i wonder what peoples views are on composition teaching:
on the soon to be deleted messageboard i got an interesting reply from Veronika which suggested that a certain amount of homogeneity isn't a bad thing (eg.students of Finnissy or Andriessen or whoever having things in common)and that people often choose to study with a certain teacher on the basis that they admire his/her work.

Andrew Clements once said that Kagel was a good teacher on account of his students having such distinct personalities (Barry,Sawyer,Newman)

Perhaps the most objective approach to the teaching of composition is stylistic pastiche but this has been largely thrown out the window (in the conservatoires)Imaginative composers have often shown themselves to be inept in this area- - -though not always!

I'm hoping this turns into a thread with lots of interesting views...

I'm no composer myself but have several composer friends at widely differing stages in their careers, and enjoy talking about the whole composition process, including, of course, how it is taught.

The common view seems to be that the best teachers allow their (best?) students to go in the musical direction they wish - they offer practical/ pragmatic advice (ie that works, that doesn't, do you really mean that?, try a different/ simpler way of achieving the same end result) and share techniques (awful word but can't immediately think of another). Lesser teachers may well impose boundaries, but it's unlikely that anyone is going to suggest their students emulate their own sounds - as Richard says, by doing that, students end up writing music that sounds "second-hand" anyway - inauthentic is my favourite description. It is possibly only the lesser students that are going to start writing "sounds like" music anyway. And that reminds me of something I wrote in The Other Place about the difference between music that "sounds like..." and music which, at a deeper level, "behaves like..."

As a mere performer (!) I'm interested to get the views of the composers who post here on these perceptions. (And also how this links with the other thread currently running which is discussing critics, performers and their relationships with The Score)

Some composition teachers (Franco Donatoni springs to mind) have indeed been known to teach a suite of techniques by which one can write do-it-yourself Donatoni. I would say that's a very risky approach, but, just as with learning counterpoint, there might always be something that the student can generalise and extract for him/herself from such a very particular exercise. On the subject of teaching technique as such, I often find it useful when teaching to try to understand what a student's "vision" might be and then imagine a technique, or preferably several divergent ones, by which it might be realised. The resulting discussion can then be enlightening (for both parties) as to what this vision "really" is, and whether and how it's realisable, and the examples of possible techniques can help to point at the most appropriate one (ie. "none of the above") for the situation. As I write this I realise that I'm making a massive oversimplification; this is only one of the possible routes that might be taken, and then as a process which could best be described as collaboration. Anything either party says might be used as an insight, however trivial or tangential or even unintended it might seem. The process is in some ways not unlike musical improvisation.

in some instances an apparent overload of information of information can be very effective in a minature eg.Schoneberg op.19,no.1- - -by way of relief,this is followed by the most bare of the set.But yes,economy of material is possibly a wise ploy in a 1 minute piano piece especially if you've no idea what the context is (the one minute wonder project which has been mentioned)
Back to teaching,i was interested to read that Tansy Davies felt that through being largely self taught (?) she has a less safe approach to composing.
lehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/02/01/bmtansy101.xmlss

I wonder if you could explain this a bit further.  What is/was this 'overload of information?'  Do you mean some sort of sense of a surplus of sonic data? Or a sense of an overload of notational detail? Or an attempt to draw connections b/t too many layers of musical materials simultaneously?  etc., etc. ...

I have a multitude of additional questions about your list of questions, but ... let's start here first.

Hi Jenny - I think the point I made about continuity (or lack of it) IS important - composers should be aware of what they are doing - or not succeeding in doing !

Hi Aaron - by "overload of information" what I had in mind was too many ideas or overfussy treatment of ideas - or at least a piece which communicated an apparent desperation to cover as much ground as possible. Usually this is a bad idea with a one-minute piece (or so it seems to me) - although honourable exceptions may no doubt be found.

What we may find is that we disagree on an approach to composition itself, not just the teaching of it. I'm amazed that you have a "multitude of questions" about my off-the-cuff posting. (I had no idea that I was being either controversial or mysterious). I await them with interest !

KK, is that Paul Gadd conducting?!!!
 

                                           This is a BIG HORN