Discouraging budding composers

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.[/b]

I partially agree. But I also admit that attention to the technical side (harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, was of benefit to me as far as I can tell (in that I can't tell how I'd've developed in the absence of the same study).

It has the potential to increase one's awareness of what one's doing - harmony, frinstance: laying out chords to obtain a desired effect (particularly in an orchestral setting), tidying up loose ends - not leaving notes just hanging (unless one wants to) - which leads to...controlling what one is doing.

Progressions: facilitating knowledge of getting from a to b, that, with the best will in the world, can get clumsy if writing tonally (diatonic/chromatic) working from intuition only....

Generally it helps develop good musical taste and inner ear. It allows a student selectivity.

When it comes to orchestration, books give information and local examples, but as Leightwing says, it won't necessarily make a new composer aware of the idiosyncracies of instruments playing in orchestral situations. Given the difficulties of obtaining competent live performances of student's works these days, that can save tracts of time and disappointment - more so now with samplers where it's too easy to "adjust" things to sound balanced when they'd be unworkable in actual performance...

The rest is practice.

Of course there's the genius to whom this is all intuitive. But how many Mozarts and Beethovens are there? One in ten million? The rest of us have to work.

So I'll agree that technical study doesn't guarantee a "better" composer - in fact it can have the opposite effect... but it can help.

Emulating Bach, Mozart etc, is easier for those who understand the rules of those eras but for others the same rules were merely a quicker route to understand what we were trying to do.

So yes, my main problem is with people who say things like: *I* am serious about composition but *YOU* are a mere AMATEUR. SNEEEEER. I hate people like that. lol

I'm dead against people using the word amateur in a derogatory sense, just as "professional" gives me a problem - to me a professional is someone who has been certificated, and whose conduct and ethics is governed, by a professorial body.

M

And EVERYONE can improve.

I'm looking at you, Ravel. Oh, wait, you're dead.

Mozart and Beethoven had to work. Not as much, but, still. Most great composers were just born with it. But not all of them. Schumann and Brahms had to work hard, they weren't child prodigies, but they manifested their emotions and learned. And EVERYONE can improve. Even Mozart and Beethoven.

I agree with you Nico. Mozart actually did say once, and I quote: "I write music like cows piss!". In spite of that, he was very proud of his work, and he worked quite a bit. You can also trace his development through his compositions (Albeit even his sonatina opus 1 is better than anything I can write). I think he would have liked to be remembered as a gifted musician who earned his accolades through hard work.

Beethoven was known to be an obsesive-compulsive workaholic. He was never pleased with his own worked and was always revising. He was also quite aware of his strenghths and weaknesses. He throughout his whole life he had been trying to write a "decent fugue". I don't feel so bad that my own fugues suck (even though his "worst" fugues are probably still great....)

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

okay!

(sorry I didn't have more to say, I just wanted to acknowledge your response! ;) )

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.[/b]

Mozart and Beethoven had to work. Not as much, but, still. Most great composers were just born with it. But not all of them. Schumann and Brahms had to work hard, they weren't child prodigies, but they manifested their emotions and learned. And EVERYONE can improve. Even Mozart and Beethoven.

Make up your mind, man. >_<

Mozart and Beethoven had to work. Not as much, but, still. Most great composers were just born with it. But not all of them. Schumann and Brahms had to work hard, they weren't child prodigies, but they manifested their emotions and learned. And EVERYONE can improve. Even Mozart and Beethoven.

Pur-LEEEZE!

I didn't say they didn't have to work!

(Oh boy, these misquotes.) :mellow: :P

The discussion was about the benefits of a technical understanding of music. Mozart was composing his first opera at the age of 11, no? Somewhen around then, anyway. Wasn't he composing at the age of 6? Well, I doubt he'd got his diploma at the R.A.M at that age... so I'd say he had an intuitive grasp of what others regard of the technicalities behind music.

Beethoven...well, he pushed musical boundaries so far forward no way could he have studied intricacies that became his music. He invented stuff that the academics latched onto when they caught up.

All those you quote, by the way, had partially (at least) attained fame through performance by the time they emerged as composers.

M

Make up your mind, man. >_<

I would agree with zyphyr here.... I apologize if I seem like I'm on your case, but you're supposed to be one of

the "official" reviewers are you not?

What's up with you man?

In fact, it may make you a good one.

By the way, this is off topic, but relevant to the Mozart comments. I once heard a professor (Robert Greeberg) explain Mozart's musical development in "Mozart" years. He said that since Mozart was such an oddity by starting his compositions so young, we should just add 20 years to all his compositions for perspective. I think it makes a lot of sense. His frist piano sonatina was at age 6, so for us mere mortals, that would make 26. His first opera "mitridate" was at age 12, so 32... Works well to understand his development.

You don't get it do you, Canzano? It wasn't the fact that he could compose but more that he innovated. All the four people you talk about compose in the exact same style as Mozart but have had (as you said before) 200+ years of evolving music to incorperate in their own. It is almost impossible nowadays to be a genial composer nowadays unless you make music that people will listen to. We, as classical composers in this age, are not going to become great; we are too far behind the times to gain any recognition. Sorry to tell you that but, it's just how it is.

He's talking about Mozart's younger works. Maybe it is me misunderstanding them in a historical context but they weren't very innovative.

His late works got pretty wild.

You don't get it do you, Canzano? It wasn't the fact that he could compose but more that he innovated. All the four people you talk about compose in the exact same style as Mozart but have had (as you said before) 200+ years of evolving music to incorperate in their own. It is almost impossible nowadays to be a genial composer nowadays unless you make music that people will listen to. We, as classical composers in this age, are not going to become great; we are too far behind the times to gain any recognition. Sorry to tell you that but, it's just how it is.

In addition, there are tens of thousands of people alive today who are as talented or more talented perhaps than Mozart. We have idolized Mozart to the point of believing all our modern attempts are crap, which is of course false. The only reason none of us become famous is because 1) it is not fashionable, classical music is an anachronism 2) there are far too many of us.

However, these facts mean something else. The common man, today, can truly be his own personal Beethoven. Personally, I think this is a far, far better state of affairs than having a few isolated extremely lucky individuals become GREAT composers. If you had the choice between living a comfortable, healthy, long life of happiness AND composing music, or being a drunkard, die at 36 and then become GREAT posthumously...what would YOU choose?

In conclusion I think it is silly for anyone to desire "greatness."

What about plain ol' "goodness"?

Personally, I don't find Mozart's younger work too impressive at all. I know maybe 4 people on here who were his age and can write much better than he could...at that age, of course. But let's not forget we have 200 years more music to listen/learn from.

This can only be a subjective opinion, because I have no idea what you're talking about. Names and examples? If this is true, I sure haven't heard it.

You want unimpressive considering his age/skill ratio, look at Haydn's early symphonies, written when he was in his late 20s. Mozart's first symphony, for example, written when he was 9 years old, stands up favourably to the work of most if not all the adult composers who were working in the genre at the time. It does everything a symphony was expected to do in 1765 and more, on top of which it was composed by a child barely above the age of reason. I haven't heard anything nearly that impressive on this site.

What about plain ol' "goodness"?

a fine goal.

Personally, I don't find Mozart's younger work too impressive at all. I know maybe 4 people on here who were his age and can write much better than he could...at that age, of course. But let's not forget we have 200 years more music to listen/learn from.

I do believe that Mozart is often "deified", and I don't think that is appropriate. At the same time, he is without a doubt my favorite comperser. That's why I think the whole "add 20 years" thing is useful. It brings him down to earth.

Also, I maintain that even his first work is brilliant. It's not incredibly original, but it's brilliant. If you've ever played that sonatina, you may understand what I mean. It's incredibly clean. The harmony is very complimentary, and the form develops just as it should. Even though it's not busy, and the texture is light, the harmony is implicitly clear at all times. I can't imagine any 6 year old that could write like that, and whatever style we write in, we should all strive to write with such clarity and directness.

I think the add 20 years thing is stupid. I don't understand why it's 20 years. He didn't start composing 20 years before most of the rest of us. I don't understand it, and it doesn't make sense. Give Britney Spears 20 years, and she'll never be Mozart :P (that was just a joke).

Next thing: Derek - I think you either don't actually understand why Mozart was great, or you severely underestimate him. But then again - I'm wrong of course!

