How to start

So I want to be a composer and a pianist. I know all the basics, intervals, part-writing, melodic writing, but I don't know where to go from here. Should I try to find a composition teacher? Should I try and take courses at a college, I'm 16 years old by the way. Right now most of my time is devoted to practicing the piano, usually eight hours a day, because I don't want to move on with theory until I can work with a teacher.

Any help would be appreciated.

Just sit down at your piano, improvise, and write down what comes out. The more formal you make it, the less it'll be like art - you'll lose the essence of composition.

The fact is, there is no "way" to do it. Some people like to go slow and by the book, others (like me) prefer to just jump in and correct mistakes on the fly. Both have their advantages, but I find that it's much easier to develop your own distinct "voice" when you do things by experience.

Take your pick and dive in :thumbsup:

The thing is I definiately want to take a more formal approach with a teacher, so that I can learn every thing correctly. I plan on going to a music conservatory and if I don't know my stuff then I won't do as well as most of the other kids.

P.S. I write stuff now that doesn't exactly follow the rules, because I know the rules I'm breaking. I mean you can't break the rules until you know them, right?

One thing you haven't said you do : LISTENING TO MUSIC - lots and lots of them, of various genres. Ideas do not come to anybody from thin air. We derive them subconsciously from our memory. And listening is a serious activity - I am not talking about listening while reading the newspaper!

Listening is a great idea.

It is obvious you have the desire to compose, and that you already have started to attempt some compositions of your own. This is good. Continue to do this.

It is also good that you want to start studying it more 'formally' -- but if this formal study is going to keep you from being able to compose freely, and being able to break the rules as you now do, then do not study it formally. Period.

Composition is such a strange thing because it is so rarely studied directly. Yes, a private instructor is essential in this regard; a good instructor will give you short assignments that will help sharpen your musical sensibilities and hone your craft. But even without a teacher there is so much you can do.

Listening to scores as I said is #1. But there are also the separate musical aspects of harmony (both traditional and modern), orchestration, counterpoint, and so on, and for these there are valuable books out there that you can use. It's also necessary to have a very good ear, so ear-training and sight-singing will help you as well. Also, read about the famous composers -- biographies, or essays they wrote, or anything similar -- and this will help you to get into the minds of the great composers that have come before you.

What I've laid out could already encompass years of study. Just remember that you have to start somewhere, and that there is absolutely no wrong place to start or wrong way of going about it.

I am going to contradict those who say "don't study it formally".

It's completely untrue that formal study stops you from being free with your composition, or that it ties you down or restricts what you do.

I composed "freely" before having any formal compositional training (when I was 14-16), and what I wrote at the time was terrible. I thought it was great then... but now I look back at it and understand that I just did not master the craft enough to truly render what I had in mind.

When I started strict formal training in composition, I found the adjustment difficult, but then, as I started to understand the principles and get my mind around the various techniques, I found that I was regaining that fluidity and facility.

WHile I was composing "freely" before my training, I had lots of huge ideas for double fugues and massive symphonies, and I struggled with the ideas and had difficulty getting them on paper, simply because I didn't fully understand them nor the necessary techniques to pull them off. And I can assure you that listening to music is NOT what is going to make you understand it.

The first 10 years of formal training are difficult, and they're torturous and boring. Bu then, you break free from it, and all of it becomes clear. All those things that you struggled with before suddenly become so obvious. You don't HAVE to struggle with them. And you find the clarity to create the works you WANT to create, without relying entirely on improvisation and noodling at the piano.

I DO noodle around at the piano when I'm starting a new work. I like to improvise to get an idea of what sort of material I want to be playing with. But when it's time to start the serious composing, I sit down and structure my work, I write down my material and develop it, I write multiple variations on each idea to get exactly the right one. And I KNOW where the music is going to go. I KNOW where the harmony will lead. I KNOW how I will develop my thematic material. It doesn't mean I have lost all spontaneity. I've kept that, but at least now it's under my control, rather than controlling my musical output.

Musical spontaneity should be integrated into your creative process. It shouldn't be the entirety of that process.

