# How well does a composer typically play his/her primary instrument?



## tarantulis (Jan 28, 2016)

Do most composers just play their instrument well enough to craft ideas, play them decently, and then pass them off to better-trained professionals to be played well? I know that many of you guys started out in bands or with formal training, but I didn't, so I want more data.

My reason for asking is of course a self-involved one: I'm taking piano lessons (again, as an adult) and learning theory stuff on the side. My lessons are pretty performance-based and the majority of my practice involves practicing various pieces.

Look, I get that this is the norm. I get that its an integral part of learning any instrument, but I sometimes get the feeling that my regiment should be more diversified (ear-training, improvisation, etc.), and I suspect that 90% of my piano knowledge is all fingering and muscle memory at this point. I practice about 4 hrs each day, it's pretty much my life now, so my brain is doing a really good job of putting all the usual self-doubt into one thing.

The process is still fairly new to me so maybe I'm just expecting too much too soon. But does anyone get my drift on the composer-performer dichotomy? Inner musician is very pleased to be playing Schumann and Chopin. Inner composer is looking at his watch and just being a real baby about the whole thing.


----------



## Russell Moran (Jan 28, 2016)

Use your voice with everything you practice - it'll make music much easier in the future. 50+ years of playing experience tells me so.


----------



## Orchestrata (Jan 28, 2016)

tarantulis said:


> I sometimes get the feeling that my regiment should be more diversified (ear-training, improvisation, etc.) [...] Inner musician is very pleased to be playing Schumann and Chopin. Inner composer is looking at his watch and just being a real baby about the whole thing.



What is your goal, to be primarily a composer or a concert pianist? 

If you feel like your regimen is lacking ear-training, improv and general creativity, then it probably is, especially if you want to be a composer. I've worked with a lot of accomplished performers who totally freeze up the moment they need to improvise or compose; it's incredible to see someone who can play virtuoso-level violin pieces nearly driven to tears at the prospect of improvising 16 bars. There has to be a balance. And jieff's advice is gold: jam with other musicians. Improvise. It can be intimidating if it's new to you, but it's fun and every bit as useful as learning vast numbers of complex pieces.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 28, 2016)

I don't know of a successful composer who hasn't mastered at least one instrument well enough to play live / in public / for an audience focused on music, whether that's rock or "concert" music. John Adams plays virtuoso clarinet, John Williams plays piano, as does James Newton Howard. Although he might disparage his skills, HZ played keyboards (and is certainly a master at his computers). Howard Shore -- really everyone I can think of. 

Maybe there are some who can't read well, or sightread well, but even there -- David Torn plays magnificently on just about anything with tuning pegs and a neck (and plays piano too). He's an amazing musician.


----------



## proxima (Jan 28, 2016)

One thing I find amusing watching Youtube videos of various composers working or demoing stuff is how they almost always say at some point they aren't very good at keyboard/piano and apologize for it. Of course, they could all have some other primary instruments.

With 4 hours a day of piano practice I'd be mindful of repetitive stress injuries, which would be far more harmful than the gain from some additional technique.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jan 28, 2016)

I've wrestled with this myself and have come to the conclusion that SOME practice is necessary. It's far faster to play in your lines complete with velocity, modwheel and the like then clean them up if necessary than to mouse in or type in your parts.

That being said I think that learning scales, modes etc. in all keys, learning how to play triads, 7ths, 9ths in all keys and inversions and other keyboard drills is far more beneficial than leaning to play from the classical repertoire for a composer.

That way you can quickly and fluidly improvise melodies as well as try out different harmonies, modulations and the like far quicker than mousing ever could. I don't understand how people compose media music in a notation program myself, but different strokes...


----------



## elpedro (Jan 28, 2016)

tarantulis said:


> Do most composers just play their instrument well enough to craft ideas, play them decently, and then pass them off to better-trained professionals to be played well? I know that many of you guys started out in bands or with formal training, but I didn't, so I want more data.
> 
> My reason for asking is of course a self-involved one: I'm taking piano lessons (again, as an adult) and learning theory stuff on the side. My lessons are pretty performance-based and the majority of my practice involves practicing various pieces.
> 
> ...


I think a composer is one who hears music in his head,and is able to translate that into actual compositions.Playing skills can play a part,as can knowledge of harmony and rhythm etc.But i don't think it is a "must" to "master" an instrument. I can play a little guitar, bass,keyboards and drums, and it helps when doing midi to have a good understanding of how instruments are actually played.What I have found is that learning more about harmony,chord structures and progressions, etc has helped me more than trying to become a master at any instrument in particular...I suppose that it is an individual thing, and "by the fruits you shall know the trees"..if becoming a better pianist makes you a better composer, just do it!


----------



## handz (Jan 28, 2016)

Well being virtuoso grade pianist for sure help  

Sadly as you said, muscle memory and memorized stuff not necessarily help with composing skillz, but you can definitely develop your theory and musical feeling from the pieces you play. But you must really watch for these things - progressions, modulation etc etc..


----------



## Daryl (Jan 29, 2016)

Playing an instrument well is not just about mastery of the instrument. It is also about learning the finer points of making music, and if the final goal is to be crafting performances with virtual instruments, this knowledge puts you streets ahead of others. it also helps when you work with live musicians, because you have something in common.


----------



## pkm (Jan 29, 2016)

Streets ahead - if you have to ask, you're streets behind.


----------



## Matt Hawken (Jan 29, 2016)

Theory is more important, in my opinion. To be able to write functional and beautiful music extremely quickly, you must understand the architecture of sound. Master your theory/orchestration/mixing before you master your piano.

I'm a professional pianist/organist and cellist but most of my good ideas don't arrive through me playing the piano well - they pop up out of nowhere. Being good at riding CC faders is definitely a skill though, and being a string player definitely helps when writing expressive string parts.


----------



## jacobthestupendous (Jan 29, 2016)

I'm halfway decent at guitar, and I got that way mostly by jamming along with music that I like. I improvised textural lines and harmony lines and solos, and I followed other instrument parts, even on songs that I'd never heard before. I did that sort of thing a lot, and now I'm totally comfortable in a live situation, even when the road map isn't so clear. I developed my instincts about how music sounds and feels, and in some ways, I'm way more capable than people who are technically much better than me but don't know how to feel it. Virtually 98% of classical music training (at least strings and piano) is learning to read and reproduce what a great composer put on a page; free yourself of that.


----------



## Uncle Peter (Jan 29, 2016)

Composing was a natural extension of trying to improvise solos on the spot on the guitar - instant Music was the game!


----------



## Baron Greuner (Jan 29, 2016)

Fingering and muscle memory is the key.

Forget about ear training and all that shit. That's just propaganda. That comes automatically with playing.

Playing is the key.

You MUST develop muscle memory if you want to play anything well. Why? Because you cannot think about the next note and the next note and so on. It just has to happen.

Advanced hand action. That's what you're striving for.


----------



## tarantulis (Jan 29, 2016)

Yeah I think I'm gonna not practice tonight.

Alright so what's the next step here. Clearly I've got this all backwards. Some of this stuff seems so attainable and yet it's really stumping me. I switched piano teachers last month for this very reason, was very explicit about what I wanted (i.e., well-rounded lessons for an aspiring composer), and was told that it would be customized to fit my needs. Do I need to switch again? Do I quit? How do I learn to improvise in a structured way? Is there a book or course that's recommended for starting out? How do I jam with musicians when I've only been playing for a few months? How do I learn theory from a composition perspective and apply it as I go?

What's really frustrating is that I know exactly what's missing, I'm willing to give my full dedication, I just dont know how to get there.


----------



## MyBootsOnFire (Jan 29, 2016)

I don't know what the best structured way to learn improvisation is as most of what i've learned has come from playing with other musicians. I'd imagine that's fairly common for a lot or even most guitar players. 

If i need to work on my skills with other instruments, and my friend's aren't around, i go to YouTube. Typically i'll put on a Johnny Cash playlist, but any relatively simple music works. Common, familiar chord progressions, simple songs with only three or four chords, and not much there in the way of fills or solos leaves plenty of room. For me, it's the next best thing to jamming with friends. Playing along forces you to think on your feet because the band, or recording, doesn't stop to wait for you to figure something out. 

I think playing with others is the best way to go though. Find some local musicians and start a jam nite, even if you've only been playing a short time. For a while some friends and i would meet in our friends barber shop once a month. All skill levels and instruments were welcome, from the guitarist who could barely strum three chords to the pianist who had played almost all his life. Lots of mistakes were made by all, especially as the nite went on and drinks were consumed, but no one cared. We had fun, it was good practice, and i learned a lot from playing with more experienced musicians. Plus, you'll never know who you mite meet. I got a chance to play with a locally famous singer that i had been a fan of for years because he lived in the area and wanted to hang out and play too.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Jan 30, 2016)

Hang on a second. How long have you been playing the piano for so far?

Please put up some of your piano playing thus far via SC or something like that.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 30, 2016)

My advice would be not to get confused between improvising, performing and composing. They are different skills and each has their uses.


----------



## tarantulis (Jan 30, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> Hang on a second. How long have you been playing the piano for so far?
> 
> Please put up some of your piano playing thus far via SC or something like that.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Jan 30, 2016)

edited


----------



## bbunker (Jan 30, 2016)

I wonder.

When I'm sight-reading, I use whatever fingerings work at the time. Sometimes it isn't pretty, but it gets the job done. I think I would almost say that the fingerings and pedalings are improvised.

When I play THAT ii-V-I lick for the 12,000th time (oh, how about D-F-A-C-B-Ab-F-Eb-E, all on eighth notes over a ii-V-I in C...) then I would say (disparagingly) that a lot of my improvisations are actually composed.

Since I'm a hack, I inevitably forget a section when playing a piece from memory. I'll substitute in other chord tones than the original in lower voices, or the left hand will fill in different notes that fit in the harmony. So, when I'm essentially making it up when I've screwed up, am I composing, improvising, or performing? It kind of seems like I'm doing all three, and I don't know where one ends and another begins.

Now if I wanted to make a method of my own madness, then I'd recommend that you screw up on purpose. Try it out on something you can play easily. How about the 'first' Kuhlau Sonatina, Op. 20, no. 1? Screw up the opening arpeggio on purpose and go to different chord tones, or in different orders. How does the passagework that follows need to adapt to fit the new melodic material? How about if you change the second chord so that it's a four instead of a five, or a secondary dominant D7 chord? Now if you're still doing this, are you composing, or improvising?


----------



## Robert Cote (Jan 30, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> Playing is the key.
> 
> You MUST develop muscle memory if you want to play anything well. Why? Because you cannot think about the next note and the next note and so on. It just has to happen.
> 
> Advanced hand action. That's what you're striving for.



I agree with this point of view. You need to internalize and build a musical language not only in your mind, but in your hands (The two must develop together) by playing and listening to music, not just focusing on scales and exercises. You need to be able to quickly play what you hear in your head or you'll never be able to get your ideas down fast enough before they fade away. It's more important that what you write is musically good (formed from the solid foundation of a good internal library and language) than knowing how it breaks down into scales and chords.

Just as it's more important to be able to speak the thoughts that are in your mind immediately without consciously stopping to think about sentence structure, grammar, etc.


----------



## tarantulis (Jan 30, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> Little bit heavy in places but C sharp minor means you can play a bit. OK. I can't sit through all of the Moonlight.
> 
> However, what about stuff you have written? Where is that? I thought this was about improv.



At least it wasn't Fur Elise 

I haven't really written anything for solo piano since starting lessons, so there's not much to share on that front. I started lessons under the kind of naive impression that that's just what you had to do if you wanted to learn an instrument. I was hoping for well-rounded lessons that would give me a little of everything, but after some serious (like months-long) searching online for a teacher who could accomodate my needs, this is the best I could find. Then again, current teacher is not a composer, he's a concert pianist who's also roughly my age (25, which is both good and bad because yeah it's easier to communicate but harder to get him to show up on time) and I get the feeling he isn't going to be able to teach me the creative stuff, though he claims he can. I also think he might be a pathological liar, but that's beside the point.(Or is it. Hm.)

So. Time for a new teacher? Find someone who's also a composer and can teach me that stuff?

I wish there was like a music monastery of some kind where you could just throw yourself at someone's feet and go "Look. I need to learn X, Y, and Z. I'll do whatever it takes. Here's money." And some ancient robed figure (preferably Chinese) steps out from the shadows and goes "Come, my son" and takes me into the mountains for like eight months.


----------



## Rodney Money (Jan 30, 2016)

tarantulis said:


> I wish there was like a music monastery of some kind where you could just throw yourself at someone's feet and go "Look. I need to learn X, Y, and Z. I'll do whatever it takes. Here's money." And some ancient robed figure (preferably Chinese) steps out from the shadows and goes "Come, my son" and takes me into the mountains for like eight months.


For me, that was called "college."


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 30, 2016)

tarantulis said:


> I wish there was like a music monastery of some kind where you could just throw yourself at someone's feet and go "Look. I need to learn X, Y, and Z. I'll do whatever it takes. Here's money." And some ancient robed figure (preferably Chinese) steps out from the shadows and goes "Come, my son" and takes me into the mountains for like eight months.