Next thing: I agree with Lee. Nico - you also underestimate Mozart. His early works (except the very earliest 5 year old ones) are damn near perfect. They may be slight, and the style may be antiquated compared to his later works, but they show an incredible skill at composition.

Music is so much about form, and not just about the superficial language.. this leads to alot of misconceptions.

Last point: Yea, I think Mozart is sometimes deified too, but that belies the fact(i'll pay for saying that) that he actually was incredibly talented.

I haven't given reasons for some things here, but they're common/obvious enough, and they'd just be argued against anyway.

Edit: one last thing - Derek - if so many tens of thousands of people are and have been as (or more) talented than Mozart, then why don't we often see pieces with as incredibly complex and musically brilliant writing as the Jupiter finale? Bearing in mind Mozart was, what - 32 when he wrote it? And he died at ~35, when a composer today can hope to live to 70.

Please don't try to say counterpoint is irrelevant, lol. Maybe you think that, but most composers don't. (No, I haven't asked them - it's in their work)

i'm not disparaging mozart or his greatness nor do I deny it. I am just saying there are so many massively talented people today, it is impossible for only a handful of these people to stand out in quite the same way mozart did. therefore, it is more sensible for us to each consider ourselves our own personal beethoven as it were rather than concerning ourselves with trying to be "better" than others.

To put it another way,I refuse to believe that Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and others were the only composers in all of history with that level of talent...as though the human race has de-volved since then or some such nonsense. Of course that isn't true. There are simply more of us now.

this lends further credence, to return to the topic of the thread, to my position that we ought not to discourage budding composers. if they don't become career composers then they will just enjoy writing music as amateurs---even if the music they write isn't very good, they are enjoying themsleves being absorbed in something totally harmless and creative. Such an endeavor should always be encouraged and never discouraged.

Actually, from my knowledge of history (which admittedly is very imcomplete), it seems like people were "more" talented at the time of Mozart. That period was called the enlightenment, because there was an emmerging middle class that demanded the same comforts that used to be reserved for the nobility.

The nobility and this new middle class considered music to be very important. Not just for their entertaiment, but knowing how to play and understand music was part of their social-class expectations. EVERYONE studied an instrument. Not just like the people today that take band to fill up their school schedules. They REALLY studied it for the most part. And they all understood the music that they listened to. If you ask an average concert goer today to explain a symphony, they will say that it's a long orchestra piece. An average concert goer at the time probably knew the key relatinoship between the primary themes, what happens during a development section, etc...

I can't help but think there were at least as many talented musicians then as now.

Correction: YOU are not going to become great. Ligeti, who JUST DIED, is already famous, and being written in Great Composer books. You're wrong. You can't shatter all of my hopes and dreams with one sentence. I'll show you..

Hehe, the beauty of it is, Nico, you'll never know if he was right or not. None of us will know how our music will be remembered after death, if at all, and fame is but a fleeting moment.

Correction: YOU are not going to become great. Ligeti, who JUST DIED, is already famous, and being written in Great Composer books. You're wrong. You can't shatter all of my hopes and dreams with one sentence. I'll show you..

*sigh*

That competative spirit is eventually going to poison your love of music. Fame is both a fleeting moment and a trap. Attaining it won't give you true happiness. Mark those words when you do achieve it, since it is likely you may.

Nico if you need science to prove heaven, then you won't get in.

Correction: YOU won't be able to know. You're an atheist. Heaven doesn't exist to you. There is some scientific evidence of Heaven, but I don't want to get into that. It's nowhere near proven yet anyway.

Fool, I'm clearly agnostic. Make sure your statements are correct first. I believe I've stated that quite clearly.

If you cannot even get my views correct, then it is pointless to retort. You're wasting your time, because it's obvious you have false information.

well, not going to rain on everyone's parade, but I think a person could easily get their inspiration for a piece by listening to this argument...

Oh, and I don't think any of us really know who's going to get into heaven or not.

Really? I always feel like the people on this board are good at not being to harsh. I realize often that my music is terrible compared to the others, but no ones mentionned it to me yet.

And also, just to make this clear, we had a discussion on this whole religious thing a long time ago. And really now, I dont think we need it again. I know I dont have the right to say this, but if you want to have a religious bash, do it in the proper thread.