# Are We Still Composers?



## ManchesterMusic

I posted this video on Sunday about a topic which had been on my mind for some time and eventually boiled over when a commenter on my Spitfire LCO clip asked a very pointed question: “are the tools we use removing the composer from the composition?”

No other video I’ve done has generated so many comments so quickly. Would love to get folks’ thoughts.

Are We Still Composers?


----------



## fiestared

ManchesterMusic said:


> I posted this video on Sunday about a topic which had been on my mind for some time and eventually boiled over when a commenter on my Spitfire LCO clip asked a very pointed question: “are the tools we use removing the composer from the composition?”
> 
> No other video I’ve done has generated so many comments so quickly. Would love you get folks’ thoughts.
> 
> Are We Still Composers?



I think YES! We use what we have available, give the same libs and tools to say, ten different "composers" and you'll have ten different results, some very original and some very "copied" and boring... It will very easy to know who are the real COMPOSERS !


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

Thank you for sharing. Very interesting video. As you ask for opinions and before that gets directly to the drama zone here: Its just my opinion guys..:

I think most of the composers are not even composers by any classic standards and how in the old days musicians learned their craft. There are even people who can´t play an instruments, can´t read one note and call themselves composers, albeit they even can´t write a proper II/V/I. I often even feel that all these looptracks and textured cues are not even compositions, they are just "sound" or even white noise for me. Do they work with media and film? Well..some sort of, so then you can say: Great, mission accomplished. But they feel often like a collage of effects with no purpose and cohesion whatsoever.

I am very oldschool when it comes to that subject "what composing is" and for each single one of us there is a different idea about that, but I feel we have a big leap or even I dare to say dumbing down in music in general and most composers (or the people who call themselves composers) are not even able to understand the fundamentals about the repertoire anymore and what composition was all about. And that is a missconception because the cool things from the past get more and more forgotten and burried. (I remember a composer in a blog mentioned as an advice: Don´t use Dom7 Chords as they sound oldschool or outdated..I honestly felt to rip of his heart for writing such douchy thing..but he was in one sense right: They might feel outdated and maybe even odd for the common simple instant gratification mind.

I feel that too much cool things from the past are not learned anymore and overlooked and therefore the quality of music went imo down to a point of simplicity which is banal and sometimes even offending, I simply can´t enjoy banal music and I feel that the market is trashed with all this junk.

I know I don´t make much friends with that kind of "attitude" or "thinking" because I know that there are many composers out there and also here who exactly do that all the time and they even work as composers out there and it is not against you guys that I don´t like you personally, its just related to subject here.

And sure all that loopcrap and one keypress instant gratification libraries(oh wow thats great composition) contributes to the lazyness of how tracks are assembled these days as well.


----------



## mikeh-375

I'm with Alexander.


----------



## nilblo

I second that.
Pheloung Barrington´s music compositions (Inspectors Morse and Lewis) makes sense whithout the filmframes. He is an oddity.. For me, very few of the "soundeffects" for film in general, is enjoyable as "music". On the contrary, most of modern tv-productions are best watched with zero volume. In my opinion.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

The shortest answer to this is "musical literacy, ability, and the bar to music being used and appreciated professionally is an awful lot lower than it was even 50 years ago".

That's mainly because people can create stuff that has the impression of being competent, but is musically empty. Or even plain wrong. 

Learning music, and how to write well requires as much time as it always has (and probably some innate improvisational ability too). But making a noise that sounds relatively 'produced' is quicker and easier than it's ever been. So people are even less inclined to learn the hard stuff when it's so easy to make the noises to begin with.

Samples, loops and all the helping hands we have can make your 4minute ostinato sound professional at least from a production point of view, whereas 50 years ago you would only get that sound from a real orchestra. And the only people writing for real orchestras were composers who could actually write music. And they didn't write 4minute ostinatos...

The democratisation of music making is great, and there are people with serious talent making great stuff, but given the statistics, there are far more people making bad music. And some of that bad music even gets on to TV.

So yes - we are still composers! But the scope of ability encompassed in that term is far broader than it ever was.


----------



## Vardaro

It's the difference between programming in C++ and programming in Java.
Composition becomes Sound Design.


----------



## Akarin

It's like any other job, really. You get better tools. The question is "how are you going to stand out from the crowd with these tools?"

The old "when I was young, I had to walk 10 miles through mud to get to school."


----------



## gpax

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Thank you for sharing. Very interesting video. As you ask for opinions and before that gets directly to the drama zone here: Its just my opinion guys..:
> 
> I think most of the composers are not even composers by any classic standards and how in the old days musicians learned their craft. There are even people who can´t play an instruments, can´t read one note and call themselves composers, albeit they even can´t write a proper II/V/I. I often even feel that all these looptracks and textured cues are not even compositions, they are just "sound" or even white noise for me. Do they work with media and film? Well..some sort of, so then you can say: Great, mission accomplished. But they feel often like a collage of effects with no purpose and cohesion whatsoever.
> 
> I am very oldschool when it comes to that subject "what composing is" and for each single one of us there is a different idea about that, but I feel we have a big leap or even I dare to say dumbing down in music in general and most composers (or the people who call themselves composers) are not even able to understand the fundamentals about the repertoire anymore and what composition was all about. And that is a missconception because the cool things from the past get more and more forgotten and burried. (I remember a composer in a blog mentioned as an advice: Don´t use Dom7 Chords as they sound oldschool or outdated..I honestly felt to rip of his heart for writing such douchy thing..but he was in one sense right: They might feel outdated and maybe even odd for the common simple instant gratification mind.
> 
> I feel that too much cool things from the past are not learned anymore and overlooked and therefore the quality of music went imo down to a point of simplicity which is banal and sometimes even offending, I simply can´t enjoy banal music and I feel that the market is trashed with all this junk.
> 
> I know I don´t make much friends with that kind of "attitude" or "thinking" because I know that there are many composers out there and also here who exactly do that all the time and they even work as composers out there and it is not against you guys that I don´t like you personally, its just related to subject here.
> 
> And sure all that loopcrap and one keypress instant gratification libraries(oh wow thats great composition) contributes to the lazyness of how tracks are assembled these days as well.



Well, if anyone can call themselves a composer I believe it is you. I think you give a compelling and honest assessment of your stance, and what I’ve heard from you is always first-rate. 

But I do think (and agree) we are not having the same conversations in this forum when the term composer is tossed around. Take for example, when someone asks how to score out a more thematically-themed sample library patch, when its experimental textures are meant to be the final, sample-based performance and medium. Therein is the disparity the video points to, which is often overlooked in discussions when we talk about sample libraries and their intent as compositional tools. We, as a forum, are routinely not having the same discussions at all, even as common terms get tossed about.

I think that it can also be argued that media-driven genres have wrestled away some of the more traditional expectations (and demands) of what a composer is. Even so, some who meticulously work as composers will reach for textural tools and loops if/when asked for this. Are they not at that moment a composer when that job or client asks for this?

But there may also be a bit of denial afoot, in believing that laying claim to being a “composer” is still (or must be) guided by traditional training, craft, and principles, particularly in a forum dedicated to virtual tools. The sample library world itself is being tailored to meet (lesser) demands that would have been scoffed at fifteen years ago. I’m not saying this plug-and-play approach is a good thing either, but rather, it is an emerging and persistent new reality, where many now help themselves to the label of “composer,” and call their more readily assembled output, “compositions,” nevertheless. 

All this while a few trained composers, however unknowingly, are routinely making a case here for why virtual instruments ultimately fail as suitable compositional tools. And yet doing so in a virtual instruments forum, no doubt. To be fair, such input and criticisms have also pushed development of orchestral instruments forward as well (at times), but the ensemble, thematic, textural trend for “composing” is clearly and firmly a market that all developers are recognizing now.

In much in the same way that “mock-up” does not mean the same thing to everyone, or at least what it meant ten years ago, this enduring and underlying sentiment surfaces in the critiques of every new release in a given thread I’ve been involved in: that virtual instruments are inherently flawed, yet we make allowances for them, creatively. Moreover, what was once considered sacrosanct - the notion of “writing to the samples,” - is now the norm for many who see no problem in this, perhaps because the consumer is also content with what they hear, but also as developers are crafting this approach more and more. 

Maybe in addition to the term “making beats,” one could suggest not calling it a composition, or oneself a composer in the purest sense, but a texture assembler.


----------



## DS_Joost

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Thank you for sharing. Very interesting video. As you ask for opinions and before that gets directly to the drama zone here: Its just my opinion guys..:
> 
> I think most of the composers are not even composers by any classic standards and how in the old days musicians learned their craft. There are even people who can´t play an instruments, can´t read one note and call themselves composers, albeit they even can´t write a proper II/V/I. I often even feel that all these looptracks and textured cues are not even compositions, they are just "sound" or even white noise for me. Do they work with media and film? Well..some sort of, so then you can say: Great, mission accomplished. But they feel often like a collage of effects with no purpose and cohesion whatsoever.
> 
> I am very oldschool when it comes to that subject "what composing is" and for each single one of us there is a different idea about that, but I feel we have a big leap or even I dare to say dumbing down in music in general and most composers (or the people who call themselves composers) are not even able to understand the fundamentals about the repertoire anymore and what composition was all about. And that is a missconception because the cool things from the past get more and more forgotten and burried. (I remember a composer in a blog mentioned as an advice: Don´t use Dom7 Chords as they sound oldschool or outdated..I honestly felt to rip of his heart for writing such douchy thing..but he was in one sense right: They might feel outdated and maybe even odd for the common simple instant gratification mind.
> 
> I feel that too much cool things from the past are not learned anymore and overlooked and therefore the quality of music went imo down to a point of simplicity which is banal and sometimes even offending, I simply can´t enjoy banal music and I feel that the market is trashed with all this junk.
> 
> I know I don´t make much friends with that kind of "attitude" or "thinking" because I know that there are many composers out there and also here who exactly do that all the time and they even work as composers out there and it is not against you guys that I don´t like you personally, its just related to subject here.
> 
> And sure all that loopcrap and one keypress instant gratification libraries(oh wow thats great composition) contributes to the lazyness of how tracks are assembled these days as well.





Richard Wilkinson said:


> The shortest answer to this is "musical literacy, ability, and the bar to music being used and appreciated professionally is an awful lot lower than it was even 50 years ago".
> 
> That's mainly because people can create stuff that has the impression of being competent, but is musically empty. Or even plain wrong.
> 
> Learning music, and how to write well requires as much time as it always has (and probably some innate improvisational ability too). But making a noise that sounds relatively 'produced' is quicker and easier than it's ever been. So people are even less inclined to learn the hard stuff when it's so easy to make the noises to begin with.
> 
> Samples, loops and all the helping hands we have can make your 4minute ostinato sound professional at least from a production point of view, whereas 50 years ago you would only get that sound from a real orchestra. And the only people writing for real orchestras were composers who could actually write music. And they didn't write 4minute ostinatos...
> 
> The democratisation of music making is great, and there are people with serious talent making great stuff, but given the statistics, there are far more people making bad music. And some of that bad music even gets on to TV.
> 
> So yes - we are still composers! But the scope of ability encompassed in that term is far broader than it ever was.



I'm going to be an outlier to this, and perhaps a bit controversial but... I don't give a hoot about the craft. Really not. I used to, but that got me no where. I am simply just not a theoretical composer. Does that make me less? I have no idea, and I simply don't care.

I compose solely on emotion. The sounds, textures that I use are simply there to enforce those emotions. I used to be all about this realism thing with sample libraries. Now there is no sample anymore that I don't leave untouched in one way or another.

I don't read notes... I don't have to, and I really don't care for it because it really doesn't help me in creating what I want to create, it simply keeps me down, at least in the way I work. I don't compose for orchestra, the orchestra is simply one of my colors at my disposal. This is not to be disrespectful of the orchestra and it's vivid and beautiful history. I admire the great classical composers. I love the golden-age of film music as much as the next guy... but I don't want to continue that tradition. I am more experimental, and for experimental, we live in a golden age. The computer, for me, is not a tool. It IS my instrument, and I try to push it beyond simply being a sample playing box for compositions that should've just been written out and played by a real orchestra. It is no substitute, it is what I use to actually make my music. I don't use single note libraries, but I do use loops, and samples. I just process the heck out of them. The textures and colors are just as much a way for me to achieve what I want to achieve as the composition itself is.

I still see myself as a composer... I just don't feel an obligation to learn that which for me wouldn't be much help. Wether I make crap or not is in the eye of the beholder. I love simplicity in composition. That doesn't mean I don't admire technical prowess, but I think the simple is just as technical to achieve.

I come from an EDM background. That is often frowned upon. I say, why? I still use many of those techniques to this day, and I use them proudly; EDM can be just as much an artform as any other kind of music. It's just made differently.

I am not lazy, I just compose differently. And it took me a long time to acknowledge that I am just inspired by different things than what I am 'supposed' to be inspired by.

My greatest inspirations turned out to be Vangelis, Jean-Michel Jarre, and Chicane. And to this day, they still are.


----------



## Saxer

There were always good and bad composers. There were no samples a few decades ago but there was always a way. A lot of 'producers' (studio owners) of that time called some musicians and let them improvise and said "yes" or "no" or "faster"... and they sang "yeah yeah", recorded it and then they called an arranger and a lyricist and a singer and it was their "composition". Nothing new. They were called "whistle composers".
I remember some studio work when the producer didn't show up for days. Suddenly he came in and called "More tomtoms!" and disappeared for days again. But he spent his time selling the stuff others produced in his studio and so the musicians had work.
And there was also extremely bad music in film and TV. We forgot all that because it was better to forget it.

