Anything Wrong With Composing On The Computer?

In the end I'll probably do all three. That is, I have it on Reason to see how it sounds, and I also write it on paper so that I can then type it up on Sibelius to print an actual score.

Of course all of my music starts with inspiration and then playing it out on keyboard. I guess the idea really is that it would be nice one day to be able to go straight from piano to paper and have a rough idea of how it's gonna sound already. I find that kind of thing pretty amazing and hopefully it will come with time and practice.

BUT, in most situations, it's still not terribly useful as a compositional tool.

What specifically do you mean by this? And what other useful tools are there? I can't imagine a computer program being able to work any better than Reason, other than having better sound samples of course.

As my only experience with composing has been through a midi sequencer, there were plenty of mistakes to learn from. My methods were at first just to listen to a piece and try to reproduce it and learn structure that way. I stopped once I started loading midis and studying them.

I don't think using a computer as opposed to writing down scores is necessarily better or worse. As other members have stated, both are good for their own reasons, and both have their own drawbacks. For me, I don't read sheet music or play the piano very well, so telling a computer what to play for me has been the only means to realize the ideas I come up with. Before I used sequencers, I used to invent melodies in my head without being able to commit them to any medium. I used to frustrate myself trying to do them on the piano. Those ideas seemed to me a lot better than what I come up with on a sequencer. It really isn't the same... there's a level of immediacy with your mind that is intimate, and using a sequencer interrupts that process rather rudely. Music is an instinctual thing for me because I understand the emotions and textures that it invokes.

I'm learning what and how I can, I suppose, and if computers empower me to do what I wouldn't normally be able to do, how can I gainsay them?

I think we can compare computer engraving and writing on paper to writing a novel on paper and typing a novel on the computer. There is no problem with writing a novel on the computer, as far as you know grammar, syntax, spelling properly, so that a) you won't be based on the fact that the computer may correct some of this kind of mistakes that occur in your writing to create a document that looks professional, b) you know exactly what you want to see and you won't let the computer get in the way, and c) when you want to override a computer default setting, you won't think "oh, if this is how the computer does it, then it's the correct thing to do" but think "I know how to write and spell so well, that I know what I am trying to do is correct and I will ignore the computer in doing this".

EDIT:

Another analogy is that to photography. Analog versus DSLR. They are both tools to a goal - photography. Many photographers will claim that using an analog camera is better because the quality is most usually many many times better than that of the best digital camera out there. You'll find that professional photographers, though, use DSLRs and not analog cameras because of the advantages: being able to preview the photo right after you've taken it (like instant playback on finale), have some automations (like finale correcting your notation "spelling" some times), because you can easily transfer it to the computer without quality loss (i.e. scanning) and send it (just like you can save scores in PDF format on finale), because you can have a 16gb card and can save thousands of incredibly good quality photos together (just like finale's capacity is limited by your hard disk's capacity), because you can change ISO at will without changing films (just like you can add a staff without having to buy extra manuscript paper) and you don't have to pay for printing the photos to see them (just like you don't have to pay for manuscript paper in finale). However, professional photographers know how to operate an analog camera perfectly, have a very deep understanding of the mechanics and functions that an analog camera can offer, and have used an analog camera extensively before moving on to a digital camera. What's more, a professional photographer will never let the camera make a decision he doesn't want it to do, and he always knows the abilities and limitations of his camera and how to overcome any automations the camera makes that he doesn't want. The camera always remains a tool and just a tool, and doesn't or shouldn't affect the composition due to the photographer's ignorance.

[/EDIT]

The same stands true for notation: one should not use computer notational programs because he/she is ignorant of the traditional (or even the modern) notational devices and techniques - computer software and manuscript paper are but tools to write what you already know how to write, just in a clearer form (and faster, for me at least).

Writing your music on the computer offers many advantages, such as being able to delete a particular element of your music without having to re-write whole pages of music, being able to transpose easily, save your files in a format that is easily readable by other people etc.

However, writing on paper offers other advantages, such as a different kind of pleasure than working on the pc, gives a more unique character to each piece and each note, really, as they are all unique and different and makes you "think twice before you think" (as e.e. cummings said) - you actually think a lot before you put a note down, because you put much more effort in putting that note down by pencil than by clicking the mouse. In fact, Morton Feldman said that he always wrote his music in ink, not in pencil, because he loved the idea of writing something that is permanent and the fact that not having the facility to just erase notes using an eraser made him take his music more seriously. It's like playing tennis and it's your turn to serve: if you have only one ball in your hand before you serve, you will concentrate more on the serve and try harder to get it in as opposed to having two balls on you (either two in your hand or one in your hand and one in your pocket), because then you think "ok, I don't really care if I miss that one, because I've got another one handy". But thing is, you'll never shoot the second ball as strongly as you'd shoot the first one, because you don't have any more chances to miss.

Anyway, back to notation.

You should all consider what people did until 15 years ago, when there were no personal notational programs (not even professional, I think), and everyone wrote music by hand on manuscript paper (apart from engravers in publishing companies).

As of "how to learn how to notate", you can a) check out scores by other people (which is not always the best way, as some composers' scores are famous for notational mistakes or bad notation (e.g. Stravinsky) or b) instead of re-inventing the wheel, read a book by people who have studied the subject of notation quite thoroughly and have written out all these rules about notation. The best thing would be to read books and then study scores, so that you'll judge the scores with a more critical eye and know what to look for when you're seeking to see how something is notated.

A very good example of a notational book is "Music Notation" by Gardner Read (just google these four words and you'll get the book on amazon). It's got all the traditional techniques and notational devices laid down in a very simple and comprehensible way (as well as some modern innovations), and it is quite complete and handy for any beginner (in fact, it was the first book I ever read on music, I chose to read this book before reading any books on harmony, counterpoint or instrumentation because I thought it would be more logical to know how to write words first than learning how to write a novel, poem or short story).

Just my 1/50th of a dollar.

I think people need to start excepting the modern computer as a musical instrument. Like the composers piano, if he has it not, he is illequipped.

Theres no problem depending on a computer tool besides that when it is unavailable to you in times of need, you're doomed.

"Music is at its final stage." Thus writing it on a computer, on a piece of paper, or just plain jacking everyone elses ideas is darn acceptable.

Like the composers piano, if he has it not, he is illequipped.

My composition professor doesn't have a piano! Well, she does have a virginal, so I guess that's the same thing in the end. Personally I've always wanted a clavichord. It's quiet enough not to disturb any neighbors when I'm composing at 3 AM, but still gives me a direct mechanical feeling. I just hate using a digital piano for composing for some reason. Plus, clavichords are just awesome!

compose with pencil and paper, sounds like a arrogant man/woman who has totaly misunderstod what composing is about, who cares how you compose you music? as long as the music is good, and you like it yourself. the pen and paper dude, im sure him/her is not a good composer, if the person was a good composer he/her would never say anything like that, i agree with you helgarr :)

I compose most of my stuff using computers. If you want your music to sound good and be able to distribute it online, I think composing on paper would be counter-productive as you'd have to reenter it into finale/cubase/reason/whatever sequencing software you use. That's my 2 cents.

I don't think it's necessarily wrong to compose (primarily) with the computer, but in the long term it could shape your tendencies as a composer. Specifically, I find myself identifying less with the notation and more with the sound (despite having used exclusively staff mode to write music). I'm guessing since there is such a direct and immediate response to putting down a note, there's a tendency to worry less about the exact notation as opposed to the sound it produces. Consequently, I pretty much just end up putting notes in a trial-and-error method until they "sound right" to me, all the while only half-heartedly paying attention to the notation that generates it (ie, associating a visual arrangment of notes to specific sounds). Even less so I imagine for those who rely mainly with piano roll notation. I guess the benefit of doing it this way is that you really don't need to learn music theory and all that jazz to compose something agreeable to you, but you'll probably struggle to some degree when transition to writing music without this aid.

That said, I don't necessarily consider written notation to be a mandatory practice - well, at least for those who won't be composing completely non-electronic pieces. There certainly elements that do not quite translate exactly to the computer (for example, a lot of MIDI synthesizers/sampler players do let you extend the realistic range of an instrument quite considerably) that may result in confusion, but at some point the composer will have some sort of reconciliation if he's ever to have his music performed.

But there are certainly some benefits to writing on notation, many of which are mentioned before (such as possibly having a greater sense of intentionally and deliberation in writing down ever note). Well, at least for the more conventional types - modern notation doesn't really get along well with microtonal or very timbrally expressive music, for example (that's more of a problem against the notation system, but computer programs do let you express these things somewhat easier). Ideally though, one should be comfortable in all manners of producing music to be ready in all cases.

wrong? no. it's called evolution.

i bet bach would have the time of his life if he would own a quad-core with the full east west library installed on it.

seriously, within 50yrs using the computer will be the prevalent way to compose, there will always be naysayers that'll keep wining about how the old days were better and keep writing scores on paper which in the end, will be printed out in finale or sibelius..

I think people need to start excepting the modern computer as a musical instrument.

Yes, when the computer is used to create music, not notate music.

If you want your music to sound good

then get it played by real players, computer interpretations of music are never as good as real performances anyway.

i bet bach would have the time of his life if he would own a quad-core with the full east west library installed on it.

or maybe he'd have the worst time of his life, because by hearing the instruments on the computer he wouldn't nourish his imagination and creativity (which he would, if he didn't have a computer and he had to imagine the harmonies and instruments on his head) and thus he would be unable to compose the music he composed.

Also, the quite bad thing about notating on the computer is that what you write down is definitely affected by the playback, which is quite nothing compared to the real thing. Furthermore, the computer limits you in terms of writing down what you want, because if you haven't really mastered the software, you will have to do what the notational program allows you to do and nothing more. Plus, many effects on the instruments and stuff, are not audible in the playback, so you might as well ignore their existence if you're composing solely based on the playback of your software.

I am not saying you shouldn't use the computer, I always typeset my music, whether I wrote it by hand or directly on the computer, simply because by typesetting my music on the computer I can make it more legible, I can make backups, I can send it over to other people, and I can make photocopies much easier. But I almost always turn off playback and sound until I've finished typesetting it.

Just like digital cameras are tricky for artistic photography, since they a) automate many settings for you and b) you can see the result immediately (but the result you see on the screen is not always the result you'll get on paper). Plus, if you're an amateur and are using a digital camera, you're mostly going to learn by trial and error instead of knowing your camera really really well and overriding its default settings because you know what you want, and you're not complying with the camera in any way. Which is why analog cameras are much better, because you actually have to know how the settings with which you'll take the photo are going to affect your photo, and you now exactly what you want and you don't need to preview the result immediately.

And I am not saying that real artistic photographers only use analog cameras, of course they use digital ones, but they already know the rules, they know how to use an analog camera perfectly, they know how to control the digital camera into doing whatever it is that they want to do, not the camera.

The camera always remains a tool to the photographer's hand, and it should be the same with notational software. They should always remain a tool and not affect in any way your composition/result.

But there are certainly some benefits to writing on notation, many of which are mentioned before (such as possibly having a greater sense of intentionally and deliberation in writing down ever note). Well, at least for the more conventional types - modern notation doesn't really get along well with microtonal or very timbrally expressive music, for example (that's more of a problem against the notation system, but computer programs do let you express these things somewhat easier).

I'm confused. Aren't exactly those more "modern" techniques actually much easier to notate on paper than in a computer? Notation programs are always somewhat bound to what they "expect from music" (measures, a system of 12 distinct tones, a certain range of techniques, etc.). If you write stuff on paper you can always easily invent your own way of notating something where no standard exists, while that may be more troublesome in computer programs.

