# What makes a good composer?



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

All over TC we talk about _good_ composers, and sometimes _bad_ composers, but what I always wonder is.....why do you call these people "good" composers? Let's be factual about this and talk about the music, not the reactions to the music, and why what these composers did made them better than the rest. In other words, what technical "traits" did the "good" composers have?

Things I believe to be of high importance: 
*Structure,* and not just limited to form (ie ternary form). Structure in music, in my opinion, can just about relate to an intentional progression of any sounds with a particular idea in the mind of the composer of why this progression of sound should be the way it is. Eg a melody, divided into phrases, built around a rule set by the composer of how the melody is built and which notes should be used where.

*Orchestration,* an understanding of instruments' abilities and how to compose to get the full potential of every instrument. Also being able to achieve a very specific sound from an instrument or a group of instruments in such a way that the composer would need to have a great understanding of the instruments.

*Counterpoint,* or for want of a better term, an understanding of harmony in musical lines. "Horizontal" lines rather than "vertical." The harmony/voice leading/counterpoint in this way may or may not be tonal.

Those points are just a few points I always keep in mind when studying/listening to music and is often how I judge whether I like the music/composer or not.

As a listener, what makes you believe a composer is a "good" composer? Is there such thing as a "bad" composer as well?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

All those technical things you mention are very important, but definitely there's much more than that in a good composer.
When I hear a new piece, I look for: i) interesting musical ideas (not only the immediate musical material, but also the general aesthetic of the music, the structure, etc.); ii) the consistent and coherent development of these ideas (your technical points are realized here). 
When this is successful, I often feel like if I had been transported to another world, a world which is only accessible through this particular piece of music. And the whole piece feels like a journey through this new world.
That, in general terms.
In a more detailed discussion, I would say that I also look for imagination in the details. A good composer must, of course, be able to answer a musical gesture with an effective response, but this response must also be interesting instead of formulaic.
Composers that for me excel in all these aspects are Beethoven and Ligeti.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> All over TC we talk about _good_ composers, and sometimes _bad_ composers, but what I always wonder is.....why do you call these people "good" composers? Let's be factual about this and talk about the music, not the reactions to the music, and why what these composers did made them better than the rest. In other words, what technical "traits" did the "good" composers have?
> 
> Things I believe to be of high importance:
> *Structure,* and not just limited to form (ie ternary form). Structure in music, in my opinion, can just about relate to an intentional progression of any sounds with a particular idea in the mind of the composer of why this progression of sound should be the way it is. Eg a melody, divided into phrases, built around a rule set by the composer of how the melody is built and which notes should be used where.


OK This is bit like "counterpoint" below. Good use of texts, particularly when sung polyphonally, to emphasise words and phrases. The idea of divisions and rule sets can get a bit like Simpson's Division Viol which would break @alzeak's ideas about originality (and presumably) freshness. None the less, the use of divisions on a ground is a useful technique.



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> *Orchestration,* an understanding of instruments' abilities and how to compose to get the full potential of every instrument. Also being able to achieve a very specific sound from an instrument or a group of instruments in such a way that the composer would need to have a great understanding of the instruments.


Nope. If you take somebody like Field who invented the Nocturne form for piano, then you undoubtedly have a good composer without any orchestration. If you take somebody like Tomas Luis De Victoria who is writing mainly for voice (or voices and viols), then you have a good composer who is wring for vox humana and getting some good effects by making singers sing towards the limits of their range. Knowing your instrument and composing to get the best out of it is important - look at Biber's Rosary Sonatas with their unusual sequence of scordatura echoing the sequence of Mysteries they accompany. Great composing but only one instrument. Yes, Bach could orchestrate, he could transcribe, but if all we had was the WTC, he would still be a great composer.



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> *Counterpoint,* or for want of a better term, an understanding of harmony in musical lines. "Horizontal" lines rather than "vertical." The harmony/voice leading/counterpoint in this way may or may not be tonal.


I like the idea of voice leading rather than harmony \ counterpoint. The interesting thing is to see how a composer moves the melody or main themes through the voices or other instruments to achieve his effects.



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Those points are just a few points I always keep in mind when studying/listening to music and is often how I judge whether I like the music/composer or not.
> 
> As a listener, what makes you believe a composer is a "good" composer? Is there such thing as a "bad" composer as well?