Fake composers can do a lot today. But they are out when styles become unfashionable and changes, when they have to work with real musicians, when clients have specific wishes and when they are compared to really versatile composers. And sooner or later that will happen.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

DS_Joost said:


> I'm going to be an outlier to this, and perhaps a bit controversial but... I don't give a hoot about the craft. Really not. I used to, but that got me no where. I am simply just not a theoretical composer. Does that make me less? I have no idea, and I simply don't care.
> 
> I compose solely on emotion. The sounds, textures that I use are simply there to enforce those emotions. I used to be all about this realism thing with sample libraries. Now there is no sample anymore that I don't leave untouched in one way or another.
> 
> I don't read notes... I don't have to, and I really don't care for it because it really doesn't help me in creating what I want to create,




I do understand this mindset - but I have a couple of issues with it.
1) The assumption that composers either just tap into their emotions, get a vibe and make music without thinking about the theory OR they sit down with a spreadsheet and plan every note in advance according to their chosen framework. 
Of course, most composers write from an innate sense of musicality - even (especially) the greats. The theoretical knowledge and competence is there, but the actual composition is still done on feeling and instinct.
2) The idea that learning how to write music might in some way 'cramp your style' - or get in the way of the natural creative process. It won't. I've heard stuff from people on here, the Evenant fb group etc, with the most basic musical issues - dodgy voice-leading, nonsensical melodies, blatant unintentional dissonance that the composer plainly can't hear is happening. Learning a bit of craft would only help those people, not harm them.
3) As for not reading notes - I know it isn't essential but it does make me a bit sad when people say 'I love writing music, but I can't see the point of learning how music has been written and read for a thousand years.' - what if you wanted to play a particular piano piece, or write/orchestrate a piece for session players, or score study etc?


----------



## gregh

I don't really care that much if it is easier to make shitty schlock music now than before. Just of no interest to me at all. Happy to call a composer anyone who constructs music using whatever means they want. Will have zero influence on what I do or what I get paid to do.


----------



## Prockamanisc

Is a mathematician not a mathematician because she uses a computer to do her calculations? Of course not. They're defined by their ability to see between the numbers and make sense of it all.


----------



## fiestared

Prockamanisc said:


> Is a mathematician not a mathematician because she uses a computer to do her calculations? Of course not. They're defined by their ability to see between the numbers and make sense of it all.


Exactly what I wrote.


----------



## Pudge

The word "Composer" can be applied in so many different contexts it becomes dispensable like most words in language. However, I don't think status should be accosted with any word to associate a standard.

Everyone has the ability to create. We are all composers. To say someone "is" or "is-not" a composer can be construed an "us and them" mentality. Some are just more experienced in certain areas than others. The only real difference (from a status POV) is if you do or don't make a living from it.

For me the terminology should be:

If you make a living from it = Professional Composer
If you make little money = Armature Composer
If you make no money = Hobbyist Composer / Composer

If you want to do it based upon their experience / understanding and ability then:

JEDI Composer (just insanely godlike at making music)
Master Composer
Experienced Composer
Apprentice Composer
Novice Composer


----------



## Drundfunk

Prockamanisc said:


> Is a mathematician not a mathematician because she uses a computer to do her calculations? Of course not. They're defined by their ability to see between the numbers and make sense of it all.


This example doesn't really work for me to be honest. A mathematician uses a computer but at the same time learned how to calculate most of this stuff by hand with his own brain. So they understand what the computer is doing for them and probably could do most of the calculation by themselves if necessary (would just take a lot longer). But when composers nowadays don't even know how to read music or know at least basic music theory I don't think you can defend them the same way I just defended the mathematician. Not to say that a calculation should have the same outcome no matter which mathematician calculated it, whereas a written piece of music usually inherits and reflects the personality of the composer in some way.

I personally thought a lot about this topic the last few weeks. I had to compose a loop for a small student art video game and my first draft was this piece with woodwinds and piano and strings etc. (I can't remember in detail at the moment) and I loved it. To me it was unique and it felt like me. It was just way too melodic since I got carried away at one point because I had way too much fun composing it. When I sent it to them they liked the beginning of the track (which was very minimalistic) but disliked pretty much the rest of it (not because the music was bad or anything but because it was way too melodic and a little bit too much in-your-face). So I re-did the whole thing but focused on the minimalistic aspect. What I ended up doing was using four patches where two were from OT Time Macro (Tremolo Piano and some stuff with harp in it). The piece got accepted and they liked it very much but to this date it is the most hated composition I've ever written. I hate it even more than anything I've written, before I knew what Midi CC data is or how to mix or master. (I have to say here I usually like my compositions, or at least I think they're not shit). Reason for that is that in my opinion one can make anything sound good with these TMacro patches just by pressing a few notes down. The movement of the Tremolo Piano patch and the movement of the other patch is doing the rest. The only thing I actually did was to play in some harp where I felt it is necessary.

Everybody with this library could press down some notes and it would basically sound the same. I have the same problem with the Eric Whitacre Choir for example (Nothing against SF here, just the first example I could think of). I didn't buy it, for one reason only: Every piece I listened to written with it sounds somewhat the same (at least to me). I think it's the way how the library works under the hood and that it is enough to press a few keys and it will sound good no matter what (could be wrong here since I don't own it, but from what I've seen and heard I don't think I'm so far off here). I personally really started to have an issue with this, because if the library is doing the work for you then it limits your own personality within the piece. I'm honestly not the best with music theory or orchestration or whatever (learning more day by day tho), but I restrict myself from using loops and now even libraries with too much movement if I can't control it myself. That's just not composing for me.

Conclusion: A piece of music is something personal for me and it pretty much has my DNA in it. The written piece is my voice if you may, and the more a library is doing the work for me the more I lose my voice. If I were using libraries where it is enough just to press a few keys without really thinking about it then I wouldn't call myself a composer. Definitely not!


----------



## DS_Joost

Richard Wilkinson said:


> I do understand this mindset - but I have a couple of issues with it.
> 1) The assumption that composers either just tap into their emotions, get a vibe and make music without thinking about the theory OR they sit down with a spreadsheet and plan every note in advance according to their chosen framework.
> Of course, most composers write from an innate sense of musicality - even (especially) the greats. The theoretical knowledge and competence is there, but the actual composition is still done on feeling and instinct.
> 2) The idea that learning how to write music might in some way 'cramp your style' - or get in the way of the natural creative process. It won't. I've heard stuff from people on here, the Evenant fb group etc, with the most basic musical issues - dodgy voice-leading, nonsensical melodies, blatant unintentional dissonance that the composer plainly can't hear is happening. Learning a bit of craft would only help those people, not harm them.
> 3) As for not reading notes - I know it isn't essential but it does make me a bit sad when people say 'I love writing music, but I can't see the point of learning how music has been written and read for a thousand years.' - what if you wanted to play a particular piano piece, or write/orchestrate a piece for session players, or score study etc?



I understand where you are coming from. Allow me to explain some things.

I do know some music theory. Enough for now, at least, to come by. Maybe in the future I run up against a wall and explore some more. There is some essential music theory that truly helps break out of monotony and can help one along the way for more experimentation and growth. A lot of it, however, is fluff. At least in my opinion. And a lot of it can actually hold you back once the theory becomes more important than the actual act of making music. I am not against learning theory, far from, but there is a lot that just isn't important. Can't write in counterpoint? Meh, don't care. A lot of great music was done without it.

That was just an example. I do know how to write in counterpoint, but I rarely use it.

The nonsensical melodies, dodgy voice leading part is what gets to me. Music is entirely subjective. This is for me the most important part of the music making progress. What for you might sound nonsensical, is for another the most beautiful thing ever. Now, I don't dismiss some professionalism in composing, but nobody gets to decide what is right and what is wrong. If it sounds good, it sounds good, and that is up to everybody to decide for themselves. This is not meant as an attack, this is just my principal stance on the creation of music and this is the one thing I am firmly against in an area where creativity is supposed to be the all around deciding factor. There are no nonsensical melodies, there only is what sounds good or bad to you and me, and everybody else.

Don't get me wrong, again, I get what you are trying to say, and would even agree to some extend. But, as much as I don't like some other people's music, it is not for me to dismiss it, or tell them that they are wrong in what they do. Their music, my music.

If I want to play a piano piece, I do it by ear. Easy. I think notes are tools, and no tool is essential in and of itself. If I have to orchestrate, I give a midi part to a partner of mine who can transcribe it. He loves it, I hate it. I try to orchestrate as well as I can. The reality describes however that this is rarely something I have to do, and should the need arise, there are always options. I hate transcribing, I hate the notation system, and would never want to dive into that ever again. It is for me the most uncreative of tools ever created, and I see it as a necesarry evil, not as something I have ever enjoyed.

All this, however, does not mean there is an excuse to sound like everybody else. I think the fact we all use the same tools in the same ways is the bigger problem here, especially in an age where the possibilities are endless. I hear too much of the same old same old, and no amount of theory will fix that, I am afraid.


----------



## redlester

I remember having similar arguments with a pal of mine in the early 80's, regarding drum machines, which he claimed were "cheating". For me, absolutely anything goes if it allows a person to release creative urges, providing they don't claim it to be something it's not.

But I'm speaking from a purely amateur/hobbyist POV where the whole reason for doing it is purely for my own fulfillment. I can see why there are ambiguities in the issue of how to define a professional "composer". 

I'd love a pro composer to release a version of John Cage's _*4'33"*_, performed using sample libraries. I'd buy that!


----------



## FriFlo

In the days of Beethoven and Mozart, the aristocracy used to grace themselves with the feathers of geniuses. Their worldly power gave them the ability to do so. But what was different then is that really nobody could be ANY composer (even a bad one) without some kind of skill. Yes, there certainly were better and lesser composers at all times. But without the help of a computer you have to have at least some skills to write even a mediocre composition.
Today, it is no longer the aristocracy. Today, business is in power. There still are some old school entrepreneurs like in the days of Beethoven to support the few composers who actually still compose with that Beehovenian ideal of a composer in mind. But that is very much distinct from todays functional music, which film music is a part of. That is the so called music industry and you can read about it form Theodor W. Adorno. He pretty much predicted the decline of musical values due to a commercial music industry. He was not right about everything IMO, e.g. he only saw value in composition that followed the Schönberg school, which is a narrow view from todays perspective, but he nailed it with his "Kritik der Kulturindustrie".
That music industry is purely driven by money, which is why it is doomed to get more and more empty. A few gems in that crowd of composers are the exception to the rule.

I beliefe that computers and most of the recent novelties like AI are a danger to mankind as they all destroy our minds and bodies abilities. Let's admit it! We are a lazy species! If you no longer need to be able to play and instrument or work on your ears, as the computer can make you some "suggestions", that will not encourage most people to work hard on those skills.
Today everyone tells the young kids to learn a lot about computers and programming, as that is and best option to earn a living in the future. It has come to a point where you must really wonder who is using who ... well, we are not in that Terminator world yet, where we are literally enslaved by machines. But we have by now fully arrived in an Orwellian world, where we are ruled and controlled by Oligarchs by the means of those machines. Sometimes I wake up, realizing how far this has come and fear the lack of resistance of that enslavement. Then I google it ...


----------



## Alex Fraser

This thread has the potential to go south fast, so I'll add my bit now..

_What defines a composer? _
If you're talking about writing music for "art", then I can perhaps accept the argument that using mostly loops etc is kind of cheating.

If you're talking about composing as a career - then all we really are (with all respect) are problem solvers: Someone needs music to make something work and we supply it. No-one really cares about the "art" behind it or what tools you use to make it work.

I poured sweat and no small amount of technical expertise into my last job. Best music of my life. I submitted it to the edit suite and director, expecting plaudits and praise. I got back a single line email: "Works fine, signed off. Send an invoice to Jill."


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

DS_Joost said:


> And a lot of it can actually hold you back once the theory becomes more important than the actual act of making music.



I can't imagine this ever being the case - as I said, music is written first, analysed later. I can't imagine any scenario where knowing more about music made someone less able.



DS_Joost said:


> The nonsensical melodies, dodgy voice leading part is what gets to me. Music is entirely subjective. This is for me the most important part of the music making progress. What for you might sound nonsensical, is for another the most beautiful thing ever. Now, I don't dismiss some professionalism in composing, but nobody gets to decide what is right and what is wrong. If it sounds good, it sounds good, and that is up to everybody to decide for themselves.



Call me old-school, but this is patently not true. I almost agree on the '_there is no wrong way to compose' _throughline_, _but I'm talking about stuff where people are going for super-diatonic, clear lines and unknowingly using chromatic dissonance in the bass. The intention is clear but the execution is objectively bad, and lets the piece down. Or transposing a melody up a major third for a harmony part without accounting for the mode/scale/harmonic framework, leaving you with unpleasant clashes, or leaving the piano sustain down for the whole piece, muddying chord changes.

I'm not saying 'you must compose a certain way' - I'm saying there are plenty of occasions where someone is clearly going for a particular vibe, but their relative lack of ability results in objective errors.




DS_Joost said:


> All this, however, does not mean there is an excuse to sound like everybody else. I think the fact we all use the same tools in the same ways is the bigger problem here, especially in an age where the possibilities are endless. I hear too much of the same old same old, and no amount of theory will fix that, I am afraid.



I'd argue the opposite here. More compositional awareness and creativity is _exactly_ the solution to 'everyone has the same libraries'. The more knowledge and experience someone has, the greater their ability to stretch the tools and create something that stands out.


----------



## Fab

trailer music composers, are they really composers?


