What separates a not so great composition teacher from a fantastic one?

I was just thinking about it this morning.

What makes one composition teacher better than another? The music they've written? They're eye for issues in their students and the ability to give constructive advice that the student can use? The number of super students they've turned out? All of the above, none of the above, something else?

I have absolutely no idea and nothing upon to base an answer.

What do you guys think. or better yet, know?

I was just thinking about it this morning.

What makes one composition teacher better than another? The music they've written? They're eye for issues in their students and the ability to give constructive advice that the student can use? The number of super students they've turned out? All of the above, none of the above, something else?

I have absolutely no idea and nothing upon to base an answer.

What do you guys think. or better yet, know?

Simply, teaching someone to create is difficult if not impossible. The best a student can hope for is a good guide who can inspire their development and ultimate independence. One can show a student the tools but their application in a creative process is ultimately with the student. One cannot teach a student their musical style, only help them find it. I always claim to guide students, never teach composition. It takes sensitivity toward interpreting what the student hopes to do; a certain maturity of musical attitude and perhaps an insistence on steering a student away from what it inevitably "not right"!

For a long while the question that concerned me was what makes one composition student more successful (in finding his/her path) than another?

Thanks for your words.

Yes, I can understand that quite well. Your question is a great one as well - what makes one student more successful than another? I wish I knew that. As for teachers - they always say that (and I hate this) "those who can't do, teach." Bah Humbug. However, when it comes to success, is it the most successful (not in terms of money...just talented) composers that become the most successful teachers?

My teacher writes kick donkey music and is just about the nicest person on the planet. He has sent me several "tip tapes" which I have absorbed and it has made my creations become worlds and worlds beyond where I was before I met him....therefore I deem him an absolutely fantastic teacher.

Tip tapes? That's pretty cool!

I'm terrified of my teacher. He has that "mad composer" type look about him, and is always making angry phone calls right before my lesson to competition coordinators that aren't organized. It's kind of funny. I like him so far, but I am always so completely nervewracked before my lessons. Plus, when I get really nervous I forget basic theory and shake when I play the piano.

seriously, though, intimidating.

However, when it comes to success, is it the most successful (not in terms of money...just talented) composers that become the most successful teachers?

I doubt the real geniuses could teach - they never have problems and they're often too single-minded about their work! That's why Beethoven never taught the piano, or Dali and Picasso, art. etc!

Certainly it's possible to teach students techniques that have a ton of rules. Like, you could teach people species counterpoint but for them to apply good musical sense in a modern setting is a different matter.

Have you seen Qccowboy's guidelines in the Techniques forum? His one or two "lessons" are worth their weight, I can tell you!

:(

I'll have to take a gander at those, thanks.

what makes a good teacher is the same thing that makes a good teacher for composition.... and well theres no set formula, its whatever person teaches you the best for the student, and well its not so much about the teacher as it is just about the student-teacher relation... some people prefer angry aggresive teacher who methodically train you, others prefer people who provide you independance and guide you along your path..... it just depends on how your looking at your education, which do you prefer??

Good point, lucid dreamz. I'm definitely the latter sort of student--- at least with musical creation. Piano technique wise I like the former, disciplined sort of education. It is a nice mix! I'm very lucky to have both sorts of teachers!

I agree Lucid, good point. I guess it depends on the preferred learning style of the student.

I like to be raped at my lessons (figuratively, lol). I want a lot of stuff thrown and me and tons of assignments and a lot of criticism. I'll worry about being guided to my own voice when I get past my bachelors at least. I have a tendency to be a dreamer student, ie) someone who if not hammered with foundations early enough will tend to end up struggling later when trying to break free of their own hangups. That's just me personally. I went through that already in another aspect of my life, so I'm not making that mistake again! :)

I am a very skeptical person, so even if I'm being told something by a teacher I always remember that I have to listen to myself in the end. So I'm not worried about being turned into something I don't want to be.

yeah I personally don't mind getting hammered with stuff by a teacher, so long as it has a point to it, as in if you can accomplish what they want they stop hammering you, in that sense its really important because the teacher can push you and motivate you to have higher expectations.... but they need to let you know when you've done well also, and ultimately help guide you onto your musical path.... this is what I think I'd prefer, I had a jazz private lessons teacher who was like this, somedays he'd be really pushy, but it helped me set higher standards, and ultimately he was their to help me get my voice out their, and when I did something good, he'd be nice about it.

