# In your opinion, what does it take to be a composer?



## dumbass2311 (Jan 17, 2009)

That is my number one goal: Be a composer.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2009)

Not caring what anyone thinks about what it takes to be a composer.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

You' ve got a point there, some guy!


----------



## LvB (Nov 21, 2008)

To be a composer, you should compose; everything else is secondary. If possible, work with musicians, and listen to what they have to say about what you've written, technically if not aesthetically (a decent player may not have any comprehension of what a piece of music is trying to do, but they can certainly tell whether or not a given passage is well or poorly written for their instrument). Get as many scores as possible and follow along with recordings, so that you can hear how various combinations sound.

But above all-- compose, compose, compose! 

Good luck!


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> Not caring what anyone thinks about what it takes to be a composer.


Nope, one of the best ways to learn is to learn of others and listen. I agree getting bogged down in similar questions is counter-productive, but it certainly helps!

I advice (EARLY ON!) to copy the styles of composers _you_ really like (they have influenced you anyway, may as well control and tap into that valid and rich resource). You will clearly breach away from the copying (which gets (not initially though) boring to you and the listener), but it will teach you so much. Also, definitely try to copy Mozart and Bach (They will give you a grasp of several basics of composition - as well as thousands of other things later on) along with whoever else you like.

You will soon discover your own 'voice', but don't commit to it. Feed your voice, but you may also find later on that you have a different voice. Never commit in entirety to an idea, but feed everything you come across.


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2009)

"What does it take to be a composer" and "how can I learn how to compose" are two completely different and separate questions.

I answered the first one. Yagan answered the second. (Answered it very well, too, even if he sorta spoiled his answer with a swipe at an answer to another question.) But "oh, well." His advice about how to learn is excellent. No one learning to compose should worry about losing their own voice, which is what I always hear fledgling writers worry about. You are you, and no one else. Turning into someone else just ain't gonna happen.

Listen to some very early Bartók, for instance. Amazing how much that sounds like his great countryman Liszt, eh? Now listen to something a little later on, like _Miraculous Mandarin. _That's not even a little bit like Liszt, is it? So yes, if you have whatever it takes to be a composer, then compose. And the best way to learn that is to copy. And not just the style. Copy out scores, note by note. You're learning techniques at this stage. Merely copying a style means you're only mimicking those other composers. And mimicking a notion you have of them. You really need to learn exactly what they did. How they produced the effects you like so much. And since it's technique that you're learning, I'd recommend that you also copy composers you _don't_ like. One, you force yourself away from what you already know, and what you already like, and two, you may end up liking someone new that way! Either way, you win.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Describing what it takes to be a composer is quite a difficult task. As a professional composer and arranger I will try to isolate things which might be signs that you may have what it takes.

First you must have a very good grasp of how to interpret what you hear, both in the real world and n you head. My experience is this: At University we had to do harmony, couterpoint and ear training exams. The time limit for the Harmony exam was 3 hours for the whole paper. I and another student walked out after less than ten minutes and we both got 'A' (I scored 98%). In the ear training exam we had to transcribe by dictation a 4 voice Bach chorale (all voices) which would be played a total of 8 times. I walked out after one playing and The guy who walked out of the Harmony exam with me after 2 playings. The other guy is also now a professional composer who has worked in Hollywood (scores for 'Stranger than Fiction' and 'Waltz with Bashir' being amongst his high points).
So you have to be able to work quickly and accurately with what you hear. 

Seconly you must have a almost encyclopedic knowledge of how most musical instruments work. There are exceptions to this but that should not be an excuse not to learn. It's not enough to know the opens strings of the guitar; in order to write a convincing piece you must know how hand positions, bars, harmonics, picking techniques etc. work together. You must also know how to notate these techniques on paper so the player can actually read it! It's a lot of grind but there are now computer programs which make notation easier for those who know what the page should look like. I started composing before these were available and I learned to write with an italic ink-pen and even went through a period where I actually drew my own stave paper with a five-pointed ink-pen designed for the job! This close relationship with the medium trough which your music is distributed to musicians is also what it takes to be a composer. At University pencil scores were always being passed around amongst the students; today it's Finale Files on flash memories. The love is still there!

Thirdly you must be able to write all the time! It is a myth about 'writers block'! If you can't come up with the goods you will soon fall by the wayside. It may be that you have no commissions at the moment but that should not mean you stop writing. Russ Garcia gives the most important advice when he says: 'Write, get it played, write some more, get that played too, write some more then even more. Write and write and write!'

Fourthly, having excellent relationships with players, conductors, managers, fixers, soloists, funding bodies, local church choirs etc. is so important and links in to the third point. This is how you really learn. Get you music played even if it's sight reading by the local amateur band! It will give you an invaluable insight int what you write well and what you write badly! the second is the most important. What you write badly should always get more attention than what you write well. I spend days going through scores if there is somethingthat didn't work as well as I had expected. Recently I was asked to orchestrate 4 songs for a huge open air concert with soloist Dimitis Kavrakos of the New York Metropolitan Opera. There was about 20 minutes of music and I was given 6 days in which to deliver the scores. The conductor was a friend from the Greek National Opera and was delighted with the work. The rehearsals took place in the National Radio Studio 1 and everything went very well. The dress rehearsal took place in the open air and the change was very disturbing. The delicate woodwind solos suddenly seemed very week and the harp was getting lost in the lower register. I sat in the break of the reahearsal with my laptop and re-arranged the solos, doubling brass lines and supporting here and there with strings and percussion. The harp was doubled in low wwodwind and some piano and some other changes were made. This was done in about 25 minutes and parts were re printed and ditributed to the players and the piece was saved! I was praied by Kavrakos for my professionalism but I consider this part of the job. If I did not have the good relationsgips with those people first though, I would have not been able to do this. It would have been scrapped from the program!

So 
1. Great ears!
2. Know the instruments!
3. Ablity to write all the time!
4. Good working relationships!

Oh and 5.
Praise other composers. Don't bitch, nobody likes a bitch!
Richard Cherns gave me the best advice not just for composers but for all musiciians-
"Srtoke your fellow musician!"
How easy was that then?

Hope this helps you achieve your goal!
FC


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> Seconly you must have a almost encyclopedic knowledge of how most musical instruments work. There are exceptions to this but that should not be an excuse not to learn. It's not enough to know the opens strings of the guitar; in order to write a convincing piece you must know how hand positions, bars, harmonics, picking techniques etc. work together. You must also know how to notate these techniques on paper so the player can actually read it!


There's an interview with Brian Ferneyhough where he states that one must (like him) know the orchestral (and any other) instruments so well that one has dreams about playing them! Composers ought to definitely develop this through vicarious observation and, although it seems a bit mad, actually playing the invisible instruments whilst at their desk composing.



post-minimalist said:


> Thirdly you must be able to write all the time! It is a myth about 'writers block'! If you can't come up with the goods you will soon fall by the wayside. It may be that you have no commissions at the moment but that should not mean you stop writing. Russ Garcia gives the most important advice when he says: 'Write, get it played, write some more, get that played too, write some more then even more. Write and write and write!'


Not true, unless you don't care about the quality of what you're writing.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Herzeleide said:


> Not true, unless you don't care about the quality of what you're writing.


You can't wtite a master piece everyday, that's for sure, but you must be able to turn up with the goods. This is essential if you intend to be a professional composer. You will find yourself on the sidelines very soon if you turn down commissions because you 'lack inspiration'. Quality is only relevant up to a point; your work should never fall below a certain (high) level no matter what state you are in. (A bit like Mozart dictating the Requeim in a fever on his death bed in the film - totally implausable but you get the point.)

Composers hardly ever think in terms of the quality of their work anyway: they assume that they will write quality material 'by nature'.

All these comments should not discourage anyone from trying their hand at composition but should serve as a guid and perhaps a warning for those who are thinking of becoming professionals in the music business.

FC


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> Merely copying a style means you're only mimicking those other composers. And mimicking a notion you have of them. You really need to learn exactly what they did. How they produced the effects you like so much. And since it's technique that you're learning, I'd recommend that you also copy composers you don't like. One, you force yourself away from what you already know, and what you already like, and two, you may end up liking someone new that way! Either way, you win.