This was literally already given to you in your other thread. There were some good suggestions in there but I'll narrow them down below.
http://vi-control.net/community/threads/books-courses-on-theory-orchestration.50991/#post-3929206

Based on what you've expressed here, I'd highly recommend you check out Alain Mayrand's Composer Training Module 1 (which is only available for a short time) as it gives some excellent hands-on training and makes you think about new approaches to studying and applying harmony *AND IMPROVISATION*. His visual walk-through approach will really get you up and running quickly. If its no longer available, I'd suggest you bow deeply and beg as if he were a robed Chinese master. Its expensive, but sounds like its *exactly* what you need at this point.

http://vi-control.net/community/thr...ugh-direct-purchase.45740/page-2#post-3928233

Mike Verta also has a class on Improve with good suggestions although his approach is much less structured and it sounds like you'll benefit highly from Alain's structured approach.

And it wouldn't hurt to start studying Jazz piano too as that will open up some ideas/doors on improv and composition.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Jan 30, 2016)

edited


----------



## tarantulis (Jan 30, 2016)

synergy543 said:


> This was literally already given to you in your other thread. There were some good suggestions in there but I'll narrow them down below.
> http://vi-control.net/community/threads/books-courses-on-theory-orchestration.50991/#post-3929206
> 
> Based on what you've expressed here, I'd highly recommend you check out Alain Mayrand's Composer Training Module 1 (which is only available for a short time) as it gives some excellent hands-on training and makes you think about new approaches to studying and applying harmony *AND IMPROVISATION*. His visual walk-through approach will really get you up and running quickly. If its no longer available, I'd suggest you bow deeply and beg as if he were a robed Chinese master. Its expensive, but sounds like its *exactly* what you need at this point.
> ...



Don't think I've neglected to heed the advice given in that other thread: I found all the input immensely helpful and am currently working my way through one of the recommended books as well as an MV masterclass (didn't know there was one on Improv though; will be sure to do that one next). That thread's focus was theory and orchestration, though, and the suggestions on improv, while useful, were more free-form; hence my question on a more "structured" approach (which it seems you've completely answered!).

This looks like exactly what I need. I'm going to reach out to him today. Thank you so much!


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 30, 2016)

tarantulis said:


> This looks like exactly what I need. I'm going to reach out to him today. Thank you so much!


Alain also does one-on-one courses I think so when you contact him you might enquire about that as well. Maybe just a few classes might be all you need to set you on the right course? I've never studied with him although you'll get a good idea from his videos what that might be like. I think the Composition 101 course is the best starting point (the one on Modal Mastery is good too but would be a second choice given your focus). Really, its a combination of all the advice everyone's mentioned and Alain does a good job of getting you jump-started. Once you're up and running, and learning on your own, then the other courses, classes, and books will become more valuable assets. Have fun.


----------



## rgames (Jan 30, 2016)

Daryl said:


> My advice would be not to get confused between improvising, performing and composing. They are different skills and each has their uses.


This is my experience as well. I'm a clarinetist and I'm perfectly comfortable sitting down with any orchestra and any piece (though give me a couple weeks if it's The Firebird...) but I still do all my composing on piano. I really can't compose on clarinet. I can improvise, sure, but that's not really the same.

Regarding the original question, my favorite composers all had professional-level chops on at least one instrument. So I'm inclined to say yes, mastery of an instrument is part of learning to compose.

Especially if you want to work with orchestras: there's so much practical knowledge you gain in sitting through hundreds of rehearsals. After that, an orchestration book is basically a reference that you use occasionally. You learn how the music *really* comes together, and it's often not quite what's on the page.

rgames


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2016)

rgames said:


> Regarding the original question, my favorite composers all had professional-level chops on at least one instrument. So I'm inclined to say yes, mastery of an instrument is part of learning to compose.
> 
> Especially if you want to work with orchestras: there's so much practical knowledge you gain in sitting through hundreds of rehearsals. After that, an orchestration book is basically a reference that you use occasionally. You learn how the music *really* comes together, and it's often not quite what's on the page.
> 
> rgames


+1


----------



## tarantulis (Jan 31, 2016)

Thanks for the input everyone. Seriously. I keep coming to these forums pissed off and confused about something, and leaving with tons of insight and hope. This is a really unique community and I'm glad I found it.

Not so sure my gene pool would've survived in a pre-digital era, but hey.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Feb 1, 2016)

edited


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 1, 2016)

tarantulis said:


> Thanks for the input everyone. Seriously. I keep coming to these forums pissed off and confused about something, and leaving with tons of insight and hope. This is a really unique community and I'm glad I found it.
> 
> Not so sure my gene pool would've survived in a pre-digital era, but hey.


Quick question, do you want to write for live ensembles or sampled renderings, and what is your ultimate goal as a composer?


----------



## tarantulis (Feb 1, 2016)

Rodney Money said:


> Quick question, do you want to write for live ensembles or sampled renderings, and what is your ultimate goal as a composer?



I'd like to write for live orchestra. My background is heavily electronica-influenced (lots of sampling and sound manipulation), so ideally it would be cool to infuse those elements on occasion.

If by ultimate goals you mean career-wise, what can I say? The business is tough and the paychecks are small. Ideally I'd like to get my start as a freelance composer for video games and indie films, and do technical writer work on a contract basis for pro audio companies to make ends meet. The ultimate goal is to make as much music in a lifetime as possible.


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 1, 2016)

tarantulis said:


> I'd like to write for live orchestra. My background is heavily electronica-influenced (lots of sampling and sound manipulation), so ideally it would be cool to infuse those elements on occasion.
> 
> If by ultimate goals you mean career-wise, what can I say? The business is tough and the paychecks are small. Ideally I'd like to get my start as a freelance composer for video games and indie films, and do technical writer work on a contract basis for pro audio companies to make ends meet. The ultimate goal is to make as much music in a lifetime as possible.


I believe that composing music for live orchestra is both an art form and an honor. And with that, I personally believe you should honor that tradition by becoming proficient on your instrument, so you can appropriately communicate and relate with the musicians so they can better communicate your intentions into sound. I can go much deeper if you want me to, and talk more about it. Just let me know. 

Do you want to work personally with the musicians or just hand off the music to someone else and let them do it after you rendered it in a DAW?


----------



## tarantulis (Feb 1, 2016)

Rodney Money said:


> I believe that composing music for live orchestra is both an art form and an honor. And with that, I personally believe you should honor that tradition by becoming proficient on your instrument, so you can appropriately communicate and relate with the musicians so they can better communicate your intentions into sound. I can go much deeper if you want me to, and talk more about it. Just let me know.
> 
> Do you want to work personally with the musicians or just hand off the music to someone else and let them do it after you rendered it in a DAW?



Please do; I'd love to hear more.

And I agree that proficiency is a must, especially after hearing the input of others here: I'll continue to work as hard as I can and I guess patience will have to be something else I work on.

To answer your question, I'd like to work with musicians personally. I think that will allow me to write more confidently for other instruments and perhaps convey ideas more effectively. I think my personality is more in sync with the troubled loner type but I'd like to think I'll be capable of that sort of stuff one day.


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 2, 2016)

tarantulis said:


> Please do; I'd love to hear more.
> 
> And I agree that proficiency is a must, especially after hearing the input of others here: I'll continue to work as hard as I can and I guess patience will have to be something else I work on.
> 
> To answer your question, I'd like to work with musicians personally. I think that will allow me to write more confidently for other instruments and perhaps convey ideas more effectively. I think my personality is more in sync with the troubled loner type but I'd like to think I'll be capable of that sort of stuff one day.


Awesome, my friend. I am very happy to hear that you would like to work with the musicians personally, and don't worry too much about being the troubled loner type, I could be the poster child. The personality is called Perfect Melancholy which is great for making music, art, and just being creative, but the side effects are perfectionists, moody, introvert, and procrastination. Because I work with live musicians all the time, and my wife loves to throw awesome parties at our home, I had to work on myself to be a social butterfly, or Popular Sanguine, when being around other people so that they may enjoy my presence. But the honest truth is, I think I would find complete happiness living in the middle of nowhere with nothing else but my family and my work occasionally letting me out to work with other live musicians.

(More to come later on. I need to work on a few measures that I am working on for a trumpet concerto.)


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Feb 2, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> Beethoven and Chopin, Bach, Rachmaninov were some of the greatest improvisers ever.


 

That's right, but don't forget the greatest improviser of all: the magnificent, brilliant, stunning, amazing, awe-inspiring genius, Franz Liszt!

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 2, 2016)

Jerome Vonhogen said:


> That's right, but don't forget the greatest improviser of all: the magnificent, brilliant, stunning, amazing, awe-inspiring genius, Franz Liszt!
> 
> - Jerome Vonhögen


Do you have a recording to prove this?


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Feb 3, 2016)

Rodney Money said:


> Do you have a recording to prove this?


 

As a matter of fact, I have! (sort of...)

I have two piano-rolls by Alfred Reisenauer and Bernhard Stavenhagen, two of Liszt's most brilliant pupils, playing two well-known pieces by Liszt with 'authentic' variations, alterations, and elements of improvisation, reconstructed/recreated as accurately as they could remember from listening to Liszt's own performances of the same works in the late 19th century. The rolls state explicitly "As played by Liszt" and are among the rarest piano rolls I've found.

I used to collect pianorolls made by pupils of Liszt (Friedheim, Moriz Rosenthal, Von Sauer, d'Albert, etcetera). I noticed that many of the rolls that feature compositions by Liszt contain parts that sound like virtuoso improvisations, different from any known edition of those works. Although these performances may have been inspired by the master himself, only the two piano roll-recordings mentioned above have been made explicitly to capture (at least) the spirit and originality of Liszt as a supreme performer and extremely gifted improvisor.

The same goes for all the acoustic recordings made by Liszt's pupils on 78 RPM discs (Siloti, Da Motta, DeGreef, Von Weiss, Ansorge, etc.), and a couple of radio broadcasts that have survived (Friedheim, Lamond, Rosenthal).

Apart from the recorded (yet indirect) evidence, there are libraries full of witness accounts of Liszt's extraordinary talent for improvisation. I found more than two-hundred books that bear witness to Liszt's amazing skills as a performer, teacher, and improvisor.

Furthermore, we have many revised editions of pieces published during Liszt's lifetime, as well as countless ossia's, cadenza's and comments on his scores. Then there are many musical sketches, unpublished fragments, and manuscripts that contain notes and suggestions regarding the performance of the music.

Improvising was a skill many (if not most) pianists possessed in the 19th century. If you read concert reviews of that age (especially from Paris), you get a very nice picture of the concert and salon tradition of that time, which is closely related to the incredibly fast development of the modern piano, as well as the instrument's immense popularity.

In the 19th century, the soloist-superstar was born, with giants like Liszt, Thalberg, Leopold de Meyer, Carl Tausig, Paderewski, and Anton Rubinstein. Virtuosity and improvisation skills became more important as the piano repertoire evolved, and the personality of the performer became the central focus in public performances.

The piano also became an important way to introduce a broad audience to symphonic music and opera, through virtuoso transcriptions and paraphrases. These transcriptions were more open to improvisation and experimentation than the standard repertoire of that time (Händel, Beethoven, etcetera), so the quality depended on the technical and musical skills of the performer. Piano transcriptions in the 19th Century were a bit like mockups with virtual instruments nowadays. 

Paganini showed that a single string on a violin was enough to create the impression of a full ensemble, so this phenomenon of the 'emancipation' of instrumentalists wasn't restricted to the world of piano. Musical instruments became tools with endless possibilities, and available to almost everyone (although Berlioz didn't play the piano, Paganini once gave him a guitar. I'm sure he used it once in a while).

Anyway, Franz Liszt was unique in many ways, and is therefore one of the most interesting composer-musicians of the past 200 years. He may have had orchestrators for (some of) his symphonic works, but he was the indisputed hero of the piano.

By the way, Liszt had a piano built in his desk in some kind of drawer, which looks very similar to the home studio desks of today with built-in Midi-controller. 

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------



## tarantulis (Feb 4, 2016)

For all you pianist composers out there, does this seem like a well-rounded practice regimen?

1.) Warm-up (Hanon's exercises): 30 min
2.) Work on learning a piece: 1 hour
3.) Piece deconstruction (Take it apart, find out what chord progressions and inversions are being used, etc.): 30 min
4.) Scales, arpeggios: 30 min
5.) Ear-training (???): 30 min
6.) Improvisation (Work on playing alongside some simple songs, try to pick out the key they are in, etc.): 30 min
7.) Cool-down (Play through a few pieces you already know): 30 min

It won't leave much time for composing but mastering the instrument is my top priority right now. Still not really sure how to do proper ear-training (outside of just humming notes aloud and trying to find the right note on the keyboard. Downloading some courses on this.)


----------



## Baron Greuner (Feb 4, 2016)

edited


----------



## JohnG (Feb 4, 2016)

tarantulis said:


> For all you pianist composers out there, does this seem like a well-rounded practice regimen?



I would guess that's about 2-3x what most musicians who are primarily composers will do in an average day, but, on the other hand, most of my own favourite composers can perform on their primary instruments in a sophisticated way, so maybe that's the way to go.

One guy I admire a great deal, who's played on everything from major motion pictures to giant rock arenas to Famous Songs, practices odd scales all the time. I read that JNH played keys for a tour with Elton John with hardly any notice or time to learn the tracks properly.


----------



## Yogi108 (Feb 4, 2016)

There's a great article on practicing by Maurice Hinson which I always share with new piano students... I couldn't find it online... Except in a random forum... But it's got some interesting insights into the lifelong discipline (to whatever degree you wish to take it...) of the piano...

Hope you don't mind the length... But you might find at least one or two points worth trying out yourself...

Does Your Practice Make Perfect
by Maurice Hinson

Security in Performance can only be achieved by thoughtful and systematic methods of correct practice. The old saying, "Practice makes perfect," is not true. A more valid statement would be, "Correct Practice Leads towards Perfection."

Some of our greatest teachers of the past have made some fascinating statements of this subject. Isidor Phillipp said, "The student must be made to understand that it is not the quantity of work but the quality of work which counts." Stephen Heller gave us a striking motto: "Practice very slowly--progress very fast." Saint-Saens put it in a humorous way when he stated that "One must practice slowly, then more slowly, and finally slowly!" Slow practice has been insisted upon by many famous pedagogues, and its value is well-known. But on cardinal rule must be observed in slow practice: the muscular processes must be the same in slow practice as those used when the piece is played up to tempo.

These famous musicians remind us of the importance of what should go on during practice. What may be "correct" for one person may be incorrect for another, and, for this reason, all the following suggestions will not work for all people. The thread running through all these rules is "concentration", for let us remember that the best work is done in the brain. There is no substitute for thoughtful concentration when practicing. Many students have fooled themselves into thinking they were practicing all the time they were at the piano, but there is a great difference between practicing and playing.

The following suggestions (by no means all original, but added to over the years with ideas derived from teachers, students, and fellow pianists) are offered as a "check list" by which pianists can measure the efficiency of their practice methods. The author is sure there are many other vitally important rules for fine practice habits, and he would welcome suggestions for new rules and comments concerning the ones here listed. How do you "stack up" with these rules?

1. The first time you play through your piece, or any section of it, be fanatically careful not to make any mistakes either in the notes or in time values.

2. Subdivide the piece into short sections.

3. Occasionally begin your practice by beginning at the last section of the piece, then do the next to last section, and so on till you have reached the beginning.

4. For the first few days of practice on a new piece, repeat one section four to eight times before beginning to practice the next. When two sections have been practiced in this way, they should be joined and given two to four repetitions as a whole. Ultimately, all the sections should be fitted together in this way.

5. Resist the temptation to go on playing faster and faster. If you have a metronome, use it for an "external discipline" to check yourself.

6. During practice, try to free your mind from any anxiety concerning the final results of your practice, either with regard to standards or deadlines.

7. Always try to approach the act of learning a new piece when your are as fresh as possible. I prefer the morning for my practice.

8. Always be on the watch for signs of staleness. This usually reveals itself though lack of interest in your piece or in the presence of more that the usual amount of inaccuracy. It is east to "turn on the fingers" and "tune off the mind."

9. In the earliest stages of learning anything new, the rate of forgetting is very rapid. Therefore, the maxim of "little and often" in early stages of learning is very important.

10. Do not practice if you feel annoyed, irritable, or upset about anything.

11. Get into the habit of trying to look upon yourself as an ordinary human being. This means that you neither set absurd and impossible standards of work for yourself nor allow yourself to be satisfied with a standard which you know really could and ought to be better.

12. Think ten times and play once.

13. Count bars, not beats, if your playing is lacking in movement.

14. Always think the rhythm and meter before starting to play.

15. Trills should aim as regularity before speed.

16. Listen for resonance, not noise, in loud passages.

17. Do not work against time. If you have only one hour at your disposal, plan 45 minutes of practice and do the most with each minute. If you attempt to plan for the whole hour, you will have your eye on the clock, a nervous tension that may result in muscular tension, and much of your mental energy will be wasted. "Surround every action with a circle of non-hurry."

18. Perform always, even when sight-reading. Always express something, and never "just run though."

19. Mark the beat with your other hand.

20. Think a piece though without any playing, either will or without the music.

21. Remember - every pianistic problem has both its origin and solution in the music itself.


----------



## Suganthan (Feb 4, 2016)

Im pretty beginner actually. I loved Liszt's at the first listen. No other classical works did that to me(maybe its just for me, some other might disagree). 

I just wanted to add a couple of points here about improvisation.
1) I think improvising without an instrument(just doing it in our mind) is one of the strong practices one could ever do. The best thing is you can do it anywhere. There is no barrier between you and the virtual instrument. But the downfall I think is its hard to progress. I can successfully improvise melodies in major/minor scale but I find it hard to do it in chromatic scale. Harmonizing, chords progressions are completely impossible to me for now. Im sure many veterans here can do that.
2) Constantly Singing/making up counter melodies(inside the head ofcourse) to any music one listening is one of the strongest improvisations. Changing the articulation/dynamics/rhythm are other notable things.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 4, 2016)

Suganthan said:


> Im pretty beginner actually. I loved Liszt's at the first listen. No other classical works did that to me(maybe its just for me, some other might disagree).
> 
> I just wanted to add a couple of points here about improvisation.
> 1) I think improvising without an instrument(just doing it in our mind) is one of the strong practices one could ever do. The best thing is you can do it anywhere. There is no barrier between you and the virtual instrument. But the downfall I think is its hard to progress. I can successfully improvise melodies in major/minor scale but I find it hard to do it in chromatic scale. Harmonizing, chords progressions are completely impossible to me for now. Im sure many veterans here can do that.
> ...


Ah, Liszt... I have found that people either: A. Love him. B. Think he has ADHD. C. Love him and thinks he has ADHD.


----------



## tarantulis (Feb 4, 2016)

Yogi108 said:


> Do not practice if you feel annoyed, irritable, or upset about anything.



There are other ways to practice?

Kidding. Seriously great article, thank you for digging that up. I'm going to print this out and stick it on my bulletin board where it belongs.



Suganthan said:


> I just wanted to add a couple of points here about improvisation.
> 1) I think improvising without an instrument(just doing it in our mind) is one of the strong practices one could ever do. The best thing is you can do it anywhere. There is no barrier between you and the virtual instrument. But the downfall I think is its hard to progress. I can successfully improvise melodies in major/minor scale but I find it hard to do it in chromatic scale. Harmonizing, chords progressions are completely impossible to me for now. Im sure many veterans here can do that.
> 2) Constantly Singing/making up counter melodies(inside the head ofcourse) to any music one listening is one of the strongest improvisations. Changing the articulation/dynamics/rhythm are other notable things.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.



Never considered this either! I just tried doing this in the car with the jazz station playing and it was surprisingly hard. Wow.


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 5, 2016)

So to talk a little bit more on how playing your primary instrument could help your composing, check my example out. When I was working on the main theme to the 3rd movement of my trumpet concerto, without physically playing it on the trumpet it looked very basic, but when I played the theme on my trumpet it became more sophisticated and idiomatic. You can do the exact same thing with your skills as a piano player. Sometimes your playing and technique can become the biggest inspiration of them all.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 5, 2016)

Haydn, Beethoven, Liszt, Mozart, James Newton Howard, Paganini, Danny Elfman, John Williams, Howard Shore, Hank Williams, John Lennon...

The idea that music has to spring to your mind during some intense bout of creativity, away from an instrument, has been repeated _ad nauseum_ for the last 100 years or so, originally promulgated by either Hindemith or Schoenberg or someone -- forget who. Personally I think that is total rubbish mixed with snobbism. Maybe some people do that and, admittedly, I keep music paper handy all the time to jot down ideas even in the car. Either way, for sure the composers whose work I admire most were / are all excellent (or at least solid) performers too.

Check out the list of people who have been nominated for awards -- whichever ones you most admire / covet. They are performers.


----------



## tarantulis (Feb 5, 2016)

JohnG said:


> Haydn, Beethoven, Liszt, Mozart, James Newton Howard, Paganini, Danny Elfman, John Williams, Howard Shore, Hank Williams, John Lennon...
> 
> The idea that music has to spring to your mind during some intense bout of creativity, away from an instrument, has been repeated _ad nauseum_ for the last 100 years or so, originally promulgated by either Hindemith or Schoenberg or someone -- forget who. Personally I think that is total rubbish mixed with snobbism. Maybe some people do that and, admittedly, I keep music paper handy all the time to jot down ideas even in the car. Either way, for sure the composers whose work I admire most were / are all excellent (or at least solid) performers too.
> 
> Check out the list of people who have been nominated for awards -- whichever ones you most admire / covet. They are performers.



Alright, I get it: The notion that I can somehow get by without mastering my instrument has been officially vanquished. I'll put in the work, I'll try to catch up. No more excuses.

Definitely more regret though. Why oh why did you give up piano to pursue a rap career, David. Stupid.


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Feb 5, 2016)

Rodney Money said:


> Ah, Liszt... I have found that people either: A. Love him. B. Think he has ADHD. C. Love him and thinks he has ADHD.


 

Liszt & ADHD??? Franz Liszt most definitely didn't have the disorder!

As a matter of fact, he was the exact opposite of someone with ADHD (i.e. always in full (self-)control, overachieving, orderly and efficient, well-organized, calm in a relaxed way, concentrated, perfect fine motoric skills & coordination of hands, perfect timing, great memory, systematic, thoughtful, patient, etcetera).

One of his most famous pupils though, pianist-composer Eugen d'Albert (who wrote 20 opera's in the course of his career), did show several symptomes of the disorder though, judging from what I have read about him. However, every psychiatric claim about his mental state (so many years after his death) is of course pure speculation.

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------



## JohnG (Feb 5, 2016)

You don't sound stupid at all, David. And besides, rapping shows inventiveness, intensity, focus and the ability to perform on the spot -- all good qualities for life and for music. 

Every single thing you do in life can go into your music, from caring for a pet or children, to work, to crazy stuff, to heartbreak and loss -- everything.

Be good to yourself and work hard and things happen.


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 5, 2016)

Jerome Vonhogen said:


> Liszt & ADHD??? Franz Liszt most definitely didn't have the disorder!
> 
> As a matter of fact, he was the exact opposite of someone with ADHD (i.e. always in full (self-)control, overachieving, orderly and efficient, well-organized, calm in a relaxed way, concentrated, perfect fine motoric skills & coordination of hands, perfect timing, great memory, systematic, thoughtful, patient, etcetera).
> 
> ...


This American is not saying he had ADHD, but some say that's what his music sounds like.
Edit: He did have a disorder though... women, lol.


----------



## tarantulis (Feb 5, 2016)

JohnG said:


> You don't sound stupid at all, David. And besides, rapping shows inventiveness, intensity, focus and the ability to perform on the spot -- all good qualities for life and for music.
> 
> Every single thing you do in life can go into your music, from caring for a pet or children, to work, to crazy stuff, to heartbreak and loss -- everything.
> 
> Be good to yourself and work hard and things happen.



Thanks, John. Needed to hear that.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Feb 5, 2016)

edited


----------



## Leo Badinella (Feb 6, 2016)

Tarantulis, I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but I think you might find this book interesting http://pianofundamentals.com/book/en/chapter_1 I couldn't find the whole book in pdf, but I can send it to you if you want to.


----------



## tarantulis (Feb 6, 2016)

Leo Badinella said:


> Tarantulis, I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but I think you might find this book interesting http://pianofundamentals.com/book/en/chapter_1 I couldn't find the whole book in pdf, but I can send it to you if you want to.



I was on the fence about this book for a while and eventually decided against it, not just because of the mixed reviews it received from other pianists and composers who criticized its new-agey pop-science approach and lack of organization, but because of the bizarre and possibly sociopathic nature of its author, who, in addition to engaging in some pretty questionable self-promotion practices on other forums, was described in rather disturbing personal detail by one customer in an online Amazon review, which then led to an even stranger case of seeming account-doubling whereby Mr. Chang actually appears to be attacking this customer under the guise of a legitimate third party. It's all very weird and confusing and definitely worth checking out.

That being said, what's your experience with the book? I'm not totally opposed to reading it; just need some convincing.


----------



## Leo Badinella (Feb 6, 2016)

I was not aware of the emotional drama around it. I do find interesting his descriptions of thumb-over and thumb-under playing, flat fingers, and how to practice speed. I found it very interesting, and fresh.

The book is free though, you can leaf through it and see what you think. I suggest you do.


----------



## waveheavy (May 26, 2016)

tarantulis said:


> The process is still fairly new to me so maybe I'm just expecting too much too soon. But does anyone get my drift on the composer-performer dichotomy? Inner musician is very pleased to be playing Schumann and Chopin. Inner composer is looking at his watch and just being a real baby about the whole thing.



Performance is a separate area of musicianship in itself. What you need are the tools for composition and orchestration, and that's going to involve learning theory like harmony to include a certain amount of music composition history. Then you need to learn how to study a score, what the traditional orchestra is and its changes through the past couple of centuries. Some study on arranging is another important area. Then there's counterpoint, both 17th century that Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven studied, and then modern versions those like John Williams studied.

Guitar can be a good composing tool also, if one knows how to play it on a chord/melody level. Study of drop 2 four-note chord voicings can help with that (Berklee guitar instructor Brett Wilmout's book is great on that even though it's a Mel Bay publication).

Peter Alexander's harmony books is a good practical place to start if you're not going to attend a music school. Berklee has a book for piano called _Piano Essentials_ that will show you the piano tools needed most.


----------



## waveheavy (May 26, 2016)

tarantulis said:


> Alright, I get it: The notion that I can somehow get by without mastering my instrument has been officially vanquished. I'll put in the work, I'll try to catch up. No more excuses.



Not true, not by my perspective. Being a concert pianist doesn't have much to do with composing skills, I thought that was well established from the start of this thread. Being able to play like Liszt won't make you able to compose like Beethoven. And since Beethoven went deaf during his career, then how did still compose what he did? It was because he had already learned his 'tools'. He already knew what had been written in the past.


----------



## jacobthestupendous (May 26, 2016)

waveheavy said:


> Brett Wilmout's book is great on that even though it's a Mel Bay publication



Got something against Mel Bay?


