Do you use a scorewriter?

Well, 'just know'-ing is really just an expression of using internal audiation to determine your pitch content. It's very much related to the process of sight-singing and score-reading.

I may use Finale for all my composing, but that doesn't imply that I enter things on the computer to hear them, and then decide what to change or how to proceed. It's only a portion of the process. You have to use (or at least, *I* use) a combination of internal audiation, previously determined qualities (i.e., 'I'll use this major 9 chord here, because it sounds like this."), novel sounds and found sounds (such as when you plunk out things on a piano), formulaic sounds ('this passage will be done in parallel fourths'), and yes, sometimes just random chance.

I don't think that most people could write without some combination of the above methods. Even internal audiation implies, for example, that the person has a previously determined mindset on various tonalities.

....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?

They didn't use to sound the same, back in the days of meantone tuning and well-temperament. They sound (more or less) exactly the same today (if I played a chord progression you wouldn't be able to say "that's C major not E major", however in Bach or Beethoven's time, you could, based on the differences in tuning -- that's right, there were acoustic reasons that Bach skips quickly over the third in the key of F-Sharp, though they don't "exist" anymore) . Different keys fit the ranges of different instruments better (or just fit the register in which one wants to work better). So I'm going to say, at the risk of you killing me, that it doesn't matter as long as the relationships are correct and your notes are positioned in the tessitura that you wish to use.

Also, who say's everyone is using key signatures here? To answer your question, I know what notes I want, it's all in my head (or, depending on what I'm doing, written out numerically in very detailed charts, though I still know exactly what I want in my head). I will occasionally check things on the piano though (after its written, if I'm unsure of something). I also experiment a lot before writing with the tunings that I use to get them in my ear.

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

Same here.

IN all honesty, if I am not near a computer (which is rare), I use my 18th century training and rules to give me a foundation. I pick my progression and write to it, therefore I KNOW how it sounds because I follow all the rules... and when I decide to break them (which is pretty much the whole piece after figuring out what I want), I know how it's going to sound basically because I follow what I was taught by my teacher... all those harmony rules are there not ONLY for sounding good, but that way you can audiate a good sound whenever you feel like it.

Rules are made to be broken!

Different keys fit the ranges of different instruments better (or just fit the register in which one wants to work better). So I'm going to say, at the risk of you killing me, that it doesn't matter as long as the relationships are correct and your notes are positioned in the tessitura that you wish to use.

So what about all the composers SINCE the invention of equal-temper pianos who have written for it in numerous different keys?

A lot of film composers believe that D minor is the saddest key. I can find you and interview with Hans Zimmer saying that.

I don't know why, but there are subtle difference between different keys. I remember writing a piece for flute and piano in F# but decided to re-write it into a different key for sight-reading purposes (long story)... anyway, I tried the basic idea in each of the 12 keys and it did *not* sound the same or have the same character in every key. I ended up settling for F Major as the closest (G Major was not even close) but when I listen to the recording, it still hasn't got the same "brightness" of F#

No, I don't have perfect pitch.

Just knowing' is the way to go. It's what I do, at least. Unfortunately it's not always that easy for everyone. So I guess in their case you could use a piano or something.

When I'm thinking about music, I do, for the most part, have some visualization, of either a piano, the staff and the notes etc, or the particular fingering of the note on a certain instrument - even instruments I don't play lol

I've never really trusted this though and always end up at a piano to make sure I'm writing what is actually in my head. Maybe I need to trust myself a bit more?

Well, you have to take placebo effects into account too. When you see certain keys as notes or keys on the piano, you automatically associate certain ideas with them, which you may have got from other pieces, or just general ideas such as "flats make a sound duller, sharps make it brighter". And once you have this in your mind, of course it also begins to sound differently - but only because you already knew what key it was in.

This can even go so far as a person finding the same piano piece written in G# major brighter than in Ab major. And sure, this can even have an effect on a performance, since the players will also see the key and their visual connotations will come into effect and may change the way they play the music. But that's probably quite marginal.

Also keep in mind that what a "F#" or any other key is has changed a lot over time. Today, lots of orchestras play with tunings such as A=442 or even A=443, when a couple of hundred years earlier it was often A=415 or even A=385 - in other words: we are speaking of differences of almost a minor third here. Yet there are certain "special" keys (such as C-major and C-minor) that always had certain symbolic meanings attached to them, which remained relatively similar for long times - even while the chamber pitch changed and the actual frequencies these notes were tied to weren't the same at all. This implies that it's much more the name, visual appearance etc. of things like C-major, that give us the impression of a certain inherent quality, than the actual sound. But of course, this knowledge will -then- influence how we hear the sound.

Obviously we could go at length into all the things that make keys distinct fom each other, even without absolute pitch (things like the build of certain instruments and their resonances), things like how it will affect the player psychologically (I already mentioned this), and so on. But in the end, the "relationships between the notes" will be the things people hear most, while absolute frequencies play quite a small role (at least within small ranges; of course not when you're talking about things that are significantly higher pitched than others. A difference of a fifth may fall in this category, a difference of a semitone probably not).

One more thing concerning what you said: When you try out a thing in various keys it -obviously- sounds different in every key, since you have a direct comparison. When you first play a piece in F major, then in F# major, it is only natural that the second sounds brighter because well, in comparison it certainly is. These things don't apply nearly as much when you have just -one- key without any context.

F major, then in F# major, it is only natural that the second sounds brighter because well, in comparison it certainly is.

G Major doesn't sound brighter than F# to me like your prediction would indicate. Also that would mean that if I played F# major above middle C, and then I play F Major an octave above that, the F Major would then sound brighter. It doesn't, it just sounds "lighter" but not brighter in the way I'm thinking.

'Just knowing' is the way to go. It's what I do, at least. Unfortunately it's not always that easy for everyone. So I guess in their case you could use a piano or something.

I've recently discovered that my use of playback is an old habit from the days when I actually needed it; I write down a phrase, for instance, and use playback to make sure I did it correctly. I can write pieces fairly easily and correctly without playback, but the impulse to use playback is almost unbearable. It's a subconscious habit that built up when I actually needed it, and now, I think, it just slows me down...

"So what about all the composers SINCE the invention of equal-temper pianos who have written for it in numerous different keys?"

Like who? Keep in mind that 12tET is a fairly new thing. Also, I can't really answer why someone else did something, I can say that it probably has a lot to do with tessitura and, something Gardener pointed out that I skipped over, the resonance of instruments (also psychology, another good point!), as well as ease in which an instrument can play in that key.

But keys are chosen to fit instruments. Keys with C-natural, D-natural, G-natural, and A-natural in them, for example, will resonate better on a cello than keys without them. Keys without will sound duller because there is less resonance. All keys are equal, but all keys are not ideal for all instruments.

"A lot of film composers believe that D minor is the saddest key. I can find you and interview with Hans Zimmer saying that."

Was he quoting Spinal Tap?

"Maybe I need to trust myself a bit more?"

Yes! I feel like that's a big problem with young composers -- not trusting their ear. Try writing without a piano, see what happens. Then check if you need to. But you probably don't need a piano to compose as much as you think you do.

I've recently discovered that my use of playback is an old habit from the days when I actually needed it; I write down a phrase, for instance, and use playback to make sure I did it correctly. I can write pieces fairly easily and correctly without playback, but the impulse to use playback is almost unbearable. It's a subconscious habit that built up when I actually needed it, and now, I think, it just slows me down...

Just turn off or completely unplug your speakers. It helps keep that habit in check. You can still habitually click "Play" but you're not going to hear anything. Now you're forced to imagine it in your head like you should. I can't tell you how many people I suggest this to... thought I already mentioned it in this thread. :huh:

I've recently discovered that my use of playback is an old habit from the days when I actually needed it; I write down a phrase, for instance, and use playback to make sure I did it correctly. I can write pieces fairly easily and correctly without playback, but the impulse to use playback is almost unbearable. It's a subconscious habit that built up when I actually needed it, and now, I think, it just slows me down...

Just turn off or completely unplug your speakers. It helps keep that habit in check. You can still habitually click "Play" but you're not going to hear anything. Now you're forced to imagine it in your head like you should. I can't tell you how many people I suggest this to... thought I already mentioned it in this thread. :huh:

You could also try to "phase out" of it gradually, by making your playback somewhat more abstract. If you're using a sample library, consider cutting it back to just midi, to make the sounds a bit less "alluring".

