Prerequisites for majoring in Composition

So it's the spring of my junior year, and I'm starting to panic. The college preperations have begun, and as I continue to look at college after college, I grow more and more fearful that I may be behind the learning curve. I'm looking to major in music-I love music, thus the reason I'm here-and specifically I want to major in Composition. However, I have a feeling that I'm not ready for the kinds of classes at college level. At several schools it seems as though things such as piano proficiency is a must, and of course some base knowledge in theory and history are also good things to have. I'm aware that what a school wants before you enter is different from college to college, but I just want to know the basics. Should I invest in some piano lessons? I'm I major in composition, is it common for schools to still have me play an instrument (I play violin, but I doubt I'm at the skill level of most college players)? These aren't necessary my main questions, but they are some of them. Really I just want to know what would best prepare me for a Composition curriculum?

Some colleges that I'm looking at, sort of as in FYI: College of Wooster, Cleveland Institute of Music, and Oberlin Conservatory (I live in Oberlin, so all of these colleges are close by).

Thanks for any help!

Some relevant, if oblique, questions: what do you want to be when you grow up, and why do you want a degree in music?

Some relevant, if oblique, questions: what do you want to be when you grow up, and why do you want a degree in music?

Well, I would just simply like to compose. After college I want to get a job at a high school, teaching theory/composition and also directing an orchestra. I'm aware that it is difficult to support yourself solely on composition, and so the teaching job would be my main source of income, but I would definitely not give up composing.

Why a music degree? Well, I two reasons really, although techincally it's the same reason: I love music; music interests me greatly and I enjoy studying and learning new things about it. The second reason is that everything else bores the hell out of me. I can't stand math (cannot!), nor do I excell at it. Science is almost as bad, and history is alright, but I just don't have too much interest in it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I don't put any effort into these areas as well, it's just that I have not intentions of pursuing further education in any area except music.

Another good reason to have a degree is for when you go for a job as a teacher/lecturer. It's far better to have the degree and be a good musician then have no degree and be a good musician.

As for prerequisites to enter into composition. I don't know what the specifics would be for your uni but the ones here in Western Australia only require a portfolio of compositions for review.

You answered both my questions with the first paragraph. :) I just wanted to make sure that you would actually have tangible benefits by getting a degree in music as opposed to just learning it on your own and working. If you want to teach it, a degree will definitely be an asset. If you were going into media composition, for example, I would tell you not to waste your time majoring in music.

Either way, other people are more qualified to tell you how to prepare for majoring in music since I specifically wanted to avoid doing that, so I leave it to them.

Best of luck! :happy:

The most I can say is up your that most of what you are concerned about is usually taught your first year of college. Piano proficiency is usually exam you take half way in your college degree after you take several required piano classes. As far as playing your main instrument, though some schools have phased out having composers declare a principle instrument, some schools still require you to take lessons and declare a principle instrument. ( I know that was the case at my university ).

The best you can do is call the university that you want to go and ask them what you should prepare before entering.

The most I can say is up your that most of what you are concerned about is usually taught your first year of college. Piano proficiency is usually exam you take half way in your college degree after you take several required piano classes. As far as playing your main instrument, though some schools have phased out having composers declare a principle instrument, some schools still require you to take lessons and declare a principle instrument. ( I know that was the case at my university ).

The best you can do is call the university that you want to go and ask them what you should prepare before entering.

I would say a vast majority of reputable music schools still require compositions majors to declare a principle instrument, I know that was the case for every school I applied to. And honestly I don't understand why some phase it out, it is still extremely beneficial.

I would say a vast majority of reputable music schools still require compositions majors to declare a principle instrument, I know that was the case for every school I applied to. And honestly I don't understand why some phase it out, it is still extremely beneficial.

I suppose the reason is that you are supposed to be a composer, not an instrumentalist. They expect you to devote your time to the composition process, not learning your instrument.

I would say a vast majority of reputable music schools still require compositions majors to declare a principle instrument, I know that was the case for every school I applied to. And honestly I don't understand why some phase it out, it is still extremely beneficial.

Its still fairly new for most schools, and even my school is still debating this issue.