----------



## FriFlo

Alex Fraser said:


> _What defines a composer? _


Ask yourself, what defines an architect ... is it someone who designs buildings? Sure! But a little bit more concrete, please. Would someone who uses sketchup (the google app) to design a hut for his dog or a shed in the garden rightfully call himself an architect? I think most people would reject that concept of an architect! That is because they know, there is a lot of craft to be learned in order to build a house. There even is a considerable amount of danger, if an architect did not learn this craft. The building could collapse and endanger the life of people. Therefore, people rightfully set limits to who should call himself an architect.
With music and the composer job description it seems a bit different, but in my mind, it actually isn't. After all, you don't endanger the lives of people (at least I hope so!) by writing badly ...
That is why, many people here have a different concept somehow who can call himself a composer. Basically, anyone who puts sounds together (latin: componere - put together) is a composer. There also is no legal barrier. You cannot call yourself a lawyer without having studied law, which proves that any lawyer must have a decent knowledge, proven by the tests he had to pass.
None of those limits who can call himself that apply to the description composer. But in my mind, the word totally lacks meaning by that definition. That is why it is pointless to even discuss it.


----------



## DS_Joost

Richard Wilkinson said:


> or leaving the piano sustain down for the whole piece, muddying chord changes.



Sorry for me picking out one line of the whole argument but this one is one that I recognize very much. Because that is exactly what I do. Why? Because I find it smoothes out chord changes more. I actually like that sound. I do it on purpose, especially in longer, slower pieces. I love the mud.

If that is objectively wrong, so be it, honestly.


----------



## jbuhler

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> I think most of the composers are not even composers by any classic standards and how in the old days musicians learned their craft.


Complaints about songwriters especially not knowing musical craft or even reading music has a long history. Irving Berlin never learned to read music, for instance, and could really only play fluently in one key and had a special transposing piano built for himself so he could easily transpose his songs. And his songs are extremely well-crafted. Charlie Chaplin's scores for his films are very inventive, and he also never learned read music (and he employed composers to transcribe and orchestrate his music). In Hollywood, there were frequent complaints about the "hummers" writing scores already in the 1930s, and with every generational change, there are complaints that the kids (in our modern parlance) only really know how to write pop songs and don't know anything about the craft of scoring drama. Reading such comments, you'd think that the art of composing for the films has always already been a lost art.


----------



## YaniDee

DS_Joost said:


> I love the golden-age of film music as much as the next guy... but I don't want to continue that tradition. I am more experimental, and for experimental, we live in a golden age


No matter how "digital" our tools are, in the end, you still need to push speakers or play a source to vibrate the air so we can hear it. That's the law of physics. And no matter how experimental and radically "new" music can be, in the end what stands the test of time is melody, rhythm, instrumentation and performance. Does any body still listen to musique concrete and other avant garde experimental stuff from 60 years ago? The novelty of endlessly new and different sounds wears off after a while.


----------



## SergeD

More and more libraries become paint-by-number kits. Many will use it as it is, while creative ones will get the opportunity to expand their creativity into new ways, like transforming a blues pattern into something like the Lennon song "Revolution" or Pink Floyd "One Of These Days".


----------



## Desire Inspires

Pudge said:


> For me the terminology should be:
> 
> If you make a living from it = Professional Composer
> If you make little money = Armature Composer
> If you make no money = Hobbyist Composer / Composer



Yes, I finally have a title. I am an Armature!


----------



## Patrick.K

I often even feel that all these looptracks and textured cues are not even compositions, they are just "sound" or even white noise for me. Do they work with media and film? Well..some sort of, so then you can say: Great, mission accomplished. But they feel often like a collage of effects with no purpose and cohesion whatsoever.

I completely agree with what has just been said by Alexander Schiborr.
Maybe I'm wrong?, But where are the beautiful melodies, the beautiful themes that remain engraved in the head, and all these beautiful arrangements?
At the moment, film scores are often only "sound design", tiring for the ears. They are often alike, too formatted for an audience that seems satisfied. This is the epic style of fashion, most "amateur composers "who invest in the banks of his epic, with heaps of percussion that often hide the poverty of the composition, but this impresion family, and they say" what talent! "... There are some thousands on YT, what sadness!
And next to all this soup, we sometimes discover pearls and amateur composers of great talent, with a personal style, which use something other than percussion style HZ ... (I have nothing against him) .
I think of Michel Legrand who just died, and who left us many beautiful melodies we remember all our lives, and John Williams and many other "Real musicians".
What is sad is that I am unable to remember the music of movies, finally the "soundtracks" that I saw recently, nothing in my mind, just sound effects!
That's why I have a lot of admiration for the real composers who have acquired knowledge for many years, never satisfied with their work, and who continue to learn every day.
I know there are some on this forum, and I thank them for giving us their time.
Music, and the composition of orchestral scores is a very difficult art, even for professional composers, and even more for us amateurs and self-taught, so stay humble, and above all do not make self satisfaction!
But we still live a great time with all these orchestral libraries, which even if they are still far from the rendering of a real orchestra, still allow to do beautiful things with talent ..... and a lot of work! .

Sorry for my bad English !.

Patrick from France


----------



## DS_Joost

SergeD said:


> More and more libraries become paint-by-number kits. Many will use it as it is, while creative ones will get the opportunity to expand their creativity into new ways, like transforming a blues pattern into something like the Lennon song "Revolution" or Pink Floyd "One Of These Days".



This. I find there is as much 'craft' and 'art' to the creative application of sound design techniques.

Music is music. Beautiful music is beautiful, and vice versa.



This is beautiful to me. Does it matter whether it's a technical composition? For me, in this song, the texture is as important as the harmony and the chords themselves. The harmony is very simple, but that is what makes it work!

Another example of a very evocative track where sound design is as important as anything else:



What I like to say is that being a composer means something different to everyone. We are in a creative business. Being creative means by definition that there are no rules. There are guidelines. There are tried and true processes. To be free in mind and soul is the most important aspect of the whole creation process, for me. You aren't supposed to follow rule x or y, or to sound like composer b or d. You are supposed to follow whatever the heck it is that you want to follow!

To be a composer is to explore the possibilities to create music. Whether that be technical, theoretical or simply by pushing some buttons is up to anybody else.

It's not about the libraries. It's about what we do with them that counts.


----------



## Ledwick

Isn't a trailer essentially a commercial? Isn't film music essentially background music? Maybe it's a negative view, but seeing "composers" aspire to make a 1 minute queue or do some background chordal padding, with a no-skill-one-key-chord sample library, seems like the opposite of composing. Why not try to make an album of songs that are actually interesting to listen to and tell stories rather than aiming to make a quick buck? Obviously not all film music is background music, Solo's soundtrack was a good listen recently. I've seen exceptions on the VI forums too. Generally though, I'd say no, using a orchestral sample library doesn't make someone a composer.


----------



## dgburns

And once again >>> Music is Indefensible. It's a personal choice what you like and dislike.

Imagine a 17 year old who just got the DAW up and running, threw down a groove and played some garbage on top of it that sounded vaguely like the last movie he saw. His friend comes over and gets blown away by the tune. Now the experienced composer comes over and craps on it and fixes all the errors. The friend now hates the music cause it's missing the spark that was there in the first place, warts and all. 

Who's right here? Kid's friend decides right then and there to become a director and the two kids go on to great careers making hugely successful films. Experienced composer keeps plugging away at his craft while doing his day job and gets nowhere writing technically high craft music no one wants.

I'll go with the kids myself


----------



## jbuhler

dgburns said:


> I'll go with the kids myself


These complaints against the kids not knowing their craft are nearly as old as film music itself, certainly since the sound film, which was inaugurated by the silent film music directors and composers being pushed out by the "hacks" from the popular music industry. Max Steiner, the person who was probably most responsible for establishing the conventions of the Hollywood film score, was one of those hacks. (And if you doubt that, read Oscar Levant's very amusing passage on Steiner in _A Smattering of Innocence._)


----------



## Thomas Kallweit

Hot and ambiguous question, indeed.

Assuming that here are lots of film music composers who obviously are doing trailer works, that's ok to ask how to put best effort into it (incl. AI). And though I guess, yeah, it's great to have lots of those tools with so many more tweakable options and better sounds than yesteryears it is also easy to understand that more and more people wanting to do trailer music eg. to make money - nothing against this!

As @Ledwick above mentioned.. and others also did.. there are still(!) other forms of composing in other genres (where you also can use probably some more painting by numbers tools nowadays), so for me still the question remains (which also was answered before individually): What do u compose for, what is in mind? Has it always to be "functionally" to something? When there is a job to be done, then any tools, that help to get it done are legit - and when it can happen faster, ok.

But, I also have to repeat myself and agree with @Patrick9152 about the impression you get as a watcher of lots of latest (more action-orientated)movies - a perspective which does not come up that often here in my observation: The score is mostly functional, and neither doesn't want more to be like sound-design. We can hear that it "gets" the job done, mostly "ok", often "annoying", not that often that I would like to hear it outside the movie again. But there are epic themes that I like even without the pictures it was made for. For the others: I guess it's good to have tools to speed them up, but it's noticeable as movie-consument that there is no love.

So, also agreed using a orc -library does not make a classical composer but can help composers in general - also for other genres.


----------



## Zero&One

I say yes we are.
Giving my mother a library of loops, samples, plinks, plonks and crashes for a week and she would return me a mess of loops, samples, plinks, plonks and crashes. She's not a composer.

Most people on here would return a piece of music.


----------



## dgburns

jbuhler said:


> These complaints against the kids not knowing their craft are nearly as old as film music itself, certainly since the sound film, which was inaugurated by the silent film music directors and composers being pushed out by the "hacks" from the popular music industry. Max Steiner, the person who was probably most responsible for establishing the conventions of the Hollywood film score, was one of those hacks. (And if you doubt that, read Oscar Levant's very amusing passage on Steiner in _A Smattering of Innocence._)



Max Steiner or Carl Stalling or Scott Bradley, thank you for the click track. Man they WERE geniuses though.


----------



## StillLife

When we think things were better in the past, its usually because what still remains from the past (in and outside our memories) is the good stuff. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, the songs we listened when we fell in love... but I am sure that there were a lot of now forgotten not so geniuses in yesteryears, and they are forgotten simply because they didn't succeed in making memorable music that somehow touched an audiance. That will never change, I guess. If you use Eric Whitacre Choir and LCOT and every tune you make with it sounds and feels the same, your music probably won't last, even though you still might have fun making (composing) it. In that respect EWC and LCOT are indeed no different than any old guitar or piano.


----------



## CT

jbuhler said:


> Reading such comments, you'd think that the art of composing for the films has always already been a lost art.



I didn't read much else of this thread, and don't plan to, but this says it all, for film music or otherwise.

Every new generation decides that everything they ever loved is now corrupted. It's obviously just human nature. Fortunately, history doesn't pay much attention to that kind of thing, and later generations can see the value in the artistic evolutions of the past, even if it still doesn't make it easier for them to accept it in their own time.

There's certainly an interesting grey area where phrase-based libraries and the like are concerned, but I don't think it signals the end of civilization. Neither does the change in general style of film music from predominantly symphonic to something more hybrid and based on "sound design" (which is just another type of music and composition, however hard some people try to semantically separate it).


----------



## Ledwick

Maybe there isn't a consensus on composition because "worth", "success" and "value" have different definitions to different composers.

Some think success is making money, selling tracks, making it big... regardless of what Mozart might think of their compositions. 

Some think success is the reward of making something original, emotive, technically proficient... regardless of whether it makes money. 

Some think success is learning and improving during the process... regardless of whether they complete songs or make sales.

Some think success is making anything whatsoever... regardless of production quality, theoretical ability or skill improvement.

Some think success is notoriety, acknowledgement, respect... etc etc etc

Plus, some decide the worth of their music according to their own assessment, while others defer to the judgment of others, whether it be monetary, critical, or comparative. 

Agree to disagree?


----------



## Ashermusic

DS_Joost said:


> I don't read notes... I don't have to, and I really don't care for it because it really doesn't help me in creating what I want to create, it simply keeps me down, at least in the way I work.
> 
> My greatest inspirations turned out to be Vangelis, Jean-Michel Jarre, and Chicane. And to this day, they still are.



Both Vangelis and Jarre are trained and read music quite well, no idea about Chicane. Just saying


----------



## Alex Fraser

Ledwick said:


> Agree to disagree?


Absolutely not. This thread must rumble onwards on repeat until banished to the Drama Zone.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

Alex Fraser said:


> Absolutely not. This thread must rumble onwards on repeat until banished to the Drama Zone.



I hope not, yet until this point I think everything is very civilized which I find very good. And it is interesting to read all the different views here.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Having dabbled in Electroacoustic music for a few decades, I find this thread slightly ironic; that community has always had trouble having its work recognized as ‘music’.

I favour the any-sound-can-be-musical-if-organized school, where a composer is free from traditional writing, choosing timbre, colour and space as main subjects/elements to explore.

Also, the directors that grow up never listening to classic scores will want something that is closer to sound design, something that gives then the same shivers as their old gaming experiences/memories. New generation, new references - composers will/have adapted.


----------



## YaniDee

douggibson said:


> The "strange" point I am trying to make is that I have had many days working as a "professional composer/orchestrator" where I have spent 12 + (some times around the clock) at my computer doing orchestrations and score prep.


These are the times..to look at it cynically, all this AI, robots, driver-less cars, apps, etc., are largely there for one purpose; to save or make money at the expense of "traditional' knowledge and skills.
Yes, they can be wonderful tools, but it looks like we're putting all our eggs in one big technological basket..


----------



## DS_Joost

Ashermusic said:


> Both Vangelis and Jarre are trained and read music quite well, no idea about Chicane. Just saying



Vangelis is on interview actually stating he doesn't. He has a Russian woman transcribe all his work by ear. Which is a feat in and of itself. Not that it means much though. Vangelis is talented in a way I think none of us could ever hope to be...

