Dear all,

A random enquiry - how many of you compose your own music for the organ? If so, how easy do you find it to do?

It seems to me that on first glance it may seem quite straightforward, but in reality it is less so. This is not least because a deep knowledge of music theory is surely an advantage....I have heard this said and agree entirely, although the most important thing about composing must surely be 'feeling'. Many of our more contemporary works by say the cathedral organists of our or recent time, and also things by the likes of Messiaen, have vast deeper levels of meaning and a wealth of imagery behind them - quite often with a theological basis. When trying to 'paint' text in music, it can become quite abstract or even bizarre in places - making it hard for the lay-person to understand the music. Perhaps this means that one can be a bit too 'clever', which I don't think is that clever at times at all and is almost an over-simplification in some cases. There is nothing I find more cheesy and irritating than an organist being extremely proud of their abilities because they used a Trumpet (toned) stop during a line of a hymn which mentions a trumpet (etc etc). I digress.

I have fecently composed a piece of music for the organ (which is far from a perfect masterpiece, but has been done for personal reasons by way of helping myself on a personal journey) and have found it extremely difficult to achieve convincing results. With so many pre-assumptions of different schools of repertoire, it can be so hard to know where you're going to end up and via where, with so many brilliant influences wirring around in your mind. I think it might help to compose things with a specific instrument and it's character in mind. Perhaps this is why some of the most magnificent performances I have heard on the organ of say, York Minster, have been penned by composers such as Bairstow, or Jackson, or Whiteley....you see the pattern. Knowing an instrument and writing for it (well) is something very special indeed, and brilliantly acknowledges that no two organs (or buildings) are the same.

I have no doubt that a great deal of 'amateur' composition (and of course arranging) takes place and I expect most of these works are lost in the midsts of time. Who knows how many really credible, interesting, moving and exciting pieces have been lost because they came from the pen of someone completely unknown in this context and perhaps wasn't of sound musical structure or understanding, etc.

Comments and thoughts welcomed...

Tosher

This is a common misconception. I think it may have been Haydn who said that composing is 98% technique and 2% inspiration. If it wasn't, he does at least prove the point since there is absolutely no way in which he could have produced all the music he did without having the technique to see him through thick and thin. He was, after all, employed by the Duke of Esterhazy to compose. Whether he felt inspired or not didn't enter into it. It was his job to come up with the goods whether he felt like it or not. Haydn is just one example among many; Bach is another. Once a composer has the technique, inspiration may then lead him or her to produce great things, but no composition can hope to be successful if the underlying technique is not sound.

In my teens I composed a vast quantity of music, most of it for organ. It was all the most abject drivel and when I eventually came to my senses I destroyed it. I have rarely bothered to compose since (despite having had lessons from three very erudite people), simply because there are just too many others who do it better. Of the little I have produced, most is vocal or choral. I have maybe four or five short pieces that just about pass muster, but the rest is yet more drivel (if perhaps slightly less abject than before). The only organ piece I have produced is a set of variations on Veni Creator Spiritus that I wrote a few years ago. It has its moments, so people have told me, but overall it still doesn't work, principally because of a failure to organise its proportions and structure effectively.

Part of my problem is undoubtedly that, my youthful indiscretions apart, I simply never wrote enough. Technique in composition is like any other technique - if you don't practise it goes stale. So my advice to any budding composer would be to "get in there" and do it. Certainly get lessons to learn/improve your technique, but the first essential step is actually to be actively composing in the first place. The more you do, the easier it will be to learn.

"Once a composer has the technique, inspiration may then lead him or her to produce great things, but no composition can hope to be successful if the underlying technique is not sound."

This is so true, not just of composing, but of playing also.

There are many 'composers' around who would have difficulty in passing ABRSM Grade Five Theory, yet they visit their incoherent ramblings on the general public with apparent authority, usually in homespun settings fo the Series III/ASB/Common Worship words of Holy Communion or 'choruses'. Errors of setting abound. Words have the wrong musical accent, the harmonies fail, rhythmically, to underline to rise and fall of the melody, chord progressions fail to resolve effectively, consecutives are written so as to detract rather than enhance the music, (if they noticed that they have written consecutives!), the parts are laid out wrongly, the beaming and bar completions are incorrect and so on. Yet all is permitted because they 'feel' it. (And, dare I say it, because it is in church.)

Vox Humana has expressed the matter eloquently and with telling personal examples. It is a pity that those with very much less skill, (VH is FRCO and a fully trained professional musician,) insist on serving up poor quality music publicly that does little to express their feelings. The tragedy is that with so training these efforts are invariably much more effective and satisfying. It is not the lack of feeling or talent, but the lack of skill to express those feelings, that causes the musical problems.

Training in composition is easy to acquire and always worthwhile. The ability to harmonise melodies, complete string quartets in a given style, write simple counterpoint, etc. is, surely, the pre-requisite to handling the larger canvas of setting, say, the Sanctus or the Gloria. (The latter is notoriously difficult in the ICET/ICEL version.) This is no different to learning to control a motor vehicle before setting out on a journey, by which time one should have acquired the skills of traffic procedure.

We should encourage budding composers to study and learn the techniques that will enable their talent to be expressed completely and effectively.

Barry Williams

Sorry - impossible to resist!

Thank you, Maggiemay.

Whoops! Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare. (I have therefore amended the original post, but enjoy it, for it is not often that a lawyer admits to being wrong!)

Barry Williams

(The Latin is: My fault. My great fault. Any man can make a mistake, but only the unwise persists in his fault - hence the edit. )

Some interesting views.

Aside of this fascinating Latin, does anybody have any other comments, perhaps about any of your own works and how you found them to write?

I've only ever composed when absolutely forced - e.g for a university assignment and knew I had no aptitude for it.

Rearranging existing material to render it playable/singable by those with insufficient skill or technique to make a credible fist of the original -yes, I've done that. No doubt there are those who would think this a terrible thing to do (I've been warned that there is a living composer of a litigious disposition who would take exception to my antics were he to find me out)

I suspect VH is being too hard on himself because he doesn't happen to be JS Bach; I'm sure his compositions were better than he makes out but it is probably no bad thing to be one's own sternest critic.

It has never occurred to me to try writing music for organ, but perhaps it is no harder than writing for a string quartet? Perhaps someone will explain why, if so.

From a practical point of view, one of the hardest things about composing for the organ is that every instrument will be different. You really have two choices: (a) you compose for a specific instrument and accept that what you write might not be possible on others, or (b) you compose with a variety of different instruments in mind. In this respect you may choose to mark in specific registrations, or you may choose to just write in dynamics, and leave registration choice to the player. In my experience, US publishers prefer dynamics and UK publishers prefer specific registrations (and, to put it bluntly, get very snotty if you suggest anything otherwise - don't know whether this is a reflection on players too!? )

The organ music I write is primarily for chuch service use (maybe the odd recital) - I don't tend to write virtuoso recital pieces because (a) they don't tend to be used because there's such a 'standard' repertoire (b) my playing skills wouldn't be up to them, and © they won't be published. The majority of my organ music is published in the US and Canada, where there is a somewhat different attitude to playing - if they like a piece, they'll play it (regardless of who it's by, who it's published by, what CD it's on, which famous organist endorsed it etc. etc.) and if they don't, they won't. OK, that might be a bit simplistic, but there is certainly a very different approach across the pond.

As for influences and 'schools', I don't really take much notice of these - aren't I naughty What I write is what I write - it's me - obviously it's influenced by other composers, but I certainly don't set out to be like them or write like them. As with all music, some people will like it and some people won't. As long as there's people who do like it, I'm not bothered about the people that don't.

Interesting points.

I do compose choral music from time to time, and occasionally there needs to be an organ part. I always feel this to be harder to sort out than the rest of the composition. This probably makes me reluctant to attempt to compose, so far, for the organ alone.

Style is vital to consider, and as VH has said, it is equally vital to have a solid foundation in harmony. With that foundation, most people could I suspect produce something competent. Without it, to produce something reasonable is much harder if not impossible.

I think I rather incline to feeling that it may be better to avoid composing for one's own instrument (the temptations to indulge one's whims being perhaps too great) until the foundations of harmony, counterpoint, AND inspiration can all be drawn upon.