# Should composing be easy?



## ManchesterMusic

As a non-traditionally/classically trained composer, who can barely even read music anymore, I wanted to suss out whether the act of composing music could, will and should be made easier...

Made a little video on it. Curious to know what you think...


----------



## Markrs

Really good question Geoff. I have had very similar thoughts as I have been going down that studying route and the negative is that learning takes a long time, is frustrating and I compose less. I recently got Rapid Composer to help in some elements of composing, I also have Scaler 2 as well.

I don't want something to generate melodies for me. However something that helps develop a motif by transposing it to the next chord inverting it, etc. Helping with writing an Ostinato. Maybe scales, chords and voicings a particular composer might use.

Help with the orchestration by easily displaying the frequency and timbral range of instruments. Information or recommendations about common instruments that go together. 

This is all the sorry of knowledge those that study for years and years get but I feel like the rest of us don't have access to. Something that gavr us access to that knowledge rather than trying to write for us. Giving us options we wouldn't have thought of.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Composing should hurt.


----------



## Markrs

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Composing should hurt.


There old "art through suffering..." argument. Personally I don't like barriers to entry (I am saying this as someone study composition most days for several hours a day). All art should be accessible, it should be creative, inspirational and not require 10 years of study before hand.


----------



## SupremeFist

Markrs said:


> Help with the orchestration by easily displaying the frequency and timbral range of instruments. Information or recommendations about common instruments that go together.
> 
> This is all the sorry of knowledge those that study for years and years get but I feel like the rest of us don't have access to.


Everyone can have access to that by simply buying a copy of eg Walter Piston's Orchestration. Books are underrated!


----------



## SupremeFist

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Composing should hurt.


In my day job I'm a writer. My favourite definition of a writer is "someone for whom writing is more difficult than it is for normal people".


----------



## José Herring

Kind of just watched the intro and felt that you are asking the wrong questions stemming from a wrong assumption that learning the basics of music theory is hard and difficult and takes many years. It doesn't. It takes about 20 minutes. Being great at it may take a lot of practice and genius that few achieve but that shouldn't stop you. Just listening to your average TV score is proof enough that one can make a decent living and not be genius at music. But few will be Ravel and yet, he didn't survive as an artist too well in spite of being one of the greatest of all time composers.

Better question to ask is why do some who seemingly write great music never see the light of day as a composer and yet others are world famous and yet can't compose their way beyond music that would have been easily performed by my elementary band. And, as an artist what does one really aspire to. World, famous and millions of $$$ in the bank with trophy wife, fancy cars and big houses or one that takes a risk and though may not get all that (or maybe he/she does) tries to write the kind of music that is true to his heart and soul.

One guy in a million gets to be himself and get famous for it. The other million copycat that one. A rare few just do what they like whether they get to make money at it or not. At any time any one of us fall into the latter 2 categories, and every once in a while some rise to be that one dude.


----------



## Living Fossil

Markrs said:


> Help with the orchestration by easily displaying the frequency and timbral range of instruments. Information or recommendations about common instruments that go together.


What many people completely ignore is that orchestration is less about knowing the range of instruments (that's something one can learn during an afternoon), but much more about writing
appropriate textures, figurations, countermelodies etc.
And about creating specific colours with combinations, registrations etc.
And these are things that non only require years of training and experience but also a very good inner hearing.


----------



## José Herring

Living Fossil said:


> What many people completely ignore is that orchestration is less about knowing the range of instruments (that's something one can learn during an afternoon), but much more about writing
> appropriate textures, figurations, countermelodies etc.
> And about creating specific colours with combinations, registrations etc.
> And these are things that non only require years of training and experience but also a very good inner hearing.


I whole heartily agree with everything except one point. It may not require years but it does require dedication, intelligence and intense curiosity.


----------



## Markrs

Living Fossil said:


> What many people completely ignore is that orchestration is less about knowing the range of instruments (that's something one can learn during an afternoon), but much more about writing
> appropriate textures, figurations, countermelodies etc.
> And about creating specific colours with combinations, registrations etc.
> And these are things that non only require years of training and experience but also a very good inner hearing.


As these are things I am studying I do very much agree, and at the moment there is no short hand way to learning these except by studying and practising, but I would love it if there was 🙂


----------



## Living Fossil

José Herring said:


> I whole heartily agree with everything except one point. It may not require years but it does require dedication, intelligence and intense curiosity.


It depends on the level of complexity we are talking about.
Or: show me somebody who reached a complexity in his instrumentation that comes close to 30% of the complexity that you will find in Strauss' "Also sprach Zarathustra" within one _decade _of very hard training. 
Richard Strauss is a perfect example where an incredible inner hearing, years of experience with orchestras and routine in constantly working reached an incredible level.
Dedication and hard work are necessary, but things still take time.


----------



## SupremeFist

Markrs said:


> As these are things I am studying I do very much agree, and at the moment there is no short hand way to learning these except by studying and practising, but I would love it if there was 🙂


One must love studying and practising for their own sake, not simply as a means to an end. This is the way.


----------



## Living Fossil

Markrs said:


> As these are things I am studying I do very much agree, and at the moment there is no short hand way to learning these except by studying and practising, but I would love it if there was 🙂


The good thing is that there are so many scores available at imslp.org which one can download for free.
A method i practised a lot when i started (late 80ies  ) was just taking a passage of a score and write it down, voice for voice, bar for bar. On paper. And constantly asking myself: what's the purpose of that element. And then, making a condensed version for two hands.

You can do this with short passages that you like; even if it's only 4 bars.


----------



## José Herring

Living Fossil said:


> The good thing is that there are so many scores available at imslp.org which one can download for free.
> A method i practised a lot when i started (late 80ies  ) was just taking a passage of a score and write it down, voice for voice, bar for bar. On paper. And constantly asking myself: what's the purpose of that element. And then, making a condensed version for two hands.
> 
> You can do this with short passages that you like; even if it's only 4 bars.


Great way to learn for sure. I should do it more often. I stopped doing it a while ago.


----------



## Markrs

SupremeFist said:


> One must love studying and practising for their own sake, not simply as a means to an end. This is the way.


Totally agree, I am very much an autodidact and have studied many subjects over the years. The only issue with me is I have been studying music more than practising as I find studying easier than being creative. Studying almost becomes an excuse. However music has easily been the hardest thing I have studied with so much to learn, I often get overwhelmed by all the things I need to learn.


----------



## SupremeFist

Markrs said:


> Totally agree, I am very much an autodidact and have studied many subjects over the years. The only issue with me is I have been studying music more than practising as I find studying easier than being creative. Studying almost becomes an excuse. However music has easily been the hardest thing I have studied with so much to learn, I often get overwhelmed by all the things I need to learn.


For sure this is a challenge when studying alone, and it's where structured in-person teaching can be really valuable. When I decided I wanted to learn more traditional theory as an adult I was lucky enough to be able to take a year of weekly afternoon classes where we were set homework in two-part inventions, chorale harmonisation etc, so the practice came along with the teaching. If you don't have this opportunity it might help to decide exactly what you want/need to focus on for the next three to six months, say, and do _only_ that? Otherwise it's for sure easy to get overwhelmed with all the stuff out there one would like to know.


----------



## muk

Living Fossil said:


> The good thing is that there are so many scores available at imslp.org which one can download for free.
> A method i practised a lot when i started (late 80ies  ) was just taking a passage of a score and write it down, voice for voice, bar for bar. On paper. And constantly asking myself: what's the purpose of that element. And then, making a condensed version for two hands.
> 
> You can do this with short passages that you like; even if it's only 4 bars.


That's a great exercise. A trick that helped me a lot: choose a work that you like, but haven't seen the score of. Head over to IMSLP, and download the piano reduction of this piece. Eithout looking at the score, orchestrate part of the piano reduction yourself. As you write, this can be a very short passage, or a longer one. As you like. After you orchestrated the passage from the piano reduction, then download the full score and check how it is in the original. You'll learn a ton and get ideas for what you can do better in your orchestration.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

It's not easy for me or Jerry Goldsmith, who once said that the creative process is inherently painful.


----------



## ManchesterMusic

José Herring said:


> Kind of just watched the intro and felt that you are asking the wrong questions stemming from a wrong assumption that learning the basics of music theory is hard and difficult and takes many years. It doesn't. It takes about 20 minutes. Being great at it may take a lot of practice and genius that few achieve but that shouldn't stop you. Just listening to your average TV score is proof enough that one can make a decent living and not be genius at music. But few will be Ravel and yet, he didn't survive as an artist too well in spite of being one of the greatest of all time composers.
> 
> Better question to ask is why do some who seemingly write great music never see the light of day as a composer and yet others are world famous and yet can't compose their way beyond music that would have been easily performed by my elementary band. And, as an artist what does one really aspire to. World, famous and millions of $$$ in the bank with trophy wife, fancy cars and big houses or one that takes a risk and though may not get all that (or maybe he/she does) tries to write the kind of music that is true to his heart and soul.
> 
> One guy in a million gets to be himself and get famous for it. The other million copycat that one. A rare few just do what they like whether they get to make money at it or not. At any time any one of us fall into the latter 2 categories, and every once in a while some rise to be that one dude.


You should watch the whole video. It takes about 20 minutes


----------



## Anthony

My answers to the three questions you posed at the end of your video:

1. _Can_ composing be made easier?

Yes. The reason it hasn't happened yet is because the technology involved (primarily AI) is still rather new/unsophisticated.

2. _Will_ composing be made easier?

Yes. As AI and other relevant technologies mature, they will undoubtedly improve both assistive and autonomous composing tools.

3. _Should_ composing be made easier?

This question is philosophical in nature. My view is that if technology improves the quality and/or ease of making *good* music, then the answer is yes. Obviously what constitutes "good" is a subjective matter and, as such, different people will have different answeres to question #3.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

I think AI will simply raise the bar. I believe that we are wired to try to push any new tech past its limits, and we will overdrive/clock our AI assistants.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

My inspiration for my pain comment is Jack White’s attitude to music-making.


----------



## José Herring

ManchesterMusic said:


> You should watch the whole video. It takes about 20 minutes


Sure, but would the whole video yield as many great dividends as actually writing and studying music or technical manuals for 20 minutes. At the age of 30 I probably would have lasted the whole video, in my 50's I just don't have time unless the person actually creates a compelling reason for me to spend 20 minutes. Judging by the way the video started, not to be rude, but you could have spent 20 minutes prior to making the video learning how to present a thesis in a way that would be compelling. Because at the start what really comes across is, "I'm too lazy to learn to do it the right way so I'm going to theorize if it should be easier". World has too much of that attitude already and is failing for it.

But if at minute 20 of your video you actually come to a different conclusion. Then my apologies for not seeing it through.


----------



## ptram

Composing shouldn't be unnecessarily difficult. But it is in its nature to be made of difficulties to overcome. And from succeeding in solving complexity comes the mental pleasure of having done the right thing. Like in sports, chess and mathematics.

Paolo


----------



## José Herring

Anthony said:


> My answers to the three questions you posed at the end of your video:
> 
> 1. _Can_ composing be made easier?
> 
> Yes. The reason it hasn't happened yet is because the technology involved (primarily AI) is still rather new/unsophisticated.


AI composition is not at all new and really hasn't made much progress in the last 50 years since it was first attempted. But, it is unsophisticated because in general computers aren't really intelligent. Or at least are only as intelligent as their creators.


Anthony said:


> 2. _Will_ composing be made easier?
> 
> Yes. As AI and other relevant technologies mature, they will undoubtedly improve both assistive and autonomous composing tools.


Unfortunately already there and it hasn't done music any favors that's for sure.


Anthony said:


> 3. _Should_ composing be made easier?
> 
> This question is philosophical in nature. My view is that if technology improves the quality and/or ease of making *good* music, then the answer is yes. Obviously what constitutes "good" is a subjective matter and, as such, different people will have different answeres to question #3.


Interesting question really. It's a question that leads to more questions which is good. If AI can make our jobs easier, as Ned already mentioned we'd end up pushing the limits of said technology to the breaking point demanding that new technology be developed and push the limits further. So in fact, is the technology driven by the creative need to be expressive? Or.... the lazy need to do it easier but not better? This one will having me thinking for a while.


----------



## dunamisstudio

There are too many tools on the market to help with this.

EastWest Hollywood OPUS
Best Service The Orchestra
Rest of the Ensemble libraries
Plugin Boutique Scaler 2 (it has lot of keys, scales, styles, modes built in. Also makes suggestions to chord progressions you're doing.)
Rest of the Music Theory Tools on Plugin Boutique
Composition Classes
Youtube Videos
Forums

With all these you can learn to make music or make music easily. Sorry to be blunt, but if people want it easier than that, then they are just lazy.


----------



## Nico5

Everything that's made easier, lowers the barrier to entry, which in turn means:

enabling fewer people to make a living with the activity
enabling more people to have fun with the activity and produce desired results
This doesn't just go for the arts, but pretty much any human activity I can think of - including negative activities.

If any of those are good or bad depends pretty much entirely on the individual life context of the person answering the question.


----------



## Arbee

As with many life pursuits, if it was easy anyone could do it, and that's a big part of the seduction and challenge for me.


----------



## Double Helix

As is obvious, any skill becomes easier the more one practices: hitting a baseball; playing a musical instrument; competing in bridge, chess, or video games; shifting a manual transmission.
If composing becomes "easy," anyone--even those with minimal skill--will be able to produce mind-blowing results, thereby saturating the market.


----------



## Tralen

There is also the question of who is creating the difficulty in the first place.

I often find that I'm the one pushing the difficulty, just to make something that keeps me interested, otherwise I would abandon it midway.


----------



## antames

There are always tedious and unfun parts in any discipline or pursuit. It depends how good you want to be at your craft and how much time you're willing to put in the work. Knowing music theory and composition isn't essential to be able to make good music now that everything is done on a computer, but it definitely helps to write more complex passages, chords and harmonies. I just think of the older Hollywood composers like Alan Silvestri, Bill Conti, and John Williams, all of which were classically trained, and you can tell by listening to their music. Compare that to today and it's a very different sound again with everything so accessible from your bedroom and so many more being self-taught.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Anthony said:


> the three questions



My answer to 1, 2, and 3 is that they all miss the point.

Music is the soul of humanity. AI can or will certainly produce functional music, but I don't think we're going to be getting, say, Joni Mitchell machines anytime soon.

The only qualification is that there could be a random factor to what a computer comes up with. That could be useful.

But the way this discussion seems to be framed, nah.


----------



## José Herring

Nick Batzdorf said:


> My answer to 1, 2, and 3 is that they all miss the point.
> 
> Music is the soul of humanity. AI can or will certainly produce functional music, but I don't think we're going to be getting, say, Joni Mitchell machines anytime soon.
> 
> The only qualification is that there could be a random factor to what a computer comes up with. That could be useful.
> 
> But the way this discussion seems to be framed, nah.


Which is the point imo. It is of no doubt that a computer with its fantastic ability to do computations can and probably will create music that is technically superior to what we can do as humans. As a matter of fact even playing with computer generated algos can do that. But, we're unique creatures that have our own voice and if the future holds anything I feel it will be just that. AI will force us to be artist and actually say something personal beyond just being artisans that can apply theory and technique but with little to say.


----------



## dunamisstudio




----------



## dgburns

Nick Batzdorf said:


> It's not easy for me or Jerry Goldsmith, who once said that the creative process is inherently painful.


I can’t imagine how much …er… ‘pain‘ ….. the guy who wrote a whole 52 cues in a year must be feeling.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

dgburns said:


> I can’t imagine how much …er… ‘pain‘ ….. the guy who wrote a whole 52 cues in a year must be feeling.


Not a lot, because unfortunately he died years ago.

But are you saying he was slow? I think not!


----------



## Macrawn

The technologies are nice. I think ultimately in 100 years we will put something on our heads and the entire sound we hear will just pour out.

But for most people who have no artistic vision and haven't experienced the depths of things or even know themselves those sounds will be uninteresting or just clones of something else that already exists. So tech isn't going to replace that foundational experience of life with the suffering and the highs and the search / the quest.

I remember seeing a photo of Robert Rauschenberg painting in his underwear in his flat surrounded by the found garbage he collected. He lived it. Tech isn't going to replace that.

Besides what computers are great at is looking back into the past. They can follow formulas of established genres and make music in styles that have existed. They are a long way away from innovating in those genres. The video mentioned action strings. Those strong ostinato patterns you hear in every trailer. But the real innovators are experimenting and trying to produce new sounds or combine genre styles in ways we haven't really experienced yet. 

But you know most of us here are basically bots trying to make music that already exists because that's where the market is. Very few people have what it takes to get to the next level and that's completely independent of theory and tech.


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Composing should hurt.


But what if we want it to hurt?


----------



## el-bo

Markrs said:


> I have been studying music more than practising as I find studying easier than being creative. Studying almost becomes an excuse.


That seems like a crystal-clear, honest, bolt-from-above type of realisation that's worth seizing (before it disappears under the weight of the daily norms) and acted upon. What good is learnig all about how to build muscle if one never visits the gym?

Maybe set a time-period (A month, or three), in which you ban yourself from any further study, so you can just focus on the practical application (The fun part, where you get to send sweet, vibrations into the world)?


----------



## Markrs

el-bo said:


> That seems like a crystal-clear, honest, bolt-from-above type of realisation that's worth seizing (before it disappears under the weight of the daily norms) and acted upon. What good is learnig all about how to build muscle if one never visits the gym?
> 
> Maybe set a time-period (A month, or three), in which you ban yourself from any further study, so you can just focus on the practical application (The fun part, where you get to send sweet, vibrations into the world)?


Very good idea @el-bo. Some of the courses have challenges. There are also some FB groups (not a fan of FB and rarely use it but there are some good groups on there) that give you weekly challenges.


----------



## JonS

ManchesterMusic said:


> As a non-traditionally/classically trained composer, who can barely even read music anymore, I wanted to suss out whether the act of composing music could, will and should be made easier...
> 
> Made a little video on it. Curious to know what you think...



I think these tools will eventually exist, Geoff. I use Digital Performer and if you are familiar with DP you may be aware of what a MIDI Clip is. So imagine opening up the Clippings Window in a DP template and selecting a Bach Clips Folder which contains every single melody, counter melody, harmony, bass line and percussive part in each of Bach's pieces as distinct MIDI Clips. You could selectively choose any melody or part from a Bach work and immediately put it into any key signature. Then maybe you select a part from a Rachmaninov movement to go with it. DP could add features like we have in Omnisphere where you highlight the MIDI Clip and it plays a sample audio of what that part is so you can more easily select which composer's parts you are looking for. Now imagine every single composer whose work is part of the public domain as part of this massive MIDI Clips library that one could open inside DP. Perhaps there would be a sort filter inside the Clippings Window where you could see all Adagio or Largo or Allegro parts either within each composer's folder or all Adagio works from all composers or perhaps all composers from a certain time period or romantic period, etc. I don't think working composers would allow there melodies and counter melodies to be included into MIDI Clips so one might have to wait a long time for them to pass away before their music is in the public domain.

So much of popular music is based on the classical catalogue anyway, and if you listen closely to film music even the most brilliant of all composers John Williams rips off the classical catalogue more than anyone else since he knows it better than any of us. It is common for a film composer on a tight schedule to either recycle a cue he wrote from a previous film into his current project or rip off another composer's music be it from the classical catalogue or a more modern composer's work.

IMHO I think creativity comes from some other realm and is sent (or sort of faxed) to the creative artist in this consciousness who then fashions that piece of music into something others may think is original. Often times, musical ideas are very derivative from other sources even if the composer is unaware of that reality. The best music I have written simply comes to me in a blink of an eye in fully orchestrated form in my mind and then I have to do the work to translating that vision into notes, arrangements and orchestrations. There are other times when I simply noodle around on the piano and voila a song or cue is born. 

I know many top film composers when they find themselves in writer's block will simply listen to cues from major film soundtrack albums to trigger a sense of what they may be looking for to help create that particular kind of a cue that they are working on. Often because of tight deadlines, composers are not given enough time to always come up with new ideas so the audiences tend to hear a lot of similar sounding cues in one movie genre after another. For example, I can listen to Howard Shore's wonderful score for The Lord of the Rings but listen carefully and boy does it sound the same as many cues in his score for The Twilight Saga: Eclipse movie. Don't get me wrong, I adore John Williams and Howard Shore's film music, but realize the film and tv industry is a commercial factory creating similar kinds of soap bars. That's how movies get pitched, bought and made in Hollywood ie. Top Gun meets Nascar, Mad Max on the Ocean. Hollywood studios are just looking to remake successful movies over and over again, that's why franchises exist. So often times, a film composer is hired to simply recreate the kind of scores he has previously written in other movies not necessarily to craft something wholly original. Directors and producers can get very stuck on temp tracks which can also force a composer to have to homogenize his writing to fit preconceived expectations.

So maybe one day with the help of SIRI or ALEXA a composer can sit down on his couch and chime out Bach Melody Adagio and hear 10 different audio samples playing out consecutively till they determine which one they want to use or slightly alter to composer their cue. Personally, I'd rather someone on the other side of this realm keep faxing to my brain fully orchestrated cues and songs so I can forge them into listenable pieces regardless if there truly is some deceased composer transmitting their ideas to me or not.


----------



## ManchesterMusic

José Herring said:


> Sure, but would the whole video yield as many great dividends as actually writing and studying music or technical manuals for 20 minutes. At the age of 30 I probably would have lasted the whole video, in my 50's I just don't have time unless the person actually creates a compelling reason for me to spend 20 minutes. Judging by the way the video started, not to be rude, but you could have spent 20 minutes prior to making the video learning how to present a thesis in a way that would be compelling. Because at the start what really comes across is, "I'm too lazy to learn to do it the right way so I'm going to theorize if it should be easier". World has too much of that attitude already and is failing for it.
> 
> But if at minute 20 of your video you actually come to a different conclusion. Then my apologies for not seeing it through.


Obviously folks don't have to watch the entire video but I find it unfortunate that anyone would make a judgement about the quality of a 20 minute piece based on the intro. I know you're not _trying_ to be rude, but I don't think you're succeeding. 

I cringe at the thought of the of someone assessing the quality anyone's submitted cue based on the first few seconds, but here we are. People read the headline, and scroll on. 

The reason it's 20 minutes is because it's a complicated subject which I wanted to spend some time exploring in, I think, a careful and thoughtful way. I assume you disagree, but that's OK, (you can't win them all.) There's speed controls at the bottom right of the player btw, you can fast forward with little to no of loss of intelligibility. 

I completely disagree with your assessment of my attitude (surprise surprise), and the notion that there is a 'right' (your words) way to learn is very interesting, but probably not worth unpacking on a forum.

I'll reiterate my advocacy (it appears at the end of the video): it would be really helpful if there existed some tools that either help you get started with a limited palette of sounds and midi (based on inputs you've given the tech), or point you in an interesting, creative direction based on what you've already composed.


----------



## KEM

Should it be? I don’t know, maybe for some people I guess, but it certainly isn’t for me

Writing music is incredible hard, but that doesn’t deter me


----------



## Henning

Hmm, perhaps it's the wrong question being asked. My question would be rather: "Does composing make you happy?". If your answer is "No" then you should do something else.


----------



## el-bo

Markrs said:


> Very good idea @el-bo. Some of the courses have challenges. There are also some FB groups (not a fan of FB and rarely use it but there are some good groups on there) that give you weekly challenges.


Challenges are great, if you vibe with them. I have a love/hate relationship with them. Evidently I need the deadline, as the only projects I tend to finish are from challenges. But the downside, due to the way i write, is that I almost always end up butting right up against the deadline and end up with a sub-par result that always disappoints me.

All fun & games 

In the end, I think you'll get some value from anything/everything you try...even if none of it leads to a finished, 'displayable' piece-of-work. Even if you end up doing nothing, just putting some distance/time between you and studying music might actually change your relationship with it, upon return. I'd probably find the opposite i.e stopping all playing/writing and actually trying to study, but for the first time in a long time I have a little body of written work that I feel worthy of committing 'to tape'. We'll see how that goes


----------



## Kent

ManchesterMusic said:


> I cringe at the thought of the of someone assessing the quality anyone's submitted cue based on the first few seconds, but here we are.


This is literally how it happens though. Nobody has the time to pay the opportunity cost of sloughing through a 20 minute cue to see if it moves into a different level of quality or a different musical vibe, or whatever. It is ultimately much more efficient, as @José Herring notes, to sample and move on.

Does this mean that the full 20 minute cue would be a waste of time to listen to? No, it might actually be good music, and enjoyable.

But a poor start (and a 20 minute runtime) would reveal some things much more pertinent than 'does this person know how to write good music', namely:

1.* Does this person 'understand the assignment'?* (That is, do they understand _why_ they are writing this cue? If it's to be impressive enough to pass some test or meet some standard, and fails to do so at the get-go, then it doesn't matter how great the music is that follows; it lacks the ultimate attribute. Good music ≠ a good score, and good ideas do not necessarily make for a compelling narrative.)

2. *Does this person value the time of the listener?* At 20 minutes, that's only 3 cues an hour, which is far too much to ask of someone who needs to approve/reject (say) 30 cues in an afternoon.


----------



## Loïc D

This is dangerous dark magic, so of course it should require the hardest training.
The hardest.


----------



## gamma-ut

ManchesterMusic said:


> Obviously folks don't have to watch the entire video but I find it unfortunate that anyone would make a judgement about the quality of a 20 minute piece based on the intro. I know you're not _trying_ to be rude, but I don't think you're succeeding.
> 
> I cringe at the thought of the of someone assessing the quality anyone's submitted cue based on the first few seconds, but here we are. People read the headline, and scroll on.


I think it's a bit rich to post a 20-minute video on a forum with a somewhat provocative title and then complain about the responses. You were posting for responses, right? Or was it just for some "mash that like-button and subscribe" action?

Many more tools exist to get you started on composition than have ever been available in the past. Tools for development exist in DAWs and notation software, though you might have to dig a bit to find them. Furthermore, composition is actually pretty easy, especially with those tools. Doing it to a level you (or others) like is the tricky bit and that involves a somewhat wider set of skills, abilities and tools than something you can park in a computer any time soon.

Also, I don't think making at least one of your three "big" questions a strawman is either helpful or effective.


----------



## jaketanner

My 2 cents worth:

Literally anyone can "compose" (put together as defined)...sit someone who never touched a piano...ask them to play a few random notes...technically they composed. NOW...is it a "melody"? was it satisfying in any way? is it creative? Is it good? Does it evoke something? Does it serve a purpose? Honda has 2 notes for their sonic logo, as do many other companies...are they successful composers? But in all accounts..they composed something. So is composing easy? yes...very...is composing something that is good, easy? Hell no.

Composing is a talent...pure and simple. orchestration can be a talent OR a skill. But composing a satisfying melody is a talent...luck maybe in rare cases, but then it won't be consistent. 

I have been in the music business for a long time...I come from the mindset that only someone who can sing should take lessons. Why...because if you don't have the voice or ear, you're not going to make it. If you have the talent, voice, pitch...then you can take that to different levels by study. I believe the same goes for composing and orchestration...if you don't have the basics, then no amount of study is going to help. It's like if I wanted to learn nuclear fusion...no freaking way, because I don't possess the brain power to understand it...LOL

Composing isn't paint by numbers.


----------



## nolotrippen

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Composing should hurt.


Like love!


----------



## nolotrippen

Beethoven was deaf. How much harder could it be? But most of us have the ability to take a walk in the woods or an urban horrorscape with a pad of paper and a pencil and jot down some melodies, no? Plus, if attacked, the pencil can be used defensively.


----------



## wunderflo

a) I think it's rude to publicly judge a piece of work without fully consuming it. Of course, you can judge it personally for yourself and decide that it's not worth your time (that's why intros are indeed important), but why still share your opinion on it then? You can't blame the author for your impulse-babbling. With that being said, I'm sure everyone on the internet has commited that sin at least once. 

b) I really liked your (wife's) makeup comparison @ManchesterMusic. I think it kinda answers your question (btw, I really enjoyed your video!).

The more we let the tools help us, the more we let them (or rather their developers or the material they are fed to learn) guide/channel our decisions. In the end, all those decisions evolve around the question, what should belong to us and what shouldn't, what is accepted/desired and what isn't. The end result is what we refer to as "culture" (there are many different definitions of "culture", I'm referring to the culture theory of Mary Douglas here). In terms of music that means deciding what's sound and what's noise. What is harmonic, what is dis-harmonic, in tune, out of tune, etc. Obviously, those answers depend on how you've been socialized (based on the inside/outside-rules of your culture or sub-culture).

The most powerful/influential ideology is the one we don't see, because it's so deeply inscribed in our everyday routines, strategies, techniques and the tools we use. The tool might make it seem as if it enhanced our possibilities by presenting us many options, and we might not feel restricted by it at all, but actually it forces us to pick one of a finite amount of options, while really this is only a very limited selection of an infinite amount of options that exist in reality. That's what makes composing hard - and why it shouldn't be made too easy. The social media algorithms do this very well, as it's in their interest to lower the barrier of producing/publishing content. They allow you to be super creative and post everything you like, right? Well, in reality they favor very specific kinds of content. Users learn that and everything becomes quite uniform globally. TikTok doesn't help people to creatively express themselves through dancing, it gives them a very clear guideline how to look and how to move to which songs - that's what makes it easy to use.

Obviously, we already have many tools that help us. You don't have to be able to play an instrument to compose, you don't have to understand the inside electronics of analogue hardware to mix, etc. Thus, many say that nowadays it's the main job/challenge of a composer/producer/mixer to make decisions based on taste, while the actual process of translating your vision to audio is just a detour of technicalities that will become shorter and shorter as technology progresses. My point is: You can't have one without the other. There's no technology that only reduces the "effort", while preserving the "creativity". The artistic end result is not creative vision minus the effort of translating it to reality. Instead, art is created by multiplying the creative vision with the effort of translating it. The tool influences the vision as much as vice versa. It's always a balancing act, just something to be aware of.

On the other hand, there's an interesting phenomenon that keeps puzzling me: Engineers always (?) fought noise and strove for a better signal-to-noise ratio. This probably determined the direction of the technological development. Hence, certain sounds were defined as undesirable noise before the tools were made to eliminate them. However, at some point - after the noise has been basically killed - some people decided that certain noises were actually cool to have, and now we have something like Spitfire Appassionata that lets us insert this noise again. In parallel, it became kind of a trend to show yourself in pictures without makeup or Photoshop. Maybe that's simply a case of how a movement always produces a counter-movement? Or how in a world of fake beauty, what has been defined as ugly before gets re-defined and glorified as "authentic"? Or does the noise rather serve as "fog" that helps to blur the categories and limitations? Is that done to hide the differences between real and virtual, or is this done to create more ambiguity based on ideals that might stem from romanticism?

Sorry for this long text, I'm a culture sociologist. 

c) Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something here, but I never get why some composers (always western, mostly European, always from the past) are pedestalled and compared to allegedly oh-so-inferior modern pop producers or modern classical composers, because why? Because their music is more complex and harder to play? Are you sure that's a good way to universally judge the value of music? Nothing against Bach & Co., but we should at least attempt to deconstruct why we glorify what we glorify, and how much that has to do with the canonizing by certain (institutional) players.

Also, I don't agree that you have to be a copycat to be successful today, while in former times composers were allowed to be more original. If you look at who's successful today, you'll find many artists who at least once in their career (usually their breakthrough) have done something very original. But the key to success seems to be combining something new with something familiar - and I don't think that changed much?


----------



## MartinH.

el-bo said:


> That seems like a crystal-clear, honest, bolt-from-above type of realisation that's worth seizing (before it disappears under the weight of the daily norms) and acted upon. What good is learnig all about how to build muscle if one never visits the gym?
> 
> Maybe set a time-period (A month, or three), in which you ban yourself from any further study, so you can just focus on the practical application (The fun part, where you get to send sweet, vibrations into the world)?





Markrs said:


> Very good idea @el-bo. Some of the courses have challenges. There are also some FB groups (not a fan of FB and rarely use it but there are some good groups on there) that give you weekly challenges.



Try "project based learning". Do the things you want to do, don't put anything off "till you're good enough", tackle the goals you want to tackle and do the learning on demand and specific to the next problem that you need to solve for your project.


----------



## gamma-ut

wunderflo said:


> a) I think it's rude to publicly judge a piece of work without fully consuming it.


How much constitutes "fully consuming it"?

People sat through the premiere of The Rite of Spring and hated it. People sat through more than one performance and came to love it. People who sat through multiple plays of The Birdy Song will mostly have come to the conclusion that once was way too much.

At what point in the consumption cycle do you judge people to be worthy of making a public pronouncement?



> There's no technology that only reduces the "effort", while preserving the "creativity".



These two things don't follow. Take the example of the transition from tempera to oil-based media in painting. Tempera is horrible to work in. It dries quickly and is tough to handle but it's all artists had to work with for some time. Oils arrived in the northern/Flemish schools and was snapped up by the likes of Jan van Eyck not least because it was both easier to work in and delivered more vivid colours. To some extent, they also broke with the confines of perspective (the Betrothal of Arnolfini has more vanishing points than you can shake a stick at), though the Italian schools persisted with tempera and hard perspective for some time. Did that improved technology lead to lower creativity among the Flemish schools vs their Italian counterparts?

Similarly, it is easier to compose microtonally now thanks to electronic technology vs the kind of hoops Harry Partch had to jump through to realise his works. Is our creativity lower than that available in Partch's time?


----------



## wickedw

Why would anyone want composing to be "easier"? The fun is in the playing, experimentation and discovery. The application of things you have learned a long the way of the many hours of struggle. The happy accident that suddenly made the track work... The eureka is the reward, that is composing.


----------



## Anthony

KEM said:


> Writing music is incredible hard, but that doesn’t deter me


Writing *good* music is incredibly hard.

Merely 'writing' music is now quite easy.


----------



## gamma-ut

The really unfortunate aspect of these kinds of YT videos are the way they force an artificial dichotomy onto any subject. It's not a question of "hard" or "easy". There's no real reason why it should be either. It just happens that creative solutions often involve a certain amount of trial and error and it's the errors we perceive as "hard" because we don't enjoy them.

There's no harm in using tools to take some of the humdrum out of any process – unless it's the humdrum you enjoy or feel comfortable with, or which may be, in the round, more productive. For example, having ploughed through species counterpoint you may well be a lot more productive and find things "easier" in the long run by internalising the avoidance of certain bad patterns in voices rather than having a tool run through options that may not fit together all that well but which are correct-by-construction in all other ways.

But a video likes this forces attention onto a debate that largely doesn't matter thanks to some facile over-generalisations when it would have been way more productive if the OP had done some actual research instead of pontificating to-camera with some showerthoughts.

And, yes, that is rude if you consider not sugaring the pill as being rude.


----------



## wunderflo

gamma-ut said:


> These two things don't follow. Take the example of the transition from tempera to oil-based media in painting. Tempera is horrible to work in. It dries quickly and is tough to handle but it's all artists had to work with for some time. Oils arrived in the northern/Flemish schools and was snapped up by the likes of Jan van Eyck not least because it was both easier to work in and delivered more vivid colours. To some extent, they also broke with the confines of perspective (the Betrothal of Arnolfini has more vanishing points than you can shake a stick at), though the Italian schools persisted with tempera and hard perspective for some time. Did that improved technology lead to lower creativity among the Flemish schools vs their Italian counterparts?
> 
> Similarly, it is easier to compose microtonally now thanks to electronic technology vs the kind of hoops Harry Partch had to jump through to realise his works. Is our creativity lower than that available in Partch's time?


Interesting example! Unfortunately, I have no idea about the art of painting, so I can't really comment on that.

Just to clarify in general, I wasn't talking about higher/lower creativity. Just different (however, indeed potentially more uniform if everyone globally uses the same tool). I'd be surprised if that newer technology didn't have an influence on the artistic vision itself, what the painters tried to do with it. I just don't think that there's something like an artistic vision that exists in some kind of vacuum on one side, and then there are the means to realize this vision (some more difficult, some easier to use) on the other side. Those sides are interdependent, imo.

Of course, there might be some technologies that are more open towards how they have to be used than others, but I'd argue that in some way they all guide our usage of them. How does technology help us and enable us to be creative? It reduces complexity, meaning it limits options (by giving us other options). Absolutely nothing wrong with that (and we all know how limitations can boost creativity), until it limits too many options of too many of us at once (due to digital technologies being available globally all at once - and probably being made to follow a specific (sub-)cultural (most likely Western & commercially successful) ideal/aesthetic - a problem that didn't exist in your painting example), but it might be good to be aware of that and from time to time ask yourself, who or what made you make a certain creative decision. Why we are reducing or now re-introducing noise, for example. Or why we perceive some acoustic signals as "noise" and others as "sound"/"music".

Like I said, it's a balancing act. I'm definitely not arguing against the use of technology... we always were and are in some way. I'm just saying that the medium or technology is not neutral... it will favor certain usages over others...


----------



## gamma-ut

I don't think anyone sensible would argue that technology doesn't change how creativity is realised: you're going to get differences between trying to write music for a collection of bone flutes vs a studio of synthesisers. I was just taking issue with the assertion that there's some natural linkage between levels of either, which is a reductionism that doesn't hold up under scrutiny, much like "should [creative thing] be easy or hard?" or "should [creative thing] be crunchy or chewy?" or should [creative thing] be X or Y?"


----------



## robgb

I don't consider it particularly hard. But maybe that's because I really enjoy doing it. I enjoy writing novels, too, and make my living at it, but have never considered it hard work. Exhausting, yes, but never hard. Even the learning part is easy because of that drive to get better and understand. For example I know so much more about mixing than I did ten years ago, but have never felt the journey was difficult. And it will be a while before I stop learning and improving. All gravy as far as I'm concerned.

So I guess what I'm saying is that something is only hard if you allow it to be. Hard is when you're doing something you don't want to be doing. Hard isn't the same as challenging. Composing is definitely challenging.


----------



## dcomdico

Anything worth doing should be challenging and afford the ability to learn and grow, otherwise why bother?


----------



## Scamper

wickedw said:


> Why would anyone want composing to be "easier"? The fun is in the playing, experimentation and discovery. The application of things you have learned a long the way of the many hours of struggle. The happy accident that suddenly made the track work... The eureka is the reward, that is composing.





dcomdico said:


> Anything worth doing should be challenging and afford the ability to learn and grow, otherwise why bother?


That's the way I see it too.
A big part of the fascination and reward is doing something, that's really hard to do. You start with the passion for music, then start to compose, learn and practice, struggle along the way, obsess over it (optional), but finally push through and finish a piece. Even if it isn't a great one, you will always learn something from it and improve. Noticing improvements over time is a reward itself.
And the good thing - you're never done learning, because there is always more room to grow. More room for rewards. You also have all the subskills next to pure composition - arranging, orchestration, playing an instrument.

If composition was easy...
One - all or most music would be amazing? If everything is amazing though, nothing is. It could very much change the way we perceive music as something magical and so enjoyable.
Two - it wouldn't take struggling and effort to make music? To my knowledge, human psychology just isn't made for it (I'd rather change that first). For something to be truly fulfilling and rewarding, there needs to be hard work, struggling and discipline to go through with it. It's all a balance and everything else is rather a not so healthy "fast food" of rewards.

Still, I think some parts of the process could be easier, like realizing and producing the compositions. Dealing with DAWs and sample libraries is just a hassle sometimes. So, it would be great to have an easier way to get what composition is in your head and put it in a listenable form.


----------



## Scamper

Additionally, with the talk about music theory - I believe it's very much secondary and not really necessary. Sure, it can get deep and there is potentially a lot to learn, but the most important are the basics, and those don't take long to learn.

Otherwise, it's all about practice, since learning to compose it learning to speak a new language, the very abstract language of music. Learning grammar and vocabulary (transcribe!) is helpful, but in music, there are no words. An interval means something. Add another interval and you extend the meaning. Have a different second interval and you might change the meaning of the whole phrase completely. Use different bass notes or harmonies, that can twist the meaning again in uncountable ways.
I don't think you can just know theoretically everythings what's possible. You can only get a better and better feel for it by either listening or playing around - getting practical experience.


----------



## wunderflo

dcomdico said:


> Anything worth doing should be challenging and afford the ability to learn and grow, otherwise why bother?


sounds good, but at the same time we say that music is a language, a form of communication. Should it be challenging to learn a language and communicate? It sure is, but should it be? Wouldn't it help humanity if everyone was able to communicate with everyone in every language? If singing is said to increase happiness, shouldn't everyone be able to do it, without having to be afraid of judgement? And what's the solution here? Relying on a tool such as Auto-tune (that makes everyone's singing sound quite uniformly according to the aesthetic of the tool's developer) or less judgement and easier access to better training resources? 

I wonder how many of these defensive, negative replies here (not referring to you, dcomdico), attacking OP, saying that making music should be restricted to the people who have the talent (as if anyone could objectively judge that) and put in the effort to learn it (but only after having proven one's worthiness to gain permission to learn it) are either rooted in fear of losing one's own status protected by certain gatekeeper mechanisms and/or neo-liberal narratives of performance-based fairness and puritan ethics of how hard work and being successful proves you are part of the chosen few, etc. 

At least, many statements here seem to be based on the notion that music should be a profession or a product that needs to meet certain quality standards and making it should require effort and skill, because why else should it be compensated monetarily? This really says more about capitalism than about making music, though.

I think OP raised a thought-provoking question that is worth a discussion for those who enjoy more abstract, theoretical discussions, as can be seen by the many replies here. If some of you think it's a waste of time, then why are you participating? There are many other threads here discussing CSS versus...


----------



## Prockamanisc

wickedw said:


> Why would anyone want composing to be "easier"? The fun is in the playing, experimentation and discovery.


Yeah, but dude, we're literally in a forum about virtual instruments and DAWs. That means composition is easier than what it was when people were still writing out notes by hand. That period in history created some of the greatest composers of all time. 

And also, I'd be hard pressed to find a composer in the thick of it, with multiple deadlines looming over his head, playing around with instruments, presets, and synths and saying "I'm having so much fun experimenting and discovering!" They're just going to want to find a quick answer so they can move on and hopefully spend some time with their family that day. I'm probably a bit cranky at the moment, because I am one of those composers at the moment.


----------



## Prockamanisc

Scamper said:


> Additionally, with the talk about music theory - I believe it's very much secondary and not really necessary. Sure, it can get deep and there is potentially a lot to learn, but the most important are the basics, and those don't take long to learn.


I may be misunderstanding your statement, but I don't see how theory is not primary. We have a system by which we have mapped out the type of music that humans enjoy, and what their expectations are regarding that music. The way you depict adding intervals is exactly music theory. It's been mapped out already. You can jump to the end of the discovery phase and just play around with the information that you have. Did you write something that sounds bad? There's probably a theoretical reason for that. Did you write something enjoyable? There's probably a theoretical reason for that.


----------



## Prockamanisc

To answer the OP: Should composing be easy? To paraphrase Einstein:

Composing music should be as easy as possible, but not easier.


----------



## wickedw

Prockamanisc said:


> Yeah, but dude, we're literally in a forum about virtual instruments and DAWs. That means composition is easier than what it was when people were still writing out notes by hand. That period in history created some of the greatest composers of all time.
> 
> And also, I'd be hard pressed to find a composer in the thick of it, with multiple deadlines looming over his head, playing around with instruments, presets, and synths and saying "I'm having so much fun experimenting and discovering!" They're just going to want to find a quick answer so they can move on and hopefully spend some time with their family that day. I'm probably a bit cranky at the moment, because I am one of those composers at the moment.


Oh yeah and I am very happy to be living in a time where I can access these tools to compose music. It seems very unlikely I would have ever gotten the chance otherwise!

But is orchestral (specifically) really easier to compose in a daw though? Basically a lot of us (myself included) lack the proper skill but if we had been educated to do so I think a daw is probably more difficult to compose orchestral music in than on paper. We can just create a good sounding version of that composition right away, but that's actually recording/performance aswell. 

I'm not saying you're wrong or right. I'm not even saying my opinion is right. If I was in your shoes right now I would probably say the same thing. But your example of deadlines isn't really a problem of composition and it's perceived difficulty level, it has to do with workload.


----------



## fretwalker

I once heard a story where a student asked Mozart about writing symphonies. He was having difficulties and asked Mozart to tell him what he should do. Mozart said you should study and work with simpler forms such as songs. The student replied, but I want to write symphonies, things you were writing as a child. Mozart replied, but I never had to ask anyone how to do it.

I tell this story because when I was in my 20s I was lucky enough to study with one I consider a musical genius. I've known some brilliant musicians but only one fell into the genius category. I don't use the term lightly. During that time, I thought a lot about the role the intangible quality we think of as "talent" plays in the process.

Yes, as AI becomes more viable and more pervasive we'll see more composition tools created and the bar to entry lowered in composing. There will be more algorithmically generated music out there and I'm sure some might be good. But IMHO the best work, the music that touches the soul, will continue to be made by talented people, who know their craft, working at a desk with a pad of score paper and a number 2 pencil.


----------



## SupremeFist

fretwalker said:


> a pad of score paper and a number 2 pencil.


Rotring 600 or gtfo.


----------



## dcoscina

ManchesterMusic said:


> As a non-traditionally/classically trained composer, who can barely even read music anymore, I wanted to suss out whether the act of composing music could, will and should be made easier...
> 
> Made a little video on it. Curious to know what you think...



Depends on what you want to compose. A simple dittie on guitar or piano, it might be easy. If you want to write in a Straussian or Stravinsky orchestral manner, no, it's not easy and I dare say that they didn't find it easy either. It's methodical, arduous but ultimately rewarding however.


----------



## SupremeFist

Should understanding a person's argument be easy? Yes! Hence why I refuse on principle to watch discursive YouTube videos when I could assimilate the same information in ≈1-5% of the time by reading prose.

(Generally really enjoy your videos demonstrating instruments and plugins though Geoff @ManchesterMusic ! 🤘🏻)


----------



## fretwalker

SupremeFist said:


> Rotring 600 or gtfo.


LOL


----------



## Scamper

Prockamanisc said:


> I may be misunderstanding your statement, but I don't see how theory is not primary. We have a system by which we have mapped out the type of music that humans enjoy, and what their expectations are regarding that music. The way you depict adding intervals is exactly music theory. It's been mapped out already. You can jump to the end of the discovery phase and just play around with the information that you have. Did you write something that sounds bad? There's probably a theoretical reason for that. Did you write something enjoyable? There's probably a theoretical reason for that.


I get what you're saying. You can use theory to write music, which is enjoyable and theory can give you the means to create certain emotions and moods, but is it really ALL mapped out? In terms of all that's possible, I still think theory is rather general and broad, isn't it?

Lets say we're just talking about music that is enjoyable and pleasant, which you can write with either - theory or experience. There are still uncountable possibilities how to do things, to write melodies for example. Change one note in a melody and it can change the effect of it drastically. Change the rhythm of the melody (again, endless options) and it can change the effect of the melody. Same with basses, harmonies, the arrangement or other elements.

The amount of permutations is so extreme, that it can't be possibly mapped out by theory. It's too complex. And in this space of possibilities, there is likely just a very small area, which gives you a composition, that expresses exactly what you mean.

I think this is way easier to do "organically", if you get experience and get a feel for the language of music.
But I'm genuinely curious how other people might see this differently and approach composing with a different mindset or thought process. Like it would be fascinating to know what goes on in another composer's mind.

I'm always open to change my mind, but so far, I just don't see it regarding theory or just have a different approach. But again, learning the basics of theory or reading sheet music are another matter and very much important.


----------



## tebling

_*Should painting photorealistic images be easy?*_

NVIDIA Research: _hold my beer_







This isn't a mockup. You can download and run the app today if you have a powerful enough GPU. I spent a couple hours with it yesterday. It's kind of insane.


----------



## KEM

Anthony said:


> Writing *good* music is incredibly hard.
> 
> Merely 'writing' music is now quite easy.



Basically lol


----------



## muk

There is a method to make composing easier. It's called studying. Trying to replace that with tools only gets you so far.


----------



## SupremeFist

muk said:


> There is a method to make composing easier. It's called studying. Trying to replace that with tools only gets you so far.