I'm confused. Aren't exactly those more "modern" techniques actually much easier to notate on paper than in a computer? Notation programs are always somewhat bound to what they "expect from music" (measures, a system of 12 distinct tones, a certain range of techniques, etc.). If you write stuff on paper you can always easily invent your own way of notating something where no standard exists, while that may be more troublesome in computer programs.

Yeah that part was rather misworded, and me just wanting to rag on the notational system in general than anything else :whistling:. I think the point I was trying to make though was that the computer in that case can work well as a compositional/visualization(or auralization, if that's a word) tool (rather than a notational tool), in somewhat of a tangent.

I think I said something earlier about midi being alright. I should modify my answer.

Composing on the computer, I said, is just fine if you know the rules and aren't using it as a crutch (even if you don't know the rules and are using it as a crutch, and you're okay with that, I'm not going to argue with you). So for most things, midi is fine to give you the basic idea which you should be able to fill in the blanks in your head (and no, I can't imagine any situation where a good ensemble will not make the piece sound better than it did in midi).

BUT for things like electroacoustic music, modern stuff, anything where the timbres and presentation of sounds matter... for that, midi simply isn't equipped to handle. Midi works for presenting a composition for traditionally played instruments in equal temperament. You can't write a gray noise piece and do that with midi, you know, it doesn't work. For that you would have to not use the playback at all. Actually, the thing I'm thinking about when saying this is, I did a gray noise piece a while back with improvised filter sweeps and such, but it was never notated. If I wanted to notate it, it would be after the recording was made, because midi playback would be useless... you dig?

By the way, the thing about Bach's creativity, or anyone's creativity for that matter, being diminished by having a sample set is COMPLETELY ridiculous.

I think I said something earlier about midi being alright. I should modify my answer.

Composing on the computer, I said, is just fine if you know the rules and aren't using it as a crutch (even if you don't know the rules and are using it as a crutch, and you're okay with that, I'm not going to argue with you). So for most things, midi is fine to give you the basic idea which you should be able to fill in the blanks in your head (and no, I can't imagine any situation where a good ensemble will not make the piece sound better than it did in midi).

BUT for things like electroacoustic music, modern stuff, anything where the timbres and presentation of sounds matter... for that, midi simply isn't equipped to handle. Midi works for presenting a composition for traditionally played instruments in equal temperament. You can't write a gray noise piece and do that with midi, you know, it doesn't work. For that you would have to not use the playback at all. Actually, the thing I'm thinking about when saying this is, I did a gray noise piece a while back with improvised filter sweeps and such, but it was never notated. If I wanted to notate it, it would be after the recording was made, because midi playback would be useless... you dig?

Well actually MIDI can be pretty versatile - I mean basically it's just a messaging system of sorts. There's sort of a tendency to associate MIDI with it's more conventional uses, but there's really a whole lot you can do with it than just "presenting a composition for traditionally played instruments in equal temperament." If you can program your synths or whatever to respond to it's numerous controllers, than you can do just about anything with it. I mean, a filter sweep can be assigned to a MIDI controller to a knob or a fader, and then routed as one of the many different classes of controller events. You just have to make sure the receiving interface understands the message. And with programs like Scala you can (no so) easily translate microtuned music into MIDI files.

Also since there really isn't any much prominent alternative methods, pretty much any sort of audio program that has external hardware support uses MIDI. In fact, the only time I see if not being applicable is when you are literally programming a self-generating/sustaining piece without any user input.

By the way, the thing about Bach's creativity, or anyone's creativity for that matter, being diminished by having a sample set is COMPLETELY ridiculous.

Generally you may be right, but there's still truth in the notion that the medium one uses for composing can sometimes have a significant impact on your creativity. I vaguely remember something about Stravinsky being asked why he always composed on the piano. He said something like that he needed to feel the chords with his fingers, he needed the physical act of making a sound in order to compose, so he wouldn't compose just with pen and paper, off the instrument. So he actually might not have been able to compose in the same quality if he had to use computer programs for it. This is of course something highly individual.