However, I know the reasons why my school is phasing out and probably why more schools are adopting it is because

One; its not fair to the composition studio that has to hope that a student, that has already been accepting into the studio, make it into the studio of their principle instrument.

Two; its not fair to that other studio to give up a spot in the studio to a student that has little to no interest in continuing their education of that instrument.

Three; its a little pointless to take private lessons on their principle instrument since it does not enhance their composition skills. Most of our composers at my school already know enough about their principle instrument to write very good music for it, and having them study and practice for hours on it would only take away from composing.

Also another reason why we are phasing out principle instruments for composers is that at my school you have to be in the ensemble that correlates to your instrument, (Ex; Vocal majors have to be in choir no matter what). My composition prof wants us to be exposed to all kinds of literature of other ensembles and since we have a lot of non-audition ensembles here he tries to get us to pick an ensemble that we are not familiar with (just recently he placed a few of us in choir that were once in band so that they know more about choral literature and make connections with vocalist).

With the principle instrument requirements however, that makes it hard to do that.

Ok..step back though...You said you want to teach. Do you live in the US?? If so, you can't teach at a high school without a teaching degree which means you can NOT be a composition major. You need to be a music education major in order to have the career that you say you want.

And then God created teaching certification programs. Thus man became able to get a degree in something he liked without dumbing it down.

O dear... don't get me started (I both agree and disagree with you, BD) on the teaching certificate. I've spent hours arguing this point with members here. [begin Rant]

But first, why are composers being forced into declaring a major instrument anyway? The way it worked at my undergrad uni, it was this huge effort to improve the quality of student recitals while requiring other students who didn't perform on them to attend. Thus, the Composition student needed to declare the major instrument to contribute to the performance/recital structure of the program. Beyond that, the Board of Regents in the state makes these determinations when coming together to vote on curricula. I attended a state school. The state set these standards for the college to even have access to funding. So you have the state making decisions about education, many by representatives who have no clue what their impact will be because they haven't dedicated their time, effort, or passion to teaching. It doesn't end here either.

You've got programs that suffer from this, and composition is no exception. In my view, composers have just as much business becoming teachers as performance majors. I'm going for my teaching certificate myself. I place a tremendous value on education. As a composer, I find many of the teachers I've had the pleasure of observing in my coursework asking me questions about things about music that are entirely second-nature to me. Funny, what some of these teachers need to know... they don't know. And they're the ones who are licensed while I'm having to jump through hoops to get mine.

Last I checked, I have over 32 hours of applied lessons... in composition... at both levels (bachelors and masters).

The state requires 11 hours in applied lessons... on an instrument.

They don't count the applied lessons in composition... even though my applied lessons in that area outnumbers the applied lessons on an instrument almost by a ratio of 3:1. This doesn't take into account all the theory, survey, history, and ensemble credits I have. Short of some methods classes and 11 hours of applied lessons on a declared instrument, I have nothing else to take but some education courses to get my certificate. Simply put, the music courses I take now are kind of a joke. I know so much about music that performing on my major instrument is almost like a tea party. Seriously, my percussion instructor thinks it's ridiculous that I even need to take lessons with him, and he has his performance masters in percussion. I play maybe a couple of tunes, we shoot the {bleep} for the rest of the time.

I'm even being paid to perform as a percussionist, performing this Sunday in fact for the Easter service at a Methodist Church - being paid the same rate that the professional performer who usually plays at this service (also the principle timpanist of the city's professional orchestra). I'm even being considered for an adjunct position teaching lessons to composition students in the fall if I'm needed - one of the composition professors will be taking a sabbatical. So, yeah.

Why oh why am I having to jump through hoops at this point to get into the classroom where I can be teaching the past third of my life's devotion to kids who, like the OP, want to be prepared to enter a post-secondary music program? It just goes to show how out of touch the state is with education. With policymakers deciding who teaches instead of letting educators make recommendations at all levels, from elementary through post-secondary education, no wonder the system is so distraught. At the end of the day, it seems their attention to accountability far exceeds their attention to education in its purest sense. The policies in place are more of a deterrent to people like me who would LOVE to teach music than a benefit to the education system.

