# Theory vs. Practice -- what do you think the balance should be?



## JohnG (Apr 2, 2009)

Hi all,

Wondered what your opinions were regarding time spent doing vs. formal (academic) music education.

My experience of traditional, formal music education left me ambivalent about academic training for composition, mostly because I found it difficult to find a professor who didn't insist on some kind of agenda about what music is supposed to be. Moreover, I generally found these agendas rather narrow, in the sense of excluding alternate views as if they were poisonous and needed to be stamped out. Like strongly-held political positions, these perspectives were defended with religious fervor. 

That said, there are some compositional tools (orchestration and instrumentation being examples) that can be taught and may be best learned academically (plus, I may just never have met the perfect professor). (EDIT: I should note that I had several extremely good professors and all of them, even those who had a particular position, nonetheless taught us useful lessons.)

Like many film composers, I admire the accomplishment in John Williams' work. Most of it demonstrates uncanny deftness at reaching a huge audience quickly, often in a few notes or bars. I often assume that, apart from native talent, part of John Williams' command of his material stems from his role as a conductor, part comes from composing to picture over and over (just practicing the art), and another part comes from academic study. 

I assume, further, that his conductor's practical experience, of dissecting a score and teasing out its more challenging elements, bringing them to life and clarifying them, would surely have accomplished two things. First, it would have required the conductor to zero in on both tough spots and the most exhilarating / interesting spots, which no doubt would inform his composition. Second, and perhaps no less important, it would hone the skill of coaxing the best performance of one's own material.

Not to digress too far into conducting, but, given that composers today must realise a significant portion of their work on electronics, this art and skill of conducting is not something most composers get much chance to practice. 

So, what do you think? Is it better to learn as much as possible -- like a PhD in composition and then attack the world, or does one learn more / as much just writing, playing, conducting, and orchestrating on projects?


----------



## TheoKrueger (Apr 2, 2009)

I am not the best person to comment on this question as I am a self-taught musician for the most part.

But I believe that the most important thing of all is Hearing.

If you can achieve pure hearing (hearing and keeping your own mind out of the way when listening to music and surroundings) for a long period of time you will be suprised by the results this will have on your music composition and your experience through music. When your mind is silent and you listen to music the influences and feelings get absorbed much more.

The other important thing with being a good listener is that first of all, you are the "guinee pig" of your own compositions so you can see how a melody affects you first and what you feel while after listening to it.

If you are not a good (and honest) listener you will never know how the world listens to your own music. You will simply believe that your compositions are good and proper because they follow the rules of musical theory therefor "no one can reject something mathematically and theoretically perfect" and if they do they are wrong or musically untrained.

Wrong, perfectly written and executed theory is not always good music.

Could Moricone write the good the bad and the ugly simply with perfect theory for example ? (and countless other pieces by other composers)

Not in a chance. He wrote it with his own heart more than anything. At least how I hear his pieces. They are something above theory to me.


----------



## Dave Connor (Apr 2, 2009)

I always went with the teachers agenda because I already know what I know and wanted to learn things I didn't. These were major proven teachers however who made me into a far better musician.

That said there's nothing like real-world experience which is irreplaceable because that's the goal of any instruction anyway. The problem is that you're not going to sort of learn counterpoint on the job. In fact a giant in the TV scoring world, the late Pete Carpenter (of Post and Carpenter fame) actually gave me a written test in counterpoint when he was auditioning me to write for them. He wrote a musical figure and asked me to write some counterpoint to it. No piano checking or working anything out but just pencil in hand right there on the spot. I nailed it easily and went on to write some cues for them. There was a time when almost any aspiring young composer could do that but I wonder what the percentage would be now.


----------



## Dave Connor (Apr 2, 2009)

TheoKrueger @ Thu Apr 02 said:


> Could Moricone write the good the bad and the ugly simply with perfect theory for example ? (and countless other pieces by other composers)



Maybe not the best example cause that guy has pure composition chops like nobody. The fact that he's free thinking and creative does not mitigate against his education but shows he's the best sort of educated composer. His command of composition is abundant in his body of work.


----------



## TheoKrueger (Apr 2, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Fri Apr 03 said:


> TheoKrueger @ Thu Apr 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Could Moricone write the good the bad and the ugly simply with perfect theory for example ? (and countless other pieces by other composers)
> ...



I agree, maybe not the best example. But perhaps a good example of where a different, non strictly theoretical music path can take you to.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Apr 2, 2009)

One shouldn't go without the other.

I recall a friend of mine a long time ago gave me this ultimate daily schedule to follow in order to achieve great results in terms of music mastery:

if you have a choice, play as a priority (meaning in a group ensemble setting)

when you can't play, practice

if you can't practice, listen

if you can't listen, think

since he was a performer and most people here are composers, I'd replace play with write, practice with study.

This recipee may turn out to be a sure way to eventually become mad, due to obsessive behaviors but it kind of makes sense to me...
(only, I recommend taking breaks and feeding the soul with other worthy pursuits as well...)


----------



## Dave Connor (Apr 2, 2009)

I agree Theo, you don't have to apply theory or even have an education to create great music. Most the giants of film however are thoroughly educated because the language of orchestral music has it's roots in the classics. It's a different era now though and there are guys out there who do wonderful stuff with very little education. If you want to write like Williams or Goldsmith or Morricone (all who have non-traditional scores along the way) I'm only suggesting to follow in their footsteps and study-up.


----------



## Niah (Apr 2, 2009)

Tabula Rasa


----------



## TheoKrueger (Apr 2, 2009)

Niah @ Fri Apr 03 said:


> Tabula Rasa





> Tabula rasa (Latin: blank slate) refers to the epistemological thesis that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and sensory perception.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa


----------



## TheoKrueger (Apr 2, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Fri Apr 03 said:


> I agree Theo, you don't have to apply theory or even have an education to create great music. Most the giants of film however are thoroughly educated because the language of orchestral music has it's roots in the classics. It's a different era now though and there are guys out there who do wonderful stuff with very little education. If you want to write like Williams or Goldsmith or Morricone (all who have non-traditional scores along the way) I'm only suggesting to follow in their footsteps and study-up.



I believe it is very good advice and also something which every responsible composer who is prepared to devote his life to music should do.


----------



## rJames (Apr 2, 2009)

I believe that the more you know, the better you can listen. So, education begets understanding on a personal level focused on what you want to hear and how you want to grow.

Also, I've found that my best work is based on ideas much more than on following a whim. But even following a whim is much easier after study (EIS in my case).

You can't really practice without the theory. But without practice, theory is useless.


----------



## IvanP (Apr 3, 2009)

I think musical education gives the composer the ability to recognize "checkpoints" in his work, meaning that it gives him the ability to check trhough his educational craft wether what he is writing has any sense or not. At the end, he should rely on his ear (inner or real) since music doesn't only exist on a paper, but also on a fenomenological basis. 

Each individual is different and thus each composer. I know people who studied the bare minimum and can create excellent music. The problem comes when trying to come up with something "new". You would need a tremendous ear, intuition and criteria in order to develop something which doesn't rely solely on your intuition and therefore on your musical influences which can be coherent in form and development. That is where the academic background would come in handy. 

All the counterpoint, analysis and harmony classes can save you a lot of time when composing with a deadline, but I have always learned more by practice than by theory. 

One can compose without knowing history of music but for another composer it will help him choose whether that augmented 6th or chromatic step should be used in the musical context he's writing at or not. If it's worth the time he spent learning it, well...it depends on how he feels overall...

At the end, I think it is a matter of balancing all the factors and choosing which elements make you write better, faster and become a better musician or not.


----------



## IvanP (Apr 3, 2009)

rJames @ Fri Apr 03 said:


> You can't really practice without the theory. But without practice, theory is useless.



Point is that without practice, theory is useless, indeed.

But I think yes, you CAN pratice without theory. only it's very unlikely that something that doesn't rely on obvious influences will come through IMO...at least it's my own personal burden atm... :roll:


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 3, 2009)

See it as a structure plan of a building:

Theory gives you knowledge about where the doors are, where the corridors lead to, where the rooms are, whats inside the rooms ... how to use lightswitches and the fridge etc.

In the end you have to walk it all by yourself to KNOW what's going on in that building. If you already know it, you have it much easier. You don't problaby burn yourself on the stove, you might not get a electric shock when investigating the socket 

If you are self taught. No problem too, but you have to walk the building by yourself and rely on your experience you made while walking ...

Also there are guys who just KNOW it. It's all logical to them. They know what doors are good for, the think logically where the corridor leads to the kitchen etc.
It's all there ... those guys are the talented.


Basically in the end you have to forget about theory at all. Simply FORGET!


See it again as a well trained Kung Fu fighter. In the end you just use it ... no thinking about moves, how to focus on a muscle, how to stand or use your leg. It is all there, it is just happening. You DO it!


The same with people, trainers and professors. Some of them will bring you the light, open your brain and heart, will push you ... others sadly are pure assholes and frustrated freaks, trying to bash down their students so you are not able to finally reach your goal, because they didn't make it.

Some people are just studying for studyings sake. They can tell you all about related scales, progressions over which chords. Which instrument can play which register at best, but in the end ... their compositions sounds crap 


Most important thing is, to finally understand and use everything which comes along your way.


Theory in the end is just the explanation of all practical. You can read tons of books about sex, but in the end you know nothing about an "intense night" with an experienced women/man


----------



## Markus S (Apr 3, 2009)

JohnG @ Thu Apr 02 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Wondered what your opinions were regarding time spent doing vs. formal (academic) music education.
> 
> ...



Hello John,

Well, I'd say you really need both..

The theory alone will not get you far.. as you will never get the feel for it and really "touch" the sound. On the other hand learning theory can save you so much time, because in a way you will have to build your own theoretical system anyway, if you learn only on your own. Film music and music in general follows many rules, it starts with the way you go from one chord to the next. If you learn this by your own, you will have to find out all by yourself what you could also read in a book.

I have been to university quite a while, but I thought that it has all been too theoretical. They teach you in a way, you will not dare write one single note, because you will never reach the level of the old masters, and if you do, there is no point in doing it, as it has been done before. All of it.  So, I started writing again, once I was OUT of the university, sat by the piano, and just played what came to my mind, and "rediscovered" music for myself. So, it's MY music, my sound, I do what I want (or at least what the client wants :D ). But still the theory often helps me understand what I am doing, or what I am trying to do.


If you feel uncomfortable with a teacher, look into books (counterpoint, harmony, orchestration). And scores from great composers (with recordings). I found it is much better way to get there as sitting in a room and just "absorbing" endlessly, like some kind of plant the light. A book or a score is somehow a more "active" way to learn (you don't like the book, take another one, you know the chapter already, jump to the next).

So far for me at least. I might also add , that one can never learn enough about music, the more you know the less you know, as they say.. 

Best,

Markus.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 3, 2009)

Perhaps to take this a bit further, what advice would you give to newer composers (and maybe others who come more from a performance side) about choosing specific areas on which to focus study?

For example:

1. Orchestration -- Adler's book with accompanying CDs; others like Kennan

2. Harmony -- I have Piston's book; it's basic but another way of looking at it is, if you don't know what's in it, you probably ought to

3. Counterpoint? Does one really need to study counterpoint as such? What do you think? I studied it and it was an entertaining puzzle, but I can't say I've used a strict fugue in any of my scores.

4. Score study -- there was a thread about this

In other words, if you are going to a tutor or you don't have time to go to university (or even if you do, I suppose), what is the recommended, most valuable "toolkit" in your view?


----------



## Markus S (Apr 3, 2009)

Hi again, 

Well I'd say, any book you can get! I personally simply do researches on amazon or on Google (input : counterpoint in example, just found : http://www.amazon.de/Study-Counterpoint-Johann-Joseph-Fux/dp/0393002772/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books-intl-de&qid=1238773115&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.de/Study-Counterpoint ... 115&amp;sr=8-1) don't know the book, but might be interesting), if I am looking to learn something and make something of my life.  I read lots of stuff in French or German, so it wouldn't be of much help, if I name them,given I'd remember the names.

I think no book has it all, but to get a larger picture I think it's good to look at more than one or two. At some point they will "fit" together and hopefully give a larger understanding. I'd also look into "tutorial DVD", even if they are slightly more "annoying" watch, than reading a book. Sorry, I wouldn't know if there are some must read books tout there..


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 3, 2009)

My rule of thumb is whenever you play something and your brain says 'NO WAIT, THAT'S WRONG' before you have even listened...then you are too loaded up on the theory and need to take a step away.

If it sounds good, it is good....end of.

Dan


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 3, 2009)

The thing about counterpoint is that even if you don't write a fugue and forget the rules, there are lots of concepts that will stick intuitively: linear thinking, voice movement, harmonic rhythm, etc.

And actually I did use it literally one time - I had to write a round when doing the music for Twelfth Night a few years ago.

Having said that, I've never been interested in the approach to composition that treats it as a puzzle (without saying that eliminates the emotional part of it). Bach did that, of course, and in fact most concert composers use that kind of an approach, but I've never been interested in that.


----------



## bryla (Apr 3, 2009)

agree to what Nick says. I'm studying Fux counterpoint, and my lines are improving. Usually when writing string arrangements I improvise each line at a time, not writing anything down. After I begun studying I notice that fewer if any corrections are necessary afterwards

With regards to thinking versus hearing, I think it's greatly important to expose oneself to new sounds. Personally I mathmatically think of new scales and structures, and force myself to familiarize myself with their sounds, building triads from them etc. Eventually they become an integral part of what you hear


----------



## clarkcontrol (Apr 3, 2009)

JohnG @ Fri Apr 03 said:


> Perhaps to take this a bit further, what advice would you give to newer composers (and maybe others who come more from a performance side) about choosing specific areas on which to focus study.
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...



Good categories, 1-3 are all pretty much equally important, as you generate each from the other (though counterpoint is tops for me).

#4 is way more important than the first three, because it is the closest you can get to...

#5: The MOST important thing is experience. Technique is just a map of sorts, as explained above. But masters can take the simplest technical form and generate wonderful art because they have worked with it FOREVER. Over and over again.

And that's so much more important than book knowledge. Theoretical knowledge can strengthen experience but its way stronger the other way around.

It's like the best way to learn something is to teach it. You have to USE it.

Clark


----------



## mducharme (Apr 5, 2009)

An area that hasn't been mentioned yet is Form and Analysis. The study of form is indispensable to a composer because it gives an blueprint to make a longer piece out of a smaller idea.

There are a dime a dozen very brief compositions on the Members Composition Review forum where someone shows off an idea, and it is a great idea, but that's it, it doesn't go anywhere. It doesn't feel like a complete piece, but a clip from something longer. The study of form helps composers extend these pieces into full compositions.

Also ear training is critical. Sometimes I get a flash of inspiration and it's often when I'm nowhere near a piano, and I need to jot it down quickly before I forget it - having a good sense of relative pitch and done a fair amount of ear training and solfege, I can analyze the idea and notate it on the spot.

Other than that I agree very much with the priorities expressed of the subjects in that last posting.


----------



## JohnG (May 21, 2009)

mducharme @ 5th April 2009 said:


> An area that hasn't been mentioned yet is Form and Analysis. The study of form is indispensable to a composer ...
> 
> There are a dime a dozen very brief compositions on the Members Composition Review forum where someone shows off an idea, and it is a great idea, but that's it, it doesn't go anywhere.



Mike's point is 100% true. A good example of developing material is the famous Indiana Jones "Raiders' March." There's really not that much material there, but the piece is over 5 minutes long and (to me) never boring. On the contrary, it steadilòÕ   ¡Ÿ/Õ   ¡Ÿ0Õ   ¡Ÿ1Õ   ¡Ÿ2Õ   ¡Ÿ3Õ   ¡Ÿ4Õ   ¡Ÿ5Õ   ¡Ÿ6Õ   ¡Ÿ7Õ   ¡Ÿ8Õ   ¡Ÿ9Õ   ¡Ÿ:Õ   ¡Ÿ;Õ   ¡Ÿ<Õ   ¡Ÿ=Õ   ¡Ÿ>Õ   ¡Ÿ?Õ   ¡Ÿ@Õ   ¡ŸAÕ   ¡ŸBÕ   ¡ŸCÕ   ¡ŸDÕ   ¡ŸEÕ   ¡ŸFÕ   ¡ŸGÕ   ¡ŸHÕ   ¡ŸIÕ   ¡ŸJÕ   ¡ŸKÕ   ¡ŸLÕ   ¡ŸMÕ   ¡ŸNÕ   ¡ŸOÕ   ¡ŸPÕ   ¡ŸQÕ   ¡ŸRÕ   ¡ŸSÕ   ¡ŸTÕ   ¡ŸUÕ   ¡ŸVÕ   ¡ŸWÕ   ¡ŸXÕ   ¡ŸYÕ   ¡ŸZÕ   ¡Ÿ[Õ   ¡Ÿ\Õ   ¡Ÿ]Õ   ¡Ÿ^Õ   ¡Ÿ_Õ   ¡Ÿ`Õ   ¡ŸaÕ   ¡ŸbÕ   ¡ŸcÕ   ¡ŸdÕ   ¡ŸeÕ   ¡ŸfÕ   ¡ŸgÕ   ¡ŸhÕ   ¡ŸiÕ   ¡ŸjÕ   ¡ŸkÕ   ¡ŸlÕ   ¡ŸmÕ   ¡ŸnÕ   ¡ŸoÕ   ¡ŸpÕ   ¡ŸqÕ   ¡ŸrÕ   ¡ŸsÕ   ¡ŸtÕ   ¡ŸuÕ   ¡ŸvÕ   ¡ŸwÕ   ¡ŸxÕ   ¡ŸyÕ   ¡ŸzÕ   ¡Ÿ{Õ   ¡Ÿ|Õ   ¡Ÿ}Õ   ¡Ÿ~Õ   ¡ŸÕ   ¡Ÿ€Õ   ¡ŸÕ   ¡Ÿ‚Õ   ¡ŸƒÕ   ¡Ÿ„Õ   ¡Ÿ…Õ   ¡Ÿ†Õ   ¡Ÿ‡Õ   ¡ŸˆÕ   ¡Ÿ‰Õ   ¡ŸŠÕ   ¡Ÿ‹Õ   ¡ŸŒÕ   ¡ŸÕ   ¡ŸŽÕ   ¡ŸÕ   ¡ŸÕ   ¡Ÿ‘Õ   ¡Ÿ’Õ   ¡Ÿ“Õ   ¡Ÿ”Õ   ¡Ÿ•Õ   ¡Ÿ–Õ   ¡Ÿ—Õ   ¡Ÿ˜Õ   ¡Ÿ™Õ   ¡ŸšÕ   ¡Ÿ›Õ   ¡ŸœÕ   ¡ŸÕ   ¡Ÿž              òÖ   ¡Ÿ Ö   ¡Ÿ¡Ö   ¡Ÿ¢Ö   ¡Ÿ£Ö   ¡Ÿ¤Ö   ¡Ÿ¥Ö   ¡Ÿ¦Ö   ¡Ÿ§Ö   ¡Ÿ¨Ö   ¡Ÿ©Ö   ¡ŸªÖ   ¡Ÿ«Ö   ¡Ÿ¬Ö   ¡Ÿ­Ö   ¡Ÿ®Ö   ¡Ÿ¯Ö   ¡Ÿ°Ö   ¡Ÿ±Ö   ¡Ÿ²Ö   ¡Ÿ³Ö   ¡Ÿ´Ö   ¡ŸµÖ   ¡Ÿ¶Ö   ¡Ÿ·Ö   ¡Ÿ¸Ö   ¡Ÿ¹Ö   ¡ŸºÖ   ¡Ÿ»Ö   ¡Ÿ¼Ö   ¡Ÿ½Ö   ¡Ÿ¾Ö   ¡Ÿ¿Ö   ¡ŸÀÖ   ¡ŸÁÖ   ¡ŸÂÖ   ¡ŸÃÖ   ¡ŸÄÖ   ¡ŸÅÖ   ¡ŸÆÖ   ¡ŸÇÖ   ¡ŸÈÖ   ¡ŸÉÖ   ¡ŸÊÖ   ¡ŸËÖ   ¡ŸÌÖ   ¡ŸÍÖ   ¡ŸÎÖ   ¡ŸÏÖ   ¡ŸÐÖ   ¡ŸÑÖ   ¡ŸÒÖ   ¡ŸÓÖ   ¡ŸÔÖ   ¡ŸÕÖ   ¡ŸÖÖ   ¡Ÿ×Ö   ¡ŸØÖ   ¡ŸÙÖ   ¡ŸÚÖ   ¡ŸÛÖ   ¡ŸÜÖ   ¡ŸÝÖ   ¡ŸÞÖ   ¡ŸßÖ   ¡ŸàÖ   ¡ŸáÖ   ¡ŸâÖ   ¡ŸãÖ   ¡ŸäÖ   ¡ŸåÖ   ¡ŸæÖ   ¡ŸçÖ   ¡ŸèÖ   ¡ŸéÖ   ¡ŸêÖ   ¡ŸëÖ   ¡ŸìÖ   ¡ŸíÖ   ¡ŸîÖ   ¡ŸïÖ   ¡ŸðÖ   ¡ŸñÖ   ¡ŸòÖ   ¡ŸóÖ   ¡ŸôÖ   ¡ŸõÖ   ¡ŸöÖ   ¡Ÿ÷×   ¡Ÿø×   ¡Ÿù×   ¡Ÿú×   ¡Ÿû×   ¡Ÿü×   ¡Ÿý×   ¡Ÿþ×   ¡Ÿÿ×   ¡  ×   ¡ ×   ¡ ×   ¡ ×   ¡ ×   ¡ ×   ¡ ×   ¡ ×   ¡ ×   ¡ 	×   ¡ 
×   ¡ ×   ¡ ×   ¡  ×   ¡ ×   ¡               ò×   ¡ ×   ¡ 


----------



## Ashermusic (May 21, 2009)

I totally agree with the last 2 posts.


----------



## jsaras (May 21, 2009)

I love jazz pianist Bill Evans' quote, "Knowledge must lead intuition".


----------



## clarkcontrol (May 21, 2009)

Does not say "Book learning begets worthwhile art."

Charlie Parker knew what he was doing. There were no labels yet, no terminology. He developed it, just kept doing it.

Practice, people, practice. And this is from me, theory geek and book learned to the hilt. If I was capable of composing/improvising stuff that I haven't practiced but knew in a theoretical sense, then I would be rich, famous, and all that. 

I know far more than what I can use because I don't have enough experience with the material (read: procrastination in dues-paying). Experienced composers have worked and reworked every device so that minimalistic resources are a feature, not a liability.



> More generally, the entire scores for "Sixth Sense" or "Psycho" depend on minimal "material" and maximum cleverness in varying the material



So "Knowledge" is one thing (I would equate with experience) and book smarts (theory) is another.

Form and analysis I include in score study, seeing how important it is for that to have context in real world examples (because that's what it is: context). But it is definitely worth mentioning by itself.

Clark


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 21, 2009)

In 1985 when I was studying with Albert Harris, I complained to him that I didn't really understand form - how to develop a piece. He said "then just do theme and variations."


----------



## Ashermusic (May 21, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 21 said:


> In 1985 when I was studying with Albert Harris, I complained to him that I didn't really understand form - how to develop a piece. He said "then just do theme and variations."



Albert told me that his best student was Ira Hearshen. I told me that I was pretty good, better than Randy Edelman, who also studied with him. 

He said you were clueless


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 21, 2009)

He was right.

And he told me a few things about you too, which I won't repeat. It would be very embarrassing for you if all that stuff about showing up wearing a garter belt and a ball in your mouth (and nothing else) got out.


----------



## JB78 (May 22, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 21 said:


> He was right.
> 
> And he told me a few things about you too, which I won't repeat. It would be very embarrassing for you if all that stuff about showing up wearing a garter belt and a ball in your mouth (and nothing else) got out.



Thanks Nick for teaching me the hard way not to eat breakfast and browse this forum at the same time... (o)


----------



## Ashermusic (May 22, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 21 said:


> He was right.
> 
> And he told me a few things about you too, which I won't repeat. It would be very embarrassing for you if all that stuff about showing up wearing a garter belt and a ball in your mouth (and nothing else) got out.



Oh no, Albert promised me he would not tell a soul, sheesh.


----------



## JB78 (May 22, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Thu May 21 said:


> Albert told me that his best student was Ira Hearshen. *I told me that I was pretty good, better than Randy Edelman,* who also studied with him.
> 
> He said you were clueless



Did Mr.Harris agree?


:lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 22, 2009)

"Albert promised me he would not tell a soul"

Are you saying I have no soul? Huh? HUH?


----------



## rayinstirling (May 22, 2009)

mducharme @ Mon Apr 06 said:


> There are a dime a dozen very brief compositions on the Members Composition Review forum where someone shows off an idea, and it is a great idea, but that's it, it doesn't go anywhere. It doesn't feel like a complete piece, but a clip from something longer. The study of form helps composers extend these pieces into full compositions.



Have you considered the possibility that some of these short pieces aren't developed for no other reason than the composer can't be bothered showing any. There is more often than not, very little feedback unless it's a trailer cue.

Ray


----------