The compositorial process is something every composer needs to find for her- or himself, in order to make use of her or his creative potential to the maximal extent. This can even go to mundane things like finding a comfortable pencil or pen, the right paper size for your sketches, the right computer program, the right desk to work on, and so on. It makes a huge difference whether you feel you have good material that you are comfortable to work with, or whether you feel highly uncomfortable with your working conditions.

I like to compose while bench pressing 80 kg with one hand, while I write with my other hand. Upside down. From a moving vehicle.

I like to compose while bench pressing 80 kg with one hand, while I write with my other hand. Upside down. From a moving vehicle.

LOL. I find myself doing that every second tuesday of the month. It helps me keep my "sexy musician" form.:cool:

I use the piano to get the main melody and the idea and feel of the song. (maybe an improv or two) I then use the computer to write it down. I usualy find that as i put in the note that is my head, I hear the next note in my head and put it down... this continues to the end.

I will use paper to write something down if i don't have the time to drive the musical idea into my memeory through repeditive playing, or a computer to quickly write down and play.

generally I use the piano to compose and the computer to write it down and fill in some of the gaps taht i didn't hear to begin with.

I openly despise MIDI stuff and almost anything remotely related... I have some traumatic experiences with me regarding a certain program called "Printmusic." It's never quite left me...

I didn't mean to say that standard concert marches and piano transcriptions are all you can do with MIDI. I'll just link to the piece I was thinking about so you know what I'm saying.

http://www.lordskye.com/ambience.mp3

That's a textbook example of something that you simply can't do with GM sounds, but really, considering all the effects, timbres, dynamics that mixing engineers pour into any average studio album? There's no question that a midi file is a presentation of the composition and not the sound. Henceforth, while you can maybe emulate a chorus by detuning one of two twin instruments, or delaying one channel of the same twin instruments to make a reverberation effect... no contest.

As for MIDI controlling a synthesizer, and not a soundbank, that's different. I'm talking about the computer's general midi soundbank - the thing you hear when Finale plays (without GPO).

I openly despise MIDI stuff and almost anything remotely related... I have some traumatic experiences with me regarding a certain program called "Printmusic." It's never quite left me...

way to limit yourself.

you shouldn't have used a trimmed down finale version, use sibelius instead, you'll see the light some day..

Yeah, but Sibelius is all... expensive and stuff. I've been aiming to get it for months, but... The Sibelius Edition started coming out and I couldn't.

Look,,,no more CAPS.

Come on you guys,writing music,composing whatever,moving with the times means moving with the availability of hands on software to assist your ability to compose,not as an end result.

Stop what your doing ,and do it right,,,or not at all.Reason,Cubase,whatever...

who really cares as long as you`ve put the message over and your happy.

Whose shouting anyway

If you don't need software to compose, why use it? It's a waste of money if you don't need it, in my opinion.

I'll use the computer if I need to get something done fast. The thing that is wrong with computers is that it can make the composer lazy. It involves, pen and paper, so many more skills.

I recommend also getting a fountain pen, even a cheap one. You'll notice how breezy the writing is.

But its not going to come over night. But you'll notice that by writing by hand, the more you do it, the better your inner ear will become. Your sense of relative pitch will increase exponentially. Yes, it will be more frusterating and time consuming, but after a few years of writing by hand, it will become easy, just like learning a new instrument. And also, it takes more mental energy to concentrate on all of the finer details of the composition process, as opposed to simply sitting back, copying and pasting, pressing play, and blankly listening.

To sum up, computers are great for speed when you need to get things done FAST. If you have the time, take the time to learn to write by hand. You'll learn to be more succinct, and you'll pay more attention to your music. It's like writing a novel with pen and paper.

I also find it more comforting to not have to stare at a screen for too long. I can't do that for more than a couple hours without getting antsy.

I recommend also getting a fountain pen, even a cheap one. You'll notice how breezy the writing is.

You'll also notice you need a much bigger wastebasket. Try a pencil first - less messy, "ctrl-z" is relatively easy, and you'll save money on wasted paper. Use a pen ONLY for final copies - never for the actual composing process.

:whistling: