Observations and Misconception about the road to Musical Composition (Self Taught or Academia)

Over the months and years I have been browsing around various composition forums I have noticed various observations and misconceptions made about composers and how they have learned their skills, either self taught or through formal training. So I ask you these questions;

What are some of the misconception you have heard or have been told about the method of learning you went through on your compositional journey?

Where do you think these misconceptions come from?

What are a few of the truths that contradict these notions?

And if you have an opinion;

What method of learning you do feel is more beneficial?

Or

Do you feel the both methods are equally effective? Why are Why not?

I ask these question mainly to help clear misconceptions about how people learn composition, to help younger and newer composers make a better informed choice in there compositional journey, and mostly, out of curiosity of my fellow composers and musician’s opinions.

Well, here's the problem in the U.S. public schools that might shed some light on the issues surrounding this question. First and foremost, education in America is becoming more socialized and is becoming supplemented overall with social training as opposed to genuine education. The education system itself isn't entirely to blame for this, but administrators seem to be caving in to a degree in how to approach education. Overall, I think younger people have lost sight of education's purpose (or perhaps haven't been reached a deeper understanding of "why" education is important - I'll get to that in a moment). The long and the short of it is this: By the time a student graduates from the public system, many find themselves dependent upon higher education. Some will argue that this is intentional, and I am inclined to agree. For better or worse, young people often find out too late that what they learn in higher institutions was never beyond their abilities. But this realization happens to occur far too late, after students go into debt and commit themselves to a degree path.

How does this, then, apply to music education? Well, a simple truth to realize is that we learn about our profession by reviewing the past, evaluating the present, and speculating about the future. It's actually a very simple process. When we learn about music, we look to some existing repertoire, be it music of the 16th century in music theory 101 or music of the 20th century in some contemporary music survey course. The bottom line, though, is technology through all of this has completely changed the playing field. Where in my generation (turn of the century, graduated in 1999, actually) music materials, scores, and even "how to study music" guides were hardly as accessible as they are today, in 2010 we have places like this forum, e-books, online resource sites like MusicTheory.net and so forth. So, it's a big shift in the way knowledge is becoming available to the average joe interested in studying music composition. Who needs to pay money for a 20th century music survey course or a music theory 101 course when they have access to these materials virtually for free? What's really holding anyone back from being able to save anywhere from $40,000 to $160,000 over the next four to eight years to become as informed and educated to the level of a PhD in music?

The only thing that seems to be at issue is what I began my response with... the public education system catering to the whims of bureaucrats who've spent absolutely NO TIME in a classroom and think they know how to improve education. It's a joke that turns into a surrealistic nightmare for the vast majority of people who become indentured servants (like me) to a system of acquisition, profit, and commercialism when all along they could have spared themselves of this outcome with a library card and some initiative. It's such a funny scene in Good Will Hunting where Matt Damon tells some pompous Harvard political science student that he's going to wake up one day and realize just what I'm explaining here. Music is no different. You -can- learn everything you need to know about music from reading a few theory books, analyzing music, and interacting with the community to share ideas like we do here on YC. Anything else (performance opportunities, degrees, academic standing) are ancillary factors. Since no form of income in the field of music composition is based directly on the degree you have, your academic standing, or performance opportunities, we can break the entire university system in the U.S. down to nothing more than "pampering" the transference of music knowledge.

How does that work exactly? Well, consider that without a university with an existing instrumental/vocal program a composer actually has to do what professional composers do... they have to find performers and ensembles on their own to perform their works. Gee, what a novel idea... make composers actually follow through on not only preparing music but also putting it in front of audiences. Of course, the simplicity for a composer in an academic environment to actually have their works performed (at least in the larger programs) might be seen as beneficial. I don't. I think it's no different than the mother who pampers their spoiled child. I think it's no different than the public education system that pampers young people by spoonfeeding them what they need to know to be genuinely "educated" and capable of learning for themselves. I think it's no different than the field biologist studying butterflies who, upon seeing the butterflies struggling to break free from their cacoons, helped them escape... only to watch them all die later, because as a life process for butterflies, the escape from the cacoon is a necessary component for butterflies to survive in an external environment. It's no different in life than it is in education, but we still insist upon sheltering and pampering young people as if they cannot do it for themselves.

I say to anyone studying composition on their own, you are wiser than I ever was. If I can help direct you in anyway, PM me and I'll do my best. For those in the university system, I say that it's up to you to get what you pay for... do not take no for an answer because it's YOUR money and YOUR life at stake, not some administrator's or professor's. It sounds harsh and damning of the system, but it's not about being combative or controversial... it's about taking responsibility for your life and your future. At some point reality sinks in and you come to realize that the education system itself and its attempts to make your educational experience -easier- or more -convenient- for you is just as detrimental. All of this is to say that school IS different than the system you'll come to understand when you graduate. You'll inevitably HAVE to take responsibility for what you need to know and learn about any profession. Academics will tell you this very thing, and in the same breath they'll tell you that this is the reason higher education is so important. It's a contradiction at its core when you really think about it.

I am going to agree and disagree to your response Anti A through my own response;

What are some of the misconception you have heard or have been told about the method of learning you went through on your compositional journey?

One misconception that most people have of the academia composer is that universities turn out snobby, over thought-out, and pretentious composer that only a select few will appreciate (mainly professors and other college graduates). That we leave college with no idea of the real world and with no real life skills to make it as a working composer. This, though has some truth behind it, is mostly false now.

Where do you think these misconceptions come from?

This misconception comes from how composition, and most creative art forms, were taught back then. The 50s-70s was a time of what I like to call musical exclusivity. This was an era were most of the academic music world taught composers to write in one style, with one mind set, and if you didnt conform to this your career in music was over before it began. If yall remember your music history, Copland was not at all regarded as a good composer for years because he didnt conform to this idea.

