What is required to become a "good" composer?

Caution: a long, purposeless rant awaits you...

I realize that the entire topic question seems quite dodgy, but allow me to explain it a bit first. "Good" is a highly subjective word, but I'm refraining from using the term "great", as that seems to imply Bach/Beethoven/other immensely famous composer status. I'm thinking of applying for a music composition course at a prestigious university (argh, that sounds so arrogant) next year, but I have no idea how my level compares - yet. It may shock you to learn that I know almost no official theory, but that won't be a problem, because I'm planning to force-learn the theory bookwork. Er, anyway, continuing with this rant...

Alright, so when I say "good", I mean being able to compose at a high standard - not necessarily skilled enough to rival, say, Hans Zimmer, but definitely, well, good. Bah, that sounds so lame. What's needed?

Talent? I've been told that I have talent for music performance (I play the piano and classical guitar) and sight-reading, and although I've been told by various people that I suck and have a nice voice, I'm not tone-deaf or anything like that (I hope ;)), and I'm a quick learner. Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to come across as a braggart, but that's how my situation is best described. I'm supposedly good at rubato, touch, and all those emotional blah blahs, but does that help for composition? Can you suck at performance and be great at composition, or the other way around? From what I've seen, anyone who's accomplished (e.g., at a high level at music grades) at theory and/or performance seems to be a pretty good composer as well. Is it that if you hang around music that long, you really do improve at all aspects of it, or do performance and composition talent go hand in hand? I know that I'm not completely rubbish at composition, although I am a n00b, and perhaps I'd like to think that I have a tiny smidge of talent in my own, unique, misunderstood, unliked genre, but is that all that's needed? Is it really 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration? Assuming I'm at an at least average level talent-wise, is there hope yet, or is hardcore Hanz Zimmer-ish talent needed?

Instrument? I compose (or try to, but fail to do it overly well) almost exclusively using my guitar, but a lot of my stuff is for random instruments, e.g., harpsichord, strings, harmonica, etc., not just guitar. I've heard that the piano is the best instrument to use, as all the keys are already laid out. With guitar, you have to create your own fingerings. I'm far more familiar with my guitar, but getting acquainted with a MIDI keyboard would be okay. Can one's composition instrument bring the music down a notch? Can it choke your style, productivity and/or proficiency?

Method? Is it really detrimental to compose directly into a notation program? It's just something I've heard, but I don't know if it's true or not.

I'll leave the interpretation of "good" up to you. It would be awesome if I were to be accepted into that music course (only 20 or so people a year, but an older friend of mine who made it showed me some scores, and I'd like to think I have a chance...), but recently I've realized that (a) people don't "appreciate" my unique and random musical style (b) this is due to the fact that they find it boring, repetitive and simple. Gah, fine. :P

Is hard work enough? I'm no child prodigy, and while I'm not exactly great at producing melodies and creating symphonies, I have a quite unique style of writing and I am not a dissonant composer. I'm nothing really "special", but again, I like to think that I have a tiny smidge of talent. Thus, is force-learning a lot of theory (at the moment, I'm doing quite well considering I don't know any, officially*), trying to compose regularly and doing some informative reading (Principles Of Orchestration and all that, wot wot!) enough to see me through? Is it enough to make it into the music course and maybe even become a professional composer one day? Yes, I realize the need for a second job, and no, I don't care much for the fame. Small jobs are better than nothing, but do I have enough resources to even make it that far? Talent level = next to nothing, but my compositions are at least pleasant to listen to, despite the repetition or whatever.

Sorry! Long rant! If needed, I will post a MIDI or two, but again, I have a random, unique style that ranges from modern Japanese rock to sappy piano music to zephyr-ised guitar-based...stuff. Thanks for reading. Any advice at all will be greatly appreciated. Oh, and I've been composing somewhat seriously/obsessively (=trying to improve, but failing) for around 8 months now. Annnnnnnnd...I'm not trying to come across as arrogant or bragging! I'm just trying to be honest about my abilities: performance = good; composition = questionable; aural = ZOMG!!!11111 t3h SuX!!!!!1111 Finally, while personal advice would be great, any comments at all would be awesome! Thanks in advance.

*according to the grade theory books in my country, but I do know common sense-ish stuff like Em C G D is nice 'n' sappy and E-Cm is "good" while Bb-F# is not. Never mind if that doesn't make sense. :P

I think you're forgetting the main thing about this class you're signing up for: They are there to help you. I'm assuming you're signing up for a beginner's composition class. What they mostly want for you to be able to show with your portfolio is that you have a basic knowledge of music composition and theory, and that you have the ability to improve. You should just prepare your best music. One good thing to show is variety, show that you can compose for a multitude of instruments, and that you can compose in different forms (rondo, sonata, sprawling operatic recitative, etc.) I mean, if you were already a great composer, why should you attend the program?

