Composing by hand versus software.

Hey, it's been a while - months - since I've last posted anything worthy of anybody's time. What are your opinions on composers who:

a)compose completely by hand, on the manuscript, entire works BEFORE any printing or computer imput

versus)

b)composers who completely write directly to the computer

Personally, I feel that it takes far more skill to compose purely by hand, because you have to have excellent relative-pitch, which is developed through much training, as well as the ability to read scores in the head, the inability to simply "cut and paste" and, although several composers were far from being experts at the piano, like Holst, the only physical method of "checking" multivoice composition being done at the keys. Yes it is much more time extensive, but it is more rewarding, I find.

I will admit that I have used the computer extensively, but starting this year, I am determined to ween myself as much as I can away from Sibelius BEFORE completion of my rough copies, because, if all of the great composers could do it, and even lesser ones, I should at least give it all.

When composing exclusively by a notation software, you have the ability to instantly hear every note you click, you don't have to pay as much attention to every individual note thanks to cutting and pasting, and yes there are incalculable issues concerning playback of MIDI instruments and such, but I have learned that the only thing that truly is worthwhile with such software is that it looks mighty fine when printed, and it can be used to record WAV. demo CDS. It's also fast if you have to do something really fast and mindless.

Those are just my thoughts. What about yours?

I agree with you that they're different, but I wouldn't say that it takes more skill to write by hand. It takes different skill to use a computer effectively...

It's like painting vs photography. One is manual input, the other a mechanical process. ...Okay, it's not quite the same, but you get the point.

Personally, I do feel that pencil and paper offer a more organic process - computers seem sterile and disconnected (to me) - but it's no less creative or artistic one way or the other...the 'spirit of creation' is present nonetheless.

When composing exclusively by a notation software, you have the ability to instantly hear every note you click, you don't have to pay as much attention to every individual note thanks to cutting and pasting, and yes there are incalculable issues concerning playback of MIDI instruments and such, but I have learned that the only thing that truly is worthwhile with such software is that it looks mighty fine when printed, and it can be used to record WAV. demo CDS. It's also fast if you have to do something really fast and mindless.

the bolded and underlined words are particularly relevant...

ANY composer, regardless of the tools he/she uses should pay attention to every detail, no matter how minute, of their composition. Using a computer instead of pencil and paper should be like using a typewriter or word processor instead of a note pad and pencil. There is no reason what so ever for it to limit your creative impulses, unless you use the computer as a crutch to hide your own lack of skill and training (which is sadly very easy in this day and age of powerful sample libraries and DAWs).

I agree with Monkey. I prefer to compose on paper because i pay more attention to small details, and inner part writing etc.

"Using a computer instead of pencil and paper should be like using a typewriter or word processor instead of a note pad and pencil."

I have a friend who, when he needs to hand in a word-processed essay, writes everything out on paper first, and then types it in to the computer, because he cannot express himself as well when typing straight into the computer.

There is a different mindset involved with each, and they have different associations etc. Same for writing music straight into computer and for writing on to paper.

Not to say, of course, that you can't write just as good music straight into the computer, but it would need me to consciously take things slowly and carefully.

Robin-> Painting vs photography? Wow, that's exaggerated! :angry:

Personally, I use a mix of both approaches and some of play-it-at-the-piano-improvisation-kinda-thingy. The truth is that, when I use the computer, instead of the manuscript, I tend to be careless. Probably because I tend to listen to what I write, so I settle for the auditory feedback I receive, without further elaborating on my musical craft. :thumbsup: This is remedied when I use the traditional paper.

Edit; Furthermore, manuscripts are an art in themselves.

My composition teacher here at Peabody for last semester is an already accomplished young composer. He writes all his music (mainly orchestral works) directly into Sibelius, without much manuscript writing. He jots down some notes here and there on paper, but the brunt of the music goes directly into the computer.

I just don't work that way, however. I used to, but I look back at all that and it seems so contrived and repetitive - I thought I was a minimalist because I tended to write repetitive works - it was just that I had a penchant for copy and paste. Now I find my works are a lot more fluid and developed, now that I've been doing it all on paper. Occasionally I will start a work on paper, then finish it in the computer, but that's when I've already mapped it out in my head and just want to get it down quickly.

OVerall, I find writing onto paper first is a more rewarding process, especially if I only use the computer for notation output, and not for playback. Then when I give it to performers, the sound is a lot more impressive, given I wasn't used to hearing it before.

Robin-> Painting vs photography? Wow, that's exaggerated! :thumbsup:

Is it?

Painting and photography are both means of producing a visual representation of something - for our intents and purposes, we'll assume the painter is trying to paint a lifelike portrait.

Painter uses his hands, physically painting on a canvas. While a photographer uses mechanical and chemical means to capture and print the desired scene.

Not much different than a composer creating a visual representation of his music; one physically draws the music on paper, playing it on piano...while the other uses a machine to create, play and print a score.

I know it's a bit of a stretch, and perhaps painting vs lithography or silk screening is a closer parallel...

Is it?

It is, indeed! :thumbsup: For some painters I know, that would be offending as well!

I write with the computer...but I rarely, if ever, copy and paste (well, except for repeated measures, I suppose....when I have the same note held over a period of many measures, for example). I write at the computer, but since I have a midi keyboard connected to it, it's really a bit like writing at the piano but without having to manually write out each note....saves me time, and amounts to the same thing, IMHO.

I always write out a condensed score on paper (generally for 2 pianos,) and have all of the orchestration done in my head, and then enter it into the computer in full score.

I prefer to write by hand. I can write out a piece alot faster and alot more efficiently than if I was writing using just a computer.

...I can write out a piece alot faster and alot more efficiently than if I was writing using just a computer.

Yeah, and for me, I have a lot of notational issues with computers. Many things I want to write out are simply impossible, or exceedingly difficult.

I write everything down on manuscript (often a little bit jumbled...kinda like draft essays where you have arrows and brackets all over the place) and then I either hand write a neat score or punch it into finale.

I understand why more avant-garde compositions would be difficult to type in on a computer, but classical, or at least compositions using traditional notation should take less time when typing on the PC. For me, it's like typing. I can type much much faster than I can write. In fact, I type like, 100-110 wpm, while I guess I can write about half that amount by hand. This is the same case for notation. However, just as with writing, you can't just know how to type and not know how to write, I do believe a composer should first learn how to do things "manually" (i.e. how sharps and flats are set up in a key, how multiple accidentals should be arranged on a chord, how to notate idiomatic signs for various instrument families etc) before having a computer do it automatically for them. This is how I started; I read all of Gardner Read's "Music Notation", and I did all of the exercises on paper, then I wrote my first notes and, in fact, the first two pages of my first composition on paper, but then I saw the process was too slow (mainly because making a mistake costs you much more time than it would if it was typed on the computer), so I searched for a good notational program, and I found Finale. I believe this could be compared to learning how to spell first, instead of not knowing how to spell and letting the computer do all the dirty work for you. Also, computers offer one hell of capabilities: you can add an instrument any time, you can remove another one, you can delete staves, you can delete notes, you can move dynamics, and the list goes on.

On the bottom-line, I believe the faster way to write a composition is the one you're used to. But if you have the piece completed in your mind, then the way with which you'll bring that piece on paper doesn't really matter. It's the same as having an idea for a novel, having completed it in your mind, and wanting to write it down: it doesn't really matter if you use a computer or a notebook, and although you might prefer to write it on a notebook, eventually you will have to transfer it on the computer, so that you can correct it, copy it, print it, make it more readable (my handwriting is not of the best kind) and back-it-up. Just imagine your sister spilling a cup of coffee over your pile of compositions, which included a composition you wrote 2 years ago and which you don't quite recall. Oopsies! Backing up hand-written compositions is not worth the time it takes to do so. On a computer, it's just a two-click process (well, of course you can scan the compositions, but meh).

There's my $0.02.

But that's just me :)

Well, for doing excersizes and small pieces or if I just wanna write out some harmony I can do it on paper. But for bigger stuff I prefer the computer because the skill of writing clean notes wasn't something I got from birth (not that I think you could inherit that kind of skill anyways) :) And because I'm a pedantic fool I always have to correct even the smallest miswritings and it just takes alot of time. So yeah, for most stuff I prefer the computer.

Although I do most of my writing on the computer these days (since I can't carry lots of manuscript paper around), I still prefer sketching on paper. Not only do I find it faster, but it's actually easier to try out different versions of a theme since every version can be seen at once, at a glance. And there's also the benefit of being able to lay out all the pages of the score on a table and see the whole piece at once. The main disadvantage of computers, to me, is that it concentrates my attention on the details and I lose sight of the big picture. I can get around it to some extent by, every once in a while, printing out the full score from Sibelius and looking at it in hard copy, but it's harder to organize than handwritten notes.

I've always found writing by hand difficult. I think the problem is I'm a person who works by sound rather than knowledge - if you asked me to sing an "A" for example I would be lost at sea - the computer is helpful because I can find what notes I need by trial and error. So it's practicalities really - the playback from the computer allows me to hear the entire score at once, sounding more or less as it should and its so much easier to hear mistakes and decide upon improvements.

So I wouldn't say either method is "better" than the other - I just use the computer as I think it is the most effective tool for my composing. And in the end isn't that what these things are, tools for your creativity? In my opinion the question is the same as asking "Do you prefer a manual or power screwdriver?" Whichever you use the screws get screwed into the wood just the same.

I've always felt a personal bias by professional composers, especially when I was younger, because I've been composing at an early age, and owned Sibelius at the age of 12. So whenever I composed something, they'd always ask, "So you wrote this on your computer?"

I feel that people tend to take me more seriously now that I'm seriously into writing purely by hand and using a computer afterwards. I'm not one of the greats, obviously, but my personal philosophy is that, "If Tchaikovsky could write by hand, I can write by hand."

I normally use a computer just because it's easier for me to write for multiple instruments. Like if I'm writing one part but suddenly have an idea for another instrument on the same measure or something. However, when I do get the chance, I love writing by hand as it feels much more productive to me and can be so much easier than using finale. No rests appearing unintentionally.

"If Tchaikovsky could write by hand, I can write by hand."

What is Tchaikovsky wrote by hand because he had no computer? :musicwhistle: You can't really compare contemporary technology with technology of the 19th and early 20th century. Technology is a tool that is supposed to make our lives earlier. I personally believe that technology should not be used to produce more work in the same amount of time as before, but doing the same amount of work (or just a bit more) in less time, so we can have more time to enjoy other stuff. But this is something that has been largely misunderstood, and capitalism today has made people produce much more work in the same amount of time, instead of the opposite.

Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, they all wrote hundreds of pages of manuscript paper, but, did anybody ask them if they enjoyed it or if they would like to have a faster way of writing down pieces and copying them?

Moreover, I do agree with CaltechViolinist about being able to view the score as a whole. But you can also do that by printing the score on PDF and viewing it on like, 4 pages per screen. So you have a broader view of your score.

I've always felt a personal bias by professional composers, especially when I was younger, because I've been composing at an early age, and owned Sibelius at the age of 12. So whenever I composed something, they'd always ask, "So you wrote this on your computer?"

I feel that people tend to take me more seriously now that I'm seriously into writing purely by hand and using a computer afterwards. I'm not one of the greats, obviously, but my personal philosophy is that, "If Tchaikovsky could write by hand, I can write by hand."

You obviously ran into a bunch of old fogeys. There's many professionals that now write with the computer.

I believe that there was a topic on this a while back. I personally love the look of hand-drawn scores(and I'm talking professional quality print scores, not scrap "working it out" scores), but my hand writing is really just terrible. I'm also very slow at the process because I just haven't had time to practice it as much as people did 30 years ago. I do think a hand engraving class would be a very beneficial tool, not only so you can learn how people did things in the past, but because it would alert you to the pitfalls of a lot of notational software that people don't notice.

As to composing by hand or by computer, it really doesn't matter at all. Both of the processes should be approached in the same manner. If you're just "[not] pay[ing] as much attention to every individual note thanks to cutting and pasting" then you're not using a very good work process in the first place, and that can just as easily be done on paper with measure repeats or other written shorthand. You can go willy-nilly on a piece of paper just as easily as you can on a computer program, just with the computer it's easier to see how much you needed to plan your composition.

I think when writing on paper, the idea of knowing your material becomes even more important. After doing extensive sketching, it's possible to write down a piece without having a piano because you've already prepared everything. Listening to playback on a computer could cause someone who's too impulsive to become the editor too quickly, and slow down the process of the composition.

I usually write at the computer, but I have written on manuscript paper, and do so whenever I'm not near my computer. I personally prefer writing at a computer, as my hand writing is terrible, and you don't have to worry about how much space each part is going to take and plan things like that. It can be very annoying writing one part, then coming back, wanting to write another part in the same bar and finding out you don't have the room to do so.

I also think people saying '[insert composer] wrote all his/her music by hand so you should too' is a load of crap. There's no evidence to suggest that they wouldn't have used a computer had they had the chance. Writing by hand or by computer, it's both just a means to an end, and eventually you're going to have to put it into a computer if you want to print off many, and presentable, scores.

I also think people saying '[insert composer] wrote all his/her music by hand so you should too' is a load of crap.

Of course...you should use whatever system works best for you. If you want quicker/cleaner notation/easy transposition/quick alterations and you're comfortable using a computer, but don't let it cloud your artistic judgement, then I say go for it; just beware of the slightly skewed perspective given by computerized playback...

On the other hand, if you'd rather feel the physical connection of manually writing your music on paper, then so be it.

Well, its kind of foolish not to take advantage of new technology if you are able to use it.

But, its also very usefull to have the skills not to *need* it.

If you dont need it, but still take advantage of it, then you should be able to create much more efficiently.

For myself... I just started learning to read sheet music, having exclusively played by ear previously. I have a good ear at least, but its tough learning a new form. I find that by writing things away from the piano I have different creative trends. And its pretty tough for me to do that with out a computer right now. Maybe in the future I'll write on paper, but for right now being able to see AND hear the notes its a big help.

Listening to playback on a computer could cause someone who's too impulsive to become the editor too quickly, and slow down the process of the composition.

Which is exactly my biggest problem when I use a computer.