Today, this mentality is, I would say, 70% gone from the academia world. This is due to the realization with in colleges that students need life skills more then usless knowledge and the increase popularity of young composers wanting to be film composers. That and the increase of students is forcing most music program to adapt, no matter how reluctant they are. However there are a few exceptions that still hold fast to the mentality of the 50s and 70s.

What are a few of the truths that contradict these notions?

The truth of the matter is, most composition programs are less about the theory you learn or the techniques you develop in your training. Today, its about developing the skills needed to be a successful and versatile composer; this is the case for an increasing number of universities and colleges, however this is a slow process that is mostly found in smaller and lesser known colleges, which might lead one to think that the their creativity will be snuffed out.

And if you have an opinion;

What method of learning you do feel is more beneficial?

Or

Do you feel the both methods are equally effective? Why are Why not?

I do feel that learning from academia is more beneficial FOR SOME. Will you learn more theory in college, no, not with the amount of resources that are available to you online these days. Will you learn more music history, probably not, Wikipedia is more accurate these days anyways. What you get out of it is the experience, the connections, and the valuable friends that will be there assisting you on your journey through the world of composition.

Like I said, its for some. If you have a pension for not making friends or connections, or if you already have the connection you need, then going to college will be a waste of your time. I have seen many college composition students just go through the passes and now after graduation do nothing with their degree and are stuck in a dead end job that has nothing to do with music of any kind.

If you have plans on going to College, plan on going for the long haul, that means PhD (because a bachelor's in music composition will get you no where and with a PhD at least you have the option of teaching). Plan on improving your social skills and making the connections that matter. Plan on using the resources at said college and plan on making some yourself. If this sounds above your capabilities this college will be a waste of time and money and you will do better being self taught.

The grass, while not always greener, is more rewarding when grown yourself.

To compose is to develop your own music, and it goes against the grain of any art to expect another to teach you how to create. With that said, one of the obvious misconceptions is that in academia you are taught to compose. Instead, you are (supposedly) given the tools you need to be a successful composer. And with that said, there is no reason given the great availability of materials today that you can't acquire the skills on your own. I am not against the idea of academia as an institution of learning, and I'm even currently enrolled in a graduate program. This choice is partly based upon perks of the system, such as getting professional performances/recordings of my works, having access to obscure recordings and scores, and getting a silly piece of paper that supposedly makes me a promising asset to anyone willing to hire me. More important is the people I study with and the people I meet (making connections). I go to school to gain points of view and learn things I don't think I could teach myself. This is not always related to composition.

I feel that going to school is more beneficial for me than working a usual 40 hour a week job in order to live and compose my own music on the side. I'm paying my whole way, but it's through loans that I would otherwise not be able to get (and otherwise probably not be able to pay back, but we'll see). Academia is not the best option for all people. It depends on what you want to do and how you want to do it. If you want to compose "concert music" or teach at a college level it is likely that you will find academia useful, even if it is flawed. But in this environment there is still a tremendous amount of self-teaching required, or your craft will not progress.

Observation: composing is often a lonely, time-consuming effort, so you need to be content being alone with yourself for long periods of time to stay sane.

I find that studying composition has been the best thing for me.

Bouncing my ideas off of Dr. Knight is so beneficial - eventually I'll get married to some chick, and she'll have to listen to me ramble on incessantly, but for now, he gets paid to do that :)

Teaching and learning are both related - it's a two-way street. When you teach and guide someone else, you learn as well. I've seen it in percussion over the last several years - by having to teach a 7th grader how to buzz roll, I have to trial-and-error until we find the way that clicks for them. You can't tell me that isn't instructive for me....cause it is.

Sure, one can say "This is how you do it - that's that" but that's not really 'teaching' as much as 'telling'. Dr. Knight has been vital in helping me develop my ability to create solutions on my own and discover for myself what to do - he has yet to tell me what to do, at all (this is my fourth year here.) There have been times he's said "I don't think this section works, it doesn't seem to fit" at the early stages of a composition, and of course I continue anyway because you can't just....NOT write something because of that. But 4 months later when I can't get any further on this piece, it turns out that by eliminating or replacing that section, the piece just works out, and I can assemble the puzzle I've been trying to assemble. And I'm noticing how I'm starting to develop that instinct of "Something's not right here" that I feel is vital to creating an organic work (and if you, for some reason, don't understand what I mean by 'organic', I mean a work that flows well, a work that feels like "everything is in the right place" a work that, even if to no one else, feels complete to me and feels correct, a work that feels like a living being as opposed to pitches and rhythms.)

But then again, Dr. Knight is a superb teacher. But we're not talking about bad teachers are we? I don't think anyone is arguing that bad teachers are what we should seek out. Can anyone say there is no benefit to studying with a superb compositional instructor, or guide, if you will?

About the finding performers thing - You may be so lucky to have an orchestra at your disposal, but I know that if I didn't have access to the University Symphony Orchestra, writing an orchestral work wouldn't even cross my mind - it's too impractical. Let's say that for one service (let's say three hours) you pay each musician 100 dollars to play for you (which is fairly low). Let's say you need a medium size chamber orchestra to rehearse and read and record your work, all in three hours.

2222,4221, 8,4,4,2, timpani, 3 percussion.

That's 3800 dollars. I don't have that kind of cash. What I do have, though, is a university orchestra, and a scholarship.

I like getting performances, and I may or may not pursue a career as *just* a composer, but it will certainly be part of my daily activities and my lifestyle - along with playing percussion and teaching. Going to college is the only way I can do that.