----------



## Ashermusic (May 26, 2016)

waveheavy said:


> Not true, not by my perspective. Being a concert pianist doesn't have much to do with composing skills, I thought that was well established from the start of this thread. Being able to play like Liszt won't make you able to compose like Beethoven. And since Beethoven went deaf during his career, then how did still compose what he did? It was because he had already learned his 'tools'. He already knew what had been written in the past.



Well Liszt is a bad example because he was also a terrific composer. Until recent years, historically, most really good composers where competent or better instrumentalists.


----------



## waveheavy (May 28, 2016)

jacobthestupendous said:


> Got something against Mel Bay?


No, not really. I just realize some in the industry think his books were kind of 'cheesy'.


----------



## waveheavy (May 28, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Well Liszt is a bad example because he was also a terrific composer. Until recent years, historically, most really good composers where competent or better instrumentalists.


This isn't one of those academic style arguments where concert pianist types think one should study classical piano in order to do MIDI note entry using a keyboard, is it?

One can learn music theory and harmony, arranging, and orchestration, just fine with minimum piano skills, or minimum skills on any instrument. Being a virtuoso on an instrument is no longer a requirement. Just imagine if the classical masters had music notation software available in their day, along with sample mock-ups like today. Would they use that as a composing tool? You bet they would.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 28, 2016)

waveheavy said:


> This isn't one of those academic style arguments where concert pianist types think one should study classical piano in order to do MIDI note entry using a keyboard, is it?
> 
> One can learn music theory and harmony, arranging, and orchestration, just fine with minimum piano skills, or minimum skills on any instrument. Being a virtuoso on an instrument is no longer a requirement. Just imagine if the classical masters had music notation software available in their day, along with sample mock-ups like today. Would they use that as a composing tool? You bet they would.



Not making that argument at all, just being factually accurate.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 28, 2016)

I'm considered a master at my main instrument, but haven't picked it up in two years. The more I learned about orchestration the less I cared about just one. I'm more into the whole.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 29, 2016)

tarantulis said:


> I was on the fence about this book for a while and eventually decided against it, not just because of the mixed reviews it received from other pianists and composers who criticized its new-agey pop-science approach and lack of organization, but because of the bizarre and possibly sociopathic nature of its author, ... It's all very weird and confusing and definitely worth checking out.
> 
> That being said, what's your experience with the book? I'm not totally opposed to reading it; just need some convincing.




This book can help you in bringing your technique to another level in a rather short time.
For me it was an essential help. 
However, it's not a book that gives you much understanding of music. Also, it will not help you in developing your musical intelligence. But if you want to improve technical aspects, it's great.
You should not care if the author is a nice guy on amazon or not.
(ps. i specially recommend the chapters about chord attack and practising jumps; also the insights about counterintuitive aspects are very good)


----------



## Anders Wall (May 29, 2016)

Leo Badinella said:


> Tarantulis, I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but I think you might find this book interesting http://pianofundamentals.com/book/en/chapter_1 I couldn't find the whole book in pdf, but I can send it to you if you want to.


http://www.pianopractice.org/
link to pdf:
http://www.pianopractice.org/FOPP3Ed.pdf
Best,
Anders


----------



## mikehamm123 (Jun 25, 2016)

I cheat. I only play keyboard well enough to get the notes down (in Logic Pro). I've thought about studying piano, but at this point, that would only take time away from doing what I want to be doing--writing. Even though I know being a good piano player would make composition easier. 

These days, I just play music to write. So I'll splash around this way until... I don't.


----------



## jonnybutter (Jun 26, 2016)

I used to be a pretty good pianist - didn't have a lot of mid-late 19th cent. type chops, but baroque, classical (inc. Beethoven) and modern I was pretty good. Hands have deteriorated over the years, and while sheer experience/savvy can sometimes make up for lost technique, I'm not as good as I was. On the one hand, I am sorry for that, because I love to play, and chops do make my MIDI stuff better; but on the other hand...being a pianist (or any soloist I guess) is really a cross to bear, esp after about 50 years. 

I would say that what matters for me, in doing mock ups and other recording, is being able to perform, so in that sense you still have to be able to play on some level. FWIW, I tend to have better sessions recording MIDI performances when I'm in 'practicing piano' mode.

OTOH, I don't see why you have to be a concert pianist to do good keyboard MIDI performances. So long as you can actually be intentional and musical, that should be sufficient


----------



## Karl Feuerstake (Jun 29, 2016)

I would say.. to be able to improvise well, you must already be a master at your instrument. When playing your instrument is as easy to you as driving a car (or some other task that is strong in hand-eye co-ordination), then you may be able to learn improvisation.

However to compose well you do not have to be a master performer, though I find that experience in playing, especially Piano, will aid you in developing musical ideas. My opinion on this is formed by my own experience; namely, a lack of high-level Piano skill. Consequentially, I avoid writing excessively complicated parts for Piano or other instruments, simply because I cannot play them myself, therefore I cannot craft such ideas. But that kind of music (virtuosity in performance) generally isn't in my interest to compose anyways, and I'm fairly happy with what I'm able to create without it.


----------



## Living Fossil (Jul 2, 2016)

It's no surprise that composers like J.S. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Bruckner, Debussy, Skriabin, Bartók, Stravinsky etc. were great keyboarders; since the ability to perform influences and improves the ability to compose (same goes for a well trained ear).
Of course, being a virtuoso doesn't makes a bad composer a good one; on the contrary it just makes it easier to write meaningless music. But for sure it makes a good composer a lot better.

And i also think that as a composer one should try to get in touch with different instruments. Your music will benefit of it.


----------



## mikehamm123 (Jul 2, 2016)

My main instrument is the guitar, and on occasion I've been guilty of playing too many notes 

On the keyboard I have to hunt and peck, and because of this perhaps I make more fruitful mistakes, i.e. stumble into things I wouldn't find perhaps if I was more 'habituated' to the instrument. But I can't turn in a moving, cohesive performance on it. But its been a good discipline because I am forced to make every note count.

Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven made their reputations as performers first, as I recall. The fact that they could play anything they heard in their heads was certainly a win for us.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Jul 2, 2016)

Living Fossil said:


> It's no surprise that composers like J.S. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Bruckner, Debussy, Skriabin, Bartók, Stravinsky etc. were great keyboarders; since the ability to perform influences and improves the ability to compose (same goes for a well trained ear).
> Of course, being a virtuoso doesn't makes a bad composer a good one; on the contrary it just makes it easier to write meaningless music. But for sure it makes a good composer a lot better.
> 
> And i also think that as a composer one should try to get in touch with different instruments. Your music will benefit of it.



I think there's truth to this. I play guitar, cello, and a little English horn, oboe, and flute. And I've studied the other orchestral and Rock instruments. And it's definitely helped my writing and orchestration. I've had all the instruments here in my studio and I'd not be as well off if I wasn't able to pick them up whenever I'm stuck on something/wondering if what I'm thinking of will work in a real world application.


----------



## olajideparis (Jul 2, 2016)

Regardless of what their primary instrument is, a composer ought to have proficiency at the piano in that they can play through chord progressions with correct voice leading in any key. This is something I foolishly fought against in my college days as I was initially a classical guitar performance major. Once I wanted to explore writing for other instruments it became a hinderance that I had absolutely no understanding of the piano at all. I would write everything out by hand before diving in to finale for finale engraving and it probably took me 10 times longer to write at the guitar than it would had I had some basic keyboard skills (which I would in fact eventually acquire).

In my opinion, one ought to be able to play through progressions in all keys as well as all major and minor scales at the keyboard. While conservatory or any piano teacher will stress the importance of playing with two hands in all octaves, if you can manage it with one hand that will get you by as a computer based composer who composes, though the more skill you have the better obviously.

The DAW and the keyboard should be thought of as one complex instrument. The goal ought to be that whatever DAW or DAWS you use are more or less an extension of your body. Learn the functions of them inside and out, know how to access them without a mouse and know the limits of your DAW.


----------



## robgb (Aug 28, 2016)

Matt Hawken said:


> Theory is more important, in my opinion. To be able to write functional and beautiful music extremely quickly, you must understand the architecture of sound. Master your theory/orchestration/mixing before you master your piano.



If you have an ear, theory is not needed. Many famous composers don't read a note of music. Far more important is an instinct for what feels (and sounds) right.


----------



## patrick76 (Aug 28, 2016)

robgb said:


> If you have an ear, theory is not needed. Many famous composers don't read a note of music. Far more important is an instinct for what feels (and sounds) right.


Who are these multitudes of famous composers that don't read a note of music?


----------



## Parsifal666 (Aug 28, 2016)

patrick76 said:


> Who are these multitudes of famous composers that don't read a note of music?



I'm curious as well. Can you name five great composers who don't, please?


----------



## Levitanus (Aug 28, 2016)

That many composers were top-performers is not a news. Even that that Hindemith, Rubinstein, Rimsky-Korsakov could play on every instrument of SO not forgotten. But i want remind one more thing: Tchaikovsky was not well piano performer. And not well performer at all. And it's very difficult play him from the technical side. But Liszt is very organic, as Rachmaninov and other piano-performers-composers (my own pianist opinion). I think that we should at least can produce couple of sounds by the every instrument we write. And know it's tehnique. I supporse that Hindemith is organic on all instruments, not only in piano and organ. It's hard way... And i want to take it very much, but bitch time corrupts everything


----------



## synergy543 (Aug 28, 2016)

Levitanus said:


> Tchaikovsky was not well piano performer. And not well performer at all. And it's very difficult play him from the technical side.... And i want to take it very much, but bitch time corrupts everything


I didn't know that about Tchaikovsky. I'll have to study about him some more.

Meanwhile, for those who don't care to even learn to play, your competition is practicing hard!


----------



## jonnybutter (Aug 28, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Well Liszt is a bad example because he was also a terrific composer. Until recent years, historically, most really good composers where competent or better instrumentalists.



You ever hear Debussy play his own pieces? He's not very good. 

That 'until recent years' is doing a lot of work. Stravinsky was not a fine pianist (competent, but hardly fine, like Beethoven). I think he was a pretty great composer despite that.

It's good to be able to play, but whether technique waxes or wanes, you can still compose


----------



## robgb (Aug 29, 2016)

Parsifal666 said:


> I'm curious as well. Can you name five great composers who don't, please?



Great is a matter of opinion, but here are a few highly successful composers who don't (or didn't) read music. Several of them are considered "great" depending on who you talk to. Some of them changed the course of music.

Danny Elfman
Paul McCartney
John Lennon
Irving Berlin
Lionel Bart
Claude-Michel Schönberg
John Bucchino
Harvey Schmidt
Jerry Herman
Charles Mingus
Errol Garner
Bob Dylan
Dave Brubeck
Stevie Wonder
Andrea Bocelli
Vangelis

There are others who don't come to mind immediately. But those on the list above had great careers and produced better music than most of us can hope to produce without ever needing to read and write. They relied on instinct. Which is 90% of the battle.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Aug 29, 2016)

robgb said:


> Great is a matter of opinion, but here are a few highly successful composers who don't (or didn't) read music. Several of them are considered "great" depending on who you talk to. Some of them changed the course of music.
> 
> Danny Elfman
> Paul McCartney
> ...



Those are fine Pop and film composers there. To me great composer means Bach, Brahms, Schoenberg, Berg, Stravinsky, Wagner, Beethoven, Schubert, Richard Strauss, Mozart, Haydn, Puccini, Penderecki, Verdi...you get the picture.

John Williams, due to his lifetime of accomplishment and pioneering scores, is quite arguable. All read and write music, as far as I know.

To be fair, one person's great is another's very good.


----------



## robgb (Aug 29, 2016)

Parsifal666 said:


> There are fine Pop and film composers there. To me great composer means Bach, Brahms, Schoenberg, Berg, Stravinsky, Wagner, Beethoven, Schubert, Richard Strauss, Mozart, Haydn, Puccini, Penderecki, Verdi...you get the picture.
> 
> John Williams, due to his lifetime of accomplishment and pioneering scores, is quite arguable. All read and write music, as far as I know.
> 
> To be fair, one person's great is another's very good.


Pop, jazz, film, Broadway, classical. And I'd argue that Lennon/McCartney have had as much effect on music (and will be remembered in the same light) as the composers you mention.

As for great composers of the past—they obviously lived in a different time and had different tools. Their music could not be performed unless it was written down. In modern times—as the composers I listed prove—it is completely unnecessary to be able to read music in order to produce great music. To say it's necessary is like suggesting that a great novelist must have an English degree. I'd argue that MOST musicians around the world—from amateur to professional—probably _don't _read music.


----------



## patrick76 (Aug 29, 2016)

robgb said:


> Great is a matter of opinion, but here are a few highly successful composers who don't (or didn't) read music. Several of them are considered "great" depending on who you talk to. Some of them changed the course of music.
> 
> Danny Elfman
> Paul McCartney
> ...



Some of your list is incorrect, which is why I assume you mention that some don't or didn't read music. Danny Elfman reads music. Some on the list are songwriters which I would consider a bit different from a composer. I think we are comparing apples and oranges. That is not to say anything about the quality of their work, much of which I would also consider great, just that to write a symphony one would need to have a different skill set that would include reading music.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Aug 29, 2016)

robgb said:


> Pop, jazz, film, Broadway, classical. And I'd argue that Lennon/McCartney have had as much effect on music (and will be remembered in the same light) as the composers you mention.
> 
> As for great composers of the past—they obviously lived in a different time and had different tools. Their music could not be performed unless it was written down. In modern times—as the composers I listed prove—it is completely unnecessary to be able to read music in order to produce great music. To say it's necessary is like suggesting that a great novelist must have an English degree. I'd argue that MOST musicians around the world—from amateur to professional—probably _don't _read music.



