6 Things I wish I Knew

This is a great video I found by Derek Sivers. He's doing a speech at Berklee College of Music, and talking about what it takes to be a great composer and student. This video will be most helpful to music students, but I think it's great advice for any serious artist. I thought I'd share it with you guys.

6 Things I Wish I Knew B4 I Started School

1. Focus, Disconnect, and do not be distracted.

2. Do not accept their speed limit.

3. Nobody will teach you anything. You have to teach yourself.

4. Learn from YOUR heroes, not theirs.

5. Don’t get stuck in the past.

6. When done, be valuable.

Hope you all found this as inspiring and helpful as I have. :)

*4. Learn from YOUR heroes, not only theirs.*

7. Get really good with your sightsinging

0. Do whatever you want to do. If that means dropping from school, getting a 'lousy' job and living like a hobo who cares if you don't. Really, it all depends on your frame of mind.

Relating to 1). If you really want to be a composer (or musician) learn to deal with failure. There will be failures you will not learn a single thing except you'll never do it again OR you are not ready. These are the hardest ones. Don't let these discourage you to the point of stopping too long.

Often you have to do things wrong to get it right. And then when you learn the "right" way you have to figure out how to do it so wrong that it is right.

The best way to remain a composer and musician to always study and try something new and share your knowledge gained from these pursuits.

Finally, make what seems "old hat" new throughout your career. You never will play the same piece the same and either will you write in a particular style in the same way.

5. Don’t get stuck in the past.

6. When done, be valuable.

Past, eh? That means the 50s? The 60s? The 1800s? Where? This is the typical step towards "No don't do that it's been done before tons."

As for valuable, I think if all composers right now dropped dead it wouldn't matter to anyone considering they'll still have Beethoven, Bach and whatever. But this is good, since if we don't matter, we can (and should) do whatever the gently caress we want.

One point of his that I disagree with is the disconnect / don't get distracted one.

Sure, you have to work hard. REALLY hard. But when you work really hard, you also have to have good and efficient ways of turning off and relaxing. Preferably something that isn't destructive (like excess alcohol / drugs). We definitely shouldn't spend every waking hour composing, practising, learning history, technique, etc. Down-time is essential for productivity. Even if no distractions helps in the short term, what happens when you burn out or have a break down and can't compose anything for 6 months?

(This stuff isn't hypothetical, it's very possible, depending on what type of pressure you're working under.)

His point about not accepting the given speed limit is a good one, and something I feel any good student knows instinctively.

I second downtime

6. When done, be valuable.

"Money is nothing more than neutral proof that you are adding value to people's lives..."

First, I do not believe such a thing as "neutral proof" is possible. Second, "neutral proof" can hardly be associated with money. Third, music is not a "value-" or "quantity-" driven pursuit... it is a pursuit of personal and collaborative enrichment of one life and/or many lives.

If it stands to reason that music is not a "quantitative" pursuit (and it should clearly be evident to most here that it isn't), then why should it matter whether one life, or two lives, or two thousand lives experience enrichment through the work of the composer?

To put it another way, if I'm happy with my work, if I have experienced enrichment in creating the work and sharing it with others, then anyone beyond that who experiences enrichment from performing or listening to my work is nothing more than icing on the cake. If I make money in the process, it is merely because I must make money to continue enriching my life, not because money "proves" anything... 

Past, eh? That means the 50s? The 60s? The 1800s? Where? This is the typical step towards "No don't do that it's been done before tons."

As for valuable, I think if all composers right now dropped dead it wouldn't matter to anyone considering they'll still have Beethoven, Bach and whatever. But this is good, since if we don't matter, we can (and should) do whatever the gently caress we want.

There are a lot of great composers still alive today. Arvo Pärt, Eric Whitacre, Morten Lauridsen, John Adams, John Corigliano, etc. Bach and Beethoven are great and all, but I think people enjoy contemporary music just as much. You shouldnt discount contemporary music so quickly, we are all a part of it.

Also, I don't think Sivers is telling us to be contemporary. I think he's telling us to allow contemporary music into our lives, and to let it influence us as artists.

First, I do not believe such a thing as "neutral proof" is possible. Second, "neutral proof" can hardly be associated with money. Third, music is not a "value-" or "quantity-" driven pursuit... it is a pursuit of personal and collaborative enrichment of one life and/or many lives.

If it stands to reason that music is not a "quantitative" pursuit (and it should clearly be evident to most here that it isn't), then why should it matter whether one life, or two lives, or two thousand lives experience enrichment through the work of the composer?

To put it another way, if I'm happy with my work, if I have experienced enrichment in creating the work and sharing it with others, then anyone beyond that who experiences enrichment from performing or listening to my work is nothing more than icing on the cake. If I make money in the process, it is merely because I must make money to continue enriching my life, not because money "proves" anything...

I disagree. I think any form of art, whether it's music, sculpture, acting, etc., is a form of self discovery. It's all driven by your heart and soul. BUT I think what Sivers is saying here is that you shouldn't look at money as corrupting your art. You should want to sell your art, that way you can keep doing it (which sure beats working for a living). If someone is willing to use their disposable income on your artwork, that shows that it has affected them. It shows that people like your music. Now, maybe you truly don't give a crap whether people like your music, but I don't think that's so (otherwise you wouldn't be on YC, lol).

