# Degree in Composition vs Independent Study



## RyBen (Aug 27, 2011)

Which do you think would be the better choice for a film scoring career?

My view goes like this:
----------------------------
*Formal education*

Pros:
-Become more disciplined in your work
-Easier discovery of reference material to study
-More hands-on with instruments, probably easier to get your piece played live
-More focused because.. well that's what you're majoring in

Cons:
-Material is partially irrelevant for modern film music
-More time in school, less time making mockups
-No other major to fall back on
-May learn material that's easily learned in a book
----------------------------
*Independent study* (pretty an inversion of the above in some cases)

Pros:
-More control over time management
-Can focus on other things to fall back on financially
-Can focus more on exposure, kranking out demos
-Can focus on mixcraft and musicraft simultaneously

Cons:
-Need to know what to study, where to begin
-Need to be motivated and organized (even more so at least)
-May need to do non-musical things to sustain a living
-----------------------------

Of course allot of these statements can be interchanged but this is my general idea of it. I'm looking more for other people's view, I'd be more than happy to hear a "that's completely wrong actually" statement.


-Ryan


----------



## José Herring (Aug 27, 2011)

or,

Join a rock band.


----------



## Casey Edwards (Aug 27, 2011)

Your best option I think would be to approach a professor and ask for private individual lessons. You'll have direction, help, contacts, and no bullshit classes wasting your time. I opted for the degree just because I read somewhere "I don't have a music degree, but I don't hire interns that don't." I really needed to learn piano too and for me personally I needed school for that. Best of luck!


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 27, 2011)

so in theory if you are doing informal studying, you wouldn't be doing anything else?...
say.. like a day job? 

with an institution it gives u the chance to be studying and have the time to do so and then spring you to a more advance level in less time. 
while learning on your own , and you are not a trustafarian and have to work and learn slowly will get to your goal slower. 
if you have the money then learn by yourself and get a private teacher. 

with that said; id still get some sort of bachelor degree that contributes to society and u can get a job that pays well, cause lets be honest here... there aint too many positions in film scoring and its not the best paying job either for 85% of composers. it is for the rest though  
while doing a bachelor (and if it applies to you) then also get into music and production classes.


----------



## RiffWraith (Aug 27, 2011)

Hi there. 

I am not at all a fan of degrees. Sure, you can learn alot, but in the end, how much does it really help? I mean, is a director/producer going to take you over the next guy because you have a degree and he doesn't? Nope. He'll take you because your music is better, and your personality is better.

That said, let me address your degree pros:

Pros: 
_-Become more disciplined in your work. _ Sorry, don't see that. Discipline and focus needs to be there automatically; if the fact that you are in school forces you to be focused and disciplined, what's going to happen when you aren't in school anymore? Learn how to be focused and disciplined on your own, without having to rely on school being there.
_-Easier discovery of reference material to study._ Unless the school has material that is not available in local libraries, bookstores and on the internet, this is simply not true.
_-More hands-on with instruments, probably easier to get your piece played live._ This maybe true. Having your piece played live - even one short one - can teach you alot. Find out if your school will allow for this - if not, that's not a pro. As for the instruments, not really. even if you get to touch a French Horn, and pick up a violin and learn how to hold it properly, is that really going to help you better write for those instruments? 
_-More focused because.. well that's what you're majoring in. _ See above

All in all, you can achieve alot learning and studying on your own. You just need to be be focused and disciplined, and really want it - BAD.

Good luck.


----------



## autopilot (Aug 27, 2011)

Studying: Pros - Friends. Girls. Friends. Beer. Friends. Contacts. Friends. Access to Gear. Friends. Best time of my life in a lot of ways. Friends. 

Seriously - Do not underestimate the importance of your alumni. For the first few years out of Uni (about 20 years ago now) ALL of my music work came from people I went to Uni with. 

I finished a writing degree a few years ago. All of my writing contacts have come from people I studied with.


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 27, 2011)

autopilot @ Sat Aug 27 said:


> Studying: Pros - Friends. Girls. Friends. Beer. Friends. Contacts. Friends. Access to Gear. Friends. Best time of my life in a lot of ways. Friends.
> 
> Seriously - Do not underestimate the importance of your alumni. For the first few years out of Uni (about 20 years ago now) ALL of my music work came from people I went to Uni with.
> 
> I finished a writing degree a few years ago. All of my writing contacts have come from people I studied with.



+1

enjoy life, enjoy friends , enjoy studying music with future co-workers o-[][]-o 

enjoy paying low interest student loans :mrgreen:


----------



## PasiP (Aug 27, 2011)

It is not what you know but who you know.


----------



## Danny_Owen (Aug 27, 2011)

PasiP @ Sat Aug 27 said:


> It is not what you know but who you know.



Well... it's both really 

Many of the top HW composers in interviews I've read have said a chance will come... just be ready for it when it does.

Who you know can only get your foot in the door. The rest, I think, is entirely down to what you know.


----------



## mverta (Aug 27, 2011)

No, it's _how_ you know who you know.

_Mike


----------



## YuHirà (Aug 28, 2011)

Hello everybody!

I think that it's above all a personal choice. But I assume a lot of self-taught persons miss formal education later.

Some people are afraid of learning in an institution because they think they are going to lose their personality. But it will happen anyway if their personality is not strong enough!




> with an institution it gives u the chance to be studying and have the time to do so and then spring you to a more advance level in less time.
> while learning on your own , and you are not a trustafarian and have to work and learn slowly will get to your goal slower.
> if you have the money then learn by yourself and get a private teacher.



I totally agree. Furthermore, formal education helps you to organize the information and the "rules" into a hierarchy. You can't do that alone, because you need to be trained to be able to do so! An it's a way to work quickly: you know how to do what you want effectively in different ways. In France, I have the feeling that the self-taught persons in the business are more and more rare because the level is become too high. I saw a great composer spending less than one hour to write in Finale a whole waltz for a lot of unusal instruments, just by checking his harmonies on a mute piano.

I studied music in an academy very early in my life (instrument, musicology, solfeggio, etc...) but I began my "career" by learning harmony with books. I had the feeling that I was learning something but I was wrong. A few years ago, I began studying harmony with a teacher. In 6 months, I didn't learn a lot of things but I learned more than in 10 years: someone else was helping me to hear what I could not hear! Admittedly, I learned a lot of concepts with books. But I didn't practised them enough to have good reflexes: it was useless!



> I finished a writing degree a few years ago. All of my writing contacts have come from people I studied with.



+ 2

My instrument teacher gave me my first gigs (concert music commissions). And I still work with him!


----------



## windshore (Aug 28, 2011)

An education from a major institution is a good start. Whether you end up with a degree or a certificate set a goal, do it at 110% and be a sponge. Completing any goal like this means a lot on many levels to you and to others who may have to judge you for work.

After having the strongest base of knowledge and rich experience, THEN private study is invaluable. You can plan your own path, study what you're most passionate about etc.

Studying never ends in music or the music biz. Don't narrow your choices too early!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 28, 2011)

windshore @ Sun Aug 28 said:


> An education from a major institution is a good start. Whether you end up with a degree or a certificate set a goal, do it at 110% and be a sponge. Completing any goal like this means a lot on many levels to you and to others who may have to judge you for work.
> 
> After having the strongest base of knowledge and rich experience, THEN private study is invaluable. You can plan your own path, study what you're most passionate about etc.
> 
> Studying never ends in music or the music biz. Don't narrow your choices too early!



I totally agree.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 28, 2011)

mverta @ Sat Aug 27 said:


> No, it's _how_ you know who you know.
> 
> _Mike



It is also how much credibility you have with who you know.


----------



## wst3 (Aug 28, 2011)

Lots of excellent points!

I am a fan of a liberal arts degree, even if it isn't in music.

Of the many points made previously I think one that really rings true to me is that the time in a full time degree program is devoted to study (well, study and partying<G>)

It is a rare opportunity!

Now whether to study music or something else? That's a personal call. I studied physics, it fascinated me. I also minored in dramatic literature, which in my case included all the technical theatre arts. AND, by sheer good luck I got in on the ground floor of a really good computer science program.

On the down side, I foolishly believed all the adults who advised me, and did not think there was any future in music for me, so I did not select a college with a strong music program. In fact I ended up writing the drills for the marching band, and could have taught the theory classes - although the musicology (still called music appreciation<G>) were pretty cool.

What I really got from my college education?

An appreciation for learning.

Some tools to help me teach myself.

An appreciation for topics that I might have otherwise ignored - e.g. history never appealed to me, until one of my professors set me on a hunt for the history of modern physics. Now I am especially interested in that tiny segment of modern history, but I have an overall interest in general history as well.

INSANE writing/communications skills! Sorry, that sound like bragging, but it is something for which I've received high praise over the last 30 years, so I assume they did something right<G>.

Some social skills - grudgingly I'll admit! I have a tendency towards the hermit way, and in a residential college, one selected because none of my friends were going there, your choices are limited, if you don't figure out how to get along with others and socialize you will be really lonely!

An appreciation of the value of seeing something through, and the perseverance to see it through. There were a handful of times when I really wanted to just quit. It wasn't always easy, and I figured out (too late) that music would always be a part of my life, which was a huge frustration! But a couple of trusted advisers (yes, the same folks who suggested that music was kids stuff - to their credit they acknowledged that they were wrong about the music thing) talked me into seeing it through.

I am not, as it turns out, an accomplished and wealthy Hollywood composer. I might not have reached that pinnacle no matter which education path I followed.

But I have had a wonderful, exciting, challenging, rewarding career thus far in technology, specifically audio engineering and computer science. Made a couple minor wrong turns, but everyone does.

More important, at least to me, is that I continue to pursue music. I enjoy it!


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 28, 2011)

YuHirà @ Sun Aug 28 said:


> Hello everybody!
> 
> Some people are afraid of learning in an institution because they think they are going to loose their personality. But it will happen anyway if their personality is not strong enough!



Agree.

The people who have gone through institutions, you'll very rarely hear them talk about it with any regrets, and the ones that are self taught have tendency to not be more encouraging for studying in institutions, in general. Circumstances and different personalities will make you go one direction rather than another, but at the end it doesn't matter, what will matter is that you acquired knowledge, enough to get by on your own. One advantage with institutions though is that you have that piece of paper at the end that is something you can fall back onto and teach in institutions yourself with a good salary, as for when you're self taught and things haven't gone your way, you have to look for a job anyway to make ends meet. Just more things to consider. For scoring films, that piece of paper won't be of any use, but that is conditional you work consistently in that business.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 28, 2011)

It also comes down to do you want to be a well-educated person as well as a well educated composer. Unless you are a voracious autodidact, you are not going to get the broad base of knowledge you can from a 4 year education at a decent school of higher learning.

Plus, college is fun. I had a great time learning alongside interesting people and sharing experiences with them. I treasure my memories of those days.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 28, 2011)

Today, most institutions have caught up with film scoring degrees, or whatever they call it. There was a time when this was not the case and film scoring was not well regarded in universities. The only thing is, you really have to do it when your young or living with your parents, otherwise you end up never doing it.


----------



## Dave Connor (Aug 28, 2011)

Private study should be seen as imperative apart from any other educational considerations because of the interaction between teacher and pupil of which there is no substitute. The classroom has it's benefits but that's not one of them. It's no surprise that one can almost as easily name a historic composer's teacher as you can the composer himself.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 28, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Sun Aug 28 said:


> Private study should be seen as imperative apart from any other educational considerations because of the interaction between teacher and pupil of which there is no substitute. The classroom has it's benefits but that's not one of them. It's no surprise that one can almost as easily name a historic composer's teacher as you can the composer himself.



Yes and no IMHO Dave. Studying orchestration privately with Al Harris here in LA was huge for me but previously at Boston Conservatory, while singing in the chorus for 4 years, I learned more about the spirit of and true joy of music from the conductor Rouben Gregorian than from any other source. And studying composition there with Avram David, both in class and once a week privately, opened my ears to 20th Century music in a way that probably would never have happened just studying privately.

There can be great value in both and you can have extraordinary teachers with both. That said, people here in LA studying with you now are very fortunate indeed.


----------



## rgames (Aug 28, 2011)

Regardless of genre, I think the most important aspect of music education is performing. Whether you do that formally through a university or just start picking up gigs as a teenager doesn't really matter.

The great composers have varying amounts of formal education. But (almost?) all are accomplished musicians, at least early in their careers.

rgames


----------



## Dave Connor (Aug 28, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Aug 28 said:


> Dave Connor @ Sun Aug 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Private study should be seen as imperative apart from any other educational considerations because of the interaction between teacher and pupil of which there is no substitute. The classroom has it's benefits but that's not one of them. It's no surprise that one can almost as easily name a historic composer's teacher as you can the composer himself.
> ...



You may have misunderstood my point Jay. I literally meant aside from all those benefits you posted above which are quite similar to my own during 7 years of college. (I almost edited my post to include private study within an institution but I thought that was obvious.) I earned a degree in composition but had no private study in college within or without. Then came private study with Hal Johnson (a veritable genius of a teacher) which was quantum in regards to composition specifically. There is no way to get that in a classroom which I believe is proven by {as I stated} by the lives of the great composers.


----------



## autopilot (Aug 28, 2011)

Re Private Study - The thing about going to worjk with a master is you need to first learn the basics from a college or similar anyway - then you'll be ready to not waste a master's time. 

And even within a curriculum, you'll still find a way to do the things you want anyway... I did


----------



## Brian Ralston (Aug 29, 2011)

To be a successful film composer...you do not need a degree in anything. Sure you have to have the composing chops to back up what you say you could do. But a degree? No. 

Having said that. 

I feel the best way for anyone to become a better composer, especially if you want to compose for an orchestra of any type, is to spend a lot of time PERFORMING on your major instrument in an orchestra yourself. For me...I learned WAYYYYYYYYY more about orchestration, conducting and composition from sitting and performing in an orchestra...than I did in any class studying it formally. By the time I had graduated high school I had probably performed almost every major piece of composition there was in various groups and by the time I graduated college...I had done so on musical tours all over the globe with various groups. 

I don't know what your major instrument is...but the best way for you to get experience performing in an ensemble (orchestral or otherwise) like the ones you most likely want to write for in a future film scoring situation...is to get involved in those groups at a college or university. In my opinion. Because that is where most of those groups are. And your music degree will most likely require you pick a major instrument and perform in an ensemble or two. 

You will then absorb what is around you. You will learn what works and what doesn't work from the masters of composition. You will get to know your colleagues sitting around you and thus learn from them what their instruments can and can't do. 

Then you will not become another composer who writes a wind part with no place to breathe...or a composer who writes a lyric line for trumpet that is too high for too long and not idiomatic to the instrument, etc...etc...

Because you will have come to the profession from having done what you are now asking the musicians to do. And that is to perform the notes. To make music. 

The best composers and best conductors, etc...in my opinion...are some of the best performing musicians themselves. 

Just saying. There are exceptions. Yes. But to set yourself up for success in your future of being a composer, that is what I would do. 

Give yourself the opportunity to have ensemble performance experience now while you can. College is a great place to do that.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 29, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Sun Aug 28 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Aug 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Connor @ Sun Aug 28 said:
> ...



Thanks for clarifying Dave and I mostly agree but not to be argumentative, but there ARE certain classes where you can get what you need as well or better in a class. if the teacher is good. I had a great counterpoint teacher. The advantage of the class was that after we identified our rule breaking mistakes, we would have to play the lines individually at the piano and we all would discuss whether each ones individual lines had melodic integrity.

The first TV show I scored, I co-scored with David Michael Frank. The contractor was Jules Chaiken, who contracted for a lot of big composers and who you probably know, Dave. When I came in from conducting some of my cues, David said to me, "You got a nice compliment from Jules."

I said, "Really? What"

David said, "He said that for an inexperienced composer, your inner line writing is really good."

That was because of my counterpoint class. And as I said, you learn more about choral writing singing in a good chorus than you would learn in private study IMHO.

But basically, we are in agreement.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 29, 2011)

autopilot @ Sun Aug 28 said:


> Re Private Study - The thing about going to worjk with a master is you need to first learn the basics from a college or similar anyway - then you'll be ready to not waste a master's time.
> 
> And even within a curriculum, you'll still find a way to do the things you want anyway... I did



I like this.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 29, 2011)

Private teaching could be very beneficial, but as long as the student is hungry to learn and not subjected to it. For students who are more inhibited, this could be a very powerful tool.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 29, 2011)

Many good points here.

I am not sure if anyone mentioned a couple of benefits of a degree program with other students:

1. Learning from other students -- as annoying as it may be, some of one's fellow students may know a lot more than we. It sparks those competitive juices, including in the form of music that we may think is crap but audiences like a lot better than -- our own. This is a good lesson.

2. Taking oneself seriously -- it's easier to get in the habit of accepting oneself as a musical (or any other kind of) artist when there is an environment that takes this for granted. Sitting in an apartment paying bills via a day job doesn't necessarily generate similar inspiration.

3. Variety of influences and opinion -- studying individually, one is exposed to the intellectual force and taste of (usually) one or at most, a handful of individuals. It's great to hear what's going on out there and not just end up swamped with the pet theories and favourite styles prized by a single teacher.

4. Access to ensembles to hear one's music played live -- this is rarely available in private study.

I've done both -- learned a lot from both. Oddly, an orchestration class taught by a band arranger helped me as much as any formal orchestration I've had before or since.

I applaud points already made by others -- such as learning through performance, making friends, having fun, and not ending up as some kind of stiff know-it-all -- are well made too.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 29, 2011)

Some people look brilliant among pears and groups while others are intimidated by it and never get past the pressure, however in a more private environment they get a fairer chance to learn and ask questions. I have done both and benefited from both equally, but got a lot of things through one on one teaching I never would of got though classes. It's a different dynamic. I agree with Dave that both should compliment each other.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Aug 29, 2011)

IMHO - bearing in mind I studied music for 11 years >8o - there are huge benefits from formal study at university. As many of the above posters have said, structure, discipline, expertise, contacts etc are all obvious ones. However, I think one of the most important aspects is learning *how* to learn and what to learn.

There have of course been some very famous and successful auto-didacts (Einstein being perhaps the most important), but they are few and far between for a reason.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 29, 2011)

Learning is a natural thing from birth, it's effortless, but at some point in our life we just decided to stop learning. I guess that's the difference with the ones who's made it big.


----------



## Casey Edwards (Aug 29, 2011)

I graduate in the Spring with my Theory and Composition degree and I can honestly say that school has helped me a lot! I'll list my own cons and pros based on my personal experience. My only experience before college was a pretty decent technical facility on the electric guitar (studied and practiced a lot of John Petrucci!), a firm understanding of the basics of music theory, and a very less than average education on the trumpet from 6-9th grade.

PROs:
- Availability to players for performance
- My composition class consisted of class time and individual lessons which extended beyond composition to history, engraving, conducting, orchestration, etc. Very great teacher!
- Exposure to the literature (I needed this badly because I didn't know where to start and my teachers helped me grow and I grabbed scores on my own from the library all the time to study more and more. So while I've always been self sufficient I'm really glad I had guidance to start me off.)
- I had never played piano and I had to take lessons to be able to give a recital for graduation and now this semester I'm prepping for that. I went from not knowing scale fingerings to knowing parallel, contrary, 3rds, 6ths, 10ths, arps, etc. and preparing for and already played Beethoven Tempest Sonata, Debussy preludes, etc etc. Without School I never would have pressured myself to be a decent pianist because it is grueling and hard work starting to late for me and I just wanted to write all the time. I'm glad I stuck with it though!
- Peers and Colleagues! Learning stuff all the time, exchanging ideas, healthy debate, jam sessions, healthy competition. So much to learn from each other.
- Connections and reputation. While one can definitely build this on their own I'm glad that through my university I was able to build a reputation with my professional teachers who obviously know the local pro players, companies, orchestra's, etc.

