talking about when I say skill: when someone just starts coming up with elaborate things from right out of their head. For example, I must have a piano to do any serious composing.

And I also agree with you strongly about the classical bias. And classical will probably get most of the news just because more people know composers from that time period than from any other. And also, yes he probably wouldn't get near as much attention if he were older, but that is how it is with everything. A young sprinter gets attention because he is faster than everyone else his age and hopefully will become the fastest when he's physically mature. It's the same with this person. We hope that he will be one of the best composers when he's older because he's one of the best of his age right now. And I also think, like you, that we should wait some years before writing him down as "the next mozart."

But thanks for replying. I really appreciate it!

He said that he doesn't even have to try to get it to come; sometimes he has to shut it out. That doesn't seem like an automated child just spitting out knowledge put into them by someone else.

Well, I can't argue about Greenberg, since I don't know his music, but what you're describing there is actually exactly what I think SSC was talking about. It's not about consciously putting out learned knowledge - it's about growing up in a certain musical environment, internalising the musical patterns of this music and then putting it to paper again "as your own", without realizing that it's repeated material from others. One rarely realizes how automated one's actions are. They feel entirely natural and authentic - and they are - but they're still things you picked up somewhere first, often unconsciously. This applies to all of us of course, even to the most experienced composers. The difference here merely is the range of influences that you have internalised and how consciously you work with them. I'd actually guess that composers who have to actively "try to get it to come" can avoid blatant repetition more often than the composers for whom it "always just flows naturally".

Just listen to the early Mozart works. They tend to be a weird conglomerate of phrases and gestures that are typical of the time he grew up in. All the little elements are perfectly "in the style" - they just fit together somewhat awkwardly, and they're missing an original, coherent idea to set them apart from other classical music. That doesn't mean we're denying Mozart was very good at grasping these patterns and structures that surrounded him and working with them - but ultimately he was still just repeating some stuff without any original concept of his own. And I suppose that's the case with most young (and many older) composers, as SSC was saying.

This is probably making me sound like a huge Jay Greenberg advocate, when in reality, I just recently heard about him and know virtually nothing other than a very brief interview that I heard. but, this was from some interview that he had:

The program records his notes and plays them back

I don't know. There's really not enough information there, but I also don't claim to be an expert when it comes to these things. We can't really say how much music he exactly was exposed to at a young age, but if he drew cellos, he had seen (and probably heard) cellos. If he wrote notes, he had learned to read notes (unless he invented an entirely new notation system on his own). If his hero was Beethoven, then he knew about Beethoven (and probably his music). And so on. The fact that his parents weren't musicians doesn't mean he can't have been exposed to music early on. Music's all around us, we can't really avoid it.

The point is that he didn't suddenly begin to devise music in an entirely new idiom, with unheard of instruments, a new notation system, etc. He composed within an established system of instruments, symbols, etc., which requires at least empirical knowledge of said system. You don't randomly come up with the idea of "cello" on your own.

P.S. This really isn't about "defending" or "attacking" this guy. I have by no means anything against Jay Greenberg. It's more about the general problem of whether it's possible to be "independent" as a composer - especially as a young composer, and about the question of what the thing you call skill actually might be about.

The program records his notes and plays them back

Well, maybe he does enter thousand notes per second into the computer.

That is a tad cheesy (hmmmm... maybe slightly more than a tad) It was probably an over enthusiastic reporter wanting to add a flair to the story.

And Gardner, you have me there: one can not come up with things they've never heard of. It is a slightly depressing thought that almost all music (i guess except the "first peice of music ever") is based on something before it. But i guess that's what most things in nature are - birth, art, books.

May I modify the question and get the whole Jay Greenberg thing out of here?

-What are the main factors that contribute to someone being a highly skilled composer? ei: lot's of theory, etc? just being immersed? is there any skill that you inherit?

Well, maybe he does enter thousand notes per second into the computer.

That is a possibility. You know, when you're really in to the music and stuff, things can go very fast.

But I must not make fun of him. It's probably actually worse to be a "prodigy" than to emerge into the scene at an older age.

Well I didn't get the ability to compose from having sports parents...lol

I think it comes from genes (not necessarily composing, but music in general). OR: If you get interested, you can do it. I've read facts that before age 7 anyone can become a composer. After, interest takes the ball.

Well I didn't get the ability to compose from having sports parents...lol

I think it comes from genes (not necessarily composing, but music in general). OR: If you get interested, you can do it. I've read facts that before age 7 anyone can become a composer. After, interest takes the ball.

