Discouraging budding composers

On one hand, I agree. On the other, if you suck once, you suck all the time. Don't get their hopes up and then they don't accomplish anything, because if somebody bashes them, they have a reason to, and are sure they will not go anywhere. If you encourage really bad composers, they'll think they're good, and then they're dreams will be crashed when they don't get into like Oberlin, because someone lied to them they're whole life. Be honest, and straight, and frank.

Perhaps you are right in the case of people who have career goals in music. If however they are amateurs and are satisfied with the crappy music they make---there's really no good reason to discourage such a person. Actually, having read tumababa's quote I take that back. It seems to me that most everyone's early music sucks...that is when a composer needs the most encouragement anyway. I found my current mentor, with whom I still correspond via email, when I was very early on in my experience. He gave me a ton of encouragement, and very very gentle criticism...my music has improved by leaps and bounds. I really think discouraging anyone is wrong, no matter how crappy someone's music is. If you heard my earliest tapes you'd probably think I had no talent whatsoever---but my mentor thought otherwise and NOW listen to me! Not that I'm THAT great or anything, but i'm WORLDS, WORLDS beyond where I was.

If you don't want to pursue music, fine, be babied. If you are serious about composing, don't expect everyone to be the fairy godmother to you.

Well said man.

No really if someone sucks then I am just going to ignore them. I will leave it up to everyone else to tell them. I mean really, I know when I hate something and to some of you I will tell you when you suck....but as for the people just starting out it's not my job.

I still have this problem today....my two best friends both play cello. One of them is a virtuoso, the other is mediocre in technical facility and pocesses no musical gift whatsoever. He thinks he is good. It disgusts me. But I am not going to tell him he sucks. It's not my job.

I'm against that. A person should always know where they stand. I believe you should tell a person something they did well and something they did poorly. They must always know they can improve.

I agree completely. It's important for people to know where their piece stands. You just need to be careful when criticizing it, because it's too easy to emphasize the bad more than it should be.

I agree completely. It's important for people to know where their piece stands. You just need to be careful when criticizing it, because it's too easy to emphasize the bad more than it should be.

If there is more bad then the bad will be emphasized more. It cannot really be helped unless you beat around the bush.

Can we just settle on "Be honest but don't be an arrogant, insensitive dick?"

I agree completely. It's important for people to know where their piece stands. You just need to be careful when criticizing it, because it's too easy to emphasize the bad more than it should be.

On the other hand, criticism can be a terribly subjective thing to the point where someone might say something in your music is bad, when in fact they are merely voicing their opinion. I don't think there's an objective "bad" in music. Music consists entirely of mores and lesses, I think. So, if a certain work exhibits less of pretty much every imaginable musical dimension, I suppose that could be construed as bad...that doesn't mean that such music shouldn't be written though.

Can we just settle on "Be honest but don't be an arrogant, insensitive dick?"

Sure, but I'm glad I've sparked a big discussion about this. It is an important topic, because if we all think carefully about how we review others' works, this site can ultimately become more productive and do what it is supposed to do even better.

If there is more bad then the bad will be emphasized more. It cannot really be helped unless you beat around the bush.

True, I meant when there's an extreme emphasis on the bad, when there actually is some good things going on. There are some cases where there is very little good indeed.

On the other hand, criticism can be a terribly subjective thing to the point where someone might say something in your music is bad, when in fact they are merely voicing their opinion. I don't think there's an objective "bad" in music. Music consists entirely of mores and lesses, I think. So, if a certain work exhibits less of pretty much every imaginable musical dimension, I suppose that could be construed as bad...that doesn't mean that such music shouldn't be written though.

You must blend honesty and opinions at some point when criticizing. Bad can be objective, like horribly clashing notes and impossible-to-play parts, but it could also be a stylistic opinion. It takes tact when reviewing to know what to review.

Bad can be objective, like horribly clashing notes and impossible-to-play parts

Perhaps the composer in question is writing a composition only for the computer to play and likes clashing notes? Haha---I'm not saying *I* like that manner of composition but I'm sure there are people out there who do!

Well, follow this basic model. Only review music that style resemble your own. If you do not know much about jazz, avoid it. If you hate atonal, don't bother. You'll have a better chance to write a fair review if the music is in the style in which you feel comfortable in.

Well, follow this basic model. Only review music that style resemble your own. If you do not know much about jazz, avoid it. If you hate atonal, don't bother. You'll have a better chance to write a fair review if the music is in the style in which you feel comfortable in.

Good rule of thumb to stick by.

Well, follow this basic model. Only review music that style resemble your own. If you do not know much about jazz, avoid it. If you hate atonal, don't bother. You'll have a better chance to write a fair review if the music is in the style in which you feel comfortable in.

I actually agree with this - sometimes I feel pressure to review a certain thing but I don't really know how to review it because I'm not familiar with subgenre or a specific structure the piece is supposed to be following...often I'll just not review it if I don't have anything in particular to say that's helpful...maybe some people don't like that but I don't like to just be like "I didn't like that." It's easier for me to criticize something if I feel like I actually CAN, CONSTRUCTIVELY. So, yeah. I might break this rule on occasion, but it's really darned hard for me to make comments [edit: NEGATIVE COMMENTS] on music that I know little about.

