Compositional training

[btriangle]

On a scale from 1-10, how important do you think compositional training is, if you are trying to be a composer.

And it doesn't even matter how good you are.

And if you had, or are having, compositional training, what do they teach you?

I'd like to know...

[LightKeeper]

You don't really need the training, though it would help depending on the genre you're looking into - most importantly classical or anything really technical.

I wouldn't know the things they'd teach you because I've never taken any training like that. In fact, I'd never even heard of it before your mention.

[btriangle]

Lol you absolutely need compositional training.

[Slipstreamer]

Depends... if your looking for a job or something then it never hurts.

[MaestroRage]

Currently i'm sitting at 8, but as time goes by and I talk to people about my music and I see them break things apart lickity split tell me how to better myself and my music, I realize the grave importance more and more. Last year I would have said 3.

There is a lot of stuff that can be taught. Harmony, Counterpoint, voice leading, orchestration, progressions, chords, scales, ear training, the list is long and tiresome. There's no surprise how people spend their whole lives on these things.

They're all damn important if you want to get into orchestral stuff of course. If you're thinking electronica like dnb, techno, trance etc, obviously it's much more forgiving in what you know, progressions, voice leading, counterpoint and harmony can still play a huge role no matter what genre you work in.

Very very general layout i'd personally consider

Instrumental/Orchestral stuff - 10
Jazz/Ska -> 9
Techno/Trance -> 5-7
DnB/Glitchcore/Industrial -> 3-4
Drums/Jungle/Perc songs ->1-2 (rhythm, syncopation etc are important here)
Pop -> - 4

to me personally, the less you deal with pitches, melodies etc, the less important music theory is. As theory becomes less important, production and mixing picks up the slack. You don't have to be a master music composer to make Techno, but you'd damn well better know how to handle your sounds, how to make more sounds etc.

[Darren-M]

hey, i just typed out a whole page of info concerning this to another person, ill p.m. you

and i think it is very important because it gives you freedom when trying to figure out how to combine concepts, and also you can teach yourself alot by trying what other people have done.

[Phyrnna]

At 5/4/09 10:35 PM, MaestroRage wrote: Currently i'm sitting at 8, but as time goes by and I talk to people about my music and I see them break things apart lickity split tell me how to better myself and my music, I realize the grave importance more and more. Last year I would have said 3.

Maestro, glad you realize that. Love your songs and all... but there's lots of work to be done.

There is a lot of stuff that can be taught. Harmony, Counterpoint, voice leading, orchestration, progressions, chords, scales, ear training, the list is long and tiresome. There's no surprise how people spend their whole lives on these things.

True indeed. And there is so much to that music theory that even those who do it all their lives still aren't masters at it.

They're all damn important if you want to get into orchestral stuff of course. If you're thinking electronica like dnb, techno, trance etc, obviously it's much more forgiving in what you know, progressions, voice leading, counterpoint and harmony can still play a huge role no matter what genre you work in.

I'd like to think that Techno and trance aren't totally music theory exempt....

Very very general layout i'd personally consider

Instrumental/Orchestral stuff - 10
Jazz/Ska -> 9
Techno/Trance -> 5-7
DnB/Glitchcore/Industrial -> 3-4
Drums/Jungle/Perc songs ->1-2 (rhythm, syncopation etc are important here)
Pop -> - 4

Agreed with his analysis, although in composition classes nowadays, they do teach you composition for percussion and that means I'd bump the "Drums/Jungle/Perc" category to a 2-3. They're starting to also bring in the electronic realm into music since it's established itself as a prominent part of music.

to me personally, the less you deal with pitches, melodies etc, the less important music theory is. As theory becomes less important, production and mixing picks up the slack. You don't have to be a master music composer to make Techno, but you'd damn well better know how to handle your sounds, how to make more sounds etc.

True indeed. Unlike digital composition where with orchestral pieces you have to worry about mastering, composing for a real orchestra doesn't take a lot of work into handling the sounds. After all, a violin is a violin and a piano is a piano. Those are well established. That's why with orchestrals, there is so much emphasis on the pitches, melodies, harmonies, counterpoint (bane of us all), and the such. In electronic, a bad synth will kill your song, and it's no simple feat to master using a simple oscillator such as 3xOsc to produce a fine clear sound with a life of its own. That's why in electronic it is so important to worry about the sounds, because you have to create them. As for hip hop (don't want to leave them out), their sampling is an art that can be demonstrated, but hardly taught. It takes skill and experience to pick out those fine microsamples and paste them together in a way that creates something entirely new. It's really a wonder what they do.

All in all, composition class is important, but it is all up to what level and how far you want to take your music. A composition class is quite an investment, so if you think it's worth it, then by all means shoot for it. I guarantee you probably won't regret it.

[EmperorCharlemagne]

What MaestroRage said is essentially true, I'd say.

The more 'complex' the music, the more finesse you need to know. Unless you are some loser who wants to be the next John Cage or something. But then again, I would (and I'd hope the rest of the music community would) frown upon such endeavors.

For orchestral composition, there is a lot of pseudo 'video-game' songs out there, in that they are made by people with very little musical training, and the songs themselves are fairly simplistic, with a few chord changes, simple driving melody, and whatnot. As one learns more of music, they tend to do much more things with the instruments they are capable of.

I've been playing piano for 10 years, and while I am no master by any means, I have picked up a few things about music theory over the years, and have understood things about harmony that is helpful. Learning to play an instrument is the first step and always highly recommended for a composer, because it gives you a foot into the musical world from which to discover things. Also, I would highly recommend if one DOES wish to know more of theory a book (a simple one, musicology or even music history, the latter which I am into) is greatly helpful in giving a clear idea of where the would-be composer stands.

Again, this is all for essentially orchestral music, arguable one of the more complex branches of music, due to its size. Even if one doesn't want to be the next Steve Reich, I would still recommend learning a thing or two, as it does wonders and sets you above the common milieu.

On an arbitrary rating scale, I'd say 8 or 9.

[J-qb]

I don't think it is actually necessary. You can make any music just on your ears. I think if you are going to compose a piece of music, you need to "hear" the music (like, inside your head). If you compose frequently enough, you'll get to learn more and more "tricks" to make it sound good. Compositional training is will just help you find those "tricks" quicker.
e.g.: You can make chord scheme by just planting for chords after each other because they sound nice. You could also just take that exact same scheme because that is how you learned it in compositional training. The first way will get you there eventually, but it will take more trial and error.

I've been having piano lessons for a year now (played euphonium for 12 years now), and in these lessons we frequently go into the subject of composition. esp. since I only play my own compositions any more. What I find is that my teacher will tell me about certain chord progressions, and he'll write it down for me. And if then I make a new composition two weeks after that, I find that I have (unknowingly) used that exact chord progression he taught me two weeks earlier.

so: It is not necissarily needed, but it does come in quite handy.

[nathanallenpinard]

At 5/4/09 08:23 PM, btriangle wrote: On a scale from 1-10, how important do you think compositional training is, if you are trying to be a composer.

And it doesn't even matter how good you are.

And if you had, or are having, compositional training, what do they teach you?

I'd like to know...

This is a touchy subject, as I believe that no matter how much training you've had in theory or keyboard harmony, those only help if you already know how to compose. Composing is right down to one thing, the meleody. And there are people out there that write good melodies and great melodies. And honestly I'm not sure if you can really teach that.

Especially when it comes to film or game composition. When you are hired to write something to fit a scenario, not everyone is capable of that.

[J-qb]

At 5/5/09 11:42 AM, nathanallenpinard wrote: This is a touchy subject, as I believe that no matter how much training you've had in theory or keyboard harmony, those only help if you already know how to compose. Composing is right down to one thing, the meleody. And there are people out there that write good melodies and great melodies. And honestly I'm not sure if you can really teach that.

Especially when it comes to film or game composition. When you are hired to write something to fit a scenario, not everyone is capable of that.

