Meet the Composers video interview on GameSpot

Actually, I've never met a media composer who thought concert composers were outdated. John Adams, the well-known concert composer, is one of my personal heroes. While he concentrates on music composition for the concert hall, he has also crossed over into media composition as well. I think we should all be open-minded about exploring the possibilities presented by the various mediums in which we can work. Media composition poses challenges that can stretch one's creativity. Personally, I have found the work to be endlessly creative and fulfilling. :)

I like the idea of being open minded, but I don't know if I could call having someone else tell me how to score a particular scene or frame free. I like being able to interpret things musically the way that I wish them to be interpreted - without anyone's input on my thoughts. I guess that is the only difference really between media composers and concert composers - ability to take direction/orders. I'm very independent, I don't think I'd mesh.

I like the idea of being open minded, but I don't know if I could call having someone else tell me how to score a particular scene or frame free. I like being able to interpret things musically the way that I wish them to be interpreted - without anyone's input on my thoughts. I guess that is the only difference really between media composers and concert composers - ability to take direction/orders. I'm very independent, I don't think I'd mesh.

That's a very interesting point. We all have preferences regarding our working conditions and the amount of creative liberty we need in order to feel fulfilled by our work. Having to conform to someone else's instructions is difficult, but that's certainly been a concern for concert composers as well as media composers. Mozart had a succession of employers with various demands (remember Emperor Joseph II saying, "Too many notes"?). And we all remember that Handel had to write his "Water Music" for performance on a barge, putting severe restrictions on his choices in terms of instrumentation and composition. Sometimes its hard to have to work under restrictions, but it can also give rise to quality music.

That's a very interesting point. We all have preferences regarding our working conditions and the amount of creative liberty we need in order to feel fulfilled by our work. Having to conform to someone else's instructions is difficult, but that's certainly been a concern for concert composers as well as media composers. Mozart had a succession of employers with various demands (remember Emperor Joseph II saying, "Too many notes"?). And we all remember that Handel had to write his "Water Music" for performance on a barge, putting severe restrictions on his choices in terms of instrumentation and composition. Sometimes its hard to have to work under restrictions, but it can also give rise to quality music.

I don't think it truly 'has' been a concern for concert composers. Yes, Handel had to write music that could be played on a barge - but the emotional quality of the music was all his own, the only thing he had to look at was performance issues and concerns. That's a far cry from a restriction on 'creative liberty'. So to is it a far cry for Mozart. The Emperor may have said 'too many notes' BUT he didn't ask Mozart to remove any. The piece has the same number of notes as it did on its premiere. I suppose, if you wanted to argue that composers of traditional art music had restrictions placed on them by there patrons, then I guess you could point to the Renaissance, Baroque, and early classical. The aristocratic nobles had particular instrumental staff and tastes that certainly restricted the creative liberty of those composers. However, pointing to the late classical period, and those periods after, is a bit of a stretch - considering that after Beethoven and Mozart, virtually all composers were free agents. Haydn is a special circumstance, really. He had the ability to be creatively free while in his various positions. Granted, he had composed a long while before that point.

At any rate, I think that concert composers -for the most part- have it pretty 'creatively free' to write what they wish.

Whenever you compose something, you are trying to evoke a mood or feeling in your listener and you are also probably being inspired by something in your life. If the weather is dark and rainy and you have a scrafty day and you go to your piano and write something to fit the mood, I don't see how that is different than taking a scene in a movie or a level in a game and creating music to fit it.

Whenever you compose something, you are trying to evoke a mood or feeling in your listener and you are also probably being inspired by something in your life. If the weather is dark and rainy and you have a scrafty day and you go to your piano and write something to fit the mood, I don't see how that is different than taking a scene in a movie or a level in a game and creating music to fit it.

Sure there is a difference. For one, no one is telling you that they want that piece to be in that mood. You CHOSE to make it in that mood. Whereas, setting a movie scene or game level, you are being asked to convey a particular mood - even when you may or may not be in that mood (or feel like writing in that mood.) There is a big difference, I think.

At any rate, I think that concert composers -for the most part- have it pretty 'creatively free' to write what they wish.

Excellent points! :)

I do think that after the patronage system ended, commercial considerations took over as a controlling factor - and I think they are still very influential today. If a composition will not draw a large-enough audience to recoup the investment, then I don't think the concert venue will be very eager to host it. This is particularly difficult for composers who create for large ensembles, because these organizations are expensive to maintain.

I think that web sites like this one are a wonderful way in which we can support and encourage each other, regardless of whether we are media or concert composers. We're all in this together. :)

Perhaps: if you have the convenience of handpicking cues to score that always parallel's your mood. From experience: being in the same mood that a cue must create allows a composer to compose heartfelt music. Being in a contradicting mood to one you must create makes the process rather difficult.

