Essay on Composition at the Moment

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

Please keep up :(

Both are obviously related.

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

But what exactly would you ask for there? That every teacher will teach every single student exactly the things they are interested in most? This only works in one-to-one music theory lessons with a teacher, and those are generally only available if you actually study music theory (at least as a minor). A teacher teaching a class will have to make her or his own assessment of what is how important to him to teach, and while he may sometimes be open for feedback from the students, he can't possibly do all of them completely justice. (But of course: There are teachers that manage this better than others.) And in lessons with your composition teacher, this is just not really the main topic. (But still, there are many composition teachers who would be willing to also go into such stuff, if you asked them. I think the ones I had would be perfectly willing to.)

But all this aside, I think it is a given that "learning to compose" is something that will always contain study of your own outside the academic curriculum, since it just is a much too wide field, with no fixed priorities and borders, to be able to cover it all. Any person who really wants to learn a lot about music will have to continue learning on the side and after the official education is over. But really, the same also applies to a lot of other fields.

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.

Well, it's not necessarily restricted to just what's written in a book even if you've never touched said instrument. You can talk to performers, question them, experiment with them, etc. which I'd all recommend to do.

And I'm actually not so sure whether the person who has dabbled a bit in playing the guitar will necessarily do a better job here. There are many people who just start learning an instrument and then base their writing for said instruments on the difficulties they experience while playing - while a professional performer might find those same difficulties ridiculously easy. A person who worked with professional performers instead of trusting his own limited practical understanding of the instrument, might come up with much more interesting things for this instrument. And some really amazing instrumental music has been written by people who were next to clueless about the actual execution - which meant that the performers had to do rather awkward and hard to play things they might never have come up with themselves, but once they pushed through that barrier, something really new and exciting was born. So sometimes it can really help to approach things really theoretically, even if they don't seem to make much sense practically on the first sight.

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.

Only if you define "practical" as "economical" though. But composing, per se, is already a perfectly practical thing (in contrast to just theoretical knowledge), just that it doesn't have a clearly defined "purpose".

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.

With "easier" I meant the investments needed for a performance. In education, it's a totally different thing, since pretty much all kinds of music have their analytical difficulties if you approach them seriously enough. You can just skim over Debussy by listing a few characteristics that are written in any textbook, or really go into it with your own questions, your own analytical methods and your own answers. And the same applies to Mozart. But I can only repeat which was stated before: There may very well be experiences like yours and some other posters in this thread according to which teachers shun "music after Brahms". There are, after all, many kinds of teachers and schools out there. But this thread shows that there are also many other people who have studied music (or composition, specifically) who did not have that experience, myself included. Personally, I learned a lot more about Debussy than Mozart. And more about Stockhausen than Mendelssohn. And my education so far certainly also has been quite holey. But the point is that I got a certain fundament that allows me to research what's missing, and what interests me on my own. If that's not the case for certain other people (such as yourself), that's sad to hear, but has probably mostly to do with particular teachers/curriculums.

Both are obviously related.

Yeah except the audience doesn't have to pay to make performances happen if they don't want to, huh. Of course I suppose the performers don't have to either, but then they don't get to eat :(

Except for donations n' such, which are great.

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.

What's up with all these gross reductions?! Reducing music to a rock in the other discussion and reducing argument to flipping of a coin?! The world is not that simple.

What are we to base our artistic opinions on if not our personal experiences? Not everything can be backed up by empirical facts, and even clear statistics can be skewed and spun to support any arguments.

%69 of statistics are made up on the spot!

%69 of statistics are made up on the spot!

ei c wut u did ther

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

What's up with all these gross reductions?! Reducing music to a rock in the other discussion and reducing argument to flipping of a coin?! The world is not that simple.

What are we to base our artistic opinions on if not our personal experiences? Not everything can be backed up by empirical facts, and even clear statistics can be skewed and spun to support any arguments.

%69 of statistics are made up on the spot!

My point was that your experiences, in anything in life, and especially in music, do not equate to the universal rule.

How many years did you spend studying proper 17th/18th century voice leading, harmony, analysis?

How many years did you spend studying any other style in depth?

I spent theory I and II studying voice leading, harmony, etc. I spent theory III studying Brahms, Wagner, etc., as well as some 12-tone, as well as having three 'listening journals' to write over what we thought about different pieces, ranging in time periods and styles. Theory IV we spent on set theory, and exploring some cage, etc.

