Anything Wrong With Composing On The Computer?

robin,

Don't you remember the piano track, inthe orchestral setting? Were you not "fooled" that it was live (even if it wasn't). I have a new track which sounds rather close to the real thing. ;) Over at the orchestral section again. And in fact, this new track (named igor) was composed straight to the sequencer. No score involved. And although, from my POV, it is evident, it still sounds... exciting...

If we're talking about live acoustics, in a concert, or just plain live, then sure. There's a whole thing about how sound is produced and blah blah blah. But if we're talking about a CD or a recording? Then, well, it's not such a long way between a speaker playing a sample or a live recording.

After all, samples ARE live recordings.

True, BUT the samples are only a single instrument. A recording - CD - records the interaction of sounds. I don't think you can get the same effect from samples. The sounds don't interact the same way as the would when produced live.

Sure, It can come close - but there's still something missing.

:whistling:

robin,

Don't you remember the piano track, inthe orchestral setting? Were you not "fooled" that it was live (even if it wasn't). I have a new track which sounds rather close to the real thing. ;) Over at the orchestral section again. And in fact, this new track (named igor) was composed straight to the sequencer. No score involved. And although, from my POV, it is evident, it still sounds... exciting...

HAHA!! Good eye - and yes, I was fooled. I'll not say that samples aren't convincing as hell, I just think, with closer inspection and intimate listening something would tip me off.... ;) Maybe not...I could be full of scraggy, who knows.

well, using samples and computer you can do things other than by way of playing live, i think it just broadens up the musical horizon, which is what art is meant to do - make new ways, live new events. as for sample approaching live playing, sure, one day it will come so close that no one really would be discerning, or, for that matter, the little difference wouldn't mean much,''cause it's not just about sound, but composition and the thought movement.

please, don't misunderstand me - i love acoustic instruments (i have a dream of getting as many instruments as i can, if i wouldn't be able to buy them i'll have to steal :)))and the way they sound. i love the touch of the piano and possible sound textures, which are so hard to reproduce on computer. still, there's wonderful soundworld inherent to possibilities opened up by advancing technology and computer based composition.

It has a lot to do with the sounds. You said it yourself. Who cares if you set it to piano, or trombone, or frigging bagpipes. The sounds are fake, and will NEVER come close to replicating the extremely complex relationships between sounds.

If you get used to how something (anything) sounds on a computer, you will be surprised at how different it sounds in real life...sometimes good, sometimes bad.

I think we agree and you just misread what I wrote.

Finale has bad sounds. BUT I don't rely on Finale for playback and I don't think sounds should be counted as a point against using computers to compose. A good composer shouldn't rely on the playback, just as if I was composing a string quartet on the piano, I wouldn't expect it to sound like the piano.

For me it comes down to efficiency - how fast does it take to write, how fast can I change it - and there, people who prefer pen+paper just haven't learned how to use computers to the fullest. :P

Pencil and paper takes forever and you need to copy it into Finale or Sibelius anyway if you want it performed. I think it's safe to say that even the best handwritten parts no longer satisfy modern performers, especially orchestras.

You may be generally right when it comes to orchestras, but in many cases pencil and paper may be more effective, faster to write, and just as good-lucking (if not even more). This is mainly the case when you're writing things in a more graphical notation, use aleatoric elements, make heavy use of extended techniques that need to be designated, and so on. Most notation programs, such as Finale, are designed for "traditional" music notation with time signatures, key signatures, measures, a fixed number of staves, traditionally notated rhythm, a division of the octave in 12 semitones, etc. While it's certainly possible to write other kinds of music with Finale, it may take you lots of time and sweat to get it right, and if you aren't very good at using the programs, it won't even look good. In such cases you're a lot better off writing your stuff by hand.

Actually, the only real reason for me to write stuff on a computer is that it makes it so much easier to create parts in orchestral pieces. 90% of my non-orchestral pieces are only written by hand, and I never had a performer complain about it. (Actually many said that it looked nicer than computer-written stuff.) And I even had orchestral pieces written solely by hand, if they contained aleatoric elements or space notation.

