# ADVICE NEEDED! To train, or not to train?



## Oouzha (Feb 19, 2016)

I am thirty-seven years old and am mostly self-taught. I have been composing music for most of my life.

I've always been fiercely creative and as such my music has always had a unique voice, whatever the genre in which I might be composing.

I've decided to pursue music and elevate it from a spiritually edifying hobby to a vocation. Whether that means I am financially remunerated or not, I am not willing to compromise my uniqueness; I am putting it front and center as my primary work, even if I'm paid through other sources.

I have the opportunity to study with a formally trained composer under private tutelage. He is willing to teach me everything he knows, from counterpoint to advanced harmony to orchestration and much, much more. These lessons will be free as he is pleased to have me build and maintain a web presence for him in exchange.

I met with him today and after studying my music he warned me severely that he is concerned learning conventions will stifle my creativity and not enhance it. Moreover he feels that the beauty and value in my music is that it transcends such limitations already. Though I eagerly responded that I was not worried about consequences—such is my intense desire to learn—he would not accept an answer until I've meditated on it.

I feel that my creative voice is strong enough to use the rules or break them as appropriate to the dictates of the muse. But as a professional photographer I also see that by training myself to shoot in a certain style it is very difficult to create truly original work when the pathways are alreadt firmly in place.

So, my question: those of you who are trained, what is your advice? Those among you who have spurned training, are you happy that you did?

Any perspective is welcome.

Thank you! -Peter


----------



## Daryl (Feb 19, 2016)

Ultimately training can never stifle creativity. If it does, you never had any in the first place. It can lead to a loss of confidence, but that usually happens because you realise that you weren't actually as good as you thought you were. Some people never recover that confidence. Some people go on to reach unimaginable heights. Without knowing I can't say into which category you fall.


----------



## bbunker (Feb 19, 2016)

It's impossible to say objectively; it feels to me like asking someone who chose the steak at a restaurant if they would have preferred after the fact to have had the salmon - if they enjoyed what they had, they'll surely say no, and if they didn't then they will say yes. Even among 'trained' composers, any study with any one teacher will be different than another, and students will respond differently to the same teacher. So...well, it's good indeed to meditate on these topics, but I think you should take everything said (including my own words) with far more than a grain of salt.

I think of one historical example that comes to mind - Erik Satie. When he went to the conservatoire, no one wanted to teach him because he had already become pretty idiosyncratic - and probably arrogant and difficult to work with as well. Charles Koechlin took him up, and suggested to him that some of the materials which wouldn't be so necessary for his own unique style (such as much of the contrapuntal study) could be done away with. Satie refused - not only did he want the formalist, old-school training, but he wanted to drill it until he had mastered it. And master it he did - he was given some of the highest marks for counterpoint.

Do we remember Satie as a fine composer whose unique vision was destroyed by study? No, of course not - his voice not only survived the rigors of training but adapted and became more powerful. Now Satie wasn't just unique - this was a time when Debussy was considered a bit 'out' - he was thought of as downright bizarre. Satie didn't come out worsened - he came out as the same individual voice, but with training. I would take some comfort from that.


----------



## Farkle (Feb 19, 2016)

I have trained and studied all my life (and still do, private lessons with Craig Sharmat/EIS). I do this because I love everything about music, I want to learn as much as I can about this art and craft. I also want to learn as much about it, so that I can write more music, in a better structure.

But you have to have the right teachers. The right teachers will show you techniques as a gateway to composition, and (more importantly) emotionally and creatively support you as you write. The best teachers are ones who understand that you are learning to compose, not learning to theorize.

So, my issue has always been, once I learn theory, I don't try to put it into play immediately in a composition. So, while you are training, constantly try to put those ideas into action. Use different genres, different ensembles, always look at your latest lesson as a "tool" to write a short piece with.

If you do that, then the training (in my opinion) is completely worthwhile.


----------



## Oouzha (Feb 19, 2016)

T


Farkle said:


> I have trained and studied all my life (and still do, private lessons with Craig Sharmat/EIS). I do this because I love everything about music, I want to learn as much as I can about this art and craft. I also want to learn as much about it, so that I can write more music, in a better structure.
> 
> But you have to have the right teachers. The right teachers will show you techniques as a gateway to composition, and (more importantly) emotionally and creatively support you as you write. The best teachers are ones who understand that you are learning to compose, not learning to theorize.
> 
> ...



Thank you all for your words so far. Your sentiments resonate with my intuition on this matter.


