Essay on Composition at the Moment

Just as an aside: This has been my EXACT EXPERIENCE as well. This has also been the EXACT EXPERIENCE of all my classmates in those classes, all music students in classes which teach based on a very similar curriculum (I know this because our professor explained how music theory is taught, the justification, and the reasons behind this method, which I don't agree with but hey, what do I know??), and so on. When functional harmony stopped making sense, we started learning analytical methods for 20th Century music like making a matrix, set theory, Hansen Analysis, and a variety of other things. But the music that appealed to me most was the music we spent the very LEAST amount of time covering, if at all. Forget Brahms, we didn't even TOUCH it because there wasn't enough time due to the curriculum, yet we spent a great deal of time on Beethoven's Third Symphony, "Eroica", more than we ever spent on the Tristan Prelude I adored.

You would have had a better educational experience if you had done the proper research and gone to a better school. These things you profess to be universal among all music schools in this country is pretty far removed from fact. Maybe your department was poor at designing curriculum, but that certainly isn't the fault of everyone else if you chose to go to a school which would give you a less than standard education.

You always try to say that these teaching practices are common, allow me to debunk them. This music you say that schools apparently spend no time on at the undergrad level...Brahms, Wagner, etc, well I remember in my early lower level theory classes spending some rather hardcore time on Brahms 4th symphony, Wagner, Debussy, and a lot of other stuff. Why wouldn't we spend time on those things before moving onto Schoenberg? That's a poor choice on behalf of the school you chose to go to.

By the way, my theory professor received his Doctorate from NYU, studied under Leonard Bernstein, and has an impressive Curriculum Vitae of theory publications in music journals across the US... he was the head of the entire Theory Department at my Undergrad University when I was there (still is, I believe) and is also a published, respected composer as well

Why are you name dropping, what's the point of this? I would hope any professor at any quarter-decent accredited school would have people on faculty that have published in periodicals and whatnot. That should just be a given. What could possibly be your point........

(Just in case Gavin wants to chime in about how FSU is way better than ANY OTHER SCHOOL I've ever attended - which we discussed today before he abruptly left. Good for you, by the way. Glad you can afford it, and hope it works out for ya!).

ooooh! That's why!

Not to be sordid but I kind of did have to leave, I'm fairly busy :whistling: Not as much lately since it's the summer, no one is in town and I'm bored out of my mind, but I still find many things to occupy my time with.

Anyway, why the sour grapes? You whine a lot in your posts about how you never got your way and those "damn rich people with their rich people schools". It's kind of funny that you think I'm some sort of privileged rich kid going to my fancy PUBLIC STATE UNIVERSITY. This is actually not true at all. While I do come from a middle class family, we're certainly not busting at the seams with money or anything, and my parents would never pay for my tuition or anything. You see, with my abilities (and financial need) I was able to get scholarship and grant money. That's how I go to school, that's how many people in this country go to school. You don't have to be rich to go to college and get a good education anymore, this isn't the 1800s for chrissake.

By the way, again, why so srs Batman? Why this bitterness, don't let my lulz-factor take away from the well documented fact that FSU is very highly ranked in this country. Along with UNT, IU, UMich, there's FSU, and those four schools are better than some of the conservatories in New England (and hey, they're cheaper!). Do I really have to show you article after article of the national accolades, the rankings, the laudatory remarks given to the school by all of its peers? Come on man, don't be a dope, you've gotta be smarter than this.

What is your deal anyway? Are you bitter that you "couldn't afford" to go to a better school? Well who's fault is that? Didn't have the grades to get into somewhere else, say Vanderbilt? Who's fault is that? Didn't have the guts, the gumption, the balls, the KNOW HOW to find a school and create a situation where you would be able to afford it (if you're so poor, that means you qualify for EVEN MORE financial aid money!!!)? Who's fault is all of this in the end? You have no one to point the finger at but yourself. Never, not ever, not in any one of your posts have I ever seen an admission of guilt or humility on your behalf, and that tells me a lot about your situation.

We can actually thank Hindemith for the curriculum method used at so many universities (who, by the way, wrote incredible music we hardly even covered... his own ideas on teaching music bumped him out of the core theory classes, which I can't help but point out the irony in all of that). What I learned about Wagner, Hindemith, and many other favorites of mine was in a Graduate course called 20th Century Literature. Guess you have to be a graduate to actually expect any of these guys to be covered at all, if for anything more than a one or two-day lecture. I forget the name of the article (or publication, for that matter), but I remember distinctly how ironic I found it that Hindemith wrote it and it was HIS philosophy that bumped his music out of the core theory curriculum that was based on his writings

Here you go assuming that simply because the university you went to did not teach you about these composers or give you the opportunity to pursue such interests means that no school teaches on these matters. Once again, this is 100% not true and is, again, purely indicative of the level of program you chose to attend, not the current state of post-secondary music education in the United States of America.

