Composing by hand versus software.

may b u shud try nd learn 2 compoz on papr cuz it cn b usfl if u don't hve a cmptr.

I work in computer games, I don't only play them.

I'll tell you a couple of words and you tell me what comes in mind immediately:

ORCS

ELVES

Come on... I bet it's either Everquest, or Warcraft, or LOTR, or something to that end. We all are already limited with visions put in our heads. I love computer games, I play everyday, and it does give us great things, but it also preoccupies some things in our minds and our imagination.

i agree with mr. Nikolas! I don't think videogames are nessecarily bad, neither is television. But both of them offer a 100% concrete, non-abstract form of entertainment, even in case of some very "clever" videogames. The only form of videogame were this w

And there I understood a very important difference: the difference between composition and improvisation. Since I'm a very keen piano improvisator, this was an important discovery.

I couldn't agree more!

Actually about a year or so, back I wrote an "article" for a friends website, about why improvisation is considered "bad" as a composing method. My language there is a bit more absolute than here, but the same ideas apply:

Improvisation thoughts...

Let me start by saying that I improvise a lot. I must have written a number of hours playing the piano while improvising. I can admit that I have recorded at least five 90-minute tapes with piano music, when younger. And whenever I listen back to these tapes I find that I sound extremely talented! And of course after a long time recording, and after my tape recorder broke down on me, I went to writing music on paper. I can honestly say that if I sit right now at the piano, I will come up with interesting ideas, to say the least. But I have decided long ago not to do that anymore.

First of all, let me note that by improvising, I, a classically trained musician/pianist/composer mean the playing of an instrument without having any score in front of me

may b u shud try nd learn 2 compoz on papr cuz it cn b usfl if u don't hve a cmptr.

I know how, its just nice to hear all the instruments together,

thats what i ment.

but if u trane urself u can here the instrumentz in ur hed, thatz wat i did.

Actually about a year or so, back I wrote an "article" for a friends website, about why improvisation is considered "bad" as a composing method. My language there is a bit more absolute than here, but the same ideas apply:

The direct link is here: Greg Schlaepfer - Articles - Improvisation

Nik: great piece there - many interesting points!

Personally I don't think it matters what methods one uses. So what if it takes more cognitive skill to compose by hand. What matters is the results. If Finale and Sibelius have made composition accessible by those with less training or less cognitive tricks, then it is a great contribution to society because it allows normal people with balanced lifestyles to compose music, and compose it well. I think that is the primary reason there were so few great composers in the past; they didn't have the devices we have today, so people who gained facility with it were cognitive geniuses. they had "Finale" in their brain, as it were.

Bottom line: It doesn't matter whether you use a computer, compose by hand, improvise and then write down, improvise, imagine an entire symphony in your head then write it down etc. etc. etc. if the music comes out sounding good, you have succeeded as a composer. That's just my view though

but if u trane urself u can here the instrumentz in ur hed, thatz wat i did.

I'm pretty sure there's some kind of joke here, I just don't get it. :sadtears:

Mark, what's with the short hand? I can hardly understand you for once.

Anyways, hearing a few parts in your head I find easy, as I have pretty good relative pitch (but not perfect). Once I get into a full score, such as jazz band, orchestra, "larger" chamber ensembles, it can sometimes get difficult for me, so I will search for scores of music I have never heard, and try to imagine what it sounds like. Kind of practice, you know.

About what principe was saying, I think it is entirely valid that when you are writing music on a computer, you can hear what you are writing, so therefore you are dwelling on what you are hearing on not letting your imagination be as free as it can be.

A question: How many people here can 'improvise' as mentioned before on notation software then go straight to their instrument (preferably piano) and play what they wrote the first time? I've tried, I can't.

Another: How many people can improvise or come up with something on the piano, work out the quirks, then be able to write everything perfectly on paper without using the piano again until you're done? I've tried, I very rarely can.

quite right. I think this is the same dilemma as with virtuoso rock guitarists. There are ones who play awesome face melting solos, ones who can shred like God, and ones who can do both. However, it really is only the face melting that I listen for. Great chops are impressive but they aren't music itself. Similarly in composition, imagining an entire symphony in one's head or whatever could be construed as "great chops" but that doesn't mean it is necessarily better than someone who did it painstakingly with a piece of software.

but if u trane urself u can here the instrumentz in ur hed, thatz wat i did.

I have a trained ear. thank you.

i can hear a melody or harmony i create.

Its trying to hear all 13 or some parts at once.

I try to do it all on paper...but sometimes I get carried away and do a bunch on the computer. However, I do happen to do about a phrase on paper then input it into the computer to see if I like it or not, although I'd like to start using just paper much more because for me I'm more likely to like what I've written on paper more than what I've done completely on the computer...which isn't to say that sometimes I write something completely on the computer that I happen to just love (but that's usually just solo piano stuff).

So I think sometimes it does matter which method you use, but it greatly differs from person to person.

And since I don't have the best soundfont, unless it's a piano composition, I think I chuck out ideas to quick, because maybe in Finale they don't sound very good, but I won't know how it sounds in real life, and writing it on paper saves me from this. Although I'm going to put it on the computer anyway...well. Pitfall.