Definitely, lucky thing is, they don't sell and don't survive.



aleazk said:


> All those technical things you mention are very important, but definitely there's much more than that in a good composer.
> When I hear a new piece, I look for: i) interesting musical ideas (not only the immediate musical material, but also the general aesthetic of the music, the structure, etc.); ii) the consistent and coherent development of these ideas (your technical points are realized here).
> When this is successful, I often feel like if I had been transported to another world, a world which is only accessible through this particular piece of music. And the whole piece feels like a journey through this new world.
> That, in general terms.


Equally, there is the question of doing something new with old material - look at the number of masses based on L'homme armé. Alternately, one may look at Avison's orchestration's of Scarlatti.



aleazk said:


> In a more detailed discussion, I would say that I also look for imagination in the details. A good composer must, of course, be able to answer a musical gesture with an effective response, but this response must also be interesting instead of formulaic.
> Composers that for me excel in all these aspects are Beethoven and Ligeti.


Can't it be both interesting *and* formulaic?

We're not talking about excellence - "great" composers, merely competence - good at what they do.


----------



## korenbloem (Nov 5, 2012)

Just making stuff I like!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Taggart said:


> Nope. If you take somebody like Field who invented the Nocturne form for piano, then you undoubtedly have a good composer without any orchestration. If you take somebody like Tomas Luis De Victoria who is writing mainly for voice (or voices and viols), then you have a good composer who is wring for vox humana and getting some good effects by making singers sing towards the limits of their range. Knowing your instrument and composing to get the best out of it is important - look at Biber's Rosary Sonatas with their unusual sequence of scordatura echoing the sequence of Mysteries they accompany. Great composing but only one instrument. Yes, Bach could orchestrate, he could transcribe, but if all we had was the WTC, he would still be a great composer.


You've basically restated what I said about understanding instruments.



> The interesting thing is to see how a composer moves the melody or main themes through the voices or other instruments to achieve his effects.


Voice leading doesn't have much to do about the main themes.......


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Integrity, morality, empathy.

What was the question?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

aleazk said:


> All those technical things you mention are very important, but definitely there's much more than that in a good composer.
> When I hear a new piece, I look for: i) interesting musical ideas (not only the immediate musical material, but also the general aesthetic of the music, the structure, etc.); ii) the consistent and coherent development of these ideas (your technical points are realized here).
> When this is successful, I often feel like if I had been transported to another world, a world which is only accessible through this particular piece of music. And the whole piece feels like a journey through this new world.
> That, in general terms.
> ...


Agreed! In terms of "what are interesting ideas"....well that is another good question actually! What makes a new, original idea interesting? This, of cours, is different for everyone.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

It's probably easier to identify a "bad" or mediocre composer -- As one who writes unmemorable music. The are lots of ways music can be mediocre or bad -- but these include: unimaginative, incompetent, boring, derivative to the point of making you think more of the original than what's in front of you . . . Any music I would write (and I do not compose, by the way) would be bad almost by definition.

And even good composers can write bad music ( cf "Wellington's Victory, and the overture to Das Liebesverbot).


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Integrity, morality, empathy.
> 
> What was the question?




Personally, I would like to see examples of good pieces that have none of the qualities (putative qualities) that have been so far bruited about.

I would also like to see a conversation (on the side) about good composers who wrote bad pieces and bad composers who wrote good pieces. (I wrote this before seeing that GGluek had already started in on this. Good-o!)

In the meantime, I only have one question, for Taggart: do you yourself know of any pieces from the past that you would call "bad"? If so, then you have identified bad pieces that have "sold" and survived. If so, then you have acknowledged the possibility that there are good pieces that have not survived. In any case, we can only deal with what has survived. If something has not survived, we don't know it, and so can only speculate (idly) about whether it was any good or not.

Either survival of the fittest is more complicated than "the best stuff survives" or survival of the fittest is a simple circle: fittest is defined as whatever has survived. For whatever reason.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

My first thought was syphilis ...but yeah, structure is also a good point.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Craftsmanship(harmony, counterpoint, orchestratione etc) and vision.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Piwikiwi said:


> Craftsmanship(harmony, counterpoint, orchestratione etc) and vision.


If it's about vision, why so many great composers had to wear glasses


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

some guy said:


> In the meantime, I only have one question, for Taggart: do you yourself know of any pieces from the past that you would call "bad"? If so, then you have identified bad pieces that have "sold" and survived. If so, then you have acknowledged the possibility that there are good pieces that have not survived. In any case, we can only deal with what has survived. If something has not survived, we don't know it, and so can only speculate (idly) about whether it was any good or not.
> 
> Either survival of the fittest is more complicated than "the best stuff survives" or survival of the fittest is a simple circle: fittest is defined as whatever has survived. For whatever reason.


