Do you use a scorewriter?

I completely agree with Jamie

I mainly compose directly into Finale. Just because I have a laptop with Finale on it, I use that convenience to make things easier for me. However, I learned theory from a guy who was all about paper and pencil manuscript. So I can write out a perfectly legible score, and I'm able to hear it in my mind decently well. As a student composer in college, my main performers are other college students. In these cases, you may have 2 hours total to work on the music with them before it has to be performed. Unless you give them the music months in advance, there's simply never enough time for yourself or other students to have multiple rehearsal, for hours at a time. So it helps to have playback features, so the music is as near perfect as possible before you ever ask a performer give up their free time for you.

I always keep staff paper and a pencil with me though, when I'm sitting around and an idea hits me, it gets jotted down. And sometimes, I'll continue the entire work on staff paper until it gets too confusing for me to keep up, or if I need a mental jog, in which case, I'll enter it into Finale for playback. Also, even with the best ears, it can be difficult to keep up with the exact sounds of every instrument being used per piece. Sure, a piano piece may be easier to hear, but when you're writing for full orchestra, I might lose track of that scales and ornaments that happen while the melody is going in 1 place and harmony in another.

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

Go playback! I agree, being able to "play" a song in one's head is nice, but we shouldn't sacrifice modern compositional tools for the sake of using old traditional ones. I think I'm going to go play a few of my songs in Finale right now... :D

Due to hand issues, I don't use pen(cil) and paper at all, I compose directly into full score in Finale after planning out the form and major ideas.

I will also doodle on a piano or piano-like-object if it suits me, but usually not. I hardly ever compose anything on one of my instruments.

Aren't those two completely opposite statements? I don't think you meant it that way, but "I want to decide what happens beforehand" and "Eh, I'll let the music decide what happens" seem to be opposite. For the record though, I use and love both methods. They tend to coincide though...perhaps that's what you meant.

I forgot to put the word 'not' in there.....I fixed it now, so it should make sense haha.

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.

that's what the composition "teacher" at my school said... he said if you don't know where to take a piece next, just let go and let the piece take itself where it wants. You don't have to be the puppet master and have everything happen the you want, just let it happen the way it wants.

also, off the topic of jamie's statement and on the topic of playback,,, I think people should use it... i mean think about it. Composers had "rehearsals" to RE-HEAR(se) their music. They might have heard it on piano, but hearing it with the real instruments, or re-hearing it with the real instruments might change their mind on the way certain things sound.

so using playback is the same as re-hearing it on "real" instruments instead of hearing it on piano.

I very much disagree that playing something back in your head is "old" or "traditional". I think it's a skill that is desirable to have as a composer, whether you use the playback function or not.

No, I think you are misunderstanding the point.

Hearing something within your mind as a composer is not "old" or "traditional". Insisting on not using an existing tool in order to "rehearse" or otherwise tweak what you interpret from your mind is "old" or "traditional".

It's similar to insisting on writing all scores with pen and paper instead of using notation software to produce a final score. Notation software is a tool that makes this process simpler, faster, and more efficient. Why limit yourself only to rehearsal time to edit your work when you could do so from the comfort of your computer using the playback function? Again, I think the only reason anyone would have NOT to use the playback function is EGO, not some fictitious sense of duty to produce without it.

Of course, that's just my opinion on the matter. If it works for you, great. Keep doing it. I take no issue with writing music without playback at the early stages of learning how to compose music... as an exercise. I'll reiterate that it's an exercise worth mastering and will improve your abilities as a composer. Beyond that, it's not necessary to write without playback in order to compose. It doesn't make you a better or worse composer just because you use the tools at your disposal.

I love Overture 4.

M

The problem, I think, is that either we have two completely different schools of thought, or we're all discussing different stages of composition as if they were the same.

For instance, I can use the playback, but only after the piece's overall structure, texture, etc.etc. is done. Once I have my first draft (which could be final, if I didn't revise it (which is ridiculous because I will always revise it)) I will check out the playback, and see if the stuff I wanted to say is said, and if it flows like I thought it would, etc.etc.

However, that's totally different from writing a measure for full orchestra, listening, writing another measure, listneing, etc.etc.

Additionally, it seems that the two schools of thought could be "It's okay to use playback to WRITE your music" and "You should be able to write your music without relying on playback". If anyone is arguing for the first example, please state so. I personally think that's not a great idea, if you want your piece to be organic. I also don't think one has to use the same process everytime, so maybe for certain types of music it works. When I write in the electronica style, I definitely use playback. It's crucial, actually. But that's not for writing the overal structure of the piece, thats just to get desirable sounds. It just seems to me that when you're considering the overall scope of the piece, ruminating on a certain phrase or measure seems hazardous to the overall growth.

If you're going to draw a line down the middle of "two schools of thought," then what are they? I'm a little lost. I'm certainly in agreement that writing one measure, listening to it, then writing another, then listening to it, etc. is cumbersome and self-defeating. But music is no more "organic" when written through computer software (using playback) than it is written by hand.

And it's not the first time I've heard this argument either, mostly from university professors telling their students they need to develop their internal ideas without using playback on the computer. Again, I'll state that it's a good EXERCISE, but at the end of the day if you're using playback to rehearse your music, there's nothing wrong with that... even if your piece is incomplete or at the beginning to middle stages of development.

My school of thought on this is if there are tools available to a composer that will benefit the music and a composer uses them, that makes him/her NO LESS, NO BETTER AND NO WORSE THAN a composer who writes strictly with pen and paper using their own internal sound. It may be more convenient for the latter, but it makes no difference. In the end, it's the music that matters, not how it's made.

I agree with Jamie.

For me, Finale is for after the piece is already done.

Then, I will do playback a couple times and listen for typos, but as far as the music? Trust yourself, not the playback. There are many times where playback sounds lousy but with live performers, it sounds exactly as you intended it.

Again, I think the only reason anyone would have NOT to use the playback function is EGO, not some fictitious sense of duty to produce without it.

Now, I agree with a lot of other things you said. Computer playback certainly can be useful for a number of functions, and composers who choose to make use of it are certainly not inherently worse than others.

But a statement such as this makes your opinion on this matter look no less prejudiced than what Nico initially stated. I think there are many entirely valid reasons not to use computer playback at all. Composers for whom the conceptual side of their music is very important may for example consciously choose to stay on a relatively abstract level of composing for a long time, in order to be able to concentrate on the major ideas behind the composition, without being bothered by little details of how a specific passage sounds.

Or, let's say, aleatoric elements (which may range from "random notes" over "interpretational freedom" to "improvised parts" etc.) are important in your piece - you then might not want to get fixated on a certain version the computer would play back to you, but keep all possible versions of your piece in your mind, without having one "materialised" more than others.

And then there are also things a computer can simply much less emulate than your mind could. That goes from certain decisions in orchestration, over extended instrumental techniques, unconventionally notated sections, dynamics, spatialisation, visual/theatralical performative aspects of your music, technical difficulties in the interpretation, "expressive" interpretation, and so on and so on. Listening to your computer playback can sometimes "override" the sound you are hearing internally and if you are not able to abstract from it well enough, it might place a false focus on wrong elements of your music, which may distract you from your actual intents.

These, and many more, are IMO totally valid reasons not to use computer playback, which have nothing to do with ego. But again, I can totally understand the usefulness of playback for certain other purposes. Personally, I have yet never used computer playback as a compositorial aid, and for most of the things I am writing it also would be relatively useless, but I'm not opposed to using it, if I found it useful for a certain piece.

But a statement such as this makes your opinion on this matter look no less prejudiced than what Nico initially stated. I think there are many entirely valid reasons not to use computer playback at all.

Obviously, there are examples where the tool does not apply or is not sufficient to assist with the process, many of which you listed. But that's not what Nico was really arguing... if Playback doesn't suit his needs, that's one thing, but taking the stance that "real composers" shouldn't use playback is something else entirely.

That's all I was trying to get across with my statement. If playback is insufficient as a tool and all you have to go on is what's available within you, not using playback makes sense. But choosing not to use playback when it applies to what you're doing and can help you, that's just Ego getting in the way, IMO.

If playback is insufficient as a tool and all you have to go on is what's available within you, not using playback makes sense. But choosing not to use playback when it applies to what you're doing and can help you, that's just Ego getting in the way, IMO.

I agree.

But choosing not to use playback when it applies to what you're doing and can help you, that's just Ego getting in the way, IMO.

This statement is inaccurate.

Nico's statements seemed to be ego-driven, certainly.

However, you're assigning all people who decide not to use the MIDI playback to be ego-driven, and that is a false generalization. It's perfectly fine to want to do everything handwritten, or not listen to playback from your notation program. If you want to only hear your music live, or in your head, there's nothing wrong with that. I think you are confusing 'choosing not to use playback' with 'choosing to look down on others for not using playback'.

hmmm...it doesn't matter. Seeing it on paper tells me if I did an appropriate transposition if I'm doing a fugue, canon, and the like.

I write stuff on paper and then Finale. I always edit last via printing it out and taking a good ol' ink pen and making the adjustments (maybe it's a bad habit.) This also helps me out checking for ranges, phrases, and correct enharmonic spellings.

Yeah you're right, valuing a good ear makes me a jerk.

psshh, yeah. what's wrong with you!? *shakes fist*

on topic- I use Finale, paper & stuff when it floats me boat.

Yeah you're right, valuing a good ear makes me a jerk.

This forum tends to have people who read way too much into everything, and assume that because I said "X" then I clearly am saying "Y" and "Z".

There's nothing wrong with using your ears. And actually, there's nothing 'wrong' with anything you've said in this topic either. I did seem to recall something about 'real composers' and 'using playback', but upon searching back through the thread I couldn't find that statement by you. That would have been the 'ego-driven' statement. That's why I said they "seemed to be ego-driven" rather than they "were ego-driven"

Dig?

Just my quick thoughts on the pointless argument (there doesn't really seem to be an argument at all, just misunderstanding.)

1) You can choose to not use the playback function for a number of reasons, yes, even egotistical reasons or to think you have somehow "bragging rights." However, regardless of reasons it is still a useful skill to have to be able to imagine what your piece sounds like without any program/instrument if push comes to shove, or merely out of preference. Sure, you may be doing it for the ego, but you'll attain a good skill regardless and that's fine in my book.

2) Using the playback feature (and/or any other form of music "preview" such as playing it on piano, etc etc) is just fine as well. It IS also a great way to strengthen the link between what you're writing and what you're hearing. Ultimately this is still something that happens as you WILL hear your music eventually anyway, so I don't see it as something intrinsically undesirable and, in fact, rather inevitable.

3) None of the above must have absolute significance and influence on the actual musical product, so honestly how anyone writes their music in the end is their own business and I rather not comment or generalize that certain methods are intrinsically bad/good because they might as well produce rather interesting musical products all the same.

I don't think anyone's really disagreeing with any of that, so, uh, stop fighting.

And actually, there's nothing 'wrong' with anything you've said in this topic either. I did seem to recall something about 'real composers' and 'using playback', but upon searching back through the thread I couldn't find that statement by you. That would have been the 'ego-driven' statement. That's why I said they "seemed to be ego-driven" rather than they "were ego-driven"

Dig?

Heh, actually my entry into this discussion began after I read...

I disagree. I think the ability to hear back what you wrote is a major crutch.[/b'] 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.

I think the ability to hear back what you wrote is NOT a crutch, and I believe anyone who uses playback is merely using A TOOL available to them AS A COMPOSER. So, I think the general basis for this statement is EGO.

Sorry, I didn't quote him verbatim, but it's hard not to read "real composer" and "using playback" into such statements, Jamie. You're free to do as you will. I stand by my statement that the final product is what's important, not the method that got you to the final product.

And I'll refine my other statement. I believe anyone who insists on not using playback BECAUSE THEY VIEW PLAYBACK AS A CRUTCH are basing that on their own EGO instead of their concern for the final product. In your case, Jamie, you not wanting to hear it before being performed live is a personal preference and would, thus, not fall under the realm of this statement. Sorry for the confusion.

1) You can choose to not use the playback function for a number of reasons' date=' yes, even egotistical reasons or to think you have somehow "bragging rights." However, regardless of reasons it is still a useful skill to have to be able to imagine what your piece sounds like without any program/instrument if push comes to shove, or merely out of preference. Sure, you may be doing it for the ego, but you'll attain a good skill regardless and that's fine in my book.

2) Using the playback feature (and/or any other form of music "preview" such as playing it on piano, etc etc) is just fine as well. It IS also a great way to strengthen the link between what you're writing and what you're hearing. Ultimately this is still something that happens as you WILL hear your music eventually anyway, so I don't see it as something intrinsically undesirable and, in fact, rather inevitable.

3) None of the above must have absolute significance and influence on the actual musical product, so honestly how anyone writes their music in the end is their own business and I rather not comment or generalize that certain methods are intrinsically bad/good because they might as well produce rather interesting musical products all the same.[/quote']

Agreed.

I dislike the constant assumptions going on here...and I'm totally guilty of it too but, blah...causes unnecessary conflict. I think we all think way too highly of our own opinions.

I'll admit, I think highly of my opinions... because they're my opinions. Am I supposed to think 'less' of my opinions?

Kind of an odd little paradox you're starting there, Nicola :)

Pedal, back-pedal. Pedal, back-pedal. Pedal, back-pedal.

For me... I am very simple. If it's a piece that I am supposed to have done in 3 days (commission) and I am under tight constraints, I will use finale because it's done much quicker and I am able to get the sound back fast.

When I am just composing for me, and I am trying new things, or I have months to work, I take it on paper with me everywhere and work. I can't do that with finale. Also, there are a lot of things paper can do that Finale can't or would take hours to do.

I can't compose by ear -- that is to say I know what I want to write down but I don't know what notes (A, A flat, B etc.) to put down. I need to hear the notes, if that makes sense. So I always use a notation program (in my case, Finale).

If I have something in my head and I'm not near my computer, I'll hum it and record it with my cell phone . . .If I'm in class or something, I'll write the notes down, and hope to remember the pitches.

I can't compose by ear -- that is to say I know what I want to write down but I don't know what notes (A, A flat, B etc.) to put down. I need to hear the notes, if that makes sense. So I always use a notation program (in my case, Finale).

I find it incredibly interesting that the thread stops HERE...

It is like everyone just went "oh, yeah. Forgot about that. I guess I'll shut up then" LOL Of course I could be completely wrong, but I think this is a topic worth exploring in itself:

How do you people who avoid instruments/finale altogether go from head to paper? (Assuming no absolute pitch)

....and if anyone tries to tell me that it doesn't matter so long as all the 'relationships between the notes are correct' I will kill someone! lol I mean, be real, D Major and C Major are not the same thing. If every key sounded the same, why would anyone write a piece with a home key other than C Major or A minor?

So you people who avoid instruments and score-writers... Do you use a tuning fork? Or do you 'just know' what notes you are thinking?