Jamie brings up a good point, though. If you're going to study composition at the academic level, be prepared to study something else alongside your composition. The degrees that will actually lead to jobs out of college undergrad are Education and Performance. The PhD path is often touted as the way for composers to supplement their income from writing music by going to teaching composition at a university. The problem? Too many composers follow this path and there just aren't enough jobs waiting for them when they come out of the program. SO, my words of wisdom would be that, if you are in an undergrad program and prefer teaching to performance, concentrate on music education. If you'd prefer performance over education, concentrate on performance and build that social network up. Be prepared to live in big metropolitan areas as well, because there are just a wider array of jobs available in those areas for studio work, live performance, and even private performance (weddings, holiday events, etc).

But all of this is to say that you'll have to be bi-musical in your approach and accept that composition will not be the only thing you'll be doing as a composer when you leave college. Now, THAT being said, let me explain another reason why pursuing strictly composition at the academic level is the wrong way to go...

To be a composer in this day and age, you have to know your technology (and more than actually how to compose). There are many people who work commercially as composers full time who have never taken a theory course or composition lesson. These are the people who went to school in business, engineering, or a variety of other technical paths and wound up applying themselves to learning about music, either by ear or from self-study. This is entirely possible if you're bent on getting a degree. At the risk of generalizing, I'll go out on a limb and say that the majority of -professional- composers did not study music composition at the academic level for any significant amount of time.

The question really is... what is the best investment a composer can make? If a composer invested just 20% of the cost of higher education (based on a generous $40,000 4.5-year degree in composition) that would be $8,000. Now, if a composer invested $8,000 in the technology s/he will eventually need to even participate in the industry. Consider another $2,000 for extraneous expenses (which is astronomical for all the self-study materials you'd likely need) for study materials, scores, and readings. All in all, this would be a much more cost-effective way to approach the profession out of high school if all you want to do is compose.

To be a composer in this day and age, you have to know your technology (and more than actually how to compose). There are many people who work commercially as composers full time who have never taken a theory course or composition lesson. These are the people who went to school in business, engineering, or a variety of other technical paths and wound up applying themselves to learning about music, either by ear or from self-study. This is entirely possible if you're bent on getting a degree. At the risk of generalizing, I'll go out on a limb and say that the majority of -professional- composers did not study music composition at the academic level for any significant amount of time.

Again, this depends on the type of music you're looking to compose. If you focus on writing for wind ensembles or choirs, for example, there is little reason for you to be working with much technology beyond a computer and notation program (unless you plan one day to do film work or high-quality mock-ups of your music - yes there are some who argue that the ability to work with DAWs and sample libraries should be part of every composer's arsenal, but that is not truly necessary; I will say that maintaining your own website is becoming more and more important). And in the case of the above genres, I doubt there are many successful composers who haven't studied composition either privately or, more likely, in an institution. Once you get into commercial music, however, you find far fewer people who studied music composition at the college level.

To make a living from composing, conducting, and giving lectures is incredibly difficult. There aren't many fortunate enough to do this, but Eric Whitacre, Libby Larsen, and John Mackey come to mind. Given the state of music today it would be near impossible for these composers to make a living without the support of academia.

Note: My comments pertain to the U.S. education system. If things vary greatly in other countries I'd love to hear about it.

Well the issue of teaching composition is very, very complicated and it varies greatly from case to case. So, my outlook is going to be unfortunately generalized when in reality a set of case studies would be required to really point out all the nuances.

In any case, I think that first of all it's a mistake to say composition can be "taught" or that one "teaches" composition because there is no curriculum that can be set considering all the thousands of variables. There isn't "things you have to know" that relate to anything, even technique or instrument handling. This is to leave those "tradition" things out in their respective categories, rather than mixing them with composition.

The reason is, the moment you're talking about artistic freedom regardless to which degree, you have to allow questioning everything and build a space where that is both OK and encouraged. Actively searching for individual answers to the questions that come up ("Violin or garbage truck??") is a really important part of any composition/creative process.

Second, in light of this, the work a teacher must do is similar to that of a good psychologist or a therapist. They'll listen to you, see what you're saying, try to help in some way they. What "helping" means here is as variable as the content you can deal with, which can be having arguments about aesthetics or looking over other composers' scores to commenting on the newest pop phenomenon or a movie (or personal issues, if the relationship is good.) This is also why so many people are completely unfit to be composition teachers in spite of their technical education; they simply don't have the mindset you need to have (that of a therapist or a psychologist.)

So really, anyone going to "study composition" really should be aware that what they'll get out of it is going to depend directly on themselves and who they're dealing with and how good that person is in the role of a psychological/emotional support. It goes without saying this is only added to the already obvious technical background a teacher needs to have (which is already a crazy requirement by itself.) And, of course, ignorance of these aspects will lead to problems down the road (or instantly, as the case may be.)

Composition and playing an instrument even if both are taught alongside eachother are totally and entirely different things and this is also something people need to be aware of. Both in teaching and in seeking education the point is that education in both is and must be different for the reasons mentioned above. A composer is more an architect, an instrumentalist is the "grunt work" to get it done (and has to be trained like any physically demanding activity needs to be trained, the requirements are set out by the needs of what needs to be accomplished.)

But while an architect has rules they have to follow for their building to not fall to pieces, composition (and arts) can take the liberty to dismiss and/or make up rules arbitrarily. Obviously, here a valid comparison between the composer and the instrumentalist can be drawn since both need to "get used" to their tasks. While it may sound good on paper that you can "do whatever," the truth is that there's nothing harder than having to deal with every single element and put everything in question. It can take a while to get used to it, just like it will take a while until the pianist's fingers are used to playing scales and octaves. Both require practice.

Just what that practice is though, is exactly the main difference that makes the approaches to teaching/studying these things so very different. "Practice" for a pianist may be playing a particular repertoire, scales of all sorts, finger exercises, etc. While for a composer "practice" is the actual intellectual exercise that can only be practiced by actually composing and actively exercising that intellectual capacity.

