Talk:Composer/Archives/2012

Desperately needs work - also needs better definition

Excuse me, I have read the entire discussion both atop and at the bottom of the page here regarding defining the word "composer" and have to admit that I think many people here are involved in a polemical dispute. Why define a composer in terms of notated music? Why unless to exclude more modern forms of musical creation? Are composers (such as Iannis Xenakis r.i.p., and many others still living) only composing when they write notated works for ensembles of instruments and voices but not when they compose electronic music? This is 2010, serious music is being composed all the time for electronic instruments and in forms without notation. Perhaps before a definition is attempted a thorough understanding of the concept being defined should be at least attempted.

Below someone suggested a definition loosely inspired, I believe, by the aforementioned Xenakis. Perhaps it is work considering. Xenakis, to paraphrase, defines music as "organized sound" maybe a composer could simply be "a person who organizes sounds". "In time" is unnecessary and redundant given the nature of sound in the continuum we live. This definition hold true for international composers working in any medium. It is not general, however, as "organized sound" is quite a different concept than "organized lettuce" (salad) or "organized building materials" or somesuch. If the issue is to define a difference between composer and performer (and this issue is further complicated by composer/performers) than perhaps "a person who creates sound works for performance or recorded media" would be better. "Creates" would thus avoid ambiguity with a studio engineer (who does indeed create mixes) and performers (who create performances). A preposition does it all.

I believe the issue is bigger than this demarcation however, and unless this article aims to restrict the use of the term "Composer" to pre-twentieth century Europeans (which would not be in the interest of this encyclopedia), I suggest we adopt something similar to the idea put forth here. I would do it now, but I wait for discussion. Cheers, ~~-Bob Doubles

Please help to improve this article. It has been completely overlooked, despite the fact that hundreds of articles link to it.

I'm also trying to find a good definition of a composer. The original, "one who writes music", seems nebulous and semi-incorrect. One cannot "write music." Music is sound, not notation. "One who writes music notation" would be more accurate, but that would confuse a composer with a music copyist or something of the sort. Until a better definition is found, I've put in the definition currently on the page. I would really like some feedback on this! -Wolf m corcoran (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is in bad condition. Looked for an article to help base some work on it but Songwriter and Guitarist are even worse! I suppose this could be merged into Musical composition given that they'll generally cover the same topic matter. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (God, just looked and that's awful too. What's going on here?)

IMO this article - and the definition - are fine, though the page would certainly benefit from expansion, probably in the form of historical information. --Kleinzach 05:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't a composer simply a creator of music? Jongleur100 (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be ambiguous. An instrumentalist also 'creates' music in terms of a performance. --Kleinzach 05:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree. My dictionary defines 'create' as 'to bring into being or form out of nothing' and 'to bring into being by force of imagination.'

If someone performs one of my compositions they are not creating it, I, the composer did.

When I perform another composer's work I am not 'creating' it, I am interpreting it.

My compositions exist even if they are never performed.

The only performers who 'create' music are Jazz musicians who are improvising - but that makes them composers! Jongleur100 (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As a professional musician, published composer, and long-standing performer I see nothing wrong in the present definition except that I think the wording ::'A composer is a person who composes (or writes) music,' is a bit clumsy and I would prefer it to read 'A composer is a person who creates music' - for reasons I have given above. If no-one has any violent objection I propose to change it to that. Jongleur100 (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. No violent objection (!) however your very personal interpretation of the usage of the verb 'to create' is not one I'd share. IMO the language belongs to the people who use it, not the Ministry of Truth. Are you a native speaker? You seem to have given us your other qualifications. --Kleinzach 00:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am a native speaker, born and living in the UK. It's not my personal interpretation but that of the editors of a well respected dictionary.