CONs:
- Some really wasteful classes I didn't like that helped me ZERO in real life applications or in creativity muses.
- Less time to focus during the school season on outside school career competition. (Luckily though, while my school is a very old school training style, my mentor and professor of composition has always understood and helped me with my goals of writing for media alongside my traditional training.)
- Stress can be a real buzz kill for anything related to being creative
- Social life can suffer 
- Money....do I need to say any more?



I'm sure there are way more if I though hard on both sides but this is my stream of consciousness though on the subject. Also, you have to remember it's going to differ from each person AND each school. No two people will get the same education at the same school regardless if they are in the same classes every year. In the end it's all about how you will personally apply them to yourself when someone isn't looking over your shoulder!


----------



## YuHirà (Aug 29, 2011)

Hello!!



> I feel the best way for anyone to become a better composer, especially if you want to compose for an orchestra of any type, is to spend a lot of time PERFORMING on your major instrument in an orchestra yourself.


 
I totally agree.

But isn't there a difference to make between orchestration, harmony and music basics?

I heard a lot of composers saying that we don't really learn orchestration in classrooms (I assume it's what you think). I can't tell whether they are right or not because I didn't study orchestration with a teacher but I noticed that a lot of good composers were not formally trained in orchestration. 

However I think it's easier to build a good orchestration when the harmony is solid and when we write the score ourselves.

Now, I don't think it is possible to learn basic harmony and music basics by performing in an orchestra (or in a choir). To understand them better, yes, but not to learn them. IMHO, music theory and harmony, as basics, demands a lot of practice, and it's not easy without a teacher (anyway, even with a teacher, it's not easy at all :lol: ). 

Unless you write pop/jazz music (it's not a shame!), I think it's quite hard to succeed nowadays in the beginings without a formal education in basics because you can't write the scores yourself when you work for a low budget film. As a result, self taught aspiring composers go on composing on their computer (it's not a shame either :D ) and don't try to work with real musicians. It's a pity, because it's the best way to value their music: it may boost a career!

On the other side, I believe that formal education can be a trap if you don't manage to question your knowledge. Self taught persons, feeling themselves as illegitimate composers, work harder to build their personnality, their sound, their network, and so on (cf. Hans Zimmer). Teachers should learn composers to question what they learn and to become a self taught person who has everything to learn. Formal education is not the end, it's just the beginning!

NB: in English, do you usually use the word "solfeggio"?


----------



## sbkp (Sep 2, 2011)

There are a few VI-Control members who teach private lessons remotely. I've been studying with Leon Willett for a while and I think his course design and teaching are wonderful. It's been invaluable for me.

He used to have information on his site about lessons but I can't find that page right now. At any rate, it's http://www.leonwillett.com


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 2, 2011)

To further clarify to Jay and in general: I think the college degree is of enormous value and you do learn invaluable things that you will apply in your music. I was making the narrower point of the study of composition which in my thinking is no different from instrumental study. The percentage of working instrumentalists that studied privately I dare say is 100%. Now if someone wants to write for all those players I don't think he/she wants to be the one guy that didn't study privately. If you consider that the majority of those players earned degrees than you understand the essence of my point.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 2, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Fri Sep 02 said:


> To further clarify to Jay and in general: I think the college degree is of enormous value and you do learn invaluable things that you will apply in your music. I was making the narrower point of the study of composition which in my thinking is no different from instrumental study. The percentage of working instrumentalists that studied privately I dare say is 100%. Now if someone wants to write for all those players I don't think he/she wants to be the one guy that didn't study privately. If you consider that the majority of those players earned degrees than you understand the essence of my point.



You are crystal clear now, sir.


----------



## ajkeys (Sep 2, 2011)

Einstein said it best: "Imagination is better than knowledge..." It goes on to say "For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution." 
Even though I have a masters in music, most of what I know about music is limited at best. If I had a phd I might know more, but it would still be limited. True Masters of Music, say Beethoven, use the limited knowledge gained to connect to his imagination (the minds eye)...Beethoven wrote his remarkable 9th Symphony even though he was nearly deaf. 
It's not what you learn while you are in college (I agree it's a great place to learn music and gain skills)...but what is in your imagination (your mind's eye) after college? Knowledge is only a tool.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 2, 2011)

ajkeys @ Fri Sep 02 said:


> Einstein said it best: "Imagination is better than knowledge..." It goes on to say "For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution."
> Even though I have a masters in music, most of what I know about music is limited at best. If I had a phd I might know more, but it would still be limited. True Masters of Music, say Beethoven, use the limited knowledge gained to connect to his imagination (the minds eye)...Beethoven wrote his remarkable 9th Symphony even though he was nearly deaf.
> It's not what you learn while you are in college (I agree it's a great place to learn music and gain skills)...but what is in your imagination (your mind's eye) after college? Knowledge is only a tool.



That may be true for geniuses like Einstein, but they are few and far between. For mere mortals, knowledge is king. 

Anyway, since the two are not antithetical it need not be an either/or proposition :lol:


----------



## ajkeys (Sep 2, 2011)

Last I checked Einstein and Beethoven were one of us - mortal, but their creations (which came from their imagination) survive them. I believe that the two, knowledge and imagination are not opposed, they enhance creativity...but there are ways to knowledge other than a college education, it's only one tool. I disagree that 'geniuses' are few and far between. What are you measuring that by Jay?


----------



## JB78 (Sep 2, 2011)

sbkp @ Fri Sep 02 said:


> There are a few VI-Control members who teach private lessons remotely. I've been studying with Leon Willett for a while and I think his course design and teaching are wonderful. It's been invaluable for me.
> 
> He used to have information on his site about lessons but I can't find that page right now. At any rate, it's http://www.leonwillett.com



I can attest to that as well, been studying with Leon for over 18 months now and couldn't be happier with my progress! Here's the link to the lesson info: 

http://www.leonwillett.com/leonwillett. ... ssons.html


Best regards
Jon


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 2, 2011)

ajkeys @ Fri Sep 02 said:


> Last I checked Einstein and Beethoven were one of us - mortal, but their creations (which came from their imagination) survive them. I believe that the two, knowledge and imagination are not opposed, they enhance creativity...but there are ways to knowledge other than a college education, it's only one tool. I disagree that 'geniuses' are few and far between. What are you measuring that by Jay?



By the level of the work. I have heard a lot of nice stuff posted here by talented and clever people. There are no Beethovens here.

I think in any discipline there are only a handful of authentic geniuses at any given time. Maybe your entry level to that term is less rigorous than mine


----------



## rgames (Sep 2, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Sep 02 said:


> For mere mortals, knowledge is king.



I think, in general, that is not true and becoming less so.

Pick any field you like: creativity is the most critical element of success and lasting influence, not knowledge.

