Comments on: Does Going to Julliard, Yale or Harvard Make You a Better Composer?

By: Uncle Dave Lewis

Uncle Dave Lewis — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:22:03 +0000

Talent is a fragile thing, and I think it would be more accurate to say that Top-of-the-line music educators have as much chance to destroy it as those teaching in a small University or college. Certainly the connectedness that Ivy League and other big University programs have into the outlets of “success” have a better chance of introducing someone with no talent into the mainstream than small colleges and U’s have with somebody whose oozing with it. But talent has a way of rising to the top on its own, even if it takes decades; look at Ives, who just about failed his music course at Yale — did so badly that even though his ms. collection forms a major and most visited part of their archival collections, they would not award him a posthumous honorary doctorate, which is what Mrs. Ives really wanted from them. However, they did give one to Duke Ellington, who had no formal musical training. We are warned not to think in negatory terms, but in this particular glass bead game it seems only the negatives really matter — composers die, whole generations of university staff die off, and the music – if it is good and demonstrates talent – lives on. There are many small universities and colleges that provide excellent musical programs and can nuture talent as well as Juilliard, and yet there are still some in the hinterlands where the professors are trapped in thinking from 20-30 years ago and are probably doing more harm than good.
Nancarrow did not come out of the desert – he studied at my alma mater, or at least one of the predecessors of it, the Cincinnati College of Music, now the College-Conservatory. My formal education was mainly negatory, how not to do things in music, and how not to think of it in the way that they did. A better example of a true, highly functional auto-didact would be Henry Cowell, who did not graduate from high school due to his extreme learning disabilities and studied with Charles Seeger at UC Berkeley through a special arrangement; he didn’t receive any kind of diploma until he got an honorary doctorate from Wilberforce U. in 1953, but he had been teaching musicology at the New School as early as 1928. This kind of strength of character shows that — even without “good” paper, and for Cowell it was worse after 1940 when he was an ex-convict — relevance can be its own reward.

Also, J.M. Hauer most certainly does NOT suck — check out Gottfreid Rabl’s CPO recording of the Violin Concerto et al,
one of my favorite orchestral albums of recent years. UD

By: Paul H. Muller

Paul H. Muller — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 18:18:42 +0000

At the risk of stretching an analogy, composing music, I think, is somewhat like building chairs. I think of Bach – he was brought up in a musical household and thus learned the practical nuts and bolts of his craft from his family and surroundings. When in Leipzig he had to make music that was functional – music to illustrate scripture for church services – and he had to do so rapidly. The music was made from standard materials – harmony, counterpoint, etc and had a standard form – chorale, chorus, aria, recitative, etc. just like chairs are made from wood and cloth and must have a certain shape.

So it is hard to argue that Bach’s art resided in his understanding of form or materials as these were available and used by everyone. The technical parts were a given, something he would have learned growing up. Perhaps this is the role of the university.

But what Bach did with those materials and forms constituted his art, and this probably cannot be taught.

So a Bach chair would be useful, comfortable, sturdy – like many others- but a Bach chair would have an unmistakable look and feel.

The university must first teach (or at least verify) mastery of the practical nuts and bolts of music. Art is what the individual adds when the basics have been mastered.

By: Christopher Bush

Christopher Bush — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 04:01:25 +0000

Ha…you’re very right, James. Perhaps I should have taken a few more classes involving writing comprehensibly.

I’ll try again:

If : Only technical aspects of composition can be taught; one can’t teach a student to be good composer, only a decent technician; Conservatories turn out better technicians…

Then: A conservatory would be the best place to be as at least you’d get the technical aspects down pat.

Jeez, brings me back to my BASIC days.

Am I allowed to write a dissertation using that form? It would make life easier.

By: jamescombs

jamescombs — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 02:45:40 +0000

“Also, it seems to me that a conservatory would be exactly the place you’d want to go if only the technical stuff can be taught, one can’t be taught to be a composer/artist, and conservatories turn out better technicians. It would seem to me that perhaps the background technical stuff could be what’s getting in the way for a composer trying to find his/her path.” – Christopher

That paragraph flows but it doesn’t makes sense.

By: Christopher Bush

Christopher Bush — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 02:28:04 +0000

No harm in the quip about the name. My parents gave it to me and I’m happy to carry it. I’ve also been happy to explain just how distant my familial relationship is to the head of the current administration whenever asked. It’s old hat.

Also, having trained at NEC and all that, I also recognize trolling occasionally.

Also, it seems to me that a conservatory would be exactly the place you’d want to go if only the technical stuff can be taught, one can’t be taught to be a composer/artist, and conservatories turn out better technicians. It would seem to me that perhaps the background technical stuff could be what’s getting in the way for a composer trying to find his/her path.

Also, I don’t think NEC is an exception at all. I’ve played bluegrass from MSM-trained composers, minimalist chamber music from Juilliard-trained composers, and rock-12tone hybrid music from Yale-trained composers (Wasn’t Yale mentioned by someone as part of the conservatory east-coast coven?). NEC just happens to be as varied as everyone else. Just a little more available time to study music in the curriculum.

By: lawrencedillon

lawrencedillon — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:11:53 +0000

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

By: J.C. Combs

J.C. Combs — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:25:41 +0000

100% of good composers are born with the gift. The gift meaning outstanding ear and natural mathematic ability in the area of composition. I haven’t delved into what part of math it is. I’m sure someone else has a better take on that than me. The other aspect is the natural ability to shape something into a work. Think about back in the hayday of melodic lines. Similar to writing a story. We can teach grammar, but the story….

By: lawrencedillon

lawrencedillon — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:13:43 +0000

Help me out here: when you say 100% for everyone, do you mean everyone has the innate potential to be a “good composer,” or do you mean that 100% of good composers are born with the gift?

By: J.C. Combs

J.C. Combs — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:32:33 +0000

Absolutely 100% for everyone. Perhaps what is confusing the conversation is that we associate unique voice with composition. as in substitute composer with “good composer.” after all, who cares about composers without their own voice. isn’t that is what is meant by you can’t teach composition? so you are both right. you can teach composition, but you cannot teach someone to become a composer with their own voice.

By: lawrencedillon

lawrencedillon — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:26:47 +0000

No, that’s not what I was saying, although I understand your point. I’m trying to understand if David believes that what he calls “composing itself” is 100% innate, with no connection to learning, regardless of who is doing the teaching.