----------



## Farkle (Feb 19, 2016)

I think you'll be in great shape to do lessons, then. And, trust your instincts about your teacher. If what he's teaching you feels right, if you walk away from a lesson stimulated and excited, then he's a good teacher for you. If you're frustrated, depressed, and dispirited, then he or she is not a good teacher for you.

I left a PhD program in composition because the teachers were not good for my development as a composer. Conversely, I've studied with people for 6-7 years (and still do) because they are inspirational for my development as a composer.

Trust yourself, and trust how you feel after a lesson.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 19, 2016)

if you train to learn new tricks you should be fine. Just don't fix what you've already written. There is a lot of nonsense in formal music education. It can be very oft putting especially as there tends to be a "learn the rules verbatim"...."now break them !" approach. And history is replete with great composers struggling to keep the teachers happy before finally giving in and doing what they wanted. Though there is a lot of very valuable information you can get from books, listening and studying on your own; sometimes it is more enjoyable to have help.

A key component in all this is your teacher. I was lucky . After years of dreary nonsense I found a great teacher ( David Conte ) and learned a lot. A good test is to bring in some music you love and say " I'd like to get to grips with the language used in this !" . I took in " North By Northwest".....great lesson.


good luck

e


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 19, 2016)

Bach's personal style of composition was already considered old fashion back in his lifetime, but if he offered to teach you for free would you do it?


----------



## Oouzha (Feb 19, 2016)

Rodney Money said:


> Bach's personal style of composition was already considered old fashion back in his lifetime, but if he offered to teach you for free would you do it?



If afterwards I never sounded like me again, but only like Bach, then, no. But if I could incorporate Bach into my style as I chose, then of course.

I think my teacher has seen creative voices get smothered by formal training, hence his concern. But at this point I'm feeling strongly that my creative instinct is resilient enough to not be diluted to pure imitation and I'm going to go for it.


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 19, 2016)

Oouzha said:


> If afterwards I never sounded like me again, but only like Bach, then, no. But if I could incorporate Bach into my style as I chose, then of course.
> 
> I think my teacher has seen creative voices get smothered by formal training, hence his concern. But at this point I'm feeling strongly that my creative instinct is resilient enough to not be diluted to pure imitation and I'm going to go for it.


Bach's own sons did not sound like him, but like themselves... but more mature.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 19, 2016)

Keep in mind that "sounding like me" isn't static. We grow. We change. We age. Our art reflects this.

Consider Ian Anderson in Jethro Tull. They started out as a blues band. It took until their fourth album before Anderson could create classics like Aqualung, Cross-Eyed Mary, and Locomotive Breath. Before long, he moved on, playing the classics for fans but really preferring to play his later, more complex stuff.

Can rich men still play the blues? Do you want to hear a senior citizen perform their new song about teen love?

I say learn. Bring some new elements into your style and reject others. Take it to the next level - and keep doing that year after year. You can always branch in new directions, come back to the core, strip things down to minimalism, or fuse things together in ways that nobody expected.

But don't be static. After we die, we get eternity to be static, or so some believe.


----------



## Oouzha (Feb 19, 2016)

JonFairhurst said:


> Keep in mind that "sounding like me" isn't static. We grow. We change. We age. Our art reflects this.
> 
> Consider Ian Anderson in Jethro Tull. They started out as a blues band. It took until their fourth album before Anderson could create classics like Aqualung, Cross-Eyed Mary, and Locomotive Breath. Before long, he moved on, playing the classics for fans but really preferring to play his later, more complex stuff.
> 
> ...



This is great, thank you.


----------



## pmountford (Feb 19, 2016)

A few years back I started private composition lessons with a uni lecturer as I wanted to develop my self taught style. For quite sometime it actually made me stop writing for my own classical (strings/woodwind/keys) ensemble. I started to question everything I wrote, pick faults and felt anything I started just wasnt 'good enough'. In short it stopped me from composing classical music for sometime. (I had to ignore the self doubt for the film composing in the meantime though otherwise I would have output nothing...and I do believe that film music is a different ballgame most of the time. Having said that it has made me realise how empty so much film & tv music is). But now Ive come through this process and it has opened my mind and I do feel enlightened - aware that there's always going to be so much to learn from the masters but confident in the knowledge of a better understanding in how to develop and structure music. So it was a necessary step for me and so thankful I went through it...and I shall continue to develop and learn. Having said that we are all different and Im not sure it is necessary for everyone. It really depends on where and what direction you want to go.


