artofcomposing

I think people are more willing to take real criticism from people they respect. If you come on here, and just blast someone from what they have put up, but no respect has been built, the critiques will probably just be ignored. I would recommend that if someone is new to the forum, and they post something, then we should probably just take the stance of encouraging them, unless they ask specifically for critiques on certain aspects of their composing. I know that a simple "that was great" can make my day, while a "I didn't like it" can ruin my day. Even if the critique is valid and merited. With that being said, sometimes getting a good kick in the butt can be eye opening. Its about the respect thats been built.

Amen to Mahler!

I've found the opposite to be true. Analyzing music allows you to get into the composers head and creative process. When you can find out about the motivations or frame of mind that a composer was in, and then pair that with what they used musically to "say" what they said, the music really starts to come alive. "Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention." Sir Francis Bacon You can replace books with music.

I guess outdated wasn't a great word. I guess my deeper point was, there is a lot of wisdom rolled up into the older forms. They didn't just get created over night. I've found the forms quickly become a lot looser than a group of letters can really portray. For instance in something like an exposition to a sonata. "A" could mean a simple main theme and subordinate theme in dominant, but it could also mean a main theme, plus a transition that leads to a key other than dominant, a first subordinate theme, which brings a cadence in dominant of the home key, and then a second subordinate theme, with multiple codettas. Both examples could be looked at as "A" but ultimately bring about different forms. I do agree, music with any or no organization behind it can sound good. But normally you can tell when someone is making the choice of no organization, versus not understanding traditional organization techniques. And it is just as easy to sound bad with organization if you don't have any real inspiration in the music. That is why I like to take the middle ground, really try and learn the form, and then let music just happen.

Form is one of those things that needs to be internalized. I like to separate my composing into two different camps. The first camp is more like practice. I want to internalize something that I have studied, in this case, maybe sonata form. So I plan out a piece that covers what is generally accepted as sonata-allegro form. Exposition-Development-Recapitulation. From there I will break down each part into smaller parts that also conform to specific things that I want to learn. So for the exposition, I'll pre-plan a main theme that is a period, then maybe a transition to a subordinate theme that is a sentence. I'll also make sure to put in certain devices like expansion and extension, all done consciously and pre-meditated. What this does is help to cement concepts that are only notional after being read. Then there is the other side of the coin. Composing out of inspiration or just letting the music take you wherever. When I have internalized concepts through deliberate practice, I find the forms will manifest naturally, maybe with more variation. They will also tend to be more complete and logical sounding, instead of academic, because they are guided by intuition. So form is not outdated. We can still learn a whole lot from the past and apply it today.

The analogy isn't really that flying a helicopter and writing music are the same, its more about the process of continuously learning and growing. I like to approach a lot of my composing as practice. I am practicing certain aspects, so I can internalize them. That way, when I am struck with inspiration, if I have internalized more aspects, it takes less effort to get it down on paper. So in a sense, I am not reaching for perfection or glory on many, if not most of my compositions. I am reaching for improvement.

My vote goes for musescore

I agree with Composer Phil. If it is working for you, then don't get in the way. I have always just a felt more connected and "mentally in the game" when I had to play on the piano what I wrote, and write it out by hand. Granted, the studies that I was citing from are for writing words or chinese characters and typing, so they are flawed in the sense that they don't specifically look at the effect of composing by hand vs software. But the overall concept is similar. When you are activating larger parts of your brain that deal with memory and creativity, because of the feedback mechanisms in your hands and arms, it could mean increased creativity. It could also mean that you are just working harder and still writing crap. ;) If anyone knows some brain scientists, maybe we could put together a study looking at the two, and put this to rest.

I try and compose at least once a week. My thing is, I try to make it productive. I've come to the realization that I am not going to write a masterpiece every time I sit down to compose. So at the very least, I want to say that I improved at least once aspect of my composing, just a little bit with each composition. Whether its my understanding of form, harmony, melody... whatever. It was once told to me by one of my army instructor pilots, that there are terrible pilots with 1000's of hours. The reason they are terrible is because they went out everyday and flew "the same hour." They didn't actively try and improve, but they just stuck to what was comfortable and familiar. I try and "fly new hours," every time I compose.

Hey, I thought about this quite a bit and wrote up a blog post about it. Read it if you wish, its title Composing Music by Hand vs Software. My feeling is by hand as stated earlier, but I try to give a few more explanations, mainly in the scientific realm, as to the benefits of writing by hand. Let me know what you think.

There are specific benefits to writing away from an instrument vs at the instrument. At the instrument - Obvious benefit is immediate feedback. This is the same for at the computer. You think, play, hear, repeat... The problem here can be you get set in a certain path, and it can be hard to stray from that path if you want to compose something new. Probably most people will relate with "noodling around" and not really getting anywhere. Away from the instrument - Benefit here is you tend to focus on different things. You will probably pay more attention to the intervals and the rhythm, vs the sound. This may be good, especially focusing on the rhythm. It is definately a mental exercise and can improve your chops. When you do it, then go back and listen to what you wrote, a lot of times there can be a surprise. I would suggest doing both occasionally. One of the main benefits of composing away from the piano is increasing the mental work it takes to compose. This will change your brain, and open up new paths.

Here is an exercise you can do. Try removing chords and writing the best thing you can. If you can compose something great with just, lets say G and D, that sounds coherent and complete, then add another chord. In the end, if you like what you wrote, and no one else does (and its not a commission), then it is in great taste. Never lose sight of who you are composing for.

Writing by hand has always seemed to lead to better compositions. I think its because when you write by hand, you have a deeper connection with the piece. When I sit at a computer and type out the notes, yeah they are mine, but it just doesn't feel as natural. But when you sit down and write by hand, you have a connection to the piece of music that you would not otherwise have. I do know there have been studies on writing essays by hand vs typing, and writing by hand usually yields better essays. Another aspect as well, writing by hand I think adds to the learning process when composing. There are feedback mechanisms in your brain that help reinforce what you are writing. For me, this goes hand in hand with not just composing out of the blue whatever you want, but actually composing with a purpose. Specific, targeted composing. Working on things that you are not good at. My hand goes up for the hand.

I agree with working on conciseness. I always feel that the great composers can "say what they want to say" in fewer notes. I heard a quote once (I am paraphrasing here, so let me know who said it because I would like to know). "It's easy to be simple and boring. It's easy to be complicated and beautiful. But to be simple and beautiful, that is art."