Learning theory is definitely a very good idea. You can never go wrong with a good dosage of theory. It can be a helpful tool in composition. While there have been a few successful composers without much theory knowledge, a large amount of hurdles can be bypassed if you learn theory.

As for the instrument, there is nothing bad about composing on a guitar, just as there's nothing wrong with playing on a piano or violin or whatnot. The thing is, composers who play their major instrument will tend to start of writing their pieces in a style that would be acceptable on their instrument. For example, a pianist might start of writing a string orchestra piece with the cellos performing alberti bass for hours upon end. An organist might have the basses holding out long divisi notes while giving everyone else large, moving lines. This is another thing that composition teachers are going to help you with.

In my eyes, the end justifies the means. If you compose best typing directly into the computer, then so be it. However, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to develop your skills with the other methods.

Mostly, you should just relax, and see what happens. You should post some of your music here and get suggestions.

You should definitely write some hand-manuscript for your portfolio. It shows that you have a grasp of music theory. The only bad thing about notation programs is that they do all the theory and formatting for you, and so a) you don't learn it, and b) it goes so fast that the chances of making a compositional error (a note or sonority you don't like) are much greater.

I think you're forgetting the main thing about this class you're signing up for: They are there to help you. I'm assuming you're signing up for a beginner's composition class.

Actually, very likely not. While the word "course" means a single class here in the US, it usually means a complete degree in the UK. So someone from the UK trying to "get into a composition course" is not trying to sign up for a composition class, but trying to get into college as a composition major.

The only bad thing about notation programs is that they do all the theory and formatting for you

They do? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. All Finale does for me is lay out the staves in the right place. The rest is up to me.

Zephyr, it sounds like you have the requisite desire and willingness to work. How well you do at Uni depends upon how well you're able to write what your professors want you to write.

I need to think about this question more.

Actually, very likely not. While the word "course" means a single class here in the US, it usually means a complete degree in the UK. So someone from the UK trying to "get into a composition course" is not trying to sign up for a composition class, but trying to get into college as a composition major.

Really? That's interesting. I love finding out little language idioms that are different in the UK.

But even so, alot of what I said still applies. I just auditioned for the composition program at Texas Tech, in which the composition teacher pretty much accepted me on the spot, though I could tell as he looked through my portfolio he wanted to talk about some things I could change (some of which he told me about.)

J. L. Graham:

I think he was talking about setting up manuscript paper (where the time signature goes, how to properly set BEADGCF, etc.)

I think he was talking about setting up manuscript paper (where the time signature goes, how to properly set BEADGCF, etc.)

Oh. When I think of theory, I'm assuming it's more advanced stuff...but elementary things are theory too, I suppose.

Is it really 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration?

This is a statement that I believe. What is talent? I believe talent is something that is acquired by practice and perspiration. Sure, some people may be better at art than other people, but that is probably because the person who is good at art has more interest in that subject. I used to be a really bad composer. And if I never practiced, I still would be really bad. I used to be a really bad piano player (I hated the piano, so I mean it, I was really bad!), and if I never practiced, I would still be bad. You get my point.

Can one's composition instrument bring the music down a notch? Can it choke your style, productivity and/or proficiency?

Well this is what I think. I don't compose for the guitar, I compose for the piano. Composing for the piano has enabled me to create free form romantic works. I would NEVER be able to compose these works with a guitar. I don't think I would be a very effective guitar composer, since I don't know anything about how to play or write for a guitar, nor do I have the interest. However, if I was to use a guitar to compose my music, I certainly would have a different style. Probably rock or something :excl:

Is it really detrimental to compose directly into a notation program?

This depends on how you use your editor of course. If you let it hinder your creativity, than it will. However, if you don't, then it won't. This sounds really obvious, but it's the truth. For example, I "used" to compose music by hand editing directly into the notation editor. This limited my creativity. I changed my composition method, and now I improvise into the piano first, then write the music into the editor. The editor in this case is "submissive". It is great, and doesn't limit any creativity whatsover since the editor is versatile. It listens to EVERYTHING I tell it to do, thats the way I like it!

This is a statement that I believe. What is talent? I believe talent is something that is acquired by practice and perspiration. Sure, some people may be better at art than other people, but that is probably because the person who is good at art has more interest in that subject. I used to be a really bad composer. And if I never practiced, I still would be really bad. I used to be a really bad piano player (I hated the piano, so I mean it, I was really bad!), and if I never practiced, I would still be bad. You get my point.