----------



## Oouzha (Feb 19, 2016)

pmountford said:


> A few years back I started private composition lessons with a uni lecturer as I wanted to develop my self taught style. For quite sometime it actually made me stop writing for my own classical (strings/woodwind/keys) ensemble. I started to question everything I wrote, pick faults and felt anything I started just wasnt 'good enough'. In short ...



Thanks for sharing your story! That's right on and actually encouraging.


----------



## Oouzha (Feb 19, 2016)

The thing that drives me the most to study with him is that I WANT to. As it is, I've been soaking up everything I can about formal composition, reading Rimsky-Korsakov's Orchestration, gradus ad parnassum, YouTube videos, you name it. I just WANT to learn. Badly. That means something.


----------



## kclements (Feb 19, 2016)

First of all, I believe the only one/thing that can stifle creativity is you. Think about a writer, would it stifle their creativity by increasing their vocabulary? You can choose to use the stuff or not and how to incorporate it into your process.

2) you can only sound like you. No matter what you learn or how hard you study, you can only be you. No one else has your life experiences, so they can't write like you, and you can never write like them. You can emulate, but that's about it.

3) I agree with Mike. You need to have the right teacher. I recently started taking lessons again. My first teacher was great and taught me a lot. But after a bit I realized that his focus was different than mine. So I switched to another teacher and it's a much better fit. I feel motivated to use what I'm learning in my writing instead of just learning the material and doing the exercises. 

My advice, You have to gel with the teacher and have the same goals, or move on to someone else.

-k


----------



## afterlight82 (Feb 19, 2016)

This really gets down to the core of "what is successful music" in the sense of why does a piece of music "function" the way it does? A good composition teacher is a companion, a friend on the road to discovering how your music can be clearer, free of needless waste, taut...but it's not a requirement. You can learn the same path by seeing how other composers successfully navigated those problems with their own material and apply it to your own. All musical form - ever - evolved due to the fact that it worked on a fundamental level...a recapitulation in a sonata isn't there to tick some box, it's there because it elicits an emotional response based on expectation and lots of composers figured out that that was a very effective shape. The same goes for every harmonic or musical "rule" ever devised; they only came about because they were _effective_. Therefore it is also true that to "break" musical "rules" what one is really doing is finding something equally - or more - effective for your material.

You need to understand what your expectations are and what your audience's expectations are and how you can at once confound them and fulfill them. This is why it's perfectly possible to be a fantastic composer and never have a composition "lesson"...it's about absorbing why music functions the way it does - and you can certainly be shown that by someone but at some point only one's own curiosity can take you deeper. There's no upside or downside, it's just a different perspective. When you play any person your music you are taking a composition lesson and when you listen to any piece of music at any time ever you are "training". The key is to open your ears to what is going on and really to listen and ask questions of yourself. _How_ is this piece built? _How_ was this done? This should be your daily question. An architect walks into a nice house and starts trying to understand how it was designed. A composer is the same with music. Training is simply asking "how"? It's awesome to be shown another person's perspective on how something was done, and potentially to show someone your work in progress so they can ask questions of it (which is what good composition teachers do...they ask you why things are the way they are). But it is not a path solely open to those with a guide, and there are many maps - though walking it with a guide is equally valid and, most importantly, can get you over the difficult bits that might cause you to give up.


----------



## Oouzha (Feb 19, 2016)

afterlight82 said:


> This really gets down to the core of "what is successful music" in the sense of why does a piece of music "function" the way it does? A good composition teacher is a companion, a friend on the road to discovering how your music can be clearer, free of needless waste, taut...but it's not a requirement. You can learn the same path by seeing how other composers successfully navigated those problems with their own material and apply it to your own. All musical form - ever - evolved due to the fact that it worked on a fundamental level...a recapitulation in a sonata isn't there to tick some box, it's there because it elicits an emotional response based on expectation and lots of composers figured out that that was a very effective shape. The same goes for every harmonic or musical "rule" ever devised; they only came about because they were _effective_. Therefore it is also true that to "break" musical "rules" what one is really doing is finding something equally - or more - effective for your material.
> 
> You need to understand what your expectations are and what your audience's expectations are and how you can at once confound them and fulfill them. This is why it's perfectly possible to be a fantastic composer and never have a composition "lesson"...it's about absorbing why music functions the way it does - and you can certainly be shown that by someone but at some point only one's own curiosity can take you deeper. There's no upside or downside, it's just a different perspective. When you play any person your music you are taking a composition lesson and when you listen to any piece of music at any time ever you are "training". The key is to open your ears to what is going on and really to listen and ask questions of yourself. _How_ is this piece built? _How_ was this done? This should be your daily question. An architect walks into a nice house and starts trying to understand how it was designed. A composer is the same with music. Training is simply asking "how"? It's awesome to be shown another person's perspective on how something was done, and potentially to show someone your work in progress so they can ask questions of it (which is what good composition teachers do...they ask you why things are the way they are). But it is not a path solely open to those with a guide, and there are many maps - though walking it with a guide is equally valid and, most importantly, can get you over the difficult bits that might cause you to give up.



