So In The Process Of Composition, How Much Does Technique Play A Part?/Do Composers, In 2008, Need Technique {2}

[Steve Moshier]

Do Composers Follow A 'Process'?

[Steve Moshier]

Spectral analysis, micro-tonal applications, world music appropriations, whose got time for 'technique'.

[Steve Moshier]

Technique?: Yeah, that concept about handling time effectively? Oh, That's sooo 'old school'!

[James Ross]

I compose softly, with a big stick.

[Steve Moshier]

LOL - good to hear from you, James.

James Ross said:

I compose softly, with a big stick.

[Shane W. Cadman]

I think technique is essential. How do you know how to break the rules without knowing the rules first? If you don't know, then you usually just end up reinventing the wheel. As the great and powerful Kenny once said: "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em."

A quick story here. In 1989 I was in a master class with Philip Glass in the CSU Summer Arts program. One of the students in there used noise (white, pink, etc.) as his musical materials. He explained his philosophy as a composer, which included refusing to learn theory, counterpoint, etc. as he felt it would negatively influence his artistic expression. He then played his piece for Philip and the class. When it was over, Philip said (and I'm paraphrasing here, as my memory is a bit faulty when going back that far), "That's an interesting piece, but what are you going to do when you're tired of working with noise?" Well, there it is.

[Jeff Harrington]

That's a great story and a great point. Artists need skills in order to expand their palettes. I've heard for years about people not wanting to learn stuff because they thought it would get in the way. I've never found that to be the case. I think they're equating a nascent 'know it all' kind of vibe with true technique.

Shane W. Cadman said:

I think technique is essential. How do you know how to break the rules without knowing the rules first? If you don't know, then you usually just end up reinventing the wheel. As the great and powerful Kenny once said: "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em."

A quick story here. In 1989 I was in a master class with Philip Glass in the CSU Summer Arts program. One of the students in there used noise (white, pink, etc.) as his musical materials. He explained his philosophy as a composer, which included refusing to learn theory, counterpoint, etc. as he felt it would negatively influence his artistic expression. He then played his piece for Philip and the class. When it was over, Philip said (and I'm paraphrasing here, as my memory is a bit faulty when going back that far), "That's an interesting piece, but what are you going to do when you're tired of working with noise?" Well, there it is.

[James Ross]

I think of technique this way: the skill to do what you need to do. And I don't believe there is one set of techniques (rules) that is essential to all. That argument of learning the rules to break the rules just doesn't make any sense to me. It may sound cliche but, what rules? The ones that let you write counterpoint like Palestrina? Voice leading? Which ones? Where are they? If you break a rule and good things result, is that a new rule?

I'm not advocating being ignorant. It's a matter of figuring out what you want to do, and doing the work necessary to make that happen: thinking, listening, reading, interacting with other musicians. etc. I don't think being ignorant is a very good approach to anything. Just try to find what works for you. And push it aside when it stops working. That's not breaking the rules. It's doing what works. You can't let any rule or nonrule get in the way. If you meet the Buddha, kill him.

And I, too, think the Glass story is a good one. He seems to be suggesting that at some point, the young noise composer is going to have to start doing some investigations. If not, the ground will start coming up at him very quickly.

[J.C. Combs]

James Ross said:

I think of technique this way: the skill to do what you need to do. And I don't believe there is one set of techniques (rules) that is essential to all. That argument of learning the rules to break the rules just doesn't make any sense to me. It may sound cliche but, what rules? The ones that let you write counterpoint like Palestrina? Voice leading? Which ones? Where are they? If you break a rule and good things result, is that a new rule?

I'm not advocating being ignorant. It's a matter of figuring out what you want to do, and doing the work necessary to make that happen: thinking, listening, reading, interacting with other musicians. etc. I don't think being ignorant is a very good approach to anything. Just try to find what works for you. And push it aside when it stops working. That's not breaking the rules. It's doing what works. You can't let any rule or nonrule get in the way. If you meet the Buddha, kill him.

And I, too, think the Glass story is a good one. He seems to be suggesting that at some point, the young noise composer is going to have to start doing some investigations. If not, the ground will start coming up at him very quickly.

Agree. A composer should always be concerned with technique as long as it is their technique they're concerned with. I've heard the argument that technique is useless, but that statement makes no sense considering everyone employs it whether they are aware of that or not. So I respectively disagree with Shane, in that I believe re-inventing the wheel is what music is all about (at least in some circles). Its not science and its not medicine. Thank god you don't need a license to practice it. But I also would agree with Shane's point concerning aspects of composition where one does need to utilize proven methods in order to attain certain sounds; the example of a popular film composer or academic composer who needs to learn techniques in order to instruct. But the latter examples are what confuses what the issue is: creating original music.

[Jeff Harrington]

Hey Mastro Combs... It's so cool seeing your progression online. We've known each other online for like 8 years? Seeing your thoughts progress and your music evolve is very very interesting.

Kill the Buddha... exactly! Now I've gone and said tooo much.


J.C. Combs said:

James Ross said:

I think of technique this way: the skill to do what you need to do. And I don't believe there is one set of techniques (rules) that is essential to all. That argument of learning the rules to break the rules just doesn't make any sense to me. It may sound cliche but, what rules? The ones that let you write counterpoint like Palestrina? Voice leading? Which ones? Where are they? If you break a rule and good things result, is that a new rule?

I'm not advocating being ignorant. It's a matter of figuring out what you want to do, and doing the work necessary to make that happen: thinking, listening, reading, interacting with other musicians. etc. I don't think being ignorant is a very good approach to anything. Just try to find what works for you. And push it aside when it stops working. That's not breaking the rules. It's doing what works. You can't let any rule or nonrule get in the way. If you meet the Buddha, kill him.

And I, too, think the Glass story is a good one. He seems to be suggesting that at some point, the young noise composer is going to have to start doing some investigations. If not, the ground will start coming up at him very quickly.

Agree. A composer should always be concerned with technique as long as it is their technique they're concerned with. I've heard the argument that technique is useless, but that statement makes no sense considering everyone employs it whether they are aware of that or not. So I respectively disagree with Shane, in that I believe re-inventing the wheel is what music is all about (at least in some circles). Its not science and its not medicine. Thank god you don't need a license to practice it. But I also would agree with Shane's point concerning aspects of composition where one does need to utilize proven methods in order to attain certain sounds; the example of a popular film composer or academic composer who needs to learn techniques in order to instruct. But the latter examples are what confuses what the issue is: creating original music.

[J.C. Combs]

"Hey Mastro Combs... It's so cool seeing your progression online. We've known each other online for like 8 years? Seeing your thoughts progress and your music evolve is very very interesting.

Kill the Buddha... exactly! Now I've gone and said tooo much." - Jeff

Would have been nice to have started at the this point. Before I get to where I want to, I'll be 90 with one foot in the grave ;)

[Shane W. Cadman]

I think as an artist you start off hearing/seeking/finding/developing a language with which to communicate. Knowing what type of music speaks to you , and having a basic familiarity with a variety of techniques, will speed up the process to allow you to make the art you desire to make, which is the goal.

As for creating original music, that begs an answer to this: by "original music" does that mean sounds that have not been heard in exactly that combination/organization/instrumentation before, or does it mean a style of music that has not been heard before? I am more concerned with the former, and not overly concerned. As for the latter, is that even possible? And even if it is, is it that important?

Just more fun stuff to think about. I don't think there is a correct answer except to each individual.

J.C. Combs said:

James Ross said:

I think of technique this way: the skill to do what you need to do. And I don't believe there is one set of techniques (rules) that is essential to all. That argument of learning the rules to break the rules just doesn't make any sense to me. It may sound cliche but, what rules? The ones that let you write counterpoint like Palestrina? Voice leading? Which ones? Where are they? If you break a rule and good things result, is that a new rule?

I'm not advocating being ignorant. It's a matter of figuring out what you want to do, and doing the work necessary to make that happen: thinking, listening, reading, interacting with other musicians. etc. I don't think being ignorant is a very good approach to anything. Just try to find what works for you. And push it aside when it stops working. That's not breaking the rules. It's doing what works. You can't let any rule or nonrule get in the way. If you meet the Buddha, kill him.

And I, too, think the Glass story is a good one. He seems to be suggesting that at some point, the young noise composer is going to have to start doing some investigations. If not, the ground will start coming up at him very quickly.

Agree. A composer should always be concerned with technique as long as it is their technique they're concerned with. I've heard the argument that technique is useless, but that statement makes no sense considering everyone employs it whether they are aware of that or not. So I respectively disagree with Shane, in that I believe re-inventing the wheel is what music is all about (at least in some circles). Its not science and its not medicine. Thank god you don't need a license to practice it. But I also would agree with Shane's point concerning aspects of composition where one does need to utilize proven methods in order to attain certain sounds; the example of a popular film composer or academic composer who needs to learn techniques in order to instruct. But the latter examples are what confuses what the issue is: creating original music.

[Steve Moshier]

This is all very cool and I hope more NNM members will respond!