The school you so maligned that you could have easily afforded to go to, my soon to be alma mater FSU, offers courses, nay, REQUIRES courses for undergraduate composition, theory, performance and other majors to take. What are these classes? One serving as an in-depth analysis of music of the 19th century, and a class of the same type dealing with the 20th century. In these classes I learned even more about the composers which your professors apparently neglected to teach about. Now how could this be? Could it be because the entire system is broken!??! Or...or...could it be....could it be because your professors just happened to not be good at planning, and did not design an optimum curriculum from which the students could truly learn what they needed to. Could it be that it is also your fault for attending such a school? Please sir, don't get mad at me, for I am CERTAINLY not privileged. But you know what, I did my research and I had the SKILLS! Judging from your Myspace you don't like people with skills do you? Yet you are also an advocate for the free market, so which is it sir?! But I digress....

I'll reiterate, for clarity, that the music that you complain you did not learn about until graduate school, I learned about in my undergraduate years. I studied them intensely in my classes as I would any Beethoven symphony or the Pope Marcellus Mass or anything else. And again, before you cry PRIVILEGE, know this! I have many many friends attending many other schools around this country, and they are learning same things I am, even more! People at Northwestern, University of Florida, Bowling Green State, University of Colorado, University of North Texas and Texas-Austin, Georgia State, Boston University, Oberlin, etc etc etc etc. The list goes on and on! Those are schools and people I know from all walks of life! Suburbanites, and your traditional urban/street folk. Nothing stopped them from getting a good education, AA, what stopped you!? You make a lot of excuses man, you just need to fess up to your mistakes and your shortcomings.

SSC, what do you have against Mozart? I am curious.

Nothin'. Why would I have anything against Mozart?

You would have had a better educational experience if you had done the proper research and gone to a better school.

Obviously you have had a good experience where you attend college. Funny thing is, all accredited universities are governed by a board of regents where they are required to submit their coursework, curricula, etc. So, all of this you are saying is rather pedantic. The true depth of this discussion is yet to be had, and you'd rather play the blame game. That's fine.

But you know what, I did my research and I had the SKILLS! Judging from your Myspace you don't like people with skills do you? Yet you are also an advocate for the free market, so which is it sir?! But I digress....

What "Myspace" profile?

And you think I should be banned, too... nice shout by the way. Glad to hear you're hard at work on that.

------------------------------------

You're arguing a moot point, Gavin. I'm glad you enjoy your school and your coursework. There are plenty of issues I have come across, it's not just in the theory area. I have to wonder what kind of work you're doing in lessons, what kind of things you're interested in doing as a composer, and generally, I'd have to know what composers inspired you to write music. Are you a John Williams fan or did you here your first Boulez piece and just go nutty over it? There's no way for me to tell what you're actually getting from your education because I know absolutely NOTHING about you.

And respectfully, you know absolutely NOTHING ABOUT ME. Remember that when you're being an arrogant little prick and lecturing me about how I made my bed and I should sleep in it. You can call me out all you want, that's fine, I really don't care. My reason for attending a university and getting a degree has no bearing on how approved music curricula for accredited universities approach music from a very academic, sometimes very unrealistic perspective. This has more to do with what you're going to do when you leave, how you're going to pay for your degree, how you're going to pay your other bills, and much, much more.

Furthermore, it's quite interesting (you might not know this) that applied lessons in composition do not apply toward teacher licensing in any state. This is not a problem if you have a dual concentration in performance or music education and complete a senior recital, not just a junior recital like most comp majors are required to have, but just take this into consideration... composition and every theory and music class that comes with it, is not enough to be licensed to teach music or even take the Praxis exam to become certified at the high school level. It's pretty nonsensical to think that someone who should have more knowledge of music than anyone else, at least to be successful, is not sufficiently educated with a composition degree unless they fulfill the same requirements of a performance major and take methods classes. I suppose you want to blame me for not getting my education degree instead of composition now? Just so you know, that's not the point.

I'm implying... no, I'm just STATING that it's a DAMN SHAME that it's reached that point, in my personal opinion. You want me to sit here and blame myself... okay, you get busy dealing with why a composition major isn't qualified to teach music while a performance major with a degree in music education is and get back to me when you have an explanation. Even more than this, an education degree actually requires coursework in strings, brass, woodwinds, and percussion performance where a composition degree generally does not. Would it not benefit a composition major to know these instruments and be capable of performing on them, to experience musicianship on these instruments in order to write better material? Why does the coursework for a composer require a major instrument in addition to applied lessons and NOT instrumental methods classes to actually include that experience with instruments they'll be composing for? It's nonsensical, and I can tell you why this is the case...

The university system a closed system of ongoing performance, encouraging chamber music for the benefit of performers and the ease of arranging performances of music in a chamber setting rather than the full gamut of orchestra and larger ensembles. It's the difference between training composers to think smaller or using their talents in larger settings... but if your interest is in chamber music then this really wouldn't bother you now would it? Better yet, sit on this until you get some real world experience outside of school and you're qualified to carry on this discussion with me - considering your admitted level of experience is in one school while mine is not. I'm not trying to burst your bubble, I'm really REALLY GLAD you think so highly of your school and your education. These are just some of the issues you may have yet to come up against, things you might not even consider necessary for your education but will become important when you're out of school and trying to keep your career in the field of music, unless all you really want to do is teach in a university... and there are plenty out there searching for work now in that field because there's NOTHING ELSE for them. Composition majors are wise to seek a dual concentration because their frickin' degree doesn't qualify them for ANYTHING... even those that want to teach composition at the secondary education area are wise to get a Masters in Music Theory, those that don't are generally overlooked as of recent, more due to budgeting issues than actual qualifications. I wonder if you knew any of this as well...

