A Composer's Website

Let's talk about something that's very relevant in today's digital society. All serious composers (and people in general) should have a website. When specifically thinking of a composer's website, what should it contain to succeed in the business world? I'm looking for specifics here, not some general overarching topics. We all know the website should look nice (whatever that means) and should be fast, easy to navigate, have updated and quality content. It should have samples of music, a bio, contact info etc. More specifically, which compositions should be included on a music page? Should you sell your music on your site? (via paypal or something) What contact info? What "style" of site? What type of site in terms of code and format? (HTML+CSS? php? Wordpress? Flash? etc.) What kind of domain names? How do you get traffic to your site? (A very interesting one in itself.) Should you design your own or hire someone else to build a site? etc. etc. etc.

Brainstorm and share your thoughts!

P.S.: I bring this up because my website itself has been deficient in updated content as of late. I'm thinking of brooming the whole thing and starting anew. Also, I think many people would benefit from this discussion greatly.

I have a lot I could blab about here, but the question is very particular to what kind of composer you are in terms of who your audience is and what music you write. Are you a concert composer, a media composer, an experimental theorist, etc? The answer to that would bring up significantly different outlooks on site design and functionality and content.

Man, I wrote a huge post in reply to this and then accidentally closed the tab and gone it is. And now I'm too lazy to type it again :( I hate when that happens.

Main point: Depends on whom you're writing the website for. Do you want to attract people who haven't even heard of you before? Or is it a more an online portfolio for people to get more information on you? (Personally, I'm only really interested in the latter.)

I agree with Marius about that depending on what type of composer you will determine what you need on your site, and in a later post I will elaborate on that more. But there are a few things all composers need to have on a site regardless of what they do with their compositions.

The one thing I think all composer must do regardless of what field they go into is to have their own name in their domain name. I see so many people use nicknames, or use the URL that is provided to them from another site. However, this makes it harder to search for people to search for them. I know here at my school that has become a requirement for all composers here to own their own domain name, but I think it is a good idea for all composer to adopted that idea, even if you just forward the URL to you myspace page of facebook page for now until you get a site.

Another thing is to have recordings of your music on your page (preferably streaming. Its pointless to try to sell your music if no one can hear it.

There are a few more, but I will go into more detail in a later post

As a listener, what I type in google is the musical genre - so I feel this should be the most apparent thing in a website. I understand composers can write in different styles - this just means that each music sample should be clearly defined if you want a Google user to discover you. I think the URL is not very important, at least for a first discovery.

As a listener, what I type in google is the musical genre - so I feel this should be the most apparent thing in a website. I understand composers can write in different styles - this just means that each music sample should be clearly defined if you want a Google user to discover you. I think the URL is not very important, at least for a first discovery.

Well, again, this depends on the distinction I made in my post. If you want your website to be found by people looking for a specific kind of music by composers they may never have heard of before, your method makes sense. For me, that's not what I'm interested in however, neither for my own website, nor for websites of other composers I visit. I don't tend to browse the internet for any "genres" of music. But if I hear a piece on the radio or in a concert that interests me, or read something about a composer in a newspaper, etc., then I might want to look up said person on the internet. In this case, stating any "genres" won't help anything, but the URL might help me finding that specific composer's website quite a lot faster.

You can see my website at http://terra-falsa.blogspot.com

The way I set up my website is related to how I want to present myself. I chose a blog for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's a free, auto-templated website. I don't need to know jack to make it look good and have basic website needs like RSS, recognizable domain, and google hits.

One of the biggest differences between my site and others is that I do not go for name recognition -- I use a pen name and my website is self-branded. This allow me to, if I ever start doing it, build a name for my site and the music itself, without worrying about a "career" per se. This fits my current needs, which are more for hobbyist work than professional.

The blog format also allows me to use a number of other sites, mainly scribd, to publish my work. But it's clear that I'm not trying to make any money on my music. I post scores, music, fragments, aborted works, non-musical works... it's more of a brain dump than anything else.

Overall there are a few things that I'd avoid:

1) Pay for music: This seems kind of contradictory for those trying to make money, but show the scores, show your customers what your product is. Every company has free samples, everyone has a portfolio; the same idea should apply, whether or not you're trying to make money. Make your money elsewhere, on the commissions, licensing, and other contracts that can only come if someone listens to your music, sees your craft, and decides that your services are of sufficient quality.

