"Younger" composers biting off more than they can chew

As do I. And I mean, everyone writes and learns differently, so just because trial and error may be useless to one person, it may be the best way for someone else. I was encouraged to attempt works for orchestra, I'm 17 and this was a couple of years ago.

While I didn't produce anything good in my couple of attempts, it's a really good way to learn about ALL the orchestral families and how sounds blend and such all at once, instead of just learning about instruments individually that you're using in smaller scale works. And I mean... it's not just learning about the individual instruments but learning to use them when there are several of the same, as opposed to in chamber music.

In regard to the original comment about needing to learn other important aspects of composition first, I'd see these attempts at orchestral works more as a way to learn WHAT you're using, as in your instrumentation, rather than ways of developing composition techniques and such. I don't see trying this sort of thing out as something negative at all, so long as you're learning from it.

To get better at composing is essentially to get better at your personal process of composing, so you can be more time-efficient and more accurately write what you want, correct?

True or false - writing a major work that utilizes two musicians is easier to manage than writing a major work that utilizes 60?

I would say true, in most situations. Therefore, it is easier to learn your process when you're only working with a few lines at a time than it is to write for an orchestra.

You might learn better from banging your head on a keyboard and throwing cats at harps, but that is a personal decision.

Corbin said it best: Let them choke.

they will learn to take smaller bites if it is needed.

But more likely than not you will be hindered by it, trying to micro manage every little detail so you're missing out on the growth you could be having at learning how to mold the big picture.

Performers don't start by learning concertos.

Composers shouldn't start by writing them, either :rolleyes:.....

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/relevancy-tonal-compositions-21st-century-16873-15.html#post258741

I've commented already, but here's what I say about the "walk before you run" argument way back. Curious, eh?

I've not waded through 11 pages of posts so I might be redundant here but:

Everything is about balance. I think younger composers striving to write for orchestral (or large) ensembles is alright as long as they also:

*Make attempts at smaller ensembles or even just solos

*Continue to study how the masters and other well established composers have done it

*Understand that they're stretching themselves.

*Pace themselves.

Just as with any other discipline, you have to stretch yourself a bit to grow. Coaches make their players run harder and longer than they feel is possible. Teachers put problems in front of you that are meant to be challenging- sometimes not even possible to solve. But it's the journey that makes it worthwhile. If these younger composers are accomplishing something, able to make some decent music and are learning while also striving to diversify their skills- I see no problem with it.

I've not waded through 11 pages of posts so I might be redundant here but:

Everything is about balance. I think younger composers striving to write for orchestral (or large) ensembles is alright as long as they also:

*Make attempts at smaller ensembles or even just solos

*Continue to study how the masters and other well established composers have done it

*Understand that they're stretching themselves.

*Pace themselves.

Just as with any other discipline, you have to stretch yourself a bit to grow. Coaches make their players run harder and longer than they feel is possible. Teachers put problems in front of you that are meant to be challenging- sometimes not even possible to solve. But it's the journey that makes it worthwhile. If these younger composers are accomplishing something, able to make some decent music and are learning while also striving to diversify their skills- I see no problem with it.

Well said!

... Though since you were editing while I quoted you, I think saying "others" rather than "masters" or "established" is a little better since it removes the personal opinion from the equation.

Well said!

... Though since you were editing while I quoted you, I think saying "others" rather than "masters" or "established" is a little better since it removes the personal opinion from the equation.

In a way I agree- but my main point was folks that the young composer wanted to learn from. Perhaps a composer who's work really influences and touches them.

It doesn't have to be a master or a professional- just someone more experience than the young(er) composer wanting to learn how to write-orchestrate-produce for that ensemble, really.

In a way I agree- but my main point was folks that the young composer wanted to learn from. Perhaps a composer who's work really influences and touches them.

It doesn't have to be a master or a professional- just someone more experience than the young(er) composer wanting to learn how to write-orchestrate-produce for that ensemble, really.

Yep.

I see A LOT of the younger composers on this board (let's say ages 14-17) posting music they write and they're always for these large ensembles! Bands, orchestras, operas, these attempts at just large scale works, and it really just made me want to say something.

When you're developing as a composer in your younger years, I really can't stress how important it is to get a handle on counterpoint, motivic development, and all the other intricacies of writing music. Hell, even strip away counterpoint, you will learn more about yourself as a musician AND as a writer from writing some kind of solo or unaccompanied piece when you're younger as opposed to trying writing a symphony. I just find it odd to see so many attempts at creating works for large ensembles that seem lackluster and not enough writing for chamber ensembles. Handling a big ensemble WELL takes a lot of skill and experience, I hope more experienced composers than I (I'm sure Nikolas and QCC can add something) can share their experiences in "growing up" and coming into their own as writers. The thought of even writing a work for a larger ensemble hasn't even crossed my mind until recently, as I prepare for my senior project recital. For the past 4 years or so I've just been focusing on chamber music, and trying to write for these different assortments of instruments, or instruments I'm not familiar with and getting out of my comfort zone. If it's not learned now, if you pursue composition in a university/conservatory setting, your professors will definitely beat it into you then.