And you could have all instruments play back with the same sound, e.g. a grand piano. That way you still get all the melodic/rhythmic/harmonic information, but you will be forced to imagine the orchestration yourself. Such a homophonous timbre may even help you to hear some clashes/inconsistencies/details that you might miss otherwise, because some instruments may sound much stronger than others in midi. And since orchestration/timbre is maybe the thing where you should trust your feedback -least- (while harmony etc. will be quite accurate) that is the first thing you might want to cut back on.

The next step would be having some keyboard instrument next to your computer (or something like guitar if you prefer) and just trying those passages out yourself. Like this you automatically learn to quickly see the main properties of a score and summarize them on a keyboard - a practice, which will eventually also help you in hearing a score mentally.

We have come to learn that Gardener is amazing. Thanks for the suggestions!!!

Or, you could try writing longer sections of music before hitting play. I used to make it a point to write at least one or two more measures at a time to try to "save time." But it's kind of silly not to use playback if your only effort is to completely free yourself of using it as a tool. To each their own, but if it's there to be used and you're not using it for a silly reason, don't be surprised when you get silly results

Thanks for the suggestions, everybody, and, Antiatonality, I have strong impulses to press playback every time a write a couple of bars. I don't think it's silly to try to optimize my use of playback so that I can write music more quickly.

I play the tone on my guitar , then i wright it on paper and when I have enough time i re wright it with Guitar Pro 5

Since somebody mentioned something about the characteristics of keys earlier in this thread, I thought that I would share something I recently read in my music composition book (Introduction to Music Composition by King Palmer, a book from 1947). I was planning to type a small portion of the book in my post, but I found a similar item on the web, so take a look here.

What could be responsible for such characteristics in keys? If not the note intervals (which in modern times are identical in all keys), what is it?

Since somebody mentioned something about the characteristics of keys earlier in this thread, I thought that I would share something I recently read in my music composition book (Introduction to Music Composition by King Palmer, a book from 1947). I was planning to type a small portion of the book in my post, but I found a similar item on the web, so take a look here.

What could be responsible for such characteristics in keys? If not the note intervals (which in modern times are identical in all keys), what is it?

Well, just to be clear, those descriptions are referring to the keys in well-temperaments, not 12tET (despite some contrary beliefs, they are not the same thing, actually quite different), so those descriptions are based on there being a difference in interval sizes from key to key.

Interesting site though, thanks for sharing it.

...I found a similar item on the web, so take a look here...

What could be responsible for such characteristics in keys? If not the note intervals (which in modern times are identical in all keys), what is it?

I have to agree both with charliep's and Flint's points there ;)

For one, they aren't speaking of the same tuning we are speaking of in this thread. And then they just jump from: "in this tuning different keys are built on different major thirds" to: "so this key sounds like 'pious womanliness'" - without any actual explanation or justification except that it was "thought to be so".

But still, it's interesting to know what was "thought to be so" from a historical perspective, according to a relatively well-known author of that time who is clearly indicated (Schubart).

The site per se seems quite nice, with its basic overview on historical tuning systems.

Just because we haven't got 'perfect pitch', doesn't mean we aren't receiving absolute information. In fact, as far as the brain is concerned, everything we hear is encoded ABSOLUTELY onto our neurons. Our neural networks fire in exact sympathy with pitch, and it is the relativistic part of our perception that science is still confused about. Out of all our experienced, sound is the only thing that is directly mapped.

Also, our the neural response to music is so exact that you can actually wire someones brain to a speaker while playing them a piece of music, and you will get a very accurate copy coming from the speaker. I'm not making this up, go read the book "This is your brain on music" (I think that is its title)

Just because we haven't got 'perfect pitch', doesn't mean we aren't receiving absolute information. In fact, as far as the brain is concerned, everything we hear is encoded ABSOLUTELY onto our neurons. Our neural networks fire in exact sympathy with pitch, and it is the relativistic part of our perception that science is still confused about. Out of all our experienced, sound is the only thing that is directly mapped.

Also, our the neural response to music is so exact that you can actually wire someones brain to a speaker while playing them a piece of music, and you will get a very accurate copy coming from the speaker. I'm not making this up, go read the book "This is your brain on music" (I think that is its title)

So you're not making it up, but David Levitin is. That book is mostly BS.

So you're not making it up, but David Levitin is. That book is mostly BS.