That's why even though a teacher has no particular "curriculum" they have to teach, they should have still a plan that is based on various factors. One of which is really how much is the student really exercising their intellect and how much they're actually thinking about what they're doing. Thinking should really be the keyword here, as that is what makes all the difference. Ultimately the goal of all this is to teach the student to do things because they actually want to, rather than because they can't do anything else.

The inability to do anything else can creep in even if a person is technically knowledgeable. The point is not simply knowledge, but also the capacity for adopting multiple view points different from their own and learn to look at things from different angles in spite of their personal opinion which can also be influenced by which angles they choose to view something through; hence the importance of this as a strategy.

The questions that composition as a process tackles by default are not easy, and overlooking them is what most do by instinct. After all if you just sat for weeks, months and years and didn't write anything because you were unsure if you would REALLY liked it or not is defeating the purpose and like I said before, you don't get any practice by doing this. However, the measure by which you think vs what you settle down to write is of course variable and in these instances a teacher would come in handy. A second person may perhaps see where maybe you'd be wasting time for no reason or where you need to be more active and actually write things.

But yeah, before this gets TOO long, there's really no replacement for having hands on experience with the matter since even the best guide can't prepare anyone for all the different things that can (and will) happen.

--

Edit: I'm going to probably make a separate post to address the crap that has been said already, but right now I didn't feel like doing that so there you go. Pshaw wikipedia is more accurate than learning at a goddamn university. Probably if the university is a piece of scraggy, sure.

AS somewhat an outsider to the higher academia (eg taking courses from those in higher academia without being it in full time and on a particular degree track), the biggest misconception is there is one "ideal" path to learn to compose.

Another concept about composition which I find very confusing is what is meant by "planning" and "thinking through" a piece. What degree of planning? What is meant by "thinking" composition?

What I do find useful for a composer is learning an instrument that enables you to play more than two independent voices, score study (and training in this), wide exposure to repertoire, working with performers to play your music, and understanding the techniques of musical genres to some degree.

Misconceptions about composition I cannot stand is that it is effortless and that all we do is wake up one day and just write from our head masterpieces. Also, cannot stand that many non-musicians fail to understand with music like anything else, it takes practice and a ton of mistakes to get something done well.

One element of compositional training which is undervalued greatly is outside musical interest and the benefit of living a life outside music. I know it sounds hopelessly general but it can be as simple as ensuring you spend at least a few weeks a year totally unrelated to music and outside your usual routine. A vacation to someplace you never been, tackling a big novel, playing a sport, going to the museums ... etc

Academia isn't universally anything. My fundamentals -- the counterpoint, the harmony, the textbook work -- was cursory at best. The strongest courses at my univeresity were the 400/600 level classes -- senior/graduate level. A few 300-level classes were the same. Sometimes, you find them pretty far away from the music department. My best class for music was one called Decline of the West. These classes were focused on listening, sociological and musical analysis, and academic reading. I feel that many of you aren't looking too deep in your class schedules when you register.

As to being self-taught -- you have to be self-taught! Just going to class, doing the homework only, and not seeking past what you learn from your prof is not helpful. How different is it from just doing the reading yourself? Not bloody very. Except that you do get a third guide, someone to bounce ideas off of; someone to objectively critique. At least, if your professors are good.

All I'm saying is that my classes were on local music from 1890 to 1970, minstrelsy, aphex twin, milton babbitt, and big black. Where were you, there were 20 slots still open in the class? And why didn't I see you down at Mimi's last Sunday? You missed a good set. Didn't miss the second one.

All I'm saying is that my classes were on local music from 1890 to 1970, minstrelsy, aphex twin, milton babbitt, and big black. Where were you, there were 20 slots still open in the class? And why didn't I see you down at Mimi's last Sunday? You missed a good set. Didn't miss the second one.

What just happened?

All I'm saying is that my classes were on local music from 1890 to 1970, minstrelsy, aphex twin, milton babbitt, and big black. Where were you, there were 20 slots still open in the class? And why didn't I see you down at Mimi's last Sunday? You missed a good set. Didn't miss the second one.

What? Are? You? Talking? About?

I agree with you, Ferk. We're all self-taught. Whether we bounce ideas off of a Professor or off of a fellow composer on a website like this, though, I don't see the difference. This forum is a collective body of knowledge that offers more insight than possibly any single university in existence. Just having an existing userbase of roughly 50 active members is far more than participation numbers in 98% of composition programs worldwide, and with technology and local ensembles among us (as a collective group) we can find ways to get our works performed simply through our own efforts to organize and communicate with each other.

If someone with a concert band piece seriously needed a reading of their work, I know of three potential groups in my area that I am connected with who could potentially read those works (and I could record, video and audio). Of course, I won't go out on a limb for anyone who won't go out on a limb for me, either, so it's a give and get kind of situation. Still, we have everything we need here on this forum to learn about 95% of what we could get from a university. Is that 5% really worth the $40,000 tuition and the degree if all you want to learn is composition? Really?

I think it's a question of value. I don't see it.

I don't know what kind of "Universities" you guys are talking about, but certainly the forum here does NOT have nearly 1% of the info you can get out of a proper course for either musicology OR composition.

Likewise, even on the internet at large, you'd be hard pressed to find literature like books on in-depth analysis of Schubert's lieder or maybe stuff on Luis Couperin's influence on the french baroque canon, stuff that you can usually find at an actual university that doesn't completely blow. Hell nevermind that if you have actual professors that you can ask things to, they can point you to tons and tons of literature (and since you're studying there, you can ACCESS IT, imagine that!) Wanna know all the different interpretations of Beethoven's late string quartets and their relevance to 20th century perception of the middle romantic period? No problem! You can go look it up.

If you're really studying -music-, composition or not, there's no replacement for having professionals help you pick out stuff and guide you into finding all the points of view on a particular issue. And even then, this varies greatly from country to country, here in Germany for example there is just SO MUCH literature on just about every single musical topic that honestly I still ask around when I need to dig up some particular bit of info for a research.

Because, yeah, let's not equal wikipedia's entries on sonata form and what's here on YC to stuff like Erwin Ratz's "Einführung in die Musikalische Formenlehre," since that'd be a disservice. But of course how do you know if this book is any good if you can't find it or you have to buy it yourself? How about other books, then? Are you going to build your own library? Sorry but a lot of these things are not in PDF yet on the interwebs, like 98% of the literature on specific topics like these.

Point is, if you study someplace where you have real access to all these resources and people to help you, you can only gain from that...

But of course if you only want to write music, then you don't need to study anywhere or read any books, isn't that right?

I don't know what kind of "Universities" you guys are talking about, but certainly the forum here does NOT have nearly 1% of the info you can get out of a proper course for either musicology OR composition.

Likewise, even on the internet at large, you'd be hard pressed to find literature like books on in-depth analysis of Schubert's lieder or maybe stuff on Luis Couperin's influence on the french baroque canon, stuff that you can usually find at an actual university that doesn't completely blow. Hell nevermind that if you have actual professors that you can ask things to, they can point you to tons and tons of literature (and since you're studying there, you can ACCESS IT, imagine that!) Wanna know all the different interpretations of Beethoven's late string quartets and their relevance to 20th century perception of the middle romantic period? No problem! You can go look it up.

If you're really studying -music-, composition or not, there's no replacement for having professionals help you pick out stuff and guide you into finding all the points of view on a particular issue. And even then, this varies greatly from country to country, here in Germany for example there is just SO MUCH literature on just about every single musical topic that honestly I still ask around when I need to dig up some particular bit of info for a research.

Because, yeah, let's not equal wikipedia's entries on sonata form and what's here on YC to stuff like Erwin Ratz's "Einführung in die Musikalische Formenlehre," since that'd be a disservice. But of course how do you know if this book is any good if you can't find it or you have to buy it yourself? How about other books, then? Are you going to build your own library? Sorry but a lot of these things are not in PDF yet on the interwebs, like 98% of the literature on specific topics like these.

Point is, if you study someplace where you have real access to all these resources and people to help you, you can only gain from that...

To what end does "Einführung in die Musikalische Formenlehre" inform the composer today? What prevents -anyone- from reading it themselves (other than translation issues, which would be just as much of an issue for any university course using this as a text)? The fact of the matter is that universities globally are still important for research, just like Libraries are important for research. If you want to be a music researcher, go to a university. You might actually have an abundance of positions available for you to apply when you complete your degree.

If you go to university to learn what you need to become a composer (which is broadly subjective), you're not going to have some job position waiting on you when you graduate, plain and simple. It's about the return on someone's investment, speaking specifically about money. And if a composer has to learn on their own at a university anyway, how is that any different at a university than at home in your pajamas with a network of other professionals. You're giving a LOT of credence to the professor as professional in an academic environment that hardly "qualifies" that title. A music composition professor is more of a psychologist and mentor than a skilled researcher and trained librarian. So, what exactly -is- the value of academic study at a university for strictly the composer? $40,000? $80,000? When is enough really -enough- when the bottom line boils down to a career that is self-constructed, a knowledge base that is self-constructed, and a work study flow that is, as well, self-constructed?

If I go to my professor and ask, "Where can I learn more about the music of John Hancock composer?" How will the professor's insight into this be any more or less valuable than any other professional insight outside of academia? What about a membership to a local university's music library, which is certainly NOT $40,000? If I ask the librarian on duty the same question, how is that any -less valuable- than the professor's insight? What's to say that the professor won't actually refer the student TO the music library for that information? You're kidding yourself if you think that a professor's insight is objectively any more valid or insightful than people who, as profession may have it, actually have to find said materials FAR MORE OFTEN than said professor. Yet, you're not going to pay $40,000 to that library for the librarian to point you in that direction now, are you? Why pay $40,000 to a university for the advice of that professor? Where's the monetary value? Economically, it makes no sense.

A degree is a piece of paper, and certain jobs -require- that piece of paper in order to be considered for the position. No such position AS A COMPOSER whose only job duty is to compose requires said piece of paper. It makes no sense to pay so much money for insights you could receive through simple investigation on your own. The only thing you're really paying for, then, is convenience. You're paying for an answer that -might- save you time in your research pursuits if you're not resourceful enough to find the information in a more timely manner. But in the end, you're still teaching yourself. You're still becoming a composer independent of really anything a professor has to offer. The only other thing you might be paying for is -certainty- from a professional that your work is great and well-written. How do you even measure 1% of what a university has to offer in comparison to resourcefulness through internet communication and access to, GASP, frickin' Amazon.com?! You're again kidding yourself if you think that 1% is at all measureable.

I might as well throw out any random percentage of what universities offer compared to independent study, because the bottom line is we're all studying independently. When going to a university, all we're paying for is convenience that is just as convenient on the interwebs as it is at a brick-and-mortar institution. If a library hired a music research assistant for $15 an hour to perform the same tasks as a composer at a university, would you pay $40,000 over four years for that person to help you find what you needed for your own independent study of music? Would you pay that much to have that person sit with you and critique your work?? Why would you? The library itself is supplying the information. Are you paying for someone else's interpretation of that information? Are you paying for a lecture on that information that further explains it? If you can honestly comprehend what you read, there is absolutely NO BASIS for paying five figures for any of these services.

But of course if you only want to write music, then you don't need to study anywhere or read any books, isn't that right?

I suppose you'd rather pay someone $40,000-$80,000 to read and study those books for you and then regurgitate that information back to you? Really?

Where are the majority of people who do pay that much ever going to earn the money to recoup that investment? Fortunately, there are statistics out there that might tell us roughly how many composers who pay for that education actually recoup that loss with their music sales, distribution, and current composer job openings. I'm sure that percentage is abhorrently low, too. Fiscally, it makes no sense to strictly study composition at a university. You're only doing so because you have the money to waste and don't mind wasting it. Either that, or you're a sucker like me :)

I think an-whatever has a very crappy view of what University is. Now, I understand that there are certain state schools that offer no real challenge to a student then repeat the book. If that is the university you are going too, then I suggest you partake in more rigorous one o one with the professors in your department. However, there exist real university that encourage independent study and test that require students to take the information they learned and expand upon it during the test. An-whatever is completely correct about everything he says if your only goal for going to college is to have a job. However, I believe that if that is your end goal, then you probably should major in accounting or computer information systems, you know something where you know you'll get a return.

A university is about expanding who you are as a person by forcefully putting you into a vast myriad of different people while forcing you to listen to older and more experienced people. I often see this in young math students. They can read Hungerford abstract algebra, and then complain that the questions have nothing to do with the chapter. Then they come to me and I point them to a chapter and show them how the word domain implies it's already a group -_-.

Point being is that 99% of the people I come across CANNOT understand a text completely without reference. Even I, as a professional mathematician find new details in an intro text that I missed as student, a grad student, and using the text as a teacher. It takes experience, interaction with more skilled people, and most importantly a complete openness to new ideas to really succeed in whatever you do in life.

You see, university is NOT there to teach you a skill or get you a job. It is there to EDUCATE you. I know people go there for a job, but that doesn't change the purpose. I find the people who are worse at their job were the same people who went to college for the job, not because they were interested in that field at a fundamental level.

When you go to the university, you are paying for the privilege of the advice of people who have much more experience in your field than you can ever hope to find anywhere else. You are paying for an experience. You are paying for a challenge. You are paying for a new outlook and a refinement of skills and insight. You are paying for the opportunity to make connections. You are paying to find out what you really enjoy in life that isn't manual labor.

Bottom line. If you value more over education, then yeah that money is a waste. Otherwise, then you cannot never replace a professor with the knowledge and experience to guide you where you want to go.

(Side note, there are people who can make it on their own, but they are rare. They tend to have a key eye for self-criticism and pay attention to details every step of the way. Most kids are not that way.)

I think an-whatever has a very crappy view of what University is. Now, I understand that there are certain state schools that offer no real challenge to a student then repeat the book. If that is the university you are going too, then I suggest you partake in more rigorous one on one with the professors in your department. However, there exist real university that encourage independent study and test that require students to take the information they learned and expand upon it during the test. An-whatever is completely correct about everything he says if your only goal for going to college is to have a job. However, I believe that if that is your end goal, then you probably should major in accounting or computer information systems, you know something where you know you'll get a return.

Like I said, if you don't want to recoup the money you spend on a university education, then go get a degree in music composition. It will be convenient. It will offer all of the things you mention later on in your post. The university will take your money and you will get what you pay for in terms of knowledge. Now, whether you can use that knowledge is another question, but if you'll be happy working in customer service to pay off your debt for the experience in college, then more power to you.

I went to school to be a composer. They took my money, sold me books, lectured on material I could read on my own and understand, and had I held the foresight I have now, I could have dedicated a significant amount of that money to the equipment I actually need to work as a professional in the industry. I could actually be composing as a professional like so many others who never actually studied music composition, much less pursued a degree.

It's not some "crappy view of what University is" as you claim. It's just a simple observation. If anything, I'm trying to get people to check in with reality and gain another perspective on the matter. If you don't agree, that's fine, but implying my education was somehow deficient compared to yours when you obviously disagree with my opinion for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the institution is absurd.

Stay on topic. We're not talking about -MY- education, we're talking about the justifications for self-study and academic-study in music composition. My educational background has nothing to do with it. I'm pointing to general observations anyone with perspective on the matter could make.

A university is about expanding who you are as a person by forcefully putting you into a vast myriad of different people while forcing you to listen to older and more experienced people.

This isn't an exclusive description of university education. This is a description of -life- itself, just in case you didn't know.

uh huh. Let's no compare poop to pee just because they both care out waste. Clearly you'll never get the same opportunity as a student as you do as 30 something yr old with a family. Before I got married, I could work on what I wanted, afterwards, I had obligations that most students do not have.

Now I understand why you're bitter. Look at what you said, you went to school to be a composer. You didn't go to school to be a student. It's what I tell my math students. Don't study math if you want to be a mathematician, odds are you lack the talent. Study math because it's interest you and you're okay working in a different field. IN other words, be realistic.

uh huh. Let's not compare poop to pee just because they both carry out waste. Clearly you'll never get the same opportunity as a student as you do as 30 something yr old with a family. Before I got married, I could work on what I wanted, afterwards, I had obligations that most students do not have.

Hey, this is a completely fair, valid viewpoint to make. I commend you for making it. :)

But I'm about to disagree with you...

Now I understand why you're bitter.

Ugh, you're loading this whole discussion on the topic with presumptions of -my attitude- when I'm referring to very specific, very accurate, very telling -observations- of the university system. Please. Stop. Veering. Off. Topic.

Look at what you said, you went to school to be a composer. You didn't go to school to be a student. It's what I tell my math students. Don't study math if you want to be a mathematician, odds are you lack the talent. Study math because it's interest you and you're okay working in a different field. IN other words, be realistic.

This, to me, is silly. It's actually a flaw on many fronts, but from a practical standpoint, everything you can garner from a University -can- be acquired through individual effort and thoughtful, resourceful research methods. This includes many of the same characteristics of music composition that you can learn -right here- on this website. What we do here is no different than what you do in a composition lesson with a professor. Except, here you get a variety of perspectives through community feedback as well as having it provided to you absolutely -free- of charge.

You'll pay anywhere from $100 to $1000 per credit hour to a university to have one composition professor go through a similar reviewing process on a week-by-week basis. How does it make any sense that here, for free, we can get potentially -more- feedback on our work than a single professor we pay anywhere from $100 to $1000 per credit hour might provide? What is it, exactly, that qualifies the professor yet doesn't qualify the members of this forum? We're all composers with various backgrounds. If anything, I toss the suggestion right back to you... be realistic! :)

-AA

Let's not assume that just because you can learn something on your own, that you should.

As for what makes a professor more valuable than a member of this forum. Easily, most professors are not 14-22 year old kids trying to find professors to ask. This is something that relates to this forum. On a certain physics forum, it's loaded with real professors and a world famous mathematician and those real professors actually answer questions and help people.. On that forum, i've seen kids grow from what's neighborhood to, what's stable homotopy of groups. I'm sorry, not everyone can read a book and actually understand it, even if they think they do.

Also you make the mistake that all uni programs are the same and easy. Get over your failure to become a professional composer and stop giving bad advice ty.

Also you make the mistake that all uni programs are the same and easy. Get over your failure to become a professional composer and stop giving bad advice ty.

For a minute there, I thought we were having a discussion until you threw out this little gem of pretentious malwisdom. By the way, define "professional composer" for the record, BD. :)

All uni programs are not the same. I readily admit that. It doesn't mean my observations are at all unqualified. I should know. I've been to -many- uni's during my time in academia. Though I tire of the indoctrination going on in many of those universities that most consider to be the upper echelon of the academic ladder, I'm confident that my observations are just as relevant to those institutions as they might be to smaller, lesser attended/admired schools.

So, please spare me the rhetoric. If you want to discuss, stay on topic. If not, if you insist on insulting me instead of engaging me on an intellectual level in this discussion, then I'll stop wasting my time on you.

For a minute there, I thought we were having a discussion until you threw out this little gem of pretentious malwisdom. By the way, define "professional composer" for the record, BD. :)

All uni programs are not the same. I readily admit that. It doesn't mean my observations are at all unqualified. I should know. I've been to -many- uni's during my time in academia. Though I tire of the indoctrination going on in many of those universities that most consider to be the upper echelon of the academic ladder, I'm confident that my observations are just as relevant to those institutions as they might be to smaller, lesser attended/admired schools.

So, please spare me the rhetoric. If you want to discuss, stay on topic. If not, if you insist on insulting me instead of engaging me on an intellectual level in this discussion, then I'll stop wasting my time on you.

I'll take this as a sign of victory. My flawless record keeps trucking on.

Anyway, i'm not slandering you because what I say is true, get over it. You failed at becoming what you wanted, oh well, i failed at trying to lay tyra banks it happens. Despite my method of speaking, I still make points. Don't ignore them because your feelings are hurt.

I'll take this as a sign of victory. My flawless record keeps trucking on.

I'll take this as a sign that you are delusional.

Anyway, i'm not slandering you because what I say is true, get over it.

True? Prove it! :)

You failed at becoming what you wanted, oh well, i failed at trying to lay tyra banks it happens.

Failure is a matter of perspective. I'm looking at two performances in the next four months of large ensemble works (that I've written in the past six months), which I'm quite proud of myself for nearly securing both (still a question about the orchestral work, I'm confident it will see a live performance). I'm becoming what I want to be as a composer, something many of the university music composition programs, seminars, and festivals I attended shunned for not being "advanced" enough. Because I don't write like Ives, Penderecki, Stockhausen, Varese, Carter, or Cage, my music was not "advanced" enough for these supposed "professionals" you put on a pedestal of greatness. What a joke!

Have you ever attended a music theory and musicology seminar? Have you seen the combative behavior of these intellectuals first-hand? I have, and what an insightful weekend it was, too! It's enough to make you wonder, "Where do universities 'get off' on charging me five figures in tuition for -this- kind of intellectual pandering?" I can cite from my experience detailed discussions about the absurdities I've encountered throughout my entire academic life, and for what? Does the intellect of an individual automatically command obedience? Of course not. Just because someone -has- knowledge doesn't mean they do anything positive, rational, or constructive with it.

Despite my method of speaking, I still make points. Don't ignore them because your feelings are hurt.

If you'll actually show me the respect to address my points, then maybe I'll address yours. Oh and by the way...

My feelings aren't damaged in any way, actually. I'm honestly laughing at you (out loud at the Tyra Banks comment, :)) but on the inside as well because you're not actually making a point in targeting -my- experience in education. Furthermore, after repeatedly (and respectfully) reminding you to stay on point, you insist on slinging insults and insinuations about my academic experience. How am I supposed to take you seriously when you continue to ignore my points and behave like some teenage drama-queen with an attitude?

At least you're good for a laugh, so this hasn't been an -entire- waste of my time. Pretty close, though.

What do I look like a mathematician? I have no obligation to prove anything! (walks away slowly...).

Anyways. I'll first address this little issue. I'm not going off talk it. Believe it or not, your experience with academic directly influence your view on what it means to go through the university. You have essentially been using that as a back up for the majority of arguments, so just as I would go after your source if it was flawed, I'm going after your experience.

Secondly, I take you as a failed professional composer because of this statement:

"I could actually be composing as a professional like so many others who never actually studied music composition, much less pursued a degree. "

I took that to mean that you could be composing as a professional...as you you're not right now, but if you did the other thing you could. So even though you have performances coming up...you're not a professional. Hell I had performances and I'm not a professional. I take professional simply to mean, you make your living off writing music. I'm a professional mathematician, because...well, I get paid to do it.

Yeah you're right having knowledge doesn't mean you do anything good with it, but when someone tries to give it out, might as well listen and take it for what it's worth. I think you undervalue their insight a bit to much, and so what if they are combative. If it's how they want to be so what. Often times, it's pretty fun. Their attitude really doesn't lessen the merit of what they say, even if it bugs you.

Look, i'm sorry you got shunned for not being advance enough, but i'm willing to bet you got shunned more for just thinking you know it all or don't need their help. Nevertheless, it's their right. If you wanted to work on my research team, but had no idea how to reconstruct the relationship between algebraic structures and symmetric donuts, then we'll have a problem.

Now, let me get my main idea across.

In theory, you can learn everything there is to learn on your own. Can most people do this to a sufficient degree, I say not. Should you study independently? Of course. Should you shun university? No, learning from others is always a good thing. Should you pay 5 figures, no, get a scholarship. (Hell i got paid to go to school.) Is a University there to only train you in your job? No, that's stupid. If you don't value an well rounded education, should you go to university? No, you'll end up like an-whatever. Does going to university mean you are better than a self-taught person? No, not at all. If you are completely self-taught, do people look at you different? Yes, university gives people a common ground. If you are self-taught will people always look down at you? No, the more you get your name out, the less that chip will be on your shoulder.

Overall, if you want to succeed in anything all you need is three things. Work, dedication, and connections.

What do I look like a mathematician? I have no obligation to prove anything! (walks away slowly...).

When you say something is "true," you have an obligation to prove why it's true.

Anyways. I'll first address this little issue. I'm not going off talk it. Believe it or not, your experience with academic directly influence your view on what it means to go through the university. You have essentially been using that as a back up for the majority of arguments, so just as I would go after your source if it was flawed, I'm going after your experience.

Secondly, I take you as a failed professional composer because of this statement:

"I could actually be composing as a professional like so many others who never actually studied music composition, much less pursued a degree. "

I took that to mean that you could be composing as a professional...as you you're not right now, but if you did the other thing you could. So even though you have performances coming up...you're not a professional. Hell I had performances and I'm not a professional. I take professional simply to mean, you make your living off writing music. I'm a professional mathematician, because...well, I get paid to do it.

First, my "experience" doesn't automatically prove any kind of assumptions you're making. I can say, "Composition professors do not offer anything one cannot learn on their own, through their own effort and resourcefulness," and this in no way reflects on the quality of the educator or institution. Gee, this sounds really familiar...

Second, I was not clear in that statement. I'm referring to industry professionals who have the gear through years of intelligent investing in tangible tools that gives them access to paying projects. I should have been more specific.

Yeah, you're right having knowledge doesn't mean you do anything good with it, but when someone tries to give it out, might as well listen and take it for what it's worth. I think you undervalue their insight a bit to much, and so what if they are combative. If it's how they want to be so what. Often times, it's pretty fun. Their attitude really doesn't lessen the merit of what they say, even if it bugs you.

I don't "over"-value their insight. It's insight just like my wife's opinion is insightful, and she's no musician.

It doesn't bug me that they were combative, either. What bugs me is that they were -certain- that they were right while others were wrong when music, a subjective matter entirely, is hardly an area where such certainties can be ascertained. Furthermore, such certainties flood other concentrations of music study like history, musicology, and yes, composition.

In theory, you can learn everything there is to learn on your own. Can most people do this to a sufficient degree, I say not.

Why not? Aside from maturation and attitudinal issues, what prevents ANYONE from learning ANYTHING?

Should you study independently? Of course. Should you shun university? No, learning from others is always a good thing.

Who said I'm "shunning" university? I'm critical of universities, moreso than most people who would rather wade in the ebb and flow of life than think critically about social structures like university education. Criticizing universities has nothing to do with criticizing learning from others. We all learn from each other.

Should you pay 5 figures, no, get a scholarship. (Hell i got paid to go to school.) Is a University there to only train you in your job? No, that's stupid.

Should you have to go to a university to get a well-rounded education? No. Should you have to pay 5 figures for that well-rounded education? Hell, no. EVERYONE should have abundant access to a well-rounded education.

If you don't value an well rounded education, should you go to university? No, you'll end up like an-whatever.

Right. I can see you thought that one through. "An-whatever?"

Does going to university mean you are better than a self-taught person? No, not at all. If you are completely self-taught, do people look at you different? Yes, university gives people a common ground.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read where it concerns music composition.

If you are self-taught will people always look down at you? No, the more you get your name out, the less that chip will be on your shoulder.

Uhh... what?

Overall, if you want to succeed in anything all you need is three things. Work, dedication, and connections.

Funny, I know many composers with all three of these qualities who have yet to "succeed" (living full-time off of composition as a profession). :)

---------------------------------

You're not a professional composer, but you're offering advice as a mathematician to individuals considering a potentially expensive(!) academic career in the study of composition with the hope of one day making it their full-time profession. How very convenient it is for you to make such generalizations about the profession without even the slightest consideration for the variables involved in making that hope a reality. But then you have the gumption to label my advice "bad" when I say that, in the specific pursuit of -music composition- as a career, the path a huge majority of industry professionals took did not include a degree in music composition.

Not only am I specifically pointing out that university study -in music composition- is expensive and impractical, I'm pointing out that a high number of full-time composers making their living exclusively in the industries that pay professional composers for their work never even pursued a composition degree. THAT is the only point I really need to make. This doesn't speak for the rest of university programs or "shun" universities outright, as you seem to interpret my view. Sadly, your interpretation is entirely based on -your- assumptions of -me- and NOT about anything I've said in this thread.

i'll say this. The mere statement that a professor cannot offer anything you cannot learn on your own is false. If you can't see how, here's a bucket full of water. Stick your head in there until the moment of clarity comes. If that doesn't happen, the world will be a better place.