Good points. I'd have to nominate Brian Wilson, from his Pet Sounds and Smile Sessions, as one of the greats, using your model. He actually experimented with bitonality (among other, at times serialesque, methods) on Pet Sounds, which I believe was a first for Pop.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Aug 29, 2016)

patrick76 said:


> Some of your list is incorrect, which is why I assume you mention that some don't or didn't read music. Danny Elfman reads music. Some on the list are songwriters which I would consider a bit different from a composer. I think we are comparing apples and oranges. That is not to say anything about the quality of their work, much of which I would also consider great, just that to write a symphony one would need to have a different skill set that would include reading music.



Elfman was the one that stuck in my craw a bit. Can't imagine he can't read or write music, but I took it on faith the member knew what he was talking about.


----------



## robgb (Aug 29, 2016)

patrick76 said:


> Some of your list is incorrect, which is why I assume you mention that some don't or didn't read music. Danny Elfman reads music. Some on the list are songwriters which I would consider a bit different from a composer. I think we are comparing apples and oranges. That is not to say anything about the quality of their work, much of which I would also consider great, just that to write a symphony one would need to have a different skill set that would include reading music.


I've read in multiple places that Elfman doesn't read, but I'll give you that one. Maybe he used to NOT read and has since learned so that he doesn't need a transcriber.

Apples and oranges, however? No. A composer is a composer. The STYLE of music he chooses to compose is irrelevant. And I don't see writing a symphony as any different from writing for a four piece band, as long as you instinctively understand melody, harmony, etc., and know the ranges of the various instruments involved. McCartney has written symphonic music. The Broadway composers I listed certainly have to write for an orchestra.

The bottom line is that the ability to read music is a useful but unnecessary skill. Most of what we learn about composition comes from listening and absorbing.


----------



## robgb (Aug 29, 2016)

To quote Elfman: "Because I was self-taught, I had my own way of figuring it out. Ultimately, writing music was nothing but a division of notes. I found it was actually a lot easier than reading music."

So it sounds as if he reads but doesn't particularly like it...


----------



## Parsifal666 (Aug 29, 2016)

robgb said:


> To quote Elfman: "Because I was self-taught, I had my own way of figuring it out. Ultimately, writing music was nothing but a division of notes. I found it was actually a lot easier than reading music."
> 
> So it sounds as if he reads but doesn't particularly like it...



Ah. So he does read. Carry on!


----------



## robgb (Aug 29, 2016)

Parsifal666 said:


> Ah. So he does read. Carry on!


Yes. My point still stands.


----------



## patrick76 (Aug 29, 2016)

robgb said:


> And I don't see writing a symphony as any different from writing for a four piece band,


We'll have to agree to disagree as they say.


----------



## synergy543 (Aug 29, 2016)

robgb said:


> The bottom line is that the ability to read music is a useful but unnecessary skill. Most of what we learn about composition comes from listening and absorbing.


O...K... 

When you write something like Stravinsky's Petruchka for piano, let us hear it.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Aug 29, 2016)

"too many notes"...


----------



## Daryl (Aug 29, 2016)

robgb said:


> McCartney has written symphonic music.


Not only is it terrible, but he didn't actually write the orchestral bits. How could he, when he can't read music, and certainly doesn't use a sequencer in the manner of someone like Elfman? I think McCartney is a bad example.

As you were...


----------



## jonnybutter (Aug 29, 2016)

While there are tradeoffs, I'd contend that it's net useful to be able to read and/or write music. (Some composers - Elfman? - are better at writing it than at sight reading - they still read music).

Music is kind of like written words in this respect: if you can't read and write, you have to memorize everything; yes, you can listen to recordings again, but you have to memorize everything you like. The good thing about that is that your memory becomes vast; the bad thing about it is that your exposure to music literature is bound to be smaller. If you can read, you can sit down and read through countless pieces; you can study scores - you can know a ton of music literature, just like in words-literature. Imagine if you had to memorize everything word-related you read! 

A down side is that some musicians, including classically trained ones, don't develop their ear as well as they could. And they have sort of the opposite problem to the non-reader - take away the music, and they can't play anything! Reading and writing music is traditionally over emphasized in academia, I'd say, and this is the result. 

But I still think being able to read is a clear advantage, especially if you develop your ear too. Learning names for things you hear in your head us useful. Learning musical language rules is useful in that it allows you to know how to break them. And just at a practical level: if you *were* able to come up with Petrushka just all in your head, how would you teach it to the players or player? Hum it? No, you'd get someone who does read and write to transcribe it for you.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Aug 29, 2016)

robgb said:


> Great is a matter of opinion, but here are a few highly successful composers who don't (or didn't) read music. Several of them are considered "great" depending on who you talk to. Some of them changed the course of music.
> 
> Danny Elfman
> Paul McCartney
> ...



Andrea Bocelli? Of course he can't READ music... 

But he did have music lessons when he was young before he lost his sight completely so I think he probably did learn.


----------



## robgb (Aug 29, 2016)

synergy543 said:


> O...K...
> 
> When you write something like Stravinsky's Petruchka for piano, let us hear it.



This isn't about me. Just check out any of the artists I pointed to. They're all excellent composers.


----------



## robgb (Aug 29, 2016)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Andrea Bocelli? Of course he can't READ music...
> 
> But he did have music lessons when he was young before he lost his sight completely so I think he probably did learn.


Really not the point, is it? All of these people had "lessons" in one way or another. Even if those lessons were self-taught. Formal education is great. But it's not necessary in order to be come a great composer. Great music comes from the gut.


----------



## robgb (Aug 29, 2016)

Daryl said:


> Not only is it terrible, but he didn't actually write the orchestral bits. How could he, when he can't read music, and certainly doesn't use a sequencer in the manner of someone like Elfman? I think McCartney is a bad example.
> 
> As you were...


Well, whether or not you like his work is irrelevant. McCartney is one of the greatest composers of our time, and like any composer, he has great work and not so great work—depending entirely on subjective opinion.


----------



## Daryl (Aug 29, 2016)

robgb said:


> Well, whether or not you like his work is irrelevant. McCartney is one of the greatest composers of our time, and like any composer, he has great work and not so great work—depending entirely on subjective opinion.


Nope, I wasn't talking about whether or not I like it. I was saying that as a symphonic composer, McCartney is a failure.


----------



## robgb (Aug 29, 2016)

Daryl said:


> Nope, I wasn't talking about whether or not I like it. I was saying that as a symphonic composer, McCartney is a failure.


Music is subjective. Still just your opinion.


----------



## Daryl (Aug 29, 2016)

robgb said:


> Music is subjective. Still just your opinion.


Nope. Good or bad writing within a specified field, built upon centuries of progress and distillation, is not subjective. The only people who think that are the ones who have no skill in that particular field. Of course you're entitled to your opinion. But it means nothing.


----------



## robgb (Aug 29, 2016)

Daryl said:


> Nope. Good or bad writing within a specified field, built upon centuries of progress and distillation, is not subjective. The only people who think that are the ones who have no skill in that particular field. Of course you're entitled to your opinion. But it means nothing.


All art is subjective. There is a threshold of competence, but beyond that it's entirely a matter of individual taste. One man's garbage is another man's treasure. For example, there are actually people who think McCartney's work is horrible... Many would disagree.


----------



## Replicant (Aug 29, 2016)

I must agree with Daryl on this subject. What you're describing, robgb, is more about musical _preferences_. For example, I'm not really a fan of country music - most of it makes me want to stab my eardrums with a fork. However, I can still listen to country music and say "This _is _a well composed, performed and produced piece of music because..." even though I dislike it myself. I don't think that would be possible for anyone to do if there wasn't any objective statements to be made about music. 

Taste in visual art is subjective, but without question, we can say certain pieces have a better grasp on colour theory, lighting, perspective, anatomy etc. If something is "good", there is a logical reason as to why.

My beginnings being in heavy metal music, there are a great many of people who believe it "all comes from the heart", but after learning about music theory and the physics behind sound in general, I've become disenchanted with such reasonings. To the layman, artistic genius is so interesting because we're not sure where it comes from. It's as if by magic that people created such incredible music, paintings, writing and sculptures that stand the test of time. Learning how it all works breaks the illusion.

If it was all subjective, there would be no point in teaching composition or music in general in colleges and universities. There would be no way anyone could "improve" since if it's all subjective, there is no getting better.


----------



## robgb (Aug 29, 2016)

Replicant said:


> If it was all subjective, there would be no point in teaching composition or music in general in colleges and universities. There would be no way anyone could "improve" since if it's all subjective, there is no getting better.



As I said, there is a certain level of competency that has to be reached and some reach it by studying music in school and others by studying music on their own. Beyond that, everything is subjective.

Preference comes down to blondes vs. brunettes. But how _beautiful_ the woman is depends on who's looking at her, or, on a deeper level, how close the person is to her.

When our favorite band comes out with a new album, there's often that one song that we don't like, even though it's competently written and performed. But after several listens the familiarity begins to color our perception and we change our opinion. That's subjectivity at work.

It's true of all art. To say that McCartney's symphonic work is a failure is just silly, and entirely a matter of opinion.


----------



## jonnybutter (Aug 29, 2016)

Replicant said:


> If it was all subjective, there would be no point in teaching composition or music in general in colleges and universities. There would be no way anyone could "improve" since if it's all subjective, there is no getting better.



True! Just because something is subjective doesn't mean that there are no criteria. 'Subjective' doesn't mean 'random'. I don't think humans are all that random.


----------



## Daryl (Aug 30, 2016)

Replicant said:


> If it was all subjective, there would be no point in teaching composition or music in general in colleges and universities. There would be no way anyone could "improve" since if it's all subjective, there is no getting better.


Of course, and anyone who doesn't understand that it suffering from a terminal case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Having been watching the diving at the Olympics, I could equally say that the quality of dive is purely subjective and that I am just as good as any of the participants. However, I'm not stupid enough to believe that this is true. Competitive diving has certain parameters that discern good from bad, in the same way that symphonic music does (although there is certainly more leeway in the latter).


----------



## Baron Greuner (Aug 30, 2016)

People forget how good a musician George Martin was. He wrote most, if not all The Beatles orchestrated parts for works such as Elenor Rigby etc.
A lot of film writers have to use orchestrators and there's then the age old argument of who wrote what.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Aug 30, 2016)

I think *rogb *has some very good points, for instance I agree that McCartney and Lennon both together and alone (at least their early solo work) were probably great composers (Day in the Life was by itself a stunning achievement imo, and take a listen to Plastic Ono Band to hear outstanding, uniquely expressive solo Lennon).

The only point I found goofy, and I sincerely mean this with respect toward your overall argument, is not seeing writing a symphony as any different from writing for a four piece band. C'mon, man. Again, with all respect...have you done both, with marketable results? I have. The range of timbre, articulations, placing of instruments, inter and intra-instrumental details...it's most definitely a different and _far_ more challenging place to be. Unless you mean a small jazz ensemble, which lends more credence to your assertion. Even then....

I remember when my "neo-classical" guitar fan-friend excitedly gave me Yngwie Malmsteen's Concerto for Electric Guitar video, saying it was taking Rock into new directions, etc. I had to keep from laughing as it quickly became apparent Malmsteen simply (unnecessarily) blew up typical songs for four piece band into a chamber orchestra, replacing the cello with lead guitar and adding some harmonic minor modes for some sort of silly, contrived "authenticity". None of the writing couldn't have been pulled off by his regular, touring band, indeed a couple of the tracks were from his back catalogue of Rock stuff. Besides the hilariously misinformed song titles, the writing for chorale was the most embarrassing part. I so hope he arranged and orchestrated that himself, because if someone else did that, he or she should make sure not to get mentioned in the credits. And I _liked_ the early Alcatrazz and Rising Force albums, lots of Al Di Meola-meets-Ritchie Blackmore fun. Bach? Paganini? A polite ha-ha.

McCartney was, as mentioned, pretty bad at that sort of thing as well. He and Lennon needed an experienced guy like George Martin to help, and BOY did he, to often fantastic effect.

Going from four piece (and I will include a the above mentioned Jazz example) to a symphony orchestra means upping your game in a tremendously concentrated way. And that's an understatement.

I don't mean this to be facetious or browbeating in the least, I simply don't want new writers reading things like that and getting that idea in their heads. I stepped up myself learning firsthand how different it is...not to mention far more advanced (being a Rock/Metal fan from the 70s, it always pains me to say the latter, but it's the truth).

There's no "agree to disagree", it just is.

No offense or disrespect meant in the slightest.


----------



## ag75 (Aug 30, 2016)

tarantulis said:


> Do most composers just play their instrument well enough to craft ideas, play them decently, and then pass them off to better-trained professionals to be played well? I know that many of you guys started out in bands or with formal training, but I didn't, so I want more data.
> 
> My reason for asking is of course a self-involved one: I'm taking piano lessons (again, as an adult) and learning theory stuff on the side. My lessons are pretty performance-based and the majority of my practice involves practicing various pieces.
> 
> ...



My advice would be to try and separate the two and learn to love playing the piano for the sake of playing the piano and not as just some tool to make you a better composer. I think that will hold you back.


----------



## robgb (Aug 30, 2016)

Parsifal666 said:


> The only point I found goofy, and I sincerely mean this with respect toward your overall argument, is not seeing writing a symphony as any different from writing for a four piece band. C'mon, man. Again, with all respect...have you done both, with marketable results? I have. The range of timbre, articulations, placing of instruments, inter and intra-instrumental details...it's most definitely a different and _far_ more challenging place to be. Unless you mean a small jazz ensemble, which lends more credence to your assertion. Even then....



We're talking about the placement of melodic and harmonic parts, etc., shared among a group of instruments. While writing for an orchestra is certainly more complicated and involves more thought, the basic principles are the same. You need to understand the ranges of various instruments, and what they can realistically do. Knowing what a flute or violin can do is no different than knowing what a guitar or bass are capable of. And you certainly don't need an education in music theory to tell you this. You simply need experience and a good set of ears. Just as a novelist learns by reading, a musician learns by listening.

We can argue for hours about McCartney and subjectivity, but my basic point is that you DON'T need to be able to read music to do any of this. Will it make you better at it? Maybe. That depends on the composer. Some will find theory a revelation while others will find it a (psychological) restriction.

But to suggest that the only way someone can become a great composer is to learn to read music is ridiculous. The list I posted proves otherwise.

I'm certainly not trying to discourage anyone from learning to read. I'm simply saying that if you choose not to, there's no reason it should hold you back as a composer, especially with today's tools. Ultimately, composing is about what we hear, not what we write on a page.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Aug 30, 2016)

robgb said:


> We're talking about the placement of melodic and harmonic parts, etc., shared among a group of instruments. While writing for an orchestra is certainly more complicated and involves more thought, the basic principles are the same. You need to understand the ranges of various instruments, and what they can realistically do. Knowing what a flute or violin can do is no different than knowing what a guitar or bass are capable of. And you certainly don't need an education in music theory to tell you this. You simply need experience and a good set of ears. Just as a novelist learns by reading, a musician learns by listening.
> 
> We can argue for hours about McCartney and subjectivity, but my basic point is that you DON'T need to be able to read music to do any of this. Will it make you better at it? Maybe. That depends on the composer. Some will find theory a revelation while others will find it a restriction.
> 
> ...



I'm with you on a lot of this. I just wanted to make sure newbies to composition didn't take what you wrote earlier out of context. Younger folks tend to like to do that, and use stadium sized blanket assertions from there.

I care about these young composers...sincerely.


----------



## robgb (Aug 30, 2016)

Parsifal666 said:


> I care about these young composers...sincerely.


I care, too. And I would hate to see anyone discouraged from attempting the craft simply because they don't have a background in music theory. There are many different ways to approach the creation of art. Most artists have to find their OWN way in and restricting them to a single approach does more harm than good.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Aug 30, 2016)

robgb said:


> I care, too. And I would hate to see anyone discouraged from attempting the craft simply because they don't have a background in music theory. There are many different ways to approach the creation of art. Most artists have to find their OWN way in and restricting them to a single approach does more harm than good.



You said it!


----------



## re-peat (Aug 30, 2016)

robgb said:


> But to suggest that the only way someone can become a great composer is to learn to read music is ridiculous. The list I posted proves otherwise.



The list you provided is partially incorrect, Rob: Mingus and Brubeck, for example, shouldn't be in there at all, to name just two fluent readers/writers of musical notation (be it that Mingus was a slow starter), but much more importantly, it doesn’t include any names of composers who will be remembered for their orchestral/symphonic output. And that's precisely the sort of musical activity where a good practical knowledge of musical notation can make a difference.

There’s more to writing an orchestral piece, let alone a symphonic piece (big difference!), than knowing ‘the basic principles’. The elements which Parsifal666 mentioned are all easy to learn, sure — even by average students — but it is giving form and structure to an extended piece of music — and such structure which results in _the whole of the piece being more than the sum of its parts_ — which is the area where the difference between mere tunesmiths (no matter how talented they are) and composers becomes most apparent.

(As a songwriter and tunesmith, McCartney is a figure of historic importance, no doubt, as a composer of orchestral/symphonic music however he is not even worth a footnote in an appendix to that history.)

Perfectly possible to write a 3 min. pop jewel without any abililty to read or write music, yes. Even possible to write a 5 minute orchestral piece without much of such ability — although you’ll need some ability to grasp the translation of musical elements into abstract symbols, whatever these are —, and I can even see one, though not without skilled help, doing an orchestral film score without being proficient at reading or writing.

Quite impossible though for any individual to compose a full length symphonic moment — containing everything that the term ’symphonic’ implies — without being fluent in some form of code that qualifies as musical notation. Unless, that is, he or she is a musical freak of nature, uniquely gifted and blessed with a phenomenal musical memory; not the type of person, in other words, who is likely to have an interest in threads such as these.

_


----------



## robgb (Aug 30, 2016)

re-peat said:


> (As a songwriter and tunesmith, McCartney is a figure of historic importance, no doubt, as a composer of orchestral/symphonic music however he is not even worth a footnote in an appendix to that history.)



So let me understand this. Are we only talking about orchestral work when we use the term composer? If so, that's strikes me as a bit elitist. McCartney and many other songwriters are every inch the composer that their classical forefathers were. They simply work with a different pallet.

As it is, most orchestral work is likely composed on the piano and then orchestrated. The orchestrator, however, is not always the composer—and certainly doesn't have to be. If a composer hands his work off to an orchestrator (as John Williams does in many cases), we don't add the orchestrator's name to the credits as composer.

That said, there is absolutely no reason why a composer shouldn't be able to write a complete orchestral piece without the benefit of being able to read music. And there's no reason why the composer shouldn't be able to orchestrate that piece, considering the tools we have today. You can write a line in your DAW and instantly translate it to notes on a staff, and a transcriber can certainly help you clean it up for the players.

As I said before, the EARS are what count. Not your ability to do math.


----------



## Silence-is-Golden (Aug 30, 2016)

re-peat said:


> There’s more to writing an orchestral piece, let alone a symphonic piece (big difference!), than knowing ‘the basic principles’. The elements which Parsifal666 mentioned are all easy to learn, sure — even by average students — but it is giving form and structure to an extended piece of music — and such structure which results in _the whole of the piece being more than the sum of its parts_ — which is the area where the difference between mere tunesmiths (no matter how talented they are) and composers becomes most apparent.
> 
> (As a songwriter and tunesmith, McCartney is a figure of historic importance, no doubt, as a composer of orchestral/symphonic music however he is not even worth a footnote in an appendix to that history.)
> 
> ...


To throw in another view: Vangelis !
The man is a league of his own


----------



## robgb (Aug 30, 2016)

Silence-is-Golden said:


> To throw in another view: Vangelis !
> The man is a league of his own


"When the teachers asked me to play something, I would pretend that I was reading it and play from memory. I didn't fool them, but I didn't care." ~Vangelis


----------



## Parsifal666 (Aug 30, 2016)

robgb said:


> McCartney and many other songwriters are every inch the composer that their classical forefathers were. They simply work with a different pallet.




I keep thinking about Bach, late-era Beethoven. I seriously doubt McCartney believes that, especially in regard to composers of that level. Hm...I dunno, I agree with your main point, but I have a *real *hard time stacking Paul with the above. I doubt I'm alone on that.

I'm not trying to be cantankerously contentious, but if any kid asked me what to listen for as an introduction to "all time" great composition, I'd mention Bach's Well Tempered Clavier, Beethoven's late string quartets and piano sonatas, Mahler's 9th. I'm not sure even "Day in the Life" would be in the top 20, though I'd certainly mention that (or Beach Boys' "God Only Knows") for specifically Pop and Rock composition.


----------



## robgb (Aug 30, 2016)

Parsifal666 said:


> I keep thinking about Bach, late-era Beethoven. I seriously doubt McCartney believes that, especially in regard to composers of that level. Hm...I dunno, I agree with your main point, but I have a *real *hard time stacking Paul with the above. I doubt I'm alone on that.
> 
> I'm not trying to be contentious, but if any kid asked me what to listen for as an introduction to "all time" great composition, I'd mention Bach's Well Tempered Clavier, Beethoven's late string quartets and piano sonatas, Mahler's 9th. I'm not sure even "Day in the Life" would be in the top 20, though I'd certainly mention that (or Beach Boys' "God Only Knows") for specifically Pop and Rock.



Lennon and McCartney changed the face of music. That puts them in the same league as their forefathers.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Aug 30, 2016)

Of all your assertions, that one just isn't flying with me. They changed the face of Pop...but the depth of the Bach and Beethoven compositions listed above...

McCartney wouldn't ever compare what he's done to Beethoven's 9th...no. No video can convince me.

Please understand, I've studied the above composers for many years, and of course I grew up with the Beatles.

But hey, if you want to believe that, more power to you. No problem there. What you think is your own business, all respect.


----------



## robgb (Aug 30, 2016)

Parsifal666 said:


> Of all your assertions, that one just isn't flying with me. They changed the face of Pop...but the depth of the Bach and Beethoven compositions listed above...
> 
> McCartney wouldn't ever compare what he's done to Beethoven's 9th...no.
> 
> But hey, if you want to believe that, more power to you. No problem there. What you think is your own business, all respect.


I urge you to watch the analysis I linked to.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Aug 30, 2016)

robgb said:


> I urge you to watch the analysis I linked to.



I've seen it before, and it doesn't convince me. Please understand, I studied the works of the above composers for the majority of my life. The Bach and Beethoven pieces (and hefty chunks of Wagner) I mentioned are part of my life.

I grew up with the Beatles, have also studied their music. No. I'm sorry, Tristan und Isolde offers up a lifetime of musical journeys, the rewards are ongoing. Pop music is meant mostly for entertainment.

But hey, think what you like, neither of us probably have time for debates like this. I begrudge you nothing, it's your mind.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Aug 30, 2016)

Replicant said:


> there are a great many of people who believe it "all comes from the heart", but after learning about music theory and the physics behind sound in general, I've become disenchanted with such reasonings.



Well that's tragic


----------



## jacobthestupendous (Aug 30, 2016)

robgb said:


> Are we only talking about orchestral work when we use the term composer? If so, that's strikes me as a bit elitist.


You have to be careful with the E word around here. People don't take kindly to it...


----------



## re-peat (Aug 30, 2016)

robgb said:


> So let me understand this. Are we only talking about orchestral work when we use the term composer? If so, that's strikes me as a bit elitist.





robgb said:


> As it is, most orchestral work is likely composed on the piano and then orchestrated.





robgb said:


> If a composer hands his work off to an orchestrator (as John Williams does in many cases), ...




Sorry, Rob, but you’re factually wrong about too many of these things. Not all orchestral music is orchestrated piano music. Even if worked out on a piano, most orchestral music is actually conceived orchestrally from the start, with every single one of its ideas immediately imagined in its orchestral context and weighed/considered/developed according to the orchestral role it will be given. That is in fact the true art of orchestration (far more advanced an art and craft than simply making something sound nice).

In the best orchestral work, the assigning of content to timbre is anything but a mere colouring job, it is an essential part of the composition itself, and structurally as important as any other musical ingredient.

(There are exceptions — I can already hear you say: “But what about Ravel? — but in those cases, it usually concerns piano music that is particularly colouristically suggestive to begin with.)

Something else about which you appear misinformed: Williams “handing his work off” to an orchestrator. That's not true. The sketches which an orchestrator receives from Williams contain very detailed instructions regarding the orchestration. If you hear an oboe or a tuba in a Williams piece, or violins divisi rather than the full section, rest assured that those — and everything else which defines the orchestration — are all Williams’ choices and his alone.
(I’m talking about Williams in his prime. Not entirely sure if it still applies today.)

As for the ‘elitist’ thing: it’s only for the convenience of easily distinguishing between the various types of ‘writing musician’ that I used the term ‘composer’ for that type of musician capable of writing a full scale symphonic work. I didn’t imply any hierarchical qualification with it. Or …

… maybe I did. Yes, I did. I *am* an elitist, you see. So, you’ll have to forgive me for distinguishing between songwriters, film composers and composers. They all write music, but the best and most complete music is invariably written by the latter. (Some of the worst as well, but that’s a different discussion.)

_


----------



## Baron Greuner (Aug 30, 2016)

The question you need to ask yourself Rob, is what would The Beatles have done or even sounded, had Decca signed them and not Parlophone (EMI)?


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 20, 2016)

I'm not really sure how you could compare the Beatles to Beethoven? I mean, what's to compare? They're two completely different types of musicians. It's like comparing Metallica to Johnny Cash. It does make you wonder what Paul and John (add Brian Wilson in there for good measure) would have done If they grew up in the same classical era that Beethoven did though. Would they have what it takes to compete with a composer of that skill? I personally believe they would be able to compete. Btw, the Beatles and the Beach Boys are my favorite bands, so maybe I'm being biased here?


----------



## Flaneurette (Feb 3, 2017)

For a composer there is no cookie-cutter method, I think. You could compose in your mind if you want to, and never touch a keyboard. Or write notes on paper, load a midi sequencer and use your mouse, it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the music.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 3, 2017)

well it used to be the case where great composers where mostly all great pianists/violinists. A lot of composers out there today who actually do really well, play the cello. People who play string instruments and piano really well seem to have the better musicianship than most other people who don't.


----------



## Tysmall (Feb 3, 2017)

Berlioz went down as a legend and the only thing he played was opium and a pencil.