A composition degree is not what it SHOULD BE, it definitely isn't a degree that applies to other fields as easily as a performance or education degree. At least these fields have jobs available when you get out. What are you going to do for money when you get out of school with your composition degree? Why shouldn't you be, as knowledgeable as you are in music, qualified to do ANY job in music? A composer SHOULD BE qualified to do anything any other music major is capable of doing, but you have to get an additional degree just to qualify... it's a completely impractical degree all around for most young composers, and I think it could be better. So sue me if I have YOUR interests and others at heart... it's not like I'm out to hurt anyone. I really do care, more than you'll ever know.

Obviously you have had a good experience where you attend college. Funny thing is, all accredited universities are governed by a board of regents where they are required to submit their coursework, curricula, etc. So, all of this you are saying is rather pedantic. The true depth of this discussion is yet to be had, and you'd rather play the blame game. That's fine.

Deflection is deflective

There are plenty of issues I have come across, it's not just in the theory area. I have to wonder what kind of work you're doing in lessons, what kind of things you're interested in doing as a composer, and generally, I'd have to know what composers inspired you to write music. Are you a John Williams fan or did you here your first Boulez piece and just go nutty over it? There's no way for me to tell what you're actually getting from your education because I know absolutely NOTHING about you.

My interests as a composer? You see the thing is, I'm not just a composer and composition has never been my sole interest. Sure, I decided by 11th grade in high school that I wanted my career to be in music, and I had been composing since the 8th grade, I still had other interests within music alone, including secondary education and performance. My interests as a composer were always strongest though. You might ask what composers I really liked in high school. The people I probably found the most influential at the time were Joe Schwantner, Philip Glass, Ellington, and a plethora of other composers and musicians and whatever else. I remember getting into John Cage later into high school as well, but the point really is that music inspired me to write music...basically. My music wasn't focused into any sort of "personal voice" at this time, but why would it be, I was in high school and it was a time to experiment and try pretty much everything out I had at my disposal. I was writing a lot, I was playing a lot too, and I had a decent theory background. I didn't make that next big jump until I got to college, as it is with most people, this is perfectly normal.

As a composition major in college, earlier on in my sophomore year as a younger and inexperienced student my professor at the time had me write an unaccompanied piece for solo woodwind (i think it was clarinet, long time ago). This is the only point in my time as a comp major that I was working on a plan that a professor set out for me. The purpose was to hone my skills when it came to concepts such as pacing and motivic development. It was a pedagogical tool which proves to be very useful. Most universities you go to, and you watch a concert of younger students, you'll be hardpressed not to find solo violin or solo flute pieces and things of that nature. Up until that point I had written several large scale pieces, but this the purpose of this was to truly break down everything that I know and sort of start from a beginning and build myself up again. Starting my junior year and up until my last lesson, my composition lessons mainly consisted of me coming in with sketches and ideas and soon full scored stuff and my professor basically *guiding me through* the piece - we worked out technical issues, discussed pacing, what my intent was and other more philosophical things. We didn't have to talk about "baby issues" because, well, you don't go to college to be babied. I knew what I was doing, it was just was a matter of bringing my wise professor my not so perfect sculpture and then he knocked out the rough edges, made suggestions etc etc etc. Once in a while he'd make a comment on pitch materials or something, and half the time I'd have an, "Oh crap he's right" moment.

My reason for attending a university and getting a degree has no bearing on how approved music curricula for accredited universities approach music from a very academic, sometimes very unrealistic perspective. This has more to do with what you're going to do when you leave, how you're going to pay for your degree, how you're going to pay your other bills, and much, much more.

It has everything to do with it if you have such a skewed perspective, you just wind up sounding bitter. As for those last couple of sentences....

1) What you're going to do when you leave - This should be figured out, or at least intensely though about, before and during the process of obtaining the degree. This is true for ANY MAJOR, if you do not do your homework and you find yourself in some sort of adverse situation, tough knockers I guess.

2) How you're going to pay for your degree - You pay for it just like everyone else in this country pays for education: Scholarships, grants, savings and loans! It's so inexpensive to go to school now they might as well be giving it away (some of them do!). It's even greater if you're going to a great school that's also fairly inexpensive (a lot of the states have at least one good flagship public university). This shouldn't ever be a problem, if you want an education badly enough, you find a way to pay for it.

3) How you're going to pay for your other bills - I had money left over from my financial aid to pay for my rent and utilities and whatnot, and also buy food of course. If you're someone who doesn't have the grades to be able to get merit based aid, you should be able to qualify for need based aid. If you can't qualify for either and your only option is to take out loans, well, I don't know what to tell you, besides get those grades up :thumbsup:. The issue is a bit more complicated than this, but I don't understand how most of it isn't a no-brainer. Be an adult and plan your life.