I disagree on different levels. First of all Composing is not only about the melody, Melody is just a tiny part of it. Even if you thought of a great melody, if it is not properly 'framed' by the rest of the composition, it is nothing. Composing is about expressing your feelings in music. Note that these feelings do not need to be your own, you can imagine them if you want (which comes in handy with film/game scoring).
Composing being a way of expressing yourself means you have to be able to do two things:
first: You need to be in touch with your feelings, or be good at imagining feelings. The more you are in touch with your feelings (not meaning to be emo here) the better you can convey them to music.
second: You need to know the language. I.e. If I want to tell a frenchman how I feel, I will have to speak french. likewise, if you want to distill you feelings into a composition, you need to "know music".
This second part is where compositional training comes in. It can teach you the language. And like you can learn french by speaking to french poeple, and just through trial and error (without knowing the underlying grammar rules), you can learn music without lessons. It does help a lot though.

Now; Even if you "know music", if you are not in touch with your feelings, it is of no use, since you will only fall into cliches.

[nathanallenpinard]

At 5/5/09 01:42 PM, J-qb wrote:

At 5/5/09 11:42 AM, nathanallenpinard wrote: This is a touchy subject, as I believe that no matter how much training you've had in theory or keyboard harmony, those only help if you already know how to compose. Composing is right down to one thing, the meleody. And there are people out there that write good melodies and great melodies. And honestly I'm not sure if you can really teach that.

Especially when it comes to film or game composition. When you are hired to write something to fit a scenario, not everyone is capable of that.

I disagree on different levels. First of all Composing is not only about the melody, Melody is just a tiny part of it. Even if you thought of a great melody, if it is not properly 'framed' by the rest of the composition, it is nothing. Composing is about expressing your feelings in music. Note that these feelings do not need to be your own, you can imagine them if you want (which comes in handy with film/game scoring).
Composing being a way of expressing yourself means you have to be able to do two things:
first: You need to be in touch with your feelings, or be good at imagining feelings. The more you are in touch with your feelings (not meaning to be emo here) the better you can convey them to music.
second: You need to know the language. I.e. If I want to tell a frenchman how I feel, I will have to speak french. likewise, if you want to distill you feelings into a composition, you need to "know music".
This second part is where compositional training comes in. It can teach you the language. And like you can learn french by speaking to french poeple, and just through trial and error (without knowing the underlying grammar rules), you can learn music without lessons. It does help a lot though.

Now; Even if you "know music", if you are not in touch with your feelings, it is of no use, since you will only fall into cliches.

See I disagree on the term composing being what you are saying. It's about the melody, because when you talk about all the other things surrounding the melody such as chords, rhythm, etc it's not so much composition as it is orchestration. Orchestration is doing everything else but the melody (and ideas such as counter melodies)

Why do I think this? Because it's what some (but not all) film composers actually do ONLY. They jot down melodic ideas, counter melodies, and other suggestions on manuscript. Not even a whole score, just "sketches" of what they are hearing.

It is at this point, they are handled by the orchestrator, which takes those ideas and theirs, and combines them into a full fledge skill. Danny Elfman is known to do this, and because most people don't know that he knows nothing (or didn't at first) about orchestration, they assume he did 100% of the work. When in fact, the orchestrator took the ideas and put it together.

It varies though. It really depends on what the composer contibutes. Some composers have just the melody with basic chords, and bam...someone orchestrates it into a materpiece that the composer gets credit for. However, there are those that are in the new generation and write the entire thing on computer like we all do here. Therefore they composed AND orchestrated it. At that point it's handed to a MIDI transcriptor to get it input and printed to a score properly.

It's boils down to taking say the melody to "Mary had a Little Lamb" and orchestrating it into a full orchestral score.

[btriangle]

Well, sounds pretty important. I geuss im doing the right thing by moving to California to get compositional training.

[EmperorCharlemagne]

Well what about composers like Gryorgi Ligeti in works like Lontano or Webern in his own piano sonatas?

Those had absolutely no sense of melody, yet they are lauded as great works of music. In fact, Webern sounds a lot like someone just punching random notes in succession, while Ligeti's work sounds like huge blocks of sound (which is such an interesting way to look at music).

Melody is not that important. Melody is essentially there to make something either memorable, or kitschy, for a lot of parts. This holds especially true with film compositions and game composotions, for while as catchy as they are, are often drab and simplistic as far as music is concerned. They often copy the same chord progressions, and their melodies are largely interchangeable, because they lack substance.

You can fiddle around with 'what sounds good', and that will get you somewhere, yes, but I think that a knowledge of theory can make your music more complex, and thus, better-suited to what you actually want to express. If you want to express something, that is.

[nathanallenpinard]

At 5/5/09 06:57 PM, EmperorCharlemagne wrote: Well what about composers like Gryorgi Ligeti in works like Lontano or Webern in his own piano sonatas?

Those had absolutely no sense of melody, yet they are lauded as great works of music. In fact, Webern sounds a lot like someone just punching random notes in succession, while Ligeti's work sounds like huge blocks of sound (which is such an interesting way to look at music).

Melody is not that important. Melody is essentially there to make something either memorable, or kitschy, for a lot of parts. This holds especially true with film compositions and game composotions, for while as catchy as they are, are often drab and simplistic as far as music is concerned. They often copy the same chord progressions, and their melodies are largely interchangeable, because they lack substance.

You can fiddle around with 'what sounds good', and that will get you somewhere, yes, but I think that a knowledge of theory can make your music more complex, and thus, better-suited to what you actually want to express. If you want to express something, that is.

Abstract works and atonal type work is somewhat of an exception, but it still has a generic idea or theme to it usually. Melodies are by far one of the most important factors in nearly ANY genre or era of music. From the classic, to rock, to jazz, and to film scores.

As far as film melodies lacking substance, that depends on what you consider substance. Complicated melodies do not necessarily have more substance, it's just a different style. The same generic chord progressions you hear in film, not to mention a butt load of other ideas, are in fact derived from classical works. This includes Williams especially as he nearly copies segments from classical works in his scores.

[EmperorCharlemagne]

I am not disparaging melody completely, but when you hear the same, say, progression in songs of F major, G major, A minor, repeat repeat, it gets a little grating, not to mention a little stagnant.

I don't think that atonal/abstract is an exception to the 'rule' that melody needs to be there/is the building block of music. I think tonesin general are the building blocks of music, and how one arranges tones (in melodic or non-melodic function) is key to any composition. While this can be complex or simplistic, it should not be simplistic because it follows a tired old formula with no room for innovation or creativity. This is an overstatement, I know, but a lot of songs sound so similar as for the listener to almost wish for variety.

[nathanallenpinard]

I suppose that it depends on what your talking about in terms of the music that isn't interesting. There are a lot of ways to vary a sample chord progression, which actually doesn't really exist in film music THAT much.

In terms of composing vs orchestration, I guess I'm speaking more on current events and legal matters, and not so much how much has always operated in a composing sense. It's just when a composer decides to steal an idea, the copyright only covers the melody of the piece when it comes to law. Chords, rhythms, etc can not be copyrighted.

So i guess we are somewhat both right, in different areas.

As far as those abstract pieces go, there is tons and tons of debates between musicians on whether it's considered a composition or not. Some believe atonal music is impossible to write, and some believe that atonal music, isn't music at all.

[EmperorCharlemagne]

As an aside, 12-tone music is almost depressingly easy to write.

You pick a tone (from 12), pick another one, and use all 12, the go back and repeat the process until the desired end of the song.

It makes for interesting 'melodies', but it lacks feeling a lot of the time.

[nathanallenpinard]

Yeah, I never got into 12 tone. I never use any kind of theory when writing. I pretty much prefer to write with no limits at all.

[EmperorCharlemagne]

The great paradox is that when most people write music they often write in theory without even realizing it.

ABA, Sonata Format, etc etc.

people don't even realize how much Austro-German tradition permeates every aspect of music.

[J-qb]

At 5/5/09 08:25 PM, EmperorCharlemagne wrote: As an aside, 12-tone music is almost depressingly easy to write.

You pick a tone (from 12), pick another one, and use all 12, the go back and repeat the process until the desired end of the song.

It makes for interesting 'melodies', but it lacks feeling a lot of the time.

It is quite natural that this metod lacks feeling, since you're composing the wrong way around. You are taking the dodecaphony as starting point instead of as a means.

as for the melody-composer/orchestrator thing... I still don't agree, but I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Merely composing a melody is nothing. Orchestration (as you call it) is what makes or breaks it. Using the same melody you can make jazz, hardrock or "classical" pieces of music.

[Zero123Music]

At 5/4/09 08:23 PM, btriangle wrote: On a scale from 1-10, how important do you think compositional training is, if you are trying to be a composer.

i'd saay maybe 4.

Because lots of the greatest composers (in my opinion) don't have compositional training.
And some of them do- but eg smartpoetic used to be awesome and every since she went to music school - well I haven't really heard anything good.

But, you always have to trust your ears- seems obvious but the day you start obeying the rules of composition properly is the day you will decline as a composer.

But, hey don't believe a 14 year old xD I could be wrong, it's just that is the impression that I have gathered over the year/s.

[SolusLunes]

Nine. I've had very little compositional training, and GODDAMN it has been hard to write music, for example, if I had had training, my orchestral compositions would be years ahead of what they are now.

Ah well.

[btriangle]

But, you always have to trust your ears- seems obvious but the day you start obeying the rules of composition properly is the day you will decline as a composer.

But, hey don't believe a 14 year old xD I could be wrong, it's just that is the impression that I have gathered over the year/s.

i thought so as well, but we'll see once i get training in california.

[Blackhole12]

MeastroRage hit it on the head. The thing about music is that different genre's of music emphasize different parts of production. With techno/trance, you still need good melodies, albeit usually with primary chords (but I've seen some amazing techno songs with much more complex progressions). With orchestral it's all about the melodies and harmonies created by the instruments (something I wish I was better at doing). But if you move into genre's like rock music, you need to know how to manipulate a guitar's sounds, because guitars have completely different kinds of chord progressions (plus powerchords). It's still hard, its just a different kind of hard.

Personally, I took AP Music Theory this year and for the first time I can actually modulate between keys. Knowing the rules even if only to break them really does help out. Plus, the internet is a wondrous place - just pick through one of the thousands of tutorials available online.

[InGenius]

This is a modified version of the "Do You need Music Theory to make a Great Song" argument/discussion that rears it's head around here every once in awhile, methinks. And like the last time, when I actually entered into the conversation, I'd state that it is not as important as many think it is. Frankly, music theory courses are simply a way to teach students in months what it might take them years to learn, and get their minds open to ideas which are culturally foreign to them, especially those students who come from a Pentatonic musical background such as the vast majority of Americans. As an aside, you don't want to know the number of times I've heard one of my fellow Americans say that asian music is out of tune because it does not follow our sense of "normal" tuning, ie. the scales majority of American mainstream music uses.

That said, yes, music theory and compositional training can be a great teaching aid, but it is not necessary in any genre of music. A modern composer is no different from classic composers of yore who had no formal training, yet are now regarded as Masters. Remember, some of them were even deaf and yet they made music which was exceptional. The same can be said now, as many tone deaf artists abound and make music which is pleasing to the rest of us. And many of them have no other training than what they learned by trial and error. Most of NG's audio artists are at this point, and I've heard many of the artists here who have excellent songs that utilize complex musical theory, but the artists themselves didn't realize it because they were simply making music.

This actually goes hand-in-hand with sound engineering, mastering, and mixing theory, all of which are terribly handy to be trained in, but not necessary to have because you can learn over time how to mix, master, and record music by trial and error and emulation of other producers and engineers. Most of us, yet again, are in this category, and there are some excellently mixed tracks on NG, well balanced and very polished, at least as polished as the lowered Bitrate medium of NG sound can be. In the end, I'd posit that the absolute need of theory and compositional training is low, possibly around a 5 or less, on a scale of 1-10, for any genre of music.

Now, whether or not purists/elitists of said genre would agree is a wholly different story, as the more snobbish (read: classical/orchestral) genres will always be likened to Managerial positions in blue collar jobs which require a college/university degree to become an overglorified shelf stocking supervisor. Like those jobs, regardless of whether you actually need the training or not, they've got it in their mind that you should have it and without it, you're a waste of space.

Now, to be my own devil's advocate, I do have to say that if you're orchestrating more instruments than you have fingers, perhaps some compositional theory isn't a bad idea, as it can be a daunting task to score for so many instruments. But writing for a string quartet should be no more labor and mind intensive than writing for a 4 piece band, which last time I checked, most rock/pop/country/etc. bands have little to no formal training.

Just my opinion, mind you, but I'd say get the training if you want a career in Orchestral music because you'll never gain respect without a degree, but if you've lower goals than to be a composer/conductor for large orchestras, get as much training as you feel comfortable with. It is never a BAD thing to be well trained, but don't believe all of the hype and elitism.

[EmperorCharlemagne]

At 5/7/09 09:57 PM, InGenius wrote: Now, whether or not purists/elitists of said genre would agree is a wholly different story, as the more snobbish (read: classical/orchestral) genres will always be likened to Managerial positions in blue collar jobs which require a college/university degree to become an overglorified shelf stocking supervisor. Like those jobs, regardless of whether you actually need the training or not, they've got it in their mind that you should have it and without it, you're a waste of space.

Now, to be my own devil's advocate, I do have to say that if you're orchestrating more instruments than you have fingers, perhaps some compositional theory isn't a bad idea, as it can be a daunting task to score for so many instruments. But writing for a string quartet should be no more labor and mind intensive than writing for a 4 piece band, which last time I checked, most rock/pop/country/etc. bands have little to no formal training.

Just my opinion, mind you, but I'd say get the training if you want a career in Orchestral music because you'll never gain respect without a degree, but if you've lower goals than to be a composer/conductor for large orchestras, get as much training as you feel comfortable with. It is never a BAD thing to be well trained, but don't believe all of the hype and elitism.

I don't know why musical snobbery and elitism always has to be associated with classical and orchestral music. Such 'elitism' does not stay confined to any one genre, and to say such is pretty much saying that you are an elitist, in the fact that you look down on and wish to besmirch the names of other artists writing them off as snobs. On a small note, you say that Beethoven (because that is the only one you could mean) was deaf and made exceptional music, you also have to remember that Beethoven was being trained since age 3, so by the time he was 50, he knew pretty much everything there was to writing music. It seems to me there is little more than angry antagonism in that statement.

Also, the general consensus among the 'snobs' it would seem is that it varies according to how complex you make your music. If you never have any music training, I would think that most likely your songs will stay about as complex as a Coldplay song. Catchy, nice, but not complex. People aren't going to often voluntarily look for new techniques, they will try the techniques that they know and only those; this accounts for a lot of similar sounding songs in the audio portal, because a lot of artists don't quite know yet how to make a song their own, and to be 'different'.

[entra1k]

you don't any training whatsoever... sure it may help... but it's not necessary at all.

all you need is your mind and inspiration.

/ thread

[Psil0]

Your mind and inspiration can only do so much if you don't know what you're looking for.

[entra1k]

At 5/8/09 12:00 AM, Nosferatu-of-Worms wrote: Your mind and inspiration can only do so much if you don't know what you're looking for.

Wrong.

creativity is all one needs... i'm proof.. never have taken lessons for any instrument in my life, yet people think I have. Listen to music or do something else that moves you, inspires you, and touches the depths of ur soul (sounds cliche but it's true).. I guarantee that you'll have no trouble writing music when you feel this feeling.

keys go right.... notes get higher... u play around enough and you'll get a sense of what you're looking for.