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 3, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> People who play string instruments and piano really well seem to have the better musicianship than most other people who don't.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 3, 2017)

Rodney Money said:


>



hey i ain't saying it's 100% the case. Key words "seem to" plz no one get offend. lol. By the way I have huge respect for brass players. Especially the one's that can make trumpets scream so loud and so high and so in tune (and so fast) with a very erotic vibrato

also im not talking about myself. But Blakus is a cellist, great great mockup artist/ orchestrator/composer. Driftmoon plays Cello, Alexandre Bergheau.


----------



## Mithrandir (Feb 3, 2017)

re-peat said:


> (I’m talking about Williams in his prime. Not entirely sure if it still applies today.)



Of course it applies today!


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 3, 2017)

Tysmall said:


> Berlioz went down as a legend and the only thing he played was opium and a pencil.



quite garbage sounding compared to Scriabin and Wagner.

But hey, if Scriabin and Wagner never wrote music, I might have liked Berlioz. But Scriabin and Wagner just had to raise the bar high.


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 3, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> very erotic vibrato


"He gave that pitch vibrato, pitches love vibrato."


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 3, 2017)

Rodney Money said:


> "He gave that pitch vibrato, pitches love vibrato."



B* not p


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 3, 2017)

Rodney Money said:


> "He gave that pitch vibrato, pitches love vibrato."



straight but i wouldn't mind that vibrato shoved up my ass :D


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 4, 2017)

mikefox789 said:


> the Beatles and the Beach Boys are my favorite bands, so maybe I'm being biased here?



Some musicologists would argue that everything in Rock (from a purely musical perspective) was done by those bands in the 60s (some of the Beatles' early solo works could qualify as groundbreaking, check out Plastic Ono Band by Lennon for instance).

Brian Wilson circa 1962 to especially 1966 was apparently on his way to actually becoming a great composer. Pet Sounds and the Smile Sessions even feature polytonality, something that has rarely been used in such an accessible way since. For something incredibly expressive in Pop music, check out "Surf's Up".

There have been other composers like Frank Zappa who could be argued as great composers (Pete Townshend certainly pushed things out there with his rock operas)...Stevie Wonder (I'd certainly put Stevie up there).

But so much of what we hear today for Pop and the majority of Rock still uses the structures that the Beach Boys and Beatles both pioneered and took to their limits. Same with harmonies, counterpoint, use of pads, etc.

People can debate all day over this and that's fine. I adore all of the musicians mentioned above. But if you check deep into the recordings and scores, you might find yourself very surprised.
*
Please understand, I'm simply taking a position, not necessarily offering up my own opinion. So ad hominem replies don't work in this context.*

But, I'm off topic, so forgive me.


----------



## Rohann (Jun 27, 2017)

Slight thread necro, but there were some interesting/useful thoughts here.

One thing I can't recall there being was a recommendations for some loose guidelines on improving and how to go about doing so.

I would consider myself probably a beginner on piano, able to play some semi-intermediate parts, knowing how to build chords/scales, and having memorized some of the scales/modes.
I would probably consider myself intermediate on guitar, at least technique-wise, having played lead and rhythm progressive rock/metal lines for a few years. Theory-wise, for guitar, I think I'd consider myself nearly a beginner: I'm a crap improviser, but have a general idea of where the modes in various keys fall on the fretboard and how to build chords, but I approached the instrument more from a "learn to play things by ear" standpoint.
I also think I'm approaching intermediate "basic" theory -- some aspects of non-functional harmony, modal usage, etc.

My question is -- in a week filled with semi-regular work to pay bills, family and other life responsibilities (I will endlessly kick myself for not having stuck with music during my I-have-nothing-to-do-with-my-time years in gradeschool), how would people recommend spreading out one's time between theory, performance/proficiency, and creativity?

I think the obvious goal for many in the position I'm in is to become proficient composers. I do realize the benefit of being proficient on an instrument, especially on keys -- I doubt I'd ever be able to conceive of something like Cohen's Masterpiece by Garry Schyman for a score without proficiency.
_However, _I have noticed that practicing pieces until one gets them perfect (on guitar anyway) hasn't really helped my composition at all, as once it's learned and memorized, any real consideration of note choice goes out the window by the 200th repetition. Great for technique, but what's been more helpful for learning _music_ is learning a variety of pieces by ear, learning pieces by reading notation, etc. I've also found that lead/rock/metal guitar, while a great background and influence, doesn't seem to do a great deal for my score-oriented composition.
*
TL;DR: Assuming one has a few years under their belt (so not a complete beginner), how would experienced composers recommend spreading out one's time on a weekly basis?* I don't think I have 5 hours a day to spend purely on practice if I want to also learn composition, theory, and simply have time to actually write music.
---------------------------------
PS -- Re: Theory. I've rid myself of the notion that I can purely listen to music and ignore theory altogether. Many of my favourite musicians have done exactly this, but have played for so long and have internalized such an absurdly diverse range of music that I'm completely confident they understand it intuitively.


----------



## waveheavy (Apr 27, 2022)

Parsifal666 said:


> Ah. So he does read. Carry on!


Well, there's being able to 'read'... music (i.e., play from reading), and then there's the very basic ability to read (like a child does with looking at ABC's). Most musicians start out as latter types and never get to the first type of reader.


----------



## georgewmusic (Apr 27, 2022)

My own experience: Less well than I used to before my scope was stretched to the overall task of composing. I think I used to be pretty good at guitar when it was all I did. But like with most things, I've definitely gotten rusty now it's not my only musical focus.


----------



## jonnybutter (Apr 27, 2022)

I’m glad this topic came back up because I’d like to revise my remarks (whatever they were): I think it’s a big asset to be able to play an instrument well, which is not to say that you have to play well to compose well. But especially in the studio, it’s a big asset. Also great for getting basic tracks if you can lead a live session as a player and/or for giving shape to your overall musical point of view. 

I also think skill is itself a value because it tends to multiply rather than add-up; like a critical mass that’s reached that feels intuitive but is coherently deep. Skill as socially valuable in itself is really underrated in general, IMO. I think it’s crazy, because, as I say, it seems so generative. 

So, if you have time to learn to play, it’s worth it, and once you do the really hard work of getting to a reasonable level, it’s easier to maintain your chops. What’s hard is getting up the hill, but once you do it’s at least level.


----------



## Tim_Wells (Apr 27, 2022)

I'm undeniably the world's foremost expert. You MUST master the kazoo.


----------



## KEM (Apr 29, 2022)

Well apparently if you’re me, not very well…


----------



## TomislavEP (Apr 29, 2022)

For me, the bond between composition and performance is frequently a very delicate one. I'm a pianist and multi-instrumentalist for decades now and have always strived to improve my playing skills and technique further, even though I'm not classically trained. Most of my finished compositions were originally conceived in the process of "socializing" with the instruments, improvisation and discovering new things.

That being said, I don't think one has to be a proficient instrumentalist in order to be a good composer. It's frequently enough to know the basics and to be reasonably fluent. Many great composers probably feel quite comfortable while writing music down in a traditional sense for a specific musician or an orchestra rather than for themselves. For me, however, it is exactly the opposite.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Apr 29, 2022)

TomislavEP said:


> For me, the bond between composition and performance is frequently a very delicate one. I'm a pianist and multi-instrumentalist for decades now and have always strived to improve my playing skills and technique further, even though I'm not classically trained. Most of my finished compositions were originally conceived in the process of "socializing" with the instruments, improvisation and discovering new things.
> 
> That being said, I don't think one has to be a proficient instrumentalist in order to be a good composer. It's frequently enough to know the basics and to be reasonably fluent. Many great composers probably feel quite comfortable while writing music down in a traditional sense for a specific musician or an orchestra rather than for themselves. For me, however, it is exactly the opposite.


I'm pretty much the same. I can play a lot of instruments well, but never mastered a single instrument (I'm a professional drummer but to me that doesn't count as a composer). I suppose there's pros and cons to this. Point in case, I have a friend who is a concert pianist and orchestrator, but cannot write music very well.


----------



## TomislavEP (Apr 30, 2022)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> I suppose there's pros and cons to this. Point in case, I have a friend who is a concert pianist and orchestrator, but cannot write music very well.


Most definitely; every person has a unique set of strengths despite their chosen path. To be honest, I don't really regret not having formal training despite all the potential benefits of having one. I'm playing since a very young age and can say with confidence that I'm highly skilled on piano and several other instruments and have a lot of experience working as a pro musician. However, I'm well aware that one can always learn so much more so I'm trying to expand my views further and also practice on a daily basis. Frequently, I'm finding comfort in knowing that there is always something new to learn. This of course goes for composition and production fields as well.


----------



## Midori Yakumo (May 11, 2022)

For me, my primary instrument is piano and I took a uni degree in it (rather than composition) because I feel like it would be much more beneficial to my composition if I know the instruments well. I am well planning to go pro with it. As of the other instruments, as long as I know their characteristics well enough I'm happy with it


----------



## chrisr (May 11, 2022)

Tysmall said:


> Berlioz went down as a legend and the only thing he played was opium and a pencil.


This caught my eye and I did a quick internet search (i know... i know...) just now to discover more... He did play just a few instruments fairly well it seems, but never the piano.

Came across this excerpt from Berlioz' memoirs, which I thought was particularly interesting for the bit I've highlighted. It is a great answer to the OP's question, and it's also how I feel myself. My best works have been composed in my head for as long as I can hold them there in a meaningful, retrievable way.



> So you see – I had mastered three majestic, incomparable instruments, the flageolet, the flute and the guitar. Who could fail to recognise in this judicious choice the impulse of nature which was driving me towards the most immense orchestral effects and music on the scale of Michelangelo! The flute, the guitar and the flageolet!… I have never had any other skills as an instrumentalist, though these seem to me respectable enough as it is. But I am not being fair to myself: I could also play the drum.
> 
> My father was against letting me start studying the piano, otherwise I would probably have become a formidable pianist, like countless others. He had absolutely no intention of making an artist of me, and was probably worried that the piano might establish too strong a hold on me and lead me deeper into music than he wished.
> 
> I have often regretted not being able to play the piano; this skill could be of great use to me in many circumstances. But when I think of the frightening number of trivia that are produced with such ease day-in day-out – disgraceful compositions that would be beyond the reach of their authors if they had to rely on pen and paper and were deprived of their musical kaleidoscope – *I have to thank my lucky stars for having been obliged to learn to compose in silence and with complete freedom. This has preserved me from the tyranny of fingering patterns, which are so damaging for creative composition, and from the seduction of commonplaces to which composers are exposed most of the time.* But admittedly the countless devotees of such pieces express in my case the opposite regret; but this leaves me unmoved.


----------



## Wally Garten (May 27, 2022)

chrisr said:


> This caught my eye and I did a quick internet search (i know... i know...) just now to discover more... He did play just a few instruments fairly well it seems, but never the piano.
> 
> Came across this excerpt from Berlioz' memoirs, which I thought was particularly interesting for the bit I've highlighted. It is a great answer to the OP's question, and it's also how I feel myself. My best works have been composed in my head for as long as I can hold them there in a meaningful, retrievable way.


That last sentence in the Berlioz quote is hilarious.


----------



## Roger Newton (Jun 4, 2022)

The question should have been - how much better is the composer who is a master of his or her instrument, compared to a composer who is not?


----------



## musicbox (Oct 9, 2022)

Baron Greuner said:


> Fingering and muscle memory is the key.
> 
> Forget about ear training and all that shit. That's just propaganda. That comes automatically with playing.
> 
> ...



Ear Training = Propaganda


----------



## musicbox (Oct 9, 2022)

tarantulis said:


> Yeah I think I'm gonna not practice tonight.
> 
> Alright so what's the next step here. Clearly I've got this all backwards. Some of this stuff seems so attainable and yet it's really stumping me. I switched piano teachers last month for this very reason, was very explicit about what I wanted (i.e., well-rounded lessons for an aspiring composer), and was told that it would be customized to fit my needs. Do I need to switch again? Do I quit? How do I learn to improvise in a structured way? Is there a book or course that's recommended for starting out? How do I jam with musicians when I've only been playing for a few months? How do I learn theory from a composition perspective and apply it as I go?
> 
> What's really frustrating is that I know exactly what's missing, I'm willing to give my full dedication, I just dont know how to get there.


The only way is to get a very good teacher that incorporates ear training and teaches from a improvisational perspective.


----------



## musicbox (Oct 9, 2022)

Robert Cote said:


> I agree with this point of view. You need to internalize and build a musical language not only in your mind, but in your hands (The two must develop together) by playing and listening to music, not just focusing on scales and exercises. You need to be able to quickly play what you hear in your head or you'll never be able to get your ideas down fast enough before they fade away. It's more important that what you write is musically good (formed from the solid foundation of a good internal library and language) than knowing how it breaks down into scales and chords.
> 
> Just as it's more important to be able to speak the thoughts that are in your mind immediately without consciously stopping to think about sentence structure, grammar, etc.


Almost. The voice is to be trained, not the hands.


----------



## musicbox (Oct 9, 2022)

robgb said:


> Pop, jazz, film, Broadway, classical. And I'd argue that Lennon/McCartney have had as much effect on music (and will be remembered in the same light) as the composers you mention.
> 
> As for great composers of the past—they obviously lived in a different time and had different tools. Their music could not be performed unless it was written down. In modern times—as the composers I listed prove—it is completely unnecessary to be able to read music in order to produce great music. To say it's necessary is like suggesting that a great novelist must have an English degree. I'd argue that MOST musicians around the world—from amateur to professional—probably _don't _read music.