Furthermore, it's quite interesting (you might not know this) that applied lessons in composition do not apply toward teacher licensing in any state. This is not a problem if you have a dual concentration in performance or music education and complete a senior recital, not just a junior recital like most comp majors are required to have, but just take this into consideration... composition and every theory and music class that comes with it, is not enough to be licensed to teach music or even take the Praxis exam to become certified at the high school level. It's pretty nonsensical to think that someone who should have more knowledge of music than anyone else, at least to be successful, is not sufficiently educated with a composition degree unless they fulfill the same requirements of a performance major and take methods classes. I suppose you want to blame me for not getting my education degree instead of composition now? Just so you know, that's not the point.

Funny you should mention this, I ran into a snag with grad school for Fall 2009 so I figured I would just go ahead and get my FL Teacher Certification. I ultimately decided against it because I'd rather work at a higher-end retail and work with marching bands on the side since getting a public school teaching job generally asks for 2-3+ years of commitment and I want to only take one year off before pumping back into grad school full throttle.

Anyway, I say all this because I don't understand what you're talking about, because I was fully eligible to become certified to teach in the state of FL. I mean, here are the requirements...

Specialization Requirements for Certification in Music (Grades K-12)--Academic Class.

(1) Plan One. A bachelor's or higher degree with an undergraduate or graduate major in music, or

(2) Plan Two. A bachelor's or higher degree with thirty (30) semester hours in music to include the areas specified below:

(a) Credit in applied music at the upper-division level,

(b) Credit in music theory,

© Credit in conducting,

(d) Credit in survey of music history,

(e) Credit in group performance such as band, orchestra, or chorus.

Those are all REEAAALLY standard courses that every undergraduate music major takes. Of course you have to do well in them and have good transcripts obviously and then demonstrate in job interviews that you're competent and know how to teach. But the notion a composition student isn't able to get a teaching certification? Nonsense. Maybe you didn't have to play in ensembles or play a principal instrument? Maybe that was your problem? I'm not sure, but that just may be an isolated incident.

I'm implying... no, I'm just STATING that it's a DAMN SHAME that it's reached that point, in my personal opinion. You want me to sit here and blame myself... okay, you get busy dealing with why a composition major isn't qualified to teach music while a performance major with a degree in music education is and get back to me when you have an explanation.

Lawl, see above

Even more than this, an education degree actually requires coursework in strings, brass, woodwinds, and percussion performance where a composition degree generally does not.

Orchestration classes, in addition to the fact that I hope you play or do something (are you a vocalist?). Orchestration is a pretty standard class for undergrad composition majors, not to mention that if you're playing in orchestras or bands or operas or whatever anyway, you learn an buttload just being in rehearsals anyway. As a composer you're always learning about brass, ww, and perc etc etc performance because you're WRITING for these people and interacting with them when you're working out your pieces for performance. I also remembering covering certain things in early theory classes too. In my experience the Education performance techniques classes or whatever were always watered down anyway.

Would it not benefit a composition major to know these instruments and be capable of performing on them, to experience musicianship on these instruments in order to write better material? Why does the coursework for a composer require a major instrument in addition to applied lessons and NOT instrumental methods classes to actually include that experience with instruments they'll be composing for? It's nonsensical

Again, Orchestration courses...

Better yet, sit on this until you get some real world experience outside of school and you're qualified to carry on this discussion with me - considering your admitted level of experience is in one school while mine is not. I'm not trying to burst your bubble

What bubble? Do you seriously think I'm not 100% aware of the "real outside world"? Come on man, you know better than that....

For the record, while I have attended one school thus far since I'm only 22 and about to graduate, you act as if I don't have regular contact with friends and the like and about 20ish other schools. Not to mention my academic connections which I won't name drop because...well...that's absurd, and all the lectures and etc etc etc that I've witnessed in my undergrad time. Trust me...I'm very very much aware....

These are just some of the issues you may have yet to come up against, things you might not even consider necessary for your education but will become important when you're out of school and trying to keep your career in the field of music, unless all you really want to do is teach in a university... and there are plenty out there searching for work now in that field because there's NOTHING ELSE for them.

Well I'm going straight through to get my PhD anyway, which isn't even going to be in composition, but Musicology. I'm still going to compose, but I think my strengths and skills are better served under the musicology umbrella, not to mention that I think my interests have always sort of leaned that way anyway.

By the way, were you implying that I or anyone else would just get a BM Composition degree and then go out into "the world" and think they'd just magically get commissions and scraggy or something? I REALLY REALLY hope that isn't what you were implying! Cause if you were...that's.....not good. By the way, did anyone ever tell you that life isn't about making money? Obviously you don't get a degree in MUSIC COMPOSITION and think, "Oh man what's the entry level salary for composers in America!? Oh boy!!" That's, again, my catchphrase of the night, ABSURD!

Composition majors are wise to seek a dual concentration because their frickin' degree doesn't qualify them for ANYTHING... even those that want to teach composition at the secondary education area are wise to get a Masters in Music Theory, those that don't are generally overlooked as of recent, more due to budgeting issues than actual qualifications. I wonder if you knew any of this as well...

I'm well aware of this...

A composition degree is not what it SHOULD BE, it definitely isn't a degree that applies to other fields as easily as a performance or education degree. At least these fields have jobs available when you get out. What are you going to do for money when you get out of school with your composition degree? Why shouldn't you be, as knowledgeable as you are in music, qualified to do ANY job in music? A composer SHOULD BE qualified to do anything any other music major is capable of doing, but you have to get an additional degree just to qualify... it's a completely impractical degree all around for most young composers, and I think it could be better. So sue me if I have YOUR interests and others at heart... it's not like I'm out to hurt anyone. I really do care, more than you'll ever know.