But there are just so many other issues swirling around this that I can't even begin to address at the length I would like to... let's just say the State does the best with what it has. Until there's a significant shift in the way education at the public school level is administrated, your kids are better off being home-schooled in my opinion. If you can't afford to do that, well, too bad for them. [/Rant]

^ This reminds me of Frank Zappa: "If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library". I'd say this nice little quote is quite valid at least for the system here, where I am.

So it's the spring of my junior year, and I'm starting to panic. The college preperations have begun, and as I continue to look at college after college, I grow more and more fearful that I may be behind the learning curve. I'm looking to major in music-I love music, thus the reason I'm here-and specifically I want to major in Composition. However, I have a feeling that I'm not ready for the kinds of classes at college level. At several schools it seems as though things such as piano proficiency is a must, and of course some base knowledge in theory and history are also good things to have. I'm aware that what a school wants before you enter is different from college to college, but I just want to know the basics. Should I invest in some piano lessons? I'm I major in composition, is it common for schools to still have me play an instrument (I play violin, but I doubt I'm at the skill level of most college players)? These aren't necessary my main questions, but they are some of them. Really I just want to know what would best prepare me for a Composition curriculum?

Some colleges that I'm looking at, sort of as in FYI: College of Wooster, Cleveland Institute of Music, and Oberlin Conservatory (I live in Oberlin, so all of these colleges are close by).

Thanks for any help!

Hi! I graduated from Oberlin last year. The requirements at Oberlin include:

a) proficiency in musical notation (not necessarily theory - you'll learn that in classes at the school if you don't know enough). That said, some theory will help a lot, because you'll be able to skip semesters of basic theory classes and focus on either composition or upper-level theory classes that will broaden your compositional and notational horizons.

b) proficiency at an instrument. Any instrument will do. If you don't know piano, of course, you'll be required to take piano lessons either privately or in a class. If you don't know ANY piano, you'll be in the class - which I hear blows. Though you're required to have proficiency at an instrument, you won't be required to take private lessons on said instrument. However, you should probably consider it, since again, it'll allow your compositional horizons to broaden.

c) an ability to speak articulately and passionately about the music you write. The majority of Composition admissions are done through interviews, in which composition faculty will ask you about the music you submit in your portfolio. The expectation is that you will have a clear sense of what you set on the page, and why, and furthermore, that you can explain it in a clear and concise manner.

d) a willingness to explore. Oberlin's composition program doesn't look for the best composers; the faculty look for composers who could become the best. Musical open-mindedness is a must, since your brain will be twisted into a lot of different music over the course of your academic career. Be willing to "try on" musical styles to see how they fit your own musical temperament, and allow elements of those styles to stick as they need to, or fall away if they must. The willingness to broaden your compositional horizons (see the pattern emerging?) by setting your own musical proclivities aside and exploring other aspects of sound is extremely important to the program.

hm... I think that's everything that's not mentioned in the application requirements. I'll post again if I think of more.

^ This reminds me of Frank Zappa: "If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library". I'd say this nice little quote is quite valid at least for the system here, where I am.

^^Agree... to some extent^^

The issue really isn't that the information isn't available. The issue is that children are growing up in a culture of commodified learning where information is delivered to them instead of "discovered" by them. This sets a precedent for learning and, well life in general, that knowledge will just be there when it's needed in life and that as long as education exists, anyone will be able to just obtain what they need when they need it.

The problem, though, is that it's not true. Knowledge isn't just -available- when it's needed. Learning doesn't occur in a vacuum. It's a calculative approach to human existence to believe that when you figure out what you need to know, you'll be able to just "download" it by going to the public library and reading. Yeah, of course it's possible for people who know how to read, and it's a valuable part of society for libraries, both brick and mortar as well as electronic forms, to exist.

But say you want to become an engineer. It's a field that involves levels of competency in multiple academic areas. If students are conditioned to expect knowledge to be packaged and provided to them, what a game-changer it will be when they discover that the field of engineering can't be packaged and sold without significant deterioration to the pedagogy of engineering. Pretty soon, you wind up with, at best, a minuscule representation of engineering compared to what many engineers know today. Thus, you have a deterioration of the transfer of knowledge.