I meant copy styles though scores, through your ears only has limited value. I disagree (in once sense) with trying to copy composers you don't like. Because you don't like them, you are likely not to learn much from them. What I suggest, is to try and like them; listen to them, who they influenced and who influenced them. If you start to like them then copy them.



> (Answered it very well, too, even if he sorta spoiled his answer with a swipe at an answer to another question.) But "oh, well."


I partially agreed with you, I wasn't taking a swipe.



> You can't wtite a master piece everyday, that's for sure, but you must be able to turn up with the goods. This is essential if you intend to be a professional composer.


Not for a learner however, they have yet to develop the skills and practices of starting a piece. But you are absolutely true with even a semi-accomplished composer, there is no excuse to not being able to write something at an above-okay level.



> Composers hardly ever think in terms of the quality of their work anyway: they assume that they will write quality material 'by nature'.


Indeed!



> Praise other composers. Don't bitch, nobody likes a bitch!
> Richard Cherns gave me the best advice not just for composers but for all musiciians-


Hard however when you are surrounded by people doing the same thing which you agree with.



> At University we had to do harmony, couterpoint and ear training exams. The time limit for the Harmony exam was 3 hours for the whole paper. I and another student walked out after less than ten minutes and we both got 'A' (I scored 98%).


ooh ditto!

_________________________________Slight complaint (Off topic): I tested my father who has not read anything about music (just radio), had can't read music, and isn't very knowledgeable about music, he got 9 out of 10 in a final year Harmony test for BMus. The absolute ********* test in the world:

Algorithmic composition uses what factor as a key in the creation of works?
a mathematics
b texture
c electronics

And it gets worse!

What is the difference between improvisation and composition?
a Composition is the only true method of music creation
b Improvisation is spontaneous, composition is usually premeditated
c Composition offers more freedom than improvisation

Now, I agree with the last, does that mean I should pick C? Completely subjective opinions that can be correct if the person doing the test agrees with it but would be marked down because of it. Basically the question was: What is the lecturer's opinion on the difference?
__________________________________ Back On Topic



> I walked out after one playing and The guy who walked out of the Harmony exam with me after 2 playings. The other guy is also now a professional composer who has worked in Hollywood (scores for 'Stranger than Fiction' and 'Waltz with Bashir' being amongst his high points).
> So you have to be able to work quickly and accurately with what you hear.


This is certainly a great help, but it isn't a necessity, you can get around it.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> You can't wtite a master piece everyday, that's for sure, but you must be able to turn up with the goods. This is essential if you intend to be a professional composer. You will find yourself on the sidelines very soon if you turn down commissions because you 'lack inspiration'.


It's hard to say. Personally I find the opportunity of having a work performed inspiration enough in itself. I would also submit that if a composer writes for proper reasons - enjoyment, edification, nourishment for the soul etc. then the likelihood is that, since the number of commissions or opportunities are obviously not likely to exceed the amount one composes anyway, even if one is not inspired at the time of commission, one ought to always have 'something lying around' to use - even if this means adjusting a composition for the instrumental forces of the commission, which I find fascinating and inspiring anyway. The idea of 'producing the goods' I'm afraid I find incorrigibly clinical and sterile.



post-minimalist said:


> Quality is only relevant up to a point; your work should never fall below a certain (high) level no matter what state you are in. (A bit like Mozart dictating the Requeim in a fever on his death bed in the film - totally implausable but you get the point.)
> 
> Composers hardly ever think in terms of the quality of their work anyway: they assume that they will write quality material 'by nature'.


Quality (at least for me) _is_ the point! And personally as a composer, I'm constantly preoccupied with the question of quality - it is a broad aesthetic issue which I feel obliged to ask about any music I write and any music I study - _why_ is this good? How could it be better? etc. These are the real issues at the heart of creative work and aesthetics in general, and I feel the need to confront them frequently. They always branch out into questions of form, cohesion, unity, and ultimately, what one wishes to achieve.

Of course, this approach is perhaps incompatible with prolificness. However, I would say that, although all of the above is very relevant, the idea of 'trial and error' is also important, and so it is indeed important that composers get a variety of their works performed.


----------



## LvB (Nov 21, 2008)

While reading over the answers here it struck me that there are really three questions being answered, and the answers are accordingly quite varied.

1) The literal original first question: what does it take to be a composer? I stick by my own answer here: a composer is one who composes; therefore, to be a composer one must compose. But this utterly ignores--

2) An inferred subsidiary question: what does it take to be a successful (i.e. moneymaking) composer?
and
3) An inferred, and very important, complementary question: what does it take to be a good, or perhaps even great, composer?

It is the latter two questions to which most of the (very thoughtful and useful) answers are being given. The problem is that for every one of those answers there are significant exceptions. Take question 2. There is, so far as I can tell, no universal rule here. Does one even need to be able to read music? Not at all; Paul McCartney still takes pride in being unable to read music, and no one will dispute that he is very successful. Does one need to play an instrument? Irving Berlin, another whose success is indisputable, could play only piano, and that only in the key of F# Major (he had a special paino built with a transposing device built in). Neither Berlioz nor Wagner could do more than adequate work at the piano, and neither knew any other instrument well (Berlioz could play guitar a bit); their success as inventive orchestrators is obvious. [Please note: I am not equating the _musical_ significance of these people, but merely indicating that they provide historical exceptions to suggestions already made]. Nor is it clear that even the most well-trained person will succeed; far too many artists of all sorts have signally failed during their lifetimes, and it strikes me as improbable that the posthumous success stories of which we know happen to cover the available worthwhile artists completely.

It gets even tougher whe we consider question 3. Leaving aside disputes over whether to attribute 'greatness' to any given composer, there is a huge range of methods and outputs to be found among those whose historical significance is clear. Bach wrote 1500 works, Berg wrote 15; both are considered major figures. Telemann wrote 2000 works, and no one considers him a major figure. Ned Rorem, clearly a recognized major contemporary composer, took an an entire year off from composing (and this fairly early in his career); Paul Hindemith seems to have composed every single day; the former is widely performed, while the latter has all but dropped off the concert stage (a couple of pieces excepted). Perhaps the only really accurate comment here is that of Honegger; asked what it took to be a great composer, he replied that, 'first you must be dead.'

So I find myself coming back to the question as asked, and picking up suggestions from some of the other answers. The only way to be a composer is to care about creating music so much that you want to write it as much as you can as best as you can-- and not really care about what others think of it or how often they perform it or whether you make a lot of money from it. These latter considerations, though they may be useful financially, are really extraneous to the heart of being a composer, which is (you guessed it  ) to compose.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> Bach wrote 1500


Closer to 800. His catalogue is different from many.



> and not really care about what others think of it


Terrible advice! Always listen and care about what people say. That doesn't mean you have to act on their advice (in fact you often shouldn't) but always take it into consideration.



> Quality (at least for me) _is_ the point! And personally as a composer, I'm constantly preoccupied with the question of quality - it is a broad aesthetic issue which I feel obliged to ask about any music I write and any music I study - _why_ is this good? How could it be better? etc. These are the real issues at the heart of creative work and aesthetics in general, and I feel the need to confront them frequently. They always branch out into questions of form, cohesion, unity, and ultimately, what one wishes to achieve.


Yes but that leads you to what Brahms did, edits his works to make them better, yet which are performed more...


----------



## LvB (Nov 21, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> Closer to 800. His catalogue is different from many.


And Berg wrote 100, if you count all the early lieder. It was a rhetorical gesture to make a point, not a musicological summary. But I accept the correction.


> Terrible advice! Always listen and care about what people say. That doesn't mean you have to act on their advice (in fact you often shouldn't) but always take it into consideration.