I love this group. Thank you for your thoughtful response. Of course you're absolutely right.


----------



## afterlight82 (Feb 19, 2016)

Another quick way to think of it...imagine you want to build a house. Sure, you can build it without regard for other people's successful (or unsuccessful attempts)...but you will gradually learn things and have to go through some failures that you might not have to go through otherwise. If you give a kid some blocks and say build a house, they'll often build one with a flat roof by putting some blocks on top across the gap of the walls. But anybody building a full-scale house for living in will quickly learn that a flat roof is a bad idea, because rainwater will pool on the top and you get leaks and a rotting roof. Which is why most houses don't have flat roofs, but sloping roofs with gutters.

One could ask oneself the hypothetical question...is it "unoriginal" architecture to be told "hey, by the way, don't make your roof flat because it will cause rainwater to pool and damage? Is an architect less creatively valuable because they learned that by looking at other people's houses as opposed to by building one and realizing it was a technical disaster?

Are there other ways to solve the problem? Maybe...maybe some sealing material. But how does that look? That's the question. There's two halves - there's the technical (nobody wants a leaky house) and the aesthetic (how does each of them look?). It's not about whether learning technique will stifle your aesthetics...it's about the interplay of the two. We all have preset things in our mind musically...if you play a keyboard instrument, your hands will naturally fall in a certain place, whereas a guitar players fall in a different place. We have many subconscious "limitations" on our music, from the very moment we start learning about music. The thing is...they're _not_ limitations. They're just signposts on the way to your personal voice. Our personal experiences are part of what makes our voice, and if your next experience is to study with that guy, that WILL push you down certain paths. That will become part of your musical voice.


----------



## pmountford (Feb 20, 2016)

Absolutely agree with the eloquantly put comments from Afterlight82. It is about listening and training your ears which is what we do subconciously anyhow when listening to music. I was told to change my listening habbits for starters to retune my ears! Whether you then seek help in understanding what youre hearing and learning is the question and I think it is easier and more rewarding if you do find a tutor. But one who understands what you are seeking and not just studying theory for the sake of.


----------



## chibear (Feb 20, 2016)

By training you will be adding tools to your musical 'tool box', giving you more and varied ways to approach a project. The only downside for that is if you were to become enamoured with a certain tool and tried to use it in places it didn't really work.

To illustrate using afterlight's construction analogy, years ago I bought a Shopsmith mega-multi tool. I did and still love this contraption and of course tried to use it in places where it just didn't really make sense, spending hours making jigs and fixtures to do this and that, until an old pro carpenter I was building my house with watched and asked 'so why didn't you just use a hand saw?' Training should also give you perspective.

BTW I did design my house with a flat roof area, against 'professional' advice. The answer is here: http://www.flatroofsolutions.com


----------



## Oouzha (Feb 22, 2016)

Thank you all for your thoughtful advice. I start lessons on Wednesday. 

Wish me luck that it is a fruitful relationship & thanks again.


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 22, 2016)

Oouzha said:


> I am thirty-seven years old and am mostly self-taught. I have been composing music for most of my life.
> 
> I've always been fiercely creative and as such my music has always had a unique voice, whatever the genre in which I might be composing.
> 
> ...



Learning new things might push you to new creative areas you might not have seen before.


----------



## wst3 (Feb 22, 2016)

the short version, for me at least, is that there is no such thing as too many tools. If you learn something, a species of counterpoint, and you can't find a use for it today then don't use it. You'll probably already know why you won't use it in fact.

I continue to study music, to the extent that I can, and I continue to learn, and I continue to expand my unique voice, and I think that's a win.

Probably the coolest thing about studying is discovering why one's unique voice works<G>!


----------

