Composition V.S Technique

[cult-leader-of-djent]

Just a simple inquiry!

Which would you say is harder to do accomplish "Compose a Piece of Music" or "Master a Technique"

I believe composing is harder to do.

What do you think?

 

[yingmin]

Since you didn't specify that you had to compose a GOOD piece of music, mastering a technique is harder.

 

[celticelk]

What do I think? I think it's a poorly formed question.

 

[Durero]

The question doesn't sound very logical to me. Technique is a tool with which you compose or improvise (spontaneous composition.)

Which is harder or easier is completely dependant on the specific details of one's personal musical development. It doesn't generalize.

You're asking which is harder: learning to use a set of tools, or creating something with those tools?

Or by another analogy you're asking which is harder: learning spelling, grammar and sentence structure, or learning to write a story?

What's the point of comparing the two when one is fundamentally required to enable doing the other?


If the intention of your question is more like: "What are you more impressed by: good composition or good technique?" then for me it's composition every time.

I'm not impressed by a carpenter who can juggle a bunch of hammers or hit nails in with a single blow but rather with the quality of what they build.

Similarly any musician who can't create a phrase or composition that has an expressive emotional impact on me does absolutely nothing for me regardless of how flashy their technique is.

Music is not a sport.


Edit: Nor are the two mutually exclusive. Most of Shawn Lane's playing and a lot of Tosin Abasi's AAL stuff has a big impact on me and it happens to be unquestionably technically virtuosic. Again, whether the technique is flashy or basic, good composition is where the art comes out.

 

[veshly]

I find writing music a lot harder than mastering a technique. With techniques you just have to put the hours in of simple practice, maybe watch a youtube video or two. Writing music takes from a larger variety of skills that aren't as easy as just hammering out scales or whatever to a metronome.

 

[80H]

they were never in competition

 

[tyler_faith_08]

I know what you mean. I also don't look at just the question, I try to understand what you mean (which is the point of communication in the first place)

I measure difficulty by the number of hours it takes me to reach a level of satisfaction with where I stand with whatever I'm working with. If it takes me 5 minutes to learn a new technique and 6 hours to learn another, the latter is more difficult. If it takes me an hour to learn a technique and 4 hours to compose something that I like, I'm going to say that the composition was harder.

How much time does it take you to become satisfied with your proficiency with a technique and how long to compose a piece that sounds good to your ears?

My answer: Composition is harder.

 

[Mr. Big Noodles]

It's relative. We all have our respective strengths, different tastes, and manage our time according to what we can do and how much time we have to do it. For me, it's easier to compose than to practice technique, because I can do that whenever. If I had a consistent time to practice every day, I might say the opposite. Ultimately, both have their difficulties.

 

[starslight]

I find it significantly easier to practice a technique than to compose. I've been a musician for over ten years and I've spent at least a thousand hours working on technique and studying theory compared to maybe twenty hours composing.

Nearly every good artist got their start making bad art. But the important thing is they kept making art until they got good at it. Me, I can't deal with the thought of making anything shitty--even if no one else but me knows it. There's also the possibility that my art will always suck no matter how hard I try, so instead of trying and risking finding out I'm a hack, I just don't try.

Anyway. Off to work on my sweep-taps.