Just to clarify; reading and writing notes is part of a toolbox you can use to create music. It is a handy one, and partly, in some areas of music composition, an indispensable skill.

I could learn to read notes. Maybe one day, when the need arises, I will learn to read them. Right now, however, I am fully sunken into the synth-sound design aesthetic, which I truly, deeply love. I am not talking about the whole epic thing either, which I don't like. That said, stopping making music now to learn how to read notes would stop my musical aspirations dead in their tracks. There's only so much time to spend in a day; I choose to devote that to creating new timbres and textures that are as of yet unheard.

I still am musical, so I'm not mangling sounds for mangling's sake. I just love to explore that aspect and combine it with some more traditional musical elements.

Point is: I choose to focus on a completely different aspect of making music. An aspect which in my opinion is as much a part of the craft as anything mentioned here. And this is what I'm trying to get at: what is 'the craft' exactly? What does that constitute? If I choose, willingly, one aspect over the other to focus on, make me lesser of a practitioner of said 'craft?'

I say the I don't give a hoot about the craft as such not because I don't see it as a craft. I say it because I have had enough people saying you need to do x or y otherwise you are not a 'real composer', whatever that means. I learned to stop apologizing for something I shouldn't have to apologize for.


----------



## ManchesterMusic

Forget who said it but: “technology is like a train. It’ll stop and you can either choose to board or stay behind, but it’s going to keep moving with or without you”.


----------



## DS_Joost

Ashermusic said:


> Both Vangelis and Jarre are trained and read music quite well, no idea about Chicane. Just saying



One more thing about Jarre. He is classically trained, I know. What with having a little bit of a famous father and all...

Here's the thing; his process is the antithesis these days of what most people would see as 'craft'. He just sits in a studio turning knobs until something sounds good. He is basically known as the guy who went on to do the exact opposite of what he was 'supposed' to do, because he found that side of music much more interesting.

I'm sure he uses much of his knowledge in his compositions, and in his sound design. Yet he advertises being free from convention in all his interviews. And his music also sounds like it. He made me change the way I view composition, especially in what I am and who I want to be.

Bless that man.


----------



## jbuhler

dgburns said:


> Max Steiner or Carl Stalling or Scott Bradley, thank you for the click track. Man they WERE geniuses though.


 Steiner in particular really knew how to deploy the half diminished seventh chord, and his dramatic timing, not just because of the click track, was impeccable. But he too started to decry the kids and their new fangled musical ideas that didn't respect the old craft when he stopped getting work.


----------



## Kyle Preston

_(Quote From A Reddit Post)_​@ManchesterMusic, what a fascinating topic. Thank you so much for giving voice to these thoughts that so many of us have man. Do you/will you ever have a Patreon?​
In terms of psychic friction and our choices, learning how to interact with people, absorbing and engaging their psychology, incorporating that into work we're hired to do is all part of being a _modern_ media composer. We're also hired because of the choices we make with our tools. I chose to buy xyz library because based on a conversation with a director, I know they like _this_ sound or _that_ sound or _this_ vibe. It's like cooking for someone that tells you what they like. I've said this many times on the forum and I'm sorry for repeating myself. But there are so many historical parallels to compare to our situation now. McDonald's didn't put chefs out of business and the laugh track didn't replace audiences; both are examples of automation on steroids. AI is a different animal. And it's a safe bet that if a computer can learn to develop its own intuition, we'll have much bigger problems than finding jobs in music.

People freaked out when Gutenberg invented the printing press. _It's going to decimate the art of writing_. Maybe you could argue it did (it didn't). But one of its consequences: spreading literacy to _literally_ millions of people. For the first time in human history, some of us finally had a chance to appreciate and _support_ the art of writing itself. Maybe music will experience something similar?

Hopefully there won't be too much negativity on this topic in the forum, I can't help but think that all the cynical opinions stem from a serious lack of imagination. Or from some jaded perspective that _real composers are the ones I learned about during that decade I never grew out of. _


----------



## kevthurman

I think it's certainly true that a lot of today's (film and game) composers fall more in line with the "producer" category than the "composer" category.


----------



## jbuhler

kevthurman said:


> I think it's certainly true that a lot of today's (film and game) composers fall more in line with the "producer" category than the "composer" category.


Historically, this line of argument has been used to denigrate the art of orchestration. ETA: that is, some people once and for a very long time griped about orchestration dressing up ideas the way people today gripe about production dressing up ideas.


----------



## ka00

I would ask myself: "Can I make a piano reduction of my music, and would it still sound good or interesting to your average listener?"

If the answer is yes, then I'd say feel free to use the "assistive tech" without feeling like a phoney. If the answer is no, then call yourself something else (arranger, sound designer, producer, rock star, etc.).


----------



## jbuhler

ka00 said:


> I would ask myself: "Can I make a piano reduction of my music, and would it still sound good or interesting to your average listener?"
> 
> If the answer is yes, then I'd say feel free to use the "assistive tech" without feeling like a phoney. If the answer is no, then call yourself something else (arranger, sound designer, producer, rock star, etc.).


So much symphonic music in the standard repertory from the later 19th century and 20th century would not pass this test.


----------



## ka00

jbuhler said:


> So much symphonic music in the standard repertory from the later 19th century and 20th century would not pass this test.



Really? I had no idea. Do you mind naming some examples as now you’ve got me very curious? Zero sarcasm by the way. I thought I posted something that wouldn’t be controversial. Ha.


----------



## Leslie Fuller

kevthurman said:


> I think it's certainly true that a lot of today's (film and game) composers fall more in line with the "producer" category than the "composer" category.



I think the line has become very blurred, with too many styling themselves as “Music Producers”. What does that actually mean as regards composition?


----------



## Pudge

On the subject of A.I... A.I will never replace talented songwriters / composers. A.I in music will only be good enough to copycat or interpret styles based on the input. This will certainly effect royalty free libraries, it'll force songwriters to be more creative and individualistic. Otherwise they'll just be overlooked.

The Issue with stock libraries is that most the music sounds the same, unless you have cherry picked, exclusive individuals (that are excellent at what they do). Typical stock libraries like Audio-Jungle, will be pressured by A.I. services. There are already services which offer A.I music creation that pump out music good as most stock (if not better in some cases). Content creators will no-doubt gravitate towards these services in future. Simply because the cost and turn-around-time will be much lower and faster. + the content creator will have more control over the process / sound.

However, A.I will NEVER replace a talented songwriters / composers simply because A.I has no individuality / personality. Personality can be programmed or imitated, but it'll never be like the real thing. However, if A.I became self conscious... Well that's a different story. Consciousness gives us our unique individuality, we are not bound by pre-defined rules which determine our personality, experiences or the way we view the world and interact with it. That's the human advantage. 

Other than that, I can't see A.I being much more than an aid for simplifying mundane tasks, decreasing the time we spend (for lack of better words) pissing-around and more time focusing on writing music. Which is funny, in a sense we're heading towards the way things were in the past (with-out tech) Music was music, no technology to distract creators from creating. Then tech comes along and shakes things up, and now we're nearly at a point where tech is becoming so advanced we can get back to focusing more on writing. - in a weird way...


----------



## ryans

Pudge said:


> way things were in the past (with-out tech) Music was music, no technology to distract creators from creating.



How far are you going back? Music technology has been around for a while... Is a violin not technology?

Ryan


----------



## jbuhler

ka00 said:


> Really? I had no idea. Do you mind naming some examples as now you’ve got me very curious? Zero sarcasm by the way. I thought I posted something that wouldn’t be controversial. Ha.


Anything that is really conceptualized orchestrally and doesn't fit easily under the hands. Mahler and Strauss come immediately to mind. Sure piano transcriptions were made because that was how orchestral music was commercially distributed at that time for folks who couldn't hear it live (the only way to hear symphonic music before the phonograph became ubiquitous and the sound reproduction good enough to render the orchestra), but the piano reductions sound nothing like the orchestral versions, and long stretches of piano reductions, especially Mahler, sound nearly incoherent unless you know the orchestral version or read along with the score to understand. (Mahler in particular was also heavily criticized for substituting orchestral effects for composition—Strauss suffered these criticisms as well.)

Then, too, anything that features long sustains is not going to render well on the piano without lots of trickery where you rewrite the work for the peculiarities of the piano.


----------



## Parsifal666

Is the "we" pertaining to the folks here? I'm asking specifically because when we look at music from Alexander's more broad (and quite on the mark) assertions, music looks pretty lame today compared to even fifty years ago.

Still sticking with Alexander's big picture, the lowest common denominator won out in music a long time ago. Black Sabbath said it: *Mob Rules*.

People don't want "art"/entertainment that challenges them, lives with them...the type that might even require a modicum of forgiveness as it weaves it web.

Going all Seinfeld, people just don't like to think too much. The culture reflects that: in film, just look at the bust out popularity superhero movies have experienced in the past ten or eleven years. They go to work, come home tired and just want to eat and watch the Andy Griffith Show (uhh wait, zoom forward the abovementioned fifty years).

Wonder bread and circuses...it mollifies the mob.

Are any of us composers the way Mahler, Bach, Scriabin were? A polite chuckle, provoked by more reasons than the obvious. 

But are we composers in today's idiot...I mean,_* idiom*_? Damn straight.


----------



## José Herring

It's a personal choice imo. What kind of composer do you want to be? 

Personally, I'm much more in line with Ned B.'s comment. Exploring new ways to make music and using new instruments and tools has been part of expanding as a composer since the inception of music as a creative outlet. 

The tools today are just that tools. Kind of what I was bitterly seeing a few years ago on this forum that kind of prompted me to leave samples all together for a period was I would hear compositions from new composer looking for advice and I was hearing these amazing productions coming from those that absolutely had no idea what they were doing musically speaking. It was a complete 180 from were I came from. When production resources were limited and I had to rely on clever orchestrating and writing to get a professional result.

Helped one guy out on this fourm and it became clearly obvious that the basics of musicianship were completely lacking. But, his music sounded good production wise but he couldn't get off the one bright idea he did have or develop it because he just didn't know even the basics of constructing harmony or melody much less the more esoteric aspects of how an orchestra works or how to balance an orchestral mix. Now, a casual perusal through even the top music libraries will reveal that has become the norm rather than the exception. High production value to no musical value, ect. There are a few like Immediate Music, TSFH, ect and a few others that are still high on musical value but it seems like there are few of the more "traditional" trailer/music libraries left.

You can also get locked in the past too. Since most musical knowledge comes from exploring the work of past artist it's easy to not innovate at all. In that case then, one becomes dated very quickly. I have in the past fallen into this category were I refused to take into account new tools and stuck to the pen and paper and live musicians for everything and I went a long time before I could meet the demands of working in the industry. I was a very late adopter of sample based libraries and to this day even prefer to work away from samples. But, it is what it is. These tools are part of our landscape.

Example, I wrote a choir piece not using a DAW at all. Just straight into a notation program using and very bad piano sound. It was a great experience because I realized that I would spend an excruciatingly large amount of time fretting over each note, each bar, each dynamic until I got in printed music exactly what I was hearing. Now on the performance and recording that introduced another element and I didn't and couldn't get everything from the group I was using. So that got me thinking: First, I could put the care into a computer, samples and synths I would probably get better results than what I had been getting. Secondly, I would have to write for the strength of the ensemble. If my ensemble were samples and synths and sound design then I need to write for that and not some imagined real orchestra. I still imagine the real orchestra but if my libraries can't do it convincingly then I either need to get other libraries or if not possible, change the music to suit what I had. Much more practical way of thinking. 

Not saying that my midi mockup stuff was bad just wasn't as good as when I had a live ensemble because the care and human factors were there with a live ensemble and they weren't there with samples (I am a people type of person so if you get people in front of me then I naturally have better understanding of what I'm after. Computers and sample libraries are dumb. That would frustrate me until I fully accepted in my own heart that the computer/library/synth, ect. will only be as good as what I personally put into it. I can't lean over to my computer and tell it to take that decrescendo down to niete. I'd have to slave over it for as long as it took to make it the way I wanted it. I hardly have the patience for that but it is what it is.

Long winded way of saying that in our hearts and in our minds we have to take a careful account of what type of composer we want to be? Do we want to be button pushers chasing after the next prefabbed library or do we want to create something that actually has some spiritual value to us as creative artist. 

I am not saying that I have the answer for that other than now I'm more certain at my age that we have choices and you can use those choices creatively or you can use those choices in the dumbest manner possible. You can make a living in either way. I've made money on dumb stuff and also on smart stuff. I won't say what gets better accepted. But, I know for myself that my work has to have meaning to me and if it doesn't I won't waste my time on it.

I have a lot more to say on this and I may say it but for now. I think that's it.

--If interested link to the all live no samples, non-cinematic, choir piece I did where I slaved over every note but in the end got only 80% of what I wanted from the ensemble. Mostly the technical skill of the some of the singers weren't up to par with what I envisioned. I may record it with a different group because I think the piece has a lot of potential with the right group and can't be done with samples.


----------



## Pudge

ryans said:


> How far are you going back? Music technology has been around for a while... Is a violin not technology?
> 
> Ryan



My use of TECH is for things like computers, software etc... Tech made it much easier for anybody to create music with-out having no formal knowledge or experience. Which is great! But, there's an inherent limitation to that. There's a higher amount of people pigeon-holing themselves unconsciously allowing tech to dictate their potential (to some extent). So there's a wash of seemingly "medi-core" musicians that all follow the same rules, patterns, progressions etc... Tech allows such individuals to create the illusion of complexity when really, what they're doing is simple. Which would be easy for A.I to replicate.

Those who can play instruments are experienced with performing / working with others and have learnt about writing styles and all the pros / cons associated with them etc... Will be more successful realising new ideas and creating music which is more interesting. Also if they have an interesting personality, you'll often find they have a unique stamp to their sound.Tech for these individuals will no doubt be helpful getting from A to B easier! 

