# Is it about the ideas or the craft?



## Ron Snijders (Jul 19, 2013)

Just a 3a.m. (Dutch time :mrgreen wondering. Is composing about having ideas, or about being able to build something from them?
Being new in 'this world', I obviously read a lot. A remark I noticed a lot is 'I have all these ideas, I just need to be able to express them'.
To be honest, I have always considered 'having ideas' or 'hearing music in your head' something quite common, maybe even something that 'everyone' has.
So that means I'm leaning more towards the 'craft'-thought. But I do wonder, is 'having all these ideas' as common as I think it is, or is it actually the thing that makes someone talented, while knowing how to express it is only a formality? Even if that 'formality' takes years of studying to master.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 19, 2013)

If you have a voice, something to say, express, then congratulations - you are rare! And that, IMHO, cannot be taught. Skills/craft can be learned, honed, but no one can teach you how to have an original idea, how to touch people's hearts and minds.

Oh and there's also the 10,000 hours thing... http://www.wisdomgroup.com/blog/10000-h ... -practice/


----------



## windshore (Jul 19, 2013)

If you are a "working" musician, it's most often about the craft. Being creative within a narrow set of parameters ( or a constantly changing set of parameters) is the reality for most working composer-producers. 

As an artist, it's about the ideas and inspiration....


----------



## Dan Mott (Jul 19, 2013)

I have many ideas too. I have them all written down. I just don't know how to express them....


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 19, 2013)

Sounds to me like you need to work on your skills then. I would humbly suggest a composition course or two.


----------



## dgburns (Jul 19, 2013)

this is a fantastic question.

so I wrote an essay here,and then erased it all.no one cares what i have to say anyway.

what I can tell you is that deadlines are a great motivator,and after a while you get comfortable with starting your day not knowing jack sh$t about where you're going,but being ok with it,cause you need to get through it and you do if you need to.

I've been told we have an editor brain and a creative brain.The creative wants to run free and play,where the editor wants to structure and order and take things away.How much power you give to either is up to you.

i can tell you I prefer playing real intruments these days,and get lots of ideas by just playing around on all sorts of things.I think differently when I play guitar than when I am in front of a keyboard,as an example.


----------



## AlexRuger (Jul 21, 2013)

“The professional dedicates himself to mastering technique not because he believes technique is a substitute for inspiration but because he wants to be in possession of the full arsenal of skills when inspiration does come. The professional is sly. He knows that by toiling beside the front door of technique, he leaves room for genius to enter by the back.” The War of Art, Steven Pressfield


----------



## Ron Snijders (Jul 21, 2013)

Nice to see some different opinions on this subject 
The 10,000 hours thing is actually something that tends to scare me a bit. Not because I don't want to put in the time, I do! But as time passes, I tend to have these moments where I doubt if I'll have the time to actually master anything. Of course this is all nonsense, I'm 27 years old which I think makes me one of the younger people on these boards, so I'll have plenty of time. I mean, I have around 60 hours per week to spend on whatever I want, so if I'd focus my attention, I could rack up those hours in three years...

But man, is it hard to actually DO that :mrgreen: Being a reasonable guitarist, bassist, drummer and pianist, I have to admit that the sheer complexity of composition looks appealing and insane at the same time. When I look at other people's explanations of how they made tracks, I wonder if I'll ever 'get' it. But then again, you just have to start on a small piece of the puzzle and work from there, I guess.

So, this post has become a wee bit unstructured, sorry for that. I actually just ordered the book AlexSmith mentioned, I wonder what views on this whole thing it'll share


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 21, 2013)

AlexSmith @ Sun Jul 21 said:


> “The professional dedicates himself to mastering technique not because he believes technique is a substitute for inspiration but because he wants to be in possession of the full arsenal of skills when inspiration does come. The professional is sly. He knows that by toiling beside the front door of technique, he leaves room for genius to enter by the back.” The War of Art, Steven Pressfield



Love this.

A friend who I worked with when I started out, once said to me as I was weeping over what I thought was a poor effort, "just make the most of what you've got.." and helped me 'produce' what I had until it sounded great.

