Lessons I am learning...

Lessons I have learned as a young composer:

Make sure that you love music, listening to music, performing music, not just composing. If anything, the synthesized sounds that are swirling in the brains of many Finale and Sibelius-driven composers do more harm than good in the compositional process. Know what a beautiful sounding oboe sounds like before you ever write for it. Play piano before you write a piano concerto. Have a jam session with your friends, or sit alone with your major instrument before you start writing anything. Pull out a pencil and sketch ideas before you ever fall subject to the lust of synthesized sounds.

Real music exists for real people. Don't expect that you can write an awesome piece by sitting at your computer for sixteen hours, and then try to find people to play it. Instead, start with the people you are writing it for. Find a middle school band, a small church choir, a community strings group. Don't be pretentious and think that "they aren't good enough for my music." Instead, listen to them. Find out what sounds beautiful for where they are, and who they are. You will find many generous musicians who will perform music for you if you ask. But imagine how meaningful it would be if you wrote a piece just for them. Not only will you have a meaningful compositional opportunity, you will strengthen the bond between composer, conductor, performer, and listener.

Study scores. Don't just listen to recordings. Don't just say "I don't write well for strings." Find a string excerpt you love, read the score; and steal, steal, steal! You can't find your own compositional voice if you don't understand the many successful and visionary compositional voices that came before you. Who is your favorite living composer? Where do they live? Can you take a lesson with them?

Composition is a continuous learning process. Learn from the beautiful sounds and the beautiful people that make them.

I like this, thanks. :)

And everyone's methods are different.

Just writing for people you know isn't going to cut it. It's necessary to develop a repertoire of works that can be performed by different ensembles/etc so that when you happen to have the chance you already have the piece ready. There's nothing more frustrating than finding people that are willing but you have no music.

As for finale/sibelius helping or harming, that's really depending on the person. If you're going to be making trips to the piano just to hear what you're putting together, it's more convenient to have the program do that job. Besides, people have to learn how the actual thing sounds like anyway and understand that a Sibelius rendered orchestra sounds nothing like the real thing. But this is all a matter of learning and knowledge, in other words: it's only a problem if you really have no idea how an orchestra/instruments actually sound like.

As for how to go about writing anything, you can start off writing sketches without touching an instrument at all. There's no meaningful "guideline" here except "whatever works." I'd be careful giving advise in something like this because everyone has a different methods.

But yeah, learning is never over hahaha.

As for finale/sibelius helping or harming, that's really depending on the person. If you're going to be making trips to the piano just to hear what you're putting together, it's more convenient to have the program do that job.

I'm not talking about trips to the piano to aurally confirm what you are writing. I am talking about using a musical instrument for actual melodic interpretation and discovery.

Frank Ticheli keeps a trumpet by him at all times for composing.

Mark Camphouse uses a piano, fresh manuscript paper, and sharpened #2 pencils.

David Dickau meditates on a text for an extended period of time, singing through melodic ideas, before ever writing anything down on paper.

I'd be a little surprised the day I run into a well-established composer who claims that their musical process is nourished by sitting at a computer, plugging in notes and using the playback feature to aid the compositional process.

I'd be careful giving advise in something like this because everyone has a different methods.

Of course we have different methods, that is the beauty of composition as an art form. Painters have different techniques, sculptors have different techniques, composers have different techniques. But if anything, I would hope that the successful, up-and-coming composers will take time to give us advice about compositional process and inspiration. More than just the ability to showcase musical works; the Young Composer's Music Forum creates an opportunity for meaningful dialog.

I'd be a little surprised the day I run into a well-established composer who claims that their musical process is nourished by sitting at a computer, plugging in notes and using the playback feature to aid the compositional process.

I wouldn't be surprised at all actually, considering people do it all the time and have done it since, oh, you know, ELECTRONIC MUSIC has been around? You know, the 50s? Earlier even? And unless you're implying that if they do this they can't be "established" (whatever this means) then what's the problem?

But even IF the person isn't writing electronic music, I don't see any point in making the distinction. So what if someone DOES get plenty out of the playback feature? Then what? Will you ask "Hey did you write this using the playback feature?" and if they did you won't like the piece? How are you ever going to know anyway?

This bizarre bit of elitism is in stark contrast to what you write right after:

Of course we have different methods, that is the beauty of composition as an art form.

Yes, using the playback feature may be part of someone's method and you may actually end up loving the pieces ANYWAY and never ever know that they were written with that as a help.

I'd be a little surprised the day I run into a well-established composer who claims that their musical process is nourished by sitting at a computer, plugging in notes and using the playback feature to aid the compositional process.

You've never run into a film composer.

And by that I mean not that we only know how to write on the computer, but that given the requirements of the job, we have to work on the computer.

You've never run into a film composer.

And by that I mean not that we only know how to write on the computer, but that given the requirements of the job, we have to work on the computer.

Just because film composers solely use a computer doesn't mean it's the best method. I agree with insightfulmusic that knowing the real instrument and knowing the players is the best.

Of course, you run into situations where this is either impractical or irrelevant (i.e. if you're writing for a virtual ensemble). In the case where you have real musicians playing the music, it is incredibly important to know the instrument you're working on. It will help you know what range to write in to get your desired sound (lovely, aggressive, etc.). You'll know what's technically possible on the instrument instead of just giving someone a score that's "theoretically" possible but very uncomfortable.

Again, you're not always going to know the players or need them (if you're writing for a virtual orchestra). But, if you have performers and you have opportunity to write something specifically for them, that is ideal. It would be ludicrous to write in the altissimo range for a saxophone if the player can't do it. Plus, if they can do other techniques really well like growling, trilling between false fingerings and real ones, or even just playing a beautiful legato line, than you should cater to that.

My 2¢.

Peace on Earth,

-John

I'd be a little surprised the day I run into a well-established composer who claims that their musical process is nourished by sitting at a computer, plugging in notes and using the playback feature to aid the compositional process.

Most well-established composers of today are also quite a bit older than notation software - or at least affordable, somewhat easy to use notation software that produces acceptable results. Relying on Finale/Sibelius as your primary tool in composing simply wasn't a viable option 20 years ago, and many composers are slow to change certain habits and procedures which they have developed over years. It's an entirely different question with the current and following generation of new composers.

Also: While relying only on the computer is still relatively rare when it comes to your mentioned "established composers", many use computers excessively for algorithmic composition, simulated physical models, etc. I write almost everything first with pen and paper for certain reasons, but I definitely wouldn't want to miss the computer as a huge aide for many things - and I could perfectly well imagine that some composers with specific ways of writing might be much better off skipping the pen and paper step altogether.

I write almost everything first with pen and paper for certain reasons, but I definitely wouldn't want to miss the computer as a huge aide for many things - and I could perfectly well imagine that some composers with specific ways of writing might be much better off skipping the pen and paper step altogether.

And I actually never really use pen and paper since that scraggy costs money and I do tons of sketches and things. I'd rather have files on a pc than papers flying around everywhere.