# Can listening to classical/concert repertoire music make you a better composer?



## Ashermusic (Nov 30, 2010)

Absolutely agree. It is not a coincidence that most of the great film scorers were classically trained.

That said, it need not be an either/or proposition. If I am going to do a different type of score than I have done before, I am certainly going to listen to some film scores that were done in that genre.


----------



## Waywyn (Nov 30, 2010)

Sure you can and it makes sense. These guys back then were stealing and copying the shit out of each other - it wasn't just as public as today due to e.g. internet and all that.

Just copy what you can, recreate use it and transform/adapt it to your style. Best thing you can do!


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 30, 2010)

I do agree to some extent. Bartok's piano concertos sound very much like Stravinsky and Richard Strauss. I believe he wrote these before he refined his own sound. In his later years, Bartok developed a very singular, unique style, one that no one really copied until film scores like Psycho, Morricone's The Thing (a loving tribute by the maestro), and even John Williams' War of the Worlds.


----------



## JJP (Nov 30, 2010)

You will absolutely develop as a composer by listening to classical repertoire. Think about it. These are considered the greatest orchestral composers our culture has produced. They are the people most of our best film composers (or at least orchestrators) study.

There is a level of complexity and sophistication that some of these pieces have which is simply not possible when fighting to get a score out the door to make a ridiculous deadline while constrained by the limitations of the picture which a film composer must support.


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 30, 2010)

I have to revise my last post. Bartok's Piano Concerto #3 was actually composed right at the end of his life, when he was battling cancer in the U.S. He returned to a tonal framework largely because the piece was a gift to his wife, also a pianist. The 2nd mvmt is so emotive largely because Bartok's condition was in remission and he had hoped he'd beat the cancer. It's written that he based that movement on the Tristan chord from Wagner's opera. It's a haunting piece of music. 

As for the deadline issue, I think that's only partly to blame. I do think more hands in the proverbial pot of filmmaking don't help any. And it depends on the format of the movie too. I'm working on a project where I have a lot of creative latitude and the director WANTS Herrmann styled music which is great. 

We might not remember that guys like Korngold or even Goldsmith knocked out some terrific scores in like 7 days (Chinatown) or 10 days for Aliens (Horner). I think the tight timeline rationale is just that. If the composer has tons of technique, they can rely on that when inspiration fails (and I do think inspiration and technique are very much related). Those with a larger pool to draw from will, in terms of the law of averages, be able to bring more to the proverbial table.


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Nov 30, 2010)

Offcourse, but isn`t that quite obvious?

The sum of what goes in equals what comes out...i mean, all your accumulated knowledge and experience has to come from somewhere, so it is quite reasonable to assume that the quality of what you listen to will greatly affect your compositions, no?


----------



## dcardillo (Nov 30, 2010)

dcoscina @ 30/11/2010 said:


> "I believe he wrote these before he refined his own sound. In his later years, Bartok developed a very singular, unique style...}
> 
> Before he refined his own sound? Bartok's 3rd Piano Concerto (1945) was a very late composition; in fact, Bartok died before finishing it. His student, Tibor Serly, completed the concerto's last seventeen bars.


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 30, 2010)

dcardillo @ Tue Nov 30 said:


> dcoscina @ 30/11/2010 said:
> 
> 
> > "I believe he wrote these before he refined his own sound. In his later years, Bartok developed a very singular, unique style...}
> ...



Please read my other post. I clarify this.


----------



## SergeD (Nov 30, 2010)

Matching midi scores with samples is really a must. You can listen each instrument, melodic lines and chords piece by piece and see at the end, like a puzzle, the whole picture. 

The best of the best of any kind of music worth to have a look on. Like the amazing best of Hip Hop which is full of creativity in the way to electrify the body. 

SergeD


----------



## RiffWraith (Nov 30, 2010)

dcoscina @ Tue Nov 30 said:


> Can listening to classical/concert repertoire music make you a better composer?




*YES*


Listening to _anything _can make you a better composer.

Cheers.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Nov 30, 2010)

Listening to music may not necessarily do anything for you. It's all in how much you absorb it. I think listening to fewer pieces is much better if you absorb them than listening to everything you get your hands on as a homework.


----------



## nikolas (Nov 30, 2010)

I will agree that listening to any kind of music will not exactly make you a better composer, but at least it will give you an idea of what's out there and what has been already done!

nothing can make you a better composer, than your own self!


----------



## handz (Nov 30, 2010)

YES

listening to good orchestral music surely improves your orchestration skills etc, because it is source of great inspiration.


listening to some kind of music may make you sick


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 30, 2010)

Also, listen to nature. Rossini couldn't have written the William Tell Overture (the Lone Ranger part) without having heard horses.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 30, 2010)

I don't quite understand why this is a question. Sorry.


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 30, 2010)

Well let's put it this way: if one did not have the benefit of formal music education and wanted to compose orchestral music using samples, would it be best to listen to current film scores or concert hall music composed from the past 100 years (this includes Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Mahler, Stravinsky, Berg, Webern, Crumb, Xenakis, Bartok, etc.). 

I cannot answer this question because I have had music education up the yin-yang. 

I would also ask whether simply listening to orchestral music on CD or radio is good enough. Even with my training, I find it immeasurably helpful to attend as many live orchestral performances as possible. I learn a lot about the execution of orchestration ideas.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 30, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 30 said:


> I don't quite understand why this is a question. Sorry.



Because the sentence starts with a verb and ends in a question mark.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 30, 2010)

I think it depends on how you listen. Also, it depends on your understanding of the composer.

Personally, I played and listen to classical orchestral pieces for years before I even started composing. None of that helped me in any sort of way because I was mostly listening for enjoyment, then later on, for performance techniques.

It wasn't until I started listening as a composer that it started to help me. Listening for how the music was put together. What are the notes, the dynamics, what is the intention of the composer what's he trying to get across to the listener (if anything at all).

The danger of studying a lot of music if not done in the right way is that you're never quite developing your own way of looking at things. The reverence that I was carefully taught as a student of music for the "master" composers would, in the beginning, blind me into complete obedience, never to question the technical godliness of certain men.

Bartok is a prime example. How many hours did I waste in school studying the most inane drivel from this man, all the while being told that it was some kind of genius practically anointed by God.

Truth is that composers like Bartok were and still are to some extent completely unsuccessful in their careers. For every 16 bars of brilliance he exhibits there's 100 bars of nonsense.

So for me personally I didn't get anywhere studying the "classics" until I came to a point and realized that not everything they did even in a given piece was that good artistically. So, I got to a point where, for me personally, I just would ask questions like, "what would I do differently? What do I think is really, really good?". Then I started to study stuff that I thought were spectacular examples of compositional brilliance based on the emotional and technical aspects of a given piece. 

Bartok Concerto no.3 is a great piece. But, it's not long after a pretty stellar beginning that Bartok starts to go off in a completely pedantic development of the opening theme. In school, the totally pedantic part would have received an 1/2 semester of intense study. In real life, I've taken the first theme and analyzed how that was created. I did this just a few days ago. Took me all of about 30 minutes to understand what and how he achieved it.

So if you do go down the route of studying. Imo, you have to be honest with your feelings. Not the stuff that will garner you praise from other composers. But, who really cares about that. But it will start to give you an understanding of what's really effective in music and what is just pedantic contrivances.

In the "Tao of Jut keen Do (forgive my spelling on this title)" Bruce Lee states that in the beginning, a kick was just a kick and a punch was just a punch. Then he studied for a long time about how to kick and how to punch. Then he says after all that a kick was just a kick and a punch was just a punch. I think the same is true in music. 

I became a really, really proficient clarinet player. When I was in high school it was just natural. Never cared a bit about how I was doing what I was doing. It just came easy. Then I spent the next 6 years intensely studying "how to play the clarinet". Made it into one of the top conservatories in the world. After I left, I threw everything that I learned away and just started to play again. I did a concert a while back and (of course) people were impressed. The cellist asked me how I approached playing. I told her flat out that I just stopped practicing. I decided that I knew how to play and just started playing. 

I think the same thing is true for composition. You could approach it from the point of "I have so much to learn" or you could just say, "I know it all already, and what I don't know I'll just figure it out as I go along", then start making music. I still find it amusing that the pieces that I get praised for the most are pieces that I did before I started to learn how to compose. I've spent 15 years trying to learn how to composer better. I don't know. Maybe you just have to go through it to get out on the other end. Now I'm pretty much back to where I was when I started. I don't even think that much about anything that I studied to become a "better" composer. I just write music. Is what I do as technically brilliant as a master composer? Who would really even be interested in that question? Just express yourself.

Jose


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 30, 2010)

Sorry Jose but I totally don't see where you're coming from as far as Bartok is concerned. I don't think there's one bad note in his Concerto for Orchestra, nor in his Music for Strings Percussion and Celeste, nor in his Miraculous Mandarin, Bluebeard's Castle, etc.

BTW- it's Jeet Kune Do.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 30, 2010)

JonFairhurst @ Tue Nov 30 said:


> But is it really a matter of "good" vs. "bad"?
> 
> To me, there is music that inspires me and I want to learn how it works. There is also music that doesn't resonate with me, so I should avoid wasting my time with it. And then there is stuff that I like but doesn't move me forward, so I should skip that too.
> 
> So, rather than "good" or "bad", it's a matter of what sounds and techniques will help one develop and expand one's own competence and style.



When I say good and bad, it's with the preface of my own subjective view point. I'm perfectly willing to accept that for others good and bad might be different. So when I say good or bad it's exactly what you are describing. What I think is working and what I think is not.

So, imo, some of the brass writing and the closed tight dissonance across the section in some of the brass writing in Miraculous Manderin turns the listener off from the piece at times. If you've ever seen the piece live you can actually see the audience wincing. Imo, that's bad. Bartok should have done a more careful job there. Oh, now I've really stepped in it! How dare me! Who do I think I am?! Who dare be critical of the great Maestro! :o


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 30, 2010)

But I think it goes well beyond what works or doesn't work. For instance, I might love listening to Mozart and identify his approach in certain passages to be utterly brilliant. But I might also identify the same music as very different from the music that I want to create personally.

Sure, there are basic "truths" in Mozart's music that are well worth studying. But those same truths won't help me write a better urban, heavy, or ethereal-ambient score. I might study Mozart's use of form or development to some degree, but detailed study of his voicings won't help me get a gnarly, adrenalin-drenched sound.

Listening to a construction crew might be a better use of my time.

On the other hand, if I want to score historical fiction films about British Royalty, I should lay off the jackhammers.


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 30, 2010)

josejherring @ Tue Nov 30 said:


> JonFairhurst @ Tue Nov 30 said:
> 
> 
> > But is it really a matter of "good" vs. "bad"?
> ...



Jose, you baffle me sometimes. You know I have a great respect for you but clearly we see very different things from Bartok. Or hear to be correct. Miraculous Mandarin IS supposed to be off-putting. It's kind of the like grandfather of all slasher films. The freakin' guy just won't die and the music perfectly accentuates the horrific ways that the bandits try to dispatch him. Consider this story as presented to audiences in the first half of the 20th century. It must have disgusted them. The music score is at times primal and barbaric, but also has a great deal of incandescent lyricism. 

I don't expect to change your opinions because they are yours and you have certainly articulated some of the elements about Bartok that you don't enjoy- but you and I both know the music is not solely to evoke warm, happy feelings all of the time. That would eliminated 50% of Goldsmith's entire career if that was the case. I mean who listens to Planet of the Apes or Alien and says "ah, this makes me happy!"


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 30, 2010)

josejherring @ Tue Nov 30 said:


> dcoscina @ Tue Nov 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Jose but I totally don't see where you're coming from as far as Bartok is concerned. I don't think there's one bad note in his Concerto for Orchestra, nor in his Music for Strings Percussion and Celeste, nor in his Miraculous Mandarin, Bluebeard's Castle, etc.
> ...



Woaw, woaw woaw. I think I stepped into bizzaro land here. This is the same forum that vehemently defends the musical integrity of John Debney and Hans Zimmer but trashes compositional and stylistic practices of Bartok and Shostakovich? Hey, I'm all for personal preference but I'm slightly offended by the inference that my objectivity is blinded by my adoration of Bartok's work. C'mon man, that's kind of arrogant don't you think? I have the full scores for both Concerto for Orchestra and Mriaculous Mandarin and I have gone through them both many times. I'm not sure I like the idea of futzing with someone's iconic work because they didn't do something in a traditional academic manner. If Bartok HAD done his crescendos according to your standards, would that piece be as influential and revered today? We cannot know but I think every aspect of these composers' pieces serve to define it as the piece it's been defined as seen by music historians. Alter a note or phrase and it could have easily plummeted into the waters of fashionable trend rather than enduring over the past 50 years. 

It took me years to "get" Bartok. His melodic and harmonic idioms are well known to be influenced heavily by Romanian folk song. and Hungarian too. That's what makes Bartok such a unique composer. He didn't follow the droves of Schoenberg or Stravinsky stooges and diverged into his own territory. Personally, I don't like Stravinsky. I find his orchestration awkward and clumbsy. But that's MY PROBLEM, not his. I'm not getting it. I would never be so arrogant to say I could do it better.

Interesting that you chose a martial art metaphor or example. Jose, I have no doubt that you've amassed a lot of knowledge in music- moreso than I. but one thing from studying martial arts over the past 30 years has taught me is that no matter how much someone has learned, there's always someone better, faster, stronger, more adept. Which is why grandmasters of karate are some of the quietest most humble people you'd ever come across. They don't flaunt their abilities and chances are, you'd never even know they were 10th dan blackbelts. 

The one thing I like about martial arts, and music, is that it's a never-ending journey. I had the snot beat out of me in kumite this evening at class. It's a humbling experience to fight a black belt. Same applies to music. Bartok is no mere shlep that got lucky or was in vogue. his music has endured partially because of the qualities you might find wanting. And to dismiss the respect I have for his sense of composition as naivete is rather insulting good sir. 

Just some food for thought.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 30, 2010)

dcoscina @ Tue Nov 30 said:


> josejherring @ Tue Nov 30 said:
> 
> 
> > JonFairhurst @ Tue Nov 30 said:
> ...



I think you're misunderstanding me. Of course I know the story of the Manderin. That's not the issue. Some of the stuff could have been orchestrated better. Point blank. If you compare, The Rite to Manderin, you'll hear a striking difference in the way the two are orchestrated. Strav. "Jarring" chords are punchy but have an air and a spacing to them, they are balanced and resonant. On the other hand, Bartok's "Jarring" on Manderin is just really harsh blaring tbones. There's not even a hit of balance between the bones and the horns and some of it is just a mess. (Also, I'm not too fond of the ww writing in that piece. It's just fast notes going in a hurry full tutti across the sections.)

But, don't get me wrong. Not everything has to be pleasing sounding like a Disney flick. In fact 90% of the writing in Maderin is top, top notch stuff. Especially the strings sawing away at the theme in unison throughout the 3rd mvt.

I'm playing Devli's advocate on purpose. Trying to "free your mind"(I know, what gives me the right?) :lol: In order to understand and truly benefit from the study of the work of other composers you really have to have an eye towards, what's good about it? and what's not so good? Or at least, what could have been done better?

In my opinion in Bartok's work is that he really did struggle with some of the basic principles of resonance and balance when it comes to orchestration especially in his brass writing, use of cresc,ect...I mean after all he probably didn't have a whole lot of experience with orchestras being mainly a pianist. 

Imo, you have to have a bit of a critical mind. Make judgment calls. Or you suffer what I suffered in school and what Rimsky-Korsakov warns about in his orchestration book. That is, studying famous examples for all too long that are really poor examples of what you're trying to achieve. 

So imo to get anything out of the journey that you're embarking on and to benefit from the work of others you imo have to develop an opinion. One based on subjective reasoning. Music is a subjective art form. So in the case of the Manderin (great piece btw) but I would ask myself what would it sound like if Stravinsky had orchestrated the last mvt? The music is stellar. The execution of some of the sections could have been a bit better balanced.

Ravel stated once that if he had time he would reorchestrate LaMer for Debussy. I was like, omg, who does he think he is? The nerve of that guy! Then I went back to LaMer and thought what could he possibly be hearing? It's sounding perfect to me! But Ravel was a great orchestrator so what could he possibly be hearing that isn't just utter brilliance? Then I was like, well let's assume that the piece could be improved upon. Then listen again. Then I started to hear things that I didn't hear before. Woodwinds out of balance with the strings. Inner lines of melodies hard to hear because they're buried by some other instrument in the same register playing some accompaniment line, ect...
Maybe that's what Debussy wanted? Who knows? Or maybe he could have had more training as an orchestrator since he was mainly a pianist. Who cares really? What's important imo is that you're starting to think critically about the work of art rather than be like, "It's all perfect, what a genius. Will I ever be able to understand?" Who knows maybe you won't be able to understand. But, perhaps maybe you can glean a few things, but you have to think critically. Because really, if you think it's all perfect then you've lost before you've started. It's kind of like a man trying to understand the mysterious ways of God or something? Where if he just looked upon creation with a critical eye he may be able to point out a few things that he could actually use. But if he thought, God is perfect and creation is perfect and there fore beyond my understanding he never understands anything because he can't criticize that which he views as perfect.

So when a composer makes a statement that "there's not a bad note" in X piece. Then I know that he hasn't opened up his mind to the fact that, every piece of work no matter how great, could have always been better. The composers of the great works are usually the first to admit that. Just read the history books on that. Plenty of composers who got disappointed after hearing their work for the first time. Some even went back to the drawing board and re did the piece.


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 30, 2010)

Thanks for your post and clarification Jose. Like I said, I respect you a lot and your thoughtful reply just underlines that.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 1, 2010)

Listening is good. Studying is even better. but you cannot do too much of either, unless of course, it is keeping you from actually writing.


----------



## BadOrange (Dec 21, 2010)

Listening carefully has its benifits but I do think careful study and dissection are much more valuable. Dissecting the form, the harmony and the orchestration will definitely leave a more marked stamp on your brain. 

Despite having finished my masters, I still analyze music as a morning exercise. I do about 1 hour of sight score reading, basically playing an orchestral score reducing it in your head playing it on piano and then 1 hour of analysis. 

I tend to use photoshop to make notes while having the audio playing in logic so that I can really make the connection between the notes. I do about 8 pages of full score a day. I have my own colour system that makes sense to me as far as chords that lets say are over a pedal, a change in key, a deceptive motion, stuff like that. I use 2 mac pros and 2 screens I use for the analysis and then 2 others I use for the formal analysis and logic to play the audio. 

It isn't something I learned in school as far as a process. I just got tired of ruining my scores with marks so I decided to do it this way. It is actually much faster and way more helpful being able to colour the voices, seing what is being doubled where , highlighting the non chord tones, or special notes that foreshadow a key shift. 

I do it rather quick so there are bound to be mistakes FOr example the diminshed 7 I just noticed is acting rather as a CTD7 with the Eb of the root tonic in common. OH well. 

Before I leave you with this massive picture, you did mention scoring which I think is another discipline altogether. Listening to classical music will help your classical composition but that has nothing to do with being able to score for film.The problem with scores is that there is an aesthetic and as much as you study Opera or even the early guys like Steiner , you still have to be aware of what is in demand and what isn't. For example, the use of leitmotivs has been somewhat reticent and I suppose it there are negative aspects to using this technique as it declares something in the film that perhaps the audience should not have to be reminded or patronized. I do think there are ways to do it in a clever way. Studying scores is a completely different exercise. For one , you should be watching the movie or the exercise is pointless and you should be taking notes. Asking yourself why there is or isn't music. 

Although I don't recommend studying the artistic value of many modern scores, I do think there is an aesthetic that is rather typical and if you plan to work in the industry, well you better be able to sound like everyone else before you start doing your own thing.


----------