Of course, there's also more than one way to learn the "rules". I did it from books, reading as I went while I was composing my first piece, and also spending a lot of time listening and studying scores. I think I'm as well-versed in the technical aspect of composing as anyone else (my biggest problem is actually that I'm not creative enough, especially with rhythm - I end up ironically sounding like someone who's had a whole lot of formal training but lacks spontaneity). All the techniques you need to learn are already well documented in existing literature.

Whether you end up finding a teacher or not, know that the most that a teacher can do is guide your study; either way, you're probably still going to gain most of your understanding of composition by listening and studying scores.

I agree with most of the above and want to add one more thing.

When you do start to compose and you play around with some themes etc. Know your limits, don't say: Oh I love opera let me write my own. Because with each incomplete piece you might get more frustrated and you could think you are no good at this. Start with small pieces, begin writing a small piece for piano, than a collection of pieces for piano, then write a piece for piano and say flute. And with each piece extend your limits just a little, look back what you have done and next time do something slightly bigger.

This is just the way I see it. It might be wrong but I have several proofs.

There's a great book by the great Arnold Schoenberg on composition. Extremely valuable for everybody. Contains hundreds of examples.

The more formal you make it, the less it'll be like art - you'll lose the essence of composition.

What an idiotic thing to say. The sooner you break out of that mindset the better, if you are interested in Western composition. Western composition involves a craft work which is based on study of the art.

Without study your set of compositional resources is bascially nonexistent. You are guessing, and you have no clue what you are doing, and whatever you do will revolve around a set of narrow and recurring boundaries.

As you start to learn formal harmony you will realize what a small world you were meddling in when you were composing "freely" or "informally". I don't see how this notion of study detracting from spontaneity can really be. If anything It's a real waste of spontaneity not to study, if you possess the gift of musical creativity. Study essentially provides you more than anything with a set of resources and an understanding of their use. Study provides refinement and magnification of art in every way. I pity those people who honestly believe a lazy and "spontaneous" mind will provide the "more genuine" art.

Musical spontaneity should be integrated into your creative process. It shouldn't be the entirety of that process.

I like this quote.

Well said.

The more formal you make it, the less it'll be like art - you'll lose the essence of composition.

I find it so interesting that ANYONE could have the idea that formal study could somehow remove the "art" from your art!!!!

How exactly would one "lose the essense of composition" by thoroughly understanding the workings of its techniques and langauges?

Is this to mean that only self-taught artists (of any discipline) are really "artists"? Do you, somehow, believe that all teh great artists of the past eschewed formal training?

I'd be very interested in hearing about all these artists who were entirely self-taught. How about a list of composers who did not go through formal training?

No, I didn't mean it to that degree; I'm simply saying that the more you try to fit your composition to strict format and adhere to archaic stereotypes, the less original you can be.

Being educated in what you do is always a good thing, I just don't think that it should define and limit the way you create music.

No, I didn't mean it to that degree; I'm simply saying that the more you try to fit your composition to strict format and adhere to archaic stereotypes, the less original you can be.

Being educated in what you do is always a good thing, I just don't think that it should define and limit the way you create music.

Being "educated", or rather what I prefer to call "formal training" will never "define and limit" ANYTHING of what you do.

The only time you will feel limited is when you start your formal training.. and that is the exact reason WHY you will feel limited - you have only just begun. One or two years of harmony, or counterpoint, or piano, or ANY training, is not enough to say "I have the craft necessary".

Besides, during your formative years you should not expect to be composing your greatest masterpieces. You should be concentrating on learning that craft.

On the other hand, regarding your "defining and limiting" comment, NOT having training, or not enough training, will most definatley define and limit the way you create music. There is nothing to admire of somone who is self-taught. Talent without craft is only part of the equation. It is like a woman who has ONLY beauty... her beauty will fade in time, and she will be left with nothing.

To be a composer with only talent, but no craft, means that one day you will come up against the limits of your talent. You will not have the technical baggage necessary to pull off what your talent demands of you.

And for all the good that reading books and studying scores can give, you will never learn the way you can with a good teacher. A good teacher will see your weaknesses. A book won't. A good teacher will show you alternatives. A score won't. A good teacher will push you in the right direction and make you see other directions you might never have thought of looking in.