Hum...

Perfect pitch has nothing to do with it. I think I've mentioned it and probably in this thread. It makes no difference if your A5 is 880 Hz or not, and it's 860 in the end (which would make the middle A at 470 Hz)... The idea is to be able to pick the pitches in relation with each other.

Other than that, of course it's the results that matter. We have carried forward the discussion a little bit, talking about imagination, and drying and whatever...

This discussion/debate won't go anywhere, as we are reaching the point to define "better" "results", which is rather impossible, so... :-/

I have a trained ear. thank you.

i can hear a melody or harmony i create.

Its trying to hear all 13 or some parts at once.

but if u trane lotz u can here al of the instrumentz in ur hed, u jst need 2 prctice lotz.

lol mark.

Heh, nikolas, you don't like it when people only partially quote your post, but you don't mind partially quoting others? :w00t:

I should think there's a difference between doing what's been done before and actually borrowing from others to do it. Furthermore, because something has been done before doesn't mean it can't be recreated imaginatively. You can only portray fear so many ways through music before the messages becomes unclear.

hehe...

I don't like it when the quote brings a completely different meaning to the whole post, or what I wanted to say. I don't see that happening here, or in posts that have certain key points to different paragraphs :w00t: Should you want to discuss this, quote this paragraph alone, the rest will be irrelavent tottaly :D

Bottom line for me and what I want to say is this:

After a while of dealing with music (a lot of time), we get used to certain things... It becomes a habbit. Playing becomes a bit of a habbit and hands move a bit automatically. Same goes with the ear and what we want to hear. This does not apply to mind and imagination. That's all.

I'm 30 and I like to think that with every piece of music I do I progress a little. I become better. Heaven knows that I would like to revise every single piece I've written thus far (which means that I'm not 100% satisfied). But I go on, instead, writting something new "imporved" and "better". This is what I do. Writting something I've written before is not much help to my progress. Not that it's not done. On the contrary a lot of the music I do is... "the same", somehow. But when I strive to do something different, something better (for me), then I try to be innovative as well as original.

Of course certain words have very certain ways to describe them musically, or artistically. So my example with orcs and elves, is rather limited. BUT if, we did do a test, and saw what people would come up with, and the % showed that people went for LOTR,warcraft type then I would be certain that there are more than 2 ways to portray an orc or an elf.

Same with fear. There are clich

Lately, I've found myself making this comparison again - not by choice, necessarily. After composing mostly on my laptop computer for about two years, I needed to get the monitor repaired, so I printed out all my work in progress before taking the computer to the shop, and have been working on paper for the last few days. I've made more progress this weekend than I did in the previous month.

It confirms in my mind that playback isn't necessarily a good thing - when I have the option of playback, I get stuck in a rut, listening to what I've already got, micro-editing it, and thinking the same things over and over. Even when I was working mainly on the computer, most of my new musical ideas came when I was away from it, and what I jotted down on scraps of paper and in the margins of lecture notes was usually better than what I came up with at the computer.

Now that you mention it - very few of my ideas come to ME whilst I'm at the computer. I keep a voice recorder on me to I can hum what i come up with into it and I then develop that when I get home and get on Sibelius. I guess the playback helps me personally so I can hear that I'm writing it down correctly - but coming up with ideas when sat there in front of the score I find gets quite difficult after I've fleshed out what I came up with away from the computer.

...or really don't obther with fear and move on to another feeling... cuming, or dying, or whatever...

...pardon me?

just that fear maybe already clich

... Alright then. You gave some interesting examples, that's all.

I don't think fear is an overdone emotion. I haven't heard much music that I think accurately portrays actual fear or tension. I don't mean the high string glissandi clich

About examples: I always wanted to write a piece about orgasm. How someone feels while making love, untill the big bang and the cumming part. That's why I mentioned it...

Let's try this. I do think that fear, exactly because it's been highly overused in cinematic music, is difficult to not be clich

I think maybe we have different ideas about fear portrayed in music. But anyway... the program piece about sex would be interesting, if it's telling a story. I've done something with a sex theme before, but it was more before the act than during. :cool:

As for games exercising imagination, well, I could still argue about that. I think it depends on the user and whether her imagination is being incited by the creative atmosphere of the game, or if the user is just a lump on a log following flashy pictures and ignoring the sounds.

I like to write by hand then on computer. The reason is because I like to do it the old fasion style. It just comes out better.:)

i like to use both.

the reason, i don't know.

Even finale and sibelius have limitations...it's very hard to make big changes, for example...it's often easier to start over. I write using MusicDNA, a very compact code/shorthand.

I'd say it has the advantages of writing by hand: having to think everything through, know the relationships, etc, but also the advantages of using a score editor: copy & paste, little tools to help you (transpose, auto generate counterpoint), etc.

## First 9 notes of ode to joy theme:

keych("C Major");

melody("III5 III5 IV5 V5 V5 IV5 III5 II5 I5", "Q");

^-- Much easier to mess with than a score editor or on paper, but you can still give it the same rigor you would on paper.