To put it simply, experience and understanding are more important then developing tech to make things more accessible to the masses who don't want to graft, care or learn. It's rare that someone is naturally gifted enough to break the trend.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

jbuhler said:


> Anything that is really conceptualized orchestrally and doesn't fit easily under the hands. Mahler and Strauss come immediately to mind. Sure piano transcriptions were made because that was how orchestral music was commercially distributed at that time for folks who couldn't hear it live (the only way to hear symphonic music before the phonograph became ubiquitous and the sound reproduction good enough to render the orchestra), but the piano reductions sound nothing like the orchestral versions, and long stretches of piano reductions, especially Mahler, sound nearly incoherent unless you know the orchestral version or read along with the score to understand. (Mahler in particular was also heavily criticized for substituting orchestral effects for composition—Strauss suffered these criticisms as well.)
> 
> Then, too, anything that features long sustains is not going to render well on the piano without lots of trickery where you rewrite the work for the peculiarities of the piano.



Where did you read that? Can you point me to any sources / literature? Thank you..


----------



## jbuhler

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Where did you read that? Can you point me to any sources / literature? Thank you..


About Mahler and Strauss being criticized for their orchestration or about piano reductions? I was a Mahler scholar in a past life (the last work I did on Mahler is from about 2010). The observations about piano reductions came from studying them and the scores. The stuff about orchestration, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure it's mentioned in K. M. Knittel's chapter on Strauss in _Seeing Mahler_, though I have read other accounts or encountered them at conferences.


----------



## Kyle Preston

Parsifal666 said:


> Still sticking with Alexander's big picture, the lowest common denominator won out in music a long time ago. Black Sabbath said it: *Mob Rules*.



I understand what you're saying but I vehemently disagree. It reminds me of Nietzsche talking about _The Last Man_, the ultimate couch potato and mediocrity "winning". Here's why I disagree: Nietzsche appropriated this idea (as so many have) from Darwin's Origin of the Species. And what nearly every person always gets wrong is they interpret evolution as some objective "goal" or "better" that we're evolving toward, like the way Plato would've described it, some idealized "better". But it's not how the world works and never has. It's not how ecosystems work and it's certainly now how human beings work. There is no objective "better" (at least from our perspective). We adapt to environments. Mostly, our adaptations aren't good for our survival. Occasionally they are. And we win for the time being and pass on our genes. Nothing more. There isn't some golden ideal that exists in reality that we're headed toward. This inaccurate interpretation is at the root of all the stupid JW vs HZ debates around here and I suspect future generations (if they're smart) will laugh at all of this.

You can say something like, "interpreting music through a traditional classical approach, Beethoven is clearly more complex than most modern composers". You can say that, that's empirically true. But "complex" isn't interchangeable with "better".

Also, what exactly did the _lowest common denominator_ win? We still have tremendously complex composers around today. Are you lamenting for a time when composers had more prestige?


----------



## ka00

jbuhler said:


> Mahler and Strauss come immediately to mind.



Thanks for this! But just to clarify, are you saying Mahler and Strauss, within their vast works, have some pieces that can't be reduced to piano and still sound musical and interesting? I've listened to a little Mahler in my life (possibly only 1% of what you've listened to, I don't know) and all of it seems hummable or playable on the piano.

I'm not saying that all works by a given composer would need to withstand being reduced to piano without being in any way diminished. Only that a random sampling of their output could be reduced to piano and there'd still be clear evidence that something was actually "composed" in the realm we define as music.


----------



## Parsifal666

Kyle Preston said:


> Also, what exactly did the _lowest common denominator_ win? We still have tremendously complex composers around today. Are you lamenting for a time when composers had more prestige?



There's no one the level of a Bach today, there's no one composition that ranks with the 9th since the 9th. If you choose to believe differently, that's fine. Most graduates would _vehemently_ disagree with you.

What tremendously complex composers are you talking about? This intrigues me, and keep in mind I've studied Beethoven, Bach, Mahler, Wagner...my entire life.

Or maybe I _*am*_ wrong. Not afraid to admit that.


----------



## DS_Joost

Parsifal666 said:


> There's no one the level of a Bach today, there's no one composition that ranks with the 9th since the 9th. If you choose to believe differently, that's fine. Most graduates would _vehemently_ disagree with you.
> 
> What tremendously complex composers are you talking about? This intrigues me, and keep in mind I've studied Beethoven, Bach, Mahler, Wagner...my entire life.
> 
> Or maybe I _*am*_ wrong. Not afraid to admit that.



Okay I am just going to say this because I just need to vent it:

*Bach Schmach.*

There, I said it, and I'm not taking it back. I don't care what the graduates say either.

Not to say it's not beautiful music, but there's more to music than just those people listed. I get tired of people worshipping the same people over and over again, and worse, comparing everything out there like they are the golden standard to which all music should be judged.

They are a gold standard. WITH a certain kind of music, WITH a certain kind of audience. Dare I say in a certain kind of time and place too.

Look here, when I'm listening to electronic music, I'm not thinking of Bach, or Beethoven, or Mozart or whatever. They have their place. Music has evolved. There are different things now. Choices, flavours.

The world has... moved on you know. Some of that new stuff these kids make... it's pretty cool sometimes man.

*Proceeds to put on some Drake on Spotify.


----------



## Leslie Fuller

Here’s an interesting statistic from Instagram. 1.9 million posts from those using the hashtag #composer, yet 5.2 million posts from those using the hashtag #musicproducer.


----------



## Kyle Preston

Penderecki was the first to come to mind. Particularly, his Sonoristic Style. I have to say again, complex ≠ better. I love Bach, I love Ives and I love many modern media composers. I wish we'd stop putting all of them on some sort of "objective" hierarchy and just admit that these are all opinions we pull out of our ass based on confirmation bias and upbringing.


----------



## DS_Joost

Kyle Preston said:


> Penderecki was the first to come to mind. Particularly, his Sonoristic Style. I have to say again, complex ≠ better. I love Bach, I love Ives and I love many modern media composers. I wish we'd stop putting all of them on some sort of "objective" hierarchy and just admit that these are all opinions we pull out of our ass based on confirmation bias and upbringing.



Good comment. It's all superficial in the end. I have friends who, if I come up with Bach, or Mozart, or Mahler, turn to me to say ''who cares?"

I care. They don't. They still love music. Their music is cool too sometimes. Through them, I learned to listen to different kinds of music, for different moods, in different styles. I am not always in the mood for that kind of complexity. Heck, my Drake comment is SERIOUS.

Sometimes I want Drake. Sometimes I want the 9th. Different music for different moods. Drake is better at being Drake than Bach. Bach is better at being Bach than Drake. Both are cool, in my opinion.

The fact that someone spend years of their time writing one single piece of music is totally moot when I just want to chill out and have a spliff or two.


----------



## CT

Waiting for someone to transcribe this for piano so I don't have to stay up all night worrying about whether or not Ligeti was a "real" composer.


----------



## DS_Joost

miket said:


> Waiting for someone to transcribe this for piano so I don't have to stay up all night worrying about whether or not Ligeti was a "real" composer.




This guy clearly used loops... just sayin'...


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

miket said:


> Waiting for someone to transcribe this for piano so I don't have to stay up all night worrying about whether or not Ligeti was a "real" composer.




But you know that this piece is not representative for the majority of symphonic typical works repertoire..sure there is experimental music out there.


----------



## CT

Yes, micropolyphonic canons, loops, it's all the same thing... he was a total hack.


----------



## CT

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> But you know that this piece is not representative for the majority of symphonic works repertoire..



I'd say it's pretty representative of one very significant way of thinking about music that was introduced in the last century, and puts the lie to the notion that piano reductions = litmus test of compositional integrity. 

There is no such convenient line anymore for people to segregate what they deem to be "real" music or otherwise....


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

miket said:


> I'd say it's pretty representative of one very significant way of thinking about music that was introduced in the last century.



Yes, "niche market" is another word for those experiments. Yet the majority of pieces were in first line developed on piano yet there is a reason why a lot pieces can sustain without the orchestration because they simply contain in their core the important aspects of strong motivic writing and development.


----------



## José Herring

It's funny but the world hasn't moved on. Styles change they come and go but Bach is literally the basis of all harmony that is in use in western music. When I do "modern" music I always think of Bach chord progressions to give it some grounding. In listening to the more popular DJ's those chord progressions are nothing new. As a matter of fact, the stuff that is leading in film, radio and television is severely lacking and using a language that predates Bach's. Sure the tech is new the sounds are kind of new but the basis of the musical language itself is lacking.

I remember a well know composer boasting that he uses 19th century harmony. But in truth, he has written nothing that even approaches Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy, etal. His harmonic language oddly enough had lapsed somewhere just prior to the Baroque period with basic triads moving in the right had and a root and fifth baseline. Literally making mint off a musical language that died previous to the Baroque period in music.

Bach, Beethoven, Mozart Debussy, ect are the "Gold Standard" because they risked their lives, jobs, families quite literally to advance the science of music to a point were they could expresses more than what was humanly possible to undesrstand.

There is no Bach or Beethoven today because nobody has the guts or moral fortitude to literally die for the advancement of their art and their integrity. The most successful composers are the ones that use the most base and simplistic musical language and use it in a way to appeal to a mass audience. They could care less about advancing music. Imo, they've thrown it back to the middle ages and they've worshiped parallel organum as a "new" music because it's played on a synth (not to knock the more creative synth based composer because there are many doing new things and I find many true synth composers to be the most loyal to following their vision)

We've entered to a large degree a dark ages in the intellect and scientific understand of man when it comes to the general ken of music being created for popular consumption. The enlightenment period were these composers had a chance to advance music is gone. Every civilizing institution of mankind religion, arts, sciences, philosophy has been subverted in modern society to the most profane usages and thus have failed miserably leaving mankind to worship nothing but technology and money. Art can't thrive in this environment. Too few of us can even think much less create something as divinely inspired as a Beethoven 7th or 9th a Mozart Ave Verum Corpus or as poetic as Debussy's Prelude to an Afternoon of a Faun or Ravel's Daphnes and Chloe or even as far out as Stravinsky's Rite. Society won't support it. These composers died horrible deaths trying to do something that mankind had never experienced before. It is noble. Maybe foolish but where would we be without them?

So to disrespect and say "Bach Smach" or whatever is just a profound ignorance of what composers like these had to go through to do something to advance the civilization of mankind beyond the point of just wanting to make babies and create wars so the babies can fight in when they become men. Tl a large part they failed because today we live and a society whose only Deity is money and who's so purpose in life is the pursuit of sex. Nothing wrong with either one but if that's all one aspires to then the only music that is going to sell will be the most base and demoralized form of music.


----------



## Farkle

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Where did you read that? Can you point me to any sources / literature? Thank you..



Here's one.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/898925?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Also, Alexander, when I was studying 19th century orchestration, I read an article that referenced Schumann's quotes about Wagner's orchestration. In that article, Schumann discussed how, as one of his day jobs, he was a reviewer for the local paper of incoming symphonic works, that came to the town, and how, as part of that, the orchestra (or composer, can't remember which) would send Schumann the 2 or 4 hand piano reduction of the orchestral score, for Schumann to play through and critique. This was because of the exact point above. There was no way for Schumann to hear the piece before the orchestra played it, so he couldn't do a preview of it for the paper without the reduction. This was pretty standard practice in the 19th century.

In fact, Schumann (this was the thrust of the article) realized Wagner's orchestral brilliance, because when he played the Wagner piece (I dunno, one of his operas) on the piano reduction, Schumann trashed it, cause it sounded like shit. However, when he went to hear it with orchestra, and heard how the colors actually played out, he retracted his critique, and reversed it, because he then understood how Wagner actually scored the piece, with nuance for orchestra.


Mike


----------



## CT

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Yes, "niche market" is another word for those experiments.



That seems like a somewhat obtuse way of thinking about it, but all right then.

All I'm saying is that the idea that a piece of music has to function when reduced to a bare-bones piano reduction, or else it's shit, is outdated. Not irrelevant, but outdated. There are too many other approaches now, all just as valid.

Anyway, that's pretty far from what this thread was about to begin with, I think. Just a digression from me.


----------



## DS_Joost

josejherring said:


> It's funny but the world hasn't moved on. Styles change they come and go but Bach is literally the basis of all harmony that is in use in western music. When I do "modern" music I always think of Bach chord progressions to give it some grounding. In listening to the more popular DJ's those chord progressions are nothing new. As a matter of fact, the stuff that is leading in film, radio and television is severely lacking and using a language that predates Bach's. Sure the tech is new the sounds are kind of new but the basis of the musical language itself is lacking.
> 
> I remember a well know composer boasting that he uses 19th century harmony. But in truth, he has written nothing that even approaches Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy, etal. His harmonic language oddly enough had lapsed somewhere just prior to the Baroque period with basic triads moving in the right had and a root and fifth baseline. Literally making mint off a musical language that died previous to the Baroque period in music.
> 
> Bach, Beethoven, Mozart Debussy, ect are the "Gold Standard" because they risked their lives, jobs, families quite literally to advance the science of music to a point were they could expresses more than what was humanly possible to undesrstand.
> 
> There is no Bach or Beethoven today because nobody has the guts or moral fortitude to literally die for the advancement of their art and their integrity. The most successful composers are the ones that use the most base and simplistic musical language and use it in a way to appeal to a mass audience. They could care less about advancing music. Imo, they've thrown it back to the middle ages and they've worshiped parallel organum as a "new" music because it's played on a synth (not to knock the more creative synth based composer because there are many doing new things and I find many true synth composers to be the most loyal to following their vision)
> 
> We've entered to a large degree a dark ages in the intellect and scientific understand of man when it comes to the general ken of music being created for popular consumption. The enlightenment period were these composers had a chance to advance music is gone. Every civilizing institution of mankind religion, arts, sciences, philosophy has been subverted in modern society to the most profane usages and thus have failed miserably leaving mankind to worship nothing but technology and money. Art can't thrive in this environment. Too few of us can even think much less create something as divinely inspired as a Beethoven 7th or 9th a Mozart Ave Verum Corpus or as poetic as Debussy's Prelude to an Afternoon of a Faun or Ravel's Valse Triste. Society won't support it. These composers died horrible deaths trying to do something that mankind had never experienced before. It is noble. Maybe foolish but where would we be without them?
> 
> So to disrespect and say "Bach Smach" or whatever is just a profound ignorance of what composers like these had to go through to do something to advance the civilization of mankind beyond the point of just wanting to make babies and create wars so the babies can fight in when they become men. Tl a large part they failed because today we live and a society whose only Deity is money and who's so purpose in life is the pursuit of sex. Nothing wrong with either one but if that's all one aspires to then the only music that is going to sell will be the most base and demoralized form of music.



Know what I say to all this?

Meh...

Edit: I was gonna add an emoji but that would propably just make me the harbinger of the end times... okay now I did it anyway.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

Farkle said:


> Here's one.
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/898925?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
> 
> Also, Alexander, when I was studying 19th century orchestration, I read an article that referenced Schumann's quotes about Wagner's orchestration. In that article, Schumann discussed how, as one of his day jobs, he was a reviewer for the local paper of incoming symphonic works, that came to the town, and how, as part of that, the orchestra (or composer, can't remember which) would send Schumann the 2 or 4 hand piano reduction of the orchestral score, for Schumann to play through and critique. This was because of the exact point above. There was no way for Schumann to hear the piece before the orchestra played it, so he couldn't do a preview of it for the paper without the reduction. This was pretty standard practice in the 19th century.
> 
> In fact, Schumann (this was the thrust of the article) realized Wagner's orchestral brilliance, because when he played the Wagner piece (I dunno, one of his operas) on the piano reduction, Schumann trashed it, cause it sounded like shit. However, when he went to hear it with orchestra, and heard how the colors actually played out, he retracted his critique, and reversed it, because he then understood how Wagner actually scored the piece, with nuance for orchestra.
> 
> 
> Mike



Thanks for that specific example, Mike!


----------



## José Herring

DS_Joost said:


> Know what I say to all this?
> 
> Meh...
> 
> Edit: I was gonna add an emoji but that would propably just make me the harbinger of the end times... okay now I did it anyway.



Brilliant response. 

Kind of miss the old days when we would eviscerate each other with our opinions but at least those shellackings were well thought out.


----------



## DS_Joost

josejherring said:


> Brilliant response.
> 
> Kind of miss the old days when we would eviscerate each other with our opinions but at least those shellackings were well thought out.



Because what you say is exactly the kind of thing that triggers this response in me. I love these composers, and truly respect them. But they were 100's of years ago. They were good. They are still good. I still stand though by the fact that music has evolved, maybe just not in the way the academics like to see.

So they almost died for their cause. So what? That doesn't make it noble, it makes it stupid. It's music, not world peace. It literally makes me not care. It doesn't make their music better or worse. It just adds that they were idiots. Genius idiots, but idiots nonetheless.

I admire good music. I admire good craftmanship. But I don't worship people. No matter what.


----------



## José Herring

DS_Joost said:


> Because what you say is exactly the kind of thing that triggers this response in me. I love these composers, and truly respect them. But they were 100's of years ago. They were good. They are still good. I still stand by the fact that music has evolved, maybe just not in the way the academics like to see.
> 
> So they almost died for their cause. So what? That doesn't make it noble, it makes it stupid. It's music, not world peace. It literally makes me not care. It doesn't make their music better or worse. It just adds that they were idiots. Genius idiots, but idiots nonetheless.
> 
> I admire good music. I admire good craftmanship. But I don't worship people. No matter what.



It's that kind of apathetic attitude that has plummeted the arts into a darkness. Leaving a better civilization looking towards the future. It was the primary goal of many leaders and artist in the past. Artist today selling out and peddling non-sense as "music" then complain that nobody takes them seriously any more and that the arts are not supported and that nobody is willing to support artist. Our music stolen left a right and why not? We have only ourselves to blame. After all "it's just music". What's there to support? We aren't artist any more. Now we're not even artisans with good skills any more. To many of us are just button pushers and thinking what you just stated.


----------



## jbuhler

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Yes, "niche market" is another word for those experiments. Yet the majority of pieces were in first line developed on piano yet there is a reason why a lot pieces can sustain without the orchestration because they simply contain in their core the important aspects of motivic writing and development.


I’m old enough to remember folks complaining about people composing at the piano, the piano as compositional crutch. And it is often the case that music written at the piano sounds to me like orchestrated piano music rather than having been composed for the orchestra. I can hear the idioms of the hands on the piano keys rather than the natural idioms of the orchestral instruments.


----------



## jbuhler

josejherring said:


> Bach is literally the basis of all harmony that is in use in western music.


This is literally untrue for all sorts of reasons. He was neither the first nor can all forms of tonal harmony be derived from his works.


----------



## ka00

miket said:


> Waiting for someone to transcribe this for piano so I don't have to stay up all night worrying about whether or not Ligeti was a "real" composer.




Presumably Ligeti wrote all those notes and instructions for how to play, what notes to play, when to play, etc. And I highly doubt he was incapable of writing "traditional" music. Atmospheres is not the only music he wrote.

And the question isn't is this better or worse, more or less valid. The question isn't do you need to master music theory or not? And it's not is Bach better than Beck?

The question we are drifting away from isn't even "Are We Still Composers?". Because phrasing it that way immediately puts the asker in a group it has yet to be proven they belong to. Using the word "still" is a way of legitimizing the endeavours of the person asking it, because it implies that they were once a composer and then are now simply asking if they are _still_ a composer for adopting assistive technologies that lighten their composing burdens the way other technologies have lightened similar burdens in other fields.

And that is not a dig at Geoff. I just think the question really being asked is: Can someone who _only_ is able to compose using loops and one-button textures/pads/atmospheres call themselves a composer? Could the client be sitting next to them and say, "Thanks, but instead of this random scratchy violin stuff, can we make it feel like we just stepped into a saloon, or can you make it have a John Carpenter vibe? Or can you make it feel like Atmospheres by Ligeti but played on the piano?" 

I feel like these are the kinds of things a composer should be able to do. If the extent of their ability is arrange pre-fab bits, then that's questionable.


----------



## givemenoughrope

Why even be a composer when you can be a music supervisor/library and take at least half of the $ for sending emails and pushing some mp3s around?


----------



## CT

ka00 said:


> Presumably Ligeti wrote all those notes and instructions for how to play, what notes to play, when to play, etc. And I highly doubt he was incapable of writing "traditional" music. Atmospheres is not the only music he wrote.



Of course! He even wrote some piano music. 

Just trying to stir things up a bit around the whole piano reduction idea. It's obviously not applicable to all music anymore, and even when it *can* apply to the music in question (that is, straightforward melodic type writing), I still don't put all that much stock in it, for reasons that some others have pointed out (idiomatic writing, etc.). Yeah, the notes and the form are both important, but so is other stuff, and I think you have to take it all together in context to really be able to make any judgement about it. I mean, do you really need to make a piano reduction to hear whether or not there's integrity in form, texture/voicing, part-writing?

Like I said though, this was just a little digression mainly of my own making, not to detract from whatever the real gist of this thread is.


----------



## José Herring

jbuhler said:


> This is literally untrue for all sorts of reasons. He was neither the first nor can all forms of tonal harmony be derived from his works.


Fair enough.

But there were two forms of equal temperment that were alive during Bachs day. There was the real equal temperment created and used by Andreas Workmeister. And there was the one that I call "fudged" equal temperment used by Bach in his music and organ building. His standard is what is used on all modern keyboards and there isn't much music since then that hasn't used his equal temperment as the basis of their harmonic language. Even the bitonality of Stravinsky and the 12 tone rows of serial composers base their harmonic language on this temperment.

To further clarify. (And to note Bach did write bitonality and even approached chromatic harmony that if heard even resembles serial music. Check out his well tempered clavier works. You hear a lot of more modern uses of harmony.)

Carry on. Interesting discussion.


----------



## DS_Joost

josejherring said:


> It's that kind of apathetic attitude that has plummeted the arts into a darkness. Leaving a better civilization looking towards the future. It was the primary goal of many leaders and artist in the past. Artist today selling out and peddling non-sense as "music" then complain that nobody takes them seriously any more and that the arts are not supported and that nobody is willing to support artist. Our music stolen left a right and why not? We have only ourselves to blame. After all "it's just music". What's there to support? We aren't artist any more. Now we're not even artisans with good skills any more. To many of us are just button pushers and thinking what you just stated.



You know, the best way to get 'the kids' to understand and admire music is not to tell them that all they do is plummet the arts into a darkness. You are only hurting your own cause with that negativity. The apathetic reaction simply comes as a reaction to people like you.

Why should we care when everyone around us is telling us we're doing it wrong anyway?


----------



## ka00

miket said:


> Of course! He even wrote some piano music.
> 
> Just trying to stir things up a bit around the whole piano reduction idea. It's obviously not applicable to all music anymore, and even when it *can* apply to the music in question (that is, straightforward melodic type writing), I still don't put all that much stock in it, for reasons that some others have pointed out (idiomatic writing, etc.). Yeah, the notes and the form are both important, but so is other stuff, and I think you have to take it all together in context to really be able to make any judgement about it. I mean, do you really need to make a piano reduction to hear whether or not there's integrity in form, texture/voicing, part-writing?
> 
> Like I said though, this was just a little digression mainly of my own making, not to detract from whatever the real gist of this thread is.



I agree with you. Probably the piano reduction idea is, well, too reductive. Still thinking through what the best test would be.


----------



## Pudge

Composers like Bach pioneered the art-from both creatively and intellectually by demonstrating that if you push yourself and focus on your craft, you can do more than just contribute to mediocrity, you can pioneer and reach new heights, contributing to humanity.

In today's world there are plenty of great composers, however there seems as though theres nothing left to pioneer from a traditional POV, its all been done (so to speak). However theres still opportunity to pioneer the art-form with modern tech and develop something New.

There will be another Bach, but one that pioneers the marriage of technology and tradition to create something new. Who knows what it'll sound like...

New instruments, new sounds, new techniques?


----------



## José Herring

DS_Joost said:


> You know, the best way to get 'the kids' to understand and admire music is not to tell them that all they do is plummet the arts into a darkness. You are only hurting your own cause with that negativity. The apathetic reaction simply comes as a reaction to people like you.
> 
> Why should we care when everyone around us is telling us we're doing it wrong anyway?


Didn't know you were a kid. Sorry about that. 

I'm not a negative person. I include myself in all the negative stuff I said about music today. 

I'm speaking from a very broad scope and including all music history and cherry picking. Trust me there was plenty of bad music in every generation as there is plenty good music today.

I'm also not advancing a cause. Just sharing my opinion.

As a younger composer and I haven't heard your music so don't take this the wrong way, I would implore you to learn all you can. Even if you figure it out for yourself. The shelf life of the "new" or the "novel" is fairly short if it isn't backed with some sort of enduring knowledge of the more scientific side of music (theory, form, ect). Stuff that has been tested and known to work throughout the ages no matter what style of music you do. 

In the end, if you look back 10-20 years ago there were so many "new" composers who had the same attitude about "old" music and those guys aren't around. 

There are innovators though who do new things and do have a basis in theory and harmony and music construction and can write more than just a passing fad of music and have had long careers. Just saying. Be both. Be that new guy that knows what he is doing rather than just that new sound out of that new box.


----------



## Syneast

I think about this. Sometimes I feel like I'm still using Dance eJay (for those of us old enough to remember), where all I do is arrange snippets of sound that someone else has made for me, and it feels like I'm just playing with toys. Makes me feel like a child. No offense, it's a me vs. me thing.

However, these thoughts always end with me asking myself if it ultimately matters who made the music. Who cares if I made it or if you made it or if James Newton Howard made it? If it's a good piece of music it's a good piece of music regardless who made it. I don't care about my favorite artists as people, I only care about remembering their names so I can have a higher chance of finding more similar music.

So, philosophically speaking I don't really care who is behind my own music. We had our time together while it was being made, but after that the music is not attached to me any longer, it's just a piece of music that some people have put work into; everything from the people who made my desk and computer to the poeple who programmed my DAW to the people who recorded the samples to the guy composing the melody and arranging the sounds. We all made it happen. Yay us.


----------



## Studio E

I honestly wish I was someone skilled in the classical sense, but I'm not. I have picked up a LOT of theory and such, so I'm no dunce, but in certain circles, even circles around here, I certainly am. That said, I've been hired many many times as a "composer" and the check has cleared the bank every time. I think that in the professional sense, I am, on one level or another.


----------



## José Herring

Studio E said:


> I honestly wish I was someone skilled in the classical sense, but I'm not. I have picked up a LOT of theory and such, so I'm no dunce, but in certain circles, even circles around here, I certainly am. That said, I've been hired many many times as a "composer" and the check has cleared the bank every time. I think that in the professional sense, I am, on one level or another.




99% of all great composers were keyboard players with knowledge of music theory. Few of them ever studied anything but that.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

Studio E said:


> I honestly wish I was someone skilled in the classical sense, but I'm not. I have picked up a LOT of theory and such, so I'm no dunce, but in certain circles, even circles around here, I certainly am. That said, I've been hired many many times as a "composer" and the check has cleared the bank every time. I think that in the professional sense, I am, on one level or another.



