# Getting pieces played?



## yogibearjmy

So who has any advice on helpful ways to go about getting your pieces played?

I am not currently enrolled in a music program--so those days of musicians are not necessarily at my disposal anymore.

I've tried contacting department heads at music programs asking if they had students they could recommend to workshop pieces of my music, with little to no response.

Advice? What worked for composers out there that didn't necessarily already have a foot in the door?


Thanks!


----------



## Musician

If you can invest some cash, you can make a quick search on Craigslist , there are many many very talented young musicians who are looking to perform music for a fee. Many times they can even offer you to use their college music hall free of charge, and you can just record the pieces there instead of paying for a studio. I recently had a project that needed 4 singers, it was a work written for four voices, was able to finalize the project for $1250. 

If you don't want to spend money on this, you can ask for musicians who are ready to do this for free, will take longer to find, but it's possible.


----------



## Tomposer

I believe this is a very important question and I often pontificate about it. Making some effort here begins a snowball effect. But it takes effort.

* You will immediately become less mediocre if you challenge yourself to get your music played. In fact I believe you stop developing as a composer of instrumental music if you're entirely uninvolved with performance.

This is because:

a) it is much less easy to make self justifications, when experienced players (often creative people) are involving themselves with your work.

b) You will begin to write more selflessly. It becomes less about "your" melodies, and "your" harmonies, and more about what works for a particular instrument and performer. You learn that a performer makes your music sound good, not solely your sage-like choice of notes. You learn how an audience responds to the movement and mannerisms of a performer. These are all extremely important and cannot be learned properly any other way.

* As your music improves with relation to those items above, more performers become interested - this is the snowball effect I mentioned. Performers aren't simply interested in music which is supposedly good. They are also interested in music which works well for their instrument, which is performable, and which an audience responds well to.

* Many people call themselves composers but their work never sees the light of day. Unless your medium is in fact audio recordings or electronic music, then your work isn't really done until your music is performed.

How to achieve this?

* Get out of your comfort zone and expend effort. This is exactly what almost all on-line "composers" will not be willing to do. Sitting in front of a screen plugging notes into Sibelius is not all _that _difficult, and that's why so many have fun with that. So, move away from your computer. Learn to play your own music, perhaps. Making an effort _immediately_ distinguishes you from almost everyone else.

* Start small.

a) Don't write a symphony unless you think you've at least _some_ chance of at least part of it getting worked on, somehow. Simply put, it's wasted effort. I wouldn't claim this if it were not true that there are many alleged composers writing "symphonies" (etc) every day of the week, all of which will never be played by humans. You don't want or need to be one of those.

b) Write for a performer. Make friends with _somebody_. Whatever they play, write for that. Play with them, if you play.

c) Secure a performance, no matter how small-scale. I cannot emphasize too strongly the value of this. Even your audience is your parents and your dog. It will grow.

* Performers aren't _that _difficult to find. You must, however, do the work. They will work without payment if it is enjoyable for them, or promising. In fact, it's better if you're not paying them... it should be a mutual collaboration, with rewards that balance out for all involved parties. Find someone who likes you. Turn up to their place with music and coffee. Additionally, there are many contemporary groups who are constantly on the lookout for new music, who would be more than happy to collaborate with a composer (but a "real" one, meaning one who will do their part of the bargain). This implies that you need to write _for _instruments and performers, which as stated above is important, and you'll learn very quickly when working with real people.

* In relation to the above: be willing to continually revise your work. Having an impending performance quickly points out what is flawed. The music isn't finished until it has been performed (and not even then, if we go by historical examples).

You'll soon realise the buck stops here. You're no genius, and it's about time you get cracking on making music which people actually want to play, and as a natural consequence of that, others will want to listen to.

(I'm using the words "you" and "your" in a general sense, not just directing at you OP, as I do not know your history).


----------



## Tomposer

Edit: For the record, I don't think I have ever been given a definitive "no" to this question posed to a performer (and I have asked this question many times) :

"It is a joy watching you perform and I'm interested in making some music with you. Could we put aside a date to look at some new material?"

Sure, if you get to 2nd base and they decide they don't like your stuff, then that's different (though I suggest that doesn't happen often either, because by that stage you're really committed to doing something well). The onus is entirely on you.