I fundamentally disagree with this post. I'd say there is little to nothing that genetics has to do with one's ability to compose. Neither of my parents are musical at all. Neither is my brother. In fact, as far back as I can remember, there is not a single person in my entire family with even marginal musical ability (or musical interest for that matter) other than one of my cousins who plays guitar. I think beyond certain biological determinants such as long fingers or stronger lungs that may help a person progress more quickly on an instrument, there is no correlation between genetics and musical interest/ability.

This isn't to say that being born to musical parents isn't entirely one related to one's own ability to music. I think being born in a musical background can create musical interest in a kid from an early age. Whether it be because kids are very impressionable and wish to copy their parents or are simply more prone to liking something they've grown up with their whole lives. Logic would dictate that, the more music you are exposed to, the more likely you are to find something you like. So, I think you can be "born" with some musical "talent" in terms of environmental factors. But I doubt there is much correlation between genetics and musical ability.

There's also Jakko Montejaarvi (sp?), who's written some astounding choir pieces without any prior composing experiences. His music sounds very different from other choral pieces, but still sound beautiful, even if he does break half the 'rules'. I've heard that he writes in pen. And no, he's not a child prodigy, he's married with kids.

Eric Whitacre has been composing since he was 14, when he was writing electronica for a wannabe band in high school. When he wrote "Go, Lovely Rose", he may not have had any choral writing experience, but he'd already written hundreds of pieces.

EDIT: Samuel Barber wrote "Adagio for Strings" when he was 17.

There's also Jakko Montejaarvi (sp?), who's written some astounding choir pieces without any prior composing experiences. His music sounds very different from other choral pieces, but still sound beautiful, even if he does break half the 'rules'. I've heard that he writes in pen. And no, he's not a child prodigy, he's married with kids.

I listened to part of a youtube of him: "Double, double toil and trouble" after reading this. I like the cool effects he does (sliding, stomping etc.) and his harmonies."

Eric Whitacre has been composing since he was 14, when he was writing electronica for a wannabe band in high school. When he wrote "Go, Lovely Rose", he may not have had any choral writing experience, but he'd already written hundreds of pieces.

Yeah that's true. But at least to me, it seems that his quality of music went dramatically up in a very short time. It seems that if you hear a very inspirational peice of music (for him, mozart's requiem) it can make you have a much higher interest, thus better skilled.

EDIT: Samuel Barber wrote "Adagio for Strings" when he was 17.

That's one of my favorite peices.

Heckelphone224, I'm not sure how much are genes, but I have almost no knowledge of that stuff other that Biology this year. I think that you comment on how after age seven, interest takes a role. And that's probably the biggest factor.

Nirvana69, I also agree with you on how much enviromental factors contribute to a composer's intersest and skill. And now I wonder: why do the mozarts and such compose that music at an early age when other's do not. Are they just more interested or have been exposed more?

Well, here's a good reason why NOT to get an "education" when it comes to composing. The stuff you learn will come out in your writing. So if you're learning about Bach, you'll get elements from Bach in your music regardless if you want them or not. This is almost a rule for everyone studying.

Yet if you're completely ignorant, you really are "inventing" most of the stuff you're doing, specially when you really don't know. I started writing music without knowing how to read scores at all on the computer just by inputting notes and hearing how it sounded, but I was heavily slanted towards traditional tonality though I used tons of dissonance I later stopped using when I learned about baroque/blah music. I think I was, what, 15?

So there's the education vs invention balance point. Nowadays when I write something, I will try to "blind" myself to a lot of the stuff I know in terms of music except for techniques or notation styles, but I'll try to shut out as much influence as possible from all the stuff I know. But even then I know that I'm still influenced by it.

Another point is that education has to be really comprehensive before it can be of any use. The kid who learns about Mozart and that's it will gravitate towards copying Mozart and stay doing that so long as he doesn't learn about anything else. This is VERY evident in this site if you look at age vs type of music being written. As I always say, almost nobody gets into composition because of Ligeti.

Does this mean that kids shouldn't write music? No, of course not. People should do what they want to do and it's good experience that they do. But there's a big danger that they'll learn really bad habits because they started real early and didn't have a balanced education to go with it.

I'll give an anecdotal example from my own experience: Because I started with baroque music as my main driving influence I hated almost everything else until I was forced to learn it years later.

Hell I remember dismissing Hindemith because it was too "modern," only to love it to death the third time I heard the tape. Though I was VERY reluctant to hear it more than once, but I gave it a chance and I ended up liking it (this was Trauer Music, btw.) I remember going to contemporary choir concerts where my girlfriend was singing solos/in the choir only because of her but I honestly didn't like the music despite the fact I actually was intrigued by it. Why? Because I was biased by my early experiences to the degree where I was shutting off parts of myself.

All of this was because, since Bach was my first hardcore "musical love" pretty much, I literally thought that everything else was inferior in comparison and I shut myself from a lot of music that could interest me because of that. Later when I was 22-23, I finally got over that and actually accepted that I liked a wide variety of things, many of which I would've never admit to before (to me admitting I liked Ligeti or AC/DC was almost like a weakness, since Bach was the BEST and they're nothing alike!)

I know exactly why I thought that sort of crap, and it was because I didn't have a balanced education of any sort. I had the power to listen to and only compose in the style that I rather recently found amazing and the best evar, but to the point where I thought venturing out of it was a waste of time since I had found the best thing ever already. This is the stuff that happens, and not only to me either. This site has plenty of examples of similar behavior.

I know exactly why I thought that sort of crap, and it was because I didn't have a balanced education of any sort. I had the power to listen to and only compose in the style that I rather recently found amazing and the best evar, but to the point where I thought venturing out of it was a waste of time since I had found the best thing ever already. This is the stuff that happens, and not only to me either. This site has plenty of examples of similar behavior.

I know why you did, too, but from an educational standpoint... at least 'in theory.'

First, it was NOT due to an 'imbalance' in education. Admittedly, you claim to have formed an affinity for AC/DC and Ligeti but felt "ashamed" for liking them and also liking Bach. This is all too familiar if you read into Ben Bloom's taxonomy for "Affectionate Domain." Remember, there are at least three domains of 'learning' in Bloom's overall discussion of cognition - they are 'Cognitive', 'Psychomotor', and 'Affection'. The last deals with learned attitudes and biases.

I'm of the opinion that the most complex domain in education is the 'Affectionate' domain of learning, which easily involves the greatest number of somewhat 'unknown' variables. In your discussion of developing this 'conflicting bias' between AC/DC and Bach, it's all too often the case that this occurs in students. It's part of our development as individuals, and all we know about the Affection domain beyond ways we can explore attitudes and biases is that it is almost entirely up to the individual student more than the teacher. It's up to the student to evaluate themselves as individuals and the attitudes they carry with them. It's a constant struggle of individuals who identify with their environment and form philosophies they carry with them for the rest of their lives.

So, while it may have 'sucked' to think back to a time where you didn't know how to rationalize what you knew from your education with what you later came to realize about your attitudes toward music, it was a process that occurred within you. That you have come to evaluate this as you have now is more indicative of the balance in education that you received. It may not have 'always' been balanced, but you didn't come out of your education and -not- process this information. Quite the opposite, in fact. You came out of your education ready and able to formulate your philosophies and attitudes toward music and education. You did receive a 'balanced' education of all three domains. The latter, however, is the most difficult to predict or control because it is thoroughly up to the individual student.

Now, I do believe there are methods that can help students better 'cope' with the learning area that is almost completely up to them. You can -nurture- the process and ease students into thinking more critically at earlier stages of development. Some of these methods include the Socratic Method and Concept Attainment. Both of these involve -thinking- on the part of the student moreso than simply lecturing to them. You're asking questions that require long, drawn-out answers. You're posing 'riddles' and leading students to abstract ideas without directly telling them what they're looking for (which would defeat the point of -Concept- attainment if you told them what the concept was to begin with... but I digress). In short, there are methodologies that require students to follow these paths of learning so that the learning skills become more automated processes throughout development.

I believe the best instructors are the ones who can engage students in how they are learning by explaining -in a motivating way- how learning occurs. The quintessential motivating factor is often 'why' learning is important. We live in a world of 'possession'... of 'acquisition'... but the one thing someone can acquire or possess that no one can physically -take- from us is our Knowledge. It's the only wealth we will always have as long as we are healthy. That's the importance of -why- learning 'how to learn' is crucial. Having as much knowledge as possible, never ceasing in -learning- and accumulating knowledge, grants us the ability to do anything in the world that we put our minds to.

