Posted by Guy Shahar on January 16, 2025 at 3:19pm
What is your experience of receiving criticism as a composer and how has it changed over time.I’m still near the start of my journey, and have had some amazingly valuable pointers and advice from posting my music on forums and asking for feedback. But I’ve also had a load of abuse from a few people, who feel that if you post something you’ve created, you’re fair game for vitriol. This can have a very negative effect.How have you managed to get the feedback you need while avoiding the abuse? Or do you just choose to either keep your music to yourself or to put up with the abuse?It would be really interesting to hear your experiences for my own benefit, but also, I want to make a video about dealing with criticism as a composer soon, and this conversation could help with that too.
Views: 185
You need to be a member of composersforum to add comments!
In some works, by some people, I have received useful criticism and certainly in the case of what was practically performable, I had the odd bit of advice (in one case octave leaps in the clarinet were too hard as it involved a change of register). But equally in some cases the theorists have completely failed to understand the music because they had certain expectations according to how they thought the music should develop, not what I was actually trying to write. Overall, though, my main problem is getting enough people with some vague sympathy and understanding of my idiom to listen in the first place, though i do have a few fans to whom I am grateful. Actual abuse I have only really had when I dared to express reservations about the work of another composer which simply resulted in ad hominem attacks. I'm not really a critic by nature and these days rarely bother to comment on works unless they speak to me in some way.
Well done for at least having a few fans. That's already a great achievement. I don't think I have any (someone approached me on Soundcloud saying she was my greatestt fan, but it turned out she wanted to sell some promotion service to me....). You're also lucky to have posted and not received abuse that simply says how terrible the music is with nothing to build on.
I'm sure you will get some fans as you start increasingly to find your own personal style and voice. Something like that rarely comes right at the beginning!
Could you quote some of the abuse you've had, or criticism you felt was abusive?
Guy Shahar > Dave DexterJanuary 18, 2025 at 10:01am
Hi Dave. I'd rather not go through the conversations again (and bring myself down...), but it has ranged from decent feedback delivered in a condecending way (which is very unfortunate, but livable with), to comments that state that the music is terrible in a certain area (like register) but without saying how or what can be done, to comments that simply criticise how amateurish the piece is but give no more detail, to occasionally short simple abusive comments like that I have no business making music, or that another critical response has been too kind to me....
Dave Dexter > Guy ShaharJanuary 21, 2025 at 1:46am
My point would be that even genuine critique is often insulting, especially to new composers. You've got to a point where you can achieve a little, but not to the point where you can *really* hear and understand what you've done, so you take it personally when an outsider brusquely breaks it apart.
Reading between the lines on this forum, you ask a lot of questions that you seem already to have decided your answers to. My intuition tells me that since - for example - you don't think music theory is necessary for your music, you may also think you fall outside the purview of critique that derives from that place, and are perhaps above it, because your music comes from within and so is not bound by conventional knowledge. You've inferred, indeed practically stated, that intuitive composing opens avenues that theory does not, to the extent that theory-trained composers might look with worry at intuitive ones. I used to think in exactly that way, and recall that *any* critique was difficult to deal with.
Guy Shahar > Dave DexterJanuary 21, 2025 at 5:40am
Thanks for sharing this Dave. It's a good insight. I have found - especially when I was at the very start - that even genuine critiques were painful - and I think probably for the reasons you mention - that i wasn't really in a place to do anything with the feedback, due to my being brand new to it all, so it felt like "you are bad" without empowering me to improve.
There's some truth in your second paragraph, but also a lot that doesn't ring true. I haven't decided the answers to any questions - though I may sometimes phrase things as if I have. I don't think humans often state anything, either as an assertion or a question, if they truly feel they know the answer - they would just quietly live by their truth without any need to express it. For me, it's all a big exploration - especially as I'm at such an early stage of my musical journey. It's not correct to infer that I don't think music theory is necessary for my music. Quite the opposite, I have stated very clearly that it's crucial. My intuition, or anyone else's, is not going to compensate for hundreds of years of musical analysis by great minds. It's about the balance. Both theory and intuition open avenues that the other doesn't, and each individual composer will have their ideal optimal balance between the 2. Nobody can totally ignore one of them and still create credible music. I call myself an intuitive composer because my personality works better by learning and expressing things without great conscious awareness of what I'm doing, and it woud be counter-productive in my case to put too much of my attention on breaking everything down and trying to analyse it - though it's critical that I do some of that, ideally at the optimal point where a shortcoming comes to the fore and I need to make headway on it. For someone else, it might be the other way round and they're best able to optimise and unlock their musical potential through conscious understanding and mastery of the theoretical aspect. It's not that one is better or worse, and the diversity of having both is enriching. Perhaps I tend to bang on about being an "intuitive composer" because I sense that this perspective and this approach is generally looked down on and disrespected so widely....