True dat.

I had a clarinet teacher who used to hit me with a pencil. That wasn't very productive.

Hmm. It's easier to say what things a not-so-great teacher might do. For one... if a teacher tries to direct you toward or away from a style, that's almost always a sign of *bad* teaching. A good teacher helps you develop your voice, not a facsimile of his/hers.

True dat.

I had a clarinet teacher who used to hit me with a pencil. That wasn't very productive.

lol you have some crazy teachers

hahaha, yeah.

They were all special in their own ways. :)

edit:

then again, I was a very special student, and I DON'T mean that in a necessarily good way.

Hit you with a pencil? I mean, I can understand that there are a few ways that could hurt, but the way I'm imagining wouldn't. It seems more friendly and off-the-cuff than abusive.

sure, sure. Usually it was just to stop me from clenching my hands too much when I was playing.

It's always a joke among his students though, :sadtears:

I like to be raped at my lessons (figuratively, lol). I want a lot of stuff thrown and me and tons of assignments and a lot of criticism.[/b]

But there sounds to be an element of consent there. I'd have said stormed - a boy being musically raped makes their eyes water then they can't see the music paper. Well, that explains Stravinsky's Rite of Spring....

I'll worry about being guided to my own voice when I get past my bachelors at least. I have a tendency to be a dreamer student, ie) someone who if not hammered with foundations early enough will tend to end up struggling later when trying to break free of their own hangups.[/b]

By then it might be too late. I always hope this never becomes a lose-lose situation. If the hammerings of foundations actually works you may have difficulty escpaing them later. They could be the very hangups you have to break from and the dead-weight on your personal style.

So best to drill yourself to accept that most of these foundations are just tools, they aren't the end in itself.

It's certainly possible to teach some musicianship but one can't teach creativity. That's why improvisation can't be taught. You can show people a few things but that's about it. You can help people develop a good inner ear but you can't give them their inner ear.

There were several reasons I gave up "teaching" though I'd never really put my heart into it. Teaching theory became a drudge. In the UK, progress beyond performance grade 5 needs grade 5 theory so many students wanted simply to pass that exam (then they could forget theory forever!) .It's a conveyor-belt.

Teaching rule-bound techniques is fine. Rules were, back in the days of 16th C polyphony, just guidelines to help the aspirant develop good musical taste. Follow them and anyone musically untrained can turn out adequate counterpoint.

But then the academics came along....Whatever anyone thinks, most academic institutions exist to teach the conventional. Remember, Schoenberg got thrown out for what people now learn as standard - serial techniques. Always the way - the revolutionary is nearer the gaol (so to speak) than the professorial chair.

Another more basic issue - my own (main) teacher hammered a couple of principles that finally became stumbling blocks to progress. I still have't got over that. So, suffice it to say that well-intentioned interactions don't always lead to a benficial result even if you think they're the best thing since sliced bread at the time. Thus, "study composition with..." rather than teach or be taught is where it's at, should I "teach" again.

M

montpellier,

thank you for your response.

It's sort of scary isn't it? To find that balance between rigorous work and the simple creative process.

I guess I what I really, really want during the next couple years is to develop a comfort writing for a variety of instruments and being able to express my ideas on paper quickly and with ease - that's all I mean by fundamentals. I simply don't want to be held back by a lack of knowledge about a given instrument and what it can do, and the effect created when it is played in combination with other instruments. As well as I don't want to be held back by having difficulties expressing the ideas on my head on paper.