If you somewhere like IMSLP there are shedloads of stuff. Very little of it is currently played even as introductory pieces for beginners.

Of course a lot of music disappears, good and bad. What survives is at least competent. It's not entirely circular because a competent piece will have something that makes it playable and listenable. Musicians will enjoy playing it because of the sorts of feature COAG identified and people will enjoying listening for the same reasons and for those that @alzeak identified.

There is a lot of old stuff that has disappeared one can only think of the rhymes of Randolph Earl of Chester and Robin Hood - mentioned in Piers Plowman.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Good imagination and good craftsmanship.

Imagination doesn't necessarily mean innovation. A composer can be conservative for his/her time and still come up with wonderful musical ideas (Brahms.)

Craftsmanship is skill at making imagined ideas into reality. Includes structure, writing well for instrument/ensemble, and managing difficulty.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Aramis said:


> If it's about vision, why so many great composers had to wear glasses


it got ruined by overuse...


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Creating music is mostly about inspiration to begin with. Most people in the general public don't compose music, so of course, the inspiration for it is reserved for a few. Most amateurs today will not go beyond composing a few pieces and then giving up or moving on to other concerns. So, music only survives in the hands who are talented enough, who can mould it, be easy with it, be comfortable with trying different things, virtually "toying" with the raw materials of music. For this, you need to play an instrument or sing.

After this comes the reason for composing. You can compose to have fun (music can be extremely enjoyable), to serve a function in society or your own life, or to express emotion, personal world-view, etc.

Most of these things are I think, biologically inset. You are born with them.

What is not in-born is perhaps the _will to keep learning_. And I think this last quality defines the great composers as much as the other ones do.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

hreichgott said:


> Imagination doesn't necessarily mean innovation.


Thanks for saying this  I wanted to for days, but I couldn't think of how to put it.

There seems to be so much drive in art to be new and different (it often ends up just being strange) in order to be relevant, that true greatness is often overshot by the composer or overlooked by the listeners, even when it's blaring us in the ears. I accept new ideas, but the composer must be able to employ these ideas in such a way that a good* piece of music results.

*I don't care to debate the various semantic meanings of 'good'. You know what I am trying to say  so kindly accept my phrasing.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2013)

brotagonist said:


> There seems to be so much drive in art to be new and different


Not sure this is all there is to it. It may be much simpler. Why do what's already been done by someone else? Pretty simple, that. Not really a drive. Just simple logic.



brotagonist said:


> (it often ends up just being strange)


Ahem. (This is one reason I try, futilely, to get people to look at where things really are.) "Strange" is a judgment that arises out of a response; it is not a characteristic of the music itself. Anything that is genuinely new and different is going to appear to be strange to a listener. That's what new and different means--that it consists of things that are not familiar to listeners. Not familiar; strange.



brotagonist said:


> in order to be relevant, that true greatness is often overshot by the composer or overlooked by the listeners, even when it's blaring us in the ears.


Well, I know many composers--professionals, whose music is frequently performed all over the world--and I can't think of any of them who are interested in relevance. I would strongly suspect that only someone interested in "greatness" (whether "true" or not) would be interested in relevance.

I'm very puzzled by "overshot by" and "overlooked by." What do these expressions point to? Truly. I cannot figure out what they are referring to at all. And where is the blaring stuff coming from?


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

shangoyal said:


> Most of these things are I think, biologically inset. You are born with them.


I disagree. There are some rare individuals with a gift to excel at something, but they are _few_. Anyone can learn and be successful with education and resolve. Don't let that hold you back from doing what you wish to do.



some guy said:


> Why do what's already been done by someone else?


It's never _exactly_ the same. That would be plagiarism.



some guy said:


> I'm very puzzled by "overshot by" and "overlooked by."


I think that, as I had said before, many try so hard to be unique that the result is strange. You already explained how you feel about the relationship between strangeness and familiarity. If that is how you perceive it, fine. I don't _always_ see it that way. That's just how I feel. That's what I meant by overshooting: trying too hard to be novel, to say something new.

I said overlooked, because I have read posts by a number of apparently very knowledgeable people on this forum and other critics elsewhere, who patly dismiss some beautiful music, because it is not saying something new, whatever that is supposed to mean. I guess you have to be in musico-academic circles to know what is old and now taboo and what is new and still open for exploration.