I didn't make myself clear. I was not objecting to any of the advice above, but rather pointing out that none of it is absolutely necessary for a would-be composer to follow. After all, there may be many comments made from the purest ignorance. Certainly there have been many composers who have been little interested in the comments of others, even people with some claim to musical knowledge. Beethoven to Schuppanzigh (loosely translated): "Do you think I care for your puling fiddle when the spirit is upon me and I must compose?!" Beethoven again, in a marginal note written on a critical review of _Wellington's Victory_ (untranslated for obvious reasons): "O du elender Schuft! Was ich _scheisse_, ist besser als du je gedacht!" Reger, famously, to a critic of his music: "I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have your review before me. In a moment it will be behind me." And so on. You're absolutely right to say that composers may learn from the comments of others-- but not to suggest that doing so is some sort of requirement for entry into the composer's union, so to speak. Only the composer can know what he or she has attempted to achieve; outside of purely technical comments by performers, only the composer can judge whether their own work does what they wanted. Only history can judge its overall worth, and the voice of history is the something we can never hear while alive and still writing.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

@ LvB:

I think you are not being completely honest in your interpretation of the original question. The 3 catagories you set up later are all inherrent in the first post. I could ask: 'what does it take to be an Englishman?' You would answer: 'Be born in England.' and stop there. All the Empire and stiff upper lip, phlegmatic humour, drinking tea at 4 o'clock etc. would have to be catagorised. If it is as you suggest just a simple question 'What is a composer?' then answer 'Someone who composes.' But this is a deeper request for information, ideas, guidelines etc. And the many answers given here are all true to a certain extent in that they apply to the composers who gave replies. 

Also the point was that composers should know how instruments sound and work, not to be able to play them all. MacCartney who can't read music relies totally on those professionals who can to cover his short commings; copyists, orchestrators, arrangers etc. There is a huge industry called 'Music Preparation' which you may have seen going past in film credits, which is just this; arranging scores copying and transposing parts which the composer either can't do or, more likely, doesn't have time to do. I am often involved in this stage of working in film and television. Next week a new series will begin on Sky TV called 'The Great Greeks' which will credit me with music preparation. In fact, I actually orchestrated, arranged, copied and prepared parts, and conducted the orchestra in the recording sessions. The composer reads and writes music but really doesn't have the time to do all the nitty gritty involved in getting TV scored 'on the screen'.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Herzeleide said:


> Quality (at least for me) _is_ the point! And personally as a composer, I'm constantly preoccupied with the question of quality - it is a broad aesthetic issue which I feel obliged to ask about any music I write and any music I study - _why_ is this good? How could it be better? etc. These are the real issues at the heart of creative work and aesthetics in general, and I feel the need to confront them frequently. They always branch out into questions of form, cohesion, unity, and ultimately, what one wishes to achieve.


And it should be as it is for all composers but you cannot make it the ultimate arbiter for the completion of a work. If you are still sculpting the inroduction to perfection when the completion date sails past then you will find it increasingly hard to get commissions and hear your work. One must always temper quality with getting the job done. I also made a point about quality not falling below a certain level. We had a catch phrase at Uni which was: 'your worst should still be better than the other guys best!' This also applies to time limits. Think like this:

'I could write an overture in my sleep with the flu and in one night, drunk without a pencil and it would still be better than the best efforts of the next guy.'

I know it seems egotistical but that's 'what it takes'!
FC


----------



## LvB (Nov 21, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> I think you are not being completely honest in your interpretation of the original question. The 3 catagories you set up later are all inherrent in the first post. I could ask: 'what does it take to be an Englishman?' You would answer: 'Be born in England.' and stop there. All the Empire and stiff upper lip, phlegmatic humour, drinking tea at 4 o'clock etc. would have to be catagorised. If it is as you suggest just a simple question 'What is a composer?' then answer 'Someone who composes.' But this is a deeper request for information, ideas, guidelines etc. And the many answers given here are all true to a certain extent in that they apply to the composers who gave replies.


There is a difference here that is vital: one does not choose the place of one's birth, whereas one does choose to be a composer. The first part of that choice _must_ be to start writing and keep writing, for without that choice and the subsequent actions all the rest of the knowledge to which many are pointing here would be irrelevant. One would simply be a person who knows a great deal about music (a musicologist, perhaps), but not a composer. What I was getting at was the need for commitment first and foremost-- and the idea that such a commitment is something which cannot be taught. I have very carefully stated more than once that the suggestions being made have their value and can be very useful-- but training is not enough, however thorough it is.


> Also the point was that composers should know how instruments sound and work, not to be able to play them all. MacCartney who can't read music relies totally on those professionals who can to cover his short commings; copyists, orchestrators, arrangers etc. There is a huge industry called 'Music Preparation' which you may have seen going past in film credits, which is just this; arranging scores copying and transposing parts which the composer either can't do or, more likely, doesn't have time to do. I am often involved in this stage of working in film and television. Next week a new series will begin on Sky TV called 'The Great Greeks' which will credit me with music preparation. In fact, I actually orchestrated, arranged, copied and prepared parts, and conducted the orchestra in the recording sessions. The composer reads and writes music but really doesn't have the time to do all the nitty gritty involved in getting TV scored 'on the screen'.


The two parts of your point here seem to contradict each other. If teh question is, 'what do I need to have in order to be a successful composer?', the fact that people who lack this or that skill yet are successsful composers indicates that having that skill is not a prerequisite for being a successful composer. It's a logical point rather than a musical one, really. I am _not_ saying that the various skills and approaches suggested above are useless, but only that, as a matter of logic and musical history, they are not foundational. They come after the commitment to composing, not before.

So I'm not being "dishonest," but examining the question and various answers thereto carefully. In fact, while the subordinate questions I raise are certainly relevant to the question asked, they are not necessarily part of it. There are plenty of people who compose, or at least improvise (which is a kind of ephemeral composition) purely for their own pleasure. If so, then they are composers for whom questions two and three which I have drawn out are utterly irrelevant. As the original poster hasn't replied to any of the subsequent posts, it is not at all clear what his or her desire in this matter really is.


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

As an aspiring composer as well.

I want do know what having a "great ear" entitles?

I always wondered if being proficient at the piano necessary, or just having a basic knowledge of the keyboard and being able to "pick" at it suffice?


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> I didn't make myself clear. I was not objecting to any of the advice above, but rather pointing out that none of it is absolutely necessary for a would-be composer to follow.


Absolutely agreed then.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

commitment can also come after learning as in my case. I was a professional orchestral player for 15 years before becomping a full time composer. 

A 'great ear' is described in the body of my post where it is mentioned. If you can transcribe eight bars of a string quartet note for note after one hearing then you probably have a great ear, picking out tunes on the piano, despite being a nice start, is not exceptional.

Please do not confuse being able to whistle a good tune (no offence Macca!) with being a consumate musical technician (that's what these not so useless other bits add up to). A comopser must be both or rely on others to do part of what is really his job! It may be the case that he has no time to do all those tasks but he should be able to carry them out if necessary.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

LvB said:


> There is a difference here that is vital: one does not choose the place of one's birth, whereas one does choose to be a composer.


That's just nit picking about the example I chose.



LvB said:


> One would simply be a person who knows a great deal about music (a musicologist, perhaps), but not a composer.


Yes but that would not exclude you from being a composer.
Since you have a liking for logic... This is a case of subsets. Composers should be at least musicologists; so they are a subset of musicologists.



LvB said:


> So I'm not being "dishonest," but examining the question and various answers thereto carefully. In fact, while the subordinate questions I raise are certainly relevant to the question asked, they are not necessarily part of it.


I consider the two subordinate questions absolutely relevent since the original question starts with, 'In your opinion'. Yours may differ but for me it stands.



LvB said:


> As the original poster hasn't replied to any of the subsequent posts, it is not at all clear what his or her desire in this matter really is.


Yes, it would be nice to hear what he or she has to say about the subject!
FC


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> Yes but that leads you to what Brahms did, edits his works to make them better, yet which are performed more...




I'm confused by this sentence (mainly because of its poor grammatical construction). Is editing one's work to make it better a bad thing? Even if this leads to more performances? (Assuming it gets performed in the first place!)

Please clarify.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> 'I could write an overture in my sleep with the flu and in one night, drunk without a pencil and it would still be better than the best efforts of the next guy.'
> 
> I know it seems egotistical but that's 'what it takes'!
> FC


Well, for this to happen I believe certain criteria have to be so ingrained as to be second-nature, and I think this is only achieved by asking the appropriate questions and making the appropriate judgements in the first place.

