I have two friends, both composers:*
Friend #1 writes only when inspired. She could be on a walk, doing housework, asleep, whatever, and she is struck with a flash of inspiration. She sits down at the piano, lets the music come through her, and basically doesn't stop until she's/it's done. She's had no formal training as a composer.
Friend #2 has a Ph.D. in composition from a very reputable school. He sits down and composes for three hours, five days a week. He has solid technique and is somewhat dismissive of "inspiration," claiming, "If I receive a commission with a deadline, I can't sit around and wait to be inspired."
Today's questions:
1. Is there an appropriate balance between technique and inspiration?
2. Is one more privileged than the other in our society? (I'm thinking of the valorization of the amateur on YouTube, American Idol, etc.)
2a. If so, what accounts for this privilege? (I personally think it has something to do with the "authenticity" of the experience)
3. What if Friend #1 is inspired but lacks the technical ability to notate her inspiration? (In a conversation with her, I brought up Schoenberg's serial technique; she had never heard of it.)
Certainly questions very similar to these could be asked of performers as well: is it better to actually emote on stage, or could someone with enough technical prowess create the illusion of emotion?
What about improvisation? Is it enough to just "create" through your horn? Does poor technique limit the kinds of inspirations you can perform?
All of this goes back to Diderot's Paradox of acting...
*Actually, I have more than two friends. Facebook says I have 330, but I probably don't have that many either.
Friend #1 writes only when inspired. She could be on a walk, doing housework, asleep, whatever, and she is struck with a flash of inspiration. She sits down at the piano, lets the music come through her, and basically doesn't stop until she's/it's done. She's had no formal training as a composer.
Friend #2 has a Ph.D. in composition from a very reputable school. He sits down and composes for three hours, five days a week. He has solid technique and is somewhat dismissive of "inspiration," claiming, "If I receive a commission with a deadline, I can't sit around and wait to be inspired."
Today's questions:
1. Is there an appropriate balance between technique and inspiration?
2. Is one more privileged than the other in our society? (I'm thinking of the valorization of the amateur on YouTube, American Idol, etc.)
2a. If so, what accounts for this privilege? (I personally think it has something to do with the "authenticity" of the experience)
3. What if Friend #1 is inspired but lacks the technical ability to notate her inspiration? (In a conversation with her, I brought up Schoenberg's serial technique; she had never heard of it.)
Certainly questions very similar to these could be asked of performers as well: is it better to actually emote on stage, or could someone with enough technical prowess create the illusion of emotion?
What about improvisation? Is it enough to just "create" through your horn? Does poor technique limit the kinds of inspirations you can perform?
All of this goes back to Diderot's Paradox of acting...
*Actually, I have more than two friends. Facebook says I have 330, but I probably don't have that many either.