I think Chopin is onto something here. I think that really loving what you do is much more important than raw talent.

It seems to me some composers simply have prodigous cognitive gifts, meaning some people are able to transpose songs instantly, sight read like words off of a page, improvise 4 part fugues, what have you. However, immense cognitive ability is not necessary nor sufficient for musicality or creativity. Neither is a prodigous command of technique at an instrument.

I believe all that is required is love, and hard work. Some of my best stuff I've written on days I was feeling rather blah, in fact, which suggests to me it really is mostly hard work rather than inspiration. Conversely there are days when I FEEL inspired and write crap. It is a very elusive art, it is impossible to pin down just what state of mind does produce good music, but the truth is it is indeed a skill you build over time. Raw talent has little to do with it.

I think Chopin is onto something here. I think that really loving what you do is much more important than raw talent.

I dunno. I think it may well get you to be a 'good' composer, as the original poster asked. Greatness requires something more that not all of us get.

Greatness, in my opinion, comes about by a combination of hard work and love of what you do, massive cognitive ability (aids the amount of one's output), and a confluence of circumstances. Each man who has become great in the past...the world was "ready" for what they had to offer.

Today, even if ten thousand amateurs can write a piano concerto that is of equal quality to one of Rachmaninov's, none of those amateurs will be hailed as "great," even if they deserve it due to the quality of their music. The world just isn't receptive to this sort of artist these days. Not in the same way, anyway. I don't think any composer alive today will attain "immortal" status the way Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, etc. have.

Unfortunately our ability to preserve history has become much more advanced than in the renaissance and before...so we'll probably "remember" various modern composers but none of them will be truly IMMORTAL i.e. normal people have their names in the back of their minds almost as household words.

If the world again enters a renaissance where truth, beauty, and love are ideals cherished by all, and intuition is valued above scientific discovery (12 tone serialists and Cage like people will be utterly ignored), perhaps the world will be ready for us again. I don't think I'd personally become "great" even if the world was ready for it, mind you, but I think there are definitely people alive today (and some even on this site!) who are or may become deserving of such status.

Really? That's interesting. I love finding out little language idioms that are different in the UK.

But even so, alot of what I said still applies. I just auditioned for the composition program at Texas Tech, in which the composition teacher pretty much accepted me on the spot, though I could tell as he looked through my portfolio he wanted to talk about some things I could change (some of which he told me about.)

J. L. Graham:

I think he was talking about setting up manuscript paper (where the time signature goes, how to properly set BEADGCF, etc.)

Around this time last year I auditioned for them ont he guitar to be a composition major. Nice people and good music program. I ended up going to UT. Big 12 football!!!

Anyway, the main thing to remember is, do what the professor wants for now and then move on. They really don't care to much for show offs.

I'm not sure if the ratio of inspiration/perspiration is 1:99, but I think it's important to realize that this is different for every composer and we all have the ability to improve both of these components. One of the best ways to become inspired (and become a better composer) is to give yourself the tools to do it. I do this by exposing myself different types of music, and acquainting myself with new musical instruments when possible. It's not really about talent. Talent is just our creative capacity based on our previous experience. (whoa, I got philosophical!) On the other hand, composing is a lot of work and there is not getting around that. If you want to compose great music, you have to COMPOSE great music. What I mean by that is, if you want to write good orchestral music, you need to start writing for the orchestra ASAP! Giving yourself practice in the genres you wish to write for is the best thing you can do. I'm not saying I've become a great composer by doing this, but I'm am becoming more satisfied with what I do on a personal level as a result of my endeavors.

And if anyone tells you you're writing boring, simple, melodic music...that is their opinion! It is a sad state that we are in today that academic centers pressure us to compose complex music. Write simple, beautiful music for yourself...and when the time comes, try to do it their way too...it's for your own good in terms of development.

I hope I've said something enlightening here...it was enlightening for me to think about!

This is a statement that I believe. What is talent? I believe talent is something that is acquired by practice and perspiration. Sure, some people may be better at art than other people, but that is probably because the person who is good at art has more interest in that subject.[/b]

I think that really loving what you do is much more important than raw talent.

I believe all that is required is love, and hard work. It is a very elusive art, it is impossible to pin down just what state of mind does produce good music, but the truth is it is indeed a skill you build over time. Raw talent has little to do with it.[/b]

I'm not sure if the ratio of inspiration/perspiration is 1:99, but I think it's important to realize that this is different for every composer and we all have the ability to improve both of these components. One of the best ways to become inspired (and become a better composer) is to give yourself the tools to do it. I do this by exposing myself different types of music, and acquainting myself with new musical instruments when possible. It's not really about talent. Talent is just our creative capacity based on our previous experience. (whoa, I got philosophical!) On the other hand, composing is a lot of work and there is not getting around that. If you want to compose great music, you have to COMPOSE great music.

And if anyone tells you you're writing boring, simple, melodic music...that is their opinion! It is a sad state that we are in today that academic centers pressure us to compose complex music. Write simple, beautiful music for yourself...and when the time comes, try to do it their way too...it's for your own good in terms of development.[/b]

Seriously, some of these posts are truly inspiring!

Just to clarify things, yes, I was referring to a university course, but unfortunately I have an almost 0% chance of making it in with my current abilities. I don't have a set style, which is both good and bad, and I've been told that I suck...a lot. Well, that my music is boring, at least. It's strange because one person is truly enthusiastic and highly enjoys it, while another person bashes the stuff I thought was good (for my standards, anyway) but likes the pieces I don't. I've been quite demoralized by it all, so I've realized that I really am making music for myself now. Hardly anyone else seems to enjoy my simple style, so there's pretty much no hope for this music course. Of course, if I did make it in (it's over a year away, so there's time to improve), there's all the philosophical pondering over whether I'm wasting my academics, financial security, etc.

So!

My guitar teacher told me that all that's needed to make it in is passion; just spam them with compositions to make them realize you're serious. I find that unbelieveably disappointing. Supposing I did make it in, wouldn't I afterwards feel that it wasn't such a greta achievement because of those words? I don't know if he was exaggerating to inspire me or something, but it didn't have a positive effect.

(Oh, and by the way, I just acquired a MIDI keyboard today.)

I don't know how I compare to other people. My school music teacher hinted that he would be giving the class a composition exercise sometime soon, in the form of a canon. That'll be my first "measurement"; so far, it's all been just for very serious leisure, but never assessed.

I'll post some samples of my MIDI-ness soon...but don't expect too much. Don't expect much at all, but rest assured that it's not pseudo-avant-garde dissonance.

Thanks for the truly great replies, everybody. I appreciate them immensely. Thanks also for putting up with my rants (the next one will be shorter!) and taking the time to read them.

On second thoughts, below is a link to a poorly-rendered MP3, but I believe it shows the woodwind instruments' tones better. Again, my style is completely random, so I don't normally compose for way too many strings, guitar, flute and oboe. Some of the strings were supposed to be a harpsichord, but I didn't have a harpsichord soundfont. D'oh! All this instrument talk is making me sound better than I really am; I'm NOT a classical music elitist. Classical music fans seem to all be l33t at composing, so perhaps I should try that. :)

192220068 (Unfinished): http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd5/117347...28Demo%2916.mp3

If you haven't noticed, I need to work on names, too. ;)

Any advice/feedback? If I'm "okay" right now, should I improve a lot with some theory, "listening exercises", etc.?

I think right now you could really gain a lot by having a private composition teacher. Someone that is a classical composer and can point you in the right direction with theory/harmony/counterpoint.

Another thing you can do that would really help is listening to a lot of music, but while reading the music score in front of you. Let's say, pick the summer movement of the 4 seasons, and try to study it while listening and reading the score. That really helps to give ideas... write down the parts you love the most and then try to use them (not copy and paste but try to understand them) in your exercise compositions.

I think your music could indeed improve a lot, but it wasn't boring at all. It was very interesting in my opinion, and it did have some nice moments to it. I would consider it not classical though, and it sounds very experimental but if you start studying other people's music and studying theory that will give you an edge and might point you in the right direction.

Another reason to having a private teacher, is that he/she will go over your music and give suggestions, sometimes based on knowledge sometimes based on experience, that will help your music achieve a much better result than if you just do it by yourself.

Wow, thanks for the feedback! I'm quite surprised but flattered that you found it interesting, but it is true that I need a heck of a lot more improvement. However, I'm just starting to compose "seriously" now. Before, I didn't consider theory very much, if at all; now I'm actually reading music textbooks of my own free will, and thus gaining a far great understanding of it all.

EDIT: You're correct in saying that it doesn't sound classical. I doubt I could compose good classical music if I tried, but who knows? Perhaps in the future I might attempt it; I've started re-appreciating classical music only very recently, but I hope it'll help. Why, I feel more educated already now that I know what counterpoint is, even if I don't know how to use it yet. :)