First, let's define knowledge. Knowledge is information that can be written down and understood by just about anyone. It's basically just facts, or book learning - it doesn't require any critical thinking on the part of the recipient. Examples of fields of study that are mostly knowledge-based include history, IT, accounting, law, and medicine. There's nothing that's difficult to understand and internalize in these fields, it just takes a lot of work to absorb all the information.

Creativity, however, can't be written down and cataloged as knowledge can. It is abstract and difficult to define but can basically be thought of as generation of *new* knowledge (sometimes through synthesis of existing knowledge). Examples of fields of study that are mostly creativity-based include the arts, sciences, engineering, and mathematics. These fields often rely on little in the way of knowledge. Take engineering and science, for example: there's very little actual knowledge required to work in these fields. 99% of the info you need to be an engineer or scientist is learned in the first year of college; most of the remaining time is spent learning how to creatively manipulate that knowledge.

What you say used to be true: one cold become a human catalog of knowledge and make a living. For example, if you collected a list of information on cars, or computers, or legal matters, or accounting practices, or diagnoses, then you could make a living by selling your "catalog" of that information. Even if others had that catalog, if it was difficult to navigate and find the information they needed then it was still worth their while to hire you to do it for them.

Nowadays, however, information (i.e., knowledge) is cheap and easy to navigate for anyone with a web browser. And it will only become easier as we progress further into the information age. So I disagree that knowledge is king. I agree it is easier to obtain, but it has much less value than creativity.

Einstein said as much and was absolutely correct 

rgames


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 2, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Sep 02 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Fri Sep 02 said:
> 
> 
> > For mere mortals, knowledge is king.
> ...



It is true in terms of becoming successful. It is not IMHO terms of becoming really good.

You may be be able to become a successful composer nowadays based on a perception of creativity (and who is considered "creative" nowadays is wildly arguable by me) without knowledge but you don't become a John Williams, or even a James Newton Howard without knowledge.


----------



## ajkeys (Sep 3, 2011)

> Creativity, however, can't be written down and cataloged as knowledge can. It is abstract and difficult to define but can basically be thought of as generation of *new* knowledge (sometimes through synthesis of existing knowledge).



Exactly! Thanks for continuing my thoughts RG...
Art, especially music is subjective. It's not a science with theories that can be proven or disproved. Every one has a say in who's work is 'accepted ' or not, who is a 'Beethoven' who is not. IMHO every artist who has taken some time to gain knowledge and, yes, attain some degrees has the opportunity to reach 'genius' status. But, knowledge, is not the measurement of success in my opinion. Beethoven used his loss of 'hearing' (no hearing loss in his head) to his advantage. He wrote new rules about composing that were never taught in music schools, because he had to. That should be the measure, when composers write new rules that composers can learn from. I wonder what Beethovens' mark on earth would have been if he had not known the adversity of his loss of hearing? Would he have gone the distance to write his #9 and all his later opuses? Who are those composers today who are using their knowledge to achieve what has never been before?

Thanks for letting me have 'my humble opinion'...I appreciate having a forum like this to express these kinds of issues.


----------



## re-peat (Sep 3, 2011)

ajkeys @ Sat Sep 03 said:


> Art, especially music is subjective.


No, it isn't. Bad or mediocre art (or music) undoubtedly is, but truly great art can't be captured by, or adequately defined with, subjective observations. That's precisely part of its greatness: it escapes virtually all narrow-minded subjectivity. Truly great art simply doesn't fit in the small window through which the poorly or moderately talented (which includes most of its observers unfortunately) look at it, hence their total incapability to see and appreciate all the qualities which make it rise above subjective considerations. In other words: there's a lot more happening in great art (or music) than whatever happens to be seen (or heard) by a subjective set of eyes (or ears).
Subjectivity is usually sufficient to define/appreciate average work, but it is never sufficient to fully define/appreciate truly great work.



ajkeys @ Sat Sep 03 said:


> (...) to reach 'genius' status.


'Genius' isn't a state that can be reached. One either is, or one isn't. Beethoven was, Rossini wasn't. Rossini might have turned completely deaf, blind, cripple, mute AND chronically constipated, he still wouldn't have been able to produce work of genius. (He wrote some thoroughly enjoyable music though.) You can reach maturity, or a state of complete command and expertise in your chosen field of expression, yes, you can even be blessed with occasional flashes of almost genius-like creativity, but you can't work or study towards, let alone reach, the state of 'genius'.
(All this assuming that we're more or less in agreement on the meaning of the term 'genius' which, I have a feeling, isn't quite the case.)

_


----------



## lux (Sep 3, 2011)

such a subjective post

I have to agree tho that (too) many are the risks of considering art as fully "subjective".

In general i think its a looplike matter. Art isnt subjective and at the same time every attempt to fully parametrize is a failure.


----------



## zacnelson (Sep 3, 2011)

Brilliantly put Lux, your last sentence is a great summary of the paradox


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 3, 2011)

re-peat @ Sat Sep 03 said:


> ajkeys @ Sat Sep 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Art, especially music is subjective.
> ...



Well stated, Piet.


----------



## Musicologo (Sep 4, 2011)

Non Sense. Of course Art is fully subjective. 

What it isn't subjective are the relation between art AND the cultural constraints and conventions and canons, once they become internalized by one's brain. 

Then again, they too are totally subjective... 

So what is "good art" or "genius work" depends on the the values and criteria of judgement of a certain group of individuals, culture or society. 

It would be interesting to determine how those values and criteria emerge. And why they privilege some peoples work on top of others. 

Putting this way: Who sold you beethoven? 
Who told you that he was good at all? or a genius? 

The genius is a social construction. 

There were 2000 registered composers in Vienna in the end of XVIII century, why we only hear about 2 or 3 today? All the others really sucked? What have they written? Why was it forgotten? 

Why someone picked up beethoven and mozart and institutionalized them? Why were they taught in schools and conservatories? Why are they STILL taught in conservatories and are mandatory? 

This all has a certain non-sense within... why are we not taught radifs? or the great javanese gamelan composers? 

Why do you all keyboardists play Clementi instead of Marcos Portugal or any other tonal-sonatina composer, there are hundreds of examples in the repertoire as good or bad as clementi. 


It's called mediatization, business, social upbringing, position in society. It's been there all along. Some people are put in a pedestal, some aren't. And most of the time "quality" or anything "objective" within their work or repertoire has nothing to do with it. 


I would like to see everyone in here, if they have been born in Asia and his native language was Cambodjan OR in amazonia and their native language was Suyià if they would think Beethoven was a genius...


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 4, 2011)

Baloney. Anyone educated in Western music will recognize Beethoven as a genius. Similarly, anyone who takes the time educate themselves in the tonal language of another culture will eventually learn to distinguish between genius and ordinary in that music.

When I first heard avant garde music I thought it was all noise, Eventually, I became familiar enough with it and comfortable enough with the palette to be able to recognize that Boulez was a genius and all the Boulez wannabees were not.


----------



## Musicologo (Sep 4, 2011)

> Anyone educated in Western music will recognize Beethoven as a genius.



Educated or doutrinated? 

What does this sentence means anyway? What is "education in a tonal language" if not learning the constraints and values ALREADY established by that same culture and society, the sames that are preserving and highlighting beethoven as a genius for more than one century?

Howcome was Bach despised during centuries and then "rediscovered" and praised? And now would you remember to scoff Bach?

My argument is: virtually anyone can be seen as a genius if you are educated within the values and parameters, criteria that that person is good at.

If you were educated in a society where simplicity, good looks and coreographic movement and high number of sales were the values to define genius you would no doubtly praise and vote Justin Bieber as a genius...

oh wait! That already happens! Look at the "MTV girls generation"... go ask them about Beethoven and Mozart and see what they say!...  "Education" and "Learning values" can mean many things, specially in the "Media age"...


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 4, 2011)

Musicologo @ Sun Sep 04 said:


> > Anyone educated in Western music will recognize Beethoven as a genius.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you really think watching MTV qualifies as "education' and "good looks' counts as a valid cultural value we simply do not have enough in common to have a meaningful discussion.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 4, 2011)

Musicologo @ Sun Sep 04 said:


> Howcome was Bach despised during centuries and then "rediscovered" and praised?



You are completely undermining your credibility with a statement like that which is simply not true. Both Mozart and Beethoven were heavily influenced by Bach and recognized him as the astonishing genius he was.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 4, 2011)

I should add that aside from that colossal gaffe about Bach, I understand your points and do not disagree from a telescopic distance. You are however, failing to properly assume cultural context when people make statements about their own culture's art. Also you are talking about a universal subjectivity (where anything goes) and subjectivity within a scientific framework where there are objective truths (i.e. hit someone in the head with a hammer = injury to varying degrees.) There is a ton of science in the music of western art. 

Sure Martians and or Cambodians may have a subjective response to Beethoven. But those familiar with the western art and science of composition are going to recognize Beethoven's genius even if they don't particularly _like_ his music.

I wholeheartedly agree with your point of an overemphasis on a handful of composers but that has been steadily rectified at least in certain media such as radio. There are myriad reasons for this problem that run the gamut from commercialism to researching various eras and documenting (recording) the contributions of numerous composers to the art.


----------



## mducharme (Sep 4, 2011)

Bach was largely unknown for a long period of time after his death, save some music theorists and counterpoint teachers who continued to promote his work. During his life he was much more famous as an organist than a composer (Telemann was much more popular). By the time he died, he was writing in a very old fashioned style, in comparison with the early classical style. It's not that he was "despised", but that he was forgotten about because he was not writing in the new fashionable styles of the period.

When Beethoven resurrected the old contrapuntal techniques of Fugue, etc, particularly in his late period, that led to a more widespread Bach revival which in turn led to Bach receiving worldwide fame, quite a long time after his death.


----------



## Folmann (Sep 4, 2011)

I can only speak from a relatively, unnecessary, over-educated point of view. I give lectures at universities and conferences every year and my message is always the same.

Education is great, but what set students apart is not what they do while they are in school. What set them apart is what they do when they are not in school. 

So in other words ... if you want to study music ... its purely a matter of whether study it or not - more-so then where you study it.

The single thing that sets people apart is their level of obsession - and ironically a lot of the really obsessed (talented) people are the ones that didn't go to universities for this.

However there are no silver bullets ... it comes down to who you are and how prone you are to academic practices - some of the most talented people in the business did study.

But at the end of the day ... all that matters is your obsession ... and your ability to practice skills outside music realm (ex. communication, networking, promotion).


----------



## synergy543 (Sep 4, 2011)

Folmann +1



Dave Connor @ Sun Sep 04 said:


> Musicologo @ Sun Sep 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Howcome was Bach despised during centuries and then "rediscovered" and praised?
> ...



Well, he is correct actually. Bach was out of favor for over a century until Mendelssohn took interest and re-introduced him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Mendelssohn
Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy....
Early success in Germany, where he also revived interest in the music of Johann Sebastian Bach, was followed by travel throughout Europe.


----------



## mducharme (Sep 4, 2011)

The word "despised" is the inaccurate part. It is primarily that the majority of people did not know of him. The word despised suggests that he was well known but hated, which is certainly not the case.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 4, 2011)

mducharme @ Sun Sep 04 said:


> Bach was largely unknown for a long period of time after his death..


Are you taking into account Mozart's close friendship with Bach's son Johann Christian? Himself a great composer? Also that Mozart underwent a creative crisis when Johann introduced him to his fathers music and completely reevaluated his own music? Bach's famous and influential sons didn't forget their own father and neither did two of the greatest composers who ever lived (Mozart and Beethoven.) Who exactly are you saying forgot the man?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Sep 4, 2011)

mducharme @ Sun Sep 04 said:


> By the time he died, he was writing in a very old fashioned style, in comparison with the early classical style. It's not that he was "despised", but that he was forgotten about because he was not writing in the new fashionable styles of the period.



Yes, that is the real reason.


----------



## mducharme (Sep 4, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Sun Sep 04 said:


> mducharme @ Sun Sep 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Bach was largely unknown for a long period of time after his death..
> ...



Yes I am taking into account JC and CPE Bach and Mozart. But you cannot say that he was hugely popular during the entire classical period and that everybody knew J.S. Bach's music simply on the basis of its influence on the music of Mozart and Beethoven. I'm saying that the majority of the concert-going public forgot the man.


----------



## Musicologo (Sep 4, 2011)

I'm sorry for my inadequate word "despised", english is not my native language. But my intention was that that mducharme stated - to emphasize that bach was not a famous composer as it is today, concerning the society of the century after him: the teathers, the concert-going people, etc... nobody really cared about him - probably because he was forgotten. 


about other points I may stick to them. 


> If you really think watching MTV qualifies as "education' and "good looks' counts as a valid cultural value we simply do not have enough in common to have a meaningful discussion.



I guess you miss my point. They are cultural values, I mean, people (or at least *some* people) judge a musical performance and a talent of a composer by those values. And why they do that? because they were "educated" by the media that way... I cannot find other explanation. What are the "values" of popular culture anyway?

You may find them not valid in your perspective, but they are out there and affecting a serious number of persons.

The parameters we value in musical performance in western academia nowadays I believe are just cultural constructed and reflect nothing purely objective. The sole concept of "out-of-tune", as an example, is cultural and native-language-related. 

Surely we must have *some* kind of criteria and values... but to assume that they are universal or better than any other... I don't know yet. Wouldn't that be just random or euro-centric? Why should "thematic variation", "harmonic complexity" be more _adequate_ or _valid_ than "clothing while on stage" or "number of sold records"?... :roll:


----------



## ajkeys (Sep 4, 2011)

> The single thing that sets people apart is their level of obsession - and ironically a lot of the really obsessed (talented) people are the ones that didn't go to universities for this.




@ Troel Folman...So is it obsession that unlocks the imagination? Or, is it the composers (artists) imagination that unlocks obsession? Either way works for me. I can't think of one Master from way back to now that hasn't been consumed by is Art, both the knowledge of it and the imaginings of ti.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 4, 2011)

Musicologo @ Sun Sep 04 said:


> You may find them not valid in your perspective, but they are out there and affecting a serious number of persons.



But not a number of serious persons

Thoughtful people do not take clothing on stage while performing as being as significant as the music, only sales people. There is a reason Kiss was/is not taken as seriously as Bruce Springsteen.

i would say look up "superficial" in the dictionary but you will probably respond is is an artificial Western construct.

As I said, no disrespect intended but there are too many basic assumptions we would not agree on enough to have a meaningful discussion so I will bow out.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 4, 2011)

mducharme @ Sun Sep 04 said:


> Yes I am taking into account JC and CPE Bach and Mozart. But you cannot say that he was hugely popular during the entire classical period and that everybody knew J.S. Bach's music simply on the basis of its influence on the music of Mozart and Beethoven. I'm saying that the majority of the concert-going public forgot the man.



Aside from the fact that there was no concert going public to speak of during Bach's time (as composers were assigned to church or court) Bach was spoken of in many prominent German courts and thus well known by today's standards. His reputation is what earned him his appointment at Leipzig. Common people were not filling concert halls, they were going to the local church's or invited to the court. So by the standards of the day Bach actually had a wide reputation. After his death the style he and Handel and others wrote in was supplanted by the gallant style much the way styles change today. But the composers in the gallant style were employing his technique right and left. By the end of the classical period Bach was incredibly popular due to the Mendelssohn St Matthew performance in 1829. 

My point is that Bach had just the kind of popularity you would expect until he was introduced to a wider audience of a more modern, communicative and secular society. His popularity has never waned since. Just because virtually no Baroque music was being played due to a stylistic change doesn't mean poor old Bach was forgotten.

I hear what you're saying and not meaning to go after you personally. The forgotten Bach myth has been debunked by numerous scholars is the message I'm advocating.


----------



## David Story (Sep 4, 2011)

We all learn from genius.

It's time to recall there's at least 2 varieties of genius in creative fields:
1 The person of exceptional talent and skill, like a top 10 songwriter, or a record setting sports coach.
2 The person who creates enduring work used around the world.

The first type you can learn from in school, or casually.
Personally I call the second type a "great genius". Those people rare, and the basis for what's taught in many advanced classes. Much harder to learn their work through self study alone.

There's no cultural bias to Newton, his equations solve practical problems everywhere on earth. You study, practice, understand and the power of the great genius is yours for a moment.

Being a dedicated creative person will get you far, but you have to start from somewhere. Everyone has influences, why not make them the great geniuses?

If you imagine you can write music without melody, harmony, rhythm or orchestration as we know it, you have a lot to learn. Revolutionary great artists have clear connections to the old masters. And all the popular ones.

Most people need help in learning powerful and subtle ideas and techniques. In my experience, people who try those techniques without dedicated study wind up looking kind of lame.

The world needs artists of average knowledge and talent too. There you're fine with independent study or school.

You can take a note from Steve Jobs, who "dropped in" to college.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Sep 4, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Sun Sep 04 said:


> Aside from the fact that there was no concert going public to speak of during Bach's time (as composers were assigned to church or court) Bach was spoken of in many prominent German courts and thus well known by today's standards. His reputation is what earned him his appointment at Leipzig. Common people were not filling concert halls, they were going to the local church's or invited to the court. So by the standards of the day Bach actually had a wide reputation. After his death the style he and Handel and others wrote in was supplanted by the gallant style much the way styles change today. But the composers in the gallant style were employing his technique right and left. By the end of the classical period Bach was incredibly popular due to the Mendelssohn St Matthew performance in 1829.
> 
> My point is that Bach had just the kind of popularity you would expect until he was introduced to a wider audience of a more modern, communicative and secular society. His popularity has never waned since. Just because virtually no Baroque music was being played due to a stylistic change doesn't mean poor old Bach was forgotten.
> 
> I hear what you're saying and not meaning to go after you personally. The forgotten Bach myth has been debunked by numerous scholars is the message I'm advocating.



That's very interesting Dave, Thanks. Maybe all this Bach forgotten stuff got dramatized at some point, and it's the kind of story people love, so it probably stuck with the generations.


----------



## mducharme (Sep 4, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Sun Sep 04 said:


> Aside from the fact that there was no concert going public to speak of during Bach's time (as composers were assigned to church or court) Bach was spoken of in many prominent German courts and thus well known by today's standards. His reputation is what earned him his appointment at Leipzig. Common people were not filling concert halls, they were going to the local church's or invited to the court. So by the standards of the day Bach actually had a wide reputation. After his death the style he and Handel and others wrote in was supplanted by the gallant style much the way styles change today. But the composers in the gallant style were employing his technique right and left. By the end of the classical period Bach was incredibly popular due to the Mendelssohn St Matthew performance in 1829.
> 
> My point is that Bach had just the kind of popularity you would expect until he was introduced to a wider audience of a more modern, communicative and secular society. His popularity has never waned since. Just because virtually no Baroque music was being played due to a stylistic change doesn't mean poor old Bach was forgotten.
> 
> I hear what you're saying and not meaning to go after you personally. The forgotten Bach myth has been debunked by numerous scholars is the message I'm advocating.



- Public concerts that performed instrumental music were started by JC Bach with the Bach-Abel concert series and the Concerts Spirituel in Paris. Obviously in J.S. Bach's time there were no public concerts that played purely instrumental music. I never suggested there were public concerts of instrumental music in J.S. Bach's time, but the Concerts Spirituel and the Bach-Abel concert series did not come that much later (only about 15 years after Bach's death). There were always public concerts of sung music, but these were operas and oratorios.
- Leipzig wanted Telemann as a first choice, they only turned to Bach after Telemann proved unavailable
- Bach had a wide local reputation, but with few publications of his work until well after his lifetime, there wasn't much opportunity for his work to be heard outside of his direct sphere of influence until Beethoven and Mendelssohn.
- His work as an organist was widely known, as upon his death he was primarily described as a "world-renowned organist" who also did some composition.

You say that the forgotten Bach is a myth debunked by numerous scholars. This is not entirely consistent with what I have studied - however, I do not *disbelieve* your statement either, as there are plenty of things published as "facts" in major college textbooks on music history that have been disproven by scholars. (Again, I never suggested that everybody forgot him, obviously composers and teachers of counterpoint still knew of his works). I would be curious to see these published papers that attest to his continued unbroken popularity during the entirety of the classical era - are any of them available on JSTOR?


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 4, 2011)

mducharme @ Sun Sep 04 said:


> Public concerts that performed instrumental music were started by JC Bach with the Bach-Abel concert series and the Concerts Spirituel in Paris.



This is precisely my point: there was no concert-going public to _forget_ J.S. Bach. I was going to mention in my previous post that Bach's reputation was indeed as a great organist: therefore a great improviser and therefore a great composer. This is exactly the reputation I was referring to. If you say that Teleman was the most popular but unavailable and so the job went to Bach, once again this attests to Bach's popularity. You're not obscure in any way if your the second most sought after composer in the nation.

Your information is actually confirming all my points: Bach was popular among the people who would have been aware of him: those that communicated most with other municipalities (church/royalty) and sought and hired composers. Orchestras weren't traveling and promoting themselves and composers (even so word did get out about Bach.) 

To make a final statement: Bach was not forgotten by those that were aware of him. The concert series simply began after his life and focused on the popular style of it's time. A single concert by a classical composer (Mendelsohn at Leipzig) brought Bach into the general public's mind for good really. But even so he has come and gone in various ways in different eras but that's far different from having been a shadowy figure for a century.

I've read several articles over the years on this subject. Maynard Solomon may have addressed it in his Beethoven and/or Mozart bios. He is the one who points out that Mozart had a veritable creative crisis when he encountered Bach's music.


----------



## rgames (Sep 4, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Sun Sep 04 said:


> My point is that Bach had just the kind of popularity you would expect until he was introduced to a wider audience of a more modern, communicative and secular society. His popularity has never waned since. Just because virtually no Baroque music was being played due to a stylistic change doesn't mean poor old Bach was forgotten.
> 
> I hear what you're saying and not meaning to go after you personally. The forgotten Bach myth has been debunked by numerous scholars is the message I'm advocating.



I agree, and I think you can say the same about a lot of composer who were supposedly ignored during their day. My guess is that's not true for most of them.

However, I choose to believe the "Misunderstood Genius Waiting to be Found" stories because they make me feel better about myself 

rgames


----------



## rgames (Sep 5, 2011)

One other thought I had on this thread:

The value of performing is not just in the actual performance, it's in the rehearsals. I think I've learned more about music while rehearsing than just about anywhere else. Especially when it comes to orchestration, colors, timbre, etc. - all of those things become much more apparent when the conductor is working on individual sections. That's a piece you can't get just by going to concerts.

Plus, you get a better understanding what's idiomatic to the instruments and learn what makes them sound their best. Or what makes the musicians least cranky, anyway 

rgames


----------



## PotatoFro (Sep 6, 2011)

autopilot @ Sat Aug 27 said:


> Seriously - Do not underestimate the importance of your alumni. For the first few years out of Uni (about 20 years ago now) ALL of my music work came from people I went to Uni with.



Wow... I was bordering on the side of Independent Study (I myself went to university) until I read the above... It then hit me that I'm in the exact same situation.

Bottom line, the information is available EVERYWHERE whether you're in school or not. It's the PEOPLE you are going to school for. In some cases these are the people you will work with your entire life.


----------



## impressions (Sep 7, 2011)

that's the part i don't understand, what people exactly? most of them are musicians, if not all of them? are you talking about a general art uni, or a music school?


----------



## PotatoFro (Sep 7, 2011)

Musicians? Yes... 

My situation may be a bit different than someone who is deciding whether or not to go to school with the intention of becoming a film composer. I went to USC as a guitar performance major (the writing bug didn't hit me till a little later in the game).

Especially working in LA, I run into USC alumni on the daily. I just played on Jay Leno with an artist (Andy Grammer) and 3 of the 4 band members are from USC.

How does this apply? All of my first writing gigs came through "friends of friends" ultimately leading back to that pianist or drummer I gigged with fresh out of school. The "alma mater badge" goes beyond direct contacts, as I've met and fostered relationships with people in the film industry after the two of us discovered our mutually shared schooling.

USC in particular is a great one considering how many people are drawn to the school for the film department.

Jacob


----------



## impressions (Sep 7, 2011)

ok we are talking about the capitol of the film industry.. obviously a composer living in LA has more chances of success than a guy living in singapur.

i knew a composer who went to study film major(and not music for films) and thus gaining connections with future directors.

i studied in 2 major schools(1 is berklee) and only got connections for players..


----------



## PotatoFro (Sep 7, 2011)

Of course location is a huge factor... I suppose what I'm trying to convey is the fact that player, composer, or "other" a network is still a network and a person who is actively playing music is bound to have contact with people who are actively writing music. That has been my personal experience.

It's not an argument in favor of going to school for film scoring so much as an argument for attending school in general.


----------



## RyBen (Sep 8, 2011)

I see that the popular preference of school comes down to the networking factor, with the added bonus of learning a thing or two for craft.

I'm thinking that a film scoring or even a general composition degree isn't the most optimal in terms of networking, because as impressions pointed out, you won't be surrounded by those that need music. You'll be surrounded by those who need a gig just like you, therefore a general film major would be the better option in that aspect.

Even so, your networking resources are apparently magnitudes better in school than doing independent study.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 8, 2011)

There is no question that relationships formed in college can be a huge factor in going on to a film composition career. However, if one takes the thread title as an inquiry into the most vital path to learning composition than private study seems to win out. There are always exceptions but most composers who attained greatness made sure they studied privately. Out of Stravinsky, Bartok, Copland and Shostakovich, it is only Bartok who's teacher I cannot name off the top of my head. Ideally both school and private study would probably be best but none of these composers of enormous talent felt they could do without a private teacher. 

Perhaps it is oxymoronic that scholastic institutions often required composition students to study privately with a faculty member but that is no longer the case or wasn't when I was in college. So one indeed may face choosing private study or not.


----------



## nikolas (Sep 8, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> Perhaps it is oxymoronic that scholastic institutions often required composition students to study privately with a faculty member but that is no longer the case or wasn't when I was in college. So one indeed may face choosing private study or not.


While doing my Masters degree we had one on one lessons and I loved that! And of course afterwards going into research it was always one on one... :-/ At least in the UK this is still the case.

Now, there's something to be said about both ways of studying, but I have a feeling that it's mostly a personal issue, rather than a objective one... :-/ I mean some people learn better in a university environment while others learn on private tutoring better. Both can benefit.

On the very specific question of going into film composing I would imagine (comparing with computer game composing) that what it takes, above all is networking with NON musicians! I mean we all hang out at VI and love each other, but as Ned (I think) said at another thread, we're a tiny fraction of what's going on in the real world...


----------

