Do you use a scorewriter?

Do you use a scorewriter like Finale, Sibelius, MuseScore, Encore or SCORE, and if so, which one? I would have put this in the Finale and Sibelius help forum, but, then again, that would rule out most of the people who don't use them, as they generally wouldn't need help with Finale or Sibelius :P.

To the best of my knowledge, Encore and SCORE are pretty much extinct, but we shall see.

Also, does anyone know what most professional composers (as opposed to young composers) use to compose? Do they take advantage of technology, or do they use paper and pencil?

I use Sibelius, ... long time I don't write in paper.

I write on paper first, then input into Sibelius.

Well, notation programs aren't really a technology that helps with composing, strictly. There are other programs that are sometimes used by some in the composition process, but a notation program is basically just a means of writing it down. Many people therefore also only use notation programs as the last step, in order to make a nice-looking final version. Others prefer to make that last copy by hand too. As long as you have a good handwriting, it doesn't really make a difference.

Personally, I also only tend to use Finale for the final copy, after doing most of the work before that with pen and paper. Sometimes I also make the final version with pen and paper.

As for professional composers: I know some that use Finale, some that use Sibelius, some that only write by hand. I guess notation software is slowly winning out over handwritten scores these days, but personally I -do- love a nicely handwritten score. I've even seen some scores where the manuscript by the composer was much clearer and easier to read than the typeset edition by the publisher. (I curse you, Ricordi!)

Sibelius. My hand-writing is terrible, so creating my pen and paper rough drafts to final versions hand-written is dumb on my part.

I usually write on paper for most of the process. I don't want to have the temptation to taint my mental image of the piece with a playback version. Once I have the meat and potatoes of the piece done, I'll input it to Sibelius, and then tweak whatever is whack. Usually pitches are not as important to me as I initially think, and I find myself moving things around to add a little spice, without changing the integrity of the piece.

I use Sibelius, always.

i guess i'm one of those rare few that don't have windows or mac, so instead use linux and thus use MuseScore and Rosegarden

But I do write a lot on paper with pencil, especially during the school year, since it looks more like taking notes than it does on my laptop :P

Paper and pencil and then Finale here!

Same old thread again. Oh well, no complaints. I use Finale almost exclusively in composing. I used to write by hand, but I find it much easier to write my mind, decide orchestration, lay out form, and dictate melodies/harmonies by punching it in Finale now. Hand writing takes too much time for me, especially since I tend to change my mind about things a lot within a short period of time. I try not to use playback as a crutch (people warn against that) ... I can just turn my speakers off and it's not really that different from composing by hand. When I have a good bit written I'll usually play it back to check the flow and decide whether it is close enough to what I intended.

I compose large sections in my mind first, then input them into Finale directly. I don't see the point of writing down the ideas on paper first, since it's an extra step. Now, I sincerely believe writing on paper first is a good exercise for composers taking lessons or just starting out. My first work was entirely written by hand, even the parts, and it was a full wind ensemble work. Of course, it sounded horrible, had incredibly bad key signature and transposition issues, and it was never performed live (just a reading). But it was an excellent exercise in spite of all the problems.

When you know what you want, though, the tools (notation software, audio equipment, etc.) are there to assist in the creation of music. Sure, there are temptations for composers to copy/paste or repeat too much. Once a composer is confident they know what they want, it makes sense to use every tool available to produce music as quickly as possible. I can't think of any composers writing music today that don't use a notation program or some other technological means to produce their music.

Of course. But depending on your method of working, pen and paper can be the your most effective way to get your music down quickly. Of course it's an extra step if you do drafts first. But I don't know many composers who can write a major piece in just one single stroke, with all details and a perfectly neat score. At least I certainly couldn't do that without getting lost on the way. I prefer being able to concentrate on the most central aspects of my music first and not bother myself with making it look nice until the very end.

I agree with Gardener... notation software can be cumbersome when used during the compositional process, making it an awkward and sterile method (for me).

I compose a lot better with pencil and paper. I only use Finale when the composition is done. And I never ever use the playback function since I can play it back so much better in my head .

I mostly compose using Melody Assistant. I find it to be a very easy way to compose.

When I'm not around my computer I will compose by pencil and paper though.

Hey! I use the big daddy of Melody Assistant, Harmony Assistant!

I use pad and paper for piano stuff and highly conceptual stuff... I find myself playing everything back 3-5x for each note sometimes when I'm using the computer, which tends to kill my work-speed.

I disagree. I think the ability to hear back what you wrote is a major crutch.

I have the habit of trying a lot of my stuff on the piano. I guess that's a similar crutch.

I've found writing on paper is nerve-racking for me, because there is always that little niggle of doubt that I might have written something down wrong and wont know until it's too late.

And so I am stuck in a self-perpetuating circle of using Finale.

Fortunately, I don't tend to forget my ideas and if I do, I have plenty of 'spares' lol So not having finale around isn't a problem, it just means I have to use my memory.

No, it wasn't really meant sarcastically. It's just that there are different ways of composing. Some composers never use any audible/physical feedback, others (be that Beethoven or Stravinsky) always did and do make use of such devices, and yet others use them for specific purposes at specific times.

I'm just not sure why using a "crutch" is necessarily a bad thing. If it helps you, why not use it? Now, there are many other reasons why relying totally on computer playback might be a bad thing, but I don't think "a real composer shouldn't need it" is a sufficient argument against anything.

I disagree. I think the ability to hear back what you wrote is a major crutch. Composers should be able to do that in their head, and from the looks of how many people use pencil and paper, I'm pleased to see that's the case :).

A major crutch, eh? I think you have it backwards. Composers used to HAVE to write what was in their head without playback because playback didn't exist. It's not a crutch to be able to hear what you wrote played back and edit what you put to paper. Why do you think the tradition of "rehearsal" of music even exists still today? It wasn't just for performers. Composers used rehearsal to "playback" their music, because that was really the first time they could hear it realized (outside of playing a rendition of it on piano). I think tradition is the crutch here.

Some argue that finale helps people visualize the music in their head for when they do in fact use paper, and maybe that's the case for some people, but from what I've seen it just spoils you.

Maybe it helps composers write more accurate music based on what they internalize, and in a more efficient way?

Anyway, for me, I use whatever is most convenient. Since I do most of the composing in my head first, it's really just sort of...whenever I feel like writing it down. Most of the time I use torn pieces of manuscript paper to jot down a few things so I don't forget, but then I just use whatever is on hand, some of the time a pad and pen (i hate pencils), but most of the time finale, because I'm always at my computer. Plus, it has to get on there sometime, might as well be now, right?

Might as well listen to it while you're at it in case you make mistakes in realizing what's in your head. There's no point in being stubborn about it. Use the tools you have available to you. Playback is one of those tools, and depending on the kind of tool you use, you'll have more accurate renditions with better tools. That's how it works.

--------------------------

Let's just all get off our high horse for a second... unless you're Mozart composing by your fireplace in the Billiard Room hundreds of years ago (and I have serious doubts he was "perfect" in writing down his work exactly as he expected it to sound without analyzing it, considering there was a FIREPLACE in the very room where he worked), you're not going to be perfect in rhythmic or pitch realizations of your music until you hear it from playing it on piano or listening to a rendition of it through some playback feature on a computer/midi sequencer. Welcome to the 21st Century. You don't HAVE to have perfect pitch or even moderately close pitch to be a composer.

I think the biggest crutch out there for composers is EGO. "Walk tall and carry a big stick" is generally a good way to conduct yourself, but at the expense of being honest with yourself, your peers, and the music you hear within you? I'll say it now. I LISTEN TO PLAYBACKS OF MY MUSIC WHEN I COMPOSE - ALL THE TIME. And I'm satisfied with the results I get from this process, because I'm merely rehearsing my work a thousand times over before it ever hits a music stand or CD player. I'm following the same traditions of composers preceding me by 200+ years who rehearsed and edited their music before live performance, and I'm not ashamed of it, either. I'm glad I have these tools today because it makes my art form more manageable and enables me to produce a better product in the end.

I use Sibelius and pen and paper.

Since I have been doing lots of 12 tone music lately with electronics involved the computer plays a big part. I write on pen and paper and rough out notes and I hear the things in my head, but sometimes I use Sibelius playback to make sure everything makes sense/hear it out. I don't feel like this is a crutch in the slightest. I suck at playing the piano or I would do it there instead.

My father who has been composing for the past 20+ years in various styles loves the ability to do play back. Maybe its different because we accommodate for electronics, (me experimenting for electro-acoustics and him using heavily edited electronic renditions of his pieces using high quality samples and tweaking the sound waves half to deaf [HAHA PUNS]). Maybe hes not a real composer because he uses electronics rather than real people?

I'm just not sure why using a "crutch" is necessarily a bad thing. If it helps you, why not use it? Now, there are many other reasons why relying totally on computer playback might be a bad thing, but I don't think "a real composer shouldn't need it" is a sufficient argument against anything.

Totally... "different strokes" and whatnot.

I know my method of composition really does need to involve a piano or playback a lot of the time, and not only because my ear is relatively underdeveloped. It's just my initial conception of what a piece should be (most of the time) isn't derived from melody or harmony but rather texture for lack of a better term...I can audiate what I want going on but it won't do me any good translating to paper unless I have some concrete landmarks to write around. It's just too abstract to begin with to sit down with a pencil and write - I wouldn't know where to start.

Of course, my method for every piece is different, but the vast majority of times, the main obstacle is beginning too abstract, so the piano (or playback) is around to refine raw material rather than realize the last few bars I've written down or test harmonies.

I sadly fell into the trap of constantly writing like 4 measures, then playing the entire thing, writing another few measure, then play again.

I guess what this has done for me is it changes my mind. What I had in my mind is a nice flowing piece, but because I heard just a little snipet of a piece and I think something else would sound cool, then the piece begins to sound really random and out of order...

Frankly, I never actually thought of turning my speakers off, probably because I never really took any thought into what I've been doing :P

thanks guys!

To me, I find that while I'm discovering what a piece is about, using playback hinders it. When I'm searching for how the piece wants itself to sound, hearing something that may or may not be the right choice can alter the pieces path, usually unnaturally.

Did that make sense?

I prefer not to determine how the piece will go beforehand.

I dont' look at composition as "I must make this this and this happen". I look at it as a way to allow the music to grow out of itself in whatever way it wants to.