But what exactly would you ask for there? That every teacher will teach every single student exactly the things they are interested in most?

I think you're missing my point. It's not that most of them couldn't... it was 'discouraged' in the academic curriculum... if someone wanted to learn tonal music as a composer, if they wanted to write it at the schools I went to, generally (with some exceptions) it was frowned upon. Most comp majors I went to school with didn't mind, as many of them were so mesmerized by the idea that they didn't have to use the traditional theory rules at all. Those of us who came with aspirations of learning the methods and tricks that Hollywood composers used and learned were obviously disappointed... but to be discouraged from following that inspiration even in the concert realm at a university... that was just downright unacceptable to me, even if they 'allowed it to happen...' all hush, hush etc. The Masters Degree was worse... there, if you wrote anything that sounded close to 'Pop-ish' or using even some of the Tonal hierarchy without some kind of extreme dissonance (dominant to tonic... forget it) wouldn't even qualify your work for your portfolio. It was that ridiculous. The consistency in this trend from one school to the next, and the overall feedback I received from students and professors of other universities, was that this is quite common.

So, if you didn't have this experience, count yourself fortunate.

I'll respond to the rest later.

BTW The Mendelssohn dates are way off, but it makes not much difference here.

Whoops, wrong Mendelssohn. Told you my history's bad. The dates are 1809-1847. So another contemporary of Brahms.

OK let me put it this way. Answer these question honestly.

How many years did you spend studying proper 17th/18th century voice leading, harmony, analysis?

2 semesters of harmony. Not in depth, not even with a benchmark book, just with the prof telling some of the rulesand giving us homework to complete. Voice leading? Little to none. Analysis was weak.

How many years did you spend studying any other style in depth?

2 semesters of post-romantic study, deep analysis: harmonic, thematic, and (independently) note-choice and more recently timbre.

I've studied Serial techniques relatively in depth pretty much since I saw it in 3rd semester.

Computer Music techniques I've studied continuously since 4th semester. (Mind you, it took me 5 years to get my degrees.)

World music I had a semester of, but took time to work with my professor to understand Balinese and African musics better.

Modern folk I worked day after day after day as a gigging bassist.

I took 4 semesters of jazz combo, not including Jazz Arrangement, African-American Music (which was more of a sociology class than music), and my work in modern folk, which was jazz-influenced.

All at a non-conservatory, normal research uni.

EDIT: AA; of course I wasn't there, but a straight V-I movement should be frowned on in almost any music, including most pastiches...

Hmmm, I sorta know the faculty at USF. Hmmm....

No?

OK let me put it this way. Answer these question honestly.

How many years did you spend studying proper 17th/18th century voice leading, harmony, analysis?

How many years did you spend studying any other style in depth?

I am honestly curious to hear the answer from a lot of musicians.

I basically have my BM Composition now...4 years...so I'll comment on that...

Basic Theory I - IV: Common practice period to present. Adequate amount of time was spent on all periods etc.

19th century analysis: Emphasized 1820-1890 stuff

20th century analysis: Rachmaninov to present. Started in late romantic to bridge to Debussy and Hindemith and others. Shostakovich, etc etc. We went through all that good stuff.

Post-Tonal ear training: Same as above, except ear training and singing tone rows and dictating them and whatnot. Or..like...hey I'm gonna play this row, and then I'm going to play a different form of it and you have to tell me what the form is...P8, or R(I2) or whatever.

That isn't even including individual study time and lessons and stuff. So I dunno, I guess you could day I studied all of those things and more for 4+ years? I also have a background in jazz, I dunno if that helps any...

if someone wanted to learn tonal music as a composer, if they wanted to write it at the schools I went to, generally (with some exceptions) it was frowned upon.

Those of us who came with aspirations of learning the methods and tricks that Hollywood composers used and learned were obviously disappointed... but to be discouraged from following that inspiration even in the concert realm at a university... that was just downright unacceptable to me, even if they 'allowed it to happen...' all hush, hush etc.

Tricks? You went to college to learn TRICKS!??!?! You know what John Williams learned when he went to college? THE SAME THINGS I LEARNED!!!!

The Masters Degree was worse... there, if you wrote anything that sounded close to 'Pop-ish' or using even some of the Tonal hierarchy without some kind of extreme dissonance (dominant to tonic... forget it) wouldn't even qualify your work for your portfolio. It was that ridiculous.

