Anything Wrong With Composing On The Computer?

Feldman used to write in ink..

But yeah, pencil is a good idea. What's a fountain pen anyway?

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:

What!? You don't get everything right on the first try?

I use my computer for a notational and editing tool. I will generally have at least 80% of what I want on paper before I start feeding it into Finale. Here are my motives:

1) I think much, much better when I'm writing on paper. Since it's harder to erase notes, I have to "make each note count". Because of this, I believe the associated concentration is generally higher.

2) I tend to go through at least two waves of revision before I start transcriptions and final editing. Since I'd have to re-transcribe the edits and print them anyway, I prefer just to revise/edit on my manuscript/sketch than print, revise, re-transcribe, print, etc. etc (I end up with much less paper this way).

3) It's much easier to take manuscript with me than it is my computer.

4) Working on paper makes me trust my own inner ear and sense of harmony. Generally, this "vision" of how something will sound and feel will be more accurate than any computer rendering, and I believe this is very important.

After I have a complete and revised sketch, I'll start using Finale. I will generally transcribe the piece as I have it sketched (plus any revisions, of course) and then start the work of expanding. This will often include adding voices, revising counterpoint, adding sections of music, and generally re-arranging. A great example of this is the 3rd movement out of my Viola Sonatina. I have posted the "original" transcribed version, which is basically melody over static accompaniment on paper. It's not bad, but it's very transparent and frankly unexciting. I've added a great deal of counterpoint to the piano, giving the impression of multiple different voices and also enforcing the compound meter.

I don't look negatively at people that compose primarily on a computer. I really don't like doing it, and most of the work I've done solely on a computer seems very stilted and uncreative. I think many people (on this forum) would benefit greatly from trying a different, "silent" approach to composition for the sake of having tried it. Many people that work solely through a computer, midi keyboard, or on a physical keyboard are not taking the necessary time to develop their inner ear, and thus, are going to have a hard time developing their own voice.

What's a fountain pen anyway?

juji: http://www.tighepen.com/fountaingal/nib.jpg

These beauties have precise tips. I've never used one, but they're beautiful.

If you have perfect pitch, and need to write right away, then notation software is effective. I write almost everything at the computer. Then I print off a copy and play it afterwards to see what changes I can make, because computer playback only offers so much. As already mentioned, whatever method you use to compose doesn't matter, as long as it gets results. I can compose pieces incredibly rapidly with notation software. I also don't have perfect pitch, so having the playback is really helpful.

If you have perfect pitch, and need to write right away, then notation software is effective.

Not many composers have had perfect pitch. Basically, just having relative pitch works fine, and relative pitch is a skill you can develop.

And some people work faster on paper, some work faster on the computer, it all depends on what you're used to. Personally, I write faster on the computer (that's also true for typing as well), but I do try and write on manuscript paper as much as I can (orchestrating piano pieces for various ensembles is the perfect exercise, because you have the harmony and melody laid out for you, can play the pieces on the piano and see how they sound like, so then you have to imagine the instruments and stuff.

The whole "inner ear" thing has its limits though. I doubt many people could "hear" an atonal piece, where 20 voices move around independantly in different, complex rhythms accurately with their inner ear alone. Even just "hearing" a single atonal chord of more than four of five different notes can get very hard, unless you have physically heard the same chord before. It's something completely different to a Beethoven symphony, where you have a well-known tonality to help you orientate yourself. I don't think I could compose very well without the aide of a piano, or something similar.

Yeah, definitely. Stravinsky couldn't composer without his piano either :P

And I do believe that Stockhausen wouldn't be able to spot a wrong note if someone was playing his Klavierstuck XI and on the second repetition of a fragment he played a note a semitone up or down.

But even if you did hear a tonal pieces with 20 voices moving around independently, you'd have a hard time distinguishing which instruments have each note of the chord, and it might not be much simpler than the atonal example.

Anyway, "hearing" an atonal piece is possible, if you think of all the conductors who've conducted the orchestral pieces by Schoenberg, for example, or later serial orchestral music.

When composing, the critical problem with using the "inner ear" is missing: Time limits. You can waste 10 minutes on a single bar to understand wtf is going on... Not the same with conductors or anything.

Not that we need to overvalue the inner ear, but it is there and there are benefits to using it, as opposed to using the human playback of Finale... ;)

The whole "inner ear" thing has its limits though. I doubt many people could "hear" an atonal piece, where 20 voices move around independantly in different, complex rhythms accurately with their inner ear alone.

Well the thing is you're not using this "inner ear" to write your entire piece- you're using it to get your melody and basic harmony (at least I do). From there, you start to use your inner brain. ;) Start thinking about more complex chords, runs, ornaments, variations, basically EVERYTHING else in the piece. Composers don't HEAR all that- they create it.

I do agree with all the three last posts. Of course the "inner ear" is still a very valuable tool, and of course it can accomplish quite a lot. And of course it's different from composer to composer. Pierre Boulez is said to have an excellent "inner" and "outer" ear, and can very accurately say if someone plays something wrong in his very complex pieces. Brian Ferneyhough on the other hand admits himself that he can't hear his own music with his "inner ear". He leaves it up to the structures he devised to "make things sound right". He works with his "inner brain" right away. (Are there outer brains? :P)

Oh, and I certainly agree that developing an inner ear is much preferable to Finale's playback, of course.

I have to say i do what you do Gardner, except, I start at the piano, and begin to write, and then ill eventually get to the point in my piece where I will write something like a cadenza, which is too difficult for me to play...so off to Finale 2007 I go, and pop it in there to hear what it sounds like. Before long, im composing the entire piece in front of the computer.

I usually do, however, sit in front of the computer and click my notes in with the mouse. I know what I want the piece to sound like, and a program like Finale aids me in knowing what the instrument will sound like when playing a certain passage. I havent really analysed how i compose though...whether i sit there and drag the notes over each line to see what pitch sounds best...or whether i actually know what a certain interval will sound like next...i dont know.

I compose at the computer usually, however, EVERYTHING i compose, comes from playing a simple motif or progression of notes on teh piano, which sparks something in me to type it into finale. Another thing is, my 'perfect pitch' isnt perfect...in fact, its far from. So when i have this AWESOME melody and WONDEROUS harmony in my mind, i dont want to sit at the piano and tink it out, and then write it on paper...because i KNOW i will lose it. So i either record myself on the microphone, or whatever i have handy...or i sit at the computer and use it as my aid...clicking in each note as i sing it.

anyways...enough blab.

I personly believe there is nothing wrong with composing on teh computer. Its the new age...and the new age brings many marvels to speed man up...such as Finale. I find it soooo much quicker writing music...with teh computer.

Wow,,you all go on about it dont you.if you produce a sound,a melody,a composition,anything that some of you are too afraid to call MUSIC,then please sit back,take a good look at your ability,and then say...Who the hell am I to know any better.

Music is for all,music is from every source of emotion or moment,music is not confined to pencil scores or midi or great piano players,its music,MUSIC...nothing more and nothing less.Enjoy what you have and relish it when it produces great results,within your limits and beyond your dreams,music comes home to you.

I'd say there's nothing wrong with using a computer as a substitute for manuscript paper, but to compose using a computer alone can be risky. I've heard lots of pieces on this site that *sound* like they were written on a computer - there are telltale signs, and they're rarely desirable.

Whatever works is best, I think. :x Both inner ear(?) or digital playback are useful, why not use both?

Whatever works is best, I think. :x Both inner ear(?) or digital playback are useful, why not use both?

I use both, I generally have my laptop in the practice room with me on the piano. So yeah, use everything you have...

I tend to use manuscript paper for when I get a spontaneous idea, or If I'm out and about. Most of the time though, I use a piano and my laptop. I'm not at the stage yet where I can be 100% sure that what I've written down is the same as what I can hear in my head. That's where electronic playback comes in useful for me.

On the same subject...I was at a conference for A level music students earlier this year. The speaker (who was the head examiner or something) told us to be careful about using notation software, and to be especially wary of copying and pasting because "Bach wouldn't have done it". Oddly enough, the Brandenburg Concerto No 4 is in the A level syllabus this year, and after studying that I'm of the opinion that Bach would have LOVED copy and paste :toothygrin:

I'm not at the stage yet where I can be 100% sure that what I've written down is the same as what I can hear in my head.

I don't think any composer ever is. Physically hearing your music always is different to imagining it, no matter how good your inner ear is and you will always be surprised by little things that have a somewhat different effect than you imagined (even though with training you can have a pretty accurate idea of what the piece will sound like). An inner ear may be fantastic, but it can never completely replace an actual, physical experience. Sorry, Beethoven.

Oddly enough, the Brandenburg Concerto No 4 is in the A level syllabus this year, and after studying that I'm of the opinion that Bach would have LOVED copy and paste :toothygrin:

I completely agree and I wonder why one would use Bach as an example of someone who wouldn't copy and paste. I mean, he copied whole chorals and other parts of his masses and other large works to use in new ones, unchanged! Of course, he had loads of people around him willing to do the copy and pasting of his notes for him :D

Freakin' Bach.

I stand by "use what works the best for you".

I stand by "use what works the best for you".

I might enjoy and like using an eraser to cut my bread, but that doesn't mean it's the proper way to cut it >_>

In any case, both the pencil and the computer are tools, nothing more. Naturally, they shouldn't affect what the composer has in mind, or should limit the composer in any way. You shouldn't let either the pencil or the computer alter what you want to write down. As long as you do that, you're fine, whatever medium you use, although I do insist that writing by pen gives you way more freedom. If you want to invent a symbol, you just invent it, you don't have to go through hell to design that symbol on the computer, resize it properly on finale, and then use it in finale.

I'd say there's nothing wrong with using a computer as a substitute for manuscript paper, but to compose using a computer alone can be risky. I've heard lots of pieces on this site that *sound* like they were written on a computer - there are telltale signs, and they're rarely desirable.

I'm not dissing composing at the piano - I use a piano a portion of the time when I compose. Too many pianists, however, commit compositional errors (or produce compositional peculiarities) due to the nature and limitations of that instrument.

As for the OP, I'm not sure if I've chimed in or not, but a computer is just a tool, like a pencil and paper. Use whatever you're comfortable with and produces results.

i think paper and pencil is old fashion using computer is whats becoming more and more common

i think paper and pencil is old fashion using computer is whats becoming more and more common

Thanks for the insight

i think paper and pencil is old fashion using computer is whats becoming more and more common

I'm afraid that's a logical fallacy.

I'll just revoice what Juji and Flint has stated. The computer is a tool. You should not depend on this tool. Consider it like a saw. If you had the desire to, you could built a house with only a saw, but that doesn't mean you should. Use the other tools in your arsenal. Do not become depend on your computer and your computer alone. If you find it hard to write without instant playback, that's a sign that you need to work on translating what you hear in your head to paper more.

I might enjoy and like using an eraser to cut my bread, but that doesn't mean it's the proper way to cut it >_>

Oh come on, using an eraser to cut bread hardly works the best; I said do whatever works the best for you.

In my case it just may be a Turkisk kukri, or tablesaw, but hey. Baguettes are tough cookies. Pun intended? YOU BE THE JUDGE!?!

Also, you went on to say basically what I meant.