Afterthought: I hope nobody felt attacked by what I said in the last paragraph. _I_ criticize music: there are types that appeal to me and types that appeal less. It's all taste. But what I am trying to say is that I think the quest _to say something new_ in art is inherently flawed. Striving to go past an academic _progress marker_ (for want of a better descriptor) obscures the goal: the end product.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> All over TC we talk about _good_ composers, and sometimes _bad_ composers, but what I always wonder is.....why do you call these people "good" composers? Let's be factual about this and talk about the music, not the reactions to the music, and why what these composers did made them better than the rest. In other words, what technical "traits" did the "good" composers have?
> 
> Things I believe to be of high importance:
> *Structure,* and not just limited to form (ie ternary form). Structure in music, in my opinion, can just about relate to an intentional progression of any sounds with a particular idea in the mind of the composer of why this progression of sound should be the way it is. Eg a melody, divided into phrases, built around a rule set by the composer of how the melody is built and which notes should be used where.
> ...


*What about the audience* for a change. Absolutely nothing for the audience, including the esoterci types?


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2013)

What makes a good composer? Same as for any profession (with interchangeable terms), ergo:
a) craft and musicianship,
b) ear,
c) sensibility,
d) passion,
e) creativity,
f) energy and perseverance.

I'm sure we can add to the list...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

some guy said:


> [...]
> Ahem. (This is one reason I try, futilely, to get people to look at where things really are.) "Strange" is a judgment that arises out of a response; it is not a characteristic of the music itself. Anything that is genuinely new and different is going to appear to be strange to a listener. That's what new and different means--that it consists of things that are not familiar to listeners. Not familiar; strange.
> [...]


'Unfamiliar' doesn't equal 'strange'. Hell, there may be people out there who are unfamiliar with "Amazing Grace", but it wouldn't be strange to them. Back there in the dark age when people were working with that 'triad' thing, they were striving for unfamiliar. Most of them were not looking for strange though. I dunno that Beethoven wanted strange; sometimes it just worked out that way.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

shangoyal said:


> Creating music is mostly about inspiration to begin with. Most people in the general public don't compose music, so of course, the inspiration for it is reserved for a few. Most amateurs today will not go beyond composing a few pieces and then giving up or moving on to other concerns. So, music only survives in the hands who are talented enough, who can mould it, be easy with it, be comfortable with trying different things, virtually "toying" with the raw materials of music. For this, you need to play an instrument or sing.
> 
> After this comes the reason for composing. You can compose to have fun (music can be extremely enjoyable), to serve a function in society or your own life, or to express emotion, personal world-view, etc.
> 
> ...


Composing is a skill that can be learned and taught, sorry for my strong reaction but I just don't want people to be ever put off hy such statements.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

*Structure* is certainly something I look for more than most people-for my taste, pieces need a sense of direction, and through-composed works generally don't do it for me.

*Originality* is key-this is how chaps like Liszt, Debussy, and Schoenberg got a lot of their reputations.

*Orchestration*, as you mentioned, is also crucial as it lends flavour to your entire piece! People like Ravel and Mahler were so successful because they knew how to get the orchestra to sound exactly like they wanted it to.
*
Counterpoint* is another element, but I wouldn't be so quick to separate it from things like rhythm, melody, etc.. These are all part of the architecture of music, and singling out counterpoint seems a bit odd when you forget people like Bartok or Mozart who perhaps didn't specialize in counterpoint but could write one heck of a rhythm or melody.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> *Structure* is certainly something I look for more than most people-for my taste, pieces need a sense of direction, and through-composed works generally don't do it for me.
> 
> *Originality* is key-this is how chaps like Liszt, Debussy, and Schoenberg got a lot of their reputations.
> 
> ...


What about the last part of mozart his jupiter symphony and the first part of bartok his concerto for strings, percussion and celesta?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> *What about the audience* for a change. Absolutely nothing for the audience, including the esoterci types?


Maybe they don't factor in here because they aren't the ones writing the compositions?


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

Piwikiwi said:


> What about the last part of mozart his jupiter symphony and the first part of bartok his concerto for strings, percussion and celesta?


Well, yes, they wrote some fine contrapuntal passages, as did many of the great composers, but I wouldn't consider them "counterpoint masters" as I would Bach, Brahms, etc.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Emotional! It's got be emotional!


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Brotagonist, thanks for the appreciative quote but I'm afraid I need some examples to see what you're getting at regarding innovative but unimaginative music. Maybe some guy needs to hear examples too. I'm coming up empty except for memories of some student compositions I remember hearing in college.. but those weren't innovative so much as imitating Schoenberg or whatever other 20th c. composer the student had heard that month and thought was innovative. Or compositions for unusual instruments, again by students, where the choice of instrument ended up being the most innovative thing about the piece.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

...............................................


----------