That is pretty ridiculous, you should have done your homework before enrolling into that institution. That school has no right to be snobbish in that way anyway, considering the people that go there.

The consistency in this trend from one school to the next, and the overall feedback I received from students and professors of other universities, was that this is quite common.

This is a complete and utter fabrication and I'm really tired of your lies in every single one of your posts. Until you cough up these actual conversations and specify WHO you talked to at these other schools I'm going to have to keep on assuming that you are just an outright liar with nothing to do except go on to the internet and lie instead of getting your grades up, writing better compositions and bettering your own situation. I wouldn't be surprised if you were some sort of staunch conservative libertarian. Well hey buster PICK YOURSELF UP by the BOOTSTRAPS and MAKE SOMETHING of yourself.

From what you've told me in private and what you've said on this board and reflecting on my OWN academic experiences, and all the concerts I have been to and all the student composers that I know, I can not help but find grave discrepancies in everything you say here. Tell us Antiatonality, or tell me, tell SOMEONE, who you spoke to! You never elaborate on what or who these ***mystery sources*** are. If you can't elaborate then I have nothing else to assume than that you're a bigger liar than Glenn Beck: a liar with a bag of sour grapes and a chip on his shoulder.

So who are these students? Who are these faculty members? Think about your next words long and hard, because there are two Floridians right here on this board who are very familiar with where you went to graduate school, and if you lie or exaggerate ANYTHING we will expose you and you feel nothing but humiliation with zero pity until your last dying days. So please, again, tell us....who these people are and what they actually said :) Hearsay does not hold up in a court of law, so I see no reason why I or anyone else should accept such claims.

To defend my own institution, you say that you were told by students and faculty at my university that we have this alleged problem which you purport. With your post, you basically implied that the extreme problems you had at your place of higher learning were the same at "every school you contacted," which includes mine. Well AA, with the power of the internet and many actual primary sources, attending concerts and actually knowing people etc I have seen nothing which would support your claims. Anything resembling pop-ish? Nothing which might look towards tonality? My good man, ALL of the professors at my university write tonal music! It's certainly eclectic music, and one of them I would consider run off of early 20th century modernism, but that puts him even closer. You told me you were told otherwise, that must be a lie. And our students? One our doctoral students wrote music for a tv show on FOX, others write music electroacoustic music, some of it bears a striking resemblance to a lot of modern electropop and whatnot. No one burns these people at the stake, and they're leading successful professional and academic careers. You mean to tell me, that a school as eclectic as this, had people and faculty tell you things which support your cockamamy theory?? Give me a break.

This is a complete and utter fabrication and I'm really tired of your lies in every single one of your posts. Until you cough up these actual conversations and specify WHO you talked to at these other schools I'm going to have to keep on assuming that you are just an outright liar with nothing to do except go on to the internet and lie instead of getting your grades up... Give me a break.

First, my grades have never been below a 3.0 in anything, be it high school, undergrad, or masters, the latter being the degree I scored the highest in simply due to my effort and patience with the system prior to graduation. Second, you assume WAY too much about me... and good for you that you had a different experience (sincerely, I'm glad). Pretty much anyone who actually enjoyed the work they did at my grad school (i.e. didn't care for anything but the most unconventional compositions and frowned on anything that sounded otherwise) received full scholarships to these schools you claim are just absolutely the best out there... that don't fit the mold I've described.

I'm not naming names, first and foremost, because I don't have the consent of any party to do so. You can make your demands until you're blue in the face, I have no problem with letting you think the worst of me. Quite honestly, your tone towards me doesn't warrant my concern. But you can hate me for 'spreading lies' as you like to call it, or you can hold contempt for those institutions that infuse those experiences within their curricula.

I said at the beginning that there will be exceptions to any general statement. I've said it time and again on this forum... and I won't say that my experience is 'uniquely mine' BECAUSE IT IS NOT. Now, you had a different experience. Wonderful. I'm happy for you. But here I see a guy (beeri) who has had a similar experience, who describes EXACTLY what kind of foolishness occurs. And if all you can do is come back with, "Well, you should have done your research," then you missed the whole point of discussing it at all and should go about your business.

Honestly, I could care less what you think you know about college and life in generally, because I know you have yet to experience every lick of intolerance and incredulity within the university system. And I'm not alone in the idea that the university system is not adequate to meet the needs of everyone who walks through the door of academia...