Jobs for performance are pretty sporadic. The composition degree is just like the art degree or performance degree or whatever other degree: you're taking a chance, and you should be aware of this. You should be aware of this and your abilities and a multitude of other things. For one, I didn't go into my degree program thinking, "Oh man, I'm gonna get out and become John Williams!" or something absurd like that. No one should think that, and if you do and don't heed the advice of your wise professors and whatnot then you deserve what you get.

Nothin'. Why would I have anything against Mozart?

"The fact is, some music is regarded as of higher quality than other music, which is how we can discern between the work of a 5-year-old doodling on some manuscript paper and the work of Mozart."

"The 5-year-old's work is probably much more interesting, true."

Just thought that you thought a 5-year olds work was more interesting than Mozarts lol. Just misunderstood.

Specialization Requirements for Certification in Music (Grades K-12)--Academic Class.

(1) Plan One. A bachelor's or higher degree with an undergraduate or graduate major in music, or

(2) Plan Two. A bachelor's or higher degree with thirty (30) semester hours in music to include the areas specified below:

(a) Credit in applied music at the upper-division level,

(b) Credit in music theory,

© Credit in conducting,

(d) Credit in survey of music history,

(e) Credit in group performance such as band, orchestra, or chorus.

I don't know man, in the State of Tennessee, the No Child Left Behind Act is pretty clear on what the certification requirements are, and you've got to have a LOT more coursework than that. Unless each state is different (and NCLB is an act passed through legislation at the Federal level, I have to wonder how that works legally), there's more coursework you'll need.

Orchestration classes, in addition to the fact that I hope you play or do something (are you a vocalist?). Orchestration is a pretty standard class for undergrad composition majors, not to mention that if you're playing in orchestras or bands or operas or whatever anyway, you learn an buttload just being in rehearsals anyway. As a composer you're always learning about brass, ww, and perc etc etc performance because you're WRITING for these people and interacting with them when you're working out your pieces for performance. I also remembering covering certain things in early theory classes too. In my experience the Education performance techniques classes or whatever were always watered down anyway.

Orchestration, eh? Instrumentation and Orchestration is more like the theory behind writing for instruments. And while writing for performers and getting feedback is one way to learn to get better over time, I don't think there's anything that competes with being universally capable of performing a variety of instruments.

Now, certainly there's a discussion of knowledge and a discussion of 'qualification'. Where you're talking about 'knowledge', you thoroughly missed the point on 'qualification', and I can assure you that unless FL applies NCLB more loosely than TN, you're nowhere near qualified to teach at the grade school level. But you should be, at the MINIMUM as a composer, you're not, and that's the point.

Well I'm going straight through to get my PhD anyway, which isn't even going to be in composition, but Musicology. I'm still going to compose, but I think my strengths and skills are better served under the musicology umbrella, not to mention that I think my interests have always sort of leaned that way anyway.

By the way, were you implying that I or anyone else would just get a BM Composition degree and then go out into "the world" and think they'd just magically get commissions and scraggy or something? I REALLY REALLY hope that isn't what you were implying! Cause if you were...that's.....not good. By the way, did anyone ever tell you that life isn't about making money? Obviously you don't get a degree in MUSIC COMPOSITION and think, "Oh man what's the entry level salary for composers in America!? Oh boy!!" That's, again, my catchphrase of the night, ABSURD!

Again, you're speaking in terms of 'knowledge' and I'm speaking in terms of 'qualification'. Once again you're missing the point.

I don't have time to post more or I would. This should suffice.

Whew what a debate. Thanks AntiAtonality for the defense. Most of the disagreement seems to revolve around the "Neo-Classical" facet... which in a way confirms my view...that too much attention is given to that area of music history and we have trouble moving past it.

I still stand by my belief that in most music theory curricula, disproportionate attention is given to pre-Brahms style. After Brahms you had such an explosion of harmonic styles and rules that it is not surprising that there is not much time to go in-depth into all of them beyond basic exposure.

I realize that many of you had different experiences, and I realize I may be wrong. Maybe in Europe it's different. But based on what I have observed in the musicians I know and the fact that a disproportionate amount of music programmed in concerts features the music of Brahms and before, I stand by my opinion.

Since it has been asked, I went to San Francisco Conservatory for a BM in viola and now I go to San Jose State for composition.

"The fact is, some music is regarded as of higher quality than other music, which is how we can discern between the work of a 5-year-old doodling on some manuscript paper and the work of Mozart."

"The 5-year-old's work is probably much more interesting, true."

Just thought that you thought a 5-year olds work was more interesting than Mozarts lol. Just misunderstood.

That's a way of saying that it's very subjective and that statements like that are silly. For all we know the theoretical music made by the 5 year old may just as well be so fantastic as to eclipse Mozart. We don't know, we can't know and even then it's a personal thing.

That's a way of saying that it's very subjective and that statements like that are silly. For all we know the theoretical music made by the 5 year old may just as well be so fantastic as to eclipse Mozart. We don't know, we can't know and even then it's a personal thing.