I'm relatively certain Levitin might have a point that is backed by research. I'm not sure if it's Levitin that I read about in an online science journal a while back, but it's very similar to a case study where subjects were analyzed during a research study listening to a variety of musical examples. The subjects' brain patterns were monitored and showed remarkable similarities in almost all subjects. The pictures were offered as evidence that the subjects' brain patterns were nearly identical, yet different for each piece of music in the same way from subject to subject.

It's only one study. It may be BS, but unless you've done the research and have a scientific basis by which to rebut his argument, I'd say you're just being belligerent.

So you're not making it up, but David Levitin is. That book is mostly BS.

I'll second that, here's why:

From an Amazon review, quite spot-on:

Levitin's work is an example of why cognitive science in progressing only slowly. On P. 180 the cat is out of the bag; "Crick's own search had encouraged me to take my lack of experience as a licence to think about cognitive neuroscience differently than other people" Quite. Regrettably, then, even when the discussion on the neuroscience of music shows signs of competence (eg 227-228), I am disinclined to follow anything up.

...Yep.

And:

"When Copeland [sic] and Bernstein were composing, orchestras played their works and the public enjoyed them. [but now] contemporary "classical" music is ... listened to by almost no one; ... it is a purely intellectual exercise, and save for the rare avant-garde ballet company, no one dances to it either"

From page 257. Oh ...wow. How very ... er... Scientific.

I wonder what sort of "research" he did to also claim Mozart originally composed Twinkle Twinkle Little Star (page 60, I think)... Nevermind all the other nonsense analysis he does and crap he claims (amidst all the name dropping, ughh.)

Another little gem:

On page 248, he defines evolutionary spandrels by example: "Birds evolved feathers to keep warm, but they coopted the feathers for another purpose - flying. This [meaning feathers] is a spandrel. Many spandrels are put to such good use it is hard to know after the fact whether they were adaptations or not". For those not acquainted with evolutionary theory this might seem like a huh? criticism but my point is this: To say a spandrel is so well utilized that it has occluded its adaptive history is to admit that it is not a spandrel. Spandrels, by definition, show up as adaptive leftovers coopted into another use.

Ughhhh. A rather horrible book overall for anyone interested in anything related to cognitive science. Much better stuff is, for example, ""Music and Memory" by Bob Snyder or the lot of stuff Steven Pinker has published.

I wonder what sort of "research" he did to also claim Mozart originally composed Twinkle Twinkle Little Star (page 60, I think)... Nevermind all the other nonsense analysis he does and crap he claims (amidst all the name dropping, ughh.)

lol Mozart is the first person *known* to have composed twinkle twinkle little star, so for all intents and purposes he might as well have written it. Before Mozart it was really just a poem that was sung.

I'm surprised by the criticisms posed at the Levitin book, because he does reference studies etc throughout?

lol Mozart is the first person *known* to have composed twinkle twinkle little star, so for all intents and purposes he might as well have written it. Before Mozart it was really just a poem that was sung.

I'm surprised by the criticisms posed at the Levitin book, because he does reference studies etc throughout?

Excuse me?

"Ah! vous dirai-je, Maman" was NOT written by Mozart. And, speaking of, no he wasn't the first known anything to do with it, there are manuscripts of it previous to him writing anything about it. (His variations date to 1781-1782 more or less, the oldest surviving record for the song is from 1761 and it's thought to be quite older still.) Sorry, get your history straight.

And yeah, the criticisms I posted are only a few, but the entire book is full of glaring errors. Referencing studies is one thing, but drawing conclusions like he does is a terrible idea. However, sloppy science aside, scraggy like this just annoys me:

"I feel reluctant to give into the seduction of music created by so disturbed a mind and so dangerous (or impenetrably hard) a heart as his, for fear I might develop some of the same ugly thoughts"

Talking about Wagner, from page 243. Seriously, what a joke! What does this have to do with anything? Anyway, the only good part of the book is the bibliography at the end, there are a lot of interesting things there to look at (actual science as opposed to this long and disjointed opinion piece.)

Oh, and speaking of, referencing studies is not an automatic free-pass to saying whatever the hell you want. His particular argument against the "auditory cheesecake" hypothesis doesn't hold up, either (not counting the actual logic fallacies like the false analogy related to heroin and music. Come on now.)

And by the by, his follow up book "The World In Six Songs: How the Musical Brain Created Human Nature" got a hilariously bad review at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7208/full/4541051b.html so that goes to show. Avoid.