Does they way Williams writes music, give him an advantage ?

[tedfud 38]

By this i mean....as he isn't writing for piano...then orchestrating...he writes directly into the orchestra ( via very,very detailed sketches ), does this allow him to use multiple techniques simultaneously with clarity ?

I have had such a hard time doing reductions as they seem to be many instances where rather than obvious filler ( easy to leave out ) there are in fact crucial notes that have to be left in. As ludwig what call it "bristling" .

t

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

I think it allows him to focus on the music and not get distracted by anything else. Writing any other way always seemed distractingly convoluted to me, even though someone like Debussy seemed to have managed well enough with the "piano score then orchestrate" approach.

[karelm 2,903]

By this i mean....as he isn't writing for piano...then orchestrating...he writes directly into the orchestra ( via very,very detailed sketches ), does this allow him to use multiple techniques simultaneously with clarity ?

I have had such a hard time doing reductions as they seem to be many instances where rather than obvious filler ( easy to leave out ) there are in fact crucial notes that have to be left in. As ludwig what call it "bristling" .

t

I'm not exactly sure I follow the question. If you are asking what is it about JW's work habits that give him an edge in his final output, then it would have to be a combination of many things. For example, his formidable skill as a pianist is a major factor. Also, his early session experience with some of the best film composers of all time. His legendary work ethic, etc. Coming from a family that valued music deeply, etc. I would say the piano being the medium is incidental in his case to just about everything else. I bet he can out compose most anyone WITHOUT a piano too. I believe composing did not come easy to him but he worked very hard at it until it became second nature. You mention having a hard time doing score reductions, but everyone does until you do it often enough that it becomes easier.

But I'm not sure I entirely follow the question if you can elaborate further.

[Quintus 5,399]

This is a proven can of worms question but unfortunately you didn't post it in GD.

[Muad'Dib 1,801]

I don't know if his technique gives him the advantage, but his experience and musical up-bringing could certainly do. I mean, you can be a genius but without experience and knowledge passed-on from masters like Herrmann, Rosza and Mancini I don't Williams could have developed as well as he did. But I don't know if he's passing his knowledge to the next generation of film-composers.

[Ludwig 1,120]

I have had such a hard time doing reductions as they seem to be many instances where rather than obvious filler ( easy to leave out ) there are in fact crucial notes that have to be left in. As ludwig what call it "bristling" .

No doubt that's why Williams usually has 6-12 staves in his sketches rather than just 2-4.

By this i mean....as he isn't writing for piano...then orchestrating...he writes directly into the orchestra ( via very,very detailed sketches ), does this allow him to use multiple techniques simultaneously with clarity ?

I would say that it's not his process per se, but his manner of musical thought that gives his scores such brilliant orchestral colour. In other words, it wouldn't matter if he wrote for piano first then orchestrated because it seems he's always thinking orchestrally regardless.

Most of the great film composers of past generations have certainly had this ability. What makes Williams stand out is... he's just a freakin' genius.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I don't know if he's passing his knowledge to the next generation of film-composers.

But preventing his film scores from being published in their entirety, I'd say he's actively obstructing that.

[Muad'Dib 1,801]

That's what I'm saying. I think it's a lack of trust on the younger generation.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

By this i mean....as he isn't writing for piano...then orchestrating...he writes directly into the orchestra ( via very,very detailed sketches ), does this allow him to use multiple techniques simultaneously with clarity ?

I have had such a hard time doing reductions as they seem to be many instances where rather than obvious filler ( easy to leave out ) there are in fact crucial notes that have to be left in. As ludwig what call it "bristling" .

t

How do you define advantage? And how do you measure it? And if you can't properly define and measure the advantage, it's not really much of a question is it?

The only thing that's certain is that John Williams' method helps him write like John Williams. You are not going to become a better musician or even close to John Williams by emulating his writing process. Trying to copy the process of greats is the folly of beginners in the arts everywhere.

Find the process that works for you. Find the process that best lets you transcribe the contents of your mind to the medium you want to work with. It's excruciating and time consuming to figure that process out. It requires an exceptional degree of self-awareness and analysis of how you work. It takes years and years to develop that process. And most people don't have the skill or patience to do so. Instead they read someone else's methods and apply it for themselves, and they swing from method and process to process without actually gaining anything.

But then most people aren't exceptional at what they do, are they?

[karelm 2,903]

That's what I'm saying. I think it's a lack of trust on the younger generation.

No. Maybe you'll believe it from the source (please hear him describe his view on the younger generation at 2:45):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jg1mUEDPOo

This is a very honest look into his point of view. As he put it, film music is evolving and so many young composers are looking to write for films who still see it as an artistic attraction. He said this to me personally and I believe he truly believed it. I can give lots of examples why I believe this but I think his own words expresses it more succulently than I ever could.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I don't think it's a lack of trust at all. It's more that Williams's doesn't want his music to be disected under a microscope, and to be potentially ripped apart by critics. We know he's very self-critical, always trying to improve his craft, prefering to live in the here and now rather than look back. This would fit in with that.

[tedfud 38]

By this i mean....as he isn't writing for piano...then orchestrating...he writes directly into the orchestra ( via very,very detailed sketches ), does this allow him to use multiple techniques simultaneously with clarity ?

I have had such a hard time doing reductions as they seem to be many instances where rather than obvious filler ( easy to leave out ) there are in fact crucial notes that have to be left in. As ludwig what call it "bristling" .

t

I'm not exactly sure I follow the question. If you are asking what is it about JW's work habits that give him an edge in his final output, then it would have to be a combination of many things. For example, his formidable skill as a pianist is a major factor. Also, his early session experience with some of the best film composers of all time. His legendary work ethic, etc. Coming from a family that valued music deeply, etc. I would say the piano being the medium is incidental in his case to just about everything else. I bet he can out compose most anyone WITHOUT a piano too. I believe composing did not come easy to him but he worked very hard at it until it became second nature. You mention having a hard time doing score reductions, but everyone does until you do it often enough that it becomes easier.

But I'm not sure I entirely follow the question if you can elaborate further.

By this i mean....as he isn't writing for piano...then orchestrating...he writes directly into the orchestra ( via very,very detailed sketches ), does this allow him to use multiple techniques simultaneously with clarity ?

I have had such a hard time doing reductions as they seem to be many instances where rather than obvious filler ( easy to leave out ) there are in fact crucial notes that have to be left in. As ludwig what call it "bristling" .

t

How do you define advantage? And how do you measure it? And if you can't properly define and measure the advantage, it's not really much of a question is it?

The only thing that's certain is that John Williams' method helps him write like John Williams. You are not going to become a better musician or even close to John Williams by emulating his writing process. Trying to copy the process of greats is the folly of beginners in the arts everywhere.

Find the process that works for you. Find the process that best lets you transcribe the contents of your mind to the medium you want to work with. It's excruciating and time consuming to figure that process out. It requires an exceptional degree of self-awareness and analysis of how you work. It takes years and years to develop that process. And most people don't have the skill or patience to do so. Instead they read someone else's methods and apply it for themselves, and they swing from method and process to process without actually gaining anything.

But then most people aren't exceptional at what they do, are they?

forgive me....It was't the clearest of questions.....let me try again:

Like a lot of people here ( I suspect ) i find when i try and get to grips with the nitty gritty of JW's scores, I am at times totally overwhelmed by the level of detail and sophistication of his writing . His choices always seem slightly at odds with my understanding of music and he will consistently break rules and techniques only a bar before he adhered too. It is proving very hard (admittedly only after a year of study ) to in any way ,condense what he does into a reliable blueprint of approach ( quite possibly a fools errand ) Perhaps i'm only finding out my own shortcomings in knowledge and i should just give it more time.

That said i wondered the other night...in a somewhat inarticulate fashion, wether his method hinted at his madness . I have been taught that the safest approach to write music is start as simply as possible . And as succinctly as possible. As the wonderful Kurt Vonnegut said..."start as close to the end as you can". So that would be on a piano . Get the melody and harmony right....pay close attention to good voice leading , and form. Then a two piano version...flesh out the harmony....then orchestrate.

Now with a lot of JW's output i wonder if that would work at all. And again this is quite possibly me coming to terms with my own lack of skills, but maybe Mr Vonnegut's advice could mean "as close to a finished article as possible"...JW writes straight to paper a pretty final idea of how it would all sound.....Almost like a collage of sound. This is part of my issue. His sonorities are quite often made up of very disparate components . As are his pitches some times.....Different scales abound. Like any eager student i'm trying to spot a workflow that would achieve consistent results and I am getting a tad frustrated that the approach I am using isn't working. I completely agree with Blueman's assertion that achieving this is what separates the men from the boys but i'm sure he would agree that studying someone else's technique is a good start .

I obviously don't want to copy JW but I would like to achieve the same sense of finesse. I just wondered weather writing orchestrally straight away was a good start. And that is what I meant by advantage. That hearing the piece as a complete entity straight away, rather than constructing it from the base up was HIS advantage . Ludwig's "bristling" term is a case in point. You could imagine what the music would sound like with out those added notes....completely different !!......a drastic change !....and yet you could see how in less competent hands the "bristling" would be an afterthough. And yet it is a very crucial component. It doesn't work without it. So I suspect they are created at the same time. And in a strange way that's my problem. Understanding WHAT are the essentials.......and how to build from the essentials up.

i hope this makes more sense

t

[Marcus 390]

Greetings!

I felt compelled to contribute since you brought Kurt Vonnegut into this, an artist not often spoken of in the same breath as John Williams, but certainly one who wrote succinctly and lucidly about the craft of writing. Which is what this is all about.

First: Congratulations! You're on the right track! The kind of work/study ethic you've described, is precisely the effort needed to begin to aspire towards the kind of technical proficiency displayed by John Williams.

It will likely take years and years and years to get there. But don't let that discourage you! Ravel used to say about Mozart: "I will never reach that level of mastery, but I go to work every morning just to see how close I can get" (and Ravel was no slouch!).

In other words, there's good and even great music to be written at any level of proficiency.

I think what Vonnegut referred to with "as close to the end as possible" deals mostly with literary form. So literally: Begin your narrative as close to the end of the story as possible (don't waste your reader's time). One could find several musical analogies to this statement, but I would personally opt for the analogy of stringency of musical material. Don't try to say to much, but rather focus on clarity in the presentation and development of a limited amount of material.

As to deciphering all of Williams' various techniques and devices: There are no short cuts, no one simple discovery; it took Williams decades to build that arsenal, and it takes a long time to analyze, digest and internalize them (and even longer to make them "your own").

I started writing music seriously at 17, and everything up until my early-to-mid-twenties I would really consider juvenilia. Pretty much everything I wrote as an undergrad, and most of what I wrote as a grad student, I've now discarded (let's say all in all maybe 50-70 works).I am writing this to give an idea of the kind of effort ("sustained effort", as Williams once put it) it took me. I'm now going on 35, and I still look at each new Williams score as an opportunity to learn. I feel "initiated" enough not to perceive the technicalities as "hocus pocus" (a Vonnegut reference, for those who'll catch it), but I'm still thrilled by the infinite subtleties and playful elegance of it all, as well as the deeply compassionate way Williams responds as a musical dramatist. Perhaps there's also a link to Vonnegut in this: Both artists are profound humanists.

I've always been a "pen&paper" composer, and remain uneducated in the field of digital engraving (to the chagrin of some of my commissioners, but thankfully, my publisher usually takes care of it). I can't objectively say whether or not this has given me any advantages, but I will say this: As a method, there's half a millennium's worth of precedence for its success, which ought to count for something.

So, summing up my undoubtedly too long-winded response:

Keep studying (as time goes by, and as you apply yourself, you'll find that more and more "secrets" naturally reveal themselves to you; certain peculiarities of craft sometimes seem to bypass one's analytical faculties, entering one's vocabulary in a practical manner first, only later to become part of one's cognitive apparatus), keep writing, and keep keeping at it!

All best,

Marcus

[karelm 2,903]

Excellent response, Marcus! Just to add a few more points - JW is an avid studier too...asking and analyzing even to this day why something in Beethoven or Haydn works so effectively. His brother mentioned getting a call just a few weeks ago where JW was asking for input on a passage in Beethoven as he was deep in study of that music. So imagine after about 50-60 years of writing 2 to 3 minutes a day, he still wants to better understand music. By all accounts, he works very hard at it, pushes himself, and it was not easy for him either. But he's been doing it for so long that he has developed short cuts. He probably doesn't struggle with beginner level issues but rather advanced issues of clarity, artistry, conciseness, effectiveness, etc.. When we look at his body of work, it seems like his mastery and technique is so evidence but we have to remember there was a long gestation period and lots of adapting and evolving of his skills and talent for him to be the artist he is today.

I completely agree with Marcus - there are no shortcuts and as we try to understand the elements of his style, it is so multi-layered that at one level we might think we understand it but miss the deeper level until we have developed further in our own skills. It is a slow and steady process.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I think we all agree, there are no shortcuts. It's also important to talk about how you take that long road.

In my experience, a great habit to get into is to be prolific as part of your learning process.

Produce something every day, and not just passively, but actively trying to get better. Most of it will stink, but you learn something every day, you come up with ideas that you can amass into a library of artistic heuristics you can apply where appropriate.

But it's CRUCIAL to be actively assessing yourself. It's absurdly easy to start solidifying bad technique and habit by repeating them day in and day out without paying attention.

The habit of being prolific is where you can experiment and discover your process. Spend a month or year writing without a piano. Develop the skill to see and hear the totality music in your head before you put a single note down. Spend some time taking the other road, get inspired by the rhythm of a hooting owl, and build up from there, for example.

[RedBard 71]

I would say that John William's "edge" (which I deliberately put in quotation marks because "edge" isn't exactly a yardstick of objective measuring musical talent against other composers on the grid right now like Elfman, Shore, Newman, Powell, and Desplat) is his incredible in-depth understanding and application of music theory; more specifically, scales and chord progression in his famous melody lines. It wouldn't be hard to imagine him having memorized chord progression charts and every single tonal and post-tonal composition technique that has been made known to the musical world.

Although I have only been seriously composing for a couple of years now, I am beginning to see a pattern in how film scores are developed, and here is what I see in Williams:

By starting with the melody and expanding outward across the many instruments in the orchestra, he takes a simple musical thought and builds it up the same way that a writer builds up his imaginary worlds and characters in his novels. I once heard from a composer (whose name I have completely forgotten at this point) that composers are simply storytellers who use notes instead of words. It's not so much the number of instruments he uses (and that's another thing: knowing when not to use instruments in a certain part of your score is important too), but the way he utilizes every single technique an instrument is capable of producing (col legno for strings, multiphonics for woodwinds, etc.) in order to achieve that full emotional impact for that particular scene.

I've got more to say, but it's late here, so I'll leave it at this for now.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Your second point about building outward from a core idea is a good one. Your first about an encyclopedic knowledge of theory is not.

You used the music-language analogy yourself. So ask yourself: does a great author have memorized every possible piece of dialogue, every plot point, every way of getting from point A to point B? No, and when they try, and draw on that for inspiration, the result is tepid crap. It's the same with music. Drawing from a library of "what is possible" will get you no further than imitation. Experimentation and uncertainty is key. You're saying something unique, hopefully, so you'll have to find your own way of saying it.

The biggest clue for me when writing that I'm not thinking about it enough is that I don't feel uncomfortable.

[RedBard 71]

Perhaps I should have been more specific.

I didn't mean memorizing every little tidbit of everything that has to do with story (plot point, dialogue, A to B, etc.).

I meant an expansive musical tool chest. Like when I mentioned a chord progression chart, I was thinking about this:

and this

What music student at the university level hasn't encountered these puppies?

I believe rote memorization of things like scales and chord progression are very important for the emerging composer. That way, it will eventually become second nature and therefore much easier to to have confidence in knowing when to bend and break them (e.g. borrowed chords).

I wouldn't put it past Williams to having these charts memorized and knowing when to experiment with them and take them in a direction of uncertainty. I've definitely heard it in his music.

You said

Drawing from a library of "what is possible" will get you no further than imitation.

I believe the opposite is true. Thinking to yourself "what isn't possible" will only limit your composing potential. I've come to learn from what you've posted (no joke) that when it comes to music and composing, rules were made to be broken. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the likes of the Ives, Adams, Cage, Penderecki, and the Second Viennesse School.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

I never suggested thinking "what isn't possible." Just not limiting your ideas of what *is* to what has already been done.

[RedBard 71]

I never suggested thinking "what isn't possible." Just not limiting your ideas of what *is* to what has already been done.

I never said you did. I hope it didn't come off as that way to you.

And that's an interesting point you make about "what has already been done" (and it was a question I had to answer once in an advanced music theory class):

Is there anything left to explore in tonality?

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Yes.

[RedBard 71]

Yes.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Because I don't mean that as in, tonality or any other technique that's been used already is automatically infertile. What I believe is that too much reliance on theory leads to an unhealthy obsession with the past that strangles one's ability to do anything new. I just can't possibly emphasize how important I believe it is that theoretical knowledge is learned and stored away only as an absolute foundation for musical expression. It should not be constantly looked to for creation.

Do you refer to the principles of English grammar every time you want to post on a forum? Are you consciously checking what you want to say against what's been said already, or whether it adheres to the rules?

I'm getting incoherent, so my point is: you used the phrase "chord progression" and that's what set me off. I believe that this fixation with chord progression that so many younger composers have is representative of a fixation on theory telling you how to compose, because it's scary and hard to come up with ideas independently of it.

[RedBard 71]

I can understand that.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

I just had it beaten into me as a student that it's time to divorce ourselves from CPP theory as a baseline of musical grammar. There are better places to start that are more relevant, less restrictive in language. I've been a raging anti-academic ever since. Free your mind, etc.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Because I don't mean that as in, tonality or any other technique that's been used already is automatically infertile. What I believe is that too much reliance on theory leads to an unhealthy obsession with the past that strangles one's ability to do anything new. I just can't possibly emphasize how important I believe it is that theoretical knowledge is learned and stored away only as an absolute foundation for musical expression. It should not be constantly looked to for creation.

Do you refer to the principles of English grammar every time you want to post on a forum? Are you consciously checking what you want to say against what's been said already, or whether it adheres to the rules?

I'm getting incoherent, so my point is: you used the phrase "chord progression" and that's what set me off. I believe that this fixation with chord progression that so many younger composers have is representative of a fixation on theory telling you how to compose, because it's scary and hard to come up with ideas independently of it.

It depends. Do you have a foundational theoretical understanding?

Or do you have prescriptive theoretical understanding?

There's a difference between theory that gives you an understanding of "what is," and theory that tells you "this is how it should be done." The latter can be detrimental to creativity.

The former is the basis for creativity. Which I roughly think is what you're saying.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

That's the thing. While something like serialism is prescriptive all the time, even a foundational theoretical understanding can become prescriptive.

I'll attempt a clear summation of what I'm trying to say: too many young composers get stuck in the loop of theory-ruled composition instead of becoming truly inventive musicians.

[RedBard 71]

In the same way that we learn the alphabet before we learn how to organize said letters into words and then into sentences and then into paragraphs, I believe that music theory has continuing relevance for music educators and composers.

And there will come a time for the English speaker to find his own way of organizing words in a way that stands out from others.

The same can be said for emerging composers.

I just had it beaten into me as a student that it's time to divorce ourselves from CPP theory as a baseline of musical grammar. There are better places to start that are more relevant, less restrictive in language. I've been a raging anti-academic ever since. Free your mind, etc.

You say that like music educators used the Ludovico Technique on you for music theory and now it's left you with such a negative experience that you want nothing to do with it anymore.

I'm personally glad that I learned CPP theory first; otherwise, I wouldn't know how to stray from it in any work that I do.

I'll attempt a clear summation of what I'm trying to say: too many young composers get stuck in the loop of theory-ruled composition instead of becoming truly inventive musicians.

Are you suggesting that theory-based composition is, for all intents and purposes, obstructive to emerging composers? Because I beg to differ. For instance, I never saw the true potential of pentatonic and octatonic scales until I learned about them and studied them at length. Now I'm using the pentatonic scale for a concert work I'm currently composing.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Your first part: that's precisely what I'm saying. With the addition that some emerging composers never get there.

Second part: couldn't be more wrong. I am immensely grateful for the man I did most of my learning with. I learned core theory first as well; not from a CPP textbook, but in a way that is relevant to modern musical rhetoric.

Third part: it's obstructive if you are ruled by the theory instead of using it to serve your creative impulse.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Can't be inventive if you don't know what you're working with. In that situation you're at the mercy of accident, which you can still enjoy the benefits of with foundational theory. So why not both?

Speaking of foundations, isn't it interesting, architects must have training in physics in order to become architects. But most music programs dive right into step 2 – music theory, without ever requiring the requisite acoustic physics/wave theory?

- Blume, that asshole boss who forces (and subsidizes!) his team of artists to take introductory courses in electromagnetism if they haven't already. Because if your job is manipulating light, you damn well better know what light is.

[MikeH 768]

The best piece of advice I've learned from JW is to just focus on what's on the writing desk for today. Don't spend your time looking over your shoulder or looking ahead (in terms of the music you've written). He just writes. Writes, writes, writes. Occasionally discovering a small fragment of something he decides is worth pursuing and then proceeds to explore and refine it.

tedfud, you mentioned him breaking rules and techniques that he had just adhered to a bar or two before. Can you elaborate with an example? Are you talking about voicings, perhaps?

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

The best piece of advice I've learned from JW is to just focus on what's on the writing desk for today. Don't spend your time looking over your shoulder or looking ahead (in terms of the music you've written). He just writes. Writes, writes, writes. Occasionally discovering a small fragment of something he decides is worth pursuing and then proceeds to explore and refine

Right on. That's how a composer composes. Leave the rest for musicologists and theorists.

[RedBard 71]

Third part: it's obstructive if you are ruled by the theory instead of using it to serve your creative impulse.

I let it serve it my creative impulses. I'm willing to bet that you do, too, as should any emerging composer.

You control the tools in your tool chest, not the other way around.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

And again, all I'm saying is that sometimes, that doesn't happen. I see a lot of emerging composers who just can not look past what they've been taught, and invent.

Speaking of foundations, isn't it interesting, architects must have training in physics in order to become architects. But most music programs dive right into step 2 – music theory, without ever requiring the requisite acoustic physics/wave theory?

- Blume, that asshole boss who forces (and subsidizes!) his team of artists to take introductory courses in electromagnetism if they haven't already. Because if your job is manipulating light, you damn well better know what light is.

Heh, I agree completely.

[RedBard 71]

And again, all I'm saying is that sometimes, that doesn't happen. I see a lot of emerging composers who just can not look past what they've been taught, and invent.

I think some music students and emerging composers tend to shy away from the truly experimental and inventive stuff because they have heard it and are kind of turned off by it (I speak from experience in music classrooms).

Composer Indeterminancy and Aleatoric Writing comes to minds.

Also, musique concrète:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlBmx3VulY&feature=kp

I mean, how many concert halls around the world are featuring stuff like this?

Don't get me wrong. It's great to be inventive.

But it's also great to be able to earn a living doing what you love to do, and I don't know how many bills one can pay composing music like that.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Despite the undeniable need to sustain yourself, writing "down" or at least in a direction other than your natural impulses in order to do it is absolutely awful.

You and I have pretty fundamentally different tastes. I know you're not fond of much modernism. Speaking from my own experience in music classrooms, students aren't turned off by it. There's no generalization to be made on the subject.

But inventive/experimental need not equate to the kind of thing that you don't like.

[RedBard 71]

Despite the undeniable need to sustain yourself, writing "down" or at least in a direction other than your natural impulses in order to do it is absolutely awful.

You and I have pretty fundamentally different tastes. I know you're not fond of much modernism. Speaking from my own experience in music classrooms, students aren't turned off by it. There's no generalization to be made on the subject.

Who said anything about writing "down"? The pendulum swings both ways. I've tried writing modern music and it was mentally torturous, and I didn't like the final product either. It felt entirely unnatural to me.

As far as taste goes... well, de gustibus non est disputandum.

But inventive/experimental need not equate to the kind of thing that you don't like.

And that which is new isn't inherently better than the old.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Sigh.

Look, if it seems like I'm giving you a hard time, it's because I've seen and heard all of this before, and it's gotten frustrating to see the cycle keep repeating.

We're verging on pure verbal masturbation now though; don't think I have anything more to say on the matter, if I even did in the first place.

[RedBard 71]

You're not giving me a hard time. I'm always open to musical opinions no matter where they come from.

You must see me as a musical elitist. Like any concept, it can be hijacked and abused (thus all the stigma that surrounds it), but I continually strive not to do either of those things.

Then again, I bet I sound like this to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnRTN4KYguc

I respect your musical views. That's all there is to say on it.

Now back to the thread topic...

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

If this thread is suggesting what I think it is suggesting, then it means that JW can hear whole scores in his head before a note in even played. To me, this is just staggering, and it is, I fear, a skill that is being lost, as more and more "composers" write directly to a keyboard. I could be wrong, though...

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Probably are wrong.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

In what way?

[MikeH 768]

If this thread is suggesting what I think it is suggesting, then it means that JW can hear whole scores in his head before a note in even played. To me, this is just staggering, and it is, I fear, a skill that is being lost, as more and more "composers" write directly to a keyboard. I could be wrong, though...

You mean working out a cue in your head before committing it to paper (or computer)? This is basically what I do. I figured most composers could 'hear' music in their inner ear...is this not the case? Although, I can't transcribe what I'm hearing without the aid of a pitch device (maybe in another 30 years ). I know Horner works at a desk with no piano at all. That is an ability I'd love to develop.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

That's exactly what I meant! As a layman, with no knowledge of music theory, or writing, I find this ability amazing, but I guess that most composers do it.

P.s. cool avatar, btw. I've always liked that picture. Pity it's not in colour.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

That's a big part of "arriving" as a composer Richard. When your brain can do it without any external aid. To use the language analogy again... it's more or less equivalent to being able to read and write without sounding things out first. You think it, and commit it to paper. It's the difference between music created with two hands at a keyboard, and music created with only the limitations of the imagination.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

In what way?

We have more musically educated people today, more musicians, more composers. By virtue of statistics alone, there will be more who can conceive music in their head.

That said, I think "in your head" vs. "on the piano" is a false dichotomy. The two are complementary processes. As is just writing on paper. Or the planning the music in a more architectural fashion.

Tools in a toolkit to be used when appropriate, nothing more, nothing less.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

That's a big part of "arriving" as a composer Richard. When your brain can do it without any external aid. To use the language analogy again... it's more or less equivalent to being able to read and write without sounding things out first. You think it, and commit it to paper. It's the difference between music created with two hands at a keyboard, and music created with only the limitations of the imagination.

In what way?

We have more musically educated people today, more musicians, more composers. By virtue of statistics alone, there will be more who can conceive music in their head.

That said, I think "in your head" vs. "on the piano" is a false dichotomy. The two are complementary processes. As is just writing on paper. Or the planning the music in a more architectural fashion.

Tools in a toolkit to be used when appropriate, nothing more, nothing less.

I hear what both of you are saying.

To me, and as someone who places such an importance on music in his life, I am in utter awe of people like JW, JNH, JG, JB, JH, EM, etc. who can create these wonderful sounds just by thinking about them.

[RedBard 71]

I believe the phenomenon is called "audiation"; i.e. hearing with your mind's ear.

As visualization is to images, audiation is to sound.

I've developed this skill in the past few years thanks in part to score reading, orchestrating, and memorizing by rote the sounds of each and every instrument I can find in the world (not just the Western ones). It's been a wonderful addition to my tool-set whenever I have had to come up with a melody.

We have more musically educated people today, more musicians, more composers. By virtue of statistics alone, there will be more who can conceive music in their head.

That's a rather flawed look at the reality of today's emerging composers in correlation with present technological capabilities. Natural talent and mental focus play a bigger factor in the ability to conceive music in one's head.

Bottom Line: statistics don't paint the whole picture.