This is what really sets us apart as educated students from university. I take issue with lots of things about the university system in music, but I will say that balanced education is certainly a subjective area where -learning- is concerned. This is merely my two cents on the matter of 'balance' in education. I don't think you were short-changed in that area. I don't think anyone really understands that process to the full extent that we possibly could, even though many of us go through it. As you are quite possibly aware, I have personally been undergoing the same self-evaluation process... and that's a constant, ever-present mental 'assessment' that will continue occurring within me.

By the way, how is the research coming on that project of yours that involved cognition? I'm curious where you are in all of that.

I know why you did, too, but from an educational standpoint... at least 'in theory.'

First, it was NOT due to an 'imbalance' in education. Admittedly, you claim to have formed an affinity for AC/DC and Ligeti but felt "ashamed" for liking them and also liking Bach. This is all too familiar if you read into Ben Bloom's taxonomy for "Affectionate Domain." Remember, there are at least three domains of 'learning' in Bloom's overall discussion of cognition - they are 'Cognitive', 'Psychomotor', and 'Affection'. The last deals with learned attitudes and biases.

Er, don't misunderstand, the example I gave was BEFORE I actually went to get an education elsewhere. My "lack of a well balanced education" was literally the fact that I wasn't getting an education what so ever except for what I looked up on my own.

Er, don't misunderstand, the example I gave was BEFORE I actually went to get an education elsewhere. My "lack of a well balanced education" was literally the fact that I wasn't getting an education what so ever except for what I looked up on my own.

Oh, okay. I did misunderstand, then.

I still think I made some valid points about 'education' in general, though. Does any of that seem to be confirmed with the education you eventually received elsewhere? Just wondering.

Heckelphone224, I'm not sure how much are genes, but I have almost no knowledge of that stuff other that Biology this year. I think that you comment on how after age seven, interest takes a role. And that's probably the biggest factor.

Could be...I wouldn't doubt it

Oh, okay. I did misunderstand, then.

I still think I made some valid points about 'education' in general, though. Does any of that seem to be confirmed with the education you eventually received elsewhere? Just wondering.

I think the most important thing you said was "learning how to learn." This is one of THE most important things ever, which goes right along the line of making the student self-sufficient in whatever endeavors they may end up undertaking.

I happen to think that a study in "composition" is less about composing and more about dealing with people and discipline of study. A huge important side is understanding a lot of things that have to do with people's reactions and motivations, and another important side is learning how to be able to tackle unforeseen problems both in composition and in practical application.

And, I think because of that, it's not necessary to even talk about what type of music the person likes/wants to make, but rather what would benefit them in getting that ability to both learn how to learn and the discipline to carry things out both intellectually and practically.

That is to say, I see "teaching" composition more like teaching someone how to think and go about making them happen than teaching them about any particular composers, systems, or any of that.

We are not created equal it's as simple as that, some are born with a better ear for example. It was said that Mozart could transcribe an entire orchestra from memory, yes he was trained but so were millions of other people who lived during the same time. But every composer has studied and learned from someone, even the prodogy doesnt wake up one day and write for a full orchestra just as you dont wake up one day knowing how to read a book without someone teaching you. It's just that some are smarter then others and what we consider a prodigy is someone who is able to learn and apply at a much faster rate, someone who is able to internalize something just by hearing it versus someone like me who needs to study a piece of music to do the same.

But the fact of the matter is we all have an ear, we all have a brain and we all have the ability to grow and get better as a composer just as doctor learns medicine. People have this thought that in the arts you are either born with the ability or not, but it's only true to a certain extent.

And yes you have to study! Yes skills are LEARNED! And yes you copy from the greats just as the greats copied from those before them, thats the evolution of music. Each composer you study gives you a different color to work with, and theres no way to just magically write in say the style of Debussy without hearing it, without studying it.

So with all that said I beileve that theroy is vital, without a basic understanding of the rules that govern different eras of music you cant break them and come up with unique combinations. You cant orchestrate without an understanding of the rules of nature that govern the instruments you are writting for. We all learn at a different pace, but we all can learn these vital skills.

I wasnt personally born a genious nor do I ever intend to be one. I did however develop the passion for music at a very young age and therefore from here till the day I die whether people think im great or average I will always be a composer, which means I will never stop studying and I will never stop learning.

I fundamentally disagree with this post. I'd say there is little to nothing that genetics has to do with one's ability to compose. Neither of my parents are musical at all. Neither is my brother. In fact, as far back as I can remember, there is not a single person in my entire family with even marginal musical ability (or musical interest for that matter) other than one of my cousins who plays guitar. I think beyond certain biological determinants such as long fingers or stronger lungs that may help a person progress more quickly on an instrument, there is no correlation between genetics and musical interest/ability.

Well, personally I have no clue about how much of a role genetics play in all this and if they matter much, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility outright. I don't think there's a "music gene" that directly makes someone jump to writing symphonies and playing the piano. There may be much more "general" genes however that can influence certain cognitive skills that can be beneficial for certain musical (or generally "artistic") tasks. This means that loads of people may have them, but still never play an instrument or get good at an instrument for various other reasons. Your parents may very well be "musical" in some abstract aspect, only that for them it's never managed to "bear fruit" for a variety of reasons. And at the same time, many people without said forms of "talent" may still have different strengths they can relate to music and be very successful musicians either way. In other words: Genetical doesn't have to mean that you're either "musical" or "unmusical" (those are nonsense terms, IMO). It can just mean a wide variety of traits that influence some music-related intellectual processes in some way, and for some they (plus external influences) fall together in a way that make them create music, for others not.

Well, here's a good reason why NOT to get an "education" when it comes to composing. The stuff you learn will come out in your writing. So if you're learning about Bach, you'll get elements from Bach in your music regardless if you want them or not. This is almost a rule for everyone studying.

Yet if you're completely ignorant, you really are "inventing" most of the stuff you're doing, specially when you really don't know.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think your conclusion actually works. The problem is that it's virtually impossible to be completely ignorant. You always know certain stuff through experience. You will hear music, and you will in some way remember aspects about it and relate it to other music you hear. And I think the actually greatest danger is to think you're free from influences and are actually "inventing" stuff on your own - because that usually only means that you're copying some stuff without even being aware of it. And the problem is: The more limited your musical focus (respectively "knowledge") is, the more your copies will tend in a single, uniform direction. And I don't think having a greater knowledge about certain music will make you copy it more, but rather the contrary: The more you truly try to understand why a composer did things in a certain way, the more you will be forced to go beyond mere stylistic patterns and phrases into more abstract conceptual stuff. And abstraction (even if done intuitively) is where, IMO, the first step of creativity begins. Not to copy Mozart's notes, for example, but figuring out what the way he composed meant in view of his musical time and culture and in contrast to other pieces of music, drawing personal conclusions from that and letting this influence your music.

But sure, I guess either way you can still just copy Mozart all your life long. In the end it's your choice. As well as the question of whether we're trying to consciously shut out our influences or accept them. I don't think either is wrong, as long as you're aware that you're never truly free from them (as you've said). Personally, I get the feeling that the more I am aware what others have done and are doing, the clearer I can define my own position in relation to the influences I have and always will have. I -am- interested in knowing why I have a preference in doing certain musical things a specific way, and where I might have got this from.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think your conclusion actually works.

That's why I noted that you need a balanced education, but also one that focuses in depth on composers rather than just notes. The more in-depth you go the more you think, and like you said, abstraction gears creativity in a different way than just copying notes.

EDIT: Samuel Barber wrote "Adagio for Strings" when he was 17.

Wait. The Adagio for Strings was arranged from Barber's String Quartet, which was composed in 1936, when Barber was 26. The arrangement was done two years later. I'm pretty sure he was at least in his twenties when he wrote the second movement of his string quartet, the adagio, especially considering that it's his Op. 11, and his Op. 6, the cello sonata, was composed while he was a young man at Curtis in his twenties.

Sorry, I'm done. :D

I wouldn't say there is a music gene but it has been already proven by some psychologists that genes have some say in regards to our personality. And personality, I think, has a lot to do when it comes to music and composing.

To me composers need:

suitable personality - part of which you are born with, part of which you develop through life you experience

some education - you cannot compose not knowing anything but on the other end you cannot live without learning about things you are interested in. If the education is formal, academic, is secondary matter.

but if the music is to tell about something you need to have this thing to tell.

Even prodigies are nothing but curiosity until mid twenties as they simply lack the life's experience, stories to tell and very often technique.

You asked about famous composers who did not study music. First to came to my mind was John Cage. I remember him saying in one of his late reviews something like 'I composed because I curious how it will sound'. So his composition wasn't a spark of genius coming through his mind onto a electronic device with the speed making the device to crash. Actually his first composition was purely mathematical as far as I remember.

Another example could be Modest Mussorgsky whose music was for long time known only in version ironed out by more classically trained composers from 'the Five' group.

If you look carefully you probably will find few more.