Ah, I see... ;)

I don't know man, in the State of Tennessee, the No Child Left Behind Act is pretty clear on what the certification requirements are, and you've got to have a LOT more coursework than that. Unless each state is different (and NCLB is an act passed through legislation at the Federal level, I have to wonder how that works legally), there's more coursework you'll need.

There's more info and two types of certificates one can get. I'm not going to explain it all here, so just go to the website.

Certificate Types and Requirements

Orchestration, eh? Instrumentation and Orchestration is more like the theory behind writing for instruments. And while writing for performers and getting feedback is one way to learn to get better over time, I don't think there's anything that competes with being universally capable of performing a variety of instruments.

I don't need to be able to play a Mozart flute concerto to be able to write well for the flute. This notion is ridiculous. I have a strong background in performance, and personally, I think that is much more beneficial than having what will bound to be half assed experience in a multitude of instruments.

Now, certainly there's a discussion of knowledge and a discussion of 'qualification'. Where you're talking about 'knowledge', you thoroughly missed the point on 'qualification', and I can assure you that unless FL applies NCLB more loosely than TN, you're nowhere near qualified to teach at the grade school level. But you should be, at the MINIMUM as a composer, you're not, and that's the point.

I looked at the TN Dpt of Education site and saw nothing which specifically pointed to what courses one should take or what academic credentials one should have. I saw a pdf file with a list of standards but that's pretty different. Also no, FL applies the same NCLB standards.

Whew what a debate. Thanks AntiAtonality for the defense. Most of the disagreement seems to revolve around the "Neo-Classical" facet... which in a way confirms my view...that too much attention is given to that area of music history and we have trouble moving past it.

According to what? Do you have proof?

I still stand by my belief that in most music theory curricula, disproportionate attention is given to pre-Brahms style. After Brahms you had such an explosion of harmonic styles and rules that it is not surprising that there is not much time to go in-depth into all of them beyond basic exposure.

According to what? What are "most" of these schools you refer to? Can you provide proof please.

I realize that many of you had different experiences, and I realize I may be wrong. Maybe in Europe it's different. But based on what I have observed in the musicians I know and the fact that a disproportionate amount of music programmed in concerts features the music of Brahms and before, I stand by my opinion.

Antiatonality and Beeri, education is not predicated on the amount of things you do or do not know.

You both do a lot of complaining about things you don't know or your apparent lack of skill.

You know, I can't play basketball that well, I probably wouldn't be able to get into the NBA, is this system broken? Is the NBA unjustifiably prejudiced against people who lack skill in playing basketball?

I'm a brass player, I'm a fairly good player, but could I get into the Chicago Symphony? Probably not. Is the CSO unfairly biased against people who don't have the abilities or the skill to join their ranks?

I know this argument is a tad fallacious, but hey, nothing compared to the phallusies you guys are heaping up on my plate ;).

Now listen guys, don't come back here until you have some numbers, an article, several articles, an academic review, SOMETHING, SOME KIND OF PROOF, even hearsay! Just bring me something besides the "Well I didn't learn this at my school and now I'm not qualified to do anything because of the evil university system." I don't feel any pity for you until otherwise. In the meantime I'll be busy with important htings.

I looked at the TN Dpt of Education site and saw nothing which specifically pointed to what courses one should take or what academic credentials one should have. I saw a pdf file with a list of standards but that's pretty different. Also no, FL applies the same NCLB standards.

Yeah, if that's the case, you need an academic endorsement. It's clearly shown under the different licensing numbers. Under K-12 Secondary High School Music, you HAVE to have an academic endorsement before you're even eligible to take the Praxis, which takes you right back to the requirements for certification, which I have in writing and can provide later. Really, it should be available in any college handbook/course manual that includes music education.

Bottom line being, the composition degree should be better, should qualify you for work in music either as an educator, a performer, a conductor... something. In other words, it's a degree you HAVE to have another concentration with, unlike the other degrees which pretty much "qualify" you for work in the field of music without the need for other coursework or concentration. It doesn't need to be called anything else, it can be a Comp Degree, but it should carry with it concentration areas depending on your interests and appropriate coursework to qualify you for work beyond the degree.

Just my opinion... long winded as it is.

Interesting - I finally got around to reading it. :)

Whew what a debate. Thanks AntiAtonality for the defense. Most of the disagreement seems to revolve around the "Neo-Classical" facet... which in a way confirms my view...that too much attention is given to that area of music history and we have trouble moving past it.

I still stand by my belief that in most music theory curricula, disproportionate attention is given to pre-Brahms style. After Brahms you had such an explosion of harmonic styles and rules that it is not surprising that there is not much time to go in-depth into all of them beyond basic exposure.

I realize that many of you had different experiences, and I realize I may be wrong. Maybe in Europe it's different. But based on what I have observed in the musicians I know and the fact that a disproportionate amount of music programmed in concerts features the music of Brahms and before, I stand by my opinion.

Since it has been asked, I went to San Francisco Conservatory for a BM in viola and now I go to San Jose State for composition.

Your opinions are correct. I'd ignore most of these guys. Their idea of study in 20th-century techniques is a wiki article.

Just sayin'. :cool:

Please let's try to stay civil.

Please let's try to stay civil.