----------



## hreichgott

Tomposer, that was an excellent post, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

As a performer I want to pipe up and say that all that is completely true for both me and my teacher and we're at very different stages/levels of career (I'm a working musician with occasional solo performance opportunities; she's a concert pianist with multiple degrees from Juilliard.) We both love playing excellent new music, but I rather like wandering the internet looking for great music that no one has performed yet, while she prefers to work with people she already knows.

The traditional pattern is actually for the performer to pay the composer, either a commission for a work that doesn't yet exist, or a licensing fee for a work that already exists (that's for recordings and for certain types of performances). Of course a free collaboration is a great place to start for someone who's more interested in exposure than in holding out for a paid opportunity. If the composer pays the performer, I think something crucial is lost in the collaborative process: the performer loses the feeling that s/he has the right to offer feedback to the composer since s/he is just working for a fee. The composer will never really know if there are things that could have been improved about the piece. The composer will also never really know if the performer thinks the piece is any good--since the performer might only be in it for the fee. Unless the performer asks to use it in another project/performance, then you know s/he likes it  (which has happened with me once this year.)

To find performers, start with what's around you, either geographically close or close through a personal connection. Are there music teachers in your town? Cafes that have musicians in to play? Churches? High school orchestra programs? Start with what is nearby and you will build relationships from there.


----------



## Tomposer

Thanks Heather.



hreichgott said:


> The traditional pattern is actually for the performer to pay the composer, either a commission for a work that doesn't yet exist, or a licensing fee for a work that already exists (that's for recordings and for certain types of performances).


You are right, though it might be better to emphasise, merely, that it has always been important that a composer is paid their dues via some fair arrangement (as is also true for the performer). This has often been facilitated via the arrangements you outlined, but composers get by in other ways too.

Especially when starting out, money need not _initially _change hands in either direction for all parties to receive plenty of value from a collaboration. I do agree, in most cases, if a composer is personally having to pay performers, then something is amiss. It suggests that there is "nothing in it" for the performers. It is often necessary for a composer to pay sessional musicians to do recordings - a case where a musician will get no value from spending time on someone else's project. But if a performer is engaging an audience (and a good composition is clearly important here) then there is clear value for them in that, both monetary and otherwise.

That kind of mutually beneficial arrangement is likely suitable for the OP.


----------



## PetrB

Tomposer has given an excellent outline. Circumstance can be quite different for anyone, but I am a bit surprised that you compose and have not, it seems, maintained or cultivated the acquaintance or friendship of other musicians, period. That IS the way to go about it.

Paid or unpaid, many of the (especially) younger performing musicians, soloists or smaller ensembles are especially eager to find new works suitable for them -- and their audiences, and they should be somewhat readily accessible for you to meet.. I've found that often their vote of confidence, especially on less than easy listening fare, is a boon, i.e. if they pass judgement on a piece and are willing to play it, it means they think it both worthwhile music and that it will not turn away their audience.

I just want to emphasize again Tomposer's excellent point that you are writing for (I would say first yourself) but then, most directly _for the audience of the players. Without their liking it and being your first in line advocates, what chance does the music have?_. And too, that feedback of the real acoustic picture, the actualities of players negotiating the parts written for them, tells you just about every and anything you as the composer might need to know about what you've written, including if you need to go back to the drafting board for some immediate revisions 

Hreichgott, too, has had a good say. If you still play / perform, then want and be willing to do so with the other musicians.

The fresh bit of advice. Do not give the musicians a paragraph, let alone a novel-length, explanation about what the music is, "what it means", or how it is meant to be played. Your score, without you, has to have enough information as a score. Of course, be available to answer questions, but other than that _let the musicians be musicians and trust that they are musical, and stay out of their way._

... and break a leg.


----------



## Aramis

I've gone through all what Tomposer suggests, even more, and still didn't get there. I'm either that bad or he lives somewhere where things look diffrently. I have found a professional opera singer who claimed to like my vocal pieces very much and still I had to pay her to do them with me (she only agreed to get lower payment so we could record two songs instead of one). The other musicians I've called asked about the money even before they asked what kind of music I'm actually offering. Yet I know of some young academic composers who easily get their works performer and recorded despite their low quality that makes them purely academic artist with hardly ANY audience outside academic circles.

So my advice - if your age still enambles that, go and make yourself music major. I belive that it's the only way to take off with your music easily and without unneccessary struggle or danger of failure.


----------



## Tomposer

Aramis said:


> I've gone through all what Tomposer suggests, even more, and still didn't get there. I'm either that bad or he lives somewhere where things look diffrently. I have found a professional opera singer who claimed to like my vocal pieces very much and still I had to pay her to do them with me (she only agreed to get lower payment so we could record two songs instead of one). The other musicians I've called asked about the money even before they asked what kind of music I'm actually offering. Yet I know of some young academic composers who easily get their works performer and recorded despite their low quality that makes them purely academic artist with hardly ANY audience outside academic circles.
> 
> So my advice - if your age still enambles that, go and make yourself music major. I belive that it's the only way to take off with your music easily and without unneccessary struggle or danger of failure.


I understand your despondency, I really do. I have a few responses.
* Yes, many (probably most) successful composers come from academies, even today. 
* And yet, most successful present-day composer's music is _not _"academic" in style (especially when we are talking about commercial success). 
* I don't think getting a university education is necessary to become a good composer, in spite of the above, though of course it has clear benefits. 
* You certainly do _not _need to be involved with an academy to meet performers, though of course it is a good avenue. 
* You _do _need to somehow become involved with a musical community. This is perhaps where you've had difficulty, Aramis, going on what you wrote... musicians will tend to blanketly charge a fee to people who they don't know, because it often proves a waste of their time if they do not. Starting small is often a way in, as is being undemanding with your requirements, as is achieving goals through genuinely mutually-beneficial collaboration.

Most importantly... when you said


> I belive that it's the only way to take off with your music easily and without unneccessary struggle or danger of failure.


, I think this is where you're misguided. Whether or not you get an institutional education, there is simply no way to "take off with your music easily" and any approach will necessarily involve "struggle" and "danger of failure." The problem is, indeed, that people often assume a career in music (composing included) means considerably less than utter dedication, persisting over decades, with 10s of thousands of hours work, with the kind of passion and pain we attribute to athletes, with constant danger of failure. OK, that's not for everyone. But you only get out what you put in, and taking on a university course will not ease that burden.


----------



## Aramis

> Whether or not you get an institutional education, there is simply no way to "take off with your music easily" and any approach will necessarily involve "struggle" and "danger of failure."


It's not institutional *education*, what I belive to bear magical powers is the piece of paper you get from the academy, no matter what did you actually learn there or not. Composer is one of these professions where competences are hard to measure - so it is with all creative artists. You know the good plumber when he fixes your issue but the goal of artist is so abstractive that it's impossible to value him like you do with other professionals. So all these people who are in charge of art venues, often last persons to judge in these matters, take the easy way and assume that music academies are like bird nests from which the new composers fly off when they're grown up and that this is the only legitimate way for artist to come up. They think: "he finished the art academy - surely they teached him there how to be an artist, this is natural that after he got his degree we are to let him in". Had he been without his piece of paper and come to them with the same work they are playing - he would be sent away. Because they are unable to determine quality of art they just welcome those who seem "appropriate" by institutional means, people who are, in a way, expected to become active artists. Others are not welcome - nobody obliged the institution to support and show interest in arists who come out of the blue and can be labeled as amateurs even if their skills and inspiration are far greater than those of some academic youngster who gives them their share of young generation's music to perform, so they can keep their "we create opportunities for young people" false face on.


----------



## PetrB

In my experience, especially in the case of composition, people look at the score, and if it generates enough interest, then you _might _ be asked incidentally and after the fact about your training.

Other than a few limited and formal competitions, where some require diplomas for you to enter (most do not) it is the work and its quality, first and foremost, which has to generate the interest. Where you went to school, with whom you studied, are far down the list of what is important when touting your own work. (It is true some connections within the academic musical community can later be useful, while, as Tomposer and others have already advised, connections are connections, and they do not only happen within the halls of academe.)

There are a number of people writing music very well, but it is very much "old-style" as in nearly a replication of Tchaikovsky, etc. The least of those sound like well-written student exercises, the best of them, no matter that they are original, are often dismissed out of hand -- because the general thought is, "Tchaikovsky wrote all the worthwhile Tchaikovsky there is to hear."

Too, even if people wanted to perform it, the works of so many composers of the past are now in public domain, no required fees to perform it, yet another factor.

If you are one of those ultra-conservative sort of composers, basically re-writing more in some past style, I'd think you would have to resign yourself to a near hard fact that no one will perform the work, unless you can successfully pass it off as an undiscovered work by composer __________ ; and that gets into the arena of both Pastiche and Hoax.