I hope this doesn't sound "preachy" or anything, I just wanted to provide a platform for discussion of this. And I personally find threads on subjects like this MUCH more interesting and productive than "What's the best Piano Concerto!??!" or "Why Mozart rules" or "Who's the best composer on the planet ev3r!?"

I am curious, would you object to Prokofiev writing his first opera, "The Giant" when he was 9 years old? Prokofiev Photographs

Of course he threw it away as he gained skills - but the youthful ambition to tackle such an undertaking is impressive to me. What of Bruckner's Symphony No. 0, or 00, or Schnittke's Symphony No. 0, Rachmaninoff's "Youth" Symphony, John Adams's Overture in F? All of these works shed light into the development of voices of great distinctiveness though clearly early works (and often rejected by the composer as their skills developed). What of Wagner, Bizet, or Richard Strauss's student symphonies that sound nothing like the mature composers?

If the young composers continue in their pursuit of music composition, they'll likely discard their juvenilia compositions as most composers do, but what is so wrong with day dreaming a bit and trying their hands at that great masterpiece that they are decades away from learning how to compose?

I believe composition is truly a life long learning effort. Sibelius is a great example of this - he could not have written his Symphony No. 7 when he wrote his first symphony or especially not his distinctive though blemished Kullervo Symphony.

My point is if the young composers want to try their hand at composing something beyond their means and delivering it to a group of likeminded composers for review, what is wrong with that? There might be 90% flaws and errors and 10% gem and that becomes a starting point for them to work through their flaws. I am not discounting the learning of theory or counterpoint, orchestration, etc., because I believe whole heartedly in a strong lifelong learning, but see nothing wrong in a young person's overly ambitious attempts at writing beyond their skills. John Adams said this of his experience writing his first orchestral work at 16 years of age, "'Overture in F' was a decisive experience because I soon discovered that composing was only the first step in the creative process." The creation of any new piece of music is a learning experience for all of us. If it isn't, then we've peaked as composers. If the young composer chooses to continue studying composition, they'll likely dismiss their earlier music as their studies continue and they master more elements of music. If they don't pursue music studies further, then they've likely peaked as a hobbyist composer and no one will have noticed the first awkward compositions anyway.

I may be described as biting off more than I can chew, but if I have to chew for hours on end, I will, dang it. I honestly went from writing juvenile solo piano pieces to writing for full concert band without making any steps in between. I began writing snippets for full orchestra well before I decided to write a chamber work. To this day I have hardly any chamber works even started, and only one finished - a bassoon duet. Other than a juvenile string quartet that I don't even count because I wrote it before I knew what purpose a 'cello really served, I've really written no chamber work, and those things that I've started and not finished are only left unfinished because I honestly find it ten times harder working under the constraints of a small ensemble/group. To say with a mixed trio what I could express more effectively with a full orchestra or band is an uphill battle to me. It cuts down on all the glorious options you have as a composer of larger ensembles. Therefore I believe a composer should decide on an idiom he likes best, and stick with it until he grasps it, and THEN advance to another idiom. Where he starts I believe is essentially irrelevant (provided he has an understanding of the instruments involved in any ensemble he might choose to utilise)

Somebody made a connection with an instrumentalist learning a concerto before learning anything else because they should start simple. Two years ago I got a trumpet, and only a month later, I got a horn. Needless to say, I wasn't very good at brass instruments within just a month, BUT, the stuff I worked on with the horn were concertos. The Strauss, the Mozarts, Saint-Saens Morceau de Concert. Pretty difficult stuff, and I figured out how to play it all without even a shred of a teacher or mentor. Just last month I made 4th chair horn in an honours band for which about 25 horns auditioned (a Mozart concerto) from my portion of the state. Pretty damn good for having bit off more than I can chew, by your standards (to whoever made that connection back there). So again, not to boast, but I find that where you start is irrelevant as long as you have a rough understanding of what you're really getting into. You don't need experience beforehand as much as a head on your shoulders.

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/relevancy-tonal-compositions-21st-century-16873-15.html#post258741

I've commented already, but here's what I say about the "walk before you run" argument way back. Curious, eh?

I thought I already replied to this, but apparently that was removed. So, to more sensibly state my response to this, as this thread you are referring to is rife with confusion of the point and wholly unrepresentative of the discussion in this thread...

There's nothing curious about the "crawl before you walk" position where it concerns the tonality thread. Abstract composition concepts =/= concrete orchestration principles. One concerns the creative process (where having a good foundation of theoretical principles makes one capable of exceeding one's own limitations) while the other concerns the principles of instrumental and vocal sound*. The former applies to the limitless while the latter applies to the limited.

Sure, you can debate the limits of sound until your face turns blue, but your comments in the tonality thread are not "juxtapositionally" related to this discussion. Instead of applying your previous posts (your indirect jab in my general direction, I can assure you, is completely transparent here and the reason for my initial response), you should have left your previous posts as your response or edited for clarity. No sense in bringing in another discussion in order to make a point about two discussions.

In other words, you don't get a "free-bee" because you posted a similar response in another thread, and I'll call you out every time you make the attempt.

EDIT: *Electronic sound is another aspect, sure, but in relation to "orchestration" as it traditionally applies, there's no question to what the author of the OP is referencing.