That's where teachers come in, to prevent the erosion of content in the knowledge we use in our lives, our professions, even our society. If we allow this knowledge to erode, guess what happens to our lives, our professions, and our society? They erode along with it. So imagine the benefit of an education system that "explores" information instead of packaging it. Imagine the benefit of a classroom that emphasizes inquiry and concept attainment from natural, logical steps to arrive upon information instead of consuming it.

That's why education sucks today... straight up. I remember sitting in spelling class in 6th grade writing words and definitions in class on paper while the teacher sat at her desk and read the newspaper. This was especially difficult for me to do quickly and efficiently because my hands would cramp and I would often experience a disconnect between thinking about what I was writing and actually writing it down correctly - which is an actual writing disorder now that also affects reading ability.

I remember, I was 13, and I was so unbelievably upset at how dreary my prospects were in life if that's all it amounted to... arbitrary technical assignments that held little baring on my understanding. I sat in the car punching the dashboard and throwing a fit. I was pissed off, depressed to a very dark extreme (I don't have to say what that was), because I knew deep down that I was in school learning what it felt like to "hate" being in school, something I neverexpected to feel about school.

"If this was the real world," I thought, "I might as well give up, hide in a dark place, and just die." I was miserable. Worse, I learned nothing. I don't remember those words or their definitions. I simply remember my hatred of that scallop of a teacher, who had the audacity to sit at her desk doing crossword puzzles instead of teach. What a waste of a year of my life. I'd have been better off going to the library each day during spelling class... at least I'd have done a better job of teaching myself what words mean than she ever did.

Blah, I'm ranting again. It feels good to air it out though.

Well, the point about studying music, and particularly composition, is that it's really not much about obtaining information. You can get a lot of music theory out of books, but you can't learn composition in a library. Sure, one might argue one also can't learn composition by attending composition classes, and in a sense that's true - but it's, figuratively, really about "getting laid", as in Zappa's quote: Getting out of your personal protected space and into an intensive (and sometimes violent) discourse with other (experienced and less experienced) composers. To be confronted with topics you might not otherwise confront yourself with and so on.

Sure, you -can- do lots of these things on your own, by meeting other likeminded composers and discussing with them, but it can sometimes be hard to turn this into a really regular and intensive event without an institutionalized setting to back it up (but of course not impossible by any means!).

Another problem with books: They don't tend to question themselves. When you're told things in college however, it will be constantly questioned and debated by other students, professors etc., ensuring it always stays clear that many claims in this field really aren't set in stone and to be accepted as ultimate truths.

I think naturally as a composer, you should want to learn everything that relates to music, or things that inspire you. I am a junior in High School as well, and composition is also something i want to go in to, but theres a more important message that all composers should learn beneath all of the requirements. If you really want to be a composer, than you must never cut corners, must always believe in the goal you desire, and constantly learn new and interesting things for as long as you live.

In this day and age, many people seem to be undercutting their education based on the quick access to distractions. Don't be one of those people! If you follow those 3 concepts, you will not only get everything you need to major in composition, but will gain even more than you originally planned for. Dont be another person who fits the requirements, go above and you will not only feel ready for college, but you will be! Remember, you only go into college because you recognize that there are many aspects in music that you cant teach yourself anymore. Based on what you told me, you still have much to teach yourself, so i would focus on that right now!

So yeah, thats probably the best message i can give you for colleges. The rest is up to you.

-Jamal

If you are in the US - Go to a music festival! I went to the New York Summer Music Festival last year. I was amongst the oldest there because I am now a college graduate - I'm British too so it was a bigger deal for me to go.

Anyway, I got to study composition with high profile composers and got to study in a fantastic location. But if you're interested in raising your college profile further, try to go as something as well as a student. I worked as a Junior Counselor and got my tuition paid as well as the fact I could talk about this in my applications for Graduate. All I had to pay was my travel arrangements. But the place I went to had other "jobs" which offered discounts on my tuition.

Worth thinking about.