A piece which is an _Hommage_ or an _À la manière de_ is a different story, and could have some (limited?) success.


----------



## Tomposer

Aramis said:


> It's not institutional *education*, what I belive to bear magical powers is the piece of paper you get from the academy, no matter what did you actually learn there or not. Composer is one of these professions where competences are hard to measure - so it is with all creative artists. You know the good plumber when he fixes your issue but the goal of artist is so abstractive that it's impossible to value him like you do with other professionals. So all these people who are in charge of art venues, often last persons to judge in these matters, take the easy way and assume that music academies are like bird nests from which the new composers fly off when they're grown up and that this is the only legitimate way for artist to come up. They think: "he finished the art academy - surely they teached him there how to be an artist, this is natural that after he got his degree we are to let him in". Had he been without his piece of paper and come to them with the same work they are playing - he would be sent away. Because they are unable to determine quality of art they just welcome those who seem "appropriate" by institutional means, people who are, in a way, expected to become active artists. Others are not welcome - nobody obliged the institution to support and show interest in arists who come out of the blue and can be labeled as amateurs even if their skills and inspiration are far greater than those of some academic youngster who gives them their share of young generation's music to perform, so they can keep their "we create opportunities for young people" false face on.


You're effectively saying that anyone with an arts degree gets a free ticket to fame and fortune. I'm sorry, but that couldn't be further from the truth.

I'm afraid you are really misguided about this. For a start, the great majority of composers who get an academic training end up doing something other than composing - that's the reality.

Besides that . . . When a movie or TV producer, game company, ad agency, orchestra, chamber ensemble or band are trying to find a suitable composer, they are a) certainly able to measure competence & suitability, and b) will only _ever _employ someone by doing so. They need only refer to a composer's professional folio: Those previous professional endeavors of the composer. None of the above agencies would ever employ a composer without an understanding that he/she is competent and that his/her previous output was suitable.

It is true that most people who end up employed in these ways have had an academic training. But correlation is not causation: Getting a certificate is absolutely not what ensures that you'll be chosen for professional work. It has a lot more to do with 1) making the most of opportunities that come up during your training, 2) using your time in training to develop a professional folio, 3) learning auxiliary stuff (like how to record music properly), 4) networking, 5) get a sense of who requires what (like what's the difference between writing music for an eminent string quartet, and writing music for an ipad app) and f), yes, acquiring some skills. Many people manage to get through music degrees without any of that, and they are subsequently not picked up for professional work, surprise, surprise.

However... though _most_ people don't waltz out of an arts degree directly into an arts career, this is very important: That doesn't mean they're no longer artists. They keep plugging away. They will keep at it, making do with odd jobs and sideline pursuits, and maybe in a few decades they'll reach some success with the artistic career they are passionate about. This is simply the way it works for most of us.

Take the career of one of the most distinguished and recognised film composers: John Williams. Yes, he had an academic training. But he would have to work steadily in music until he wrote the score for Jaws, at 38 years of age, which he counts as his first major breakthrough. And this is _the model_ of a successful film composing career. Most of us are considerably more round-about!

I have been training/practicing for over 20 years. I am now fairly regularly employed/commissioned. This has only gained momentum for me in _the last couple of years_. That's the better part of 20 years training with little or no rewards. As I said before, it's not for everybody.


----------



## Ramako

I have 3 very major problems in this area - having said which I have had some pieces played, sometimes larger ones (either measured by forces or length, not both).

I'm usually sufficiently critical of my pieces to know they're not really worth playing. This means I can never muster too much initiative to try and get them played - from a purely selfish level I know, or at least hope, that the pieces don't properly represent what I am capable of. When I have had pieces played, it's because others have asked me.

The exception to this are solo piano pieces I have played myself. Unfortunately I am a poor performer. I have moved away from doing this recently for various reasons, but this will likely never be an avenue I can succeed in, though I usually have more confidence playing my own pieces.

The third problem I have is one which basically prevents me doing what Tomposer suggests, which I'm sure is the way to do things. I simply don't have the social skills to get on with many people very well, and those who I do are usually scientists, not musicians. Those musicians who I do get on with, who being a music student inevitably throws me together with, are mostly composers not performers - which means there is lots of supply and little demand.

The idea of cultivating social relationships for gain in my career is one I find little to my taste, and less to my abilities. Relying on such things is simply impossible for me. I don't have the energy or confidence to push for my pieces to be played when I know they are flawed.

Miraculously, I do have a solution of sorts, for my own situation - not one which would allow me to be a professional composer, but one which may work enough for me. The first step is just to write better music. That's what I'm working on at the moment. I have to have enough confidence in the music to be able to give someone a score, and say "look at this", and, without justifying it in any way, believe that they will want to play it - not because of me but because of the music's own strengths. In other words, to be able to remove myself from the process as much as possible. Plugging my own cause seems no less a waste of time to me than working a day job to sustain myself, and a lot more stressful. For me, it's just not worth it. Fortunately, I am, and quite possibly will be for many years, in the context of the music 'academy' and I am aware of the great advantages it gives.

I realise this does not constitute a solution to everyone, because not everyone has the problems I do. What I would say is important however is that the better music you write, the more people will be willing to play it, as indeed Tomposer says. Besides, I think it is far more important to write good music than for people to play it.


----------



## Yardrax

Ramako said:


> The third problem I have is one which basically prevents me doing what Tomposer suggests, which I'm sure is the way to do things. I simply don't have the social skills to get on with many people very well, and those who I do are usually scientists, not musicians. Those musicians who I do get on with, who being a music student inevitably throws me together with, are mostly composers not performers - which means there is lots of supply and little demand.


I can sympathise with this. I have asperger's syndrome (The officially diagnosed kind, not the 'I have social anxiety issues and read a thing on the internet one time about aspergers' kind) so being pro-active in socialising and making connections with people is inherently difficult for me.

One option I do have open at the moment is the Young Musician's group I go to every weekend where we rehearse pieces to perform at occasional concerts. The group is open to new music so I am hoping to take advantage of the opportunity while it's around. Still need to come up with a good piece though >.<


----------



## PetrB

With or without actual conditions, or pronounced or extraordinary pathologies, it is quite typical of those who write, music and words, and painters, sculptors, to work alone, not be very readily social by nature. Some can, against their basic nature, socialize and schmooze, make connections with aplomb: of this type, I assure you it is something as practiced until they are comfortable with it as a performer is who learns to override both shyness and performance anxiety.

In other words, it can take a concerted and willful start, over-riding or living through the discomfort, until you get better / more adept at it.

Even then, there is something very interior about the single creative craftsman that can be still antithetical to "going out there and selling yourself." The only way to get anywhere over that and nearer to is to try, and practice. Practice, I think we all know, involves a lot of repetition and anything but getting it very right the first time or many times thereafter, and it must be quite regular to achieve anything at all.

If you are not pushing a manuscript, push yourself, out, into arenas where you must socialize, gallery openings, gatherings you now do not go to, etc.


----------



## yogibearjmy

Goodness this a lovely response. Thank you, so much.


----------



## yogibearjmy

Well to responsd to all contributing members, first off, thank you!

Secondly, I am in fact in a military band--so I do have a collection of musicians at my disposal. I have been utilizing them--they're willing to play my stuff, and work through it with me, and I have grown quickly to understand "writing" for the musician and the audience, and not necessarily just myself.

Of course my issue is dealing with my inclination to write for instruments that aren't at my disposal: strings and voice. Which is fine, because I have other pieces I've been trying to put together that fit into the instrumentation around me. *Then I can focus on perfecting writing for those instruments. And I am.*

Certainly I will take all of this advice and get out there and meet more musicians. I'm a social butterfly--I think perhaps I've just run into the blockage of a military schedule and being miles from populated cities that at least have musicians. Of course, I've got to want it--and I do--so I will be making the effort now, more than ever.

And an interesting discussion of degree and musical study came up. I majored in Music Education in school, didn't quite finish, and will be finishing soon with a General Studies with an Emphasis in Music Bachelor's Degree. All that means is I started school pumped to be a public school music teacher. Near the end I realized I was supposed to be creating. I'm a COMPLETE LATE-BLOOMER to composing and listening.

I've always written songs--guitar pop/folk singer-songwriter songs--that I've performed. But as the aforementioned late-bloomer I am, I realized there are so many other sounds out there I want to hear and write and say. Mahler, Ives, Reich, etc., have just moved me in terrific ways. My self-study is going pretty well, and I've been studying with a very helpful teacher for about a year now.

My point is that my energy and motivation and musical thoughts are boiling over the kettle--and all of your helpful advice and information to becoming successful in this realm of being a "composer" is *deeply appreciated.*


----------