Well, if your idea is REALLY to make a site with music pros giving lessons/online seminars/keynotes, whatever, then that's actually cool and in theory I'd volunteer to participate myself.

I also don't like universities too much and how rigid music education ends up being when the truth is that everyone needs different things. Moving education towards a digital medium where it can/may be more flexible and ultimately more useful is a good idea and I think it could work. Though, none of it replaces individual teachers, specially for composition, it can be a great help for people who can't simply pay for it or live in places where they simply don't have the infrastructure to do anything.

Obviously, human interaction is necessary. I don't use this as support for why universities are bad, but simply to show that I am not alone in my opinions that CHANGE is NECESSARY. Please get it through your head that I'm not out to hurt any person or entity. I'm simply a guy who wound up getting a raw deal, either through taking bad advice (Masters) or not having the resources to get a better experience (Undergrad). You seem to think your school represents all that is good in the university system. Okay, great. You've got no complaints. Kudos to you! But I DO, and I will voice them freely because that is my frickin' right! I was clear that my statements do not apply universally to EVERY institution, but the very problem that my statements APPLY AT ALL, and that I am NOT ALONE in my experiences, is the very reason I post them, man! And if you have a problem with that, why don't you go back and read the Bill of Rights since you have such an interest in legal matters. You'll clearly see that I'm free to voice my opinions and experiences, whether the hell you like it or not.

So, no, I'm not going to provide individual names, I'm not going to soil the names of all the institutions I've attended (notice I've never, NEVER publicly provided names of ANY of them in association with my remarks... and don't intend to do so), and I'm certainly not going to worry about whether you think I'm a liar. Your approval of me just isn't that important, Gavin. Live with it.

I'm not falling into your victim trap, there are no innocent victims in this country.

Listen guy, I'm not even saying I disagree with you, I certainly agree with maybe.....10% of what you've said. I mean sure, some of that is fairly reasonable and can be easily proven. HOWEVEEEERRRR.....man, if it's one thing I am, it's a good judge of character, and I see right through everything you say. Your language is indicative of a person who feels they've been wronged, am I right? Is it also not true that in post after post you paint yourself as a victim and ONLY a victim? You want retribution for the world that has wronged you. YOU wanted something.........but no one ever gave it you. YOU pined for this education....but no one ever lent their hand out and gave it you. "How dare they? I'll show them." So how do you "show them"? You complain. Hell, if anything you should have gone to one of the schools that you so hated, and *learned how they thought*. "Learn thy enemy," that's what I always say. You're not supposed to go to a school where you agree 100% with everyone there anyway, you're supposed to go to school to learn about differing viewpoints and to engage in dialectics. It's from this point that you gain an identity and really learn who you are and what you want. THEN you break the system from the inside! You think everyone that studied with Schoenberg agreed with him and wanted to be him? Of course not, look no further than John Cage, you know this. I would express pity on your behalf, but no one deserves pity. Not you, not me, not anyone. There will be no pity party here, and I won't shed tears for your lack of experience studying Ludus Tonalis in your undergraduate years. So uuhhh, I guess that's it. I have no stake in your life anyway, I obviously don't care. Soo uuuhh good luck with your revolution, if you need any contacts feel free to give me a call.

Victim? If that's your interpretation, then so be it. It's an opinion you're entitled to.

Like I said, you think you know more about me than you really do... and you assume a LOT about me that just ISN'T true. If you do agree with maybe 10% of what I believe, then good. If you disagree with 90%, I'm fine with that too. No one is universally going to share the same experience I did, and I wouldn't want to take away from anyone who actually enjoys studying what I found unsatisfying in my education. In no way is my experience going to be the same as yours... that being said, my experience and reaction to it is not the ONLY experience with similarities either. If there are people out there who have had similar struggles, it's not because those of us who have had them are throwing 'pity parties'.

In many respects, I do understand the side of universities that teach in the way I experienced. But I just don't agree with it for the reasons I've already stated countless times over.

As far as your offer for contacts, sure, if you have any contacts you think I should speak with, I'm happy to speak with them concerning the project or otherwise. Pity just isn't something I'm after... rather it's awareness that academia is not always this bed of roses that many people would otherwise assume. If my experience helps someone else become more informed and make better choices, then it's all worth it. If this music project eventually takes off, then I hope it will do even more to help.