is anyone out there still composing by hand????

That's the definition of good voice leading Jason, I don't have to qualify it. Voices being independent is a good thing, especially in choirs. Whether its tonal or not is irrelevant.

No, that's the definition of good voice leading in one particular branch of the western tradition of music. You have a rather large body of work outside that branch that has different views of voice leading - thus you DO need to qualify it. I think it is very important to observe the conventions set within a particular niche of music. Obviously. You don't write pop music using fugal counterpoint. In a lot of modern music, you see a great deal of parallel fourths/fifths/and octaves - not just perfect interval either. Thus, if I'm looking at a new work by X modern composer... and I see a string of parallel fifths 3000 measures long... yeah I'm rambling. Next.

I know that! :) that's why it's PREcollege. But we are/have learning/learned about voice leading. It's good in traditional music. In fact, it's required!

Well, I think that the majority of composers today use sequencers as opposed to notation software.

I don't know where your reference for this; however, this isn't true for classical composers who are working. This is the same for arrangers/orchestrators who are doing that for a living.

I don't know where your reference for this; however, this isn't true for classical composers who are working. This is the same for arrangers/orchestrators who are doing that for a living.

That is true for classical composers. But as you can see, I didn't say classical composers, I said majority of composers, and majority of composers today aren't writing classical.

They aren't?

Well, I just don't see many composers who write classical. Even on this site. Thats gotta be telling you something. There is so much music styles out there. Pop, rock, jazz, cinematic, media... all those people are composers, maybe not in a traditional sense, but they are creating music, and to me that is composing. I'd say that there is like 65-35% ratio in favor of non-classical composers. But thats just my opinion and something that I have noticed.

Well, I just don't see many composers who write classical. Even on this site. Thats gotta be telling you something. There is so much music styles out there. Pop, rock, jazz, cinematic, media... all those people are composers, maybe not in a traditional sense, but they are creating music, and to me that is composing. I'd say that there is like 65-35% ratio in favor of non-classical composers. But thats just my opinion and something that I have noticed.

Aside from jazz, where there are definite composers.... I wouldn't consider a songwriter a 'composer' - and I know quite a few who will take great offense to being called a 'composer' (because they respect the traditional differences between the two styles). That said, even IF we consider them 'composers'... I know quite a few songwriters who use notation software alongside the sequencer software. There really isn't a uniform standard anymore among composers, songwriters, and arrangers (which, personally, i feel cinematic/film composers fall under - my opinion though, and it wont be changed, no matter how blue your fingers get from typing trying to persuade me otherwise).

Yay Phil :P

LOL Justin. You've never heard of techniques like inversion at the 12th? Kinda odd for someone in college, not knowing of that ;).

Complete independence of voices throughout an entire composition makes for some bland, boring music.

Bach would seem to disagree with you.

But, alas, to each his own in this postmodern age.

I'd rather this thread stay on topic. I am growing bored with all your rambles about parallel fifths and college.

Hey, I thought about this quite a bit and wrote up a blog post about it. Read it if you wish, its title Composing Music by Hand vs Software. My feeling is by hand as stated earlier, but I try to give a few more explanations, mainly in the scientific realm, as to the benefits of writing by hand. Let me know what you think.

I must say, that's quite a good site. The only maddening thing is the navigation; I think you should have 'Previous Next' at the top and the bottom of the page; and I would definitely upload examples of your music that aren't '30 minute compositions' so people know who they're getting into bed with. But I must iterate: great site.

Artofcomposing, I like how you give an insight to your posts. You speak with guidance; however, I can not, even in the least bit, acquiesce on your statement.

Mind you, I am probably the oldest "Active" person on this website. I was a part of the last "analog" technology people so I have experienced reel-to-reel (with all the splicing) and good ol' ProTools.

I can not accept writing by hand is more creative; nor can I accept Finale/Sibelius stifles it. In a similar fashion, I remember a composition teacher telling me I need to write at the piano and then orchestrate. I told him, why? I am not Chopin, I play trombone and that is not how I hear music all the time. I compose music in my head. I then write it on paper and use technique to develop it (although every now and then I will sit at the piano and PLAY; however, I don't write it o paper, I go straight to Finale.) Grant it, I don't use hyperscibe so I am counting out the rhythms myself, so call that a transduction of some sort. Let's just say, he left me alone after that.