I know where you're coming from though; but suffice to say, steady, hard work every day means I can still complete it within the deadline and not sacrifice quality.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Herzeleide said:


> suffice to say, steady, hard work every day means I can still complete it within the deadline and not sacrifice quality.


That's the spirit!


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> I'm confused by this sentence (mainly because of its poor grammatical construction). Is editing one's work to make it better a bad thing? Even if this leads to more performances? (Assuming it gets performed in the first place!)


Being bogged down in making one piece quality stops you from learning and makes you focus on one single bygone piece that is already below you quality. Brahms constantly edited his pieces to make them 'better', but his earlier versions of the works are always played more because they are generally considered to be better. He got so engrossed in what is quality he couldn't step back and admire what he _had_ done and put what he had learned into new pieces.


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> A 'great ear' is described in the body of my post where it is mentioned. If you can transcribe eight bars of a string quartet note for note after one hearing then you probably have a great ear


But lets say someone who doesn't have a great ear, or at least can't transcribed aboved mentioned example after just one hearing, would a solid knowledge of music theory still be able to help them in being not a great composer but at least a decent one, in your opinion?


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

JoeGreen said:


> But lets say someone who doesn't have a great ear, or at least can't transcribed aboved mentioned example after just one hearing, would a solid knowledge of music theory still be able to help them in being not a great composer but at least a decent one, in your opinion?


I guess we should have a few more catagories in this question like: 
1. What does it take to be a great composer?
2. What does it take to be a good composer?
3. What does it take to be a mediocre composer?
etc.etc.

I answered the question thinking about what you would be expected to be able to do if you set yourself up as a professional composer today. I guess there are many professional composers who don't have all the skills or qualities I mention and many professional composers who are mediocre for other reasons such as lack of time, or low pay incentives. I know an old lady who decided to be a 'composer'. She whistles me tunes which she then decides that she would like ot be a piano sonata for example. I transcribe her whislting into a tape recorder then harmonise and arrange it for piano and try to make a sonata out of it. Her stuff isn't particularly great but she pays well and I enjoy the challenge! I might even post some of it here in a 'before and after' show case some time.

My point is anyone can be a composer in the same way that anyone can be come a swimmer. But the Olympics do seem a long way off if you can only do the doggy paddle for half a lengtth though!

FC


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

Okay, I see what you mean, but I mean is it possible for someone who understands musical form, knows orchestration, understands counterpoint, harmoinc theory etc.
but doesn't have perfect pitch or is a virtouso. Still capable of creating, maybe not masterpieces, good solid compositions.

Or will it be impossible for them to rise through the ranks with out having the proper "equipment" from the start.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

That's an interesting point. Rising through the ranks in not all that rare but it only constitutes an informal version of conservatory training, rather like an apprenticeship. The same criteria apply however to the quality of the work you produce as an apprentice as they would to a college student. John Williams the film composer had this kind of training; he was playing in studio orchestras from the age of 10. Still, he is an example of what it takes to be a great composer (some may disagree as to his greatness) and whether his consumate skills were gained 'behind a desk' or 'on the job' are irrelevent. If he had been a duffer in his'apprenticeship' he would never have got where he is today. 

I ran a big band for several years where this process took place more than once. For example, the pianist wanted to be an arranger so I gave him some lessons and tips on the job. He got his 'homework' played by the band until it was good enough to actually go into the program and now he is the musical director of another show where he did all the scoring. He didn't start with an exceptionally good ear but he worked hard (Herzeleide's point actually) and now he has very good chord recognition and can get down a melody on first or second hearing, his scores are inventive and, most importantly, he is showing no signs of slowing down or drying up!
FC


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> Being bogged down in making one piece quality stops you from learning and makes you focus on one single bygone piece that is already below you quality. Brahms constantly edited his pieces to make them 'better', but his earlier versions of the works are always played more because they are generally considered to be better. He got so engrossed in what is quality he couldn't step back and admire what he _had_ done and put what he had learned into new pieces.


So that's what you meant.

Realistically though, most of us are not like Brahms. I never suggested being 'bogged down' in one piece - rather, thinking things through and questioning aspects of the piece; rather than stopping one from learning, this fosters learning, and a general critical approach which is a _sine qua non_ in this day and age when a composer can take nothing for granted (unlike in the common-practice period).


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

JoeGreen said:


> Okay, I see what you mean, but I mean is it possible for someone who understands musical form, knows orchestration, understands counterpoint, harmoinc theory etc.
> but doesn't have perfect pitch or is a virtouso. Still capable of creating, maybe not masterpieces, good solid compositions.


Regarding harmony, counterpoint and orchestration - to really be skilled at such things _does_ involve having excellent hearing.

It's no use knowing all the 'rules' for harmony and counterpoint - to really be skilled at these things involves being able to write them onto the page and know what they sound like, to be able, for example, to imagine separate lines of counterpoint and know in one's head what their combination will sound like.

Unfortunately, such things tend to be glossed over, or have been glossed over by most theoretical books throughout history, and they're still endemic in (at least the British) education system. The aural side (which is actually what music _is_!) is ridiculously ignored.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

To be a composer you need to infer musical events on paper. To be a geat composer those musical events should be well thought out and innovative. IMO


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> T He didn't start with an exceptionally good ear but he worked hard (Herzeleide's point actually) and now he has very good chord recognition and can get down a melody on first or second hearing, his scores are inventive and, most importantly, he is showing no signs of slowing down or drying up!
> FC


Ah, that line is all the reassurance I need.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> I never suggested being 'bogged down' in one piece - rather, thinking things through and questioning aspects of the piece; rather than stopping one from learning, this fosters learning, and a general critical approach which is a _sine qua non_ in this day and age when a composer can take nothing for granted (unlike in the common-practice period).


I was adding more than taking to what you were saying, but once a piece has been finished, it is pointless to actually continue editing it (with small exceptions).



> It's no use knowing all the 'rules' for harmony and counterpoint - to really be skilled at these things involves being able to write them onto the page and know what they sound like, to be able, for example, to imagine separate lines of counterpoint and know in one's head what their combination will sound like.


Actually, it isn't necessary. Those things CAN be learnt, it just takes work. And either way, you have to be tone-deaf (in which case you won't listen to music anyway) to not learn enough to compose. You do _not_ need to be perfect pitch in ANY situation of music ever. Full stop. It's a hindrance as it makes you lazy and your ear changes. Learned pitch is much better and more reliable.

In terms of ear, you can learn enough to compose easily.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> I was adding more than taking to what you were saying, but once a piece has been finished, it is pointless to actually continue editing it (with small exceptions).
> 
> Actually, it isn't necessary. Those things CAN be learnt, it just takes work. And either way, you have to be tone-deaf (in which case you won't listen to music anyway) to not learn enough to compose. You do _not_ need to be perfect pitch in ANY situation of music ever. Full stop. It's a hindrance as it makes you lazy and your ear changes. Learned pitch is much better and more reliable.
> 
> In terms of ear, you can learn enough to compose easily.


1) I don't find it useless tweaking compositions after they've had their first performace.

2) I never said perfect pitch was necessary. Perfect pitch is only a hindrance or makes you lazy if you let that happen (Boulez has perfect pitch, and he has some of the most astonishingly sensitive and accurate ears). I have no idea what you mean about 'learned pitch' but, suffice to say, one can not learn to accurately recognise specific pitches.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Excelent hearing doesn't always matter, Beethoven wrote some of his most innovative and beautiful works while he was deaf. I've played some beautiful Smetena violin pieces he wrote when he was deaf. It's what you hear in your head that is the crucial factor I think.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

This is of course not the sort of 'hearing' I'm talking about. Beethoven could still imagine (hear) how a certain sequence or melody of tone colour whould sound. Both these composers went deaf AFTER learning or developing the skills involved in composing. A composer that was born deaf? I can't think of any. can you?
congenitally blind artists?


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Yo post-minimalist, I didn't actually read your last post so my last post wasn't in response to anything you had written. I oppose the notion that you need good hearing to be a good composer, but support the notion that at some point in a composer's life they heard a musical sound!