Same here! And let's face it, most directors/producers don't really know (or care) if we're "trained professionals" or not. They just want us to fulfill their vision, and that's our job. I actually get more work than many colleagues with degrees in music...mainly because I know how to use my DAW and VST's convincingly. You can have the best music degrees in the world, but if you don't know how to create (and deliver) good productions from your studio, you are no further ahead. Granted, you need to know how a typical orchestra works, but that's not difficult to figure out.


----------



## sIR dORT

First of all, great discussion topic. 

In terms of the world of loops, I make a distinction between tonal loops (phrase libraries) and atonal loops (damage for example). Even as a new composer, I never have liked the idea of a tonal loop that creates a musical phrase for you. It's not creative. You aren't putting those notes in that order, time, dynamic, etc. It's lazy and unoriginal. On the other side, I have less of a problem with atonal loops, i.e. percussion. Although it's still not as creative as creating the phrase yourself, it's not to the same degree (imho). It is rhythm, and while I'm still not crazy about it, it's not such a big part of music as the _actual notes_.

In terms of sounds like evolutions, I have no problem whatsoever with those. I think of an evolution like an articulation that you are learning about and using. So, if you look at sounds like evos in that light, I think its much easier to see them as original music creation tools.

I fail to understand how knowingly writing a major C chord down on a sheet of paper is so much more creative then knowingly playing that C chord from your fingers. If you wanna say that it requires more skill and knowledge to do the former, I would concede that, but that its more creative? No. Technology is an amazing gift that we are blessed to have today. It has given so many people opportunities to compose music for more instruments than just a piano or guitar or more commonly owned instruments.

I will say this though: I think it is way more creative to write a traditional classical piece than it is to stick a pad in Logic and add the Spitfire felt piano. There's no doubt in my mind that that's true.

So.......... there's my long, humble opinion


----------



## Pudge

Real Art is driven by passion. Pure, passion. Nothing else. Status seekers, title hunters and money driven artists ultimately don't contribute nothing to humanity. They just contribute to the meat grinder, for their own personal vain validations. If not, then their voice gets lost in the void. 

Sadly, that is what's mostly wrong with music. The focus has shifted towards creating products for products. We live in a giant cultural advert where we are continually bombarded with regurgitate musical ideas designed to make money or fit a context. It's been happening so much for so long, that formulas (we hear every-day) are adopted as the standard for all to aspire to. Any spins on those formulas are celebrated as "amazing" "new" or "fresh".

Utter bollocks TBH. You know music is bad when you've heard the whole song in the first 8 bars... Not to say its not listenable. But when I hear it, it makes me think marketing has done an inception on music and music has done an inception on culture. People just accept it, because they've heard it enough. Sadly it's made music more disposable than timeless.

So when people listen to the old greats, who pioneered music. It's easy to appreciate why they are so revered and celebrated, even today.


----------



## ManchesterMusic

Kyle Preston said:


> _(Quote From A Reddit Post)_​@ManchesterMusic, what a fascinating topic. Thank you so much for giving voice to these thoughts that so many of us have man. Do you/will you ever have a Patreon?​
> In terms of psychic friction and our choices, learning how to interact with people, absorbing and engaging their psychology, incorporating that into work we're hired to do is all part of being a _modern_ media composer. We're also hired because of the choices we make with our tools. I chose to buy xyz library because based on a conversation with a director, I know they like _this_ sound or _that_ sound or _this_ vibe. It's like cooking for someone that tells you what they like. I've said this many times on the forum and I'm sorry for repeating myself. But there are so many historical parallels to compare to our situation now. McDonald's didn't put chefs out of business and the laugh track didn't replace audiences; both are examples of automation on steroids. AI is a different animal. And it's a safe bet that if a computer can learn to develop its own intuition, we'll have much bigger problems than finding jobs in music.
> 
> People freaked out when Gutenberg invented the printing press. _It's going to decimate the art of writing_. Maybe you could argue it did (it didn't). But one of its consequences: spreading literacy to _literally_ millions of people. For the first time in human history, some of us finally had a chance to appreciate and _support_ the art of writing itself. Maybe music will experience something similar?
> 
> Hopefully there won't be too much negativity on this topic in the forum, I can't help but think that all the cynical opinions stem from a serious lack of imagination. Or from some jaded perspective that _real composers are the ones I learned about during that decade I never grew out of. _



Hey dude. Thanks for the kind words. Re: Patreon. Yeah, I dunno. Spending time building another platform and thinking of perks and all that stuff is something I just don't have any bandwidth to do. I saw that Youtube now has a 'Become A Member' kinda thing with payment options. I'm happy to open that up so long as people know I'm going to continue running the channel as it's been in the past: I do what I can, when I can and treat everyone equally and above all, drunkenly.


----------



## D Halgren

ManchesterMusic said:


> Hey dude. Thanks for the kind words. Re: Patreon. Yeah, I dunno. Spending time building another platform and thinking of perks and all that stuff is something I just don't have any bandwidth to do. I saw that Youtube now has a 'Become A Member' kinda thing with payment options. I'm happy to open that up so long as people know I'm going to continue running the channel as it's been in the past: I do what I can, when I can and treat everyone equally and above all, drunkenly.


@Kyle Preston 
You should really just ask him what type of vodka he wants and where to ship it to

Great to see you here Geoff!!!


----------



## Kyle Preston

*On it!*


----------



## ManchesterMusic

Kyle Preston said:


> *On it!*


----------



## ManchesterMusic

D Halgren said:


> @Kyle Preston
> You should really just ask him what type of vodka he wants and where to ship it to
> 
> Great to see you here Geoff!!!


Happy to be here (finally)


----------



## D Halgren

ManchesterMusic said:


> Happy to be here (finally)


It's a love fest over here!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Day 1: Modular synth wall + A.I.- guided sequencing + acoustic instruments/sources. Turn everything on, walk out of the studio, make a drink, shuffle back in, hit record, sit at the piano stool, look out the window, (take a sip, noodle a bit) x 8 or 12 times, hit stop, change settings, move to another instrument, hit record, etc... 
Day 2: Edit
Repeat.
That’s what I’m aiming for when I retire.


----------



## D Halgren

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Day 1: Modular synth wall + A.I.- guided sequencing + acoustic instruments/sources. Turn everything on, walk out of the studio, make a drink, shuffle back in, hit record, sit at the piano stool, look out the window, (take a sip, noodle a bit) x 8 or 12 times, hit stop, change settings, move to another instrument, hit record, etc...
> Day 2: Edit
> Repeat.
> That’s what I’m aiming for when I retire.


How bout a neural interface that takes the music in yer noggin straight to the daw?


----------



## Pudge

Composing would be so much easier if they created the brainbolt connection that plugs starignt into your forehead.

Crystal clear 192k 32bit float 0 latency, jitter free thought recording. With class leading A/D brain conversion technology, and an unprecedented 0 to 10 billion brainnamic range. Seemlessley intergreating with your chosen DAW to create compelling music, straight from the brain.

Link it. Think it. Brainbolt.


----------



## D Halgren

Pudge said:


> Composing would be so much easier if they created the brainbolt connection that plugs starignt into your forehead.
> 
> Crystal clear 192k 32bit float 0 latency, jitter free thought recording. With class leading A/D brain conversion technology, and an unprecedented 0 to 10 billion brainnamic range. Seemlessley intergreating with your chosen DAW to create compelling music, straight from the brain.
> 
> Link it. Think it. Brainbolt.


You better register that now!


----------



## Pudge

D Halgren said:


> You better register that now!



I would. But you have probably already already beat me to it...


----------



## D Halgren

Pudge said:


> I would. But you have probably already already beat me to it...


Nah, I'm one of the good ones

Link it. Think it. Brainbolt. 

Should be on a blimp in the Blade Runner universe.


----------



## Pudge

D Halgren said:


> Nah, I'm one of the good ones
> 
> Link it. Think it. Brainbolt.
> 
> Should be on a blimp in the Blade Runner
> 
> Some one once told me I could sell steam to a turd. Screw music! Screw labour! Who needs a slogan??





D Halgren said:


> Nah, I'm one of the good ones
> 
> Link it. Think it. Brainbolt.
> 
> Should be on a blimp in the Blade Runner universe.



Haha! That would be awesome.

Some one once told me I could sell steam to a turd...

Need a slogan? :o)


----------



## Greg

Lazy or not, a composer is a composer. Doesn't really matter what tools you use but not playing piano is like forcing yourself to use pillows to make orange juice.


----------



## Ben E

Greg said:


> Lazy or not, a composer is a composer. Doesn't really matter what tools you use but not playing piano is like forcing yourself to use pillows to make orange juice.


As someone who is both a composer and who does not play piano, I can say for certain that this is true.


----------



## re-peat

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Repeat.
> That’s what I’m aiming for when I retire.


A commendable aspiration, Ned.

_


----------



## Akarin

Greg said:


> Lazy or not, a composer is a composer. Doesn't really matter what tools you use but not playing piano is like forcing yourself to use pillows to make orange juice.



As a non piano player, I would like to disagree so much with this... Unfortunately, I can't. Back to using pillows :,-(


----------



## mikeh-375

Greg said:


> Lazy or not, a composer is a composer. Doesn't really matter what tools you use but not playing piano is like forcing yourself to use pillows to make orange juice.



Greg,
I'm not sure composing is about the piano in some forms of music, especially orchestral. In fact I'd say the piano is a hindrance in orchestral writing.


----------



## stigc56

So if anyone buys your "composition" you are a composer? 
If that's true then why bother discuss it? 
Take all the extras at a filmset, are they actors? I don't think the "real" actors think so, but then again they might get picked out by the director to play a better part, and then they are, right?

To me composing happens inside my head and transformed to sound via paper (Sibelius/Dorico) and then recorded in my DAW. I my experience the moment in transition between the "paper" and the DAW is important, because the moment it's in the DAW every thing is about sound, and sound to me is the next level in composing. If the composition is good enough it will survive and "shine" in the end.
I worked in my youth together with a guitarist who always put on a drum machine when he composed. It worked very well for him, but to me it seemed that he always fell back into his comfort zone, and having a hard time to come up with something new. He is now the most successful film composer in Denmark!
And then I thought we had passed by all this nonsense about music theory and learning to read/write music! Reading music is a craftsmanship, it's a language to communicate music. Learning that language let's you understand the musical elements behind all the fine music written today and before our time. And the theory is not used to beat "the music" out of students, it's used - invented - to be able to understand and describe some common elements in music, making it possible to form a enlightened conversation about it. Sorry it has always p**sed me off to listen to people who defend their lacking knowledge in this field with the argument, that they don't NEED it, when I so many times have listened to - and worked with - the same people, and must say, yes you do.


----------



## Akarin

mikeh-375 said:


> Greg,
> I'm not sure composing is about the piano in some forms of music, especially orchestral. In fact I'd say the piano is a hindrance in orchestral writing.



I think he meant the ability to play keys.


----------



## mikeh-375

Akarin said:


> I think he meant the ability to play keys.



I see, only in DAW land though eh? Sorry greg if I took you out of context...


----------



## Parsifal666

I apologize to @Kyle Preston for my being a dismissive Pretentio-dolt. That was me at my most myopic, and I'm sorry.


----------



## Tfis

ManchesterMusic said:


> Are We Still Composers?


IDGAF


----------



## Ashermusic

DS_Joost said:


> Vangelis is on interview actually stating he doesn't. He has a Russian woman transcribe all his work by ear. Which is a feat in and of itself. Not that it means much though. Vangelis is talented in a way I think none of us could ever hope to be...
> 
> Just to clarify; reading and writing notes is part of a toolbox you can use to create music. It is a handy one, and partly, in some areas of music composition, an indispensable skill.
> 
> I could learn to read notes. Maybe one day, when the need arises, I will learn to read them. Right now, however, I am fully sunken into the synth-sound design aesthetic, which I truly, deeply love. I am not talking about the whole epic thing either, which I don't like. That said, stopping making music now to learn how to read notes would stop my musical aspirations dead in their tracks. There's only so much time to spend in a day; I choose to devote that to creating new timbres and textures that are as of yet unheard.
> 
> I still am musical, so I'm not mangling sounds for mangling's sake. I just love to explore that aspect and combine it with some more traditional musical elements.
> 
> Point is: I choose to focus on a completely different aspect of making music. An aspect which in my opinion is as much a part of the craft as anything mentioned here. And this is what I'm trying to get at: what is 'the craft' exactly? What does that constitute? If I choose, willingly, one aspect over the other to focus on, make me lesser of a practitioner of said 'craft?'
> 
> I say the I don't give a hoot about the craft as such not because I don't see it as a craft. I say it because I have had enough people saying you need to do x or y otherwise you are not a 'real composer', whatever that means. I learned to stop apologizing for something I shouldn't have to apologize for.




One man's composer is another's poser 

Seriously though, you cannot tell me that great electronic music composers don't work to develop a craft, albeit it different from. traditional composing craft. You cannot be a really good _consistent_ composer in any genre without craft. Without it, you may have moments of brilliance but it will be overwhelmingly outweighed by banality.

Thanks for correcting me about Vangelis, I am surprised.


----------



## Kyle Preston

Parsifal666 said:


> I apologize to @Kyle Preston for my being a dismissive Pretentio-dolt. That was me at my most myopic, and I'm sorry.



Hey no worries brother. Bach always finds a way to ignite our passions doesn’t he.


----------



## Alex Fraser

What is musical craft though? Is it knowing how to read the dots, harmony theory? Or is it having the imagination and skill to do something like this?

Here are "the kids.."