You took out all the hostility in my post. :(

Whew what a debate. Thanks AntiAtonality for the defense. Most of the disagreement seems to revolve around the "Neo-Classical" facet... which in a way confirms my view...that too much attention is given to that area of music history and we have trouble moving past it.

neoclassical music =/= classical revivalism, kthx

After about 10 years freelancing and touring around the world, I think I'm entitled to an educated opinion. If u disagree, it's your loss.

But you want numbers? Go to the American Symphony Orchestra League's website. They keep statistics on what is played by major orchestras. ORR Current-League of American Orchestras

and look at the proportion of music that is pre-Brahms.

I think this is at least partly explained by my original claim in the essay.

First two minor points, then the one important point:

1. Those are just orchestras, not all performers and in the 20th century many composers have distinctly moved away from the classical orchestra, to more mixed ensemble pieces.

2. Music earlier than the late 19th century is easier to perform for orchestras since it often requires a smaller amount of musician (which also makes it much cheaper to perform).

3. Sure enough, Beethoven may still be played more than Strauss or Ferneyhough. So what? What has that to do with education? In a harmony class the teacher is not going to choose his topic based on what the local symphony orchestra plays most.

It's clear that it's impossible to cover every composer's technique in depth and especially around the turn of century, with this huge variety of changes and schools springing up all over Europe (or even just a single city like Paris). No school will be able to cover all of that. AA however said that 12-tone technique and set theory was discussed, but just not "what he was interested in most", i.e. things like the Tristan Prelude. This shows exactly that the problem is not that things after a certain point of time are no longer taught, but that some people were just lucky and weren't taught the precise thing they were personally interested in. But how do you want to teach the personal favourite topic of every single student there? The only way out of that is to have specialised analysis classes that focus on certain areas between which the students can choose - which I find an entirely good idea, and I think it already exists in many places (it did at my school in any case).

The same goes for things like learning other instruments etc. I don't think there's much of a point in having every composition student take lessons in every instrument. It won't magically make you a better instrumentator. And it's also a bit pointless to include totally other "qualifications" in a composition degree just to make you "fit for a job". Studying composition should be about composing - how you earn your money later is a slightly different topic. There are tons of people who study composition and already earn plenty of money, and yet others who study composition and are perfectly ready to take any scrafty job they can find, just to be able to compose on the side. That's all perfectly fine. But asking to include a qualification as a piano teacher or conductor in a composition degree just to make it useful for earning money is like introducing economics classes in a philosophy curriculum - it's just something entirely different. If you want to study philosophy or composition then -that's- what you should be able to focus on foremost.

Now personally, I'm all for a wide musical education. I'm all for learning instruments, conducting, theory, history, even music journalism or what else. But that's not for everybody. There are already so many music students who complain about having almost no time to practice their instruments because they have so many theory classes and other assignments that have next to nothing to do with their field of study - but of course the point of studying the violin should also be having enough time to practice the violin, and the same goes for composing. An academic education is not primarily a "job training". It is about learning about a particular topic, not about prescribing what you later do with it, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

AA however said that 12-tone technique and set theory was discussed, but just not "what he was interested in most", i.e. things like the Tristan Prelude. This shows exactly that the problem is not that things after a certain point of time are no longer taught, but that some people were just lucky and weren't taught the precise thing they were personally interested in.

Well, this would be true if composition lessons continued where theory left off, or if another course provided continuation of that information. From my experience, neither was the case. The Tristan, in all of my 9+ years in school, was discussed ONE TIME, the harmonic principles behind it, ONCE, and I count myself lucky that I even got THAT much material. I pleaded... I BEGGED to be given more guidance in that direction in my music, but professors were either unwilling or admitted being unable to guide me in that direction. So, I've been left, like I was much of my high school education, to teach myself. That's the only reason I can write the way I can... because MUCH of my compositional prowess is self-taught, and NOT what I was offered in composition lessons.

The bottom line was I was taught what THEY wanted to teach me, NOT what I went to school to learn.

The same goes for things like learning other instruments etc. I don't think there's much of a point in having every composition student take lessons in every instrument. It won't magically make you a better instrumentator. And it's also a bit pointless to include totally other "qualifications" in a composition degree just to make you "fit for a job". Studying composition should be about composing - how you earn your money later is a slightly different topic. There are tons of people who study composition and already earn plenty of money, and yet others who study composition and are perfectly ready to take any scrafty job they can find, just to be able to compose on the side. That's all perfectly fine. But asking to include a qualification as a piano teacher or conductor in a composition degree just to make it useful for earning money is like introducing economics classes in a philosophy curriculum - it's just something entirely different. If you want to study philosophy or composition then -that's- what you should be able to focus on foremost.

I understand this point, and in my opinion, many of the areas of specialization will make you a better composer, which is the only reason I recommend them. It's not JUST about qualifying someone for a skill within the realm of music industry, it's about improving the information offerings. Learning how to perform on instruments improves a composer's intuitive process in writing for those instruments. Take two composers writing a chamber work for guitar. One of them has played guitar before, even just at a basic level... the other has never touched one or bothered to know anything more about it than is written in a book. You're going to tell me that the second composer will do a better job than the first? I doubt it.