2) Posturing: Unless you're a scholar, or want to be considered an academic over a composer, essays and the like are often highly unnecessary -- and yet I see them on composer websites all the time. What does it matter what you say music is to you? Show them through your music, your tone, your website in general.

This is different from talking in depth about your music -- again the portfolio analogy applies. I like being though of as conceptual, so the underlying structures matter to me and I want them in the forefront of my craft. Similarly, if you're a history buff in your music, talking about influences of a piece is acceptable to me. But overwhelming theories on music just make me think you're dumb or short-sighted, even if I haven't listened to your music yet.

3) Biographies: This is a huge pet peeve of mine, and it may be against better judgement, but I can't stand biographies. I don't care who you are, where you went to school, what pissant orchestras you worked with once... just give me the arts and crafts, y'know?

Anyway, as to your site, I'm not sure. since you seem to be going for the working-composer route, I'm not sure exactly how much this helps. The big thing would be how you market yourself. If you're going for entry level, you have to stand out -- I'm sure NYC is littered with working composers like you want to be. Find out what your target market for your services is and build your site around that.

Well, again, this depends on the distinction I made in my post. If you want your website to be found by people looking for a specific kind of music by composers they may never have heard of before, your method makes sense. For me, that's not what I'm interested in however, neither for my own website, nor for websites of other composers I visit. I don't tend to browse the internet for any "genres" of music. But if I hear a piece on the radio or in a concert that interests me, or read something about a composer in a newspaper, etc., then I might want to look up said person on the internet. In this case, stating any "genres" won't help anything, but the URL might help me finding that specific composer's website quite a lot faster.

Unquestionable. However, the two methods, if applicable (regarding the genre you already said; regarding the URL, maybe your name is not easy to write, or is too common, or is too similar to a trademark) are independent, so what's wrong in using them together?

Regarding the visibility given by Google, the world is full of professionals trying to reverse engineering the Google Indexer ranking algorithm for commercial reasons - and basic hints are public. Surely some of these hints can be applied to a composer website.

It might be also possible that dedicated websites are less visible than social networks pages - for example, before going to a performance, I found that often Myspace Music give you a quick answer about the group or the composer.

Of course. There's nothing wrong with doing both. But for my own music I would have a hard time coming up with any distinct "genre" or other terms that could describe the music well. And I wouldn't want to put it into any genres either.

Keep the ideas coming y'all! Some great stuff here.

http://bluntobject.robinjessome.com/

Just like that ;)

You can see my website at http://terra-falsa.blogspot.com

The way I set up my website is related to how I want to present myself. I chose a blog for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's a free, auto-templated website. I don't need to know jack to make it look good and have basic website needs like RSS, recognizable domain, and google hits.

One of the biggest differences between my site and others is that I do not go for name recognition -- I use a pen name and my website is self-branded. This allow me to, if I ever start doing it, build a name for my site and the music itself, without worrying about a "career" per se. This fits my current needs, which are more for hobbyist work than professional.

The blog format also allows me to use a number of other sites, mainly scribd, to publish my work. But it's clear that I'm not trying to make any money on my music. I post scores, music, fragments, aborted works, non-musical works... it's more of a brain dump than anything else.

Overall there are a few things that I'd avoid:

1) Pay for music: This seems kind of contradictory for those trying to make money, but show the scores, show your customers what your product is. Every company has free samples, everyone has a portfolio; the same idea should apply, whether or not you're trying to make money. Make your money elsewhere, on the commissions, licensing, and other contracts that can only come if someone listens to your music, sees your craft, and decides that your services are of sufficient quality.

2) Posturing: Unless you're a scholar, or want to be considered an academic over a composer, essays and the like are often highly unnecessary -- and yet I see them on composer websites all the time. What does it matter what you say music is to you? Show them through your music, your tone, your website in general.

This is different from talking in depth about your music -- again the portfolio analogy applies. I like being though of as conceptual, so the underlying structures matter to me and I want them in the forefront of my craft. Similarly, if you're a history buff in your music, talking about influences of a piece is acceptable to me. But overwhelming theories on music just make me think you're dumb or short-sighted, even if I haven't listened to your music yet.

3) Biographies: This is a huge pet peeve of mine, and it may be against better judgement, but I can't stand biographies. I don't care who you are, where you went to school, what pissant orchestras you worked with once... just give me the arts and crafts, y'know?

Anyway, as to your site, I'm not sure. since you seem to be going for the working-composer route, I'm not sure exactly how much this helps. The big thing would be how you market yourself. If you're going for entry level, you have to stand out -- I'm sure NYC is littered with working composers like you want to be. Find out what your target market for your services is and build your site around that.

I agree with on everything but the last part.

I think a bio is very important, it allows your customer to feel like they know you a little more. It allows them to associate something with you outside your music and in a strange way allows them to trust you a little more.

I know personally, I am a little distrusting of those who don't have something about themselves on their web page. I feel that "I dont know who this person is, what is their background, do they have good work ethics, or even if this is their own music."

Now I know that a bio isnt the best way to establish trust because people can lie on those, but it gives your costumers something, and it always better then letting them make conclusions about your character.

I agree. It's not that I'm a huge fan of bios. They often are incredibly boring and contain more half-lies than truths. But it helps me to get a very vague idea of the person behind the music, of her or his past, interests etc. And, to some degree, I have to admit it's also merely to meet certain expected standards. I'd often rather not give bios for program booklets etc., but since people always seem to desperately want them - ah well, they shall get them.

I'm also not sure that essays on music are a bad thing. They are a bad thing if they're bad essays. But I love reading what some composers think about music or specific aspects of it. It's a rare thing that a composer is able to describe these things well in words, but if she or he can, it shows some considerate and analytical approach to their work which I appreciate. And often, it helps me to see some things in their works that I would have missed otherwise.

One thing I would try to avoid, that I see on many (young) composer's websites are sample based recordings - unless you specify clearly that they are sample based and why. But displaying something as "a recording of my piece" without stating anything more will alienate myself a bit, when I then hear some annoying Garritan sounds. That depends a lot on whether you're writing concert music, or music for media of course and whether working with samples is actually what you are focusing on or not. If your works are supposed to be sample-based, that's a different question of course. And, as I said, it depends on whether you state it clearly. But if you have the choice between uploading some not-so-perfect real recordings and some sample-based soundfile of a piece that is -meant- for real instruments, go for the former. And in doubt, rather display a bit less. (And if you really must, I actually prefer midi to sample-mockups in those cases, as then at least it doesn't come off as an attempt to fool the listener.)

Oh, and what I strictly dislike is music playing automatically in the background. I don't want music to come out of my computer unless I tell it to.

While on the topic of bios, should they be in first person or third?

Third person seems to be more common, but I prefer first person a lot. Reading a certain kind of third person bios often gives me the impression that the writer wants me to think somebody else wrote it, while this is clearly not the case. As long as it's a very technical kind of bio, that's not a big problem, but as soon as it contains subjective assessments etc. (especially if they contain self-praise), using third person gives me a somewhat dishonest and rather laughable impression. First person seems much more honest and direct in this respect.

But it's also fine to stay very technical in a contracted third person form, e.g. "Studied at X in the years Y with professor Z. Intensive study of traditional Japanese music. Recent works include...". This kind of bio is fine, in my opinion, but I still prefer first person ones.

Hmm. I'm torn on that issue myself. I find first person to actually sound a bit pretentious more often than not....but then again, so do third person ones that are ridiculously trumped up.....

I've decided to do a complete revamp of my site on Wordpress, simply because it is awesome!

Yeah, it can sound pretentious, depending on what you write. But at least, in first person it's a more honest kind of being pretentious than when you try to pass it off as something someone else wrote. If you're going to brag in your bio (which, to a certain degree is totally legitimate), at least stand behind it with your name, I'd say.

I'd honestly rather read "I am one of the most important composers of the early 21st century" than "He is considered one of the most important composers of the early 21st century". But of course in reality nobody dares to write the former so bluntly (at least not without irony), whereas I have read very similar things to the latter...

Any other thoughts on this?

Hello, this is Jennifer and I was called to give advice on the simple(not really) issue of biography writing. Here's an outline!

Gather Info!

-Important stuff about your life

--From beginning to present

--More details only for important events

--Mundane details, no one cares (This means, I don't care which high school choir you sang with or who you met or studied with for 2 days.)

--All important events should clear why they are important.

---Make sure you explain how this event effected you

Keep it Interesting!

Here's a bad example.

"My name is Jennifer. I was born on this date, grew up here and went to college here. I got really drunk one night and ended up married to a man named Drake. This was a big mistake. Now i'm homeless."

