Re: Uncomfortable calling myself a "composer".
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:36 am
I was afraid to read this thread at first as I needed to accomplish a whole lot more this past year before I felt strong enough. And I've only barely skimmed the first page so far. But it is a question I ask myself as well, since anyone I know who has serious classical composition and/or musicology training labels my stuff as instrumental pop music, considering it too naive to qualify as classical.
They're probably right, but I also wonder how much it matters -- other than that I do ALSO want to compose serious, sophisticated fare that gets deeper on each listen (like Brahms, my ultimate hero). I keep hoping I'm like Borodin, "too busy" being EXTREMELY successful at my "day job" to devote sufficient time to serious composing, until retirement.
As for approach, I honestly don't feel it matters that much, but I want to FINALLY take the time to learn a pro notation program as I know it will open up my composing in a way that MIDI projects don't, as I get boxed in by the technical considerations and unconsciously limit myself based on how hard I think it will be to pull off a polished and professional mock-up.
I tend to write mostly in my head -- it is a gift for which I take no credit; you can say it comes from the Heavens, the Ether, Shared Consciousness, is Hereditary (it DOES run in the family), or comes from Nurture as much as Nature. But I feel impelled to share it -- especially in a world where melody has disappeared in recent years from most forms of popular music.
My ideas come in gigantic bursts of light, fully intact with all parts, layers, forms, sections, instruments, etc. in place at first inspiration. I have developed short-hand techniques to capture enough of the essence quickly that the act of overly-concentrating doesn't lose the rest. Then, once the essence is captured via short-hand, I am free to elaborate on it for a fully fleshed out hand-written manuscript (though I take short-cuts there as well, since I know it will go on the computer at first opportunity).
This is how I write pop/jazz/etc. Classical is slightly different in that I feel compelled to elaborate further with continuous evolution vs. the sort of verse/chorus rotation that occurs outside classical music (even if there is a lot of variety to avoid too much carbon copy repetition). Thus, I may put stuff aside for years until the next level of inspiration hits.
My current eighteen movement suite of "musical portraits" of Impressionist painters culls from 30 years worth of material. I find that coming up with a thematic binding helps me to know when it's time to move on. I always admired Tchaikovsky's "Manfred Symphony" more than the numbered symphonies, for instance, and in general have deep respect for "programme music", especially including Ballet (for which my Impressionists Suite is intended).
As for soundtrack work, and works for live stage, that crosses a gazillion genres, and one of the things I love is the constant challenge of working outside my previous comfort zone (e.g. hillbilly banjo music; heavy metal thrashing; etc.). I think of it all as composing, as there are specific cues and lengths as well as goals that are programmatic in nature and thus don't follow a pop song format even when in the pop style.
But would I compare myself to Brahms, Borodin, or even modern minimalists like John Adams, Steve Reich, or Philip Glass? No way. I will be lucky if I get to a level where friends and family members who are qualified to judge, consider my music to actually be "classical". And even if that never happens, there is no goal in life that interests me more than having my music choreographed for Ballet. It is not a trivial goal -- I consider writing for choreography to be extremely difficult, but because it is the performance art for which I have the most passion, I want to contribute to it somehow before I die.
So, the bottom line is that I have no embarrassment about ANY of the material I produce, as I have a gift for melody, harmony, and arranging that is uncommon (at least these days). I simply desire, in addition to this, to also achieve at least some level of success in the area of music that is closest to my heart, which is classical music, and particular ballet.
I hope this is helpful for others who cross genres and get challenged by peers, friends, or family as to the "value" of what they do and whether it merits the label of "composing" for the methodologies employed or the goals achieved. In the end, everything is "composed" somehow. It's just nice to have as many tools and skills to bring to the table as possible.
Kip Winger, former bassist for Alice Cooper and his own Winger band, wrote some brilliant ballet music for a world premiere in San Francisco last year. Unlike the classical efforts of Paul McCartney or Tony Banks (Genesis), however, it seemed mature and informed and appropriate as opposed to being naive instrumental music written by a pop artist. But Kip certainly is not turning his back or showing embarrassment over what he did before. And that's the right attitude, in my view. Ultimately, all music is about communication and serves a purpose.
They're probably right, but I also wonder how much it matters -- other than that I do ALSO want to compose serious, sophisticated fare that gets deeper on each listen (like Brahms, my ultimate hero). I keep hoping I'm like Borodin, "too busy" being EXTREMELY successful at my "day job" to devote sufficient time to serious composing, until retirement.
As for approach, I honestly don't feel it matters that much, but I want to FINALLY take the time to learn a pro notation program as I know it will open up my composing in a way that MIDI projects don't, as I get boxed in by the technical considerations and unconsciously limit myself based on how hard I think it will be to pull off a polished and professional mock-up.
I tend to write mostly in my head -- it is a gift for which I take no credit; you can say it comes from the Heavens, the Ether, Shared Consciousness, is Hereditary (it DOES run in the family), or comes from Nurture as much as Nature. But I feel impelled to share it -- especially in a world where melody has disappeared in recent years from most forms of popular music.
My ideas come in gigantic bursts of light, fully intact with all parts, layers, forms, sections, instruments, etc. in place at first inspiration. I have developed short-hand techniques to capture enough of the essence quickly that the act of overly-concentrating doesn't lose the rest. Then, once the essence is captured via short-hand, I am free to elaborate on it for a fully fleshed out hand-written manuscript (though I take short-cuts there as well, since I know it will go on the computer at first opportunity).
This is how I write pop/jazz/etc. Classical is slightly different in that I feel compelled to elaborate further with continuous evolution vs. the sort of verse/chorus rotation that occurs outside classical music (even if there is a lot of variety to avoid too much carbon copy repetition). Thus, I may put stuff aside for years until the next level of inspiration hits.
My current eighteen movement suite of "musical portraits" of Impressionist painters culls from 30 years worth of material. I find that coming up with a thematic binding helps me to know when it's time to move on. I always admired Tchaikovsky's "Manfred Symphony" more than the numbered symphonies, for instance, and in general have deep respect for "programme music", especially including Ballet (for which my Impressionists Suite is intended).
As for soundtrack work, and works for live stage, that crosses a gazillion genres, and one of the things I love is the constant challenge of working outside my previous comfort zone (e.g. hillbilly banjo music; heavy metal thrashing; etc.). I think of it all as composing, as there are specific cues and lengths as well as goals that are programmatic in nature and thus don't follow a pop song format even when in the pop style.
But would I compare myself to Brahms, Borodin, or even modern minimalists like John Adams, Steve Reich, or Philip Glass? No way. I will be lucky if I get to a level where friends and family members who are qualified to judge, consider my music to actually be "classical". And even if that never happens, there is no goal in life that interests me more than having my music choreographed for Ballet. It is not a trivial goal -- I consider writing for choreography to be extremely difficult, but because it is the performance art for which I have the most passion, I want to contribute to it somehow before I die.
So, the bottom line is that I have no embarrassment about ANY of the material I produce, as I have a gift for melody, harmony, and arranging that is uncommon (at least these days). I simply desire, in addition to this, to also achieve at least some level of success in the area of music that is closest to my heart, which is classical music, and particular ballet.
I hope this is helpful for others who cross genres and get challenged by peers, friends, or family as to the "value" of what they do and whether it merits the label of "composing" for the methodologies employed or the goals achieved. In the end, everything is "composed" somehow. It's just nice to have as many tools and skills to bring to the table as possible.
Kip Winger, former bassist for Alice Cooper and his own Winger band, wrote some brilliant ballet music for a world premiere in San Francisco last year. Unlike the classical efforts of Paul McCartney or Tony Banks (Genesis), however, it seemed mature and informed and appropriate as opposed to being naive instrumental music written by a pop artist. But Kip certainly is not turning his back or showing embarrassment over what he did before. And that's the right attitude, in my view. Ultimately, all music is about communication and serves a purpose.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I can assure you, I am not. 
