Composers who are non musician

I have heard about an up coming trend of composers who are totally non musicians- who cannot play any musical instrument at all are composers.Is this due to the rise in use of finale and sibelius or is there any other reasons.Please discuss

Well, I have to beg to differ on the term 'non-musician' since pretty much music is innate in every one of us. Now, as 'studied music' or 'play instruments' then perhaps I'll concede that.

I doubt that Sib or Fin have really anything to do with this so called trend. If they can't read music, then how can they use it to compose unless they start doing it brute force?

I don't know about that but I don't think it should be encouraged. Although undoubtedly one could write nice music without playing an instrument, I don't think one could write it in a way that it is 'sophisticated' for performing... you know, the ease or depth considering the playing, as opposed to the musical 'sophistication' itself. It's hard to explain in English for me :)

There certainly are people who had almost no musical education who composed music, but as has been mentioned: "Non-musician" is a difficult term. As soon as a "non-musician" creates music, he automatically becomes a musician, so from this point of view, there's no such a thing as a non-musician composing.

But sure, there are, for instance, artists who otherwise only made art in visual areas and suddenly felt like creating a piece of music. Marcel Duchamp did some quite interesting stuff.

And -of course- there are tons of composers who never studied music or never played an instrument at a high level. And this has nothing to do with notation programs, since it has existed for centuries. Haydn wasn't much of an instrumentalist, nor was Schönberg, nor was Xenakis, and so on. Yet all those composers were perfectly able to to write perfectly "sophisticated music for performing". After all, there isn't a huge difference between a violinist writing a part for trombone and a non-instrumentalist writing for any instrument. It can all be learned without having to play every instrument at a professional level.

Sure, for some composers it shows that they didn't play an instrument, but that's not even necessarily a bad thing. Not writing the music that's most comfortable to play doesn't necessarily make the music any worse. It can even be an interesting challenge for performers, to get out of their usual routine.

I have heard about an up coming trend of composers who are totally non musicians- who cannot play any musical instrument at all are composers.Is this due to the rise in use of finale and sibelius or is there any other reasons.Please discuss

Are you meaning "average-joe" amateurs who try and make music, or persons actively persuing a career as a composer of music?

If the latter, I suspect that there is no such trend and that every "professional" composer has some instrumental skills. I would be interested in hearing some music composed by non-musicians.

I personally don't believe that there is any such thing as a non-musician composer. Because, by composing, you are making music, no matter how juvenile it may be. I think that composing makes you a musician, even in a very VERY small way. I'm not saying that everyone who decides to mash random notes into finale or sibelius is a musician, but I do believe that anyone who is at all serious about it is. Even if they don't play any instruments.

Technically even mashing notes on sibelius or somesuch WOULD make you a musician since the end product of that is a musical product. Again, it's not about what YOU think is "music," but if it's possible that someone takes those mashing notes and calls it music (to them) then we have to acknowledge that in theory the person IS a musician due to the potential of someone finding those mashings as "music." Since obviously we can't prove that nobody will EVER find it music, we have to acknowledge that possibility.

Yeah, I'd even agree with you there, SSC. That's absolutely right.

I SHOULD stop randomly EMPHASIZING certain WORDS in my POSTS.

Hrm.

Richard Wagner comes to mind as a 19th Century example of what I think computers70 may be talking about. If I recall correctly, Wagner didn't play any instrument with any proficiency. He played piano by ear, which in his day was all by criminal.

But yes, despite the present semantical objections, we're seeing more and more composers emerge who have little or no practical experience playing any instrument. In spite of what might be considered a serious inhibition in that regard, some of them are excellent.

My friend Thomas Matyas has never played a note on any instrument, yet he's an accomplished Neo-Baroque composer, with a special talent for counterpoint. Here's a link to one of his fugues:

It would seem, counterintuitively, that experience as a performer is not necessarily a prerequisite for composition.

J. Ralph can't read or write music -- at least as far as notation goes -- but he can write some really awesome music (check out The Illusionary Movements of Geraldine and Nazu).

Hi.Maybe it is more convenient.However, the same music played actually by acoustic instument might sound quite different from computer playing.

my nephew got curious in Sib i had on the desktop - he 'kind of' composed something and then said proudly 'look, im a musician too now!' - and then i came across this topic :)

Hi.Maybe it is more convenient.However, the same music played actually by acoustic instument might sound quite different from computer playing.

Not if you are loaded, (E.A, expensive sample librarys) and know how to work a sequencer to add realistic timing and dynamics.

I don't think this topic is about not being educated about music, but about simply not playing an instrument.

You can't really compose (on sheet music anyway) if you aren't educated; it's a shot in the dark.

Well not to let this devolve into a circular argument, SSC point should be considered. For example, in some cultures the music is not formally taught, rather it is heard and at a young age the players are encouraged to experiment with limited guidance. Pretty much in the aural tradition. So, if you have people who enjoy your mashings on the piano, and you you do it enough to create a standardized set of gestures to vary, well the "masher" has created crudely a school o0f composition.

You see, at the heart of music is gesture and gesture is simply how you approach and leave tone(s). Humans do enjoy systems and complexity in their music. So, I guess a good comparison would be to visual artist - the ones who learn more techniques and media can benefit immensely --- just as a musician can.

Note, as has been written many times here, you do not have to learn an instrument to do this.

Anyway here are a few more composers with little instrumental training:

Christopher Rouse

William Billings

Hector Berlioz

Hector Berlioz

I always thought Berlioz was a pretty decent guitarist. I could just be confused.

I think when the term "non-musician" is used, it is meant by "someone who does/has not regularly play/ed an instrument." In which case, I must say that I find the understanding gained by playing an instrument - Even if the only time you pick up a clarinet is 5 minutes once on a Friday afternoon, it really adds a lot of perspective (which is what happened to me, and I found it quite beneficial). By becoming further acquainted with an instrument, you can see its various nuances, timbres, and the like, and apply the knowledge to you composition. "Does the bassoon sound brighter in this register as opposed to this register?" Those are questions that are much easily answered with experience with said instrument. This allows for more coordination of timbres in a more successful way, which, often times, lends more successful results.

This is not to say that successful "non-musician" composers are flukes, it's easy to comprehend how someone could study well enough to understand the same facets of instruments. But I think one who does not spend some amount of time around instruments cannot hope to compose something deemed by the music worlds as "successful compositions." While, yes, even the random bangings on a piano can, and should, be considered music in some form, what REALLY matters in music, (at least in my belief) is what the LISTENER thinks of it.

Composers who are not musicians is like apples which are not fruits. Composers are musicians. The correct title would be Composers who are not instrumentalists.

But there's a difference between a "musician" and "one who has made music."

Composers who are not musicians is like apples which are not fruits. Composers are musicians. The correct title would be Composers who are not instrumentalists.

I disagree.

As was pointed out - "musicians" make music, i.e. Sounds ;)

writing a script doesn't make you an actor.

Designing a blueprint doesn't make you a carpenter...

The difference lies in the art of creation, for which music-performance is wholly different from composition. Not to say composers aren't *musical*...

Isn't there an industry term for this? "Whistler" or some tacky stuff?

Isn't there an industry term for this? "Whistler" or some tacky stuff?

They used to call Danny Elfman that back in the day.

I disagree.

As was pointed out - "musicians" make music, i.e. Sounds ;)

writing a script doesn't make you an actor.

Designing a blueprint doesn't make you a carpenter...

The difference lies in the art of creation, for which music-performance is wholly different from composition. Not to say composers aren't *musical*...

To put it like you:

I disagree. As was pointed out, composers are musicians. A musician is someone who compose / write, perform or make / produce music. ;) "Writing a script doesn't make you an actor" shows nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musician

To put it like you:

I disagree. As was pointed out, composers are musicians. A musician is someone who compose / write, perform or make / produce music. ;) "Writing a script doesn't make you an actor" shows nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musician

Word of advice: Never quote an encyclopedia everyone can edit as a source.

A musician is someone who creates music by playing an instrument. A composer is someone who writes the music FOR the musicians. One can be both, but they can be separate as well. Someone can write music but never perform it, someone can perform music but never write it. Someone can compose music, then perform it.

But, honestly, this is beside the point: The discussion we're having is not "what is a musician" but "what about composers who are not actively engaged in the performance of music, only the writing of such."

Even though the words that the thread starter may be disputed, that is the beauty of the English language: You can mean the same thing, but write it 10,000 different ways. What we're doing now is all semantics.

I don't think a non-musician would ever write music.

Usually people with no expertise in making music who want to write music end up teaching themselves how to make music as they use the different composing mediums. Ergo, they become musicians.