# Question for the formally-educated composers.



## Evan Arnett (Dec 10, 2008)

I'm studying composition at the undergrad level in a university right now. I want to get the most out of my education, but there is so many classes I can take, and so much I can do in each of them. I'd like to know what I should focus on the most strongly while in school.

So, I guess my question is, for those of you who went to school for music, what do you feel were the best experiences that contributed to your ability as a composer? 

I've taken all my theory, ear training, orchestration and counterpoint classes, but I don't feel that I have had enough practice/experience to gain the level of mastery I want. I was thinking of working through some workbooks and asking my private composition teacher (who also teaches, theory, cp and orchestration) to look them over during the extra time in our lessons. Is this a good idea? I'm not going to get to go to grad school, so I want to take advantage of the time I have left in my undergrad. 

Also, I spend a lot of time working on my own teaching myself techical stuff: advanced sound design, VI libraries and how to make good mockups. Should I hold off on the things I can teach myself later to instead focus more on performing and traditional training that I can learn best in college, and only work on these other things during summer/winter breaks or after I graduate?


----------



## JohnG (Dec 10, 2008)

suggest that you search this forum for posts on composing in general by Bruce Richardson and Poseur in particular; there are lots of perspectives but they are both quite articulate about it.

In the mean time, here are a few suggestions on which many here might agree:

1. Everything you learn will help you, no matter how unlikely, and whether or not related to music (writing a poem, painting, etc.), but definitely including orchestration, harmony and all the other formal bits; if you have to choose, pick courses in which you will have real players perform your work;

2. Find, cultivate, and protect that impulse in you that wants to make something and write music;

3. Maintain your playing and, if possible, gig regularly, whether it's chamber music or blues or hang drum -- but for an audience; and

4. Keep personal -- honor your individuality and (occasionally -- not every second) be brutally honest with yourself about whether you are putting an individual stamp on what you are doing, by contrast with slavish imitation.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 10, 2008)

The best you could do is to get practical experience while at school.

I went to music school but for the most part didn't major in composition. I majored in performance so I had a lot of playing buddies. I use to write small ensemble pieces and I would have my friends play them. Now be warned that this type of learning is brutal. You'll soon discover all your flaws as a composer/orchestrator and you'll be confronted on them instantaneously.

My school also had a small "Lab orchestra". This was for mostly conducting majors but on a few occasions I was able to get pieces performed and recorded using the lab orchestra. I still use some of these pieces on my reel.

As far as books are concerned. Study them sure but don't live by them. Some of the best pieces I wrote are when I hadn't studied any books. Now I've studied a lot of them. My writing is better but it took a long time to digest the knowledge and find some sort of practical use for them.

As a word of caution. The world is moving rapidly away from any type of schooled composition. But, I do notice that those that aren't schooled have a tough time coming up with music. Mostly relying on sound design to get them through so when they have to write music they have a tough time.

For me personally I find that I'm moving into a zone where my own spirit guides the music and in that creative aspiration I noticed that my learned knowledge helps it to take shape more quickly. I seldom find myself in a position where I can't find the notes. When I had less education I had a hard time finding the notes. I'd even sometimes be hearing things in my head and realize that I was a 1/4 tone off of any real western pitch and for some reason that use to throw me quite a bit in the early days 'cause I tend to hear complete pieces in my head and when it wasn't in any known key I'd have to figure it out all over again.

The subjects that mattered most to me were Orchestration and Counterpoint. For some reason I got nothing out of traditional eartraing. Mostly because I was taught the solfage system and quickly had to chuck it in favor of just hearing notes and using english letter names. I was much faster that way then thinking in la,ti,do type stuff. As a performance major I couldn't sight sing to save my life, but when I started to compose everyday I found that many of the things that are taught so academically in eartraining classes come quite naturally. Now I can look at an entire score and hear it in my head.

This is all a long winded way of saying that nothing beats the real thing. Start writing for whatever you can, be it samples, string quartets whatever and you'll soon align your education to your experience. But, if you learn it all as theory you'll soon realize what I have. Theory is just some lesser talented music scholar trying to rationalize the thoughts of geniuses. They fall utterly short in their explanation. And it's always funny to see that the theory books written by actually talented composers are simple. Which lead me to the theory that great music is built by ingeniously apply very simple principles, and junk music is made by trying to apply very complex theories barely understood.

For me the above theory holds true. There's nothing remarkable about the theory used to create works like Beethoven 3 or 5 or Mozart or Brahms requiems, or Stravinsky's Petrouska or Rite of Spring or Aaron Copland's Appalachian Spring. Nothing remarkable at all. Sure Stravinsky and Copland used Bitonal techniques complex meters at times but if you look at it closely bitonal was usually just two simple keys working on top of each other and complex meters are just simple meters added together. No biggy.

But, take a look at Boulez or Stockhausen or Schoenberg. Look at the complexity of the material and then listen to the results. I know I'll piss a lot of people off by saying this but there's a reason why the stuff isn't well liked. And, it isn't because the "world just needs to get caught up to their music" 100 years posthumous. Artistically the stuff is just crappy in comparison. But I say this fully knowing that sometimes that crappy stuff works well for movies.

I could go one for days with my opinions which are just that.

best,

Jose


----------



## Brian Ralston (Dec 10, 2008)

Take advantage of the opportunity to do something so many composers in the entertainment industry today do not have the experience doing...playing in an ensemble. I do not know what your major instrument is, but I would highly recommend that you not only study composition, but become proficient on your major instrument. A good composer is made first and foremost in my opinion by being a good musician and by being proficient on at least their major instrument. Perform in ensembles...it will make you a better composer and orchestrator of your own work. Study that instrument privately as well. 

Essentially...don't set yourself up to be one of those composers who has some great compositional ideas in their heads, but no practical knowledge or experience with how to translate what is in your head onto the page to get a musician to play it. This kind of thing would also unfortunately lead to writing lines for brass players with no room to breath. Or writing lines for woodwinds in ranges that are hard to play. Or writing string parts that are not idiomatic to the instruments, etc...

You will learn so very much by being a regular member of a performing classical ensemble and now that you are in an environment where you are surrounded by performing ensembles, you should take advantage of that and audition for every group you can. This will also help expose you to a wide variety of music in general and will be the difference between being "book smart" as a composition student...and "street smart" as a fellow performer and musician. 

Also for me...studying conducting was very valuable. To me, conducting my own music is part of the overall process of bringing my compositions to life. It completes the circle for me. And if you study conducting at least to the point where you can lead a group to perform your own music without looking awkward on the podium, you will have a skill set that fewer and fewer people have these days. And there are very few places where one can take a class or two on conducting than in a formal educational institution.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Dec 11, 2008)

All great responses and very good advice. 

I'd just add perhaps the obvious which I'm sure you're already doing: that you should also compose as much music in a variety of styles and genres for real musicians that you have around you as you possibly can. Write for friends, for college ensembles, experiment, talk to performers about the indiosyncracies of their instruments; learn how to write idiomatically, learn about voicings, articulations, combinations of instruments etc. 

Good luck!


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 11, 2008)

josejherring @ Wed Dec 10 said:


> The best you could do is to get practical experience while at school.
> 
> I went to music school but for the most part didn't major in composition. I majored in performance so I had a lot of playing buddies. I use to write small ensemble pieces and I would have my friends play them. Now be warned that this type of learning is brutal. You'll soon discover all your flaws as a composer/orchestrator and you'll be confronted on them instantaneously.
> 
> ...



It doesn't piss me off, but I could not disagree more. There is great music that is complex and the is great music that is simple.

And I think it is fair to say that nobody on this forum has to date or is likely to write a piece that will stand up to Stockhausen's "Gruppen" or Boulez's "Le Marteau Sans Maitre."

But that is irrelevant if you are going to be writing for commercial TV and films frankly. As my orchestration teacher, the late, great Albert Harris, once told me (and I paraphrase)

"Remember, you are not creating music for the ages, you are essentially selling soap. The trick is to do so with style and craft."

A little humility is required.


----------



## jsaras (Dec 11, 2008)

Hi Evan!

What city do you live in?


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Dec 11, 2008)

Lots of good advice from others here. As already said above, writing for real musicians
and having your music performed is without doubt one of the most effective ways to learn, all kinds of weird combinations of instruments are more than welcome.

As for theory, a subject I found particularly useful was Schenkerian analysis. Although some people are somewhat doubtful of its usefulness, I found it a great way to increase my perception of tonal compositions and some of the principles can be applied to many modern composition techniques as well. In any case, after completing the course I found myself looking at composition from quite a different aspect.


----------



## rgames (Dec 11, 2008)

In terms of the question of what's valuable in a music education, I thought it might help to get a perspective from someone who doesn't have a formal music education. I can tell you what hinders me and helps me the most, so I guess it makes sense that those would be good focus areas.

Become a master of some istrument: I agree 100% with the other comments on this one, and I think it's the only reason I get composing gigs without a formal education. I've spent many years playing in orchestras and bands and I think the rehearsal process gives as much insight into a score as sitting alone and reading it, particularly when it comes to orchestration. Plus it gives great practical knowledge, and I think that counts for a lot. It's no substitute for isolated score study, but it is beneficial.

Have at least some proficiency on the piano: mine is limited, so outside of basic harmonic structure and melody, I'm mostly reliant on Finale to make certain my notation matches what's in my head, and that slows things down. That comes down to ear training, also.

Most importantly, have a backup plan: most people can't make their entire living as a composer. Education is a popular choice and can provide a decent "backup" living. Another popular alternative is the rich spouse 

rgames


----------



## synthetic (Dec 11, 2008)

Write for live musicians and record the results. It will never be easier. Once you graduate, people are less likely to hang out and record music for you for free. 

When I was in school, I got a job in student services and operated the lights and curtains for orchestral performances. That gave me the chance to sit backstage while the orchestra played. I didn't appreciate what a unique opportunity that was until it was over.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 11, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Thu Dec 11 said:


> It doesn't piss me off, but I could not disagree more. There is great music that is complex and the is great music that is simple.
> 
> And I think it is fair to say that nobody on this forum has to date or is likely to write a piece that will stand up to Stockhausen's "Gruppen" or Boulez's "Le Marteau Sans Maitre."
> 
> ...



I understand what you're saying, but I come with a bit of a bias when it comes to complexly written and notated music and I have a funny story to prove my point.

When I was in high school I use to attend a summer music program at Northern Arizona University. Very good program. One day me and my friend decided on a practical joke. During very busy practice hours (when we should have been practicing) we would sit at a piano and bang out as wildly as we could the most random patterns, just slashing about violently for a minute or two and then do something soft and then loud, ect.....

This would cause quite a stir. People looked on us as piano geniuses. Even the professors would stop by and take a listen. Of course we played it all serious and stuff. We would hear people saying things like, "wow that's so good" or "remarkable". Then when it was all quiet we would just bust out in uncontrollable laughter as neither of us played the piano nor at that time composed any music.

Rightly or wrongly I came to my conclusions. Sure you may disagree and I respect that. But I still maintain that it is far better even in concert music to ingeniously apply simple material than to stupidly apply complex material.

Like I said it's a matter of opinion. In truth I'm very fond of a lot of complex music personally. I love Alban Berg wozzeck, Ives American Triptych, and many others. I just don't think it's any great aspiration for more practically minded composers of which I include Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky and Shostakovich to name a few. People that weren't dependent on government hand outs to make a living. 

best,

Jose


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 11, 2008)

josejherring @ Thu Dec 11 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu Dec 11 said:
> 
> 
> > stupidly apply complex material.



That is the key phrase.

Boulez never "stupidly"did anything in his career. He is a staggeringly brilliant musician. 

This kind of music in the hands of lesser composers can be just noise but in the hands of a master, it will be great.

There is not a single piece by i.e. Shostakovich that I would rather listen to than i.e. Luciano Berio's "Circles."


----------



## JohnG (Dec 11, 2008)

An interesting debate! 

I'm kind of on Jose's side here, Jay, even though I enjoy a smattering of Webern, Stockhausen, and the other wildcats (if I can use such a potentially irreverent term).

I think Jose's anecdote illustrates the huge gulf, as a listener, between post-Classical/Romantic works like Berg's Wozzeck or Varese's Transformations or Arvo Pårt or Lux Aeterna, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the wildcats' opus (again, over-generalizing so apologies). 

One can find the wildcats' work intriguing, but it troubles me that I would be lucky to distinguish between some of their compositions and simply random events, as illustrated by Jose's story. (Of course, some of the wildcats deliberately wrote random events, but that's not what I'm talking about). Moreover, even for the more "regular" moderns (like bits of Messiaen for example), I find it alarmingly difficult, as a listener, to distinguish between the "real" wildcats and their feeble imitators and disciples. I think that this inability to tell the real wildcats from the false ones either reinforces Jose's point, or reveals to all what a musical troll I am.

I just had a listen to bits of Elliott Carter's double concerto, and that is quite interesting (a work of genius, according to Stravinsky, I understand), but it's just so much work! Beethoven and Bartok and Arvo Pårt -- they are just fun to hear.

Fate of New Music

And the "fun to hear" point leads to another issue, which is the ghastly impact on the concert hall of decades of difficult music. The General Public, who gargle down torrents of music -- both pure music and in connection with films and TV -- remain hugely suspicious of "modern" concert music. Grey heads are all I see at the symphony, along with a few grandchildren, and for that, I do blame the wildcats' hegemony.

At this point, someone might intone, "history will judge." Whether the bijoux of the wildcats can be classified as "great" depends on one's definition, but I admit that I include in that definition the embrace, not of the man-in-the-street exactly, but of the man-in-the-concert-hall. Milton intimated that he hoped to write something good enough that "they would not willingly let it die," and, sadly, by that measure, I would guess that many of the wildcats will be consigned to history books, rather than performances. Or, put differently, death.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 11, 2008)

Listen to a ton of music in the library (more focus, hard-to-find recordings), read scores while listening, hang out with that 'one' prof who you really like, get involved in putting on concerts.


----------



## John DeBorde (Dec 11, 2008)

I'll echo what several others have said:

1. Become at least proficient (if not virtuosic) on an instrument, preferably with a good instructor. Learning and developing musical expression will take you a long way towards composing expressive music.

2. Develop relationships with good players, have them perform your music and get feedback from them about how your music works on their instrument. Is it easy/hard to play and why? Get good recordings from them and practice your recording techniques while you have time to experiment.

A bit more in the abstract - learn to trust your instincts. It takes practice to develop and nurture them, and to gain confidence in them, but if you have talent they should serve you well. And keep in mind that in school they don't necessarily teach you what YOU want to learn, but what THEY want you to learn. It took me awhile to figure that out, but once I did, I found the whole process to be much more productive.

And don't neglect technology too much while you're learning all this other stuff. You need to keep up with that too, but like someone else said, you probably won't ever be around as many players again that have time to hang out and experiment as you do when you're in school.

good luck!

john


----------



## Evan Arnett (Dec 11, 2008)

artsoundz @ Thu Dec 11 said:


> Evan Arnett @ Wed Dec 10 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm studying composition at the undergrad level in a university right now. I want to get the most out of my education, but there is so many classes I can take, and so much I can do in each of them. I'd like to know what I should focus on the most strongly while in school.
> ...



Yeah, thanks for asking. I am 24, getting a bit old to still be working on my undergrad, but I'm getting there, albeit slowly. My goal is to become a professional composer for media, especially games. 

Experience to date...well, I was heavily involved in the club scene when I was younger, DJing and writing electronic dance music (progressive and breakbeat stuff) releasing singles and doing commissioned remixes. When I was about 20, I got serious about studying classical music and got into theory and piano lessons at the local community college. So, yes, I started very late, and I'll admit that it's been intimidating to be studying alongside other pianists who have been playing since they were in the single-digits, and are now banging out Liszt and making it look easy. What's really amazing to me though is how utterly baffled many classical musicians are by the idea of improvisation on their instrument. At least, it makes for a nice ego boost to sit down at the keyboard and be just noodling around, and have people going "DID YOU JUST MAKE THAT UP?? HOW DO YOU DO THAT?!"

Uh, right, I was talking about experience. I've scored 3 games, 2 professionally and one is shipped. I've scored 3 or 4 short films for friends, and I scored a series of corporate video presentations for an airport security company. (Sorry, but I'm not quite ready to show my demo material off to this community yet, maybe by January...)

I also should note that I completely understand that I'm not going to learn everything I need to know just by going to school. Maybe, 25% of what I know about writing music comes from school, and the rest comes from, I don't know, intuition, listening very closely to the music I love, and experimentation. 

FInally, I have read several books about working as a composer, so I do understand that for better or for worse, the quality of one's networks are at least as important as the quality of one's music when trying to find work. But I'm sure it couldn't hurt to be able to turn out some amazing music, and that's what I'm focusing on for now.


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 11, 2008)

Thanks for sharing that,Evan. You're on your way, no doubt. 

There is a lot of great info here but I dont think ear training is stressed near enough. Whether it's formal solfege or everyday taking things off of records- to have a complete and thorough relative pitch skill under your belt is to me the most overlooked of all. And I'm talkin about developing it the level of transcribing from a recording without an instrument. 

When one get's that together and remembers the phrase "there's no such thing as taste" then music becomes thoroughly personal and one dosen't need to listen to those that say this is good or this is bad. That is my big rant about formal education and musical "opinions" in general. Most students are vulnerable to their mentors opinions and, I see this over and over, the student learns to be exclusive in their musical diet, UNLESS one has a great teacher skilled in real world music. I find relatively few educators are-. There are many that are everyday pros w/credentials but there are SO many more that CAN"T PLAY or write to save themselves. So- you have to be always on your toes with your teachers-they just may not really know, bless their hearts.

Thats why getting your ear together as it relates to learning harmony is key. Since it's games etc- you have to cover all the bases -pop and :film" music. One think that keeps me on my toes since I dont play live as much anymore is to play the radio. I turn it on and play as if I'm doing a recording date. No mistakes-no hacking away- I make myself PLAY with whatever is on. Evrything from polka to new R'n b to classical. just a tip but nothing new.

Anyway- welcome to V.I. good luck with it all- I get the feeling you wont have much problem- and Rgames advice about a rich wife is very,very wise. Music careers can be uniquely painful but at least it's always fun when it hurts.


----------

