JohnG
Senior Member
Not sure what for most people "the next level" actually means, but thought it an interesting topic.
Then
"Many years ago..." there was a sort-of path that led to preparation for the Next Level. You might start out copying or orchestrating, or boothing (supervising the score and relaying to the conductor/composer what the people in the booth wanted, or letting them know that maybe the brass was too loud, or other musical direction).
The result was spending many, many hours at sessions absorbing the behaviour of the players, the producer/director, the composer, the engineer. You'd hear the banter but if observant, you could catch the "real" conversation about negotiating an artistic goal (sometimes quite different from what the composer originally imagined) and then quickly implementing it. You'd see the negotiation taking place, the give and take, with all that entering your own behaviour through osmosis, for lack of a better expression.
Skills and ...Other Skills
Working like that teaches you a number of things, including:
1. How to behave / solve problems efficiently when there is a big budget, everyone is a bit wired / excited / on edge, and time is really money;
2. The nuance of communicating and negotiating in a sometimes-ambiguous hierarchy;
3. How to negotiate with engineers (and it's definitely a negotiation, not a dictatorship, if you know what's good for you); and
4. How to absorb a new direction from your boss (director / producer) and creatively apply it in real time, without getting steamed up or feeling sorry for yourself; dealing with a sometimes-unwelcome surprise artistically instead of just slamming something in there.
Of course, working with a live ensemble also teaches / helps you hone practical musical skills:
1. How to write clearly and idiomatically for players;
2. What players don't like (something you hear about pretty clearly -- verbally and non-verbally);
3. When you can feel the players are tired and it's time for a break; and
4. What they can actually execute -- how do real French Horns sound up high/ down low etc.
Now
Today, all that seems elusive.
I encounter composers or would-be composers who don't have live-playing experience. That I understand. What surprises me is that some seem barely interested in learning what you need to know to work with live players. Some proportion -- not sure how large -- seem to feel they don't even need to play an instrument.
I guess for me I don't see how you elevate your music to that next level without that knowledge. Like many here, I have had plenty of "in the box" jobs over time. Some were fun, some even paid well; but at the risk of overgeneralising about those projects, even those producers and directors who were grateful for the effort required for making decent music out of computers still perceived it as "computer music." They relegated me to the category of "computer music guy," by contrast with "real / big time composer."
Put simply, I perceive, right or wrong, that to make it onto a bigger platform, and having the tremendous satisfaction that music can bring, composers need the ability to incorporate players.
It certainly livens up the music (har-har -- "livens"). I just replaced a (very good) sampled ethnic flute with one played live and, despite its being only about 30 seconds out of a nearly 3 minute piece, it elevated the piece immeasurably.
"The Knowledge"
Every few weeks or months a thread pops up in which some people argue you don't need theory to be a good / successful composer. Maybe they point to Paul McCartney or Hans Zimmer, implicitly attributing to them a tabula rasa, unblemished by academic stuffiness.
But those guys (and all the others) rapidly did learn how to work with players. How? Well, partly because they were players. They played live, they undoubtedly had to learn chords, chord progressions, even inversions and different meters -- theory, in other words. Also, they are gifted. Are all of us equally gifted musically?
And while learning chord changes is helpful, my guess is that it's the "other stuff" that maybe is also decisive. Playing live is fun, you sometimes meet entertaining (if also sometimes tipsy) people. But you also learn: "What makes a crowd jump up and want to dance?" "Which songs make people cry?" "How do you cope with a pissed-off nightclub / venue owner?" "How do you get the drummer back on stage when you said something about his playing that made him mad and he stormed off?"
Working with live players is not solely (or mostly) about academic pomp, it's equally about keeping everyone focused and happy and enjoying it.
So What?
So I am nobody special, but I've had a lot of fun and had some orchestras along the way, conducted, arranged -- all that. For me, the path I've had has been elevated (artistically and financially) by working with live players.
For young / new composers, is working with live players irrelevant? Is it indispensable?
I don't see how you move up in music without live players, but of course we all think back on our own experiences and find our thoughts validated, so maybe some out there have a different view?
Then
"Many years ago..." there was a sort-of path that led to preparation for the Next Level. You might start out copying or orchestrating, or boothing (supervising the score and relaying to the conductor/composer what the people in the booth wanted, or letting them know that maybe the brass was too loud, or other musical direction).
The result was spending many, many hours at sessions absorbing the behaviour of the players, the producer/director, the composer, the engineer. You'd hear the banter but if observant, you could catch the "real" conversation about negotiating an artistic goal (sometimes quite different from what the composer originally imagined) and then quickly implementing it. You'd see the negotiation taking place, the give and take, with all that entering your own behaviour through osmosis, for lack of a better expression.
Skills and ...Other Skills
Working like that teaches you a number of things, including:
1. How to behave / solve problems efficiently when there is a big budget, everyone is a bit wired / excited / on edge, and time is really money;
2. The nuance of communicating and negotiating in a sometimes-ambiguous hierarchy;
3. How to negotiate with engineers (and it's definitely a negotiation, not a dictatorship, if you know what's good for you); and
4. How to absorb a new direction from your boss (director / producer) and creatively apply it in real time, without getting steamed up or feeling sorry for yourself; dealing with a sometimes-unwelcome surprise artistically instead of just slamming something in there.
Of course, working with a live ensemble also teaches / helps you hone practical musical skills:
1. How to write clearly and idiomatically for players;
2. What players don't like (something you hear about pretty clearly -- verbally and non-verbally);
3. When you can feel the players are tired and it's time for a break; and
4. What they can actually execute -- how do real French Horns sound up high/ down low etc.
Now
Today, all that seems elusive.
I encounter composers or would-be composers who don't have live-playing experience. That I understand. What surprises me is that some seem barely interested in learning what you need to know to work with live players. Some proportion -- not sure how large -- seem to feel they don't even need to play an instrument.
I guess for me I don't see how you elevate your music to that next level without that knowledge. Like many here, I have had plenty of "in the box" jobs over time. Some were fun, some even paid well; but at the risk of overgeneralising about those projects, even those producers and directors who were grateful for the effort required for making decent music out of computers still perceived it as "computer music." They relegated me to the category of "computer music guy," by contrast with "real / big time composer."
Put simply, I perceive, right or wrong, that to make it onto a bigger platform, and having the tremendous satisfaction that music can bring, composers need the ability to incorporate players.
It certainly livens up the music (har-har -- "livens"). I just replaced a (very good) sampled ethnic flute with one played live and, despite its being only about 30 seconds out of a nearly 3 minute piece, it elevated the piece immeasurably.
"The Knowledge"
Every few weeks or months a thread pops up in which some people argue you don't need theory to be a good / successful composer. Maybe they point to Paul McCartney or Hans Zimmer, implicitly attributing to them a tabula rasa, unblemished by academic stuffiness.
But those guys (and all the others) rapidly did learn how to work with players. How? Well, partly because they were players. They played live, they undoubtedly had to learn chords, chord progressions, even inversions and different meters -- theory, in other words. Also, they are gifted. Are all of us equally gifted musically?
And while learning chord changes is helpful, my guess is that it's the "other stuff" that maybe is also decisive. Playing live is fun, you sometimes meet entertaining (if also sometimes tipsy) people. But you also learn: "What makes a crowd jump up and want to dance?" "Which songs make people cry?" "How do you cope with a pissed-off nightclub / venue owner?" "How do you get the drummer back on stage when you said something about his playing that made him mad and he stormed off?"
Working with live players is not solely (or mostly) about academic pomp, it's equally about keeping everyone focused and happy and enjoying it.
So What?
So I am nobody special, but I've had a lot of fun and had some orchestras along the way, conducted, arranged -- all that. For me, the path I've had has been elevated (artistically and financially) by working with live players.
For young / new composers, is working with live players irrelevant? Is it indispensable?
I don't see how you move up in music without live players, but of course we all think back on our own experiences and find our thoughts validated, so maybe some out there have a different view?
Last edited:
