# Who needs to study music anyways?



## dcoscina (Feb 25, 2008)

So here I am, feeling like a shlub for wasting all of my time, money, and brain cells on trying to learn more about compositional technique when all this while I could have simply gotten in touch with my emotions and creativity. 

I mean really! I feel even more stupid for studying those dumb books by Samuel Adler and Kent Kennan or even more vacuous writings of Walter Piston on Harmony. What a load! Worse yet, pouring over conductor's scores of Mahler's, Ravel, Debussy, Bartok, and Beethoven (not to mention Haydn to learn more about Symphonic form). What a twit!

I simply have to face reality that the best composers are ones who aren't constrained by archetypal formal constructs. To know less is to be more I say. I dearly wish I could go back in time and undo all of the training I had in counterpoint and harmony along with my jazz studies (who the hell studies jazz anyhow? It's a vibe man, cool).

I had thought of trying a career in film composition when I was younger and did work on a few projects but I guess my formalist mentality of what good music was got in the way of my full potential. Instead of wasting all that time in university, I should have networked more, tried to get into Media Ventures and listen (and do) everything that Hans Zimmer told me to do. I mean, this cat is phatt. Move over John Williams with all of your notes and runs and flourishes! Seriously! I mean that Gustavo Santaolalla could teach him a thing or two. He won back-to-back Oscars.

I'm glad I have all these sample libraries at least. That way I can at least sound close to what is out there. But I am at a disadvantage since those libraries don't cost much anymore and any one could be a seriously awesome composer. Who cares about ranges of instruments or voice leading? I wish I didn't! Then my music would sound fresher and more original. 

Oh well, is there any remedy for my problem guys?


----------



## synthetic (Feb 25, 2008)

Georgio Moroder won an Oscar too. When was his last score? 

The more you know, the longer you last, it seems. Johnny and Jerry sure had long careers


----------



## Stephen W (Feb 25, 2008)

what you mean _method_ man? there's a madeira to my madness -- rogu'issimo goliard :twisted: 

_have quill, will bleed..._


----------



## nikolas (Feb 25, 2008)

Dave,

Do you think it's the education at fault in your case? If anything is at fault that is!

you know many things now and you know how to compose! Have you tried many times to find gigs and failed? Or only assume you will fail? Why not start now? Networking, working, metting people, etc? I really can't see any sitback on knowing a lot, or being educated... 

What you know and do shows in your music! The business is not about knowing or education, we all know that, but being able, and this HAS a little to do with education (wtihout being the only thing, of course).

So, I would suggest you chassing hard for some gigs, in whatever sector you want. Games, films, tv, documentaries, ads, whatever. Just chase it down HARD! FAST! EFFECTIVELY!


----------



## Jaap (Feb 25, 2008)

In my opinion knowledge is power in the music and it makes you very flexible. 

First of all I firmly believe that knowing what you do gives you an advantage on the long-term. You can easily adept to a client since if somebody asks you to compose like Mozart, then you run of to your table and compose like Mozart.
Of course somebody who isn't trained can do it as well maybe, but you don't have to invent that wheel since you have a good knowledge from your study.

Also I think it is good that if you believe in making music progressing and develop it that you have to know what has happened in the past.
You cannot simply decide at one day that you are going to build the new Ferrari engine and make it better. To build it and to make it better you have to have good knowledge of the old one to see what was good and what can be throwned away and what can be build entirely new.

Also a good thing about studying music is finding out what you DON'T want. As much as important as knowing what you want


----------



## poseur (Feb 25, 2008)

i don't ever understand why one might
place these two approaches to film-scoring (or, *music*)
into mutually exclusive bins:
why bother to do so?
one can do what they prefer.
in my case, 
i see the application of education
to the use of my intuition as integrative,
and suspect that my "education" will be lifelong,
as it's been thus far.
(54yrs on the planet, in my case.)

i'm moderately well-educated:
and i continue, with that,
by both desire & necessity.

simultaneously, i remain focussed upon allowing my
music enough a-formal bandwidth to become
what it needs to be,
inside and/or outside any (¿presumably?) consensual standards of
"academic" validation,
with my intuition & feelings
pretty much intact..... in my need to serve the picture,
or, with no picture:
my need to serve the music,
and my own intentions, re: expressivity.

if the director is happy and some semblance of our
co-developed "vision" has been executed well enough
to hold to whatever my standards may be in that
particular case, well..... that's good, for me.

and, not to derail, but:
i often wonder if
maybe it's possible that there are quite a few 
film composers who might benefit, educationally,
from simply becoming more literate,
more absorbed in what they prefer
in the art of the development of storytelling:
plot, sub-plot(s), parallel plotting, character(s), foils, perspectives, intentions
and their attendant arcs-over-time within the plays
that we, finally, serve.
just a thought.

still:
i still have no clue why education & intuition
would 'ere be pitted against each other.....
it's just silly, imo.

d


----------



## lux (Feb 25, 2008)

hmm... everything needs study and pratice.

Anyone who thinks that being a trance, ambient, electronica, rock, metal, pop, tango, latino...whatever successful composer/artist means playin it easy, clearly hasnt been deeply into any of those genres.

knowledge serves the scope of avoiding falling annoyed and helps expressing better, and being flexible, as pointed out. That sometimes makes a difference.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 25, 2008)

I'm leaving it up to my future orchestrator to learn all this formal music stuff, this way I have more free time to hit the road as a travelling freelance gynecologist/dog whisperer.


----------



## lux (Feb 25, 2008)

any hint about who's going to be your future orchestrator?


----------



## David A (Feb 25, 2008)

Where did you study Dave? You interned with Hans?


----------



## synthetic (Feb 25, 2008)

The minimalist thing is in style right now. In another year it will be on to something else, and the guys who can only do minimalism will be flipping burgers.


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 25, 2008)

dcoscina @ Mon Feb 25 said:


> So here I am, feeling like a shlub for wasting all of my time, money, and brain cells on trying to learn more about compositional technique when all this while I could have simply gotten in touch with my emotions and creativity.
> 
> I mean really! I feel even more stupid for studying those dumb books by Samuel Adler and Kent Kennan or even more vacuous writings of Walter Piston on Harmony. What a load! Worse yet, pouring over conductor's scores of Mahler's, Ravel, Debussy, Bartok, and Beethoven (not to mention Haydn to learn more about Symphonic form). What a twit!
> 
> ...



Hmmmmm, well I think the same about school. Man, 13 years of school ... and what for? Nothing! 

I don't do any integral math formulas with 3 unknown values, nor do I try to find and will never need to work with chemical formulas. What a waste!!

Also if I would spent the money on libs now, what I paid in my life for guitar lessons plus my year and studying in L.A.
Wow, I could buy at least 5 times the whole VSL stuff.

Yeh, you are probably right. We should all not waste our time with learning, but just trying to network and win some Oscars ...

Also why spend money on plugs and gear anyway, if you can download anything for free from the net. Do customers and all those buyers of our products hear the difference between an Avalon 12.000 Dollar hardware EQ or the internal crap-EQ of Cubase?

Sorry if this post sounds a bit snippy, but honestly. Do you really think that you can do all that what you can do now, without doing and learning what you have done before?
Of course you can say that now, but ...

Reminds me a bit of that egg of the Columbus.

I personally don't miss any minute of what I've learned in the past, because everything brought something at a certain point in my life .... but well, there are people who know just everything without learning ever. Pure talents


----------



## woodywoodstock (Feb 25, 2008)

Well, I think it's correct to say, that you are a "product" of everything you've learned you've done (good and bad), all you've sensed and (not least) you have inherited. But what if you are not lucky with the status quo (maybe that's his point) ? I can imagine that all the knowledge one can have about composition can handicap your creativity, but I think at this point it is maybe a good advice to get in touch with inspirational techniques (I don't know any, but there are for sure some) and don't damn all the worthy things you have learned, look at them differently - like a treasure....  I hope this makes sense....

woody


----------



## rJames (Feb 25, 2008)

I getting really confused trying to separate the facetious remarks from the serious ones...

then I read this which I think is serious


Niah @ Mon Feb 25 said:


> synthetic @ Mon Feb 25 said:
> 
> 
> > Studying music is nothing more than emulating what others have done before you



Niah, this is exactly what hooked me into EIS. It is not about previously concieved music. Not at all. It is a study of various methods of combining notes over time or vertically all at once.

No mention of composers (except for the author and previous students). And rarely are you looking at someone else's music...but creating your own.

Sorry, I had another EIS moment...forgive me.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 25, 2008)

doscina, the answer is simply to drop a big stone on your head. You'll be free of all the annoying knowledge you've worked so hard to attain, and you'll be in touch with your primitive emotions.

Especially the emotion known as PAIN...


----------



## almacg (Feb 25, 2008)

If you want to be a brilliant composer, you NEED to study music AND be born with a fantastic musical ear. 
It depends on your goal: If you simply want to write music like Zimmer that don't bother with training. If you want to write transcendant masterpieces than of course you need to study theory intensively!


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 25, 2008)

Wow, I cannot believe anyone except Nick picked up the sarcasm of my post! 

Of course I do not regret studying. It made me know more about something that moves me emotionally, and stimulates me cerebrally.

My facetious remarks were to point out how film composing does not necessarily require the level of knowledge that it used to. Or perhaps composing in general. I know that writing for concert hall you cannot get away with using orchestrators or arrangers (unless you're Danny Elfman or Elliot Goldenthal- weird). But the use for music *is* different.

I like what someone said earlier about Goldsmith and Williams' staying power in the industry because of the expansive music knowledge.

Mind you, my initial post did get some interesting responses so thanks all for lending you thoughts on the matter. It's curious that Nick was the only one who seemed to "get" my overt sarcasm....EDIT- rJames got it too! Heh.


----------



## rJames (Feb 25, 2008)

dcoscina @ Mon Feb 25 said:


> Wow, I cannot believe anyone except Nick picked up the sarcasm of my post!
> EDIT- rJames got it too! Heh.



I was all ready to give you one of these... :evil: or one of these :x I hadn't decided yet...


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 25, 2008)

David A @ Mon Feb 25 said:


> Where did you study Dave? You interned with Hans?



I studied with him for 3 years:






A fascinating compò1   q*”1   q*•1   q*–1   q*—1   q*˜1   q*™1   q*š1   q*›1   q*œ1   q*1   q*ž1   q*Ÿ1   q* 1   q*¡1   q*¢1   q*£1   q*¤1   q*¥1   q*¦1   q*§1   q*¨1   q*©1   q*ª1   q*«1


----------



## almacg (Feb 25, 2008)

dcoscina @ Tue 26 Feb said:


> Wow, I cannot believe anyone except Nick picked up the sarcasm of my post!



I got it! Although my response might give the impression that I didn't, it was actually a facetious remark, and I can't believe you didn't pick up on this! :mrgreen: 

Actually, I'm lying. I really didn't get it! I think I must have Asperges syndrome!


----------



## Scott Rogers (Feb 25, 2008)

..........


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 25, 2008)

"This is an unfortunate misconception held by some; that the end result of studying music is to emulate what others have done before you"

I can't imagine that idea being held by anyone who has studied music!


----------



## aeneas (Feb 25, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Mon 25 Feb said:


> Here is a partial list of great composers with unique musical personalities who studied the scores of other composers intensely:
> 
> Josquin
> ...
> ...


Yeah yeah, but who's made it in H-wood, baby, who's made it in H-wood? You want a list? I can give you three!!

@Niah: Don't put it at heart. That was just a list with a bunch of dead composers. You just follow your heart and make your own list - a one-name list. Wouldn't that be cool? - A list with only your name on it! Just follow you heart, man, that's all that counts. Go your own way - like in that Fran Xinatra song: "i did it - [break, pause, audience is frozen, mouth open, breathless] ... - MMYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY WAAAAAAAAAA[burst of applauses, ovations]AAAAYYY"[ovations continue, fade out]


----------



## nikolas (Feb 25, 2008)

dcoscina @ Tue Feb 26 said:


> Wow, I cannot believe anyone except Nick picked up the sarcasm of my post!


You know mate.

Ok, education sucks, etc and you don' t need that!

But you really need to go to http://www.SARCASMopenuniversity.com (www.SARCASMopenuniversity.com) and learn a bit more about that! Ya know???!? Cause nobody could tell that and I was hugely dissapointed with you.... :(

(Of course I'm kidding, but I was fooled alright and honestly worried! )


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 25, 2008)

lux @ Mon Feb 25 said:


> any hint about who's going to be your future orchestrator?



I'm going to have a team of Thomas J, Nicholas Dodd, Brad Dechter, and maybe Chris P. Bacon just because he sounds very delicious.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 25, 2008)

choc0thrax @ Tue 26 Feb said:


> lux @ Mon Feb 25 said:
> 
> 
> > any hint about who's going to be your future orchestrator?
> ...





dcoscina @ Mon 25 Feb said:


> any one could be a seriously awesome composer.


Right. It depends on one's budget managing skills.


----------



## Jaap (Feb 26, 2008)

dcoscina @ Tue Feb 26 said:


> Wow, I cannot believe anyone except Nick picked up the sarcasm of my post!



Mmmm sorry I missed it completely :mrgreen:


----------



## lux (Feb 26, 2008)

choc0thrax @ Mon Feb 25 said:


> lux @ Mon Feb 25 said:
> 
> 
> > any hint about who's going to be your future orchestrator?
> ...



sounds yummy. dont forget to take a shot of the team sessions. may I send you a demo? i would love to select music for your iPod while you wait for the work done.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 26, 2008)

choc0thrax @ Tue Feb 26 said:


> lux @ Mon Feb 25 said:
> 
> 
> > any hint about who's going to be your future orchestrator?
> ...


Why don't you go the whole hog and get them to write the music as well. This will save you having to learn anything. :roll: 

D


----------



## Scott Cairns (Feb 26, 2008)

Others have alluded to this already, but if your goal is to be a successful *film-scorer* then adjust training/ideas/knowledge to make it happen.

If you want to be a film composer in the ilk of John Williams, having your scores remembered as symphonic works of art - keep studying music - hard!

If you want to be a film composer that *uses music to serve the film* and elevate the emotional experience for the watcher - start learning how to read the emotional intent of a scene. Find ways to nail the meaning musically, show listeners what to feel with your music.

I honestly believe, that many aspiring film composers dont have the skill to supporting a film musically. Its a talent that I think is somewhat innate, it probably gets better with practice, but you have to have it to begin with.

BTW, despite your sarcasm, i sense some frustration  Hence my post.

And lastly, the old Zimmer bashing that occurs from time to time; people may not agree that he's a great composer, but he is a great *film* composer. If he didnt better a film through his choices musically, he wouldve been out of Hollywood years ago.

Thats my 0.02c


----------



## StrangeCat (Feb 26, 2008)

life is a study and you constantly lean from it. Music is a study, there is just to many damn styles to learn! 
I have been studying my ass off with Celtic music I went form some many styles to now Celtic (of course i could already compose Celtic)but still have to learn more about celtic styles.

Yea you have to study music you have study the damn instruments to make sure you are doing there ranges right plus player techniques(very important)

Listen to something if you like it study it.

As a composer you should be able to compose in any style for any instrument and have your own voice and style for whatever you choose to write. 
Yes you should be able to do this if you can't then you need to study it up!
This includes beats of all styles(since beats make up that style)
then ethnic styles and there instrumentation
and orchestration styles(even cliche' romantic film music)
and piano , vocal, etc etc etc. Because in the end it's all related to each other
.
Keep studying^_-

Also studying just studying isn't going to do it, you have to try and create what you are studying, if your studying Jazz then through down some walking bass and larger harmonic extensions and improvise on that(what modes are you playing how is the bass note the note that is defining the chord all that )
so studying= trying to create that music your studying.
As Japanese say Benkyou Benkyou! Mou!

People go to school and study piano for five years and only play music from dead composers LOL!!!


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 26, 2008)

hey Scott, thanks for the email. I guess I'm a little frustrated just because my professional music ambitions don't match my quest for music knowledge. Hence, it's hard to get work because I'm more interested in knowing more about perfecting my technique than fuss with micro-managing tone deaf directors/producers. I was making headway in film composition in the '90s and I elected to withdraw from it because it wasn't rewarding enough and I found that my music technique was atrophying with every project I took that constrained me into writing non-descript sound washes- BORING!

However, I did receive nominations for my efforts so I was obviously doing something right. My initial attraction to film scoring was because I heard great music coming from the likes of John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, Alex North, Lalo Schifrin, John Barry, Elliot Goldenthal, etc. I figured it was also one of the few areas that I could have orchestral pieces played WELL. I've heard more good pieces of fellow composers raped by poor readings by semi-pro orchestras. 

however, it's obvious that the trends in film scoring are turning away from musicality and have moved towards more exaggerated sound design. If that's what filmmakers want, than that's what they want. It's weird that those who believe firmly in this approach feel the need to invalidate the other 60 years of film scoring that encompassed both a huge degree of musicality with a faithful adherence to the narrative. It's not like directors like John Ford, Franklin J Schaffner, Sergei Eisenstein, Akira Kurosawa, Steven Spielberg, Alfred Hitchcock, etc. were less musically aware than our current crop of Michael Bays. In fact, it's the exact opposite which is why the industry is in the state it's in. 

And don't get me started on filmmakers' lack of FILM technique because their ineptitudes are grossly apparent in almost every part of their styles (I studied film theory and technique in university BECAUSE I knew that being a successful film composer meant knowing as much about film as music).

Anyhow, I appreciate the concern. My despondency was largely exaggerated in the cloak of sarcasm but a kernel of it is true that I'm frustrated to a degree. Not just for myself but for audiences and musicians alike. This "evolution" of music for film is hopefully a fad or trend like disco and funk were in the '70s and synth pop was for scores in the '80s. Interestingly, the '90s saw a resurgence in orchestral film scores and largely modernist techniques thanks in no small part to Elliot Goldenthal. Wish he'd score more films.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 26, 2008)

Daryl @ Tue Feb 26 said:


> choc0thrax @ Tue Feb 26 said:
> 
> 
> > lux @ Mon Feb 25 said:
> ...



Well I didn't think i'd have to ask them, I figure it's implied that they'd co-compose a lot of it. I'm sure Dodd doesn't know how to just orchestrate without composing most of the score by now. ~o)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 26, 2008)

"I honestly believe, that many aspiring film composers dont have the skill to supporting a film musically. Its a talent that I think is somewhat innate, it probably gets better with practice, but you have to have it to begin with."

Well, at Berklee they've been teaching that skill just like anything else since the 70s.


----------



## lux (Feb 26, 2008)

if every music graduate, even at Berklee, was a talent 90% of the guys out there would just finish selling hot dogs because of saturation.


----------



## Hannes_F (Feb 26, 2008)

I think what can drive people away from an organized study is the fact that besides all the skills and knowledge there is another aspect: the teaching personnel and the (more or less hierarchical) interaction with them.

I have seen great professors and teachers during my study, but sometimes also have had quite some fightings. For learning effectively you have to trust in your teachers and not always this is appropriate. As most of us know there are schools and opinions about everything, and certain people ride their own horse so much that you need to get distance. 

I have met teaching personnel that desperately tried to escape aging by sleeping with every female student or even school orchestra member they could get hold on. Others were notorical drinkers. Many of them were deeply frustrated about their carreer and about the general appreciation of music in our society.

In that time I developed a certain aversion against hierarchical competence that is not backed by professional competence. This is a reason why I can partly understand why some people don't like the idea of an organized study - even though I graduated in two of them.


----------



## David A (Feb 26, 2008)

David, I agree with you on the issue of music being reduced to a banal almost sound design-ish role-this frustrates the hell out of me too, and I really dont think it benefits anyone in most cases. 

Have you had sessions where your music was played poorly? If anything Id have thought the film music industry in LA allows access to the very best musicians in the world! Then there are so many other factors that come into performance....

Dave


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 26, 2008)

Hi David,

I work andl ive in Toronto Canada so money for big orchestras up here is non-existent (which is why I'm happy to own EWQLSO Platinum and VSL). The sessions that used real musicians weren't bad but they were not quite as good as I had heard in my mind. The cello player on one of my sessions said my demo was pretty damn good and this was using an ancient ROland M-SE1 string module. She liked that I used double stops. 

right now I'nm trying to get a concert work I wrote last year played by a superb community orchestra. It's not super difficult but the piano part might be challenging for the pianist.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 26, 2008)

"if every music graduate, even at Berklee, was a talent 90% of the guys out there would just finish selling hot dogs because of saturation."

Guess what? There are far more talented people who can do a great job than there are jobs today. 90% of us do end up making our living doing other things. 99% is more likely the correct figure - and that's for everything in the arts, not just writing music.

It takes a combination of factors, internal and external, to make a successful career as a composer. I know, I spent ten years struggling before landing the job at Recording magazine. In my case the main problem was that I didn't have the confidence I have now when I was in my 20s, and as a result I wasn't able to sell myself very convincingly. While I had some success, I wasn't able to keep working steadily.

But I don't mean to make it sound like I've given up, because I still get some gigs. It's just that John Williams did most of the Harry Potter films, not me.

And yet I think I'm still able to contribute to the world in my own way, and I'm not selling hot dogs. It's all about finding your niche.


----------



## lux (Feb 26, 2008)

i agree about the contribution thing.

I'm one of those though with a strict believe in talent, whatever talent. 

To me but Is something u feel when you hear an ugly guy or girl with just a guitar in hand and an avergage voice, doing simple thiings on a formal standpoint, and you still cant resist thinking "wow": Talent.

perhaps talent is like the g-spot thing or Roswell...


----------



## nikolas (Feb 26, 2008)

Luca, can you define talent, please, before I move on to the discussion? Because I'm the exact opposite, don't believe in talent but hard work, family, circumstances and education, as well as luck (but not very very much in luck, apart from the very basic to where you are born, and by which parents).

Talent, as everything else in life, can be taught and trained and practiced.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 26, 2008)

nikolas @ Tue Feb 26 said:


> Luca, can you define talent, please, before I move on to the discussion? Because I'm the exact opposite, don't believe in talent but hard work, family, circumstances and education, as well as luck (but not very very much in luck, apart from the very basic to where you are born, and by which parents).
> 
> Talent, as everything else in life, can be taught and trained and practiced.



Super disagree!


----------



## lux (Feb 26, 2008)

hmm, sure talent needs to be praticed.

I'm not saying who doesnt have a big talent will not succeed or will not have a professional career. Its just a matter of wow effect.

Callme esotheric or whatever, i dont care. I believe in talent, i've met people with talent. You can pratice a whole life and not being able to do things a few guys pull out in a breeze.

I cant stand why people needs to feel bad when i talk about talent. Youre free not to believe it, to believe in studies, hard work, discipline and whatever. I do believe in talent though.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 26, 2008)

Let's not make Bruce mad now.

Obviously talent can be developed, but you need it to start with. I could study and practice ballet all day long for the rest of my life, and it wouldn't matter - I just don't have the talent.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 26, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Feb 26 said:


> Obviously talent can be developed, but you need it to start with. I could study and practice ballet all day long for the rest of my life, and it wouldn't matter - I just don't have the talent.


Ballet and composition are nowhere near the same thing. To be good at ballet the first thing you need is not talent, but a good instrument; your body. Talent comes after that. Notice that this is not the same as a musician owning a Strad, and then expecting to be a good player. In ballet the instrument is a far higher proportion of the final result.

Anyway, to get back to the talent thing, I believe that as far as earning your living as a composer, there are three parts to this; talent, craft and opportunity. There are many people with one or even two out of the three, but in fact the only one that is essential is opportunity. If the composer has either talent or craft, then that is a bonus, but the best composer in the world is wasting their time, if they have no opportunity to perform their compostions.

One last thing. Some people equate success with skill, but as a composer, the skill required to be successful is not necessarily a musical skill, particularly in music for media.

D


----------



## aeneas (Feb 26, 2008)

lux @ Tue 26 Feb said:


> I cant stand why people needs to feel bad when i talk about talent. Youre free not to believe it, to believe in studies, hard work, discipline and whatever. I do believe in talent though.


I use to get mad at lay-people talking about 'talent'. Lately I've learned to have compassion towards them. I was mad because they were using the term 'talent' as the main explanation for artistic achievement. They were like: "what can you say when someone is God-gifted?" Sometimes they may add 'luck' to that: "ah, those lucky artists..." I was mad at that because I know of the amount of hard work behind a successful career - something that lay-people simply refuse to acknowledge. Of course, innate musical 'gift' does exist - but I tend to believe that very few people lack it. Of course, 'luck' is a factor - but I tend to believe that 'luck' is found when it is searched for actively, it doesn't just knock at your bedroom door and wakes you up: "hi, I'm here". But, above all, hard work is the most important factor, IMHO - that does assure accomplishments, often leads to recognition, and, sometimes, to long lasting success. Without hard work, all artistic careers would be flash-like.

So now I do pity the ones who close their eyes to hard work, while emphasizing gift and luck - they use those explanations to hide their own laziness. They simply refuse to acknowledge the long hours of hard work, of skills practice, which are the daily share of great artists. For example: How many scorers want to be the next John Williams? Now how many scorers do know anything about JW's decades-long daily hard work? How many scorers are ready to make the sacrifices he has made, or are willing to live the life he was leading even after attaining success?

"Talent, craft and opportunity" was a good way to explain musical achievement. My own view on it is: nurtured gift, actively sought luck, and sacrificial hard work.

my t'pence


----------



## Thonex (Feb 26, 2008)




----------



## Scott Cairns (Feb 26, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> "I honestly believe, that many aspiring film composers dont have the skill to supporting a film musically. Its a talent that I think is somewhat innate, it probably gets better with practice, but you have to have it to begin with."
> 
> Well, at Berklee they've been teaching that skill just like anything else since the 70s.





Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> Obviously talent can be developed, but you need it to start with. I could study and practice ballet all day long for the rest of my life, and it wouldn't matter - I just don't have the talent.



Nick, thats my point; I dont think everyone has the talent to read a scene, or even if they do, to convey musically the emotional tone required for that scene.

Its like walking into a room and picking up on the vibe of the room, the people in it. Most people can do that.

But some people can also detect say; an undercurrent of tension between one group and another, and notice that Jim is making eyes at Marsha - even though Marsha is married to John. 

This is what great composers can write about musically IMHO.

You might be taught the technique - but you have to have the emotional radar to spot whats going on. Your teacher cant be there to show that every time.


----------



## Scott Cairns (Feb 26, 2008)

dcoscina @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> hey Scott, thanks for the email...



David, you're welcome. Just my opinions of course.


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 26, 2008)

I think talent is someone with a predisposition towards excelling at something easier than others would. Michael Jordan was an excellent basketball player. Roger Federer is an excellent tennis player. Steven Spielberg is an excellent director. Mozart and Beethoven were genius' at composition. 

I do agree with talent as a factor in things. BUT, training refines the talent and makes it all the more powerful. Zimmer has talent at marrying music to imagery. At least most think so. But I feel he lacks the technique in music to make a score that works as well away from the film as it does in the film. This is of course if we're talking about film scores inhabiting that dual plain, which they did from the 1930s all the way through to 2000. Then something changed and now we are getting a plethora of uninteresting music that pass for film scores. While the music must serve the film, where was it written that it should not be as good as it can be as music? Otherwise, why not just hire the sound effects boys to go wild with their Acid loops and Atmospheres plug-ins and hit one button. JJ Abrams' LOST main theme is a patch on Atmosphere and nothing more. Is it not viable just because Eric Persing was the real talent behind that sound? does Eric deserve a writing credit under LOST? After all, he was the guy who shaped that sound. Abrams was the guy who hit 1 button on his keyboard.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 26, 2008)

dcoscina @ Tue 26 Feb said:


> Abrams was the guy who hit 1 button on his keyboard.


So I guess you can recommend him to study some music, because you don't like the way he scored that film. (add sarcasm)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 26, 2008)

"You might be taught the technique - but you have to have the emotional radar to spot whats going on. Your teacher cant be there to show that every time."

It just seems to me that film sense is much more easily acquired than musical talent. After all, most of the time it's not very subtle.

Edit: but I don't disagree with you.


----------



## ComposerDude (Feb 26, 2008)

One possible harbinger of composing talent is whether the composer was composing before music study, at a young age. In other words, he/she intuitively grasped elements of structure, melody, harmony, rhythm (and maybe even dynamics and timbre!) and applied them in new material.

Thereafter, training can supply time-tested observations and techniques as tools.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 26, 2008)

Well, I started playing recorder at age 4 and writing when I was about 22, so that rules me out.


----------



## nikolas (Feb 26, 2008)

Luca,

I was merely asking a definition for the word "talent", which does appear to be something with which we are born with, given by nature/god/etc... 

I will not dissagree that the human mind is born with prequisites, with "preconceptions" to where it is best. In education it is, nowdays, a "fact" that other students will have a strong visual mind, others a strong coordination, others a strong audio, etc... Which of course makes them easy to learn by either taking notes, or watching someone, or recording the seminars, according to their type of brain functions. So a good lecturer needs to cover for all cases.  (PhD can be good :D)

The question does lie to whether this is entirely self developed from genes, or god, or nature, or whatever, or family has something to do with it. 

My kids listen to A LOT of music! They listen to me sing to them every Disney song, and watch me dance silly dances, since I'm tall and ridiculous when I move (1.94m). They know there is a piano back in Greece, keyboards in here and both know I work in music. We listen to the radio when in the car and they recognise most pop songs (since we watch a lot of youtube) and they can sing back many of them. Madness, NIN (!), Kaiser Chiefs, and other.

Both me and my wife know music to a professional level, never mind that she is an architect! I will never know if it is my passion with music and the fact that I boil them with music every chance I get is what is turning them towards audio, or our genes (thus talent). I'd imagine a combination of both.

They don't care about sports though. They LIKE watching classical concerts on TV, and even boght a couple of DVDs to watch (Bartok! :D), but they don't like watching the footy on the telly. They simply don't! Probably because we've shown NO interest whatsoever to that kind of deal! Which is bad, and I intend to try and fix it (all round education).

When you see a charismatic person, an actor, an amazing musical gifted person, etc, sure the kids must like it and obviously there must be a predisposition, but I doubt this is more than the necessary 1% to get things started. In another words, talent along won't get you anywhere. Practice alone might get you somewhere but not amazingly high. Both is the wining combination.

That WOW effect is again a matter of how a person has been raised, and practiced. It isn't so weird that Britney and half the kids from Disney, made it to adulthood and "success" (even if I don't like Britney, I do like Aguilera :D) being in the TV since age 13 is a big plus. Of course not all kids in there made it, but the % are quite high from that particular show. 

The WOW effect. If I have it (don't know), I used it all my life. To get friends, to get laid, to get work, to... find my wife in the end. I practiced my whatever charisma to be friendly and approachable. 

For example. I don't think I've ever thought about being a film composer, but a composer. I never in my head, practiced scoring scenes, or watched too closely music in films. I did so in computer games however and was having tapes back in 92 from computer games and my first Adlib card! :D I don't think I can match imaginery and music too well. I'm having this difficulty, but I can work very well the music thing! Don't know if it's the talent missing, or simply the fact that I didn't think of it ever in my life and now I'm 30.



But apart from my bullshit, I understand completely and am amazed at many things, and take into account the WOW factor heavily. Just don't think anyone was born this way but this was heavily practiced, consciously or not.


----------



## JB78 (Feb 27, 2008)

I forgot to add that the most important thing is that one is spending time doing the RIGHT things. I taught guitar full-time privately for the past 5 years, students who were sloppy or had bad timing was that way because of either practicing the wrong things or practicing the right things but in the wrong way. That's really sad to see when someone is spending hours everyday but still not improving because of bad practice habits.

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Daryl (Feb 27, 2008)

JB78 @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> I truly suck at basketball but I'm sure that if I had 20 000 hours + of good practice I would be considered talented by some :mrgreen:
> 
> Best regards
> Jon


This is a very good point. When I was a young lad I was really keen on Table Tennis, but was absolutely useless at it, and probably one of the worst in my class at school. However, because I was keen, I joined a class where there was a professional coach, and after 4 years of practice, for three hours at a time, four times a week, I was by far the best in my school. I even won a County championship, when all the good players were away on a National training camp. :lol: 

Now there is no doubt in my mind that I had no talent for the sport, but at a relatively low level, I could appear as if I did. However, some of the people I trained with put in much less effort than I did, and reached much higher standards.

D


----------



## rgames (Apr 8, 2008)

nikolas @ Tue Feb 26 said:


> Talent, as everything else in life, can be taught and trained and practiced.



Strong disagreement here: my wife is an elementary school music teacher (ages 5 - 12, basically) and I've worked with a bunch of her classes for many years. We both agree that some kids get rhythm, pitch, and harmony - some don't. 99% of them have had no musical training. I don't know how to explain that as anything other than talent.

Talent limits how far you can go; education and practice help you approach that limit. So, yes, you can overcome lack of talent with work but you'll always be behind the more talented folks who work as hard or harder.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 8, 2008)

Well, now that this is being re-opened...

Darryl wrote:



> Ballet and composition are nowhere near the same thing. To be good at ballet the first thing you need is not talent, but a good instrument; your body. Talent comes after that. Notice that this is not the same as a musician owning a Strad, and then expecting to be a good player. In ballet the instrument is a far higher proportion of the final result.



I disagree with that, actually; ballet just requires a different kind of talent. The ability to move your body is in your brain just like anything else, and the dancer's brain is really the "instrument." There are many kinds of intelligence, and athletic "intelligence" is one of them. Sure dancers' bodies slow down at a certain age and composers can enjoy a longer career, but you need a good amount of innate ability to get beyond a certain point at anything.

So while I'm not a klutz and I enjoy playing tennis 3-4x a week, I never had the ability to become professional simply because I wasn't given enough of that kind of intelligence. Or enough drive, but that's a different subject.

Now, a lot of it has to do with nurture, not just nature. I'm sure that many of the kids in Richard's wife's classes would be a lot better at music if they'd been exposed to it at an early age (and of course if they'd had an interest in what they were being exposed to).

But there's no getting around it: not all horses are created equal. Some are simply faster than others.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 8, 2008)

And on the other hand, I also believe that we can do a lot more than we think just by setting our minds to it. The ballet example is an extreme, of course.


----------



## Daryl (Apr 8, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> Well, now that this is being re-opened...
> 
> Darryl wrote:
> 
> ...


Actually I think you're wrong, for many reasons, but I guess now is not the time to argue about such things. FWIW I have been involved with dancers at all levels for many years, so I do have a little bit of experience about this subject. I agree with your comment about needing ability, but I don't agree that having a good body is talent. Using it properly might be......

D


----------



## nikolas (Apr 8, 2008)

How did this reopen again? I vagule remember what I wrote!



rgames @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> nikolas @ Tue Feb 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Talent, as everything else in life, can be taught and trained and practiced.
> ...


If you take a look further down you'll se a much bigger post, explaining further things.

Everyone is "designed", or "born with", or "given by God" differently. Nobody's the same. So I do believe that the tendencies do exist, but not sure that talent alone can overcome everything, even ignorance of existance. 

Again, children until the age of 2 pretty much, cannot express really themselves. 

I know that my kid who is 4 1/2 now can sing correctly, knows more than 30 pop songs by now (through youtube), along with a bit of Schostachovich and Stravisnky (seriously, and Fantasia from Disney). He can sing the firebird. My younger son who is 2 1/2 can also sing, not so good, but still. Both have rhythm and everything.

I play music ALL THE TIME. There's no way to tell if this is my genes, or my wife's genes, or the 2 years of continuous music. I used to put Dimitris (my older) to bed by singing to him and playing the piano some times. Come on! This also has to play a part.

Both have never ever shown any interest to sports. There's never been 1 clip of football or any other sport in the TV, or youtube, or my computer. We do play some action games (chassing, fighting for fun, etc), but other than that physical actions are somewhat limited.

I can't say that this means that they don't have any talent to sports, but they sure haven't shown anything yet, while their music "talent" is evident. 

I'm not sure that you can ever tell, or run any kind of experiment. Kids of 5-12 have already developed personality, to which family plays the greatest part. If there is some inheritance or natural ability there, I'm not sure it's not filtered through family.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 8, 2008)

> Actually I think you're wrong, for many reasons, but I guess now is not the time to argue about such things. FWIW I have been involved with dancers at all levels for many years, so I do have a little bit of experience about this subject. I agree with your comment about needing ability, but I don't agree that having a good body is talent. Using it properly might be......



Sure this is the time to argue!

First, you realize that I'm actually right for all the reasons you think are wrong. I always am.

But with that out of the way, let me ask you: why are some people not able to use their bodies properly, as you put it? Why did hundreds or thousands of kids grow up practicing their basketball skills just as much and as hard as Michael Jordan did, yet he was able to do things nobody else could do? His body may be capable of jumping a little higher than most peoples', and obviously dance is different from sports in some ways, but I don't think that's the difference.

The difference is that the other players don't have the same talent he has. It's mind over body.

Now, whether the mind/brain is part of the body is another matter that's not all that interesting. But I say that as my fellow nikolas says in so many words, both nature and nurture come into play - especially when you're talking about advanced levels of any endeavor.

There are some people who just don't have the talent to be professional composers. Sorry.


----------



## rgames (Apr 8, 2008)

nikolas @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> How did this reopen again? I vagule remember what I wrote!



yeah - my fault. I don't check in often enough and when I do, I don't realize that some posts are a bit dated...


Must have been a slow couple of months if this thread was still on the first page...!

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 9, 2008)

"I've seen SO many talentless people getting degrees in composition (not sure what they will do in life really), so I can't really say that it takes talent to be a professional."

I guess I should have said a *competent* professional composer.


----------



## rgames (Apr 9, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 09 said:


> "I've seen SO many talentless people getting degrees in composition (not sure what they will do in life really), so I can't really say that it takes talent to be a professional."
> 
> I guess I should have said a *competent* professional composer.



Yeah - "professional" just means that you accept money for the job; it says nothing about the quality of the work you produce. Sort of like having a degree.

Bobby Jones was the greatest golfer of his time and one of the greatest ever, but he was never a professional.

rgames


----------



## misterbee (Apr 9, 2008)

Formal education in the music business only means anything to those who have it or want it.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Apr 10, 2008)

dcoscina @ Mon Feb 25 said:


> So here I am, feeling like a shlub for wasting all of my time, money, and brain cells on trying to learn more about compositional technique when all this while I could have simply gotten in touch with my emotions and creativity.
> 
> I mean really! I feel even more stupid for studying those dumb books by Samuel Adler and Kent Kennan or even more vacuous writings of Walter Piston on Harmony. What a load! Worse yet, pouring over conductor's scores of Mahler's, Ravel, Debussy, Bartok, and Beethoven (not to mention Haydn to learn more about Symphonic form). What a twit!
> 
> ...



I've just seen this thread. As someone who writes the type of books you're talking about, here's my two cents.

Our mantra at Alexander Publishing has always been, "learn it right the first time." I came up with that after feeling the same frustration you're expressing here, except I felt it when I was a student at Berklee studying jazz. That's why I began studying how the great composers taught themselves and nailed down 11 points that enabled them to be successful. Oh, and it took me about a decade before I nailed down all th points. 

The key issue is how you're taught. 

If you want to learn harmony from a songwriting compositional viewpoint, get this book by Schoenberg:
http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Harmony-California-Library-Reprint/dp/0520049446/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207835115&sr=8-2 (Theory Harmony California Library Reprint)

But learning harmony is only part of the battle. The next battle is form. Form can be considered as how music is organized or as one person defined it, how you handle repeats.

If you want to write a symphony or something in Sonata-allegro form, that's a reason to study Haydn, or string quartets from various composers. 

If you want to write songs, then study the form of popular songs. 

Harmony and form go together. 

BTW, Brahms had a similar complaint. After self-studying a number of books, he found he had been taught wrong and had to start over. 

So you're in good company. But don't throw out learning about music because technique is your vocabulary.

Keep going.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 10, 2008)

misterbee @ Wed Apr 09 said:


> Formal education in the music business only means anything to those who have it or want it.



That's a tricky construct, true in only its ironic and somewhat smeared structure.

Formal education can mean a lot to a client in the music business, if he's faced with a decision between two somewhat equally talented potential collaborators. I once overcame a producer's initial preference on a series, because I was the candidate who could switch gears into just about any genre they could name, where tòHb   vkyHb   vkzHb   vk{Hb   vk|Hb   vk}Hb   vk~Hb   vkHb   vk€Hb   vkHb   vk‚Hb   vkƒHb   vk„Hb   vk…Hb   vk†Hb   vk‡Hb   vkˆHb   vk‰Hb   vkŠHb   vk‹Hb   vkŒHb   vkHb   vkŽHb   vkHb   vkHb   vk‘Hb   vk’Hb   vk“Hb   vk”Hb   vk•Hb   vk–Hb   vk—Hb   vk˜Hb   vk™Hb   vkšHb   vk›Hb   vkœHb   vkHb   vkžHb   vkŸHb   vk Hb   vk¡Hb   vk¢Hb   vk£Hb   vk¤Hb   vk¥Hb   vk¦Hb   vk§Hb   vk¨Hb   vk©Hb   vkªHb   vk«Hb   vk¬Hb   vk­Hb   vk®Hb   vk¯Hb   vk°Hb   vk±Hb   vk²Hb   vk³Hb   vk´Hb   vkµHb   vk¶Hb   vk·Hb   vk¸Hc   vkHc   vkHc   vk¹Hc   vkºHc   vk»Hc   vk¼Hc   vk½Hc   vk¾Hc   vk¿Hc   vkÀHc   vkÁHc   vkÂHc   vkÃHc   vkÄHc   vkÅHc   vkÆHc   vkÇHc   vkÈHc   vkÉHc   vkÊHc   vkËHc   vkÌHc   vkÍHc   vkÎHc   vkÏHc   vkÐHc   vkÑHc   vkÒHc   vkÓHc   vkÔHc   vkÕHc   vkÖHc   vk×Hc   vkØHc   vkÙHc   vkÚHd   vkÛHd   vkÜHd   vkÝHd   vkÞHd   vkßHd   vkàHd   vkáHd   vkâHd   vkãHd   vkäHd   vkåHd   vkæ              òHd   vkèHd   vkéHd   vkêHd   vkëHd   vkìHd   vkíHd   vkîHd   vkïHd   vkðHd   vkñHd   vkòHd   vkóHd   vkôHd   vkõHd   vköHd   vk÷Hd   vkøHd   vkùHd   vkúHd   vkûHd   vküHd   vkýHd   vkþHd   vkÿHd   vl Hd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vl	Hd   vl
Hd   vlHd   vlHd   vl Hd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vlHd   vl Hd   vl!Hd   vl"Hd   vl#Hd   vl$Hd   vl%Hd   vl&Hd   vl'Hd   vl(Hd   vl)Hd   vl*Hd   vl+Hd   vl,Hd   vl-Hd   vl.Hd   vl/Hd   vl0Hd   vl1Hd   vl2Hd   vl3Hd   vl4Hd   vl5Hd   vl6Hd   vl7Hd   vl8Hd   vl9Hd   vl:Hd   vl;Hd   vl<Hd   vl=Hd   vl>Hd   vl?Hd   [email protected]Hd   vlAHd   vlBHd   vlCHd   vlDHd   vlEHd   vlFHd   vlGHd   vlHHd   vlIHd   vlJHd   vlKHd   vlLHd   vlMHd   vlNHd   vlOHd   vlPHd   vlQHd   vlRHd   vlSHd   vlTHd   vlUHd   vlVHd   vlW              òHd   vlYHd   vlZHd   vl[Hd   vl\Hd   vl]Hd   vl^Hd   vl_Hd   vl`Hd   vlaHd   vlbHd   vlcHd   vldHd   vleHd   vlfHd   vlgHd   vlhHd   vliHd   vljHd   vlkHd   vllHd   vlmHd   vlnHd   vloHd   vlpHd   vlqHd   vlrHd   vlsHd   vltHd   vluHd   vlvHd   vlwHd   vlxHd   vlyHd   vlzHd   vl{Hd   vl|Hd   vl}Hd   vl~Hd   vlHd   vl€Hd   vlHd   vl‚Hd   vlƒHd   vl„Hd   vl…Hd   vl†Hd   vl‡Hd   vlˆHd   vl‰Hd   vlŠHd   vl‹Hd   vlŒHd   vlHd   vlŽHd   vlHd   vlHd   vl‘Hd   vl’Hd   vl“Hd   vl”Hd   vl•Hd   vl–Hd   vl—Hd   vl˜Hd   vl™Hd   vlšHd   vl›Hd   vlœHd   vlHd   vlžHd   vlŸHd   vl Hd   vl¡Hd   vl¢Hd   vl£Hd   vl¤Hd   vl¥Hd   vl¦Hd   vl§Hd   vl¨Hd   vl©Hd   vlªHd   vl«Hd   vl¬Hd   vl­Hd   vl®Hd


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 10, 2008)

You don't *have* to go to school to learn music, of course, any more than you have to go to school to learn nuclear physics. It's just easier for most people to learn in school.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 10, 2008)

Evan Gamble @ Thu Apr 10 said:


> Bruce Richardson @ Thu Apr 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, one can go study with, say, John Williams, just to give an example. But John Williams is not going to spend over eight hours a day with you, honing your musical skills from every angle. I would go as far as to say you'd be wasting your money studying privately from a good composer over attending even an average music school. Music school is like boot camp. You're going to get worked over every day. And if that's not your experience, you're either in the wrong school, or you are slacking.
> ...



You're also studying having the benefit of your Juilliard education. Take away your knowledge of theory, form, counterpoint, analysis, and you'd be getting a lot less from your private study. You probably played in ensembles, too. Take all that away as well, the problem solving skills, the physical knowledge gained in performing specific works--where you can't just play what you feel (aka what you can).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 10, 2008)

"...where you can't just play what you feel (aka what you can)."

This is an abrupt subject change, but it brings up a comment a friend of mine (an engineer who mixed half the albums in the 80s and is still going strong) said just two days ago:

"The thing rock taught us is that you can get a lot out of what you *have*. Billie Holliday had a 9-note range, but within that range..."

Okay, so Billie Holliday wasn't a rock musician, but you get his point.

The context was that we were talking about how good drummers are born, and you can tell after a very short time whether they have it. He was saying that there are people who have great timing between their hands but not their hands and feet - an important subject in his world of rock bands, and (a quote from Jerry Harrison, who he works with) rock bands are only as good as their drummer lets them be - and I said that for me the problem was that my bass drum foot was simply too slow; coordination/independence between my appendages wasn't the real issue. (I was a pretty good orchestral percussionist and especially mallet player [including jazz vibes] when I was in practice back in the day, but I was never going to get beyond a certain level as a drummer.)

So he was saying that someone like me could still do a lot within that limitation. He's right.

And that gets back to my point about talent, of course: there's nothing physically wrong with my bass drum foot - it's not my body - it's simply a mind over body issue. But it was a big problem, because to play a samba, for instance, I had to pick my leg up and go heel-toe heel-toe.


----------



## nikolas (Apr 10, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Apr 10 said:


> You don't *have* to go to school to learn music, of course, any more than you have to go to school to learn nuclear physics. It's just easier for most people to learn in school.


Definately! You find me in 110% agreement to this!


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 10, 2008)

Whether one "has to" study music in school is not the point, though. No one would rationally argue that point. My own experience is that my background in private piano study, from childhood, taught me the basics. So, school was icing.

But you can't deny what music school brings to you. You are forced to play, a lot. You're forced to be in ensembles, where you learn style and rehearsal technique. You're forced to play instruments you'd normally not learn. You're forced to learn literature.

The point is not at all whether one has to study music in school, that answer is, of course not. The real point is whether going to school and getting a music degree is more valuable than not going. And that answer is a huge, resounding yes. You're better off.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 10, 2008)

Well, I don't disagree for most people. But there are always people who are offered professional gigs, and that makes the choice less clearcut. Are you better staying in school or taking the gig?

I think that's an open question.


----------



## artsoundz (Apr 10, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Apr 10 said:


> (I was a pretty good orchestral percussionist and especially mallet player [including jazz vibes]
> 
> 
> Vibes? Didn't know that! Cool..


----------



## artsoundz (Apr 10, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Thu Apr 10 said:


> I dropped out of grad school for a gig. I regret it.



why? I mean, you're working, you have what seems like a substantial career and the brain and resources to make any musical progress you desire. What would a degree do for you now? curious..


----------



## misterbee (Apr 10, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Thu Apr 10 said:


> misterbee @ Wed Apr 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Formal education in the music business only means anything to those who have it or want it.
> ...



Damn! You've confused me with your wordage. 

If you listened to pieces from ten people on this forum, would you be able to tell which ones have got a formal music education? It would be easy for you to say yes, so, if you do, may be you can expand and explain how.

My point was aimed more at the original post which suggests that anyone who doesn't have a formal music education doesn't deserve to be working as a composer for film. People go to the movies to see movies. They don't care whether the person who wrote the score went to Juilliard. Only the end result matters.


----------



## rgames (Apr 10, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Apr 10 said:


> You don't *have* to go to school to learn music, of course, any more than you have to go to school to learn nuclear physics. It's just easier for most people to learn in school.



The difference there is that the leaders in the world of physics do have formal degrees. The leaders in the arts (generally) do not. I can easily see a composer becoming a known historical figure without formal study; I really can't say the same for a physicist.

There's a fundamental difference between art and science: the laws of science are PROscriptive, the laws of art are DEscriptive. That has a lot to do with the different emphasis on formal study.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 10, 2008)

We're talking about composition, an art form whose leaders are very well trained indeed. I don't think John Williams just picked it up by ear.

There are always exceptions to everything, though.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Apr 10, 2008)

Why when reading this thread...am I reminded of the scene in _Ferris Bueller's Day Off_ where on the morning of his day off...he is sitting on a chair, alone in his bedroom, wearing a Sinatra inspired hat and squeaking the most god awful thing on a clarinet...then he stops, leans into the camera and says, "Never had one lession," with all the confidence and apparent wisdom of a music professional...and resumes his squeaking?


----------



## misterbee (Apr 11, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> Why when reading this thread...am I reminded of the scene in _Ferris Bueller's Day Off_ where on the morning of his day off...he is sitting on a chair, alone in his bedroom, wearing a Sinatra inspired hat and squeaking the most god awful thing on a clarinet...then he stops, leans into the camera and says, "Never had one lession," with all the confidence and apparent wisdom of a music professional...and resumes his squeaking?



Do I assume correctly from that post that you're one of the snobs who think only people with formal education have a place in composition?


----------



## Daryl (Apr 11, 2008)

misterbee @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> Brian Ralston @ Fri Apr 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Why when reading this thread...am I reminded of the scene in _Ferris Bueller's Day Off_ where on the morning of his day off...he is sitting on a chair, alone in his bedroom, wearing a Sinatra inspired hat and squeaking the most god awful thing on a clarinet...then he stops, leans into the camera and says, "Never had one lession," with all the confidence and apparent wisdom of a music professional...and resumes his squeaking?
> ...


I have no intention of answering for Brian, but I don't believe that you do have to have a formal education to have a place in composition. You just have to know what you're doing. If this is writing for orchestra, then there is no other way than study, be it on your own at home, with a tutor or at a conservatoire. If you have done none of these things, chances are that you are inventing the wheel at every opportunity. Badly.

D


----------



## JohnnyMarks (Apr 11, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Apr 10 said:


> "...where you can't just play what you feel (aka what you can)."
> 
> "The thing rock taught us is that you can get a lot out of what you *have*. Billie Holliday had a 9-note range, but within that range..."
> 
> ...



I listened to this interview with Woody Allen ("Woody Allen On Comedy") and what stuck with me was how insistent he was in response to the interviewer asking, basically, what comediens could work on to be funnier. Woody kept saying, "you're either funny or you're not, you can't become funny."

This is in context, so I don't take Woody here as denying the craft a person develops so they can make something of their being funny. But it was clear as he repeatedly made this point that he thought it essential.

And I breathed a sigh of relief and stopped trying to tell jokes.

Just as my sister has stopped trying to play the piano.


----------



## nikolas (Apr 11, 2008)

My composition teacher, 5 years ago, used to tell me that "you can't teach composittion. Composers are born.". After 5 years of intentive studying of composition, I can testify that this is partly true. You can't make a composer, composers are born, blah blah, but you sure as hell can teach compositional techniques, aesthetics and everything else related to the art of composition.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 11, 2008)

And music in his films...


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 11, 2008)

rgames @ Thu Apr 10 said:


> The difference there is that the leaders in the world of physics do have formal degrees. The leaders in the arts (generally) do not. I can easily see a composer becoming a known historical figure without formal study; I really can't say the same for a physicist.
> 
> There's a fundamental difference between art and science: the laws of science are PROscriptive, the laws of art are DEscriptive. That has a lot to do with the different emphasis on formal study.
> 
> rgames



I agree with that to a point. Certainly a composer with an exceptional gift (which really boils down to an exceptional "ear"), could assimilate theoretical information almost unconsciously, where others need it laid out in clear rule form to "get it." My own experience is pretty intuitive. I used to drive my high school theory teacher crazy in interval training. I'd not only name the interval on tests, I'd name the notes he played. If you've spent enough time at a piano, you know the difference in timbre, it's not rocket science. It's just accumulated information that your brain eventually learns to process.

But I am not sure the laws of art are completely descriptive. I am a huge proponent of Hindemeth's ideas of interval relationships, because I think he absolutely nailed the science of melody...that you can trace all successful melodies back to the tension/release model, whether they're simple diatonic ditties or complex chromatic ideas. It's still the interval to interval relationships, and the movement from more tense to less tense and vice versa that determines whether you "keep or lose" the listener. It's no different than fucking. If you start banging away at exactly the same pace, you're a lousy boring fuck. It's the art of knowing when to up the ante, or when to tease, or when to be deceptive that creates the interest in melody (or fucking) and keeps YOU ahead of your listener. The moment you let your listener get ahead of you (unless you're playing a trick) then you are a boring fuck. Or a boring composer.

People who have not had the advantage of education might still do very well. But they may not know WHY they're doing well. I've heard so many untrained composers be able to do one or two things very well, but then when you ask them to get out of their comfort zone, they don't have the tools to do that. Education gives you the tools to take your talent in one area and translate it to another.


----------



## misterbee (Apr 11, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> I don't think anyone has ever said people without a formal education don't "have a place" in composition.



In his sarcastic way, the original poster kind of did. Isn't that what this thread is all about? In a somewhat less obvious way, I think Brian did too. I was looking for clarification from Brian, that that is what he was getting at.



> But it's ludicrous to say that a formal education doesn't help a person out.



I don't remember reading anyone denying that.



> So, yes, I would say that I, and most any trained person, can recognize the work of a trained versus untrained composer pretty easily.
> 
> EDIT: Actually, I would amend that last statement to say that it's pretty easy to recognize a composer as trained/talented, versus untrained/talented. What's harder to discern is trained/untalented versus untrained/talented. Untrained/untalented is easy.



It was about formal training vs no formal training. Grouping talent with training loses the focus of the thread for me.

I do however appreciate your explanation of how you recognize it... if only you'd left the "talent" out of it.


----------



## dcoscina (Apr 11, 2008)

wow, this thread is still kicking around? My post was rife with sarcasm. Those who know me know that I respect and value higher learning of music. But my post seemed to have elicited some interesting dicussion.


----------



## misterbee (Apr 11, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> rgames @ Thu Apr 10 said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard so many untrained composers be able to do one or two things very well, but then when you ask them to get out of their comfort zone, they don't have the tools to do that. Education gives you the tools to take your talent in one area and translate it to another.



Yeah sure it does... kind of off the composing thing, I've heard two trumpet players with doctorates in performance hack their way through one of the most classic, and in their words "my favourite" jazz standards out there. They both failed miserably despite having a fantastic accompanist. Actually, one of them was just a bad player, the other, kind of average classically, but really lost it on the jazz standard.

I've seen visiting composers who have brought their "show" to the local symphony, and perform their own orchestrations. A show that they've "been performing for ten years"... how they can go ten years worth of performances and not hear that the french horns are WAY out of range, is beyond me.

I don't deny that education is a wonderful tool. But it isn't the magic ticket that automatically assures you (or from a client's perspective, their) success.


----------



## poseur (Apr 11, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Thu Apr 10 said:


> I dropped out of grad school for a gig. I regret it.


ha!
understood, completely.

i dropped out of high-school for a gig:
finished HS at night:
dropped out of college for a gig:
dropped out of a gig (or 4, or 5) to study privately,
or write:
seems like a pattern, potentially ad (temporalis) infinitum.....

d


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 12, 2008)

misterbee @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> Bruce Richardson @ Fri Apr 11 said:
> 
> 
> > rgames @ Thu Apr 10 said:
> ...



It may not guarantee it, but if the client has to take a chance on one or the other, his odds of getting a successful result are far better with the trained guy.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 12, 2008)

misterbee @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> It was about formal training vs no formal training. Grouping talent with training loses the focus of the thread for me.
> 
> I do however appreciate your explanation of how you recognize it... if only you'd left the "talent" out of it.



I just don't know how to do that. Like the discussion points of dance, or painting, or any other artform, what we'd call success lies at the nexus of natural ability and training. Some people will have less talent to work with, so the training doesn't help so much.

I guess I'd compare it to a dog studying to fly like a bird. No matter how much the dog studied, no matter how much the motions were practiced and perfected, once the dog ran to the edge of the cliff and took the leap, he'd be as ill equipped to fly as if he hadn't studied at all.

On the other hand, the fledgling who has no idea how to fly (but has the right equipment) may flutter to a few awkward landings, but the moment the mastery comes, he'll soar.

Those are forced analogies, but not by much. I don't have kids, but I've watched seven nieces and nephews grow up, and they all are equally fascinated by the studio. Three of them have musical talent. I put each kid in front of a piano at around age three, and the three with talent created music with symmetry, with expression, with audacity. Real music.

The other four, they just banged. The difference was really apparent, too. The ones without "talent" were focused on the physical act of hitting keys. The ones with talent focused on hitting keys only for seconds, then you could see their faces change, and literally see them beginning to understand that the sound coming out was more fascinating than the physical activity of the input.

In particular, the most talented of the lot, Jake...I set him up with an evolving synth patch at around age four, and he went straight to outer space. His dad and I were sitting in the studio watching him completely lost in what he was doing. After about five minutes, he turned to us, eyes like saucers, and said, "Did you hear THAT?"

He's about ten now. He was over a few weeks ago, and I noticed he was a bit fascinated with a set of congas, but was shy. I told him it was cool to play them, he couldn't hurt them, that playing congas was a lot like dancing (which he's a whiz at doing). Without ever having been exposed to any technique, he just started wailing out a great groove on three drums, varying the tone, using a lot of hand positions that were damned near correct. All three drums, too. Great symmetry, great natural groove ability.

That would give some weight to nature versus nurture, at least on the surface. But talent like that is why I believe so much in formal education, because you can't just HAVE that kind of talent. Whether one calls it a gift from God, or the universe, or just a randomly favorable collection of perceptive and motor skills, it is undeniable that people either have it or they don't.

It is nothing short of a crime for someone who "has it" to lack the most vigorous education he can get.

I'll give you an example: Hans Zimmer

I am a great admirer of Hans Zimmer, because he is clearly a huge natural talent. He has a fantastic ear for color, and a great sense of rhythm. He has one of the best developed senses of narrative pace around.

But his weak point, and I would just as quickly say this to him in person as in an open discussion like this, is that he's limited by a lack of tools that formal education would have given him. Formal education would not have taken any of his audacity or musical sensibility away. But it would have given him more of a foundation to launch those natural skills.

Is he doing fine? Of course, he's quite brilliant, and one can make every argument that he represents a pinnacle of success in the music business. There is nothing to take away from his accomplishments. But he's the example of a diamond with an attractive and beautiful rough cut that would only shine all the brighter with more facets.

People, I'm sure, get tired of hearing me harp about education, and my unequivocal run-on posts about it. But I don't care. If I convince one eighteen year old kid to stop and consider enrolling in school rather than buying a bunch of sample libraries and winging it, it is worth all the time I waste pounding this out over and over. There's no substitute for it. There's no substitute for playing under different conductors, for being forced to play the bassoon and the trombone, for being strapped to a piano and forced to play scales correctly. There's certainly nothing that can equal finding a set of human beings called teachers who will assess your talents, and pour their experiences into you, hoping to give you every possible advantage in your career.

And speaking very personally, many of my professors are reaching retirement age this year. I can't even begin to write about them, or I'd still be here typing tonight. I can trace every skill I use, every tool with which I've honed my talent since, to one of those amazing human beings that poured themselves into me. A formal arts education is like boot camp to a soldier. It breaks you down, forces you to push yourself through a difficult, almost impossible climb, and when you're done, you will either have survived it, or you will have burned out and given up.

There is no value too high to place on that experience.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 12, 2008)

Standing ovation here for Bruce.


----------



## rgames (Apr 13, 2008)

So how many of history's "great" composers have formal degrees, or at least their time period's equivalent?

I guess the closer you get to the 20th century, the more there are because formal degrees became more prevalant.

rgames


----------



## rayinstirling (Apr 14, 2008)

Being a "success" in music is the same as in most other things in life.
Study may help... but being in the right place at the right time talking to the right people will help more. Anyway, what is "success"? We all know or know of successful people in their particular field. We may enjoy their work but we tend to ignore their failings in other aspects of their lives. I consider myself a "success" in music at the level of importance I give it in my life. I wish I had studied music formally at an early age but I'm not going to beat myself up over not doing so.


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 14, 2008)

How'd I miss this thread.........?


Talent = Innate.

The End...


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 14, 2008)

dcoscina @ Tue Feb 26 said:


> however, it's obvious that the trends in film scoring are turning away from musicality and have moved towards more exaggerated sound design. If that's what filmmakers want, than that's what they want. It's weird that those who believe firmly in this approach feel the need to invalidate the other 60 years of film scoring that encompassed both a huge degree of musicality with a faithful adherence to the narrative. It's not like directors like John Ford, Franklin J Schaffner, Sergei Eisenstein, Akira Kurosawa, Steven Spielberg, Alfred Hitchcock, etc. were less musically aware than our current crop of Michael Bays. In fact, it's the exact opposite which is why the industry is in the state it's in.



Let me be the first one to agree with you that the film industry is in a shitty state... But...

Getting away from orchestral scores is absolutely not "Invalidating 60 years of film scoring" nor were those 60 years of film scoring anything other than a "faithful adherence to the narrative" for THOSE PARTICULAR filmmakers. Meaning...

Those 60 years of film score do NOT (!!!!) match "my" narrative. And I'll be damned if I'm gonna jam that sort of score into ANY of my movies. I'm sorry, but I don't give a CRAP what composers may think of my film(s). I don't write movies (scripts) to appease composers. I write them to appease myself first and foremost. 

I mean, how presumptuous to think FILM is about facilitating the arena for a film-composer to flaunt their ego. Imagine that, placing the importance of the score BEFORE the film. 

On the other hand, the composer plays a HUGE part. Just, HELL FRIGG'N NO the film isn't about the composer. The film is about the film. Period!

No offense... :D




dcoscina @ Tue Feb 26 said:


> And don't get me started on filmmakers' lack of FILM technique because their ineptitudes are grossly apparent in almost every part of their styles (I studied film theory and technique in university BECAUSE I knew that being a successful film composer meant knowing as much about film as music).



Now you're starting to sound like me.  What do you know about screenplay writing, you study that, too? This is where a film fails or succeeds. Most films could be directed by a monkey. So, your thought begs the question...

Q: Why not write/direct/score your own?

I, like you, got sick of looking at crap scripts/films by directors who pretend to know what they're doing. Guys so certain they are more "talented" than me. At this point I don't care what those people think... they can have their poorly written, poorly directed films. I say, write your own! Absolutely! This way YOU write the music that MATCHES your narrative. I mean, you wrote it! You know?



dcoscina @ Tue Feb 26 said:


> Anyhow, I appreciate the concern. My despondency was largely exaggerated in the cloak of sarcasm but a kernel of it is true that I'm frustrated to a degree. Not just for myself but for audiences and musicians alike. This "evolution" of music for film is hopefully a fad or trend like disco and funk were in the '70s and synth pop was for scores in the '80s. Interestingly, the '90s saw a resurgence in orchestral film scores and largely modernist techniques thanks in no small part to Elliot Goldenthal. Wish he'd score more films.





Again... you have no control unless you write and direct your own. Feels good knowing I'm never going to kiss some small-time director's ass again. Why should I...? 


PS... You would hate all my scripts, hate my take on directing them and hate the scores... but what do I care what you think? I don't. :D

Same as you shouldn't care what I think... (about your film) :D


We each have our films and said what we wanted to say at that point. Narrative and Score. Win-win. :D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 14, 2008)

"Talent = Innate. 

The End..."

It's the beginning, not the end.  The tortoise and the hare...

Innate talent will only take you so far, no matter how arrogant you are.


----------



## SergeD (Apr 14, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> misterbee @ Fri Apr 11 said:
> 
> 
> > is that he's limited by a lack of tools that formal education would have given him. Formal education would not have taken any of his audacity or musical sensibility away. But it would have given him more of a foundation to launch those natural skills.



Mr. Zimmer may have other background knowledge that other composers do not have. He is already a born composer anyway. 

Satie had no formal knowledge but had an approach about music composition. Dali was already a great painter at the age of 6. He fed his imagination with books like biology, cosmology etc... and a constant research of innovative effects. He did not sit down and say : Today I will paint a chasing thematic container filled with a lot of brass as content.

Music education, technical tools + common language, is the essential bolts and nuts basis for people working in the music industry. But it has nothing to do with composing music.

SergeD


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 14, 2008)

rgames @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> So how many of history's "great" composers have formal degrees, or at least their time period's equivalent?
> 
> I guess the closer you get to the 20th century, the more there are because formal degrees became more prevalant. Bach Inventions wouldn't be getting any airplay in the 21st century if they were Bach Re-Inventions.
> 
> rgames



Pretty much most of them, if as you say, you take the equivalents into account. The list of exceptions is small.



rayintirling said:


> Being a "success" in music is the same as in most other things in life.
> Study may help... but being in the right place at the right time talking to the right people will help more. Anyway, what is "success"? We all know or know of successful people in their particular field. We may enjoy their work but we tend to ignore their failings in other aspects of their lives. I consider myself a "success" in music at the level of importance I give it in my life. I wish I had studied music formally at an early age but I'm not going to beat myself up over not doing so.



I agree with this, although I would probably take slight exception to the "right place right time" aspect. It's probably because "success" was not the best word I could have chosen to describe what I meant.

Success to me is only partially the idea of "gigs." For me, success lies in somehow making my contribution back to the artform. That is something I really struggle with, becuase I have always had a lot of what people call natural ability, and I studied very hard in my formal education and came away with amazing training. But I have trouble disciplining myself to stick with a piece until I've really "tempered" it, so to speak. I probably should listen a little less to Duke Ellington in that regard, and try to move beyond sounding good, and towards sounding good AND somehow pushing the artform forward.

Ironically, to me anyway, I've had more success in theatre than film. Part of that, I think, is location. In Dallas, you don't have a steady stream of films coming your way, because there just aren't THAT many films coming out of here. Most of my work comes from out of town. So, it's that old math of every ten films someone does (outside totally funded studio stuff), maybe one of them will stick if you're very lucky...and have the right place right time mojo going your way.

In theatre, I've been almost 100 successful, which to me, means that the shows I'm on are usually critical and audience "hits," they make good money for the producers, and I get fairly consistent award nominations for pretty much any show I do. And I think this is because I have created a very unique niche for myself in giving audiences a soundscape/score in theatre that delivers what they get in cinema, but at the same time, I don't confuse the very different levels of abstration that the two disciplines require. Film is a lot more direct, even in its most indirect moments. Theatre is far more abstract, and while you have moments of extremely direct communication, there are far more moments where your job is very nearly the prevention of an audience locking too tightly to anything resembling realism. Most of the time, in theatre, realism is your enemy, because it reminds the audience they're crammed into a dark room with a bunch of people who are no different than the actors on stage. Film's "window" is much easier to manipulate, becuase everyone in the room has bought into the idea they're watching an affixed presentation. Theatre is not affixed, and somehow, I find it easier to express myself distinctively there.

So, to me, success is all wrapped up in that stuff, and isn't so much whether my name eventually gets recognized. It's funny that when I look back over my career, I've done almost everything I set out to do. I have worked with players I idolized as a young person. I have toured in bands with hit songs. I've played Austin City Limits, and I've gotten a decent review in Variety. I even got my picture in Seventeen magazine once, and I remembered the exact place that I'd been dragged to the grocery store with my mom at age 12 or so, and where I'd seen Teri Snider looking at a picture of Donny Osmond in Seventeen, and I thought surely she would be mine if only I could somehow get myself a hit song and get into that magazine. Never mind that I was in my thirties, and on tour in Asia when it finally happened. I told her the story at our class reunion, but silly me, I didn't have the picture with me so I didn't score.

So, I guess that would seem like success to me if I had looked at it from my 12-year old eyes, but now it doesn't any more. That stuff seems mostly like just gigs that I got lucky to snag. Right place right time, as you say. But still I struggle with the most basic aspects of my art. I wonder if I have a thing to say at all, or if I am just some idiot savant who can recite the musical phone book and not connect with any of it. For a time, if I could create an emotional response in myself on a playback, then I thougt that this was meaningful--that if my jaded ears for a moment stopped being critical and actually FELT something, then this was a breakthrough. Maybe it is, or maybe it's just a sign of the truly pathetic curse of middle age...where you're finally smart enough, and dammmit, you look down and see that somehow you woke up in your father's body, and the fucking clock is running WAY faster than it did before for some reason.

So, who knows? Maybe I'm totally wrong, and there's more happiness in being somewhat blissfully unaware of Hindemeth, and Neopolitan 6ths, and deceptive cadences, and tone rows, and, and, and...but I think I'm not. I think there's a value in it. But I do want to say again in reference to Ray's comment that there is a balance of where music is in your life, versus what level of sacrifice and study one would want to commit. I mentioned earlier that I think it would be pretty ludicrous to suggest that Hans Zimmer go back to college, just because he's less facile than John Williams. Hans found his way, and found his niche, and exploited it wildly...and as far as I know, he seems to be happy and we know he's successful from at least the superficial point of view. 

If I were approaching music from a non-primary career standpoint, I see this point profoundly. Why would someone want to have existential struggles with the passion they choose to enjoy "away from the day job?" I think of my own "passion," in that sense, which is Japanese-influenced gardening. I devour books/information on the subject, but at the same time, I don't sweat my contribution to the artform.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Apr 14, 2008)

I just want to comment on the words, "formal education." This phrase suggests that a musician or composer isn't "educated" if they don't have a degree. 

This is not the case. The history of successful composers, including the older A-list composers, is that their "formal education" came from private studies and mentoring, experience, and learning how to ask good questions of musicians. And writing. And listening through attending concerts and going to clubs to hear other players.

Every composer needs a firm foundation in harmony. You don't need to go to school for that. You can get the Schoenberg book I suggested (another mentored composer who did well), and do it yourself.

Every composer needs a firm foundation in form, particularly song form. Whether you go beyond that or not depends on the vision you have for your self and your career.


----------



## DVincent (Apr 14, 2008)

Bruce, bravo! Your last two post were excellent.

"I guess the closer you get to the 20th century, the more there are because formal degrees became more prevalant."

That is like saying, "I guess the closer you get to the 20th century, the more people traveled via automobile." Institutionalized music education was not really prevalent until "closer to the 20th century." A Master of Music Composition degree wasn't even an option for someone like Bach. Since you inquired about time period equivalence, let's investigate how one received a "musical education" prior to universities and conservatories.

For the argument's sake I believe we need to define "formal" education. Are we talking about only classroom studies through an accredited institution or just anything that is not self-taught? I propose we draw the line at, "meeting at regular intervals with a professional in the field to discuss, analyze, and/or practice a skill set." Once one has done this, then their education has been formalized in my opinion. Do we agree? This is what happens in a university setting as well as private instruction. The person earlier in the thread who is studying with John Corigliano is getting a formal education in music. He is learning the same skills that a university would teach. Mentioning you studied composition with Corigliano is just as prestigious as saying you graduated from XYZ Conservatory. Some of the 20th century?s more famous composers studied with Nadia Boulanger in her apartment. While certainly not an accredited institution, she did give classes in analyses, harmony, composition, etc. This, to me, seems just as structured as many universities. If we use this aforementioned definition of "formal education," then the only people left without it are those who learn solely from books, internet, noodling on an instrument, and perhaps talking to other composers on an ad hoc basis.

Before post-secondary institutions became a mainstay of training in society, people learned a trade through a master/apprentice relationship. In music, this apprenticeship may have been with a chapel master or singing in a boys choir for your room and board. Duties would range from non-musical gopher type, to semi-musical (operating the organ bellows for the organist), or eventually some performance opportunities. In return the student would receive a musical education that included performance training in technique and analysis, and probably some counterpoint or other compositional instruction. These concepts are not innate, but encultured. It takes some amount of analysis and understanding to mimic these traits accurately. Great composers didn't just sit down one day on a whim and compose great music. The student learned about music by being immersed in it, much like a university program does now days. To specialize only in composition was rare for a long time in Western history. A composing musician's skill set could include conducting, performing, and clerical duties among many others. "Great" composers that fit this apprentice school include Bach (and his 4 composer children), Haydn, and Mozart. Some learned within the family while others learned from other professionals. They all studied under somebody more masterful for the time being. This was the norm for musical education in the time period. If we look at composers with a historical perspective we see that most of them did then received their time period's equivalent to a degree in this manner. As the 20th century approached, conservatories became more prevalent and the vast majority of the "great?" composers (and performers) were in attendance. The question then becomes, "How many of history's great composers DIDN'T have a formal music education?"

Also, before Jazz programs started cropping up, young performers and composers would often get an education after hours by sitting down with someone from the band. The core concepts were illustrated and explored. Although it was in an informal setting, there was a structure and purpose in the method. It improve musicianship both short and long term.

Some studies have shown that a college graduate is about 10 years ahead of the non-college graduate (who worked those 4 years) in the same field. The gap does narrow as time passes, but the grad gets a jumpstart by being introduced to relevant concepts and by practicing them. Familiarity makes the transition from theory to practice smoother than does grasping for an unknown or unfamiliar entity. Formal studies also allow a safe environment to make, and hopefully learn from, mistakes. In my education experience, I made some mistakes that could have been career stifling, but since I was on my own dime and not someone else?s I could utilize the experiences without serious repercussions. I was introduced to composition techniques that have broadened my perspective and skill set in directions I would not have explored on my own. For example, although I am not a "serial composer" I will use the techniques to my advantage. Instead of waiting for the Muses to inspire me, I can sit down and systematically generate melodic, harmonic, or rhythmic material from which I can extrapolate the "interesting" parts. No more "blank page syndrome." Anyone who has had to write 20 minutes of music in a week knows how daunting the task can be and how crucial it is to be composing at every moment possible. To take a day off feeling "uninspired" could be devastating to the completion of the project. So, my education has shown me how to get around obstacles in ways I would probably never found without being "forced" to explore outside my comfort zone. 

There are always intangibles that can not be accounted for. Things that maybe can't ever be taught. Zimmer seems to have those intangible skills and has he made a great career for himself. What if you don't have those skills? Why risk not putting oneself in the optimal position for success by learning all one can? Learning about one's craft will never hinder progress. Maybe you'll actually have to fall back on your learned musicality and breadth of knowledge.

To respond to the original post's complaint of being locked into formalist constructs and rules, you still have the choice to utilize these or not. Seriously, THERE ARE NO RULES IN MUSIC COMPOSITION! If you wish to compose something in the style of some historical bygone period, then there are certain constructs to avoid and others to emphasize. For every "rule" someone can point out I can show innumerous examples that blatantly "break" it. If you want parallel perfect intervals in 18 simultaneous voices, then do it. If you like to leave the leading tone unresolved for 157 minutes, then do it. It may not be histrocally accurate if you are trying composing a period piece - but dammit, if you like it then leave it in there. It's your music. 

SergeD - Satie entered Paris Conservatory twice. He never completed the program, but he did therefore receive "training in formal knowledge" from a very fine institution.

Derek


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 14, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> "Talent = Innate.
> 
> The End..."
> 
> ...



That comment had only to do with whether or not we're born with talent. Nothing else. 

Besides, I'm audacious, not arrogant. :D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 14, 2008)

No no, I didn't mean to call you arrogant - I just meant that there are millions of people who are really talented, and that on its own means nothing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 14, 2008)

...although now that you mention it...


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 14, 2008)

One thing that gets me about this topic is that...


Here the focus is seemingly entirely on craft. The topic inevitably always ends up there while remaining stagnant on craft/education.

It seems fairly obvious that some sort of education is necessary. In my opinion that is square one, and only square one. Rarely does anyone ever talk about "vision/voice" (that "thing" that is the premier aspect of creation). There's this, sort of, intimidation factor, this subjugable card dealt by many composers (perhaps unintentionally) forming a moving target, whereby implying no amount of knowledge is enough. (Enough to then go create something worthwhile ----- Not unless you are clearly better than everyone else. Hint: J.W.) 

The problem is, while John Williams is clearly fantastic... his music doesn't move me. Nor would I, hypothetically, want him to score my movie. How disrespectful, presumptuous and naive of me to say that, right? I don't posses enough knowledge to know WHY he's the best composer, period. And therefore a gift to ANY film.

Could be argued that I (and whomever else) can't write a script good enough for someone that talented to score their film...

...could also be argued that the best scores are attached to the best films. 

That's simply not what I believe. I believe that many of those huge films are in fact the easiest to write (Hardest jobs to get as a writer or director, but easiest to write). Those HUGE films, while they make the most money are (to me - and many other writers and directors) the garbage dump of filmmaking. Ironically, those are normally the films that allow a composer his gigantic orchestral score. 

The point with J.W. was that -- Even though he's the best, he's not right for many films. Charlie Kaufman is thought of as one of the few screenwriters in town who is a genius. Put John Williams music against his characters/story and we've got crap. Maybe Charlie should just write better screenplays?

What gets me is this idea some composers have that reduces composition (ART for that matter) to almost 1's and 0's. An exercise focused on form paramount to content. (Content that matches the "vision/voice" of the film). Or is it that it's easier to discuss the 1's and 0's vs. the innate abilities of "voice/vision"? 

Seems someone out there, somewhere, will always interject that one doesn't have enough education... I believe those somebody's are usually the one's not working as much as they'd like. Probably also finding it hard to move people "emotionally". And a bit upset by that, considering they've got the education.

Sorry... but to me the biggest obstacle in ART is connecting to people. Moving them in an honest way. As opposed to the "smash and grab" Hollywood technique.


Ultimately I believe there is a huge disconnect in "enough" composers to the point many don't understand WHY a film was made... WHY that story was ever written. It wasn't written to give the composer something to score.


Meaning --- if one wishes for it to be about their important orchestral music, they really should become a classical composer. Not a film-composer.


One guy's audacious opinion... don't be mad at me. :D


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 14, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> No no, I didn't mean to call you arrogant - I just meant that there are millions of people who are really talented, and that on its own means nothing.




Agreed! o-[][]-o


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 14, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> ...although now that you mention it...




Dang it... should'a kept my yap shut. ~o) :lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 14, 2008)

"The point with J.W. was that -- Even though he's the best, he's not right for many films. Charlie Kaufman is thought of as one of the few screenwriters in town who is a genius. Put John Williams music against his characters/story and we've got crap. Maybe Charlie should just write better screenplays? "

Have you heard all of JW's scores, Jason? He isn't limited to the big stuff by any means. I think you'd be very surprised by some of the music he's written.


----------



## Hannes_F (Apr 14, 2008)

misterbee @ Thu Apr 10 said:


> If you listened to pieces from ten people on this forum, would you be able to tell which ones have got a formal music education?



Not necessarily. But I can for example easily spot composers in a certain listening room of another forum that never took the time to sit down with the bottom of their back on a chair that three weeks for learning about voice leading.

Which does not necessarily mean that those that know actually use it always. <- Please don't ignore this sentence when answering to my post, please, please .... not a "rules are bad" discussion again. Thank you.

The funny thing is that those that are unaware of it themselves don't hear the difference. Which takes me back to the article about competence that I quoted in another thread a while ago.

Everybody has his personal expansion of knowledge. The big thing to learn is that there is always more, and probably much of those things beyond our knowledge are also beyond our radar. So take care ... I at least do and try to watch all directions. If music school or academy gave you the basics and chops but also awaken your conciousness for so much more being there then it would be ideal.


----------



## SergeD (Apr 14, 2008)

DVincent @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> SergeD - Satie entered Paris Conservatory twice. He never completed the program, but he did therefore receive "training in formal knowledge" from a very fine institution.
> 
> Derek



You are right Derek, he has been kicked out twice because he had no talent for music :mrgreen: 

SergeD


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 14, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> "The point with J.W. was that -- Even though he's the best, he's not right for many films. Charlie Kaufman is thought of as one of the few screenwriters in town who is a genius. Put John Williams music against his characters/story and we've got crap. Maybe Charlie should just write better screenplays? "
> 
> Have you heard all of JW's scores, Jason? He isn't limited to the big stuff by any means. I think you'd be very surprised by some of the music he's written.




Admittedly I've not heard them all, but many. What would you say is one of his scores that sort of deviates from our perception of him? I'll buy it.

BTW -- I don't mean to, in anyway, imply that I feel he's a one dimensional composer (it would be foolish to assume that). Just making the point that even the best film composer in the world (arguably) isn't always what will give the "film" the most strength. It's, in my opinion, more so about who best speaks the "language" of that particular film. Considering the film is about, the film, not the music accompanying it. You know what I mean?

So, for me personally the reason much of his work doesn't move me is because the films he scores aren't the ones I'm interested in. That type of film language doesn't speak to me. (Even though I respect the hell out of those people. Especially Spielberg.)

Nobody's fault... taste is taste. I don't believe it's learned. I've liked dark art ever since I was a little kid.


Oops... did I start a new debate? :D


Q: Is taste learned? :D


----------



## JohnG (Apr 15, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ 14th April 2008 said:


> Two recent ones:
> 
> Memories of a Geisha
> Munich
> ...



add Seven Years in Tibet with Yo Yo Ma playing thumb position for an hour and (for me at least) Minority Report, which completely surprised me. Not the "Indiana Jones" John Williams. For smaller stuff, Stanley & Iris.

His tempi, among other things, always startle me.


----------



## Dave Connor (Apr 15, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> Innate talent will only take you so far, no matter how arrogant you are.



Very very funny. True as well.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 15, 2008)

There was one very modern and smaller score of his they played when I was at Berklee, but I just don't remember what it was. It was great, though; I looked at his filmography and nothing jumped out as being the right one.


----------



## José Herring (Apr 15, 2008)

John Williams has done more non_John Williams sounding stuff than he's done typical Williams. If that makes sense.

Personally I like it all. But Frankly there's not a thing that he can't do well. He just simply blows the competition out of the water.

Catch me if You Can is a light Jazz score. Eiger Sanction is a hip ass 70's type score like Lalo Schfrin only better. Saving Private Ryan. If you like Dark it gets no darker.

There's Midway which is brilliant. Rosewood which he did for John Singleton. The list goes on.

But, I think you guys are kinda framing the question wrong not realizing that John Williams is almost entirely self taught. He never went to school for this. He's credited as going to Juilliard but that's not true. He attend 1 course in the evening division. No degree, no nothing.

The question is really about those who view knowledge of music as important and those who do not. Zimmer is a good film composer but he'll even admit that he's spent more time worrying about computers not crashing than learning about music. And, he's also done a lot to help a lot of other people who do have musical knowledge to get going in their careers while they help him of course.

Kind of old a tired debate imo. The answer is obvious. Just try to make great music however you can and where you fall short, pick up a book or two to find out why.

Jose


----------



## re-peat (Apr 15, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Apr 15 said:


> There was one very modern and smaller score of his they played when I was at Berklee, but I just don't remember what it was.



You're probably thinking of *Images*, a Robert Altman film with a very avant-garde score by Williams. Mostly scored for strings, piano and percussion (performed by Stomu Yamash'ta). Highly respected work, yet only very recently available on CD.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 15, 2008)

josejherring @ Tue Apr 15 said:


> But, I think you guys are kinda framing the question wrong not realizing that John Williams is almost entirely self taught. He never went to school for this. He's credited as going to Juilliard but that's not true. He attend 1 course in the evening division. No degree, no nothing.



Actually, he studied at UCLA, Los Angeles City College, and studied composition privately with Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco in L.A. before being drafted into the Air Force...where he was a conductor and arranger for the Air Force Band. You don't get that gig without being trained...they won't take you. Afterwards he attended Juilliard, and had hardcore classical piano training there. He was a first-call studio and club player on the side, played with Mancini in the heyday of that band, toured with Frankie Laine (was also his arranger), and after he went back to L.A., 

He is extremely studied, formally studied, not perhaps degreed, but studied enough to be an expert conductor and composer, as well as a pretty shit-hot jazz pianist.

So, I don't know if I'd make John Williams the poster-boy for self-study.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Apr 15, 2008)

Williams also had a very short stint at the University of Arizona when he was stationed at Davis Monthan Air Force Base.

UA Wildcats represent!

:wink: =o =o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 15, 2008)

That's it, Pete. Thanks very much.

Kid, follow that link, listen, and try to keep talking trash about my man DJ John W.


----------



## José Herring (Apr 15, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Tue Apr 15 said:


> josejherring @ Tue Apr 15 said:
> 
> 
> > But, I think you guys are kinda framing the question wrong not realizing that John Williams is almost entirely self taught. He never went to school for this. He's credited as going to Juilliard but that's not true. He attend 1 course in the evening division. No degree, no nothing.
> ...



Is that it? No wonder he's such a hack.


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 15, 2008)

Oh ya? Well can he scribble on a turntable? (wiki-wiki....) :D

But seriously... could he score say, Fight Club? I mean, of course he could physically do it, but would it be "good"? I'd have to hear/see it. My gut tells me the "language" would be all wrong.

Sure, he can do, and has done many varied films. Just, he ain't the right guy for EVERY film, master that he is. (Not that I'd expect composers to agree with me) 

No offense... with all due respect, and then some. :D


P.s... I'll pick up some of the scores mentioned. Already have a few. Thanks especially for the tip about the obscure film!


----------



## rgames (Apr 16, 2008)

Peter Alexander @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> I just want to comment on the words, "formal education." This phrase suggests that a musician or composer isn't "educated" if they don't have a degree.



My question stems from the fact that I do believe that somebody can become well-educated without a formal degree. So I agree 100% with what you're saying.

I was just curious to what extent the A-list composers did take the formal route. It seems to me that most did not follow the formal route, but I really only know the histories of a handful of composers. I'm certain they're all well-educated, though, either through self-study or formal coursework.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Apr 16, 2008)

kid-surf @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> Admittedly I've not heard them all, but many. What would you say is one of his scores that sort of deviates from our perception of him? I'll buy it.



He's written a lot for the concert stage - I really like his clarinet concerto. There's a recording of Michelle Zukovsky doing it but the master was damaged somehow - it sounds like it was recorded using a hand-held tape machine stuck in somebody's pocket (no joke). I can't believe they even sell the CD, but they do. Check out the mp3 demos: http://www.mytempo.com. I thought it was just really bad mp3 encoding, but that's what the CD sounds like! He never published the work, so I'm fairly certain it's the only recording.

There's also a short concert piece that he did for strings. Can't recall the name, but I really liked it. I know that one's published because I've played with orchestras that have done it.

His concert works are obviously different but I think you can still catch some Hollywood JW in there...



> Q: Is taste learned? :D



Dunno, but there was a time when I didn't like beer. If taste is learned, I've been pretty well educated in that regard.

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Apr 16, 2008)

kid-surf @ Tue Apr 15 said:


> Sure, he can do, and has done many varied films. Just, he ain't the right guy for EVERY film, master that he is. (Not that I'd expect composers to agree with me)



I hear what you're saying but don't you think that if his career depended on coming up with a score like Fight Club that he'd be just as good as anybody else?

He was uber flexible when he had to be. Doing any style of music well. Now that he can pick and choose he'd never even bother to do something like Fight Club.

I don't think we should judge whose right or wrong for a film but rather whose willing to do what it takes to get it right.

Would John Williams do good with an ultra urban sounding contemporary beat driven hard edge score? Who knows. But, if he needed to do it for the credit, money or to advance his career I bet he'd dive into it and do a bang up job.

We all have to expand our limitations. Me being classically trained just had to come up with a psychedelic rock score for a short web based film that WB could pick up for it's digital programming. Was I right for it? Did I do a good job? Well everybody I worked for thought I was and did. So for me it ends there.

best,

Jose


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 16, 2008)

I have a problem with his "right guy" for a score concept. On any given film, there are probably a large number of guys who could do a score that served the picture well and adhered to the director's vision. They would all be different obviously, but at the end of the day the result would be the same: a good score that served the picture well and pleased the director.


----------



## poseur (Apr 16, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 16 said:


> > ut seriously... could he score say, Fight Club? I mean, of course he could physically do it, but would it be "good"? I'd have to hear/see it. My gut tells me the "language" would be all wrong.
> >
> > Sure, he can do, and has done many varied films. Just, he ain't the right guy for EVERY film, master that he is. (Not that I'd expect composers to agree with me)
> >
> ...


at best, this seems like a kinda moot argument, no?

aesthetically speaking,
the unclearly delineated "criteriae of requirement" for
the "right composer" for any film (from the "critic's" POV)
maybe oughta
take into account the realities of the broad chemistries
created from & between
very personally specific directors, composers, story-lines,
character development and..... their individual expertises
vis á vis especial frameworks within the variety of "tone-colors".

i'm quite glad that JW didn't score "fargo",
and equally happy that CB didn't score "star wars".
thrilled that JW didn't score "pi",
and totally satisfied that CM didn't score "memoirs.....".

on the face of it, it reminds me of
the endless quasi-technical arguments amongst guitarists
pointing to "great" guitarists who "can do anything",
can "play expertly in any style";
i don't buy it, even at a huge discount.
though, this line-of-thinking may be
at least partially responsible for the the industry's
tremendous focus upon the potentially depersonalising
effect of hiring composers-with-"staff"-writing-teams.....
just a thought, there..... don't hold me to it, please.

fwiw, JW may be an unbelievably, incredibly skilled & knowledgeable jazz pianist,
but has had close-to-zero impact upon the evolving world of jazz piano
(except, potentially, via his writing);
given his already incredible & brilliant musical accomplishments,
that shouldn't be taken as any kind of insult, i hope.

etc.
that said,
all of it all falls inside the (to me) always-questionable realm
of "personal (post-facto) opinionising";
i do find it odd when folks (including myself) believe that
any composer is
the "more right" choice for any film,
given the remarkable profundity of creatively difficult actualities involved.

regardless,
i still need to study music..... continuously,
since music is my life, not merely my job.
both in & out of film.

d


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 16, 2008)

"at best, this seems like a kinda moot argument, no?"

Not really!

If you read it in the context of Kid's posts you'll see the point I'm making about skill and training. The right score is a multiple choice question, and JW would just come up with a different answer to Fight Club. 

Jay wrote:

"...a good score that served the picture well and pleased the director."

Meanwhile - and I hope I'm not misinterpreting what you always say about scoring - but isn't there more to it than serving the film and pleasing the director? What about the extra spark that separates the memorable scores from the ones that just do the sine quo non?

If you think about Last Tango in Paris; A Man and a Woman; The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly; Mash; The Pink Panther series; O Brother Where Art Though?, or Star Wars, ET, etc.; or any of the other memorable film scores...you'll see that they all go light years beyond just pleasing the director and working okay.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 16, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 16 said:


> "at best, this seems like a kinda moot argument, no?"
> 
> Not really!
> 
> ...



Of course, but this is a subjective judgement that ultimately in the case of the ones you mention, history has made its judgement that they were memorable.

And of course, we did not hear the score that an alternative composer would have written.

I remember when "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" was released, Bacharach's score had a couple of quite negative reviews, saying that it was anachronistic. Ultimately, it won the Oscar and I think most think well of it. I certainly do.

On the other hand, one of the Oscar nominated and well reviewed scores last year, I thought was very mediocre to poor. Others might disagree and history will make a judgement.

I had the chance years ago to see a film both with the original score that got thrown out and the one that it was replaced with. I thought the first score was far better but obviously the director did not. And since few will ever get to see it with the original, history will not be able to make that call.

BTW, history is very judgmental, isn't it ?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 16, 2008)

I must have highlighted some others and hit Delete while typing, because I meant to include Patton and Psycho!

History...well, I think musicians can hear it right away - we don't need to wait that long. 


And who was the dork who said Butch Cassidy was anachronistic?! Hello? Do you think Bacharach didn't know that?! I wonder if he said the same about Ennio Morricone.


----------



## poseur (Apr 16, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 16 said:


> "at best, this seems like a kinda moot argument, no?"
> 
> Not really!


ok, then!




Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 16 said:


> If you read it in the context of Kid's posts you'll see the point I'm making about skill and training. The right score is a multiple choice question, and JW would just come up with a different answer to Fight Club.


indeed, he would have..... of course, conjecture is somewhat silly, here, but
JW's score to Fight Club would have made Fincher's film a very, very different one:
indeed, it may not have had the impact that it has had on audiences & filmmakers,
nor would Fincher have been Fincher to do so, at that particular point in time.
OTOH:
it's possible that JW's score to that film might have made the film much, much more
of "something else"..... and increased the film's "import";

of course, i tend to think that differing musics 
can have vastly differing effects on a film..... in every way.

such a thing will likely remain anybody's guess
(until JW does a re-score for the Director's Son's Cut),
since Fincher chose the Dust Bros. & P.J. Hanke to 
provide music for the picture.

on the other (hypocritical) hand?
i really enjoy the music from "Minority Report",
when divorced from the picture & story:
but i clearly felt that
--- as a score ---
the tone did not at all resonate w/the picture for me,
it hit way too many "wrong" "notes",
and way too blatantly.

it's ok with me;
i still think JW is brilliant.
every composer isn't always brilliant at everything.



Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 16 said:


> I
> History...well, I think musicians can hear it right away - we don't need to wait that long.


ha!
i wasn't sure, but now i KNOW ye've got a comedic streak!
:lol: 

d


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 16, 2008)

I am not sure I adhere to the right/wrong composer for a given film idea, but I do think too many films are scored orchestrally, versus the universe of other alternatives.

In particular, I like the idea (it may be a Lars van Trier concept, or of that general line of thinking) that a film is a certain kind of theatrical machine, and that in many cases, the emotionalism of live performance often calls unwarranted attention to itself versus a cooler hand at the wheel via some form of electronic composition.

A score I really enjoyed is Yann Tiersen's music for "Amelie." The weird, rickety, minimalist approach is just aloof enough to work, where a similar acoustic ensemble of that size would have collapsed, I think. The same thing works well for "Waking Life," with Glover Gill/Tosca Tango Orchestra. The small group live aspect is tempered again by enough aloofness and quirkiness to avoid being cloying or taking too much intellectual space. And the intro feature is a great setup for the entire film, really a pleasurable revealing of the process while simultaneously being cloaked in the cartooning/rotoscoping process of that piece. Showing and simultaneously not showing, which is the kind of thing I adore...

If there is a skill that John Williams really exploited well, it is that he manages to use so much density and color while still maintaining that "music minus one" quality that good film music needs, to avoid stealing too much of the frame. Usually music that thick just devours the moment. Williams's skill is being able to be that romantically audacious, while still leaving space. That is a hard thing to do. When one of the "golden" film romanticists like Elmer Bernstein would do that, the entire film would have to just give way for a moment, but Williams is able to hit that level, and then up the ante one more. There is more subtle skill in that capability than often credited. Haha, and this coming from a "not particularly all things Williams" kind of guy...credit where credit is due!!

If anything, what differentiates film music from music (and I really meant to type that), it's that film music can rarely be 100% attention-consuming. There has to be a digestibility, so that varying parts of the brain are left free to absorb the other artistic content of the frame. The production designer, actors, director, writers, and even the editor are also saying something, and their "something" needs to be heard as clearly as the music. Otherwise, the ironic outcome is that knowingly, or instinctively, the music will get ducked under its rightful level, that is, be minimized purposefully in the final audio mix because it was stealing too much focus.

An experienced director will know this is happening, and seek to collaborate to a solution, time willing. But if you are a rabid consumer of films, you'll notice the phenomenon I described if you listen with an ear for it.

From a composer's point of view, if you want your music to play loud and proud throughout, you have to be hyper aware of its intellectual density...which doesn't mean dumbing down at all, but rather, balancing thickness, tempo, consonance, dissonance, and especially emotionalism to the content of the frame.

I think this is one reason that jazzers/improvisers tend to have an easier time adapting to film composing...because they are already accustomed to the give and take of "providing space," and equally, of knowing when there's an opening to step up (and when it is time to recede). Musicians whose primary playing experience has been the performing of strictly written score have usually not had the opportunity to exercise that realtime skillset, so the concept of giving space is one that must be intellectualized rather than done on an instinctive level. One trained in classic composition is generally accustomed to having the entire intellectual space for himself, in contrast to people who sought specific training (or personal/private study) in theatrical/film/collaborative arts.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 16, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ 16th April 2008 said:


> I think this is one reason that jazzers/improvisers tend to have an easier time adapting to film composing...because they are already accustomed to the give and take of "providing space," and equally, of knowing when there's an opening to step up (and when it is time to recede). Musicians whose primary playing experience has been the performing of strictly written score have usually not had the opportunity to exercise that realtime skillset, so the concept of giving space is one that must be intellectualized rather than done on an instinctive level. One trained in classic composition is generally accustomed to having the entire intellectual space for himself, in contrast to people who sought specific training (or personal/private study) in theatrical/film/collaborative arts.



That is a brilliant insight, Bruce. 

I spent many years playing saxophone and singing in blues and rock and reggae bands (then got married and decided that maybe it was better to be at home nights), all the while studying the orchestra. My scores are almost all orchestral but you have just put your finger on something that I think is absolutely true. My scoring is much more like playing a lick, then stepping back and playing some comp rhythm stuff, then playing another lick, etc.

I had never thought of it that way but the willingness and natural instinct to really step on the gas when required and step back is just a natural thing in live, improvised performance that I never would have gleaned from Stravinsky or Ravel or any of the other greats that we all studied.

You should write a book.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 16, 2008)

You're too kind...but I have flirted with the idea. Not so much a composition/scoring book, but an approach to music education based more in the collaborative model. I find it ironic that the most collaborative experience most music majors have is marching band.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 16, 2008)

"If there is a skill that John Williams really exploited well, it is that he manages to use so much density and color while still maintaining that "music minus one" quality that good film music needs"

The other thing, of course, is that music like that can be turned down without losing much. With small ensembles you have to write more sparsely and stay out of the midrange, etc.


----------



## rayinstirling (Apr 17, 2008)

Bruce, backed up by John

Thanks indeed for turning around my thinking in orchestration.
Less is more. I know this from performing and yet like a child in a candy store I've thought, isn't it great having a big orchestra to play with, how much noise can I make.
Of course this does mean taking far more care in the articulations of the individual instruments but, so be it. I'm off to cull some virtual musicians. :D 

Ray


----------