If, at the end of a performance of a Beethoven Sonata, I were to inform the audience that I had just 'created' the work I would expect a visit from the men in long white coats. What I would have done is create a performance of Beethoven's work, not the work itself. Are you a composer or performer? Jongleur100 (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(For the purposes of this discussion) just a Wikipedia editor that avoids straw man arguments. I wrote about 'creating music' not 'creating the work'. --Kleinzach 10:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. The only possible response I can have to an answer like that is to quote the great jazz composer and pianist Thelonious Monk : "Trying to explain music is like trying to dance architecture". Jongleur100 (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To add some fresh thought to this argument: I hope it's a pretty generally understood consensus that in music-making, composition is the creative role. You can talk about performers as creative in a speculative way, and surely in some cases the lines are blurred. But traditions in music assume a bifurcation between creator and interpreter. It's the same in theatre, where the playwright is the creator and the actor the interpreter. And in dance you have choreographers and dancers. From this standpoint, I think that when you describe a composer as someone who creates music, it's pretty implicit in that wording that the act is creative and that they are fulfilling the role of creator. --JDOCallaghan (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The world hasn't ended, yet the article seems to still need expansion. Perhaps it's not so desperate. Hyacinth (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, but it would be good to have some kind of historical survey explaining how the conception of the job of the composers has developed over time, perhaps focusing on the Mozart to Wagner period and the struggle for artistic and financial independance. --Kleinzach 02:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

How are composers employed?

i need the answers to how much money does a composers earn, who employs a composer, are they genrally freelance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.145.5 (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The scope of your question is vague. Do you mean composers of the 11th century? 14th? 21st? Obviously a great deal of difference. Same for you other questions. Throughout time, composers have operated both as freelancers and as payed employees, and often as both simultaneously. The fact that you need this information demonstrates how lacking this article is. Do you intend to edit it, or was this a general fact-finding question? --Wolf m corcoran (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

To make it more concrete then, how about you take a major composer for each era, and with the support of reliable sources describe how they made their living? Ceadge (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost all composers work for themselves. They get commissions from government organizations and orchestras and they work with publishers. SG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.33.221 (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I need people do to my homework too. Myself. Hyacinth (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is a big one. Various composers earn varying amounts of money. Some are well payed and others are not. Recently, in the United States, there are SCADS of "composers" graduating from the universities and conservatories. Almost all of them are terrible, but the enormous number of composers available, as well as the huge number who give their music away for free (just happy to get a performance) have driven the earnings of professional composers down in the US. Gingermint (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Better definition

How about a composer as someone who "organizes sound in time to create music"? This seems to clarify the difference between a composer and a performer, and avoids the word "write." Planninefromouterspace (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The article now reads: "A composer [...] is a person who creates music, usually in the medium of notation, for interpretation and performance." I think that pretty much covers the difference between a composer and a performer or improviser. Jafeluv (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

All can hear life as music to some extend at least. That is why we enjoy listening to music. If one notices the atmospheres of one's sensations, whether they are dark in colour or down-to-earth = low notes, or light in colour or hopeful = high notes, one's experience of life and its varying via time create a landscape of music out of one's experiencies. I guess that a composer ought to be defined as "a person in whom this ability to observe life as music is very well developed and whose compositions are beautiful, wise and profound enough to be considered as good quality music by others" or something to that direction. InsectIntelligence (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The definition of "composer" is a classic argument. Classic!

The way the article is worded one would think there is absolutely no question as to what a composer is. I think it is vital (I'm not overstating it) that the wording of the opening paragraph reflect this. Gingermint (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the second paragraph illustrate well enough that there is some grey area? "In as much as the role of the composer in western art music has seen continued solidification, in alternative idioms (i.e. jazz, experimental music) it has in some ways become increasingly complex or vague. For instance, in certain contexts - the line between composer and performer, sound designer, arranger, producer, and other roles - can be quite blurred." I think that the current first sentence accounts for most, if not all 'common sense' definitions now, especially in that it now includes oral tradition and direct manipulation of sound through electronic media. What could be added/changed to help? --James O'Callaghan 02:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDOCallaghan (talk • contribs)

The definition

The definition in the article as of today

a person who creates music, either by musical notation or oral tradition, for interpretation and performance, or through direct manipulation of sonic material through electronic media^{[clarifcation needed]}

is getting tangled up in the details of the means and the medium. It seems to be trying to please everyone, but most of the discussions above are WP:OR anyway. Is anything wrong with Wiktionary's "an author of a piece of music"? Or, if a cited dictionary definition is wanted, most of the online dictionaries seem to specify writing music, but how about Chambers 20th Century Dictionary: "a writer or author, esp. of music"? --Stfg (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional citations

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Original research

Why and where does this article contain original research? How should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)