A also saw an interview with the fabulous welsh composer William Mathias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mathias

who said something along the lines of talent being 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.. he would sit from 9am every day at his desk and compose, even if he only managed a few bars one day.

You have to put the hours in. Its all connected to the 10,000 hours thing, but sometimes not in the most obvious way. 

Christian at Spitfire often says that composing is like a muscle, the more you use it the stronger it gets, and I've certainly noticed that during the times when I've been doing less writing and more library building, the composing is that much harder to kick start each time you sit down to write a cue.

Anything that you want to be good at, you have to try and do it every day. Keep practising! You can only get better. Set yourself new challenges as well. A few months back I bought a drumkit. At the moment I can only spare 15-20 minutes a day to practise, but I'm getting better, and its also improving my timing.

Music is so wonderful, it should be a lifetime voyage of fascination and discovery.


----------



## joshua (Jul 21, 2013)

I vote for craft.

I'm a computer programmer and everybody and I agree that everybody has ideas for apps, business opportunities, and whatnot; thus, ideas are cheap. It's all about execution.

I'm guessing it's the similar with composing.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jul 22, 2013)

Ideas are a half-penny a dozen. Everybody has ideas. Music is part of everyone's thought processing. So most anyone can up with a musical idea.

Since anyone can come up with a musical idea, recognize that it takes craft (skill) to develop it and see how far the musical idea can go. 

Here's what one dude did with Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. See what you think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS7yiD6cz8A


----------



## mathis (Jul 22, 2013)

But craft without a good idea is meaningless, as well...


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 22, 2013)

Ron Snijders @ Sun Jul 21 said:


> The 10,000 hours thing is actually something that tends to scare me a bit. Not because I don't want to put in the time, I do! But as time passes, I tend to have these moments where I doubt if I'll have the time to actually master anything. Of course this is all nonsense, I'm 27 years old which I think makes me one of the younger people on these boards, so I'll have plenty of time. I mean, I have around 60 hours per week to spend on whatever I want, so if I'd focus my attention, I could rack up those hours in three years...



It's important to remember that those 10k hours are supposed to be deep practice. You'd probably fry your brain at 60 hour per week. I'd recommend reading Outliers, The Talent Code, Talent is overrated.. there's some really fascinating studies in those books.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 22, 2013)

@Paul: Great post!


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jul 22, 2013)

mathis @ Mon Jul 22 said:


> But craft without a good idea is meaningless, as well...



Craft can generate ideas. May I suggest that that's a difference between pro and an amateur - the ability to use their craft to generate musical ideas to be developed.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 22, 2013)

A wide field, Peter!


----------



## lux (Jul 22, 2013)

I suspect it has to do with how much expressed ideas are by a large majority recognized as good ideas.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jul 22, 2013)

lux @ Mon Jul 22 said:


> I suspect it has to do with how much expressed ideas are by a large majority recognized as good ideas.



But isn't part of being professional learning how to self-edit to determine the validity of the musical idea depending upon the context of its use?


----------



## dgburns (Jul 22, 2013)

Peter Alexander @ Mon Jul 22 said:


> lux @ Mon Jul 22 said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect it has to do with how much expressed ideas are by a large majority recognized as good ideas.
> ...



100 per cent agree.


----------



## reneS (Jul 23, 2013)

Thank you Paul for pointing out that interview with William Mathias.

Quote:
Bruce Duffie: Let me ask, then, what do you set out to achieve when you write a piece of music?

William Mathias: Oh, first of all, you try to write the best that’s in you in that time to write. If you are doing it well, in my way of composing, that means eliminating what you don’t want to say. That doesn’t in any way contradict a composer who wishes to elaborate on what he says. I think there are composers who do that, and they do that successfully. But I think probably there may be more around than there should be who try and elaborate too much. It’s not difficult to elaborate on music. I wrote my most complicated music when I was about seventeen! Since then I’ve been cutting things out in order to try and get to the center of what has to be said. And I think that is what we mean by accessibility. But it’s something which I do out of conviction. I don’t find it basically a problem. The difficulty is saying not as much as possible, but perhaps as little as possible, in a way.

I could not say this any better...
rene


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jul 24, 2013)

For me its both. Both are going on at the same time. Usually, the craft is a problem for me because ideas are always getting bigger, more complex or simpler and you need to find ways to express that.

Idea comes first and then craft. 

But both are useless on their own.

If you have craft but nothing to say - !!

And if you have an idea but have no clue how to express it - !!

In the end its an endless loop and a long journey I think! I am still learning so no way to say for sure.


Tanuj.


----------



## rgames (Jul 24, 2013)

reneS @ Tue Jul 23 said:


> The difficulty is saying not as much as possible, but perhaps as little as possible, in a way.


This is the "Destroy Your Darlings" dilemma that every artist faces.

I see composers and musicians fall into this trap all too often - they spend so much time developing craft / technique that they want to make sure everyone knows they have it. The trick in any art is knowing how much to apply. In general, your goal is not to impress other composers but to impress a more general audience. That usually requires that you use less craft / technique than you would otherwise.

Hence we all see a lot of really good composers who never "make it" even though they clearly have tremendous skill as a composer. I find that very often those composers failed to apply the "Destroy Your Darlings" approach.

rgames


----------



## wanmingyan (Jul 24, 2013)

To OP: If you want to be a great composer, the answer is both.


----------



## clarkcontrol (Jul 25, 2013)

Craft.

"saying as little as possible" -this is the implementation of craft.

Technique is different; it's scales, chords, fluency, potential. 

Understanding the craft means knowing that less is definitely more. Knowing all the potentials but choosing the one elegant gesture where others would have used too many notes, etc.


----------



## impressions (Jul 25, 2013)

I think its amazing what you can do with just few notes. I'm saying that as relation to how useless the craft can be, encompassing immense knowledge. that is if you define the craft by its technique. I don't think you can tell a good story through music if you're not creative and have tons of fresh ideas to present it.

to demonstrate-
I saw that movie "Oblivion", and the beginning speech was accompanied by just two notes of the piano. really nice and simple idea, nothing that requires amazing technique-or knowledge. for me it was convincing. but i watched it alone, I think it was a rather convincing part of the movie if not "the".
(I think people here say the same about hans as compared to JW for the amount of notes used per composer, but I don't want to turn the discussion that way.)

to the OP, I think that if you really want to test yourself in that question-check how creative you can be with just a few notes and barely any technique. how effective a composer you can be. that will demonstrate how you can truly wield an idea, rather than hide behind clever orchestration or replicated gimicks.


----------



## wlotz (Jul 25, 2013)

rgames @ Thu Jul 25 said:


> This is the "Destroy Your Darlings" dilemma that every artist faces.
> 
> I see composers and musicians fall into this trap all too often - they spend so much time developing craft / technique that they want to make sure everyone knows they have it. The trick in any art is knowing how much to apply. In general, your goal is not to impress other composers but to impress a more general audience. That usually requires that you use less craft / technique than you would otherwise.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## Arbee (Jul 25, 2013)

Apologies for the rambling that follows but it's just the way I wrestle with this personally. To me "ideas" are the art component and craft in this context is "traditionally accepted techniques and principles". I tend to think of any artistic endeavour, be it painting, cooking, music etc like this:

*Low art + low craft* = why bother

*Low art + high craft* = gets respect but fails to "connect" with people beyond that conscious mental level. I believe this is the largest group, some of whom can become quite bitter about their lack of success since they have put in the effort.

*High art + low craft* = really connects buts lacks traditional technique. Either they have no interest or just don't "get it". Some artists in this category develop their own craft in innovative ways to get their message across. This is a group who often get highly criticised by their peers in the above group ("cheats and imposters" they cry), especially if they become successful and loved for their work. The world desperately needs these folk IMO.

*High art + high craft* = a very fortunate group with plenty of ideas who have also worked hard to develop their craft. Likely very successful but perhaps not as innovative as the above group.

The other ingredient to me is ego and individuality. I once had a guitarist working for me in a studio session and no matter how much he tried to play the way I was asking (and he could barely read a note), the track always came out sounding like "him". No names here but suffice to say he went on to become massively successful internationally.

I don't know if that makes any sense at all to anyone else but that's just how I process this question.

.


----------



## dgburns (Jul 25, 2013)

rgames @ Wed Jul 24 said:


> reneS @ Tue Jul 23 said:
> 
> 
> > The difficulty is saying not as much as possible, but perhaps as little as possible, in a way.
> ...



you know,sometimes more is in fact more 8) 

I say,use it or lose it baby.flaunt what yo mama gave you! (ok,it was a long night last night,posted in good humour)


----------



## Daryl (Jul 25, 2013)

Arbee, I sort of agree with your categories, but don't agree with your conclusions.

*Low art + low craft* This is most people.

*Low art + high craft* This is by far the smallest group. After all, nobody would bother spending years training if they had no talent.

*High art + low craft* This would apply to many Media composers. Amongst professional composers, this is by far the largest group. Their music would tend to connect with the average punter, much in the way that McDonald's does. :wink: 

*High art + high craft* This is actually the rarest group. However, the average person may not connect with their music, but this doesn't mean that they are not good.

D


----------



## nikolas (Jul 25, 2013)

We need to remember that more ideas to the most trained... :-/ Otherwise your ideas will suck, or remain unchanged over the years! Once you have a wealth of ideas in your arsenal on how to actually come up with an idea THEN you can speak about high art and high craft!

Other than that I agree with Daryl! I wish I was in Windsor to catch a pizza and a beer with him, but that's no longer the case! :D


----------



## Daryl (Jul 25, 2013)

nikolas @ Thu Jul 25 said:


> Other than that I agree with Daryl! I wish I was in Windsor to catch a pizza and a beer with him, but that's no longer the case! :D



The offer is always open. :wink: 

D


----------



## re-peat (Jul 25, 2013)

I disagree completely (with the Arbee / Daryl categorisations, that is).

It makes no sense to speak of "high art + high or low craft". In higher art, you can’t separate the ideas from the craft, because they are one. That is precisely one of the conditions that need to be met for art to be truly great. In high art, the level of craft is irrelevant (as an isolated, abstract ingredient, I mean), because it’s always perfect within the context of the work of art it is a part from.

“The Sacre”, for example, needs all the craft it has ― not a fraction less, but also not a fraction more ― to be “The Sacre”. If that work were more craftily assembled than it already is ― say, by including contrapuntal sections, or extended thematic/structural development, or being given an even more bravoura orchestration, or having its raw, primitive and un-academic brutality polished up ―, it would no longer be “The Sacre”. That’s precisely one of the reasons why “The Sacre” is as great as it is: its ideas and its craft are one. Change the degree (or character) of the craft and you change the identity/strength/power/value/impact/meaning of the work. And the same goes for any other great piece of music, from the simplest folk song to the most complex, sophisticated compositions.
To paraphrase Shaffer’s Salieri: add anything to, or take anything away from great art (be it a Robert Johnson blues, a Gershwin song, a Beethoven symphony, an Argerich performance or a Four Tet mix), and you get diminishment.

In short: "high art + low craft" is a combination that does not exist. In all great art the level of craft is always right, on whatever level it happens. That is, again, why it is great art. (One of the greatest examples of an artist adapting the level and nature of his craft in order to fully realize his artistic intentions, is Pablo Picasso: highly trained, technically extremely virtuosic, but willing to abandon it all ― and perfectly knowing when, and to which extent, to do it ― if and when his art required it.)

The wings of a colibri are entirely different from the wings of an eagle, and yet, both are gloriously and identity-definingly perfect for the being they support and allow to fly. And that’s how it is with craft and (high) art as well. 

I also disagree with Daryl’s “Low art + high craft” comprising the smallest group. The opposite, I’m convinced, is actually much closer to the truth. The history of music (or art in general) is filled with properly educated, thoroughly trained people whose creative output reveals nothing but talentless, tiresome mediocrity.

_


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 25, 2013)

If you look at the question : " Is it about the ideas or the craft?", how many times did we hear people with very basic music knowledge or none, friends, music students, relatives etc say, I have many ideas but don't know what to do with them? I heard that so many times, it's like they want you to do the work for their incredible ideas. When I was younger I also didn't know what direction to take with my ideas, what to do with them. As you improve your craft, all these things fall into place, and then, I agree with re-peat, it becomes "one". However, during the learning of the craft, they are 2 separate things.


----------



## Arbee (Jul 25, 2013)

Thanks for the responses to my crude attempt at categorisation which are of course quite subjective in themselves. I would argue that "The Sacre" falls into the last category where most accepted "masterpieces" belong, on the basis that "high craft" doesn't preclude good taste in applying the craft. There is a great difference between not having the craftmanship at all, and having the maturity and self assurance to resist using everything in the armory all the time.

.


----------



## Arbee (Jul 25, 2013)

Daryl @ Fri Jul 26 said:


> Arbee, I sort of agree with your categories, but don't agree with your conclusions.
> 
> *Low art + low craft* This is most people.


I guess it depends where you draw the line, I propose that most at the lower end of this group eventually move on to other pursuits.



Daryl @ Fri Jul 26 said:


> *Low art + high craft* This is by far the smallest group. After all, nobody would bother spending years training if they had no talent.


I still very much believe this is the largest group among those who derive income from any artistic field. 



Daryl @ Fri Jul 26 said:


> *High art + low craft* This would apply to many Media composers. Amongst professional composers, this is by far the largest group. Their music would tend to connect with the average punter, _much in the way that McDonald's does. _ :wink: .


I rest my case :wink: 



Daryl @ Fri Jul 26 said:


> *High art + high craft* This is actually the rarest group. However, the average person may not connect with their music, but this doesn't mean that they are not good.


Yes, agreed - this to me is a very small group. It's also worth noting I guess that even this group creates a lot of average output for those few gems that come to define them.

.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Aug 6, 2013)

> Is it about the ideas or the craft?


Neither the ideas, nor the craft, but the journey that allows you to develop both because...


> All the good music has already been written by people with wigs and stuff.- Zappa -



:wink:


----------



## Arbee (Aug 7, 2013)

G.R. Baumann @ Wed Aug 07 said:


> > Is it about the ideas or the craft?
> 
> 
> Neither the ideas, nor the craft, but the journey that allows you to develop both because...
> ...


I don't suppose you meant this "wigs and stuff" Zappa :wink: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6dYOl6SJDY

I must admit I really only posted that to share what has to be one of the catchiest "pop baroque toons" I've ever heard, can't believe I've only just stumbled across it. I can't get it out of my brain after a few listens...... 

.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 7, 2013)

Arbee @ Wed Aug 07 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6dYOl6SJDY


Hey, what coincidence: that performance appears to have been recorded within walking distance from where I live ... 
(De Bijloke Muziekcentrum, Gent (Belgium) ― a former abbey/hospital which has been completely renovated and now houses two concerthalls and a library.)

_


----------



## Ron Snijders (Aug 7, 2013)

AlexSmith @ Sun 21 Jul said:


> “The professional dedicates himself to mastering technique not because he believes technique is a substitute for inspiration but because he wants to be in possession of the full arsenal of skills when inspiration does come. The professional is sly. He knows that by toiling beside the front door of technique, he leaves room for genius to enter by the back.” The War of Art, Steven Pressfield


Just wanted to spotlight this post. I bought the book Alex cited and read it. And it has been an amazing eye-opener, really. It really pinpoints how people mess around and how to stop messing around and do that thing you're passionate about. The most important parts for me are only slightly related to this topic, but I still wanted to point it out


----------



## lux (Aug 7, 2013)

Peter Alexander @ Mon Jul 22 said:


> lux @ Mon Jul 22 said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect it has to do with how much expressed ideas are by a large majority recognized as good ideas.
> ...



I'd say not. Being professional helps to determine how much an idea is adeguate. Not necessarely how good it is.

One of my strongest beliefs is that my ideas worth nothing by default. I dont care how much I like them. They get some value to my eyes as long as I reach different minds and souls. As long as I feel interest around them, was it intellectual or plain emotional.

Personally nothing would get me more depressed than decreeing by myself that I'm good.


----------

