Performing and composing and the study of both

What are your thoughts on the necessity of a composer to develop and maintain skills performing an instrument and/or singing?

I know conservatories ask for a certain degree of proficiency in an instrument but what level do you think it should be?

When you leave school and the need to pass juries for your instrument, do any of you maintain studies of the instrument?

To support yourself as a composer/musician what level of proficiency do you think is required?

With the growing sophistication of electronic/computer music (think laptop improv) is the need to perform becoming moot? That is, do you believe the composer is getting closer everyday to dispensing with the intermediary of a performer?

Finally is it possible to do both well - for those of you whose interests are strong both as performer and composer?

In reality I don't think it's -necessary- to play an instrument if you only want to compose. But, it's actually quite a fun thing to do and often a lot of people do it because of that. I finished my studies with composition + piano, but it was really annoying having to play exams and scraggy like that when I really like playing just for myself or improvising.

But really it should be optional, though I guess that would make some feel like the curriculum is too "empty," just with composition/theory, bla bla.

I don't really have any proficiency on any instrument. I mean, I had to take 4 semesters of viola lessons and 4 semesters of piano lessons in college. I also had to sing in the choir for a year. I played bar chords on my guitar for a little bit, took a year of trumpet in the 3rd grade. I wouldn't say I could play any of these instruments.

I have, however, performed on instruments how I could -- for example, when I give improv concerts, I use instruments the way I know how, extended techniques on the viola, playing inside of the piano, using guitars prepared with all kinds of extra bridges, live electronics, etc.

That being said, I think I'm a pretty fine composer.

I think its fine for schools to require a composer to take piano lessons and to play in an ensemble (i.e. choir) at the undergraduate level. I even think its okay to ask to see proficiency on an instrument. Once you get into graduate and higher levels it would be obsurd to ask for any of that.

Either way, I think performing is good for a composer -- at least to understand the performer's prospective.

With the growing sophistication of electronic/computer music (think laptop improv) is the need to perform becoming moot? That is, do you believe the composer is getting closer everyday to dispensing with the intermediary of a performer?

Well, first, laptop improv would need someone to perform it. And, unless its a "tape" piece, any kind of live electronics requires a performer. And when you create a tape piece, you're more or less improving at the computer/mic/synth/whatever. I mean, there is a reason "computer" or "electronics" is listed as an instrument on many different school's applications. I know for certain you can check off "computer" for the Jacobs School of Music, I think you can for NEC as well. My tape pieces were the "instrumental" part of the audition that got me into grad school.

I never think of the performer as the intermediary. I think a performer adds to the piece what the composer cannot. This holds especially true for me with smaller works. Larger ensembles are a bit easier to say "I want exactly this or that" but I think other human beings are a vital ingredient.

I am a percussionist, and I've recently hit the thought of "Should I stop studying this instrument at a high level?" I'm not really sure what to do...

Well Jamie, I agree with you IF the performer and composer are willing to listen to each other AND both take time to prepare beforehand for consultations. however for both performers and composers this does not happen. At least for the composer it is a necessity he or she learns to be pleasant, polite and prepared - as they will not hear a live performance of their work. For the performer, it is a little easier, they can play from a huge repertoire or write/arrange something for their instrument to be performed.

But your own question is what I am facing --- I have been to several keyboard teachers and it seems always to be the same story: "You are talented but you need some technical bad habits resolved or this is the correct style or blah blah blah ..."

I appreciate the teachers who have improved my playing. nevertheless I am at a point where I work at a non music day job and wonder what level do I really want? Is it worth even the trouble of working hard to fix a few bad habits or undergo another change in technique when my time is limited? Plus the expense --- I swear sometimes the whole classical music teaching business is a racket - every teacher will find something to correct only to justify keeping a student (which honestly I have heard happen - for example, at a master class a pianist performs a fine rendition of a piece and the teacher of the master class critique of the playing ends up mauling the piece because the teacher has nothing really to say to improve it and is too proud to admit it). At least with composition teachers, you know there are far fewer things are "incorrect".

Speaking purely philosophically. I can't exactly speak from experience. ;) Take it for what it's worth from an amateur.

1- composers need to have experience with the instruments they are writing for. I see far too many young, string playing composers writing for wind instruments horribly because they simply don't have a feel for needing to breathe. That sort of thing.

2- composers create music to be performed. Even much of electronic music is meant to be physically performed and meant to emulate a performance. I think it's important for every musician including composers to keep in touch with where the music really happens: in the performance. To that end, he has to continue to some degree in practicing the process of preparing and performing music.

-P

1- composers need to have experience with the instruments they are writing for. I see far too many young, string playing composers writing for wind instruments horribly because they simply don't have a feel for needing to breathe. That sort of thing.

The "experience" doesn't have to come from playing a specific instrument though. Obviously you're not going to play everything you write for. The "experience" comes from actually working with instrumentalists and learning how each instrument you use works, studying rep., trial and error (with the instrumentalist trying it out), understanding its possibilities, etc.

Performance experience is nice and all. It helps when coaching rehearsals, I'm sure. But then again, I do fine running rehearsals, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Anyway. Yeah.