Perhaps the composer in question is writing a composition only for the computer to play and likes clashing notes? Haha---I'm not saying *I* like that manner of composition but I'm sure there are people out there who do!

In which case, when the reviewer say it's unplayable, the composer can feel free to make clear (if he/she has not already) that it is intended for the computer only. I think it's generally safe to assume the composer is not the next Conlon Nancarrow, and I don't think a budding Nancarrow would be the slightest bit offended by "this is unplayable".

Can we just settle on "Be honest but don't be an arrogant, insensitive dick?"

Well said! Those who do not abide by this principle harm themselves as well as others; I doubt extreme criticism boosts people's popularity in any way, even if it is truthful. There are such things as tact and politeness.

I actually agree with this - sometimes I feel pressure to review a certain thing but I don't really know how to review it because I'm not familiar with subgenre or a specific structure the piece is supposed to be following...often I'll just not review it if I don't have anything in particular to say that's helpful...maybe some people don't like that but I don't like to just be like "I didn't like that." It's easier for me to criticize something if I feel like I actually CAN, CONSTRUCTIVELY. So, yeah. I might break this rule on occasion, but it's really darned hard for me to make comments [edit: NEGATIVE COMMENTS] on music that I know little about.

In the absence of a score there isn't much else to do but say whether you liked it or not; whether it evoked a certain mood (maybe - things like fugues don't often*); and your reaction to the structure - was it too short, too long, the ending too abrupt? Did it sound balanced? Too unvarying (particularly in dynamics and texture).

If it's an orchestral piece you might just pick up something in the scoring if your ear is attuned but you need a score to make a detailled comment.

I still think commenting on an unfamiliar genre is worthwhile, if only to broaden one's musical horizons just a little.

M

I think another thing that ought to be avoided on this site is elitism on the part of academically trained composers. Some of these people seem to feel entitled to being high and mighty about their learning. In my opinion, the only thing a composer should ever be judged on is the sound of their music. If it moves you, it is good. If it does not move you, it is obviously lacking something at least subjectively. Sometimes I find when listening to a beginner or intermediate composer that it perhaps doesn't move me intensely, but I can hear passages and moments in their music which to me points to great potential. Whenever I spot these I let them know about it and encourage them.

Just say what I say to those people

"gently caress you, no one cares"

I assume you meant this is what you say to the academic elitists I mentioned.

Sometimes I find when listening to a beginner or intermediate composer that it perhaps doesn't move me intensely, but I can hear passages and moments in their music which to me points to great potential. Whenever I spot these I let them know about it and encourage them.

I agree: recognizing potential, or talent (or whatever you want to call it), and encouraging the composer - despite areas in the music that may seem awkward or lacking (or whatever you want to call it), is an important part of what this site is about.

I think another thing that ought to be avoided on this site is elitism on the part of academically trained composers. Some of these people seem to feel entitled to being high and mighty about their learning. In my opinion, the only thing a composer should ever be judged on is the sound of their music. If it moves you, it is good. If it does not move you, it is obviously lacking something at least subjectively. [/b]

But what about objectively? What about parts that are impossible to play; what about flutes playing a low C that will never be heard during a fortissimo orchestral passage; what about excessive use of parallelisms when writing a fugue? What about choral arrangements that don

or 4)I want to go suck a nut

I agree: recognizing potential, or talent (or whatever you want to call it), and encouraging the composer - despite areas in the music that may seem awkward or lacking (or whatever you want to call it), is an important part of what this site is about.

But what about objectively? What about parts that are impossible to play; what about flutes playing a low C that will never be heard during a fortissimo orchestral passage; what about excessive use of parallelisms when writing a fugue? What about choral arrangements that don

For Chrissake, let me rephrase that: Don't tell people they're good if they're not. My old music sucked too, but not while I was writing it, neither was yours. And to those composers who aren't very good, it's not bad to them either, but you need to be straight with them.

I agree with you completely! But what I'm trying to communicate to you is that saying things like "If you suck once, you will always suck" is just the absolute worst way to go about constructive criticism.

I've tried for a long time to see how & why part writing rules and other academic compositional stuff really has an affect on how musical something is and I don't understand it. I don't see how it has any affect on musicality whatsoever---this is why I gravitate more and more to a position of nearly absolute subjectivity of musical response and to respond only to the sound of something. I would qualify the above paragraph by saying that I recognize common-practice era theory is a fine thing to learn if you wish to perfectly emulate Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, etc. (an admirable goal in itself) But if your goal is to develop a personal voice, you are free to build your own musical world and disregard all precedents and rules and theory.

The academic side DOES help a little. I found that the four part writing excercises were especially to me. Issues like chord balance, keeping each line interesting, and most importantly keeping each line singable were things I had to deal with. Two years of diatonic ii-V-Is which I have still yet to use in my music helped me become more literate in the language/art/religion of music

I'm not disparaging those who have found it useful. I have had classes in part writing and have studied it myself, and it hasn't seemed to have an effect positive or negative on the music I write...it made me better at writing 4 part chorales in an old school style, though...haha

Heh... Yeah but have you ever had a choral piece of yours(Not a dinky four parter in Bach's style. Something of YOURS) performed by a real choir? Doing the four part thing gives you a really good feel for the ranges and stuff that I described above. It also makes you more fluent in the vanilla skill of analysis. I can read a score WAY more fluently after schooling than before...