In those circumstances, I find the process to be a lot like method acting. I try to draw upon my experiences and the emotions I've felt in the past.

Excellent points! :)

I do think that after the patronage system ended, commercial considerations took over as a controlling factor - and I think they are still very influential today. If a composition will not draw a large-enough audience to recoup the investment, then I don't think the concert venue will be very eager to host it. This is particularly difficult for composers who create for large ensembles, because these organizations are expensive to maintain.

I think that web sites like this one are a wonderful way in which we can support and encourage each other, regardless of whether we are media or concert composers. We're all in this together. :)

It's always been difficult financing large ensembles - even before the patronage system. Thus it comes down to the quality of the music and the ability of the composer to network and promote/sell his work. I know a lot of orchestras include portions of a concert or devote an entire concert to totally new music (at least here in the midwest). There are also a lot of festivals and large music ensembles that specialize in modern music. It all comes down to networking.. networking... networking. If you truly want to have your work performed, then you will take the necessary actions to see that come to fruition. Thus, in the words of one of Beethoven's teachers: patience, diligence, persistence, and sincerity will lead you to success.

At any rate, this forum is a wonderful site. Hopefully the dust will settle more and you can get a nicer look at it.

Whenever you compose something, you are trying to evoke a mood or feeling in your listener and you are also probably being inspired by something in your life. If the weather is dark and rainy and you have a scrafty day and you go to your piano and write something to fit the mood, I don't see how that is different than taking a scene in a movie or a level in a game and creating music to fit it.

I agree, and thanks, VoodooChild, for summing it up so well! The writing and design of a game, film or television show can be very inspirational. :)

Hi sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this question, it just like a convenient place to ask; does anybody (particularly Ms. Phillips) have any advice on how you'd go about getting a job as a composer for games? It seems like quite an impenetrable profession from where I stand. Also, is there lots of competition for game music composition jobs, and do you need to have a degree or similar qualification?

In response to the conversation that's been going on, my personal opinion is that because music is a social thing (even a solo piece is intended to be performed to an audience) the idea of music written solely for the composer's own emotional whim is pointless. I am putting this in a very black and white view here, but to me the idea of a brief with a specific purpose in mind for a piece of music is inextricable from the idea of composing. The distinction i think you're making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's more valid to compose something when the brief comes from within yourself than when the brief is given to you by someone else. To me, because of the fact that I view music as a social thing at its core, where the brief comes from is irrelevant.

I couldn't agree more Phil, my point is not that expression is pointless, but that to compose with only one's own satisfaction in mind is pointless. The impression I got from the previous posts was that Jawoodruff was of the opinion that a composer shouldn't have to write to music to conform to expressing an idea formulated by someone else (as in the situation of music for a game). However, when a composer writes a piece to express their own emotions, it is a way of communicating that emotion to other people, to share the happiness that inspired them, or to look for solace in sharing the sadness that inspired them, or whatever other reason to share whatever emotion the piece conveys.

In this sense, I'm kind of coming from the same point of view as VoodooChild, that private emotional portrayal has no distinction from portrayal of any other idea (for example what happens to a faun in an afternoon, including any emotional content that becomes evident in that faun's afternoon) in terms of composition.

From a slightly different angle, I find composing to a brief given by someone else to be useful as a spiritual tool as it is a way of practicing empathy and searching for emotion and meaning within ideas that you might not necessarily have immediately been inspired by. For example my A-level composition brief was to write music for an airline advert. Seems extremely soulless at first glance, but with some thought I came up with a piece that in my opinion expressed both my own personality and still fitted the brief we were given, and it turned out to be a piece that I still enjoy listening to.

I think what I'm trying to get at here is that in my opinion, if you rule out the idea of composing music to fit with an external stimulus (something not inspired solely by your own thoughts and emotions) you rule out a whole world of potential understanding and emotional connection.

I don't think anyone is trying to argue the validity of composing out of emotion, to composing with the intention of creating emotion. They both have very different objectives: one aims to reflect, where another aims to instill.

There's really no difference. Or at least, the former case is always the latter, although the latter may not always be the former. If you're composing to express yourself, you're doing it so that others can share in your emotion. Otherwise, why write it down/play it? If you're reflecting just for yourself, do it in your head.

There's really no difference. Or at least, the former case is always the latter, although the latter may not always be the former. If you're composing to express yourself, you're doing it so that others can share in your emotion. Otherwise, why write it down/play it? If you're reflecting just for yourself, do it in your head.

Well said. . . much more succinctly than I managed. . . :veryunsure:

I couldn't agree more Phil, (2) my point is not that expression is pointless, but that to compose with only one's own satisfaction in mind is pointless. The impression I got from the previous posts was that (1) Jawoodruff was of the opinion that a composer shouldn't have to write to music to conform to expressing an idea formulated by someone else (as in the situation of music for a game). However, when a composer writes a piece to express their own emotions, it is a way of communicating that emotion to other people, to share the happiness that inspired them, or to look for solace in sharing the sadness that inspired them, or whatever other reason to share whatever emotion the piece conveys.

1) First, I'm not of the opinion that a composer should not have to write music that conforms to expressing an idea formulated by someone else. Certainly, if a person wishes to partake in such composition - there is nothing wrong with it. I'm just saying, and I thought I made it clear, that I couldn't lead myself to do it. I'm a little bit older than most on the forum and more set in my ways as well - I can be open to some degree, but when it comes to my own preferences on things - I'm pretty much set in stone to some extent.

2) I disagree with this point. I will spell it out thusly:

Your argument here is that: It is pointless for one to compose music with only one's own satisfaction in mind. However, we -as composers- chose this craft because we get immense satisfaction out of composing! If we did not get satisfaction out of doing this work, then there is no reason we would compose - we'd go do something else. Thus, your argument really eliminates the idea that anyone would compose music at all...

In this sense, I'm kind of coming from the same point of view as VoodooChild, that (1) private emotional portrayal has no distinction from portrayal of any other idea (for example what happens to a faun in an afternoon, including any emotional content that becomes evident in that faun's afternoon) in terms of composition.

From a slightly different angle, I find composing to a brief given by someone else to be useful as a spiritual tool as it is a way of practicing empathy and searching for emotion and meaning within ideas that you might not necessarily have immediately been inspired by. For example my A-level composition brief was to write music for an airline advert. Seems extremely soulless at first glance, but with some thought I came up with a piece that in my opinion expressed both my own personality and still fitted the brief we were given, and it turned out to be a piece that I still enjoy listening to.

I think what I'm trying to get at here is that in my opinion, (2) if you rule out the idea of composing music to fit with an external stimulus (something not inspired solely by your own thoughts and emotions) you rule out a whole world of potential understanding and emotional connection.

1) I tend to disagree with this. Private emotional experience does impact the creative process quite a bit. That's not to say that a person told to write music that is incredibly poignant and sad, has never experienced a moment in their life that is poignantly sad. Music that conveys, or elicits, emotional response initiates conditioning in the individual listeners based on their own past experiences, cultural expectations, etc. That is different than imagining the emotional experiences inherent in fantasy (such as the afternoon of a faun). In fantasy, your mind is interpreting the music based on the program given. Whether that program is fully written (as in Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique) or implied by the title (as in Holst's The Planets). Programmatic works, since their inception, have drawn heavily on the imaginations and fantasy - creations of audiences. I would suspect, and perhaps Winifred can elaborate on this, that those who compose for game and film also rely heavily on the imaginations and fantasy of others (be it those developing the games, creating the movies, etc.). In contrast, a composer who writes music without a program, relies on gaining the listener to emotionally interpret the music by networking the musical stimuli in connection with their own emotional experiences, cultural expectations, etc. It's not an area that is fully black and white - nor am I intending that to be taken as such. It's far more complicated than anyone can even get into on here.

2) Certainly, this could be true. However, I think it really depends on the individual and his/her own ability to understand/empathize or emotionally connect. We have an unbelievable ability as a species to be able to fantasize and role play events and circumstances that we have never experienced. We are able to utilize this ability individually - without any external source or social connection/support/feedback at all.

We are biologically endowed with the wiring that enables this activity. If ruling out the idea of composing music to fit with an external stimulus leads to ruling out a whole world of potential understanding and emotional connection, then one would expect that such an ability as being able to understand/empathize and emotionally connect individually without any external source or social connection/support/feedback would not exist. Thus, since it does exist - as is evident in music and every other field - then certainly one can say,logically, that there would be no loss of understanding/empathizing and/or emotional connectivity due to not composing music to fit with an external stimulus.

I want to clarify -again- I'm not saying that others should NOT write music that is inspired/requested from an employer or other external source. I myself, even, gain inspiration from things around me all the time. However, what I am saying is that for myself, I don't think I could ever do that sort of thing regularly. I like the freedom to write what I wish to write with the emotional content that I feel it should have. That's just me though, doesn't mean that another person can't do it - certainly, there are many who can and do regularly.

Look at abstract art

I'd rather not :P

So, you don't compose for anyone but yourself...I hope that means you haven't uploaded any of your works to this site, or performed any pieces you have composed for an audience, or asked anyone for advice or critique of any of your work...

I simply don't believe or trust someone who treats art as being that insular. No offense. But of course you're bluffing.

No offense taken: it is natural to be wary of what you don't understand.

So I take it that abstract art is an irrefutable point, eh?

And who says I can't share something I have done for myself? And no: I have not uploaded anything to this site, I have had my pieces performed however and have asked for advice (though theoretical questions: not "oh did my piece make you feel such-and-such?"). Are you aware that music can be enjoyed without knowing every little attribute of the composer's intention and what emotions were running through him at the time of inspiration? That is the beauty of music: sonic delight (as well as often being open to interpretation).

I'm pretty sure we agree here at least. You don't need to know anything about the composer or his/her intention or what he or she was feeling at the time they composed. The music should do the job on its own.

And of course, everyone reacts to a piece of music differently... but not THAT differently.

How do they make you feel? Do you think that is what the composer wanted you to feel? Do you think the composers even cared at all how you would feel?

Sorry, I don't have time to listen to them all now, but absolutely the composers cared how I would feel. Anyone, especially an artist, who says they don't care what other people think is simply a liar.

I'm pretty sure we agree here at least. You don't need to know anything about the composer or his/her intention or what he or she was feeling at the time they composed. The music should do the job on its own.

I've found, through the reactions of those who listen to my music, that the majority of people do NOT get the intention or emotional qualities that I feel while composing. A small few do delve that far in to get it. The majority, however, do not.

And of course, everyone reacts to a piece of music differently... but not THAT differently.

That really depends, actually. If the music is written within a particular socio-cultural context that the audience was familiar with - then yeah, a particular piece would be reacted to in the same light. However, even in that same socio-cultural context, you would still have a large number who would question the material and the meaning behind it. They would dig deeper in trying understanding it's meaning. Of course, we do have a good example of such a work that was reacted to with differentiation: Stravinky's Rite of Spring. So, I guess that's that.

Anyone, especially an artist, who says they don't care what other people think is simply a liar.

I think this depends on which level the artist is referring to. Obviously, we ALL wish people loved our music and cared about it as we do - otherwise, we probably wouldn't share it with anyone. However, do I really care if Joe Human # 987,893,829 cares about my music enough to read into it and find out what I am saying? Nah. If he doesn't get it.. he doesn't get it. I'm happier that he had to hear what I had to say at the surface, that he actually took the time to listen to my work. Do I care that Jody Human #890239483291 thinks that a particular piece of mine is talking about hemophilia, when in reality I am trying to convey my awe at the concept of astral projection? Nah. She listened, I'm happy... I don't care what she thinks it's about. So, am I a liar in that?

1) First, I'm not of the opinion that a composer should not have to write music that conforms to expressing an idea formulated by someone else. Certainly, if a person wishes to partake in such composition - there is nothing wrong with it. I'm just saying, and I thought I made it clear, that I couldn't lead myself to do it. I'm a little bit older than most on the forum and more set in my ways as well - I can be open to some degree, but when it comes to my own preferences on things - I'm pretty much set in stone to some extent.

Fair enough that seems reasonable. I apologise if this sounds inflammatory, I promise it is not meant to, only I'm having trouble conveying it without. I personally would not want to cut myself off from the different source of inspiration that is composition to fit a brief, and I feel that it's something of a shame that you feel you aren't able to find something personal from out of a framwork given by someone else.

2) I disagree with this point. I will spell it out thusly:

Your argument here is that: It is pointless for one to compose music with only one's own satisfaction in mind. However, we -as composers- chose this craft because we get immense satisfaction out of composing! If we did not get satisfaction out of doing this work, then there is no reason we would compose - we'd go do something else. Thus, your argument really eliminates the idea that anyone would compose music at all...

Of course, you are correct here. I did not express myself properly; what I should have said is that it is pointless to compose music solely with one's own satisfaction in mind because music is a social thing; it is validated by others experiencing it. It is not truly (in my opinion) music until it is experienced by someone else, whether or not they like it. Otherwise you might as well just listen to it in your head and never go through the compositional process.

The satisfaction comes from the fact that we have created something that we can share with others.

1) I tend to disagree with this. Private emotional experience does impact the creative process quite a bit. That's not to say that a person told to write music that is incredibly poignant and sad, has never experienced a moment in their life that is poignantly sad. Music that conveys, or elicits, emotional response initiates conditioning in the individual listeners based on their own past experiences, cultural expectations, etc.

Entirely true

That is different than imagining the emotional experiences inherent in fantasy (such as the afternoon of a faun). In fantasy, your mind is interpreting the music based on the program given. Whether that program is fully written (as in Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique) or implied by the title (as in Holst's The Planets). Programmatic works, since their inception, have drawn heavily on the imaginations and fantasy - creations of audiences. I would suspect, and perhaps Winifred can elaborate on this, that those who compose for game and film also rely heavily on the imaginations and fantasy of others (be it those developing the games, creating the movies, etc.). In contrast, a composer who writes music without a program, relies on gaining the listener to emotionally interpret the music by networking the musical stimuli in connection with their own emotional experiences, cultural expectations, etc. It's not an area that is fully black and white - nor am I intending that to be taken as such. It's far more complicated than anyone can even get into on here.

Not so true. Without knowing the program of a piece of music, you could have many different stories attached to it, and in fact you could even miss the intention of a program entirely and perceive it as a non-programmatic piece.

Also because emotion is a part of experience, the two are inseperable, so it is illogical to make that distinction between an emotional interpretation and an imaginative one. One could pereceive a program in a piece not intended to have a program, and similarly, one could entirely miss the program of a programmatic piece, because music is an abstract. No musical molecule has specific meaning - as you say, it is all interpretative and based on emotional experience, cultural expectation etc.

2) Certainly, this could be true. However, I think it really depends on the individual and his/her own ability to understand/empathize or emotionally connect. We have an unbelievable ability as a species to be able to fantasize and role play events and circumstances that we have never experienced. We are able to utilize this ability individually - without any external source or social connection/support/feedback at all.

Not true. Originality is a slippery concept, and a subtle one to see. I do believe in the possibility of true originality; in principle, it is a creation that has not been influenced by anything at all. An example of this would be a painting done by a person who was blind from birth. They have never seen anything and therefore what they painted cannot have been influenced by anything and is therefore original.

I would argue that an ability to "fantasize and role play events and circumstances that we have never experienced" is in fact impossible. Any imagination is an amalgamation of past experiences. I support this claim with what I have gathered from kids I teach. Kids who don't read books find it very very difficult to imagine any situation outside of their own reality, because books stimulate our minds to imagine new things, whereas kids who do read alot have much more propensity for creativeness in terms of story-telling and imagining situations that they have not literally experienced. Thus, the ability to imagine a new situation comes from being stimulated and experiencing alternate realities in books. When you have a wide range of real-world and non-real-world experiences, it does create an almost miraculous ability to combine those influences into something that seems original. However, I will also say that that doesn't rule out the possibility of real origniality, it's just that whatever facet is truly original will be intertwined with the other influences.

Newton said "If I see further than my predecessors, it is only because I stand upon their shoulders." This holds true as Newton did make original steps, as does every person who creates progress, but he was not able to do so without the framework of influence from his predecessors.

We are biologically endowed with the wiring that enables this activity. If ruling out the idea of composing music to fit with an external stimulus leads to ruling out a whole world of potential understanding and emotional connection, then one would expect that such an ability as being able to understand/empathize and emotionally connect individually without any external source or social connection/support/feedback would not exist. Thus, since it does exist - as is evident in music and every other field - then certainly one can say,logically, that there would be no loss of understanding/empathizing and/or emotional connectivity due to not composing music to fit with an external stimulus.

Again I agree. It is self-evident that we have propensity for originality, otherwise development would never happen.

However I would argue that such an ability as you describe does not exist, because of everything I have just argued. It would be impossible to write a symphony without ever having heard music.

My argument is not that there is a "loss of understanding/empathizing and/or emotional connectivity due to not composing music to fit with an external stimulus" but that any composition comes from external stimuli, whether it is emotional or programmatic. You do not feel emotions simply from within yourself. You feel emotions as a reaction to the world around you, and therefore I do not distinguish between an emotional stimulus and a programmatic or job-based stimulus. In fact, I would say that a job-based stimulus is simply a funneling of possibility; when you are able to compose on a whim, the world is your oyster: you can use any emotional, programmatic, experiential stimulus. When you have a brief, your horizons must be narrowed, but to me, that does not alter the fact that at its core, the music is still created from emotion and experience, it is simply that the emotion and experience from which you can draw is limited.

I want to clarify -again- I'm not saying that others should NOT write music that is inspired/requested from an employer or other external source. I myself, even, gain inspiration from things around me all the time. However, what I am saying is that for myself, I don't think I could ever do that sort of thing regularly. I like the freedom to write what I wish to write with the emotional content that I feel it should have. That's just me though, doesn't mean that another person can't do it - certainly, there are many who can and do regularly.

I didn't mean to give the impression that that's what I thought you were saying, however, I would say that it might be possible for you to write to a brief and yet still include all the emotional content that you feel it should have.

Just as a kind of disclaimer, I'm not trying to say that your feelinf is invalid, I'm only asking you to question and trying to give some logical basis from which to do so.

In reply to the rest of what's been said, as I mentioned above, it is impossible to have any irrefutable meaning in a piece. E.g Debussy's Girld With the Flaxen Hair could be perceived as a hopeful love song that expresses the artist's hope of his love being requited, or as a bittersweet soliloquy for a woman he loved. It could also be perceived in a mutlitude of other ways, but I chose those two to illustrate how diametrically opposed interpretations can be.

As you say, Phil, part of the beauty of music is the openness to interpretation.

On the discussion of the starving artist mentality, for me, the most important opinion is my own. If I don't like it, why would I have created it? However, the idea that a performer or group of performers would see it as worth performing would be incredibly moving for me, and by the same token, if people thought it was worth their time to see my piece being performed (particularly if they then enjoy it) would also be incredibly moving.

It just seems mildly ridiculous to write music only for yourself to listen to, because then you might as well just keep it in your head and not bother creating it in a real format. Is it not inherent in composing (as opposed to just listening to the music in your own head) that it is done for other people to hear, whether or not they appreciate it?

On the subject of whether or not people "get" your intention in the music, as I said above, unless you give people a meaning which they can attach to the piece (as happens in game or film composition, or an opera or a ballet etc.) because musical cells do not have meaning as do words, interpretation is never guaranteed.

Edit: sorry about the essay . . .

Wow, things have gotten very exciting here! :)

Hi sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this question, it just like a convenient place to ask; does anybody (particularly Ms. Phillips) have any advice on how you'd go about getting a job as a composer for games? It seems like quite an impenetrable profession from where I stand. Also, is there lots of competition for game music composition jobs, and do you need to have a degree or similar qualification?

Hi, Biscuit Trolley! Nice to meet you. Getting a job as a composer for games is similar in principle to getting a job in the other media professions (film and television). The most important tasks (in my mind) are building a strong set of demonstration tracks to showcase your abilities, and developing a network of contacts at game development companies and video game publishers.

You can begin to build this network of contacts by attending the annual industry conventions. Two of the largest of these are the Game Developers Conference (GDC) in March, and the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) in June. There are many other annual conferences, such as the Game Developers Conference Online (which takes place in Austin and is coming up this year in October), the Montreal International Game Summit (MIGS) which is coming up in November, and the Develop Conference, which is taking place in a couple of weeks in Brighton, UK.

By no means do you have to go to all these events, but attending one or two makes sense. There is a lot of competition for game music composition jobs, and you don't need to have a degree, but it can help. Wherever you obtain your training, whether in a university setting or elsewhere, knowledge is power... in this industry and everywhere else. :)

Okay, now... on to the current debate...

I tend to agree with Biscuit Trolley regarding the interpretation of music - a non-programmatic piece can certainly be given a very literal interpretation, and vice-versa. Also, a piece of program music can be set inside a completely contrasting literal interpretation, such as the 'beginning of the world' animation from Disney's Fantasia, which was set to the music of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. I love Biscuit Trolley's phrase "no musical molecule has specific meaning". Profound.

I had a personal experience with this phenomenon, in regards to music I wrote for the "Spore Hero" video game for Electronic Arts. In a review of the game's soundtrack release, a journalist said that my music could serve as the inspiration for the choreography of an experimental dance company. Until that moment, it had never occurred to me that the Spore Hero music could be seen in that way, but when I revisited the soundtrack with his words in mind, I could see that he was right. I tend to care what people think of my music, and I'm always honored when someone takes the time to express their impressions and the effect that my music had on them. I think that I can learn a lot from what they have to say.

As a video game composer, I realize that I am as much a storyteller as I am a composer. I am hired to help tell the story of the game, and it is my responsibility to put all my passion and my expertise to that task. Some composers are drawn to the idea of being part of a creative team, contributing to a larger whole and becoming part of something bigger than themselves. I am one of those people, but not everybody is drawn to that idea. We all have to follow our passions. :)

Fair enough that seems reasonable. I apologise if this sounds inflammatory, I promise it is not meant to, only I'm having trouble conveying it without. I personally would not want to cut myself off from the different source of inspiration that is composition to fit a brief, and I feel that it's something of a shame that you feel you aren't able to find something personal from out of a framwork given by someone else.

I don't think it's a shame really - either way. That's just how I am. I like setting my own frameworks and I like giving my own limitations. Certainly, I will follow when needed - but for the most part, I enjoy my artistic independence.

Of course, you are correct here. I did not express myself properly; what I should have said is that it is pointless to compose music solely with one's own satisfaction in mind because music is a social thing; it is validated by others experiencing it. It is not truly (in my opinion) music until it is experienced by someone else, whether or not they like it. Otherwise you might as well just listen to it in your head and never go through the compositional process.

The satisfaction comes from the fact that we have created something that we can share with others.

I've known many, many composers who would argue against this. Yes, it's a GOOD thing when we can share our creations with other people. However, what if you work with the hopes of getting a performance and it never happens (as for the bulk of Schubert's work). Or you get 1 mediocre performance and then no more? Certainly the many, many composers who have never had a work played in their lifetime (and in some cases a good 150 years after) had to have a reason to work? It's clear from these composers that the satisfaction they received from their work was not having created something they could share - since they weren't able to share the work, they wouldn't have been able to experience that satisfaction. So, then, what did they work for? Peanuts?

Not so true. Without knowing the program of a piece of music, you could have many different stories attached to it, and in fact you could even miss the intention of a program entirely and perceive it as a non-programmatic piece.

Also because emotion is a part of experience, the two are inseperable, so it is illogical to make that distinction between an emotional interpretation and an imaginative one. One could pereceive a program in a piece not intended to have a program, and similarly, one could entirely miss the program of a programmatic piece, because music is an abstract. No musical molecule has specific meaning - as you say, it is all interpretative and based on emotional experience, cultural expectation etc.

Programmatic Music works in giving the listener imagery in which he/she attempts to locate within the music. It gets the gears of the listeners imagination going.. and gives them a launch board in which to interpret and enjoy the piece. The variation in interpretation present, even with the program there as a guide, is due to human perception. Humanity, even with a program as a guide, do NOT perceive things in the same way unless they are educated or taught to do so. There's really no arguing with that - it's a basic fact. Also, there is a big distinction between interpreting things through an emotional lense and interpreting things utilizing your imagination. Yes, the two can work in tangent - as is often the case - but, they are distinctly separate biologically. For example, you can 'imagine' a hammer without feeling any sort of emotional response from it. You can also feel sad without having imagined anything to make you sad. So to say that it is illogical to make the distinction between an emotional interpretation and an imaginative one... doesn't quite fly well when looked at through psychological eyes - since it has been proven, beyond any doubt, that there is a BIG distinction there.

Not true. Originality is a slippery concept, and a subtle one to see. I do believe in the possibility of true originality; in principle, it is a creation that has not been influenced by anything at all. An example of this would be a painting done by a person who was blind from birth. They have never seen anything and therefore what they painted cannot have been influenced by anything and is therefore original.

I would argue that an ability to "fantasize and role play events and circumstances that we have never experienced" is in fact impossible. Any imagination is an amalgamation of past experiences. I support this claim with what I have gathered from kids I teach. Kids who don't read books find it very very difficult to imagine any situation outside of their own reality, because books stimulate our minds to imagine new things, whereas kids who do read alot have much more propensity for creativeness in terms of story-telling and imagining situations that they have not literally experienced. Thus, the ability to imagine a new situation comes from being stimulated and experiencing alternate realities in books. When you have a wide range of real-world and non-real-world experiences, it does create an almost miraculous ability to combine those influences into something that seems original. However, I will also say that that doesn't rule out the possibility of real origniality, it's just that whatever facet is truly original will be intertwined with the other influences.

Newton said "If I see further than my predecessors, it is only because I stand upon their shoulders." This holds true as Newton did make original steps, as does every person who creates progress, but he was not able to do so without the framework of influence from his predecessors.

Who is talking about the concept of originality??? What I'm referring to is again, the biological ability for humanity to work independent of any external stimulus. I think it's funny that in this set of paragraphs you state you're against and then state your not against this? So, I'll continue then. Thanks for offering a support here!

Again I agree. It is self-evident that we have propensity for originality, otherwise development would never happen.

However I would argue that such an ability as you describe does not exist, because of everything I have just argued. It would be impossible to write a symphony without ever having heard music.

My argument is not that there is a "loss of understanding/empathizing and/or emotional connectivity due to not composing music to fit with an external stimulus" but that any composition comes from external stimuli, whether it is emotional or programmatic. You do not feel emotions simply from within yourself. You feel emotions as a reaction to the world around you, and therefore I do not distinguish between an emotional stimulus and a programmatic or job-based stimulus. In fact, I would say that a job-based stimulus is simply a funneling of possibility; when you are able to compose on a whim, the world is your oyster: you can use any emotional, programmatic, experiential stimulus. When you have a brief, your horizons must be narrowed, but to me, that does not alter the fact that at its core, the music is still created from emotion and experience, it is simply that the emotion and experience from which you can draw is limited.

LOL WUT? Have you ever taken psychology? Have you ever sat in a room with menstruating women? Have you sat in a room with a teenage boy in puberty? Emotional response is extremely complex and can be caused by a myriad of both internal and external forces. For example, a teenage boy may feel angry despite being in a situation that otherwise would make him extremely happy. Why? Because his emotions are being controlled by the hormonal imbalances going on in his body. It's the same thing with a menstruating woman. She may be watching a comedy, that regularly would make her laugh out loud, and start bawling hysterically - without the 'external stimulus' that creates it. You don't even need a hormonal imbalance for this to occur either. Ever sat and just started crying for no reason? Or how about when you have a good day but yet still find yourself in a 'bad mood'? I'll state what I learned in psychology: emotions do NOT require solely a reaction to the world around you.

I didn't mean to give the impression that that's what I thought you were saying, however, I would say that it might be possible for you to write to a brief and yet still include all the emotional content that you feel it should have.

Just as a kind of disclaimer, I'm not trying to say that your feeling is invalid, I'm only asking you to question and trying to give some logical basis from which to do so.

I think my position is logically sound really. I don't disagree with the enjoyment those who work under the direction of brief get. Nor do I think that a person should not work in that manner. I know how I work and I know the things that empower or endanger my ability to work well. I have always found it difficult to work under the direction of someone else - that's how I found myself in management. I'm also a very logical person, I tend to analyze and think about things quite in depth before I make any opinion on them.

On the discussion of the starving artist mentality, for me, the most important opinion is my own. If I don't like it, why would I have created it? However, the idea that a performer or group of performers would see it as worth performing would be incredibly moving for me, and by the same token, if people thought it was worth their time to see my piece being performed (particularly if they then enjoy it) would also be incredibly moving.

It just seems mildly ridiculous to write music only for yourself to listen to, because then you might as well just keep it in your head and not bother creating it in a real format. Is it not inherent in composing (as opposed to just listening to the music in your own head) that it is done for other people to hear, whether or not they appreciate it?

On the subject of whether or not people "get" your intention in the music, as I said above, unless you give people a meaning which they can attach to the piece (as happens in game or film composition, or an opera or a ballet etc.) because musical cells do not have meaning as do words, interpretation is never guaranteed.

Edit: sorry about the essay . . .

You surprise me, in the same post of yours... you see this:

Point: There is NO X.

...... later: There can be X.

Point: There is NO way that Y can be possible!

......later: I do this because of Y.

Point: There must be Z to have A!

.....later: I think A can occur without Z.

You can easily state these things all day and still not really formulate any real, logical position.

I'll leave it with this little morsel:

If music composition were a craft that requires external stimulus, then explain the many composers KNOWN to have sought to eliminate any external stimulus while composing. For example, Beethoven is known for being violent when interrupted while composing. Chopin is known to have locked himself up for days and weeks to compose. Mozart is known to have composed in the privacy of his study. Puccini would isolate himself to his home for months while composing opera. Certainly, if external stimulus was necessary in composing... then the work of these composers would reflect that. I.E. the works composed by these composers who surrounded themselves with external stimuli would be better than the works that these composers composed in the absence of external stimuli. Thus, Beethoven's 9th would be inferior to Beethoven's 1st. Mozart's The Magic Flute would be inferior to one of his earlier operas. Chopin's entire corpus would be inferior to the work of X composer who composed his works in a room full of people. Etc.

I'm not insisting that I have never composed anything with the listener in mind: I have worked on scoring films. If the music doesn't contribute to the vibe of the scene, your cue isn't going to get in. Everything my points are supporting, however, applies to the composer without obligation.

As I don't see myself working on any more films in the future: I feel liberated in that I can freely use music to express, without the obligation of audience interpretation. It all comes down to what you want to do with music. Some want to inspire others, evoke feelings and move the soul. Others want to put their soul on staff paper and transform it into sounds.

It is interesting and very intriguing how you sum this up -- some want to inspire an audience, others want to express their own soul on paper and transform it into sounds. This is entirely true, and definitely makes me consider a lot of the different inspirations that drive creative people to do what they do. While I think it is entirely possible to express your own soul and also inspire an audience, I think the difference we're discussing here centers on the point-of-view that the composer takes at the outset of his or her creative process. Am I writing this music to have an emotional or intellectual impact on others? Or am I writing this music solely to examine an emotional or intellectual portion of my own psyche?

The whole idea is kind of existential. Does art exist, purely as an expression of itself? Or does art need an audience to define it? We seek to create something worthwhile. Can we do it solely in the vacuum of our own minds, or do we have to invite our prospective audience into our imagination? I know that as a game composer I'm very aware of the audience I am writing for. Yet, I am also working to satisfy my own creative ambitions. I think it is entirely possible to balance the needs of our audience with our own needs as composers.