(You'll also find quite a lot of handwritten stuff in professionally published compositions by certain well-known composers, when there's simply no notation program to satisfy the demands of a composition well enough.)

I think we agree and you just misread what I wrote.

Finale has bad sounds. BUT I don't rely on Finale for playback and I don't think sounds should be counted as a point against using computers to compose. A good composer shouldn't rely on the playback, just as if I was composing a string quartet on the piano, I wouldn't expect it to sound like the piano.

For me it comes down to efficiency - how fast does it take to write, how fast can I change it - and there, people who prefer pen+paper just haven't learned how to use computers to the fullest. :P

AH.

Then you're talking solely on notational terms. Then there's not much argument. For most purposes, computer notation is far superior - essentially, it's just a big, expensive, fancy pencil/paper.

You didn't ask if there was anything wrong with writing it down on a computer.... you asked about composing on one. A wholly different task than simply copying it out, I think.

You may be generally right when it comes to orchestras, but in many cases pencil and paper may be more effective, faster to write, and just as good-lucking (if not even more). This is mainly the case when you're writing things in a more graphical notation, use aleatoric elements, make heavy use of extended techniques that need to be designated, and so on. Most notation programs, such as Finale, are designed for "traditional" music notation with time signatures, key signatures, measures, a fixed number of staves, traditionally notated rhythm, a division of the octave in 12 semitones, etc. While it's certainly possible to write other kinds of music with Finale, it may take you lots of time and sweat to get it right, and if you aren't very good at using the programs, it won't even look good. In such cases you're a lot better off writing your stuff by hand.

Actually, the only real reason for me to write stuff on a computer is that it makes it so much easier to create parts in orchestral pieces. 90% of my non-orchestral pieces are only written by hand, and I never had a performer complain about it. (Actually many said that it looked nicer than computer-written stuff.) And I even had orchestral pieces written solely by hand, if they contained aleatoric elements or space notation.

(You'll also find quite a lot of handwritten stuff in professionally published compositions by certain well-known composers, when there's simply no notation program to satisfy the demands of a composition well enough.)

Does it count I wrote something in photoshop? ... Cuz that's still a computer program, but it's sorta like writing by hand too. ... ...

Does it count I wrote something in photoshop? ... Cuz that's still a computer program, but it's sorta like writing by hand too. ... ...

Dude, are you serious? That must have taken some major jimmy riggin. I'd like to see this photoshop score of yours, I'm quite interested now...:w00t:

Does it count I wrote something in photoshop? ... Cuz that's still a computer program, but it's sorta like writing by hand too. ... ...

I doubt writing music in photoshop will be more efficient than writing it by hand :D It certainly may look great though! But yeah, you're right. It's more comparable with writing by hand, but technically computer notation.

It's nowhere near hardcore enough though. Real men write their music in ASCII art! Or at least write their own notation program with assembler. And of course there are still good old punch cards. (Hello Mr. Nancarrow!)

I doubt writing music in photoshop will be more efficient than writing it by hand :D It certainly may look great though! But yeah, you're right. It's more comparable with writing by hand, but technically computer notation.

It's nowhere near hardcore enough though. Real men write their music in ASCII art! Or at least write their own notation program with assembler. And of course there are still good old punch cards. (Hello Mr. Nancarrow!)

What are you talking about? Real men buy themselves a UNIVAC I to write 5 measures.

Are you a bad enough dude to program the UNIVAC I???!

Dude, are you serious? That must have taken some major jimmy riggin. I'd like to see this photoshop score of yours, I'm quite interested now...:w00t:

Uhh. http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/lines-two-tenor-recorders-12393.html here. Hahaha~

I personally use the computer more for my compositions.

I may sketch ideas down on a sheet of paper, but I always put it into my computer and see how exactly it sounds and whether or not I want to keep it.

The only time when I used paper and pencil and no computer is in an arrangement I did of Rhapsody in Blue for a Jazz Ensemble. It was just too tedious to write everything in Finale.

Hey, I've heard from people on this forum that "real composing is done with pencil and paper" and other such things like that.

The thing is, I find that almost impossible, seen as I have no idea how it will sound until I get it into Reason. Another thing is that even though I start on paper, soon I will type up what I have written to see if it sounds OK, and then I normally end up composing a lot more on the computer, just chopping and changing and trying different things. It's a lot quicker and I can actually hear what I've composed and decide, yes or no.

Is there anything wrong with this? Like will it teach me bad habits in the long run? And how do you learn to compose on paper?

Cheers.

There's no wrong way to compose. The only thing that matters is the resulting sound. "real composing is done with pencil and paper" ...that's interesting...didn't read somewhere that Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, and others were all obsessive piano improvisers? Clearly there is no correct way to compose. All that matters is: Are you comfortable with the method you are using and do you end up with music that you like?

Also, I wouldn't worry about forming "bad habits." Those "bad habits" may be just what makes your music unique! I'm not sure what bad habits would even be, in music. Using parallel fifths?

Personally I think rules and rights and wrongs have absolutely no place in music. They only have a place if a composer CHOOSES to compose in a certain style. If however the composer simply wants to write his own music----THERE ARE NO RULES. period.

Also, I wouldn't worry about forming "bad habits." Those "bad habits" may be just what makes your music unique! I'm not sure what bad habits would even be, in music. Using parallel fifths?

I suppose what one usually means with "bad habits" is when you're not composing what you actually strive for, but settle for more convenient solutions out of lazyness. I'm not saying though that even out of this there couldn't come music that exceeds your musical imagination in a good way.

I disagree that there are no rules when a composer simply wants to write her or his own music. There are just no common ones. You always make your own rules, even if unconsciously, and you always have some expectations of your own music. Of course that doesn't mean you can't break them.

I suppose what one usually means with "bad habits" is when you're not composing what you actually strive for, but settle for more convenient solutions out of lazyness. I'm not saying though that even out of this there couldn't come music that exceeds your musical imagination in a good way.

I disagree that there are no rules when a composer simply wants to write her or his own music. There are just no common ones. You always make your own rules, even if unconsciously, and you always have some expectations of your own music. Of course that doesn't mean you can't break them.

We can call those aesthetic parameters, perhaps? Rules sounds a little to ...rule-y.

We can call those aesthetic parameters, perhaps? Rules sounds a little to ...rule-y.

Commandments, then!

[iTS ALL I USE FOR WRITING MUSIC,,REASON 4...AFTERALL TIME IS IMPORTANT THESE DAYS AND WE MUST MOVE WITH IT

MUSIC-AL

REASON IS GOOD,ITS WHAT I USE FOR SPEED,MOVE WITH THE TIMES

[iTS ALL I USE FOR WRITING MUSIC,,REASON 4...AFTERALL TIME IS IMPORTANT THESE DAYS AND WE MUST MOVE WITH IT

REASON IS GOOD,ITS WHAT I USE FOR SPEED,MOVE WITH THE TIMES

Calm down...there's no need to shout.

For many of us Reason is useless as it's only a sequencer. What do you do if you want to print parts for real musicians to play?

You use it for speed? Speed is often a bad thing - accuracy and attention to detail are often lost when someone rushes through something.

Relax. I'm glad you like reason, but it's certainly not the be-all and end-all of musical softwares. Far from it.

For many of us Reason is useless as it's only a sequencer.o if you want to print parts for real musicians to play?

as i much as i don't like CAPS LOCK on, i still know couple of examples when computer music is played live by real musicians - look at tons of laptop artists, hell, we even have a laptop quartet in lithuania, which plays stockhausen and other computer based music. so, they are real musicians who can play with reason, which must not necceseraly be used for sequencing.

as for playing with acoustic instruments - well, there is such thing as arrangement. the best example i know is works (computer or digitally made) of richard d. james (more known as aphex twin), which are performed live by 'alarm will sound' ensemble.

there is no dead end and bridges are being made from one to the other sphere of music. after all, it's all about sound and invention.

peace, old schoolers ;)

i still know couple of examples when computer music is played live by real musicians - look at tons of laptop artists...they are real musicians who can play with reason, which must not necceseraly be used for sequencing.

Touch

Both have their benifits and disadvantages-- writing at the computer allows me to hear exactly what you are writing when it's played back. However, the most importanty part about writing out music on paper to me is that you can set the score out in front of you. I find this crucial to determining the overall shape of a piece, and makes it much easier to look at the 'big picture.' While I sometimes draft at the computer to compensate for my mediocre piano skills, orchestrating the old-fasioned way is the only way to go. The MIDI instruments suck. But also, MIDIs are quite thin and unbalanced. If you compose something and manage to make the MIDI sound good, chances are that when you bring it to a real ensemble it will sound even better.

Or it might sound worse. What works in midi might not work live, and vice versa. Anyway, I'm used to using the computer but recently have tried writing without a piano or anything, just me, a pencil, and paper. While I find Finale extremely useful for professional looking notation and decent playback, I've learned that I understand what I write more with paper, mainly because I have to think about it more before writing it. I think a good mix is fine; computers offer speed and you can hear all the parts at once, while paper allows you to be much more organic and natural in the process. If you can do that with computers as well then by all means use a computer. It's faster, looks better, and in the end you can play it back immediately.

Technology is good, use it! But the most complex technology shouldn't necessarily be used the most; in fact, it could be argued that simpler technology should be or is used the most :huh:.

I've gone back and forth on this issue, and since I'm only 16 i imagine it will keep switching.

The piano and the computer both have benefits and follies. Although I used to think that composing on the computer produced crap because people simply listen to the midi and judge the music that way, I have found that composing on the piano is also very limited. This is because when composing on the piano, anything you write will be confined by what you can play at any given moment, without practice.

However, when young people write on the computer, they totally ignore what fits well under the hand, etc.

I think that to compose well on a computer, you have to have a lot of background knowledge. It takes a mature composer to write well without a piano, because you have to be able to use your mind instead of the midi to tell yourself whether or not it's good. If an amateur approaches composition on a computer, it can only end in headaches...

(note: I'm not saying I'm NOT an amateur...for the most part, I compose using a piano.)

Actually, with a little ear training, it's not that hard to write without a piano and still get most of the sound you want right :P. I do it a bit :ermm:.

With enough training and talent I suppose you could do it the same without a piano as with one.

Hey, I've heard from people on this forum that "real composing is done with pencil and paper" and other such things like that.

The thing is, I find that almost impossible, seen as I have no idea how it will sound until I get it into Reason. Another thing is that even though I start on paper, soon I will type up what I have written to see if it sounds OK, and then I normally end up composing a lot more on the computer, just chopping and changing and trying different things. It's a lot quicker and I can actually hear what I've composed and decide, yes or no.

Is there anything wrong with this? Like will it teach me bad habits in the long run? And how do you learn to compose on paper?

Cheers.

I do not know a single professor Composer who uses only a pencil and pen to compose. Usually it's a mixture. When I write music, I like to do it mostly on paper. At least, I like to give the general idea of the music on paper. I feel more comfortable with it and I do not have to be bother with key strokes.

Once I do have the general feel down I have no qualms writing solely on the computer. It's wonderful way to edit quickly add notes here and there and make sure it really works, but I would like to address what I put in bold for a second.

I think you'll find a lot of composers don't NEED to do that. So there is as much of an incentive to work solely with a computer to compose. If you do not have confidence in your ability to write with your mind alone, then a computer will only handicap your progression. Yes, it's very difficult at first to write only with pencil and a paper, but I suggest you practice it to see how far you can really go. I feel you'll learn more about composing that way than simply listening to the midi playback.

That's my two cents.