I think music should always be about the artist first. I'm not gonna let a piece of mine go until I'm 100% happy with it. But I always hope that my art can affect others and touch people.

I think all Sivers is trying to do is dispel any artistic snobbery regarding selling and marketing your works.

One point of his that I disagree with is the disconnect / don't get distracted one.

Sure, you have to work hard. REALLY hard. But when you work really hard, you also have to have good and efficient ways of turning off and relaxing. Preferably something that isn't destructive (like excess alcohol / drugs). We definitely shouldn't spend every waking hour composing, practising, learning history, technique, etc. Down-time is essential for productivity. Even if no distractions helps in the short term, what happens when you burn out or have a break down and can't compose anything for 6 months?

(This stuff isn't hypothetical, it's very possible, depending on what type of pressure you're working under.)

I totally agree. But I think Sivers is saying that when you are working, stay focused and free of distractions, and don't do something else when you should be working.

I think disconnecting from your work is an integral part of the creative process. Downtime is a must.

Past, eh? That means the 50s? The 60s? The 1800s? Where? This is the typical step towards "No don't do that it's been done before tons."

As for valuable, I think if all composers right now dropped dead it wouldn't matter to anyone considering they'll still have Beethoven, Bach and whatever. But this is good, since if we don't matter, we can (and should) do whatever the gently caress we want.

The past could be last week for all anyone cares. I believe the point is "Don't copy what you did before." Personally, I think everyone in history is living in the past, especially composers, because we only have the past to draw upon. So everything we do will sound "outdated" one way or another.

The past could be last week for all anyone cares. I believe the point is "Don't copy what you did before." Personally, I think everyone in history is living in the past, especially composers, because we only have the past to draw upon. So everything we do will sound "outdated" one way or another.

Yeah, I think that we always build and learn from what others have done. But I think we should always try to strive to be innovative with our music in one way or another. Whether that means exploring genres we're not used to, or writing for an unconventional group of instruments, or simply changing the way we view the creative process, I think it helps us to keep growing as musicians, and to not be complacent with our talents.

I don't think we ONLY have the past to draw upon, though. If we did, nothing would ever sound different. There would be no difference between say the Romantic Era and Renaissance music. But I DO believe that music builds upon the past. Whether it means challenging the establishment with radical new styles, or building upon the established kind of music (or something in between), I think that music (and I guess you could say Art in general) is always (at least partly) reactive to what has come before it.

IDK. I guess it's like a giant painting on which each composer leaves a mark. The painting may look very elaborate today, but only because a group of artists have done the preliminary outlines and sketches. As a composer, you can put your brush on the canvas and move it any way you want, but the painting will still have the same stuff as it did before. So in the end, the painting is very old, and it is full of outdated brush strokes. But the painting itself is not so outdated, because it's always being built upon, and changed, etc.

IDK, that's just how I see it. :)

I don't think we ONLY have the past to draw upon, though. If we did, nothing would ever sound different. There would be no difference between say the Romantic Era and Renaissance music. But I DO believe that music builds upon the past. Whether it means challenging the establishment with radical new styles, or building upon the established kind of music (or something in between), I think that music (and I guess you could say Art in general) is always (at least partly) reactive to what has come before it.

What else is there then?

I believe the point is "Don't copy what you did before."

I agree. This is the point. I disagree with the point, though.

There are some instances where something is copied from something before it. Vanilla Ice's "Ice-Ice Baby" copied Queen's "Under Pressure." Lady Gaga's "Allejandro" copied Ace of Bass's "Don't Turn Around." I mean, these are pretty legitimate cases where significant portions of music have been "reproduced" by someone else. It's a far stretch from this to something like, "Don't write any more classical-sounding music, it's already been done a million times."

Personally, I think the issue is sensationalized far too much, from the likes of accusations like "style-copy" and other such stupidity (sorry, SSC). If we really want to stifle creativity, let's start a witch hunt for all the works that can be seen as "copying a style." How unfortunate that every piece copies "a style" of some sort. Few works actually create a style completely unique and no style is entirely original anyway. We can have another "Red Scare" and put composers on trial for "copying styles..." and the hypocrisy of it all will end up being that it's okay to copy new styles, but if you want to use older ones, combine them with new ones in some special way.

No I think instead, when you find yourself in a cycle of uninspired composing, you may be doing something over and over again that you should change. If it happens to be that you're composing in a specific style or using the same instrumentation over and over again, make some changes. You're in school to learn the plethora of ways to make those kinds of changes so that when you find yourself trapped, you are capable of independently freeing yourself from monotony and pursuing creative opportunities that are new to you. This. This should be the message.

What else is there then?

Idk. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can draw from the past by copying what's been done, and then you can draw from it by using it to create something new. I think we all tend do do a little of both, because nothing is completely 100% original (whether you're talking about copying a melody or using the same tonal system that's been in use for hundreds of years), but nothing is 100% copied either.

Still what I take from that video is to not be complacent as an artist. I always try to keep innovating and challenging myself. That way, I'm always learning! :happy: