Any Schools That Don't Require Performance?

I write music, I don't play it. I don't like piano, it is in fact my most despised instrument and I could easily talk about why all day, but its not even worth my time nor yours I'd imagine. So Im in a bit of a predicament then. I write music, that's it. I dont want to learn 3 languages I'll never use, I dont want to minor in astronomy or calculus, I don't want to jump through hoops. I can't seem to find any, but does anyone know of a school that doesnt require all these things from their composers? I'd end up hanging from the ceiling fan by piano wire if not, so it'd be better to just go it on my own if not...

do writers have to act out their movies?

what about performers who dont write, guess they arent musicians either if thats true. what about actors who dont write, what does that make them?

you seem to take great pride in taking things seriously....why so serious?? I dont know about everyone else, but I'm into music because it's fun.

whats the problem with studying something because you like doing it? am I to study thermal engineering in the stead, I have no particular interest in that field perhaps it's more respectable

...based on whether or not they require you to audition....

I'm confused...

Do some schools make you audition on an instrument?

@ Connor: ... or are you just trying to avoid taking a one-semester Keyboard Skills class, or singing in a choir?

http://www.music.uto...mp_Prog_Req.htm

http://necmusic.edu/.../bachelor-music

I hate keyboard but the NEC seems to not make you do a whole lot of vocal stuff, whats that two semesters and then a class of vc 161-2?

nah says you just have to have an interview and portfolio review if youre going into composition and theory

You will need to audition for the New England Conservatory.

Really? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aside from the course requirements, the "audition" for composition at NEC appears to include solely your portfolio and an interview.

http://necmusic.edu/apply-nec/audition/composition

Personally, I'd be skeptical of any school that would deny entry to a qualified composer based on a lack of instrumental prowess.

A lot of them, yes.

I'd be interested to see where this comes from. Which schools do this?

robin, from what I've seen the NEC requires the least extraneous activity from its composers. Most require you to learn a language you will never use (if you speak english thats all you need), be a virtuoso of the concert performing level for piano, etc etc.

Interesting. While I can see the advantages and disadvantages, I'm not sure how I feel about the idea.

yes but honestly, at this point, would I even be able to get good enough at an instrument in the span of 1.5 years? It'll be hard enough getting good enough at composing to make it into a major school.

an exaggeration, obviously. in the span of this thread, theres been just a few schools found that dont require much performance wise, none that dont require any performing.

Self study.

If its only a hobby to you, then treat it as such.

I mean I have an interest in women, but that doesn't mean I should major in biology to legitimize my interest.

True composers play the piano, and kick donkey doing it. I hate to practice for hours, playing the piano is the hardest thing there is, but brings GREAT reward. I used to hate the piano when I was a kid, even though I won a lot of competitions. My father would make me sit in front of the piano forever. "One day you'll thank me" he said. Guess what? He was right. With piano practice comes an amazing set of skills that will allow you to kick other composers' asses. Pianists have an exceptional ear and know harmony better than anyone else. Not to mention, if you play piano reductions of orchestral works (or others) you'll eventually absorb any composition style you want. You can absorb composition styles much faster if you play them, instead of just listening, and the piano is the only instrument that can play a large number of parts.

True composers play the piano, and kick donkey doing it.

Seriously!? LOL

I'm not going to bother googling it, but I expect there's an incredible amount of "real" composers with limited-to-zero piano skill. I can barely make a sound on a piano, and would consider myself a perfectly "real" composer.

Seriously!? LOL

I'm not going to bother googling it, but I expect there's an incredible amount of "real" composers with limited-to-zero piano skill. I can barely make a sound on a piano, and would consider myself a perfectly "real" composer.

Seriously. I meant no offense. The fact that you need to google it proves my theory. Like, 98% of the greatest composers of all time that I can think of where also great pianists/organists etc, and the 2% were violinists who also played some kind of keyboard intrument. Coincidence?

Actually the best composers ever where either Trombonists or Conductors. This is a proven objective fact.

As for performance in a school, I think you should absolutely have an instrument that you're able to play if only for the psychological experience of playing, especially in ensembles. Its not coincidence that the best orchestra writers were often players who understood how orchestras worked because they were part of them. Same with vocal composers in choirs or piano composers in pianos..... yeah.

I was in a children's choir and ended up writing for orchestra, so I must be a deviation.

I'm having a hard time trying not to sound arrogant. I'm sure there are lots of great composers who don't play the piano or violin nowadays. My actual point: you don't actually need to be a great pianist, but if you want to be a great composer, write with a piano. Also, piano repertoire is the best there is, you can learn a lot.

I dont write on an instrument, vicariously or w/e. I just write for whatever ones the piece calls for. No piano reductions for moi, just work straight from the full score. I can hear ideas in my head and the write them on paper, no middle man orchestrator needed. Thats why for hollywood music I will probably not be a composer but an orchestrator, it doesn't seem like hollywood lets much composers orchestrate their own stuff due to time constraints. theres often several people orchestrating. some composers can be quick enough to write in a lot of detail though, so I might do that. anyways, instead of taking up an instrument, perhaps its better for me to take up vocals? not like they're going to ask me to improvise a blues solo in choir or anything...

that said, I think degrees aren't so much what you know as who you know, it can be much easier to get the right connections if you can say you got a yada yada from blah blah while studying under yoohoo. from what Ive seen, Id have to agree that most composers were primarily key players. berlioz was on guitar, I havent heard of others personally. berlioz was one of the great orchestrators and he wasn't a pianist.

Being a good pianist has nothing to do with orchestration and is actually worse for you. things sound different on piano than orchestrated. It may sound better or worse. how about a fz. in low bassoons vs the same thing on piano? how open a nice open chord on piano vs woodwinds? they sound best closed, normally open harmony in winds is a special effect, most often in p or lower to achieve a 'misty' atmosphere etc.

piano isn't a very good gauge of how things will sound at all. how about lush vibrant hollywood style string writing, or sam barber? doesn't sound too bad on piano, but very unbalanced especially the highs not getting the proper sustain. just be able to imagine things in your head directly for orchestra and then write it down.....that comes with listening, and score reading, and studying orch books, not being able to play altered dominant jazz chords on piano. we have something today called sample libraries, sequencers, and notation software. I can hear almost exactly what harmonies will sound like in real life and in real time, cant do that on piano. its the 21st century. also vibrato, bends, quarter tones and inflections.

Actually the best composers ever where either Trombonists or Conductors. This is a proven objective fact.

No, it is not. The widespread agreement is that the top 3 best composers ever are Beethoven, Mozart and Bach. Also, conducting is not an instrument.

I dont write on an instrument, vicariously or w/e. I just write for whatever ones the piece calls for. No piano reductions for moi, just work straight from the full score. I can hear ideas in my head and the write them on paper, no middle man orchestrator needed. Thats why for hollywood music I will probably not be a composer but an orchestrator, it doesn't seem like hollywood lets much composers orchestrate their own stuff due to time constraints. theres often several people orchestrating. some composers can be quick enough to write in a lot of detail though, so I might do that. anyways, instead of taking up an instrument, perhaps its better for me to take up vocals? not like they're going to ask me to improvise a blues solo in choir or anything...

that said, I think degrees aren't so much what you know as who you know, it can be much easier to get the right connections if you can say you got a yada yada from blah blah while studying under yoohoo. from what Ive seen, Id have to agree that most composers were primarily key players. berlioz was on guitar, I havent heard of others personally. berlioz was one of the great orchestrators and he wasn't a pianist.

Being a good pianist has nothing to do with orchestration and is actually worse for you. things sound different on piano than orchestrated. It may sound better or worse. how about a fz. in low bassoons vs the same thing on piano? how open a nice open chord on piano vs woodwinds? they sound best closed, normally open harmony in winds is a special effect, most often in p or lower to achieve a 'misty' atmosphere etc.

piano isn't a very good gauge of how things will sound at all. how about lush vibrant hollywood style string writing, or sam barber? doesn't sound too bad on piano, but very unbalanced especially the highs not getting the proper sustain. just be able to imagine things in your head directly for orchestra and then write it down.....that comes with listening, and score reading, and studying orch books, not being able to play altered dominant jazz chords on piano. we have something today called sample libraries, sequencers, and notation software. I can hear almost exactly what harmonies will sound like in real life and in real time, cant do that on piano. its the 21st century. also vibrato, bends, quarter tones and inflections.

Pianists can hear music in their heads just as good as you can, they don't have to rely on the piano. What I was trying to say was that you can easily learn new harmony from playing piano repertoire.

No, it is not. The widespread agreement is that the top 3 best composers ever are Beethoven, Mozart and Bach. Also, conducting is not an instrument.

"best composers" ... lmao. I'm sorry, but you need to learn something about music before you go pontificating on a subject you have absolutely no knowledge about. This is like a 4th grader telling everyone that the "best" show ever is Hey Arnold. Objectively 100% fact, right? Nope! It's just their misguided, young opinion.

As for you, kid

I dont write on an instrument, vicariously or w/e. I just write for whatever ones the piece calls for. No piano reductions for moi, just work straight from the full score. I can hear ideas in my head and the write them on paper, no middle man orchestrator needed. Thats why for hollywood music I will probably not be a composer but an orchestrator, it doesn't seem like hollywood lets much composers orchestrate their own stuff due to time constraints. theres often several people orchestrating. some composers can be quick enough to write in a lot of detail though, so I might do that. anyways, instead of taking up an instrument, perhaps its better for me to take up vocals? not like they're going to ask me to improvise a blues solo in choir or anything...

If you have this mindset, you will never, ever be a professional composer of any kind. There's a reason why people write piano reductions, and that is to properly visualize voices and ensure a consistent harmonic texture as well as ensuring good counterpoint and vocal lines. Composers of the past used piano reductions not because their mental conception abilities were miniscule compared to yours - no, if you think that, then you are one of the most arrogant, pretentious kids I have ever seen. No, they needed piano reductions because of the vast amount of theory and knowledge it takes to write something coherent and good for orchestra... It requires complete mastery of harmonic and melodic skills. Hearing ideas is not enough, as it is impossible to 1.) hear and visualize something simultaneously in your head, and 2.) hear more than 12 different coherent lines. That may work for a solo instrument, but when you have 16 or more instruments, a piano reduction is necessary.

that said, I think degrees aren't so much what you know as who you know, it can be much easier to get the right connections if you can say you got a yada yada from blah blah while studying under yoohoo. from what Ive seen, Id have to agree that most composers were primarily key players. berlioz was on guitar, I havent heard of others personally. berlioz was one of the great orchestrators and he wasn't a pianist.

You are a pretentious high schooler. You know nothing about this, so why do you go pontificating about some misguided notion that all degrees are about who you know and not what you know? Most composers were piano players not because they played piano first and then starting composition. Rather - they learned composition and piano simultaneously as children. It doesn't matter if you are a piano player.. you can be a great composer as a hurdy-gurdist.

Being a good pianist has nothing to do with orchestration and is actually worse for you. things sound different on piano than orchestrated. It may sound better or worse. how about a fz. in low bassoons vs the same thing on piano? how open a nice open chord on piano vs woodwinds? they sound best closed, normally open harmony in winds is a special effect, most often in p or lower to achieve a 'misty' atmosphere etc.

Again, you sound like a dumb 8 year old. The composer's conception of orchestration comes before the process of writing a reduction. The primary orchestrated components are given cues and placed in their respective ranges. Once the process of expanding begins, lines are given to their idiomatic/most desired ensembles and the cued out portions. Also, I love how you just state these things as facts "they sound best closed, normally open harmony in winds is a speciall effect, most often in p or lower to achieve a misty atmosphere"... I'm sorry, but you're a dumbass.

piano isn't a very good gauge of how things will sound at all. how about lush vibrant hollywood style string writing, or sam barber? doesn't sound too bad on piano, but very unbalanced especially the highs not getting the proper sustain. just be able to imagine things in your head directly for orchestra and then write it down.....that comes with listening, and score reading, and studying orch books, not being able to play altered dominant jazz chords on piano. we have something today called sample libraries, sequencers, and notation software. I can hear almost exactly what harmonies will sound like in real life and in real time, cant do that on piano. its the 21st century. also vibrato, bends, quarter tones and inflections.

No piano isn't a very good gauge of how things will sound.. your MIND is and that is what comes after orchestration. Like I said, it is impossible to write good orchestral music directly from your mind onto the 32 stave score. Have you even studied any orchestral scores? The complexity and independence of parts requires mastery. Sample libraries, sequencers, and notation software can be used to hear what your music will sound like, true, but it is too easy in this era to be stuck in the idea of "playback composition". In other words, write a few notes, hear how it sounds, then keep going. This stymies creativity.. it is much more organic to fiddle around on your primary instrument and hear ideas that you enjoy and take that back to your score for writing.

You have a long way to go as a composer. I would advise learning how to be humble and knowing your place first. No school will accept someone who makes dumb statements like you and tries to say that it is a fact. The first step to learning is having an open mind, and that is what you must work on. Fortunately, all teenagers go through the "I know everything already" phase, so you are not alone. Next, I would advise more study of orchestral scores.. if that is what you are really interested in, then you must know how difficult it is to write something of quality of that magnitude. Finally, learn how to play piano. It's not that hard.

No, it is not. The widespread agreement is that the top 3 best composers ever are Beethoven, Mozart and Bach.

Under what criteria?

In terms of popularity with the audiences, Tchaikovsky should be on the mix, possibly way above Bach and Mozart and in a dead heat with Beethoven. In terms of philosophical depth, Brahms and Mahler should be on the mix alongside with Beethoven (hey, even John Cage is termed as more of a philosopher than a composer!). If it's the creation or perfectioning of "new" musical forms, we've got from Haydn to Schumann to Mussorgsky to Xenakis. In terms of influence over later composers, Berlioz, Wagner, Stravinsky and Schoenberg can lay a legitimate claim alongside with Bach. If the criteria is virtuosistic writing, Liszt, Paganini and Prokofiev are on the table. If it's all about colorful orchestration, Ravel and Bartok own all of the above. And so on...

Now, do the survey 50 years from now, and perhaps we'll see names like Lutoslawski and Messiaen suddenly popping out into the discussion.