Learning about how to educate musicians reinforces what we learn as composers. Being able to teach theory as opposed to just learning how to analyze improves our abilities and reinforces the knowledge we draw from when we create music. Conducting, and musicianship in general, helps our imagery of the performance of a work. All of these skills focus our knowledge and improve our command of our technique. I imagine you agree with these statements, Gardener. I just have to wonder what the objection really is to this, because you almost appear as though you're on the fence. What did I miss?

Now personally, I'm all for a wide musical education. I'm all for learning instruments, conducting, theory, history, even music journalism or what else. But that's not for everybody. There are already so many music students who complain about having almost no time to practice their instruments because they have so many theory classes and other assignments that have next to nothing to do with their field of study - but of course the point of studying the violin should also be having enough time to practice the violin, and the same goes for composing. An academic education is not primarily a "job training". It is about learning about a particular topic, not about prescribing what you later do with it, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

I think both functions... job training and learning... go hand in hand. You won't sacrifice anything or lose out by including more courses or making adjustments. I think from a 'practical' perspective, the composition degree is completely worthless. From a 'knowledge' perspective, it's priceless. Now, these aren't mutually exclusive. The degree can include more knowledge offerings as well as being practical. So, I'm not really following how you're losing anything by having concentrations within the degree. Otherwise, you just have a degree that, in order for it to have any practical application, requires an additional concentration.

First two minor points, then the one important point:

1. Those are just orchestras, not all performers and in the 20th century many composers have distinctly moved away from the classical orchestra, to more mixed ensemble pieces.

2. Music earlier than the late 19th century is easier to perform for orchestras since it often requires a smaller amount of musician (which also makes it much cheaper to perform).

3. Sure enough, Beethoven may still be played more than Strauss or Ferneyhough. So what? What has that to do with education? In a harmony class the teacher is not going to choose his topic based on what the local symphony orchestra plays most.

This is the raw data and it shows disproportional attention to the 18th and 19th centuries. I guess some will interpret it any way you like to support your argument.

But your second point, is exactly what I am saying. People concentrate on the earlier music in part because it's easier... they prefer not to challenge themselves too far beyond their comfort level.

Now personally, I'm all for a wide musical education. I'm all for learning instruments, conducting, theory, history, even music journalism or what else. But that's not for everybody. There are already so many music students who complain about having almost no time to practice their instruments because they have so many theory classes and other assignments that have next to nothing to do with their field of study - but of course the point of studying the violin should also be having enough time to practice the violin, and the same goes for composing. An academic education is not primarily a "job training". It is about learning about a particular topic, not about prescribing what you later do with it, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

I'll agree with you there. I went to a conservatory thinking I'm gonna practice only on my instrument but I ended up taking dozens of extra courses, and I am now making a living in music doing a lot more than just playing the violin-- teaching, writing about music, performing, composing, arranging...

But your second point, is exactly what I am saying. People concentrate on the earlier music in part because it's easier... they prefer not to challenge themselves too far beyond their comfort level.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLL. "Challenging themselves" has nothing to do with it. The MONEY IS NOT THERE.

"Hey poor family, why don't you move to an upscale neighborhood? I guess you're not adventurous enough, huh."

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLL. "Challenging themselves" has nothing to do with it. The MONEY IS NOT THERE.

"Hey poor family, why don't you move to an upscale neighborhood? I guess you're not adventurous enough, huh."

And the money is not there precisely because audiences are not willing to challenge themselves and attend a program of music they have never heard before. It has everything to do with it.

If you think LOLLING your way through an argument is going to make it stronger, try again.

And the money is not there precisely because audiences are not willing to challenge themselves and attend a program of music they have never heard before. It has everything to do with it.

But your second point, is exactly what I am saying. People concentrate on the earlier music in part because it's easier... they prefer not to challenge themselves too far beyond their comfort level.

Gardener referred to -performers- in the post you responded to, not the audience.

Please keep up :(

I would like to remind everyone who needs reminding that your experience does not represent a 'universal' experience for music majors; just as a coin landing on heads when you flip it does not mean that it will always land on heads.

I know that my particular experience with theory has been great. We got exposed to many different concepts, and learned quite a bit. My theory classes were great, mostly due to the professor. I think that's something to keep in mind. The university often isn't the main factor in your education - it's the professors. I also recognize that it's not the same everywhere.

I happen to be an a university that is conducive to composition and percussion both. But that wouldn't matter if my professors weren't worth anything (I would like to take this moment to point out that both Dr. Knight and Dr. Steffens, respectively, are accomplished in their fields, and, more importantly, excellent professors.) The way my professors teach is conducive to how I need to learn, and that's what makes it all work. Finding the place that is right for you, not the university system as a whole, is the important thing.

I'll bite. from here: http://www.americanorchestras.org/images/stories/ORR_0708/ORR_summary_0708.pdf

Of the top 20 most performed works, ordered chronologically by death date.

1 Mendelssohn (1729-1786)

7 Beethovens. (1770-1827)

1 Chopin (1810-1849)

1 Berlioz. (1803-1869)

1 Mussorgsky/Ravel (1839-1881)(1875-1937)

3 Tchaikovsky (1840-1893)

1 Brahms (1833-1897)

2 Dvorak (1841-1904)

1 Mahler (1860-1911)

1 Saint-Sa