IMO the theory/intuition dichotomy is a false one.
Theory arose in the early stages of western music not as a prescriptive dogma to be imposed upon unwitting composers, but as a description of the practices observed by successful composers, with the implication that said practices would lead a would-be composer to greater chances of success. Eventually, over the years, theory may have, in some contexts, become something prescriptive, perhaps as a pedagogical tool, or as a clutch for teachers who aren't themselves composers but somehow found themselves in a pedagogical role. But that does not change the nature of theory as a description of what the great composers have done, rather than a prescription that, if one were to follow it, would somehow, magically, lead to a good musical composition.
Music, by its very nature, is something subjective, and therefore inextricably tied to one's intuition. I've seen "compositions" by music students who follow the theory to the letter, but the results of which are, to say the least, quite disappointing. It is my thesis that it's impossible to produce a convincing piece of music if one relies only on the theoretical, analytical aspect. The result may tick all the checkboxes of music theory, but it would not impress a real audience.
OTOH, a large part of music also involves having a structure that works. If the structure doesn't work, then the piece as a whole won't work, no matter how good the themes are. And music being an abstract medium, musical structure is rather hard to describe or understand without the analytical tools of music theory. One ought not to look at music theory as the dry textbook rules that one is obligated to follow, but rather as a window through which one may peer into some of the deep and successful musical thinking of the great composers; an insight into how they structured their music in such a way that the result is convincing and powerful. Indeed, in my own experience, a lot of music theory should not be taken in their literal sense, but rather as attempts to capture, in words, the intuition that drove many of the great musical innovations in successful works.
As far as the actual process of composition is concerned, I find that the least successful way is to apply music theory, and the most successful way is to apply music theory. "Apply" in the first sense being just following the letter of the theory but without understanding the motivations and intuition behind it; "apply" in the second sense being to use theory as a tool to open up vast vistas of possibilities in the music that you probably wouldn't even have thought of otherwise. It does not preclude intuition and creative, on-the-spot innovations; rather, it encourages and germinates it.
Very often in my own work, when I come to an impasse, my natural tendency is to just resort to old and worn ways of going forward, reusing old solutions that result in boring, boilerplate music. But it is in such moments when the tools of theory can be brought to bear, to open up new possibilities I had not explored, to present new paths which may lead to new and interesting places rather than the same old worn-down routes I've always taken in the past. Take fugal writing, for example, which is my present obsession. When writing my fugue in C minor, I got to the first climactic point where the subject reappears in solo, with the first note of every phrase deleted for dramatic effect. It was a good climactic point, but I was facing the problem of how to continue after that. None of my usual approaches produced a satisfying continuation. I was stuck on it literally for months. Maybe even longer, as the frustration mounted and I put it on the backburner to clear my mind. Then one day, while idly doodling about with various fugal devices, I decided on a whim to try inserting the inversion of the subject to see what would come of it. Miracle of miracles, it worked surprisingly well, and the success gave me the needed impetus to bring the music back to what might be construed a recapitulation of sorts, from which I was able to then derive an even greater climax -- again using theoretical devices like stretto, inversion, etc. -- which brought the music to the point I could close it off to a more-or-less satisfactory ending.
Now imagine where I'd be had I not known what a fugal device was and what a recapitulation was. That piece would probably still be sitting on my backburner in incomplete form, rotting away probably until the end of my life, never seeing the light of day.
You see how theory and intuition are tightly intertwined in the creative process of musical composition. A successful musical composition requires both inspiration (intuition) and craftsmanship (theory). It's not sufficient to have one but not the other. Craftsmanship without inspiration gives you boring, cookie-cutter pieces of no musical value (the kind composition students sometimes churn out just to fulfill their assignment obligations); inspiration without craftsmanship gives you disappointing pieces that couldn't live up to their potential because the composer didn't have the skills to pull it off.
