# Are we composers too prolific?



## malc (Apr 19, 2018)

When Sibelius had a sharing site , and i was a spring lamb , i was astonished at the hundreds of composers [past and present] , all who wrote or were writing music by the ton.think of Telemann, or Bach.When music was inspired by the gods , this was under control , but when we start writing our own stuff it starts pouring out !
We all think we are the new gods , but how can a civilian sort through the deluge and find something of merit? [especially my stuff!!!]


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Music may have been inspired by the gods, but I think someone like Bach or Telemann had the mechanics of composition down pat and could break the rules just as imaginatively and innovatively as their inspiration required … They wrote with an efficiency that is mostly unheard of today, except perhaps for those connected with the movie industry. For today, I think composers require their music to be good enough to be played by live musicians and not just heard as midi files. There has to be something in the music that acquires attention from others, and if someone tries to write, for instance, a sonata or symphony in the style of Beethoven, to remember that they’re actually competing with Beethoven... How is a civilian supposed to sort through it all may be mostly up to luck, or find a way to be written about. So a composer not only has to be good, but he has to be lucky, or exceedingly talented and determined. I don’t think a prolific composer tries to be prolific; I think they write what’s there for them to write that day and it mounts up naturally over time. But I also think that the more one writes, the better chance one has to find his or her own voice.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2018)

malc said:


> When Sibelius had a sharing site , and i was a spring lamb , i was astonished at the hundreds of composers [past and present] , all who wrote or were writing music by the ton.think of Telemann, or Bach.When music was inspired by the gods , this was under control , but when we start writing our own stuff it starts pouring out !
> We all think we are the new gods , but how can a civilian sort through the deluge and find something of merit? [especially my stuff!!!]


I have a real grudge against software such as Sibelius and Finale, especially when being used as a composition tool, because it is too easy to fall back on software to provide us with quick n easy processes allowing people to bust out hundreds of short compositions within a year of learning how to use the software.

Being able to write something of 'merit' means you have to have some idea of where you set the bar in order for your music to have merit as well as an understanding of how to get there. Self critique is enormously important, critique according to parameters that you set yourself and feedback you receive from professionals. Knowing not only how to separate a good attempt from a poor attempt but specifically where improvements need to be made and how to make those improvements is essential.

Compose, compose, compose; critique, critique critique; revise, revise, revise; improve, improve, improve.

But also: study, study, study the craft. Composition is about being able to represent abstract musical thoughts and impulses from our mind and translate them into notation to communicate to musicians. It is _very_ difficult. Being able to do this without the aid of a computer notation software or an instrument to test things on is what would separate the mind of a proficient, talented composer from the mind of someone who is still beginning to learn the craft. I'm still at the very beginning of my career as a composer, and despite over a decade of ear training I still find it very difficult to write music that I am happy with directly from my head to the manuscript paper. I think I only pulled it off _once_, but that was only a solo clarinet work I wrote this year.

Lately I have found myself having to compose an uncomfortably large amount of music in a short period of time, meaning I have had to quickly write music I am happy to be performed. A daunting task, to be sure! But removing myself from the limitations and shortcuts of Sibelius and Finale has helped me focus on my understanding of the craft and improve much quicker than I would have otherwise. That sheer amount of work make me physically ill more than once in the space of a few months, so at that point I'd say being prolific can certainly take a toll if you work up to 16 hours a day.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Depends what is meant by merit. Imitating a certain composer or style (tonal or atonal) may give some a satisfaction already. But those composers lived and breathed that air, and we can't really imitate them or go further in that direction, especially now that we've been contaminated/blessed with other musical influences like Pop, etc. The best is to utilize everything in our experience, and take a step beyond. Easier said than done, of course.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2018)

The thing about pastiche and imitation is that musicians would rather play Beethoven than a Beethoven imitator/imposter.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

shirime said:


> I have a real grudge against software such as Sibelius and Finale, especially when being used as a composition tool, because it is too easy to fall back on software to provide us with quick n easy processes allowing people to bust out hundreds of short compositions within a year of learning how to use the software.
> 
> Being able to write something of 'merit' means you have to have some idea of where you set the bar in order for your music to have merit as well as an understanding of how to get there. Self critique is enormously important, critique according to parameters that you set yourself and feedback you receive from professionals. Knowing not only how to separate a good attempt from a poor attempt but specifically where improvements need to be made and how to make those improvements is essential.
> 
> ...


I get your point and agree with it in general, but that line was a bit of an exaggeration, I think. I could name lots of great composers that tested some of their ideas on, say the piano. Of course, one should be able to translate most of the ideas directly from mind to paper, but a bit of help from the piano from time to time is no sin. Those are just tools, one can use them or abuse them, the difference lies there, not in a black or white approach.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

shirime said:


> The thing about pastiche and imitation is that musicians would rather play Beethoven than a Beethoven imitator/imposter.


Of course. And yet, I have been admonished around here (not that I care) for saying so over and over.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

aleazk said:


> I get your point and agree with it in general, but that line was a bit of an exaggeration, I think. I could name lots of great composers that tested some of their ideas on, say the piano. Of course, one should be able to translate most of the ideas directly from mind to paper, but a bit of help from the piano from time to time is no sin. Those are just tools, one can use them or abuse them, the difference lies there, not in a black or white approach.


Of course, the problem is too many dilettantes just pop notes into the program with no or little knowledge of proper notation (guess what, even the best programs will not automatically do everything correctly) and pitiful lack of understanding of what's too hard for most players to execute, because the program does not deal with that (it just plays what you notate).


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Vasks said:


> Of course, the problem is too many dilettantes just pop notes into the program with no or little knowledge of proper notation (guess what, even the best programs will not automatically do everything correctly) and pitiful lack of understanding of what's too hard for most players to execute, because the program does not deal with that (it just plays what you notate).


Yes, of course, that's a plague, but I assumed we were discussing more 'serious' composers. I was talking more about the interaction between composer and an actual 'physical' instrument in order to test, say, some harmonies or whatever. Using the playback software to do that is something I sometimes recommend (in case one doesn't have an instrument at hand or can't play the idea for some reason), but with much more care. The more tools, the better, that's how I see it at least. But before doing that, one has to learn, of course, to do things in the old fashioned, hardcore way. It applies to almost any discipline, actually. In architecture, you must learn to draw by hand before doing it with the software. In math, you must learn to solve equations by hand before simply giving that task to the computer. In general, the philosophy is to have the skill first in your brain, rather than substituting it by technological tools.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Not composing, but sitting down and improvising, without the drudgery of going back and 'improving' every small idea so that it's all interesting as a logical package. 

I'm getting better over the years, I sometimes surprise myself, but I still haven't produced a work that I would want to keep around. I can imitate an early romantic type of piece. That's a lot of fun, when my friends don't know what piece I'm borrowing from..

I'm glad I have my day job. heh


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Btw, regarding the op. I would say that people learning to compose should really, really resist the temptation to post everything they write. I know, it's difficult, since it's just at one click. But it's not good. One should only post those few compositions on which a lot of thought has been put into, and also only after a few years of taking composition as a hobby or whatever (I assume professionals simply will show the pieces to their actual composition teachers in university or private). In that way, the feedback will be much more useful too.

And there's no way to separate, I'm afraid, one simply must be a senior member of the given community to know who are the ones that post interesting compositions and take composition seriously. There's also even amateurism in the actual 'serious' art scence, I saw Boulez complaining about that in some interview. Being a 'creative' discipline, many people think that they don't need technical tools and craft, only their 'creativity', to do something in art. That is, of course, a big mistake. Possibly, one doesn't necessarily need a university degree or education to do art, but if one is serious, then at least a good portion of the knowledge and material from that education will have to be acquired by self-learning. That's an extremely difficult task, and most people on the internet grossly overstimate their capacity and intelligence for that. I think only a person with above average intelligence, extreme passion, curiosity and dedication could succeed in a task like that. People with at least a bit of decency, humility and decorum, should consider withdrawing or perhaps trying some actual university training if they feel they have reached their limit regarding what they can actually self-learn.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

aleazk said:


> Btw, regarding the op. I would say that people learning to compose should really, really resist the temptation to post everything they write. I know, it's difficult, since it's just at one click. But it's not good. One should only post those few compositions on which a lot of thought has been put into, and also only after a few years of taking composition as a hobby or whatever (I assume professionals simply will show the pieces to their actual composition teachers in university or private). In that way, the feedback will be much more useful too.
> 
> And there's no way to separate, I'm afraid, one simply must be a senior member of the given community to know who are the ones that post interesting compositions and take composition seriously. There's also even amateurism in the actual 'serious' art scence, I saw Boulez complaining about that in some interview. Being a 'creative' discipline, many people think that they don't need technical tools and craft, only their 'creativity', to do something in art. That is, of course, a big mistake. Possibly, one doesn't necessarily need a university degree or education to do art, but if one is serious, then at least a good portion of the knowledge and material from that education will have to be acquired by self-learning. That's an extremely difficult task, and most people on the internet grossly overstimate their capacity and intelligence for that. I think only a person with above average intelligence, extreme passion, curiosity and dedication could succeed in a task like that. People with at least a bit of decency, humility and decorum, should consider withdrawing or perhaps trying some actual university training if they feel they have reached their limit regarding what they can actually self-learn.


Do you think this applies to me? I'm dead serious but perhaps a bit amateurish at the moment.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Fredx2098 said:


> Do you think this applies to me? I'm dead serious but perhaps a bit amateurish at the moment.


You seemed serious to me.

But I do advice to post only finished pieces or at least a draft of the whole piece, and pieces which you have carefuly deviced, conceived and composed for some time. Otherwise, a forum is not really the right place for day to day teacher/student chat nor the substitute for that. It's simply not a good way to learn. Also, listen or read what you write and think hard if that's really what you want the piece to be before posting it. If you are not taking lessons, then you will have to be your critic, teacher and student, all of that by yourself. If that's the case, you must be extremely self-critical and work and correct a lot before presenting the results. It's not really something I recommend, it's a recipe for intellectual burn out and frustration. So, if you are seriously interested, please, look for a composition tutor.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

aleazk said:


> You seemed serious to me.
> 
> But I do advice to post only finished pieces or at least a draft of the whole piece, and pieces which you have carefuly deviced, conceived and composed for some time. Otherwise, a forum is not really the right place for day to day teacher/student chat nor the substitute for that. It's simply not a good way to learn. Also, listen or read what you write and think hard if that's really what you want the piece to be before posting it. If you are not taking lessons, then you will have to be your critic, teacher and student, all of that by yourself. If that's the case, you must be extremely self-critical and work and correct a lot before presenting the results. It's not really something I recommend, it's a recipe for intellectual burn out and frustration. So, if you are seriously interested, please, look for a composition tutor.


Do you think I should hold off posting until I'm more confident? I enjoy the feedback, but I don't want to be obnoxious.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Fredx2098 said:


> Do you think I should hold off posting until I'm more confident? I enjoy the feedback, but I don't want to be obnoxious.


"Some are born obnoxious, some achieve obnoxiousness, and some have obnoxiousness thrust upon 'em."


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Fredx2098 said:


> Do you think I should hold off posting until I'm more confident? I enjoy the feedback, but I don't want to be obnoxious.


Not really. I'm just telling it would be much better for your own good to take private composition lessons at least. You will advance much faster, you will get a more integral view, etc. Rather than composing, you should put a good effort now in finding an actual teacher. It's really essential. In any discipline. For example, in my field, physics, I have to do a lot of self-learning. But it's about the fun stuff, not the elementary knowledge, for that I did my university courses and so I did that quickly and smoothly, didn't waste time self-learning that and reinventing the wheel. Whenever one starts a new activity, particularly an intellectual one and if one is of normal capacity, it's much better to learn the basics from a teacher or a course. They will teach you all the basic tricks, so you don't have to waste time rediscovering them and, thanks to this, can pass to the really cool and exciting stuff in just a few years of study. Once there, you can be by your own if you want, since you will have the basic tools and experience to handle that, and, also, advanced new stuff is less rigid and one can take more idiosyncratic views, your own take on it, and maybe your own style and ideas start from that. But for the basics, better to do it right, quickly and by the book, with a teacher, of course.

The other considerations were more generic, for anyone posting here, not specially targeted at you, maybe I should have posted them in a separate post.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Thanks, I've been trying to start with a composition teacher near me, but it's a process of course and I haven't been feeling well enough as usual. I definitely agree that it's important to have a teacher. Though I have learned a bit about the "fundamentals of musical composition" from herr Schoenberg.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Larkenfield said:


> Music may have been inspired by the gods, but I think someone like Bach or Telemann had the mechanics of composition down pat and could break the rules just as imaginatively and innovatively as their inspiration required … They wrote with an efficiency that is mostly unheard of today, except perhaps for those connected with the movie industry. For today, I think composers require their music to be good enough to be played by live musicians and not just heard as midi files. There has to be something in the music that acquires attention from others, and if someone tries to write, for instance, a sonata or symphony in the style of Beethoven, to remember that they're actually competing with Beethoven... How is a civilian supposed to sort through it all may be mostly up to luck, or find a way to be written about. So a composer not only has to be good, but he has to be lucky, or exceedingly talented and determined. I don't think a prolific composer tries to be prolific; I think they write what's there for them to write that day and it mounts up naturally over time. But I also think that the more one writes, the better chance one has to find his or her own voice.


Improvising for me is important therapy. I'm not finding my voice, because I expect I wouldn't like it. I want to hold music at a distance, because for me it remains a mysterious clutter. I haven't sorted out how it works. Note constellations with directionality and with the mysterious power of proximity. What is going on? I think I should just leave it like that. Just flow with it, for me.

Following M83 down there to our stopping place, the Shapley Supercluster, is the opposite of music, so I have a full, brimful, outlook. I wonder what the greats would have thought along with that perspective? Boston to NYC and back again every second, all of our lives. That's our motion!

Lark, are you improvising?


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda (Jul 12, 2017)

I don't know. I have a great deal of difficulty composing smaller scale works, so most end up being massive song cycles, or symphonies, or concerti, etc. 

I've found that when I'm inspired, I can complete large scale works in a matter of months. I think it depends on whether the composer is adept at translating their ideas onto paper. Someone whose music theory and writing skill is not as polished, they take longer to write out ideas, I think, since they have to fumble around more.

At the rate I'm going, I'll end up having 10 symphonies by 30!

But regardless, I don't think being prolific is bad, so long as the quality of output is good.


----------