A better example.

"On this date my parents named me Jennifer. I spent my earlier years growing up in the cornfields of Nebraska. My lack of interest in corn lead me to my interest in drums. This interest eventually lead me to study music with a focus on percussion at xxx. Then I got drunk and married a man name Drake and became homeless."

The difference? Don't just list events and facts. Make it a story and keep it interesting. No one wants to read, oh I did this and then this OH and this too! Remember world war two is a boring war is of you only list the battles. It's the stories behind the battles that make it an interesting time period.

Be happy!

-No one likes reading about how much your life sucks.

--Even it your life sucked, look at the positives.

Writing in first and third person is a decision that needs to be decided by your goals. If you choose first person, you are planning for a more informal venue. Thus if your website is intended for professional usage then third person is a must. There's other advantages to this style. For instance, it requires a person to take a step back and really think who they are. It really does help you figure out how you got to the point of life. It forces you to become an observer of your life. The main goal for third person is to tell people who you are in absolute terms.

The first person approach is for a more direct approach. This requires you to be a better writer. The reason for this is because you need to be able to convey your emotions to the reader and also keep it interesting. As often as people like to believe their writing is excellent and interesting, that is rarely true. I am going to pick on Gardner because he writes a lot, but the way he writes isn't interesting. He relies on his points to bring in interest, but his writing is NOT interesting. Therefore I do not think he should write in first person because I believe it would sound dry. The last reason why I suggest to avoid this is because people who write in first person forget to look outside. They start to assume other people know all the details. Writing a GOOD first person bio is hard and takes a lot of work. Third person is a simple process.

HOPE THIS HELPS

-JENN THE FUR

Bio is always third person on professional composer's sites in my experience.

I am going to pick on Gardner because he writes a lot, but the way he writes isn't interesting. He relies on his points to bring in interest, but his writing is NOT interesting. Therefore I do not think he should write in first person because I believe it would sound dry.

Oh, I perfectly agree that it isn't very interesting. One reason also being that I hate writing biographies and do so much more out of being "required to" than actually wanting to tell about myself (another of course also being that I'm no native English speaker, so writing interestingly in English is even harder for me...). That's why I stuck to quite dry facts, as a resource for people who want to know a basic outline, but definitely not to catch peoples' attentions. (As I mentioned before, I'm not primarily interested in "drawing in" completely new people with my website, but more to inform those who specifically want to know some stuff). I merely picked first person because it seemed like a more "honest" decision to myself. I can't explain very well why, but writing about myself in third person gives me a weird uneasy feeling, as if I was cheating someone. (Maybe simply because I've seen so many biographies where this was exactly the case: People actually trying to give others the impression that someone different than themselves wrote the text and using this as defense for writing things they otherwise wouldn't have dared to write.)

But I'll definitely ponder the points you raised, as many of them certainly make sense to me. Maybe I should try to make a somewhat interesting story out of it (although I fear that my lack of writing skills would kill that attempt) - or maybe I should just go for an even drier CV style to make it perfectly clear that it's not about a story, but just a list of old boring facts. Hmm.

Bio is always third person on professional composer's sites in my experience.

At least, it very often is, yes. But the fact that it's an established practice doesn't mean we have to agree with it. And an artist's personal website is still something different than a job application for an insurance company and doesn't necessarily have to conform to all "standards" (as far as standards exist in the first place).

I do suggest a CV if you're not a good writer. If you want you can email me and I can help you write a biography. I understand how you feel about writing in first person. Not everyone is a writer and for a lot of people it is an awkward experience to say "Your name went to blank". It feels phony. You have your own goals for your website and your own purpose and one of those purposes should be to reveal who you are. If writing in first person makes you feel like you are giving more of yourself to your site then that's fine.

Correct no one is forced to conform to standards. Often times changing standards is a good way to shock a viewer and gather their attention. If you can do it well, then you should do it. On my personal site I do write in first person and it is my professional homepage. On my site though, I talk about myself without mentioning my achievements and leave the rest for my Resume. My style is to gather attention because of my personality and after they think i'm cute get the kill by my resume. I know my looks play in my favor and I do abuse that.

Thinking outside the box is great if you do it well. If you are not a visual or literally creative, it's better to follow the standard format because you only have to focus on getting your information out and for a lot of people that's less stressful. This is just my two cents!