This makes a lot of sense. It's similar to how I'm coming to think too. I like to emphasise that the balance between how much "theory" and "intuiuition" (both imprecise terms) are optimally used will vary from person to person - there's no correct balance that fits everyone - but that everyone does need a decent chunk of each in order to thrive musically....
Replies
In some works, by some people, I have received useful criticism and certainly in the case of what was practically performable, I had the odd bit of advice (in one case octave leaps in the clarinet were too hard as it involved a change of register). But equally in some cases the theorists have completely failed to understand the music because they had certain expectations according to how they thought the music should develop, not what I was actually trying to write. Overall, though, my main problem is getting enough people with some vague sympathy and understanding of my idiom to listen in the first place, though i do have a few fans to whom I am grateful. Actual abuse I have only really had when I dared to express reservations about the work of another composer which simply resulted in ad hominem attacks. I'm not really a critic by nature and these days rarely bother to comment on works unless they speak to me in some way.
Well done for at least having a few fans. That's already a great achievement. I don't think I have any (someone approached me on Soundcloud saying she was my greatestt fan, but it turned out she wanted to sell some promotion service to me....). You're also lucky to have posted and not received abuse that simply says how terrible the music is with nothing to build on.
I'm sure you will get some fans as you start increasingly to find your own personal style and voice. Something like that rarely comes right at the beginning!
Thank you. Hope so!!
Could you quote some of the abuse you've had, or criticism you felt was abusive?
Hi Dave. I'd rather not go through the conversations again (and bring myself down...), but it has ranged from decent feedback delivered in a condecending way (which is very unfortunate, but livable with), to comments that state that the music is terrible in a certain area (like register) but without saying how or what can be done, to comments that simply criticise how amateurish the piece is but give no more detail, to occasionally short simple abusive comments like that I have no business making music, or that another critical response has been too kind to me....
My point would be that even genuine critique is often insulting, especially to new composers. You've got to a point where you can achieve a little, but not to the point where you can *really* hear and understand what you've done, so you take it personally when an outsider brusquely breaks it apart.
Reading between the lines on this forum, you ask a lot of questions that you seem already to have decided your answers to. My intuition tells me that since - for example - you don't think music theory is necessary for your music, you may also think you fall outside the purview of critique that derives from that place, and are perhaps above it, because your music comes from within and so is not bound by conventional knowledge. You've inferred, indeed practically stated, that intuitive composing opens avenues that theory does not, to the extent that theory-trained composers might look with worry at intuitive ones. I used to think in exactly that way, and recall that *any* critique was difficult to deal with.
Thanks for sharing this Dave. It's a good insight. I have found - especially when I was at the very start - that even genuine critiques were painful - and I think probably for the reasons you mention - that i wasn't really in a place to do anything with the feedback, due to my being brand new to it all, so it felt like "you are bad" without empowering me to improve.
There's some truth in your second paragraph, but also a lot that doesn't ring true. I haven't decided the answers to any questions - though I may sometimes phrase things as if I have. I don't think humans often state anything, either as an assertion or a question, if they truly feel they know the answer - they would just quietly live by their truth without any need to express it. For me, it's all a big exploration - especially as I'm at such an early stage of my musical journey. It's not correct to infer that I don't think music theory is necessary for my music. Quite the opposite, I have stated very clearly that it's crucial. My intuition, or anyone else's, is not going to compensate for hundreds of years of musical analysis by great minds. It's about the balance. Both theory and intuition open avenues that the other doesn't, and each individual composer will have their ideal optimal balance between the 2. Nobody can totally ignore one of them and still create credible music. I call myself an intuitive composer because my personality works better by learning and expressing things without great conscious awareness of what I'm doing, and it woud be counter-productive in my case to put too much of my attention on breaking everything down and trying to analyse it - though it's critical that I do some of that, ideally at the optimal point where a shortcoming comes to the fore and I need to make headway on it. For someone else, it might be the other way round and they're best able to optimise and unlock their musical potential through conscious understanding and mastery of the theoretical aspect. It's not that one is better or worse, and the diversity of having both is enriching. Perhaps I tend to bang on about being an "intuitive composer" because I sense that this perspective and this approach is generally looked down on and disrespected so widely....
IMO the theory/intuition dichotomy is a false one.
Theory arose in the early stages of western music not as a prescriptive dogma to be imposed upon unwitting composers, but as a description of the practices observed by successful composers, with the implication that said practices would lead a would-be composer to greater chances of success. Eventually, over the years, theory may have, in some contexts, become something prescriptive, perhaps as a pedagogical tool, or as a clutch for teachers who aren't themselves composers but somehow found themselves in a pedagogical role. But that does not change the nature of theory as a description of what the great composers have done, rather than a prescription that, if one were to follow it, would somehow, magically, lead to a good musical composition.
Music, by its very nature, is something subjective, and therefore inextricably tied to one's intuition. I've seen "compositions" by music students who follow the theory to the letter, but the results of which are, to say the least, quite disappointing. It is my thesis that it's impossible to produce a convincing piece of music if one relies only on the theoretical, analytical aspect. The result may tick all the checkboxes of music theory, but it would not impress a real audience.
OTOH, a large part of music also involves having a structure that works. If the structure doesn't work, then the piece as a whole won't work, no matter how good the themes are. And music being an abstract medium, musical structure is rather hard to describe or understand without the analytical tools of music theory. One ought not to look at music theory as the dry textbook rules that one is obligated to follow, but rather as a window through which one may peer into some of the deep and successful musical thinking of the great composers; an insight into how they structured their music in such a way that the result is convincing and powerful. Indeed, in my own experience, a lot of music theory should not be taken in their literal sense, but rather as attempts to capture, in words, the intuition that drove many of the great musical innovations in successful works.
As far as the actual process of composition is concerned, I find that the least successful way is to apply music theory, and the most successful way is to apply music theory. "Apply" in the first sense being just following the letter of the theory but without understanding the motivations and intuition behind it; "apply" in the second sense being to use theory as a tool to open up vast vistas of possibilities in the music that you probably wouldn't even have thought of otherwise. It does not preclude intuition and creative, on-the-spot innovations; rather, it encourages and germinates it.
Very often in my own work, when I come to an impasse, my natural tendency is to just resort to old and worn ways of going forward, reusing old solutions that result in boring, boilerplate music. But it is in such moments when the tools of theory can be brought to bear, to open up new possibilities I had not explored, to present new paths which may lead to new and interesting places rather than the same old worn-down routes I've always taken in the past. Take fugal writing, for example, which is my present obsession. When writing my fugue in C minor, I got to the first climactic point where the subject reappears in solo, with the first note of every phrase deleted for dramatic effect. It was a good climactic point, but I was facing the problem of how to continue after that. None of my usual approaches produced a satisfying continuation. I was stuck on it literally for months. Maybe even longer, as the frustration mounted and I put it on the backburner to clear my mind. Then one day, while idly doodling about with various fugal devices, I decided on a whim to try inserting the inversion of the subject to see what would come of it. Miracle of miracles, it worked surprisingly well, and the success gave me the needed impetus to bring the music back to what might be construed a recapitulation of sorts, from which I was able to then derive an even greater climax -- again using theoretical devices like stretto, inversion, etc. -- which brought the music to the point I could close it off to a more-or-less satisfactory ending.
Now imagine where I'd be had I not known what a fugal device was and what a recapitulation was. That piece would probably still be sitting on my backburner in incomplete form, rotting away probably until the end of my life, never seeing the light of day.
You see how theory and intuition are tightly intertwined in the creative process of musical composition. A successful musical composition requires both inspiration (intuition) and craftsmanship (theory). It's not sufficient to have one but not the other. Craftsmanship without inspiration gives you boring, cookie-cutter pieces of no musical value (the kind composition students sometimes churn out just to fulfill their assignment obligations); inspiration without craftsmanship gives you disappointing pieces that couldn't live up to their potential because the composer didn't have the skills to pull it off.
This makes a lot of sense. It's similar to how I'm coming to think too. I like to emphasise that the balance between how much "theory" and "intuiuition" (both imprecise terms) are optimally used will vary from person to person - there's no correct balance that fits everyone - but that everyone does need a decent chunk of each in order to thrive musically....
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next