Plus, when we listen to our imaginative sounds in our heads are we actually listening? It's the faliure to produce definitions for the words you use that will create unpleasantness bloodshed.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

I know a couple of composers who do not have a good 'inner ear'. They are slow, unreliable and generally write purile and boring music. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not angry or upset at anyone. But I feel that sometimes there is a kind of: _'Why on earth can't this paraplegic man run in the 100m? It doesn't matter that he'll finish half an hour after the others, it's the taking part that counts!'_ attitude here. While this is very altruistic and philanthropic (of which I approve 100%), I have stated again and again that I suggest points which indicate the ability to be a _professional_ composer today.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

What you seem to be focusing on is the physiological aspects of the composer. How on earth can you generalise people who have a physiological deficiancy into the category of slow and unreliable?! Most of the proffessional composers today havn't got to the top because of their divine inner ear, but because of their ambition, relentlessness and ruthlessness to get to the top. Obsession, passion and bloody-mindedness; don't these psychological traits of a composer count?


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Edward Elgar said:


> What you seem to be focusing on is the physiological aspects of the composer.


Well that's all we can go on. I did state in my first post (which you should read by the way) that getting on with fellow musicians is, in my opinion (and let's not forget that that is also part of the original question) a good thing for composers to master.

If we focus on the metaphysical aspect of composers we could really get bogged down!



Edward Elgar said:


> How on earth can you generalise people who have a physiological deficiancy into the category of slow and unreliable?!


I was specific in my example and I generalized because my sample group is large enough to do so (I have been dealing with professional composers in one way or another for 30 year) It is not an absolute statement, but then hardly any statement is absolute.

If you use exceptions as a guide line you'll find yourself being mugged! I know a guy who dresses like a skinhead hooligan but he is a really nice guy. I don't say hi to every skinhead I see in the street though, becuase in general it's not a safe thing to do.

We generalize from experience and as far as composers are concerned I think I have some.



Edward Elgar said:


> Most of the proffessional composers today havn't got to the top because of their divine inner ear, but because of their ambition, relentlessness and ruthlessness to get to the top. Obsession, passion and bloody-mindedness; don't these psychological traits of a composer count?


Not so. Most of today's top professional composers have a brilliant 'inner ear' and can reproduce their ideas quickly and efficiently because of this. No amount of 'brown nosing' will keep you in this race for long since it's all about results and not a** licking!

These qualities (if we can call them that) are quite useful but I was probably thinking in terms of what was exclusively related to composers and not generally useful for getting on in almost any endevour whether professional or not. I cant imagine a business director being interviewed for a managerial post in a multinational oil company being asked to transcribe three part counterpoint!
FC


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

A professional composer wouldn't be asked to transcribe three part counterpoint to get a job or commission! A professional composer would be contacted because of their previous work that would have been possible because of 'brown nosing' established composers/producers. The music game isn't a magic ladder reserved only for the physiologically superior, it's a bloodthirsty fight to the top that only those with the right kind of determination can achive.

Plus your statement about physiological aspects being the only thing we have to go on is absurd! We know (or should do) so much about composers psychologies through documentation of their personal lives. We will never know if Mozart or any of the old masters had the best ears in the human race, ergo most of the physiological aspects of the dead composers will never be established!

I don't know what you were infering about my likelyhood of getting mugged! I made no referals of exceptions as guidelines so what you said about skinheads and mugging is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. My guidelines as to what makes a great composer are based on my knowledge of the reccuring themes found in composers lives of struggle and expression of art through their emotions and beliefs, not through thier brilliant inner ears.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Edward Elgar said:


> A professional composer wouldn't be asked to transcribe three part counterpoint to get a job or commission! .


No, this would _be_ the job. Last year I was 'contracted' to transcribe 15 songs by various artist who's lyrics were all by the same poet. If I didn't have good ears it would take me too long, I would get half of it hopelessly wrong and consequently never get more work from that employer or any of his associates again, no matter how brown my tongue got!



Edward Elgar said:


> A professional composer would be contacted because of their previous work that would have been possible because of 'brown nosing' established composers/producers. The music game isn't a magic ladder reserved only for the physiologically superior, it's a bloodthirsty fight to the top that only those with the right kind of determination can achive.
> .


I agree in principle with this except for the brown nosing. Working as an assistant to a composer is one way to get into the business but it is by no means brown nosing. Most professional composers like to be flattered but can tell a mile off if compliments are genune or not, and consequently take a dim view of this kind of self-promotion. 
It is a fight to the top but bloodthirsty determination will only get you a reputation as a charlatan if you cant back it up with your work!



Edward Elgar said:


> We will never know if Mozart or any of the old masters had the best ears in the human race....


Actually we have Mozart's (and other's) scores to testify to their aural abilities. Not to mention, in Mozart's case at least, reported examples of his aural brilliance such as his transcribing Allegri's Miserere in it's entirity after only one hearing. The scene in Amadeus (I hate this film - you should see it in the theatre) where he plays and imporoves on Salieri's 'March for the Arch Duke' is pretty much what he could do at the age of 11.



Edward Elgar said:


> I don't know what you were infering about my likelyhood of getting mugged! I made no referals of exceptions as guidelines so what you said about skinheads and mugging is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. .


I allude to how we can make mistakes by generaizing from the particular.
Actually you were trying to generaize what it takes to bea composer from a small number of talentless brown-nosers rather than compsers who actuall write good music.



Edward Elgar said:


> My guidelines as to what makes a great composer are based on my knowledge of the reccuring themes found in composers lives of struggle and expression of art through their emotions and beliefs, not through thier brilliant inner ears.


Other people stuggle too; poets and authors, painters and actors, this is common ground. I was trying to explain what it take to be a composer and not just any type of artist.

This will be my last post in this thread since I cannot make myself any clearer.
FC


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Edward Elgar said:


> Most of the proffessional composers today havn't got to the top because of their divine inner ear, but because of their ambition, relentlessness and ruthlessness to get to the top.


Can you name any examples?



Edward Elgar said:


> Obsession, passion and bloody-mindedness; don't these psychological traits of a composer count?


Yes, they do count, but if a composer is that obsessed then his musicianship would be developed to the point that he/she would have a highly developed inner ear.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

A transcriber is not a composer!!!

A genuine, yet complimentary attitude is an essential personality trait when dealing with composers/producers and it’s nice to see you acknowledging the existences composers’ personalities. 

Yes you need previous work as a reference but how did that previous work come about?! Through hard work and persistence, not the touch of god. If you have superior ears, by all means go up to a composer/producer and wave them in their face, see if you get a job!

I’m not going to deny that good hearing is a factor, but say if one of your skinhead buddies had hearing sent from heaven, they aren’t going to run down to the nearest church and transcribe the hymn of the day! Because of their circumstances, personalities and beliefs their superior ears would go unnoticed. That is why I firmly believe good hearing / good inner ears are not the most important factors, and it’s the right psychology in an individual that will make them a great composer.

Hi Herzeleide. How about John Williams who, in his early years, took every job he could to be noticed. The same is true of Hans Zimmer, Howard Shore and most commercial composers. In fact I can’t think of one modern day composer who hasn’t had a struggle to get where he/she is today.

I totally agree with your statement that obsession leads to the development of a highly trained musical ear, but the obsession needs to come first which again is a psychological aspect of a composer.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Edward Elgar said:


> A transcriber is not a composer!!!


A composer is a transcriber of his or her inner ear. 



Edward Elgar said:


> Hi Herzeleide. How about John Williams who, in his early years, took every job he could to be noticed. The same is true of Hans Zimmer, Howard Shore and most commercial composers. In fact I can't think of one modern day composer who hasn't had a struggle to get where he/she is today.


Hello. I had in mind bona fide, as opposed to commercial composers. I had in mind Oliver Knussen, Robin Holloway, Nicholas Maw, Robert Saxton, Tristan Murail, Magnus Lindberg, Kaija Saariaho, George Benjamin, Thomas Adès, Julian Anderson etc.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

OK I lied, _this_ is my last post on the thread!



Edward Elgar said:


> A transcriber is not a composer!!!


No but in general a composer rather than a football player (or even a professional performing musician) makes a good transcriber simply because he has a good ear trained to analyse what it is hearing.

I like the 'Transcriber of his own inner ear' image. Very good!



Edward Elgar said:


> Yes you need previous work as a reference but how did that previous work come about?!