The imagination and technical skill on display here is impressive. There's a craft on display that you simply don't get from the more traditional learning routes.
Despite having spent years learning theory etc, I'm humbled by stuff like this.


----------



## givemenoughrope

This video almost completely sums up modern popular music: a wind up toy that continues to walk well after it’s found a wall... while stabbing my ears. 

Maybe if the tune they were working with was worth “remixing” and instead of just putting it in a blender they wrote a different arrangement, reharmonized it, recorded it to tape loops and played them until they flanged and created some new rhthym.


----------



## jonathanparham

josejherring said:


> It's a personal choice imo. What kind of composer do you want to be?
> 
> Personally, I'm much more in line with Ned B.'s comment. Exploring new ways to make music and using new instruments and tools has been part of expanding as a composer since the inception of music as a creative outlet.
> 
> The tools today are just that tools. Kind of what I was bitterly seeing a few years ago on this forum that kind of prompted me to leave samples all together for a period was I would hear compositions from new composer looking for advice and I was hearing these amazing productions coming from those that absolutely had no idea what they were doing musically speaking. It was a complete 180 from were I came from. When production resources were limited and I had to rely on clever orchestrating and writing to get a professional result.
> 
> Helped one guy out on this fourm and it became clearly obvious that the basics of musicianship were completely lacking. But, his music sounded good production wise but he couldn't get off the one bright idea he did have or develop it because he just didn't know even the basics of constructing harmony or melody much less the more esoteric aspects of how an orchestra works or how to balance an orchestral mix. Now, a casual perusal through even the top music libraries will reveal that has become the norm rather than the exception. High production value to no musical value, ect. There are a few like Immediate Music, TSFH, ect and a few others that are still high on musical value but it seems like there are few of the more "traditional" trailer/music libraries left.
> 
> You can also get locked in the past too. Since most musical knowledge comes from exploring the work of past artist it's easy to not innovate at all. In that case then, one becomes dated very quickly. I have in the past fallen into this category were I refused to take into account new tools and stuck to the pen and paper and live musicians for everything and I went a long time before I could meet the demands of working in the industry. I was a very late adopter of sample based libraries and to this day even prefer to work away from samples. But, it is what it is. These tools are part of our landscape.
> 
> Example, I wrote a choir piece not using a DAW at all. Just straight into a notation program using and very bad piano sound. It was a great experience because I realized that I would spend an excruciatingly large amount of time fretting over each note, each bar, each dynamic until I got in printed music exactly what I was hearing. Now on the performance and recording that introduced another element and I didn't and couldn't get everything from the group I was using. So that got me thinking: First, I could put the care into a computer, samples and synths I would probably get better results than what I had been getting. Secondly, I would have to write for the strength of the ensemble. If my ensemble were samples and synths and sound design then I need to write for that and not some imagined real orchestra. I still imagine the real orchestra but if my libraries can't do it convincingly then I either need to get other libraries or if not possible, change the music to suit what I had. Much more practical way of thinking.
> 
> Not saying that my midi mockup stuff was bad just wasn't as good as when I had a live ensemble because the care and human factors were there with a live ensemble and they weren't there with samples (I am a people type of person so if you get people in front of me then I naturally have better understanding of what I'm after. Computers and sample libraries are dumb. That would frustrate me until I fully accepted in my own heart that the computer/library/synth, ect. will only be as good as what I personally put into it. I can't lean over to my computer and tell it to take that decrescendo down to niete. I'd have to slave over it for as long as it took to make it the way I wanted it. I hardly have the patience for that but it is what it is.
> 
> Long winded way of saying that in our hearts and in our minds we have to take a careful account of what type of composer we want to be? Do we want to be button pushers chasing after the next prefabbed library or do we want to create something that actually has some spiritual value to us as creative artist.
> 
> I am not saying that I have the answer for that other than now I'm more certain at my age that we have choices and you can use those choices creatively or you can use those choices in the dumbest manner possible. You can make a living in either way. I've made money on dumb stuff and also on smart stuff. I won't say what gets better accepted. But, I know for myself that my work has to have meaning to me and if it doesn't I won't waste my time on it.
> 
> I have a lot more to say on this and I may say it but for now. I think that's it.
> 
> --If interested link to the all live no samples, non-cinematic, choir piece I did where I slaved over every note but in the end got only 80% of what I wanted from the ensemble. Mostly the technical skill of the some of the singers weren't up to par with what I envisioned. I may record it with a different group because I think the piece has a lot of potential with the right group and can't be done with samples.



stalking your posts because it's good to see you back lol


----------



## marclawsonmusic

josejherring said:


>




Lovely music, @josejherring!


----------



## Ashermusic

Alex Fraser said:


> What is musical craft though? Is it knowing how to read the dots, harmony theory? Or is it having the imagination and skill to do something like this?



Craft is the ability to _consistently_ create what you hear in your head and not be totally dependent on inspiration.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

But inspiration ignites the creative process, no? What you hear in your head has been inspired by something, even subliminally.


----------



## Ashermusic

Wolfie2112 said:


> But inspiration ignites the creative process, no? What you hear in your head has been inspired by something, even subliminally.



Yes, but it does one no good if they are totally dependent on it. I have no idea what writer's bloc feels like because when I went to Boston Conservatory it was required of me to write at least a page every day. As a result, at any time I can create some music. Whether it is good or not, inspired or not, will be for the listener to decide, but it will make musical sense and will achieve its goal.


----------



## Parsifal666

Ashermusic said:


> Yes, but it does one no good if they are totally dependent on it. I have no idea what writer's bloc feels like because when I went to Boston Conservatory it was required of me to write at least a page every day. As a result, at any time I can create some music. Whether it is good or not, inspired or not, will be for the listener to decide, but it will make musical sense and will achieve its goal.



That's why I always recommend writing every day, regardless. The benefits are ongoing, at least in my experience.


----------



## toomanynotes

I’m a good formula one racer on industry simulator software, I can beat many top players, I’m i as good as a real F1 racer? Shall i call myself a Formula one contender even though i haven’t got into a F1 car? 
I gave my next door neighbour a video of the simulator recording, he says wow , ( cos he cldn’t tell the difference ).. so he’ll pay me £1000 just to see another race video. Now i’m getting paid, so i must be a F1 racer! ...no i’m not. .I am a simulator F1 racer, but wish I cld afford to buy the car to actually ride in one...if i can.....

I like to use the term Music Programmer to differentiate between a traditional Composer. I think they earned the right...wether they get paid or not.


----------



## Desire Inspires

toomanynotes said:


> I like to use the term Music Programmer to differentiate between a traditional Composer. I think they earned the right...wether they get paid or not.



Agreed.

I'm a total hack. But that isn't anything for me to feel bad about.


----------



## toomanynotes

Desire Inspires said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I'm a total hack. But that isn't anything for me to feel bad about.


Why should you feel bad? Respect is due to all operators of music.

The RAF have started employing drone pilots to be trained further for use in the military, excellent idea, imagine the dreams fulfilled- one day you will be flying real aircraft from a chair!! But I will call myself a drone pilot..seems some of you would consider you’ve earned the right to be called actual aviation fighter pilots? It’s just common sense.

Also I think there should be a new oscar catergory to recognise ‘Computer Musicians’


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

toomanynotes said:


> Also I think there should be a new oscar catergory to recognise ‘Computer Musicians’



I don't notate, but sequence all of my music. Does that make me a "computer musician" and not a composer? How you get the notes into your DAW is irrelevant, it's what comes out of the other side that counts...one has composed music. Can you honestly tell the difference?


----------



## toomanynotes

Wolfie2112 said:


> I don't notate, but sequence all of my music. Does that make me a "computer musician" and not a composer? How you get the notes into your DAW is irrelevant, it's what comes out of the other side that counts...one has composed music. Can you honestly tell the difference?


To me that part of the composing process make’s no difference, however If i was a conductor and asked to play your piece..I wouldn’t be too impressed if all you cld supply me with was midi notes. Anyone in an orchestra can notate. Why should’nt you be able to? I highly recommend reading music.

English is the world’s first language, we can give anyone instructions in the world because they know English as a second language. Does that mean I speak Chinese, russian or greek because they understand me? No it doesn’t. They do the translating not you...the midi keyboard is your translator. Therefore a Computer Musician.

Technology has gifted one the ability to write music. Back before the vst’s n midi keyboards, the only way equal to that wld been to whistle a tune and have some orchestrator and arranger to work with you 24/7. 

I am not saying it’s a bad thing, I’m just commenting on the paradox of calling one a traditional composer if they or she can’t read music or notate. Everyone has a mouth and can whistle.

Now everyone get together and lynch me.
Love Mozart


----------



## Parsifal666

You write music. You're a composer.


----------



## FriFlo

Parsifal666 said:


> You write music. You're a composer.


Exactly, that's is why the word composer doesn't mean anything substantial, if you go with that interpretation. Every idiot may call himself that ... again, imagine everybody could open an office and call himself a lawyer, an architect or any kind of profession that today requires some serious credits to even use the name ... that is the reason those professions have some reputation. 
Some people will always associate the great names with this profession. then the word has more meaning and uneducated people calling themselves composers become imposters. It is really only the definition of the word and a societies requirements to be allowed to lead the title that make the debate, here. For the title of a composer, there are zero requirements at all.


----------



## Parsifal666

Whenever I meet strangers and they ask me what I do I say "I'm a composer". The strangers typically ask "you mean like Beethoven?" 

One time, I nervously laughed and said "that's like a Ford Pinto calling itself a car only to have someone ask 'you mean like a Testa Rosa?'" I understandably got vacant looks after that.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

Generally I think semantics quibbling can be a massive waste of time and energy. I don't care if I'm a "composer". Musician, tone setter, music maker, noise master, sound shaman, fart noise recorder, whatever. 

Obviously there's different levels and depths of "composing". If someone has a worldview and ideological burden that demands that they adjudicate the status of "composer" from another guy, well, have at it I guess.

But it's a little bit like saying a person is not an athlete because they do triathlon and not soccer.


----------



## DS_Joost

Parsifal666 said:


> Whenever I meet strangers and they ask me what I do I say "I'm a composer". The strangers typically ask "you mean like Beethoven?"
> 
> One time, I nervously laughed and said "that's like a Ford Pinto calling itself a car only to have someone ask 'you mean like a Testa Rosa?'" I understandably got vacant looks after that.



You should've just said ''nah man my beatz are so fire that man can't touch deez notes!"


----------



## Parsifal666

DS_Joost said:


> You should've just said ''nah man my beatz are so fire that man can't touch deez notes!"



_Yo_ _*Yaow!*_


----------



## studiostuff

Why are we still composers...?


----------



## mikeh-375

studiostuff said:


> Why are we still composers...?



Excellent question.


----------



## Parsifal666

studiostuff said:


> Why are we still composers...?



People tell me it works good with the medication.


----------



## mikeh-375

Parsifal666 said:


> People tell me it works good with the medication.


My dear Richard W,
Isn't it more probable the medication is needed to do the job, such as it is these days?


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

toomanynotes said:


> To me that part of the composing process make’s no difference, however If i was a conductor and asked to play your piece..I wouldn’t be too impressed if all you cld supply me with was midi notes. Anyone in an orchestra can notate. Why should’nt you be able to? I highly recommend reading music.
> 
> English is the world’s first language, we can give anyone instructions in the world because they know English as a second language. Does that mean I speak Chinese, russian or greek because they understand me? No it doesn’t. They do the translating not you...the midi keyboard is your translator. Therefore a Computer Musician.
> 
> Technology has gifted one the ability to write music. Back before the vst’s n midi keyboards, the only way equal to that wld been to whistle a tune and have some orchestrator and arranger to work with you 24/7.
> 
> I am not saying it’s a bad thing, I’m just commenting on the paradox of calling one a traditional composer if they or she can’t read music or notate. Everyone has a mouth and can whistle.
> 
> Now everyone get together and lynch me.
> Love Mozart



I do read music, and have had to provide music for an orchestra a few times. I transcribed (slowly but surely) the easier pieces, but for the bigger ones I simply hired an arranger/orchestrator; he himself admitted he didn't write music, but is a whiz at transcribing and arranging, that's his gig. Danny Elfman is self-taught and had no formal musical training, he hires orchestrators, where do you classify him?

A composer is only only adding to his/her skills when learning about music (theory, performance, orchestration, etc), but at the end of the day we are still composers...period. Heck, even a hip-hop artist who writes their own material is a composer. I think your confusing the word "composer" with the stereotypical image of Bach writing on a manuscript with a quill, as the candle burns dimly next to him.


----------



## studiostuff

mikeh-375 said:


> My dear Richard W,
> Isn't it more probable the medication is needed to do the job, such as it is these days?



Such as the job is...? 

Or such as the medication is...?



Parsifal666 said:


> People tell me it works good with the medication.



I've heard that... usually from people selling me more medication.


----------



## mikeh-375

studiostuff said:


> Such as the job is...?
> 
> Or such as the medication is...?



The job, but yeah, maybe the other way round too, not that I'd know of course unless we are talking booze.


----------



## Ashermusic

If like me, you love Burt Bacharach...


EDIT:I can't open this link either, odd.

Go to YouTube and type in Burt Bacharach on Composing.


----------



## mikeh-375

Couldn't play that Jay, but yes I have all his albums. The brass riff at the key change in 'Promises Promises' is one of many stand out moments for me. I suspect I'm deviating from your intention in posting here, but had to mention that. The man was a great arranger too of course.


----------



## Ashermusic

He talks about how he hears the arrangement at the same time that he is composing.


----------



## mikeh-375

ahh yes. I'm bored of banging on about how important that is. Writing _for_ the instrument allows you to exploit its properties for maximum expression etc..composing and idiomatic writing are inextricably linked at the writing stage.


----------