Well I'm sure that you're right, I was just expressing my point of view. If only I had access to a composition teacher I'm sure I would come to understand what you mean.

Until then though, having experienced the Royal Conservatory of Music's method for teaching, I can say with all the confidence one can expect from a 16-year-old that at least in some cases, formal training kills the art.

Well I'm sure that you're right, I was just expressing my point of view. If only I had access to a composition teacher I'm sure I would come to understand what you mean.

Until then though, having experienced the Royal Conservatory of Music's method for teaching, I can say with all the confidence one can expect from a 16-year-old that at least in some cases, formal training kills the art.

yes, I'm well aware of 16-yr olds' propensity for saying things with confidence.

I can, from the standpoint of a musical professional almost three times your age, tell you that you are wrong in this belief. Formal training does nothing to "kill the art".

However, I can add with equal certitude, that a hostile attitude towards one's teachers CAN kill the learning experience. The more you go into a course with the attitude that you know better than the teacher, or that you have more talent than the teacher, or whatever ego-boosting belief you might have, the less you will actually HEAR of what that teacher has to say. And many times, the student's attitude stops him from hearing some invaluable information that could end up saving both time and energy at a later date.

I know, I was there. I was a child prodigy. And jeeze, were my old fogey teachers full of it! They knew nothing! I was a GREAT musician. And I passed up some incredible opportunities to actually LEARN things that I ended up having to re-learn 20 years later. How much music could I have composed in those intervening years, between my failed beginnings at formal training, and my eventual completion of effective, efficient, formal training?

I recognize that you are superior to me in terms of your experience and knowledge; I never held any pretenses of being more intelligent or knowing more or anything like that towards you or anyone else. The stereotyping is unnecessary and not appreciated.

In classes, I always endeavour to learn the most I can - I have not ever gone into a class with the mentality of knowing more than my teacher; it's nonsensical and counter-productive and I recognize that.

I was not actually referring to me with the teachers, I meant it about a good number of my friends who were pianists, forced into learning with teachers who made it so that by the time their training was complete, each and every one of them absolutely hated playing the instrument. That's what I meant about it killing the art - in some circumstances it can kill the joy that one takes in creating the music, and there can be no greater shame for a musician. Those that did continue on playing were also amusingly limited in their abilities; while they are absolutely brilliant pianists, able to play any piece of music I put in front of them right off the bat, they are completely lost when I remove the music and tell them to just "play". It is sad to see that kind of thing and I wish for their sake that their teachers had allowed for their learning to branch off into those areas as well instead of pressuring them with rigid ideals which are ridiculously subjective.

Well, other than with sheet music in front of me, I've always been pretty bad at "just play"-ing. It has nothing to do with my formal training. It's always been that way. I don't think I'm amusingly bad, or lacking in talent. My musical mind just doesn't flow in that direction.

I think the people you see around you losing the "fun" could be going through mid-adolescence, which tends to suck the fun out of life also. Most people go through their pseudo-goth period somewhere between 12 and 18. I don't honestly think it has anything to do with the way they were taught.

I've known innumerable people who have gone through rigorous training in the arts (music, theatre, dance) and some lost their appetite for the arts during their teen years, others never lost anything. I don't think you can blame their learning environment for that. It just may seem that way to you.

The teen years ARE difficult. They have always been difficult. It's nothing new to the 21st century. There are major hormonal changes in the body, and major physical changes happening as well. Being between childhood and adulthood makes for a very confusing time. I certainly lay no blame there.

The problem with Western Classical training is that you are most of the time playing something written by others, e.g., Beethoven or Chopin. The musician can very well be replaced by a MIDI track - ask any Hollywood music director. The word "improvisation" is just not there in the syllabus. I read a great book by Aron Copland where he feels pity for the triangle players and the likes who just have to play their parts for merely a few seconds in a large orchestral work. Such musician's are reduced to an ordinary clerk. Their are hundreds of thousands of such musicians . They do not even aspire to compose anything. They just get payed to play what has been played thousands of time by thousands of others in thousands of concerts.