It is truly an impressive psychological phenomenon, the lengths people will go to try to rationalise their disinclination to study what they know perfectly well they _need_ to study. (And I know this intimately because I used to be one of those guys.)


----------



## dgburns

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Not a lot, because unfortunately he died years ago.
> 
> But are you saying he was slow? I think not!


Na, I wasn’t referring to Goldsmith, I was referring to the other thread here on VI. Too cryptic a joke I’m afraid.

Carry on my good chap


----------



## dcoscina

I've always found hard work to be incredibly rewarding. The biggest challenge is to get motivated to do the work. Once you get going, momentum develops.


----------



## Rob

I tend to take a Kenny Werner approach: "every note I write is the most beautiful note I ever heard"... sets the right state of mind. Self censoring can really stop the creative process


----------



## Daniel James

Creating something that resonates will always be difficult. We already see incredibly produced and arranged tracks that have almost no views or attention. Because tools can only really be good at making things that already exist easily, not so much with innovation.

Once everyone can easily make the same thing, it will hold no value, so we will assign value to those who can create either something new that not anyone can do, create something that is actually saying something, or be contextualized more completely outside of the composition ie being in a movie....

Alot of our favorite soundtracks could have ended up being lost to the ages if they were not attached to the movies they are from. Sometimes its more than the music itself that makes it stick with us forever, its the collective feeling we were having when we heard it. The same way a wedding song might just be the first song you heard when you met your partner, not necessarily the music itself...the same way as that one soundtrack cue you have on repeat may be one of your favorite tracks due to how you felt hearing it in the movie more so than the track on compositional merit.

So music is more about saying the right thing at the right time, not so much the right thing just for the sake of it. So how easy or difficult it is to write still doesn't provide that important human connection. And that will always separate the working artists from those trying. We have the technology today to easily create most dance music genres, but just because I have to tools to easily make it, doesn't mean I am going to be able to compete with The Weeknd in the charts anytime soon, he has that x-factor ability to connect his music to his audience....that will be hard for a computer to replicate, as that changes and is hugely subjective.

-DJ


----------



## Nico5

Daniel James said:


> Creating something that resonates will always be difficult.


especially, since that resonance is continually being gamed by advertising, social media bots (human and machine), and sometimes payola and other forms of dark patterns


----------



## TonalDynamics

Markrs said:


> There old "art through suffering..." argument. Personally I don't like barriers to entry (I am saying this as someone study composition most days for several hours a day). All art should be accessible, it should be creative, inspirational and not require 10 years of study before hand.


I hear what you're saying, and I also disagree with the "art through suffering" argument (for different reasons)

But honestly, as someone who has produced/mixed rock/small ensemble 'band' music for over 10 years before he got into making orchestral mockups, the real problem introduced into modern composing is the _immense_ technical task of becoming a working expert with all the countless sample libraries themselves.

Back in the 1700's it was "if you're not good enough no orchestra will ever play your music", these days it's "if you're not good enough at composing _and_ an expert at making sample libraries sound real, noone will ever _listen_ to your music, and even then they still might not because you're competing with the entire world and not just the people in your immediate region".

Since neither of those realities is particularly pleasant, I am forced to conclude that: Yes, in fact composing is (apparently) supposed to be hard.

Cheers!


----------



## LatinXCombo

Composing should be technically as easy as it can possibly be. Technical obstacles in the way of composing should be smoothed out and made efficient where possible. 

But, ultimately, tools are secondary. People composed music since before there was writing; they will continue to do so when Fab Filter and Abelton Live are viewed as hilariously out-dated as ENIAC or Windows XP: Service Pack Two. 

That said, technology will only make it more likely that average musicians will be able to produce and blast out into the interwebs something whose averageness is not obscured by technical errors. 

The act of creating something great that stands the test of time? That will always be difficult. It will still take the proverbial ten years of work and study (or the equivalent of genius) to even be in a position where you might be able to do that.


----------



## JonS

ManchesterMusic said:


> Obviously folks don't have to watch the entire video but I find it unfortunate that anyone would make a judgement about the quality of a 20 minute piece based on the intro. I know you're not _trying_ to be rude, but I don't think you're succeeding.
> 
> I cringe at the thought of the of someone assessing the quality anyone's submitted cue based on the first few seconds, but here we are. People read the headline, and scroll on.
> 
> The reason it's 20 minutes is because it's a complicated subject which I wanted to spend some time exploring in, I think, a careful and thoughtful way. I assume you disagree, but that's OK, (you can't win them all.) There's speed controls at the bottom right of the player btw, you can fast forward with little to no of loss of intelligibility.
> 
> I completely disagree with your assessment of my attitude (surprise surprise), and the notion that there is a 'right' (your words) way to learn is very interesting, but probably not worth unpacking on a forum.
> 
> I'll reiterate my advocacy (it appears at the end of the video): it would be really helpful if there existed some tools that either help you get started with a limited palette of sounds and midi (based on inputs you've given the tech), or point you in an interesting, creative direction based on what you've already composed.


Unfortunately, Geoff, we live in a world where one is very lucky if a producer or director even listens to just 2 to 3 seconds of a couple of a composer's cues. That rarely happens when it does as most submissions get completely ignored unless you are an A-list composer with a major agent/manager.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

ManchesterMusic said:


> I'll reiterate my advocacy (it appears at the end of the video): it would be really helpful if there existed some tools that either help you get started with a limited palette of sounds and midi (based on inputs you've given the tech), or point you in an interesting, creative direction based on what you've already composed.


There is.....it's called listening to different music and finding inspiration in the world around us. Basic piano lessons can also ignite wonderful inspiration, especially the cool stuff that's created from mistakes. We don't need AI.


----------



## JonS

I strongly recommend education including a music education. But no University can teach anyone how to be innovative, original and inventive. All schools can do is teach you how to imitate no matter what discipline you are studying. I once worked with an orchestrator who got his PhD in composition from The Juilliard School and had a Fellowship with John Williams, he said that no University can teach someone how to compose an original song or work, that is an innate talent that one either has or they don't have. A thorough music education can properly teach you how to arrange and orchestrate like a master, but that just means you know how to copy the greats and how to sound like them not become the next one in your own right. 

Developing a signature sound or signature style is not what composing for film and tv is about either. The record labels are similar to Hollywood Studios as everyone wants a metoo/soundalike act in their catalogue of intellectual property. The deadlines are so tight in the film and tv biz that it is not really about art at all. It's a big commercial factory for the masses trying to replicate last year's smash box office hits with duplicate stories and similar sounding scores. If you want originality listen to Miles Davis.


----------



## Nico5

My attitude towards education is a bit more nuanced, since it's highly context sensitive. 

Some people do well in an educational environment, while others get chewed up, including some real talents. 

However, whenever supply in a skill becomes much higher than demand, the hiring entities typically demand more pieces of paper (credentials). And that makes music education more important now than it used to be 30-40 years ago for individuals desiring a career in music.


----------



## TonalDynamics

LatinXCombo said:


> Composing should be technically as easy as it can possibly be. Technical obstacles in the way of composing should be smoothed out and made efficient where possible.


This, right here.

Also improving music education which is lagging _woefully _behind the rest of the 21st century and still uses books hundreds of years old as gold standard teaching tools (The wonderful lessons on Scoreclub and other modernized pedagogies ought to be the standard by '22, instead they are still the remarkably rare exception)


Jeremy Spencer said:


> There is.....it's called listening to different music and finding inspiration in the world around us. Basic piano lessons can also ignite wonderful inspiration, especially the cool stuff that's created from mistakes. We don't need AI.


Hear hear, and I'll go a step further and say that I've listened to all the nonsense that AI have 'composed' for lack of a better term, found it all to be quite irrelevant and uninspiring, and I don't suspect that will ever change even in the next 100 years for me personally.

At a certain point I have no doubt that some of those AI will start playing actual melodies written by great composers and for a moment think "Wow, that sounds good... wait, that's Korsakov/Beethoven/Chopin, just pasted together like some sort of abominable patchwork much like the visual art AI do when they copy/paste bits of whole artworks into an always highly abstracted amalgum.

But at that point they are doing nothing more than excerpting a combination of melodic lines that are 'weighted' favorably by whatever database happens to be drawn upon by the neural net in question.