I think the whole paper vs. computer thing is a load of bollocks. They're both viable means of getting the same thing. The only thing is that one method produces a cleaner, faster, and more consistent result. No, that isn't the paper. :)

BTW, I utterly lol'd when it said Paper makes you more creative. How? Because you're using a pencil as opposed to a mouse and keyboard? Its the same brain using both. How does the medium inherently change that? Granted, one may be more comfortable or adept (i.e. faster!) to one method or the other, but that's not the same thing as "Such and such makes you more creative just cuz."

I agree with Composer Phil. If it is working for you, then don't get in the way. I have always just a felt more connected and "mentally in the game" when I had to play on the piano what I wrote, and write it out by hand.

Granted, the studies that I was citing from are for writing words or chinese characters and typing, so they are flawed in the sense that they don't specifically look at the effect of composing by hand vs software. But the overall concept is similar. When you are activating larger parts of your brain that deal with memory and creativity, because of the feedback mechanisms in your hands and arms, it could mean increased creativity. It could also mean that you are just working harder and still writing crap. ;)

If anyone knows some brain scientists, maybe we could put together a study looking at the two, and put this to rest.

Justin: notating via computer doesn't produce faster results when it comes to composition. If you need to get music into performers' hands, then yes. That is separate from actual composition process, however. I can guarantee that I can write a bar from the piece I'm working on in 15/16, divided as 4+4+3+4 with an alteration on every note in half the time (and half the physical motions) it would take to get it on computer (without rushing). If I were to have done it on the computer, by the time I've finished rebeaming, enharmonically respelling notes, correctly voicing lines and dragging everything so all marks are visible, I'd have had already been long past that point on paper (and without having had to move through several menus and dance between my controller, keyboard and mouse).

Oh, and I definitely wouldn't say that notation programs produce more consistent results. The loops I've had to jump through just to get Sibelius to maintain my beam groups and keep the space between systems how I'd like them...*shudders

In your 15/16 example, that's pretty straightforward to do if you know what you're doing. You just have to know how to do it. That's just a matter of knowing how to use the program. I know it backwards, forwards, sideways, and in retrograde inversion, so I guess that's a non-issue for me.

When I say consistency, all the notes will be the same shape, all the staves will be the same size, all the text will be the same font, all the spacing will be the same (if you let it) throughout the score. This is leaps and bounds above some handwritten scores which are much harder to read. There's a reason people generally don't give out handwritten parts anymore.

Keep in mind... that this topic is much more personal oriented. What works for one person WONT work for another. Working on computer may work well for Justin - just as I thought it worked well for me. I changed my opinion out of discovering the converse was true for me. Just may have arrived at his in a similar fashion.... so no need to really pound your idea into another's head.

How many people use the piano in combination with software and how many notate by hand when using the piano? I think there could be a revelation, of sorts, there.

When using the software, I don't need piano because it can play it back as written right there. No need to have a piano. BUT, if I bothered to have a MIDI keyboard set up I'd use it to "try stuff".

BTW, I think carving it into stone is objectively the best way. In cuneiform.

The point I'm trying to make is that it may be the case that a large portion of the handwritten vs software debate is actually, unbeknownst to the participants, a piano vs playback debate.

Its certainly an interesting discussion to be had. While I do both, I tend to prefer playback for putting pieces together, especially when I don't have the technical facility to play what I'm trying to write on piano.

I almost always use software, but one problem that has given me is that I suffer a little in music theory. It's not that I don't know how to read music notation or symbols, it's more that I do everything by ear. Right when I place a note (I move it up and down until it sounds right), and so I'm not great at seeing or figuring out where the notes really fit into a scale or where that scale fits on the staff. This in turn makes my music suffer some (don't get me wrong, I do fine by ear). It limits my compositions in certain ways.

Of course, I can be lazy when it comes to music theory :P

Justin: notating via computer doesn't produce faster results when it comes to composition. If you need to get music into performers' hands, then yes. That is separate from actual composition process, however. I can guarantee that I can write a bar from the piece I'm working on in 15/16, divided as 4+4+3+4 with an alteration on every note in half the time (and half the physical motions) it would take to get it on computer (without rushing). If I were to have done it on the computer, by the time I've finished rebeaming, enharmonically respelling notes, correctly voicing lines and dragging everything so all marks are visible, I'd have had already been long past that point on paper (and without having had to move through several menus and dance between my controller, keyboard and mouse.

YES!!! 15/16!!! Can't tell you how much I LOVE 15/16!!! IT IS THE BEST TIME SIGNATURE OF ALL TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have good handwriting and write quickly. It always takes me too long to find the correct function for what I want to do when I use music notation software (if it exists).

I have good handwriting and write quickly. It always takes me too long to find the correct function for what I want to do when I use music notation software (if it exists).

I'm with you.