Chicken - egg- chicken - egg.....

Incidently I did get work as a composer because I 'waved' my ears at another composer.
I had done a note for note transcrition for full big band of 'Put The Balme On Mame' sung by Rita Hayworth in 'Gilda' for film score in one afternoon in 1999 and subsequently landed a TV score! Try it and see how long it takes you.



Edward Elgar said:


> I firmly believe good hearing / good inner ears are not the most important factors, and it's the right psychology in an individual that will make them a great composer.


there are probably rather a large number of composers who would find that comment insulting. It's like saying (although you don't) 'Anyone can be a composer if they feel like it.'

I think the slogan is 'be what you want to be!' Shame it's not true!


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Oh my god! You are twisting my words! No, not everyone can be a composer! Very very untrue! A composer comes about when they are in love with music (and possibly themselves) and make a concious effort to devote their whole lives to the persuit of music-making. This, coupled with the right circumstances may lead to a composer. Then again, due to the psychological strength and personal circumstances of an individual, they may fail as composers.

You have revealled yourself to be somewhat of a composer, don't tell me you sailed down that path purely off the back of your ears! You must be dedicated and psycologically determined to have got landed that score.

I admit I fancy myself as a commercial composer, at the moment though I'm still in full-time education. However in that time, due to my own psycological determination, I will train my knowledge of music along with my aural skills and see where it gets me.

Imagination has a dominant role for a composer in my opinion. No amount of training or aural prowess can get you far if you don't have this.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

OK, so this is the last one, maybe!
I'm beginning to like your tenacity!



Edward Elgar said:


> Oh my god! You are twisting my words! No, not everyone can be a composer! Very very untrue! A composer comes about when they are in love with music (and possibly themselves).


Sorry about that! put that one down as variations on a theme. Unfortunately a lot of composers are or were in love with themselves (I'm going to get into trouble with Herzeleide with this but here goes) notably Wagner!



Edward Elgar said:


> You have revealled yourself to be somewhat of a composer, don't tell me you sailed down that path purely off the back of your ears! You must be dedicated and psycologically determined to have got landed that score.


If you are suggesting that I got where I am by employing some Public relations trick then you might be right but to continue the example I gave earlier: i.e. from the 'Put the Blame on Mame' transcription... The singer who actually performed the song subsequently hired me to 'orchestrate' her own compositions for her next CD which was then so appreciated by the director of the record company that he offered to sponser the recording of my orchestral work for strings with the London Chamber Orchestra (Link to LCO Dicography page). The moral of the tale is 'if you transcribe some trash now, you might get a recording deal with the LCO later on'.



Edward Elgar said:


> I admit I fancy myself as a commercial composer, at the moment though I'm still in full-time education. However in that time, due to my own psycological determination, I will train my knowledge of music along with my aural skills and see where it gets me.


More power to you, my friend! I'd be delighted to hear anything you've written.

BTW Fancying yourself and being in love with yourself are not the same thing! 



Edward Elgar said:


> Imagination has a dominant role for a composer in my opinion. No amount of training or aural prowess can get you far if you don't have this.


Now this actually makes a lot (and I mean a huge amount) of sense! If you can't hook that 100,000 Watt generator up to the lights nobody's going to be able to see it!

In case you want to hear some of my recent work, I have attached an MP3 file of some of my music (commercial video game music).
Happy listening!

Keep writing.
FC


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Edward Elgar said:


> Imagination has a dominant role for a composer in my opinion. No amount of training or aural prowess can get you far if you don't have this.


Yes and no. There's no point in having wonderful sounds floating around the head or interesting technical and formal ideas if you don't have the means to put them on paper.


----------



## mueske (Jan 14, 2009)

post-minimalist said:


> there are probably rather a large number of composers who would find that comment insulting. It's like saying (although you don't) 'Anyone can be a composer if they feel like it.'
> 
> I think the slogan is 'be what you want to be!' Shame it's not true!


Why is that insulting? If someone writes music and thinks of himself as a composer, he is a composer! At least to me.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

mueske said:


> Why is that insulting? If someone writes music and thinks of himself as a composer, he is a composer! At least to me.


I could tell my dentist that I also take teeth out for a hobby but not very well and that I consider myself a dentist. How do you think he would feel? I wouldn't be surprised if he called the police let alone be insulted!

Doing a job professionally is very different from dabbling as an amateur. I made this point earlier in this thread talking about 'composers' who don't know how to write down music, and how they rely on 'professional' musicians to supplement their deficiencies.

As a professional composer/arranger I would feel insulted if someone told me that they can strum a few chords and don't know any notation or theory but have a piece they can play which they 'wrote'. I couldn't call the police because they don't pose any physical threat but I wouldn't like to think that the London Philharmonic passed me over to offer him a 5,000 quid commision for a new orchestral work, or even that they got a TV theme from a producer that knows my phone number.

Go and watch the preliminary rounds of X-Factor and see how many of these poor souls who think of themselves as singers really are! Real singer tear their hair out at these shows because it's really trash TV, not musical entertainment. We all watch X factor for the howlers and are quite surprised when one of them can actually hold a tune.

Go figure!
FC


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Herzeleide said:


> Yes and no. There's no point in having wonderful sounds floating around the head or interesting technical and formal ideas if you don't have the means to put them on paper.


Almost right. What is missing is not paper, but rather any means to relay these ideas quickly and efficiently, and in detail to a performer. That just happens to have been paper for the last few centuries but I know a guy who can sight read the coulored bricks in a sequencer window about as well as I can real an string quartet at the piano! 
'The times they are a changin'!" 
FC


----------



## mueske (Jan 14, 2009)

post-minimalist said:


> I could tell my dentist that I also take teeth out for a hobby but not very well and that I consider myself a dentist. How do you think he would feel? I wouldn't be surprised if he called the police let alone be insulted!
> 
> Doing a job professionally is very different from dabbling as an amateur. I made this point earlier in this thread talking about 'composers' who don't know how to write down music, and how they rely on 'professional' musicians to supplement their deficiencies.
> 
> ...


There is a difference between art and jobs. Art is an expression, everyone can and should be able to express themselves. Education isn't necessary in my opinion.

It's the same for painting, why take lessons if you are able to express yourself with just throwing paint on a canvas? In my opinion, everyone can be whatever they want. And if by chance some TV show producer likes a tune from someone who never had an education, well, in my opinion, that is completely fair. A professional composer like you wouldn't like it, I understand, but, it's only fair. It's art, art shouldn't be constrained by rules.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

mueske said:


> And if by chance some TV show producer likes a tune from someone who never had an education, well, in my opinion, that is completely fair. A professional composer like you wouldn't like it, I understand, but, it's only fair. It's art, art shouldn't be constrained by rules.


You're absolutely right! But It wouldn't stop me from feeling insulted the same way as my dentist would if started taking his clients. After all, to me it _is_ a job.

The original question sarted with 'in your opinion' so we're all entitled to bicker about what we think is important. Also I think the original poster was looking for more than just a - _'what it takes to be a composer is to compose.'_ no brainer answer.

Art_ must_ be constricted by something otherwise I could drag my dog into the town square and hack it to pieces with an axe and call it art. (actually I couldn't because I dobn't have a dog.) It is a misconception that art has no rules. It is just that these rules are generally constructed after the art. The reversal of this proccess has caused endless grief over the past 90 years since Duchamp started taking the ****, so to speak, and postmodernists plagued us with an 'anything goes!' pseudophilosophy.

FC


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> Perfect pitch is only a hindrance or makes you lazy if you let that happen (Boulez has perfect pitch, and he has some of the most astonishingly sensitive and accurate ears). I have no idea what you mean about 'learned pitch' but, suffice to say, one can not learn to accurately recognise specific pitches.


You certainly can learn pitch. Not to pick 447.5 out of the air, but you can learn to pick each pitch of the 12 tone scale from the air, you can know that 441 is higher than 440 and this makes you perfectly capable at composing.



> there are probably rather a large number of composers who would find that comment insulting. It's like saying (although you don't) 'Anyone can be a composer if they feel like it.'
> 
> I think the slogan is 'be what you want to be!' Shame it's not true!


Any composer who gets insulted by that is completely arrogant and up them selves. It _is_ mostly true. All it needs is a _lot_ of hard, dogged work. I've only been doing music for the last 5 years, but because I loved what I was doing and did it all the time, I got into uni a year after I started (composition) and I am top of my year in composition. And to misinterpret that as 'if they feel like it' is gross! It completely diminishes the truth behind the statement and and discredits the hard work involved.



> I could tell my dentist that I also take teeth out for a hobby but not very well and that I consider myself a dentist. How do you think he would feel? I wouldn't be surprised if he called the police let alone be insulted!


Yes, well, I agree BUT; if you put the years of hard work into it and went to uni etc. etc. you could become a great dentist.



> Doing a job professionally is very different from dabbling as an amateur. I made this point earlier in this thread talking about 'composers' who don't know how to write down music, and how they rely on 'professional' musicians to supplement their deficiencies.


Absolutely agree. Calling an amateur composer a 'composer' diminishes the reliability of calling yourself a composer and really makes the word meaningless (much like calling a piano trio a 'symphony').



> Almost right. What is missing is not paper, but rather any means to relay these ideas quickly and efficiently, and in detail to a performer. That just happens to have been paper for the last few centuries but I know a guy who can sight read the coulored bricks in a sequencer window about as well as I can real an string quartet at the piano!
> 'The times they are a changin'!"


I agree, but seeing acoustic instruments die would kill me! And traditional notation is sooo much prettier!



> Art is an expression, everyone can and should be able to express themselves. Education isn't necessary in my opinion.


You can't express yourself without an education. No artist is 'great' when they first start. Name _any_ 'great' artist who's (honest) first opus is one of his best? Now, I don't mean like Beethoven's Opus 1 (which wasn't), nor people who went to uni before their first piece, I mean their actually first piece of art with absolutely no knowledge of the practice before or during then.



> It's art, art shouldn't be constrained by rules.


Balderdash! The only outcome from freedom is Chaos. Imagine if you had 'freedom' to kill someone in real life? Rules are required. Every piece of music ever written is governed by some rules, so is painting. Schoenberg tried getting rid of the rules (indeed still failed for the most part), but then reverted back to an even MORE ridged rule system in 12 tone. Rules that can be broken give art life; but without rules altogether, it dies.

And as already said, everything has rules. Physics is a rule (at the very least) that defines your art. Lets see paintings: there are only a certain amount of ways to get paint onto canvas; ergo it is restricted by rules. I know this is drawing a long bow, but it is still accurate.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Firstly I can't believe that Yagan agrees with me so much! I must be doing something wrong!!!



Yagan Kiely said:


> Any composer who gets insulted by that is completely arrogant and up them selves. It _is_ mostly true. All it needs is a _lot_ of hard, dogged work. I've only been doing music for the last 5 years, but because I loved what I was doing and did it all the time, I got into uni a year after I started (composition) and I am top of my year in composition. And to misinterpret that as 'if they feel like it' is gross! It completely diminishes the truth behind the statement and and discredits the hard work involved.


Do you think you are at the top of your year because you are a talentless guy who just works hard? There is a reason that you have such a leaning towards music. You are innately good at it. I know guys who work thier butt off trying to learn saxophone at the local music shcool (way more work than I ever did!) but they are still hopeless because they just don't 'get it' the same way you or I do.

It's not really a case of being insulted. As you say later on, it's more of a nullification of what you stand for by demollishing the definition of the word composer, including 'anyone who composes'. In philosophical symantics there is a system which states that the more general a definition is, the less useful it becomes. If your definition of cars includes buses, tractors, aeroplanes, carrots, planets, molecules, and french horns, then it becomes meaningless if you want to describe a real car. (Getting a bit wierd... have to cut down the medication.)
FC


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> You certainly can learn pitch. Not to pick 447.5 out of the air, but you can learn to pick each pitch of the 12 tone scale from the air, you can know that 441 is higher than 440 and this makes you perfectly capable at composing.


Sorry Yagan, but according to the Grove article which was written by people who have performed research into such matters and thus know what they're talking about, you can't teach yourself to have perfect pitch.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> Sorry Yagan, but according to the Grove article which was written by people who have performed research into such matters and thus know what they're talking about, you can't teach yourself to have perfect pitch.


Agreed! That's why everyone can teach them selves something called relative pitch. My significant other plays clarinet, she had nothing similar to perfect pitch. She has trained herself to be able to pick A 440 from the air, from there she can pick every other note. A violinist I know can pick every note from the air. And my Aural teacher can do exactly what I said in my above post; he does not have perfect pitch, but a very well trained relative pitch. The only downside with relative pitch is you _can_ lose the pitch slightly. 440 can drift to 441, especially if you have a cold, thus it is always a requirement to have some sort of tuning fork handy. However, this 'impediment' hardly effects any output.



> Do you think you are at the top of your year because you are a talentless guy who just works hard?


I don't agree with the specific deffinition of talent, so I have to say no. Talant can be learnt, it just takes to right kind of education and a lot more work.



> There is a reason that you have such a leaning towards music. You are innately good at it.


I also did piano when I was 3-6 with a very good teacher who had me compose a piece for piano back then. I knew nothing about music and the piece was *****, but I spent months on it and came out with a minute long piece that was adequate. I am not innateley good, I had a good education what I was at a critical period of my life.



> It's not really a case of being insulted. As you say later on, it's more of a nullification of what you stand for by demollishing the definition of the word composer, including 'anyone who composes'. In philosophical symantics there is a system which states that the more general a definition is, the less useful it becomes. If your definition of cars includes buses, tractors, aeroplanes, carrots, planets, molecules, and french horns, then it becomes meaningless if you want to describe a real car. (Getting a bit wierd... have to cut down the medication.)


Absolutely. I had an argument once with someone about Ustvolskaya's Symphony No. 4 for voice, piano, trumpet and tam-tam destroys whatever meaning is in the word symphony.

Getting off topic now, but it reminds me of how in English you announce the adjective _before_ the noun, i.e. *red* _car_ (I've always found this silly), but Japanese and other latin lenguages often announc the important subject _first_. Car is what you are talking about, red is just to define it, thus red _should_ be after car!



> I know guys who work thier butt off trying to learn saxophone at the local music shcool (way more work than I ever did!) but they are still hopeless because they just don't 'get it' the same way you or I do.


Could be the lack of an early education, and poor education. Working your '****' is possibly one of the worst ways to learn on an instrument.


----------



## jamzky (Jan 29, 2009)

Do it your way, take what you like and take time to put yourself into that somehow

Know very well the medium you write for

Produce stuff regularly even if it's crap, as a means of experimenting, learning. 

I have found that many people who couldn't get their head around composing also were terrified of the idea of improvising on their instruments. An interesting connection there. 

J


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> I have found that many people who couldn't get their head around composing also were terrified of the idea of improvising on their instruments. An interesting connection there.


I have no instrument, so no problem there.


----------



## jamzky (Jan 29, 2009)

Yagan Kiely said:


> I have no instrument, so no problem there.


 maybe you improvise the tasks of your day Yagan


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> Agreed! That's why everyone can teach them selves something called relative pitch. My significant other plays clarinet, she had nothing similar to perfect pitch. She has trained herself to be able to pick A 440 from the air, from there she can pick every other note. A violinist I know can pick every note from the air. And my Aural teacher can do exactly what I said in my above post; he does not have perfect pitch, but a very well trained relative pitch. The only downside with relative pitch is you _can_ lose the pitch slightly. 440 can drift to 441, especially if you have a cold, thus it is always a requirement to have some sort of tuning fork handy. However, this 'impediment' hardly effects any output.


A cold can throw you off thant much! Wow! I don't know anyone who can sing a note and keep it within 5 cents of the original pitch for more tha a split second, and that's professional singers included without a cold. Play me a note on the piano and I can sing a reasonable well tuned interval of choice above or below it for aslong as I hear the reference note but I still go at least 5 cents of as soon as it stops. try this with a tuner and a friend - it doesn't count if you're looking at the tuner while singing.