The difference here is that unlike a 'true' abstract, all these sorts of 'copied' images began life as original works, and when you zoom in on certain bits closely enough it becomes obvious that it is a plagiarism, albeit a highly sophisticated one. (This is demonstrated particularly well when you have the originals beside the AI results to put it in context)

It would be like me or you making visual art _only_ with existing google images of original artworks, but trying to photoshop heavily enough to blur/distort the original (which is a perfectly valid method visual artists use all the time, they just don't take _credit_ for such quick and dirty edits unless it only represents a small fraction of the work)


I put the question of "How long until AI puts composers out of a job" in the same category as the "Has all the music been written already" category - those folks are getting a bit too excited, a bit too soon. (The answer in my opinion is no/never to both)

P.S. One thing about the AI art that a lot of folks don't realize is that for every 1 image that yields interesting results, a user might have to go through hundreds of candidates before they find anything interesting, or that isn't _highly disturbing_, i.e. it is highly influenced by humans because all the 'bad' art is discarded by community members and thus not subject to any kind of real scrutiny like you would a real artist.

It's created in a fraction of the time of course but the point still remains that this is _human_ selection and curation on what is 'good' and what is 'bad' - not the AI.

It's like those 'interviews' where robot developers ask their AI bots a bunch of scripted questions with predefined answers - very disingenuous.

Cheers


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

wunderflo said:


> Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something here, but I never get why some composers (always western, mostly European, always from the past) are pedestalled and compared to allegedly oh-so-inferior modern pop producers or modern classical composers, because why? Because their music is more complex and harder to play? Are you sure that's a good way to universally judge the value of music? Nothing against Bach & Co., but we should at least attempt to deconstruct why we glorify what we glorify, and how much that has to do with the canonizing by certain (institutional) players.


The more I study the old masters, the less compelling I find pop music. Is that a bad thing? I don’t know - I love pop music and used to write / produce a lot of it for artists in LA and NYC, but from a (compositional) inventiveness and a depth standpoint, it pales to Bach and co (leaving aside lyrics). Certainly from a production standpoint, pop music is inventive and there is a genius (and pleasure) in simplicity. But I view it a bit like painting - a simple painting by a child may look nice, but if you compare it to the depth of the Mona Lisa, you can’t say that the child has the same artistic skill as Da Vinci. That’s not to say you may ENJOY the simple painting more, which is fine.

Though I do think audience education plays a large part in this too. Only when I started to dig into classical composition more deeply did I start to appreciate listening to it more - and start to find listening to pop songs less…stimulating (though I do still love them). I wonder if 200 years ago there were more classical fans due to that education - and as education waned, interests gravitated towards simpler, more easily grasped music.

From a composing perspective, I could write a pop song in 30 minutes - no problem. Writing something as well crafted as something by McCartney or Brian Wilson may take considerably longer - for some writers, maybe even a lifetime. Transferring into classical has been even more challenging - if my bar is Mozart, Beethoven, Williams. To achieve that would take more lifetimes than I have. Everytime I study their scores, I am astonished and amazed and then depressed at how much better they are than I could ever hope to be. But then, I pick myself up and dust myself off and keep trying because there is a joy in the challenge and the aspiration.

One of Ryan Leach’s videos had a great quote from Ernst Toch - “I decided I would only copy [Mozart’s score] to the repeat sign and then try my hand at making that part myself which leads back to the original key. When I compared my efforts to the original, I felt crushed. Was I a flea, a mouse, a little nothing when I compared what I did with what Mozart did? But still I did not give up and continued my method to grope along in this way and have Mozart correct me.”


----------



## David Cuny

*Caveat: *I actually _did_ watch the video.

It seems the OP is asking why there aren't more tools available to aid in composition. Since there are lots of specialized tools (_e.g._ for mixing, de-breathing) that exist, surely there should be something that that in composing.

OP also suggests that the tools should be usable without needing to understand the theory behind them. The OP says that he lacks basic knowledge of harmony, like the circle of fifths, but he should be able to use these tools despite this.

For example, the software should be able to suggest when a modulation could be used.

To some extent, that software already exists, and will continue to be developed. For a really sophisticated version of a composer's assistant, check out the work David Cope did with EMI (Experiments in Musical Intelligence).

But it's also like a writer pointing out that grammar checkers exist, and wondering why there's no software to help writers by generating stories for them. (There is, but the stories aren't very good. I'll leave the extension of this analogy as an exercise for the reader).

I've spent time working on my own software projects aimed at having the computer perform heavy lifting, composing, orchestration, and things I thought could be automated.

My takeaway was this: people who _didn't_ know how to already do these things couldn't use them, because they wouldn't understand the options. People who already knew how to do these things didn't need them.

All writing should be _intentional_. A composer isn't just stringing notes together to fill 32 bars - they're telling a story. The music is starting somewhere, and arriving somewhere. _How_ it makes that journey isn't incidental, it's a major part of the story.

So, for example, to the question: where can a modulation be put? The answer is, it can be put _anywhere_. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

Music theory doesn't tell you _how_ to compose. It provides tools for you, so when you get stuck, you have a toolbox of things to try.

Good composition tools help enrich your vocabulary, and show you choices that you might not have considered. But when presented with that choice, a composer will then strive to understand it, and add it to their toolkit.

If you're relying on a computer program to help you compose, what are _you_ bringing to the table that someone else with the same program hasn't got?


----------



## JonS

Nico5 said:


> The more I study physics, the less compelling I find psychology.


The more I study cosmic psychology, the less compelling I find physics.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

David Cuny said:


> Good composition tools help enrich your vocabulary, and show you choices that you might not have considered. But when presented with that choice, a composer will then strive to understand it, and add it to their toolkit.


This 1000%

I was in the the OP's shoes for many years, and I still am in many ways. He mentions he "lacks the ability to read music very well", among other things such as arranging and orchestrating. @ManchesterMusic I highly recommend investing in formal piano and theory lessons. I scoffed at the idea waaaay too long, but finally enrolled about four years ago. Even though, like yourself, I could pull off orchestral tracks successfully for clients, I felt like I was cheating to some extent. Self taught, I also played piano fairly decent for 20 years....but couldn't read sheet music worth a damn. In my lessons, I literally started at the bottom with the same stuff kids learn. After the first year, I was playing stuff I'd be longing to play since forever. The best part? The theory opened up a whole new world with regards to composition. Covid killed my in-person lessons, but I plan on going back to it. Regardless, I continue to push myself at least one hour a day playing piano and challenging myself with new pieces. Even sites like Flowkey are wonderful at teaching how to read. You are a composer, therefore you need to up your game and gain more tools that will take you to the next level. Trust me, it's totally worth it.


----------



## sinkd

ManchesterMusic said:


> As a non-traditionally/classically trained composer, who can barely even read music anymore, I wanted to suss out whether the act of composing music could, will and should be made easier...
> 
> Made a little video on it. Curious to know what you think...



Should it be easier to write plays for the stage? Poems? Novels? Maybe all of these genres would be more accessible with the stepping stones that you seem to be implying could be developed and implemented.


----------



## Cideboy

There is no spoon

I’ll level with you. Composing doesn’t have to be difficult if your doing it for yourself. If you want to do this professionally, it’s hard. Most people don’t go that last mile though so there isn’t too much traffic when you have your craft down. Shoot for 20 to 30 minutes of printed music every week. If you can do this consistently you will have a job, regardless of how you sound (within reason obviously). Trust me.


----------



## Roger Newton

Should composing be easy? That's a good question based on how much time you want to take.

I think it should be easy in my case. If it's not easy, then something isn't working and I chuck it out and move onto something else.

If you have masses of time and you think what you're doing is well worth it, then continue on until it's right. Sometimes a track can take an hour and sometimes it can take 6 months. Which one was the easiest? Difficult to answer.
There's an old adage that if you start off a track and it's looking good, it winds up writing itself.


----------



## Ricgus3

I teach students in music theory and orchestration and composing. Teaching has made me a better musician and a composer as I must repeat methods to my students who get writersblock. Ironic that I could not follow my own teachings or knowledge when I am in the process. But now I am starting to listen to the “teacher me” side and not just the musician side. That has helped a lot in my own writing. Also not to chase the perfect piece or perfect melody or chord progressions. But rather complete my projects and then after reflect on what I can do better next time.


----------

