Becoming a composer: a good idea or not?

[Mirror Image]

Hello Everyone,

Many know me as an annoying poster here but I have thought about becoming a composer many, many times. I do not know how to read music, although I can read percussion as I played this in school, but I cannot read any other instruments. I'm thinking about studying music privately with someone who is highly recommended in my town. From here, I don't really know what could happen, but, if all else fails, I can always find another teacher and maybe even take a few classes at a college with maybe a strong recommendation? Okay, I'm getting ahead of myself here, but I have this urge inside of me that wants to express myself through music and even though I've played the guitar for 20 years, I still feel like an amateur because of my inability to read music.

Any suggestions or advice from composers here (i. e. Karl, Luke, etc.) would be appreciated.

[eyeresist]

I too have a growing desire to compose, but must put it off to concentrate on writing - it's possible to make a living writing novels, but not writing symphonies! I have a basic idea how to read music, going back to piano lessons as a child, but to compose I would need first to become much more practiced in thinking in those technical terms. The basics of music theory are I think much simpler than learning a language. Once you have access to those basics, I think the best way to get them into your head would be to get a keyboard and practice a lot, not to become a good player (pretty sure that's beyond me) but to learn to read music fluently. After that, things should move a lot more easily.

[Mirror Image]

I too have a growing desire to compose, but must put it off to concentrate on writing - it's possible to make a living writing novels, but not writing symphonies! I have a basic idea how to read music, going back to piano lessons as a child, but to compose I would need first to become much more practiced in thinking in those technical terms. The basics of music theory are I think much simpler than learning a language. Once you have access to those basics, I think the best way to get them into your head would be to get a keyboard and practice a lot, not to become a good player (pretty sure that's beyond me) but to learn to read music fluently. After that, things should move a lot more easily.

Yes, I've already bought several books on theory. I guess the only way to go about this is to simply get to work. One of the books I bought is this one:



I just haven't had time to go through it and study it. I'm horrible at studying by myself, which is probably why I did so poorly in school, but having a teacher might be the best way for me to go. I'm a very good visual learner.

[eyeresist]

Some things I think you'll have to learn yourself, e.g. memorising the key signatures.

Where are all the composers gone?

[Luke]

Here's one.

Speaking personally, I couldn't compose without being a pianist, though I know there are plenty - or at least some - who do. Someone with your taste for big sounds, complex luscious chords etc. etc. will need good keyboard skills in order to find new and exciting combinations of sounds of the sort that I suspect you will be looking for.  Ravel - one of my very favourite composers, and yours, and the most wonderful craftsman there ever was in some respects - put it with surprising bluntness when he said, effectively, I couldn't compose without the piano because I use it discover new chords, and all his music, even the pieces that don't go near a piano, show the results of his pianistic thinking. Good strong fingers which have an intuitive feeling for what shapes might be interesting are a priceless tool, I think.

OTOH, a Berlioz went very well without the piano, and much of what is best and most distinctive and effective in his music stems directly from that fact . But Berlioz was a rare genius; I don't think that kind of intuitive knack comes along often!

Secondly, good aural and notational skills are an absolute must. You need to be able to hear what you want and to be able to write it down in such a way that a performer will play it correctly. That's obvious, although i think there is much more to the issue of notation than that. Score study, and lots of it, is a very important activity - learn how effects are achieved and also how they are written down, form the simplest to the most complex. See what leeway there is for the composer's individual idiosyncrasies and what limitations there are. This is a very big task, and one that can't really be taught - there are just too many highways and byways. Just immerse yourself in scores!

Orchestration skills might the most obvious thing, but they are really in many respects the easiest. There are things you need to know, and they can be listed, even if the list is a long one. Again, as much score study as you can do is recommended.

All of the above is only some of the equipment you need, obviously - an ability to find interesting sounds, an ability to write them down and to dress them up in appropriate colours. You also need, obviously, a good technique - you need to understand harmony and counterpoint and all those traditional skills. It might be tempting to think - I'm not interested in music from (say) pre-1850, so I won't need to learn about harmony as it was used before that date. But that, IMO and in my personal experience, is a shortcut that leads nowhere. Even if Debussy (say) is the anti-Beethoven, he still operates in the same sphere, his harmony 'makes sense' best, technically, if one understands what makes it different and individual, and to understand that, one has to understand the norms from which it deviates. So, study music throughout the ages - and I mean throughout. Be voracious - you can learn from everything. There are passages in music from the late 14th century which are shockingly avant garde in many ways and which have left their traces on some of the music I have written. I'd never have known that if I'd concluded, as I could have done, that nothing before (say) Bach had any relevance to me. Likewise with music from around the world - as you know with your love of Villa-Lobos, an openness to non-classical sounds is enriching. But it is also humbling and eye-opening, to see how fundamentally different is the conception of what music is and can be in different cultures. The latter may or may not help you as a composer - but at least it makes you aware of the wideness of the field.

All of the above might sound terrifically off-putting, because it involves huge amounts of time and work. OTOH, anyone with a hunger for music will relish the idea of spending time at a piano, or spending time with a score in hand, or spending time with a book learning what it was that the great composers were really dealing with and thinking about when they composed (personally, as a musician I feel privileged to understand and share, to some degree, the everyday questions and issues of harmony and counterpoint and so on that were in the minds of the composers I adore). I'm rarely happier, myself, than when doing any of this

However, for me, as a composer, most of the above was in place by the time I left university. I'd composed some good pieces, one or two of which I am still very proud of. And yet, I didn't really become myself as a composer for another six or seven years, I felt. All the experience and technique and knowledge was no help when it came to finding what worked best for me - once I'd acquired the knowledge came the time to strip away what I didn't need (although the knowledge, once it is there, can always be used and called on, of course). It was a long, painful and literally depressing process, working out my own methods of composing. I make no claims for my solutions - they work for me and I suspect for  no one else. I am a believer in the fact that music, good music, comes from deep down, and that it's progress out into the real world of listeners and performers needs to be as unimpeded as possible by anything extraneous, which is why I believe that one needs to find methods and techniques that are completely in tune with one's personality in order to write music which rings true. That, for me, was the hardest thing I ever had to do compositionally speaking - and I am by no means claiming that the process is over.

Phew - it all sounds pretty hard, put like that! And it is, but it is also the most wonderful, productive, creative, fruitful, exhilarating, satisfying (I could go on and on with these words!) thing I ever do. To create something from nothing, something beautiful or enigmatic or...well, really anything. The best feeling in the world

Need to go - hope there is food for thought in there! Have fun!

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

What goes for music goes for literature, of which I know a lot. I agree completely with Luke. To master your art you must have an inner urge, a voracious intellectual appetite, stamina, perseverance, patience, humility AND pride. And that's only at the private side. To get things published or performed you must be able to communicate, you must know how to present yourself to grab the attention. The quality of the work itself is no guarantee of interest these days. Perhaps it never was. Wagner knew how to push himself. Havergal Brian was a disaster...

[karlhenning]

Here's one.

Speaking personally, I couldn't compose without being a pianist, though I know there are plenty - or at least some - who do. Someone with your taste for big sounds, complex luscious chords etc. etc. will need good keyboard skills in order to find new and exciting combinations of sounds of the sort that I suspect you will be looking for.  Ravel - one of my very favourite composers, and yours, and the most wonderful craftsman there ever was in some respects - put it with surprising bluntness when he said, effectively, I couldn't compose without the piano because I use it discover new chords, and all his music, even the pieces that don't go near a piano, show the results of his pianistic thinking. Good strong fingers which have an intuitive feeling for what shapes might be interesting are a priceless tool, I think.

OTOH, a Berlioz went very well without the piano, and much of what is best and most distinctive and effective in his music stems directly from that fact . But Berlioz was a rare genius; I don't think that kind of intuitive knack comes along often!

Secondly, good aural and notational skills are an absolute must. You need to be able to hear what you want and to be able to write it down in such a way that a performer will play it correctly. That's obvious, although i think there is much more to the issue of notation than that. Score study, and lots of it, is a very important activity - learn how effects are achieved and also how they are written down, form the simplest to the most complex. See what leeway there is for the composer's individual idiosyncrasies and what limitations there are. This is a very big task, and one that can't really be taught - there are just too many highways and byways. Just immerse yourself in scores!

Orchestration skills might the most obvious thing, but they are really in many respects the easiest. There are things you need to know, and they can be listed, even if the list is a long one. Again, as much score study as you can do is recommended.

All of the above is only some of the equipment you need, obviously - an ability to find interesting sounds, an ability to write them down and to dress them up in appropriate colours. You also need, obviously, a good technique - you need to understand harmony and counterpoint and all those traditional skills. It might be tempting to think - I'm not interested in music from (say) pre-1850, so I won't need to learn about harmony as it was used before that date. But that, IMO and in my personal experience, is a shortcut that leads nowhere. Even if Debussy (say) is the anti-Beethoven, he still operates in the same sphere, his harmony 'makes sense' best, technically, if one understands what makes it different and individual, and to understand that, one has to understand the norms from which it deviates. So, study music throughout the ages - and I mean throughout. Be voracious - you can learn from everything. There are passages in music from the late 14th century which are shockingly avant garde in many ways and which have left their traces on some of the music I have written. I'd never have known that if I'd concluded, as I could have done, that nothing before (say) Bach had any relevance to me. Likewise with music from around the world - as you know with your love of Villa-Lobos, an openness to non-classical sounds is enriching. But it is also humbling and eye-opening, to see how fundamentally different is the conception of what music is and can be in different cultures. The latter may or may not help you as a composer - but at least it makes you aware of the wideness of the field.

All of the above might sound terrifically off-putting, because it involves huge amounts of time and work. OTOH, anyone with a hunger for music will relish the idea of spending time at a piano, or spending time with a score in hand, or spending time with a book learning what it was that the great composers were really dealing with and thinking about when they composed (personally, as a musician I feel privileged to understand and share, to some degree, the everyday questions and issues of harmony and counterpoint and so on that were in the minds of the composers I adore). I'm rarely happier, myself, than when doing any of this

However, for me, as a composer, most of the above was in place by the time I left university. I'd composed some good pieces, one or two of which I am still very proud of. And yet, I didn't really become myself as a composer for another six or seven years, I felt. All the experience and technique and knowledge was no help when it came to finding what worked best for me - once I'd acquired the knowledge came the time to strip away what I didn't need (although the knowledge, once it is there, can always be used and called on, of course). It was a long, painful and literally depressing process, working out my own methods of composing. I make no claims for my solutions - they work for me and I suspect for  no one else. I am a believer in the fact that music, good music, comes from deep down, and that it's progress out into the real world of listeners and performers needs to be as unimpeded as possible by anything extraneous, which is why I believe that one needs to find methods and techniques that are completely in tune with one's personality in order to write music which rings true. That, for me, was the hardest thing I ever had to do compositionally speaking - and I am by no means claiming that the process is over.

Phew - it all sounds pretty hard, put like that! And it is, but it is also the most wonderful, productive, creative, fruitful, exhilarating, satisfying (I could go on and on with these words!) thing I ever do. To create something from nothing, something beautiful or enigmatic or...well, really anything. The best feeling in the world

Need to go - hope there is food for thought in there! Have fun!

An inspiring post, Luke, thank you.

. . . The quality of the work itself is no guarantee of interest these days. Perhaps it never was. Wagner knew how to push himself. Havergal Brian was a disaster...

Entirely agree that [t]he quality of the work itself is no guarantee.  But, knowing how to push oneself, is no guarantee, either.  There has to be access to a certain network.  To speak for myself, I believe I have reasonable self-promotion skills . . . but on the whole I feel something like a lavender plant in the Sahara.  Maybe all I've got, is the quality of the work ; )

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

An inspiring post, Luke, thank you.

Entirely agree that [t]he quality of the work itself is no guarantee.  But, knowing how to push oneself, is no guarantee, either.  There has to be access to a certain network. To speak for myself, I believe I have reasonable self-promotion skills . . . but on the whole I feel something like a lavender plant in the Sahara.  Maybe all I've got, is the quality of the work ; )

"There has to be access to a certain network." That's correct, Karl. And your communicative skills are excellent! After working in solitude for years, I broke out and went to literary evenings in Amsterdam week after week to listen to people, to talk, and to discuss, becoming known in the process. In my case, it has paid off. Though time will tell if the enthusiasm some people in the literary world already have for my work will be shared by the three major publishers they introduced me to and who are - as I write - assessing my novel (of which Part 1 is almost finished, finally!)

[ibanezmonster]

Just teach yourself how to read how to read and write scores, and then load up on a bunch of scores (IMSLP is the best source). Walter Piston's Harmony, Counterpoint, and Orchestration is a very good resource.

[karlhenning]

"There has to be access to a certain network." That's correct, Karl. And your communicative skills are excellent! After working in solitude for years, I broke out and went to literary evenings in Amsterdam week after week to listen to people, to talk, and to discuss, becoming known in the process. In my case, it has paid off. Though time will tell if the enthusiasm some people in the literary world already have for my work will be shared by the three major publishers they introduced me to and who are - as I write - assessing my novel (of which Part 1 is almost finished, finally!)

Bravissimo on finishing Part I!  (One of these years, I may just finish White Nights . . . .) I am so pleased for and proud of you, Johan!

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

 

[Cato]

As a former composer, I would ask our budding Beethovens two questions:

Does original music enter your mind without your willing it into creation?

Are you able to create original music in your minds without any catalyst other than your willpower?

Some years ago I started a topic called Why I Am Not A Composer:

See:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,4143.0.html

I wrote a little essay at the beginning of the topic, which I will quote here for your consideration:

I have mentioned throughout the years here that I used to compose music, usually with exotic scales, sometimes utilizing a quarter-tone system, but gave it up decades ago, and not without a little regret.  Somebody asked me why, and I said I would eventually respond, and today, while writing about Glazunov, I decided to clarify.

"Something in him holds him back" was Tchaikovsky's famous comment about Glazunov.

I could tell you that the hours needed alone for composition were not conducive to endearing me to my girlfriend and later my wife: she knew about my composing talent, but did not always comprehend it.

That is partially involved in giving up composition.

I could tell you that the frustration involved in dealing with musicians/professors/directors etc. was immense: promises of performances, promises and flattery, all leading nowhere.  (I could write a novel about the trials and terror of working with a certain famous and duplicitous tubist on a quarter-tone tuba concerto! But I digress!)

That is partially involved in giving up composition.

The realization that what interested me the most - microtonalism - was still going to be a tiny niche market, was always balanced by the hope of a breakthrough.  But that breakthrough never came, especially when I witnessed the rebirth of the neo-conservative movements of Minimalism and Neo-Romanticism.

That is partially involved in giving up composition.

But in the end here is what ended it: I realized that, when I heard my music, I did not want my personality, my soul, if you can abide the term, so openly exposed for public examination.  When the few performances occurred, I realized that the experience was so private, that I could not feel anything but embarrassment, as if I were confessing my sins over a loudspeaker.

My best friend at the time remarked, after hearing one of the quarter-tone works: "Okay, that will be evidence at your commitment hearing!"

He was only half joking!

"Something in him holds him back." 

In my case I turned away from the desire to compose because - oddly, when I finally succeeded in having a few things performed - I knew I did not want people to hear my music!

Probably the feeling is mutual in many cases!   

So I wonder if Glazunov and other second-rank composers were perhaps held back not by a lack of talent, but by an emotional reticence, which compelled them to compose only "surface pieces" and prevented them from creating e.g. a Schumann Second Symphony , or a  Mahler or Tchaikovsky Sixth Symphony.

[Florestan]

MI, may I ask how old are you?

[karlhenning]

As a former composer . . . .

Not to say, rehabilitated composer ; )

A particularly good point of Cato's:

Are you able to create original music in your minds without any catalyst other than your willpower?

[Tapio Dimitriyevich Shostakovich]

I think very big challenges are: stick to your own ideas, go out and reveal them to the public, and defend them. EDIT: Cato describes the feeling I'm referring to in his linked post: "I realized that, when I heard my music, I did not want my personality, my soul, if you can abide the term, so openly exposed for public examination." - I can very well understand this, in my case a question of my pesonality.

Orchestration skills might the most obvious thing, but they are really in many respects the easiest. There are things you need to know, and they can be listed, even if the list is a long one.

As a curious non-composer: What is this about? "Brass is for the triumph, Oboe for beauty and lament, Tipani for drama...", "instrument a and b don't go well together", "piccolo flute cannot be heard when all strings play at ff"? Thanks.
BTW, Shostakovich said, he had no problem with orchestration: music came fully orchestrated into his mind...

[Mirror Image]

MI, may I ask how old are you?

I'm 29 years old.

[Mirror Image]

Thanks Luke and to all for your help. This is very inspiring!

[Florestan]

I'm 29 years old.

Thanks for answering, many happy returns!

Well, go for it and good luck!

[Mirror Image]

Thanks for answering, many happy returns!

Well, go for it and good luck!

Thank you, but I've to find a teacher first.

[karlhenning]

Orchestration skills might the most obvious thing, but they are really in many respects the easiest. There are things you need to know, and they can be listed, even if the list is a long one.

As a curious non-composer: What is this about? "Brass is for the triumph, Oboe for beauty and lament, Tipani for drama...", "instrument a and b don't go well together", "piccolo flute cannot be heard when all strings play at ff"? Thanks.

Well, there are two classes of Things You Need to Know Viz. Orchestration.  There are The Hard Facts (the clarinet cannot play below a written E, the harp cannot play a B-natural and a B-flat at the same time, e.g.).  And there are the Experiential Matters, which essentially weigh clichés like Oboe for beauty (what, the only instrument for beauty?) and Timpani for drama, and know their limits, and their practical contradiction.