I'm not depending on my teacher to tell me how to write - he just introduces me to different styles of writing to help me become aware of what's out there already that I might not know about, and encourages me to try to write short ditties in different styles to understand what's out there and what influences me the most as well as what I'd prefer to stay away from. Whatever my ear tells me, basically.

I'll not forget what you said - it's valuable information.

A lot of books cover material you said in this last post that you want to learn. Pick up a good orchestration book - I reccommend Samuel Adler's 'the Study of Ochestration'. With a book like this, you will easily learn the instruments and how they are scored with other instruments, and individual sounds, ranges, colors, etc. Other than that, whatever you learn with a teacher will probably only be by case to case basis, as in you bring in a piece for cello which has a playability problem, and he shows you why that doesn't work, and what you can do to fix it.

What I want in a teacher is perception, experience, and knowledge - in order of importance, from most to least, out of the three. Perception means that he(she) is able to pick up on miniscule details of my composition, so that they are more easily on the same page as I am. My teacher for this past year at Peabody was great at this. He'd notice skillful things I did, things that I didn't even realize were there. He could pick up on patterns so quickly, and he always pointed them out and showed whether they were good or bad. I had a problem of repeating phrases, which were usually short. He showed me to extend those phrases, and gave me countless examples(even writing notes and rhythms down on the page) to work from. The bottom line, I think, is that he gave me so much more to work with - he exposed me to branch from what I did, and exorcized some creativity from me, all through talking about and looking at my music! That's what I want in a teacher.

But, my past teacher's musical style was atonal, pulse-less, and occasionally serial. He never used his music as an example during a lesson of mine, however, because our styles were so completely different. But, that didn't hurt our musical relationship at all. He was open to all ideas (except minimalism, which he assured me would lose my interest in a couple of years...) and didn't impose anything on me.

Anyway, that's what makes a good teacher to me. Being able to see the smallest details and recognize the most convoluted structures is key, having the life experience of composing and working with performers is next, and then having the knowledge on how to implement ideas and how things will work is next. All these traits make a good teacher to me.

I guess I what I really, really want during the next couple years is to develop a comfort writing for a variety of instruments and being able to express my ideas on paper quickly and with ease - that's all I mean by fundamentals. I simply don't want to be held back by a lack of knowledge about a given instrument and what it can do, and the effect created when it is played in combination with other instruments. As well as I don't want to be held back by having difficulties expressing the ideas on my head on paper.

.................he just introduces me to different styles of writing to help me become aware of what's out there already........and encourages me to try to write short ditties in different styles.

Well, you've hit on the mitigating features of learning the basics. The process alone helps develop your ear so you acquire just the facility you speak of - using the tools to express yourself - as long as they don't overbear. I certainly accord with your latter comments - versatility seems important - you'll surely get more commissions or at least invitations to write if you can adapt to a range of situations.

I also agree with Nicktoven re self-study and particularly of scores. This is the shortest route to learning what works and not in orchestration. It may seem difficult at first, constructing the sound of a page of score mentally but perseverence and taking things easily at first reaps miles of benefits. If you haven't already, start with simple scores - string quartets, frinstance.

You might get away with just experiment - easier now that computer software is available but don't be bluffed by it! You'll hear examples here where the composer has tweaked something to make it sound nice where it wouldn't work in real life.

Good luck.

M

If you haven't already, start with simple scores - string quartets, frinstance.

Exactly what I'm working on currently!

Yeah, I've made the grave mistake in the past of trying to take on too much too early. Besides, I'm finding that a string quartet, specifically, is the hardest thing ever. I'm having anxiety from writing it this week. :D Sometimes I wish I played a string instrument so I had a better feeling for what I've read/heard during my studies (bowings, articulations, the colors of different strings, etc) but I guess my comfort level will increase with experience. Still, whew! evil strings. Love-hate relationship for me right now. I'm actually glad I have some guidance from a teacher for this one.

[later upon getting over writers block again: actually, string quartets rock!!! Still, harrrd]