Perfect pitch is perhaps a small asset to a composer but I would not rank it amongst those qualities described as 'what it takes to be composer'. Most of us transpose our melodies to 
suit the instruments available. 'Ears' can be trained too but in reality it is the brain that is trained to better interpret that which the ear only physically obeserves and relays to the brain.



Yagan Kiely said:


> I don't agree with the specific deffinition of talent, so I have to say no. Talant can be learnt, it just takes to right kind of education and a lot more work.


In which case your definition of talent needs rethinking.
I think talent could be described as something that can't be learned but can be cultivated.



Yagan Kiely said:


> I also did piano when I was 3-6 with a very good teacher who had me compose a piece for piano back then. I knew nothing about music and the piece was *****, but I spent months on it and came out with a minute long piece that was adequate. I am not innateley good, I had a good education what I was at a critical period of my life


Unlike Mozart, that well known hard worker! 
Come on, how good is very good for a kid of 3 years old. I have a cousin 3 years old and I can't get him to sit in the same place fir more than 30 seconds. Do you think if I got Radu Lupu round to teach him piano he might turn out to be the next Beethoven? Nope, neither do I!



Yagan Kiely said:


> Getting off topic now, but it reminds me of how in English you announce the adjective _before_ the noun, i.e. *red* _car_ (I've always found this silly), but Japanese and other latin lenguages often announc the important subject _first_. Car is what you are talking about, red is just to define it, thus red _should_ be after car!


Sorry then. That should read - 'composer tatentless third rate'



Yagan Kiely said:


> Could be the lack of an early education, and poor education. Working your '****' is possibly one of the worst ways to learn on an instrument.


Or he could just be a _saxophonist talentless unmusical_.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> I think talent could be described as something that can't be learned but can be cultivated.


In which case I do _not_ believes exists. Talent can only be created at an early childhood however.



> I have a cousin 3 years old and I can't get him to sit in the same place fir more than 30 seconds.


Then he has already had some sort of influence in his life, an imbalance of some sort, or a mental condition. Now, the latter sound _very_ extreme, so I'll stick with the first.



> Play me a note on the piano and I can sing a reasonable well tuned interval of choice above or below it for aslong as I hear the reference note but I still go at least 5 cents of as soon as it stops. try this with a tuner and a friend - it doesn't count if you're looking at the tuner while singing.


It's just more practice. I have (apparently, only based on what you have said), better aural skills (which I concentrate however!), than you, but I am not highest in my class for aural, and there are none with perfect pitch. Singing with a piano is never helpful unless you stick to the one note (A). I don't believe tuner's are worth that much. The way I've been tought all you need is an A440 tuning fork to (in my case tell me) make sure your memory of that note is accurate.



> Sorry then. That should read - 'composer tatentless third rate'


I may be misinterpretting you, but I wasn't directing that at you at all, merely the English language.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> Agreed! That's why everyone can teach them selves something called relative pitch. My significant other plays clarinet, she had nothing similar to perfect pitch. She has trained herself to be able to pick A 440 from the air, from there she can pick every other note. A violinist I know can pick every note from the air. And my Aural teacher can do exactly what I said in my above post; he does not have perfect pitch, but a very well trained relative pitch. The only downside with relative pitch is you _can_ lose the pitch slightly. 440 can drift to 441, especially if you have a cold, thus it is always a requirement to have some sort of tuning fork handy. However, this 'impediment' hardly effects any output.


Please learn to express yourself more coherently.

'Relative' pitch is just that - not 'absolute' pitch i.e. memorising exact pitches like you describe, but rather being able to sing any interval above or below a given pitch.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

I don't usually get personal but if I do here it is because I don't see any other way to communicate with you.



Yagan Kiely said:


> In which case I do _not_ believes exists. Talent can only be created at an early childhood however.


You are talking about acquired skills not talent. Please find a dictionary and open it up!



Yagan Kiely said:


> Then he has already had some sort of influence in his life, an imbalance of some sort, or a mental condition. Now, the latter sound _very_ extreme, so I'll stick with the first.


He's a 3 year old, for God's sake! I can't imagine what kind of influence he would need to 
mark him as a composer for life.



Yagan Kiely said:


> It's just more practice. I have (apparently, only based on what you have said), better aural skills (which I concentrate however!), than you, but I am not highest in my class for aural, and there are none with perfect pitch. Singing with a piano is never helpful unless you stick to the one note (A). I don't believe tuner's are worth that much. The way I've been tought all you need is an A440 tuning fork to (in my case tell me) make sure your memory of that note is accurate.


You have no evidence to say that your aural skills are better than mine and I don't consider devloping 'perfect pitch as advancing your aural abilities in any big way.



Yagan Kiely said:


> I may be misinterpretting you, but I wasn't directing that at you at all, merely the English language.


Reinvent the wheel, reinvent language moan about the shortcomings of everything around you! you are still young and there is still achance that you will change the world (that's what everybody thinks at your age). I would suggest, however getting a more realistic view of it first, though!

Sorry if this is abit close to the bone but you are making some very basic errors about life in general and I am only trying to help you.

If the moderators see fit to remove this post I have absolutely no problem.
FC


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> Please learn to express yourself more coherently.
> 
> 'Relative' pitch is just that - not 'absolute' pitch i.e. memorising exact pitches like you describe, but rather being able to sing any interval above or below a given pitch.


Wow, I'm glad you know that....

I'm also glad you completely disregarded everything I said, and of course, proved beyond any doubt that not only everyone at my uni is either extremely lucky whenever they sing (what they hope to be!) a pitch, or they are magical, but that relative pitch MEANS YOU CANNOT MEMORISE A NOTE!!!! I didn't know that, thankyou for such an interesting lesson in nothing...



> You are talking about acquired skills not talent. Please find a dictionary and open it up!


.... Please don't resort to pathetic stuff like this. _You_ know I've looked at a dictionary, I don't agree with the definition because it presupposes some underlying gift in something. This after looking at the evidence, does not exist in my oppinion, surely you can understand that?



> He's a 3 year old, for God's sake! I can't imagine what kind of influence he would need to
> mark him as a composer for life.


between 2-4 is the critical period of a child's life. And please read what I said again, I was reffering to his resslessness, never did I mention anything about composition. And there is certainly some aspects of early youth that could give a child better chance in certain subjects, least of all is forcing them to do something.



> You have no evidence to say that your aural skills are better than mine and I don't consider devloping 'perfect pitch as advancing your aural abilities in any big way.


Again, please read what I said... for christ sake? I said that based on QUOTE: "WHAT YOU HAVE SAID".... And I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT PERFECT PITCH..... I have relative pitch, but some I know have also memorised some notes. And please see an Aural lecturer if you don't think a cold can put you off.



> Reinvent the wheel, reinvent language moan about the shortcomings of everything around you! you are still young and there is still achance that you will change the world (that's what everybody thinks at your age). I would suggest, however getting a more realistic view of it first, though!


What the **** is wrong with you? I am sorry, that you think everything in the universe is perfect. Moaning? WTF? Jesus Christ I've been talking to you propperly and you dump this pile of crap on me for no reason. Get a life and learn communication skills.



> Sorry if this is abit close to the bone but you are making some very basic errors about life in general and I am only trying to help you.


Hahaha, communication is one of the primary roles that defines a human, and you cearly have not idea how to do that, so the irony of _you_ saying that is huge. Grow up.

Worst of all, you seem to think everything is black and white, everything is either right or wrong, and if it is written in a dictionary, it is_ clearly_ stupid to question anything about it ever. Got news for you, questioning everything around you is the only way to go, excepting everything means you learn nothing and nothing ever improves. The latter (if you hadn't worked out - you never seem to read, so I have to spell it out for you) is what you do, or at least have been doing here.

Grow up.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

I will try to ignore most of what you say here.

One point however, a dictionary is a tool for improving communication, not a bible. The definitions are given so that two indepenent people can use the same word to describe something, in this case talent. No one is suggesting that any dictionary expounds an absolute truth but rather it profers a common ground for communication. 

Time to end this thread. This should be moved to a philosophy forum.

a word of warning - You are close to getting noticed not for your compsitional skills but for your techiness (and I mean noticed by the addministration of this forum). 

Where are the Moderators?


----------



## Daniel (Jul 11, 2004)

temporarily closed


----------