Being able to read music enables you to translate the music into theses symbols in your mind. It makes thinking about music more efficient. The truth is that everybody can make music without reading notes. Some people dedicate extra time in learning about notes.


----------



## musicbox (Oct 9, 2022)

chrisr said:


> This caught my eye and I did a quick internet search (i know... i know...) just now to discover more... He did play just a few instruments fairly well it seems, but never the piano.
> 
> Came across this excerpt from Berlioz' memoirs, which I thought was particularly interesting for the bit I've highlighted. It is a great answer to the OP's question, and it's also how I feel myself. My best works have been composed in my head for as long as I can hold them there in a meaningful, retrievable way.


Do you have any more sources for researching composition in the head?


----------



## robgb (Oct 9, 2022)

musicbox said:


> Being able to read music enables you to translate the music into theses symbols in your mind. It makes thinking about music more efficient. The truth is that everybody can make music without reading notes. Some people dedicate extra time in learning about notes.


And some people don't, because they don't feel it's necessary. My point, of course, is that there's no SINGLE correct way to approach music. If you need symbols in your mind and efficiency, that's great. That's how your mind works. But not all minds work the same. Especially creative minds.

Because I come from a writing background, I'm reminded of writing teachers who insist you need a theme first and should always outline your books before writing them. For some people that's absolutely true. But for others—most of the writers I know, in fact—just jumping in with only an idea and flying by the seat of their pants works just as well for them. Some of the best books are written that way.

And some of the best music is made free of symbols and efficiency.


----------



## ZeroZero (Oct 9, 2022)

tarantulis said:


> Yeah I think I'm gonna not practice tonight.
> 
> Alright so what's the next step here. Clearly I've got this all backwards. Some of this stuff seems so attainable and yet it's really stumping me. I switched piano teachers last month for this very reason, was very explicit about what I wanted (i.e., well-rounded lessons for an aspiring composer), and was told that it would be customized to fit my needs. Do I need to switch again? Do I quit? How do I learn to improvise in a structured way? Is there a book or course that's recommended for starting out? How do I jam with musicians when I've only been playing for a few months? How do I learn theory from a composition perspective and apply it as I go?
> 
> What's really frustrating is that I know exactly what's missing, I'm willing to give my full dedication, I just dont know how to get there.


I started late on keyboards, coming from Sax. I am now a pretty competent player.
Someone mentioned muscle memory as a goal, I agree, without muscle memory you can have all the theory in the world but you have nothing. Classical approach is to be avoided. My parter has been playing 60 years and she cannot play a note without notation, that wil not get you composing. You need impro- sometimes called "Playing the piano by Ear". I really do not like this term its very misleading, most jazz and improvisational players have far more theory that classical musicians. In fact sa classical musician can get away with no theory at all, if they just follow the dots.
Think about the verb to "know" in a different way. It's about ownership of a concept mind and muscle memory. Reading books can only help a little. Utube is full of greaf videos which allow you to see your playing on the visual keyboard. No need for notes.
Here is an example of what I mean. The triad. Probably the most fundamental concept in music. Do you "know" your triads? What I mean, is not intellectualy describe the intervals of a triad, but the ability ot play a triad in all keys, at whim, instantly, in all keys. Can you take a triad around the cycle of fourths, the whole tone cycle? the chromatic cycle? Once you can do this, even then you do not own the triad. How about the inversions? Can you take your triads up and down the keyboard in inversions? Can you make patterns using triad inversions?
This is many months of work, but if you can, as a base, own your triads (major, minor, dim) you will have a firm basis for further development of ideas, you can add 7ths, 9ths, 6ths(13ths) you can sork on voicing chords. Did you know that many complex chords can be developed by using two disimilar triads one in the left and one in the right? These are called triadic extensions.

That is playing "by ear" (yukk) its a lot of work, but it will free up your fingers and ideas will flow.

I use Band in a Box. I would thoroughly recommend it. Type in your chords, choose your key, choose your style and genre and you have an instant track- played by LIVE musicians - in less than a minute. Modify it at will, choose your tempo, change a chord....There are thousands of styles in jazz, pop, country, blues, rock and more. If you can't afford this (they have a sale in Dec) then you can type in your needs into utube and a fixed backing track can be found. 
I take ideas through cycles every day . I always look for the most simple ideas to practice - like the one I just described. I know thart even complex flashy runs are mostly developed from these simple building blocks
On Utube, check out Piano with Johny, or my persona favorite Piano with Warren (Gospel orentiated but the theory is universal).

Hope that helps

Z


----------



## musicbox (Oct 9, 2022)

robgb said:


> And some people don't, because they don't feel it's necessary. My point, of course, is that there's no SINGLE correct way to approach music. If you need symbols in your mind and efficiency, that's great. That's how your mind works. But not all minds work the same. Especially creative minds.
> 
> Because I come from a writing background, I'm reminded of writing teachers who insist you need a theme first and should always outline your books before writing them. For some people that's absolutely true. But for others—most of the writers I know, in fact—just jumping in with only an idea and flying by the seat of their pants works just as well for them. Some of the best books are written that way.
> 
> And some of the best music is made free of symbols and efficiency.



As a writer do you not think in words? 
Anybody can choose what they want. But the people that are really ambitious learn it the hard way, like athletes. Because it makes them a tiny bit better overall. 
Being faster at understanding and translating music from your mind to reality sounds like a pretty good thing to me.

But cheers to you, every mind their own.

By the way, why do you think people like learning difficult skills like playing an instrument, mastering a sport, dance etc. ? Does is feel pleasurable to execute a skill that one has mastered? Is the pleasure related to other people?


----------



## aeliron (Oct 9, 2022)

tarantulis said:


> Do most composers just play their instrument well enough to craft ideas, play them decently, and then pass them off to better-trained professionals to be played well? I know that many of you guys started out in bands or with formal training, but I didn't, so I want more data.
> 
> My reason for asking is of course a


I’m jack (hack?) of a few instruments and master of none. But playing those instruments gives you insight into how to (try to) write for them.

Also trying to figure out songs - especially the harmony - without having the written music helps a lot. I know amazing pianists who can’t play without written music. You don’t want that. And of course, try writing music, too, as soon as you can. I studied music theory when learning violin but it never really took. It was taught as something to memorize rather than implement. My loss. Although I can read music, for writing I had to do everything by ear and still do. With whatever many limitations that implies. I do envy those who can identify intervals and modes etc. and how that can inform their writing! You guys rock!

Still, I’ve had the honor of having one of my songs played in military and other events all over the country. Not much money in that but sure felt good! The feeling of someone - even across the world - telling you they’d like to perform or record your song or appreciating how you wrote for their instrument is priceless. So go for it with all the resources available these days!


----------



## robgb (Oct 9, 2022)

musicbox said:


> As a writer do you not think in words?


Yes. And as a composer, I think in notes. But those notes don't need to be written down (or even named) unless I'm trying to communicate with another musician. And even then it's not always necessary.


musicbox said:


> Anybody can choose what they want. But the people that are really ambitious learn it the hard way, like athletes.


The hard way? LOL. Okay. There is no EASY way. There's only your way, my way, and the other person's way. All of them are hard. Here's the thing: one composer can train like hell, learning theory and notation inside out, and still produce music that people don't respond to. Others can learn by ear and still produce music that everyone loves. Neither path guarantees success or failure.



musicbox said:


> By the way, why do you think people like learning difficult skills like playing an instrument, mastering a sport, dance etc. ? Does is feel pleasurable to execute a skill that one has mastered? Is the pleasure related to other people?


I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere, but I'll take a stab at an answer. For me, personally, the pleasure comes in creating something. For others, mastering a skill may be the real pleasure. It's a "to each his own" kind of thing.

As for the pleasure being related to other people, I'm sure everyone feels pleasure when others enjoy their work, but I'm not sure what that has to do with learning to read music. The vast majority of those listening to our work only care about the sausage, not how it was made.


----------



## aeliron (Oct 9, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> The question should have been - how much better is the composer who is a master of his or her instrument, compared to a composer who is not?


Depends which instrument you’re composing for!


----------



## aeliron (Oct 9, 2022)

jacobthestupendous said:


> You have to be careful with the E word around here. People don't take kindly to it...


Yeah and I never use the key of E for just that reason!


----------



## aeliron (Oct 9, 2022)

olajideparis said:


> Regardless of what their primary instrument is, a composer ought to have proficiency at the piano in that they can play through chord progressions with correct voice leading in any key. This is something I foolishly fought against in my college days as I was initially a classical guitar performance major. Once I wanted to explore writing for other instruments it became a hinderance that I had absolutely no understanding of the piano at all. I would write everything out by hand before diving in to finale for finale engraving and it probably took me 10 times longer to write at the guitar than it would had I had some basic keyboard skills (which I would in fact eventually acquire).
> 
> In my opinion, one ought to be able to play through progressions in all keys as well as all major and minor scales at the keyboard. While conservatory or any piano teacher will stress the importance of playing with two hands in all octaves, if you can manage it with one hand that will get you by as a computer based composer who composes, though the more skill you have the better obviously.
> 
> The DAW and the keyboard should be thought of as one complex instrument. The goal ought to be that whatever DAW or DAWS you use are more or less an extension of your body. Learn the functions of them inside and out, know how to access them without a mouse and know the limits of your DAW.


Well, lead guitar is also as much about master of scales and modes and harmony. Just on a folded-up keyboard.


----------



## musicbox (Oct 10, 2022)

aeliron said:


> robgb said:
> 
> 
> > robgb said:
> ...





aeliron said:


> robgb said:
> 
> 
> > robgb said:
> ...


Interesting. Are you full aware of the sounds that you hear in your head?
Like could you write down any part in a moments notice?
Maybe you are a are of the pitches and from there you have a very strongly skilled perception. Or do you have "perfect" pitch by chance?


aeliron said:


> robgb said:
> 
> 
> > robgb said:
> ...


hmm I must disagree. Just the other week I had a litle discussion with my teacher. Definitely if you start at age 6 by singing in the choir every single day. Later learning counterpoint, partimenti and fuge improvisation. Lets say finish with PHD in baroque musical education practices in one of the od school choir schools in europe. that is some serious dedication. Compare that to start reading little by little over years...


aeliron said:


> robgb said:
> 
> 
> > robgb said:
> ...


----------



## musicbox (Oct 10, 2022)

aeliron said:


robgb said:


> robgb said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere, but I'll take a stab at an answer. For me, personally, the pleasure comes in creating something. For others, mastering a skill may be the real pleasure. It's a "to each his own" kind of thing.
> ...




1: Yes, creating something feels awesome! Thanks for sharing.

2: You are of course right. I have some additional views on the matter that I would like to discuss with you. These views fall from the spotlight of media attention. I switched from guitar jamming to daw to organ improvisation on the keyboard to composing SATB with keyboard and now I am trying my best of not even using a keyboard sometimes.


----------



## robgb (Oct 10, 2022)

musicbox said:


> Interesting. Are you full aware of the sounds that you hear in your head?
> Like could you write down any part in a moments notice?
> Maybe you are a are of the pitches and from there you have a very strongly skilled perception. Or do you have "perfect" pitch by chance?


1. I'm of the philosophy that, if it's any good I'll remember it. This philosophy has served me well. But for the most part, I create with a keyboard in my DAW, so writing it down is not necessary.

2. Yes, I have perfect pitch, but as I get older and my hearing goes, it's not as perfect as it once was.



musicbox said:


> hmm I must disagree. Just the other week I had a litle discussion with my teacher. Definitely if you start at age 6 by singing in the choir every single day. Later learning counterpoint, partimenti and fuge improvisation. Lets say finish with PHD in baroque musical education practices in one of the od school choir schools in europe. that is some serious dedication. Compare that to start reading little by little over years...


But you see, my point is, this is what matters to YOU (and others), but not to ME. I've never felt the need to have a formal teachers. My teachers were Chopin, Beethoven, Debussy, The Beatles, Goldsmith, Herrmann, and countless others I studied, and continue to study every day. I started this in the womb, because my mother was a pianist. She played daily for hours. I picked up the guitar at nine and taught myself to play by listening to other guitarists.

That was my education. A PhD means nothing to me. But that's ME. Others take a different path. I'd argue, however, that my path was as dedicated and difficult as anyone else's. The only difference is that my motivation had nothing to do with securing a degree or pleasing a teacher whose approach I don't necessarily agree with.

It's the same with writing. I've been a professional writer for thirty-seven years—I make my living at it—but I never took writing classes, never finished college, and learned by reading, reading, reading and writing, writing, writing. I sold my first short story in my twenties, my first screenplay at 30, and my first novel at 50. None of this required a PhD.


----------



## musicbox (Oct 10, 2022)

robgb said:


> 1. I'm of the philosophy that, if it's any good I'll remember it. This philosophy has served me well. But for the most part, I create with a keyboard in my DAW, so writing it down is not necessary.
> 
> 2. Yes, I have perfect pitch, but as I get older and my hearing goes, it's not as perfect as it once was.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your wisdom.


----------



## Roger Newton (Oct 10, 2022)

I knew a bloke who never took a piano lesson or any examinations or anything appertaining to any formal training by a music teacher.


----------



## Luzebel (Oct 11, 2022)

As a composer it's very important to learn the piano/keyboards. Doesn't mean that you have to be a virtuoso, or even really good. But learn chords, inversions, intervals, some scales... Piano is the most important instrument for learning music and coming up with great ideas and harmonies fast. I'm not even that good of a pianist (even though I practice every day). But knowing my way around a piano helped me so much and improved my composition skills, even more so than my music theory courses.


----------

