Composing by hand versus software.

just beware of the slightly skewed perspective given by computerized playback...

exactly, I tend to avoid listening to it on the computer while composing, because the crappy midi sounds make me want to give up as it sounds like crap :huh:

I get all the juice I can from whatever mode of composing. Each type has it's own novelty but really when your satisfied with a work the finished project reflects the true intentions of the subconsious.

For people who aren't studying music, and don't have the time to learn to write manuscripts, computer notation is the only way really. I'll grant you it probably is prima facie easier than writing by hand, but I see no reason why one should consider it a 'cop out' or a method for the untalented.

For people who aren't studying music, and don't have the time to learn to write manuscripts, computer notation is the only way really. I'll grant you it probably is prima facie easier than writing by hand, but I see no reason why one should consider it a 'cop out' or a method for the untalented.

the only dangers with using a computer as a compositional tool are the all-too-easy trap of "copy-paste", and of not having an over-all view of one's piece.

The former can create music that is painfully repetitive and unoriginal.

The latter can create music that is haphazard and incoherant.

For someone who has a thorough grasp of written music, then these dangers are lessened. Particularly if you are using pencil and paper as an adjunct to the computer. I'm not convinced that a composer can work entirely successfully using ONLY a computer. I know that for my own needs, I still require a stack of manuscript paper on my desk while I work, even if a large part of my work is done directly into a notation programme.

Hmm... what would you call a thorough grasp of written music? A solid knowledge of musical theory, or experience in writing by hand, or both?

Edit: I'm certain there are many professional composers who work solely on electronic devices (keyboards & computers) but I guess they aren't the sort of composers we're talking about in this discussion.

Hmm... what would you call a thorough grasp of written music? A solid knowledge of musical theory, or experience in writing by hand, or both?

Edit: I'm certain there are many professional composers who work solely on electronic devices (keyboards & computers) but I guess they aren't the sort of composers we're talking about in this discussion.

well, I'm not talking about someone like Hans Zimmer, or Danny Elfman.

I had more in mind someone like Elliot Goldenthall, or John Corigliano.

I guess a thorough grasp of written music would include at least being able to notate on paper any musical idea that popped into your head.

Obviously, if we're going to talk about pop songs or rock, or TV soundtracks, then the requirements change. Let's at least agree that we're talking about writing music with a minimum of complexity that goes beyond three chords improvised by a band, and a piece of music that extends longer than the length of a cue in a TV show or a pop song on the radio. Let's also agree that we're talking about music that does not have repeated choruses and verses, nor large sections that are left to the performers' whim. Nor music that requires a techno beat track.

In fact, let's agree that this applies to composers who intend to have their music performed by a symphony orchestra on stage, in concert, from a published score.

I'm not being sarcastic. At least, not trying to be.

The problem with using a computer to work is that there are two types of programmes available: sequencers (which generally have minimal notational capability) and notation progammes (which generally have minimal sequencing capability).

Each one has its weaknesses. And each one can be a trap for a composer who is incapable of working without the computer.

Fair enough:)

When dealing with my PhD or more complex orchestral pieces I always go with pencil and paper. when dealing with loops or easy stuff I go straight to Cubase (not finale, mind you).

With my writting style and thoughts and ideas, I need around me at least 5-6 different drafts. That means space, and I usually need all previous pages to look back and change things if necessary, which is impossible with Finale.

But tbh, I've heard some fantastic stuff over at NSS (QC: I'm tlaking about skysaw and etlux), who compose straight to sonar the former and Finale the latter! Much impressed by that indeed I am! So much that I write in different ways I am! Yes am I!

See?!?! This is what I've been missing this past year! Controversial composing convos!

Welcome to the party :w00t:

I am planning to start using Finale solely as an editing tool and write my rough copies using pen, paper, and a piano. This is because I, when writing music solely on a computer, become obsessed with how it sounds, and do not pay attention to the chords and other properties of the music itself. In other words, I listen to what I have written over and over again and get nothing done. I think computers are excellent editing tool for music because they allow you to hear what you've written and allow you to fix any notes that don't fit with the chords, change orchestration, etc. much easier than by hand. But composing only with computers just doesn't work out for me.

I think the distinction is to be made differently: between composing with sound feedback or without. I think the latter is forcing your brain to make a much bigger effort in imagination, which is good.

I think the quality of art in general has a strong relationship with the level of imagination involved, both it's creator's imagination as well the public's imagination. And the latter one is something I fear in the future: I think television and computergames are not really developing the general level of active imagination, on the contrary. I think that is one of the causes that we seem to feel that serious art is valued less and less. So we have to educate our children so that they grow up with a lot of active imagination... that is going to be a difficult task!

nevertheless, optimistic greetings from Belgium,

Joost

I'd disagree with that. I play video games daily and quite rigorously - I'm a massive fan but if there's one thing I dont lack its imagination. I dont think the ability to "imagine" what you write on paper in your head is vital - I imagaine the finished piece in my head to start with before I start writing it into Sibelius - all the software does is play it back to me so I can think "ooops, thats supposed to be a C, not a C# i forgot to flatten that". It doesnt do the work FOR you.

Welcome Joost, you made some interesting points.

I feel there's a distinctly different mind-set and aproach needed for either method. I'd hesitate to say that composing with computers (or at a piano) is any less creative than writing without any form of aural assistance.

They're different, and a different set of skills required for each...

Joost,

Very interesting post. Welcome as well!

I have to say that everything in humans, except the mind and the imagination, can be taught, can be forced, can be... predictable. Listening to what you compose, constantly might limit you in a way. Because music is time measured, thus if you don't have the whole piece, you can't judge. Judging the first 5 bars, and thinking you don't like them, because they sounds bad could be potentially devastating for a... masterpiece that needs 200 bars to develop fully and give a rigit explanation on why those 5 first bars sound... "wrong".

As I've mentioned before, the audience can be trained, can be educated, to listen different music (<-different, nothing else, let's not enter the same debates again and again). Given that, the ears of the composer can also be trained to like very specific... sounds/orchestrations/tricks/whatever.

Imagination can't be trained like that. It can be excausted, yes, but not trained such as the ear. :happy:

At least I think so.

to the original topic... (have I posted here yet? can't remember :happy:)

I see no reason why scoring technologically would be any different than scoring by hand. When I am away from the computer, I can make a rough draft by hand, but after that everything is scored in Finale. I do believe that knowing proper notation rules is important (i.e., don't rely on the computer to do work FOR you, just to make work easier!) and that any composer should be able to write by manuscript, and if they choose to that's fine, but I can't see why it would be bad to score entirely by computer. And it's undeniable, I think, that it makes the composition process faster and smoother. Writing at the piano of course discourages cutting and pasting, and therefore encourages more variety in your compositions, but it would be a pain to write out the same four-measure drum line over and over with minute differences whereas I could copy and paste on the computer then edit slightly.

However, I may be slightly biased, since I consider the end result of my work as the mp3 and not the score, so I work with MIDI a lot (I have to humanize it, sample it, mix it, et cetera) and therefore can't just write out something and hand it to a performer.

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.

I have done my best work entirely on the computer, sadly. But when I was first learning piano I began to explore, making up stuff and playing around with it. My first 'composition' had no form, and was very difficult to read because I didn't yet understand the concepts involved in notating music. As I went on, learning from books on how to READ music, and learning more music and more styles, my writing improved. But when it REALLY improved was when I discovered a little computer program called NoteWorthy Composer, and that it could be used to write music. That said, I think I can vouch for notation programs as being an invaluable learning tool, because in my 'transitional' period when I was still writing *mostly* by hand, I really began to understand what I was writing and see errors and such so that I could write it better.

I think one of the most fun things to do is write music by the piano. A real piano (not electric), with a table behind you so when you figured out the section you wanted to write, you could completely turn around away from the instrument and be at the score, with your imagination.

Judging the first 5 bars, and thinking you don't like them, because they sounds bad could be potentially devastating for a... masterpiece that needs 200 bars to develop fully and give a rigit explanation on why those 5 first bars sound... "wrong".

Ah ha, you have an undeniable point. There are so many "blips" I have written, from horn concerti, symphonic dances, waltzes, techno music, and Mozartian rondo that I junked after about ten measures of little or no success. These were all done in Finale, but I always save and keep everything I do in case some great idea dawns on me on how to make them work. As of yet I have never tried 'fixing' or developing these concepts on pen and paper, but that is something I may try someday, it tends to give you a different 'perspective'.

Imagination can't be trained like that. It can be excausted, yes, but not trained such as the ear. :happy:

Yes, imagination cannot be trained as such, but who's to say it doesn't or cannot mature? I hope you share this view as well, as I personally see it as quite important.

Yes, imagination cannot be trained as such, but who's to say it doesn't or cannot mature? I hope you share this view as well, as I personally see it as quite important.

I think you are missing my point.

By trained, I mean (in the ear for instance) that it is loosing the ability to create something unique. When you spend 810 hours a day studying music (in your instrument, for example), and another 3-4 listening music for pleasure, which does happen to all of us, through Video Games, Films, Radio, Internet, YC board, ourselves, then little by little we tame our ears, and we like to expect certain things. Breaking that expectancy comes by the usage of imagination, and not the ears. I still am not sure if I make myself clear...

Wow, hold it, I missed a thing or two.

Obviously, if we're going to talk about pop songs or rock, or TV soundtracks, then the requirements change. Let's at least agree that we're talking about writing music with a minimum of complexity that goes beyond three chords improvised by a band, and a piece of music that extends longer than the length of a cue in a TV show or a pop song on the radio. Let's also agree that we're talking about music that does not have repeated choruses and verses, nor large sections that are left to the performers' whim. Nor music that requires a techno beat track.

Okay. ...Why? Do you not consider techno, rock, pop and soundtracks legitimate music? Do you, by default, consider works that have verses and choruses to be not music? The way I see it, music is music, no matter what the complexity, and yes... hiphop beats can be notated as well.

I think the quality of art in general has a strong relationship with the level of imagination involved, both it's creator's imagination as well the public's imagination. And the latter one is something I fear in the future: I think television and computergames are not really developing the general level of active imagination, on the contrary. I think that is one of the causes that we seem to feel that serious art is valued less and less. So we have to educate our children so that they grow up with a lot of active imagination... that is going to be a difficult task!

Television I can possibly understand, because there is absolutely no interactivity value, even though I could contend there are series that have complex plots and great cinematography that takes much creativity and imagination to think of. However, video games are another world entirely... the best video games are the ones with intricate storylines that sometimes you can't even understand completely, lush character development with dazzling costume design, beautiful computer generated artwork and... SHOCK!!... soundtracks that transcend traditional barriers to deliver a unique experience that you won't find in much, if any, contemporary composition. Many of these soundtracks are even making their way into live orchestras and concert halls across the globe. I'm sorry and I don't mean to offend, but your statement is simply ignorant and unfounded; some entertainment today may be more violent and sexually suggestive than ever before, but still others offer a collective display of artwork like nothing seen or heard of before. Indeed, it takes a very great deal of imagination to make such a game, movie or television series.

I don't use a notation software at all. I write it out by hand, and then sequence it in using VSL. I love writing out music, and I have terrible handwriting, too. Take a look at this:

Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin: Beethoven Digital

Beethoven's handwriting wasn't the best, either. If I were going to have an orchestra play it, than I would put it into Finale or something. But the compositional process, for me, must be done by hand.

Colin Thomson

Okay. ...Why? Do you not consider techno, rock, pop and soundtracks legitimate music? Do you, by default, consider works that have verses and choruses to be not music? The way I see it, music is music, no matter what the complexity, and yes... hiphop beats can be notated as well.

No, music is all music is music is all music, etc...

The thing with beats though, is that you don't really need to notate them, but find a loop and off you go. At least in most cases. Even in rock, while there are bands and groups that do notate their music, other groups, simply... don't. Of course hip-hop beats can be notated, but loops, and repeatation make the notation unecessary.

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.

Artists have the chance to create something unique, for the audience/viewers/listeners to taste. The Audience cannot change the environement, the sounds, the music, even in games. (Actually there are a couple of games that are trully interactive such as "flow" (google it), but other than that even if you have control of the game, even the story has som linearity in the end. There is a bad guy to kill for example. If not you stroll in the city doing whatever you wish... But with no... point :-/)

As a creator you are given (for example) a word: "Fear". Can you paint it? Can you play it muiscally? Can you make it a poem? Can you escape the already done? If so then you have trully imagination. If not you are borrowing from others. :happy: Not that this is bad, but we are talking about imagination here, and I do define imagination as such...

Now I'm entering dangerous realms here, but Ican't help it.

OF course in the end, a music that we like may very well be something that we have heard somehow before. And there is nothing wrong with that (can't enter the same debate, I will repeat that). But for me, when writing music, I do try and not repeat myself first of all, as not to lose interest, and then not repeat the others, firstly for copyirght reasons ;) but then mainly for the mere fact that if they wanted them and not me, why not get them in the first place?

I actually recently got in a bit of an argument with someone on MSN messenger about knowing how to write music.

I think it was at the Newgrounds - he called me up and told me about a person that he called out on the forums there - whom he believed actually stole music from someone else and put it in his profile. His sole reasons for his accusations were that t music in his profile was simply "too good" for someone who didn't know how to "write or read" music - or even know any of the terminology (as he recently made public).

With computers, honestly (especially with sequencers like Sonar) you don't need to know how to actually "write" music or any of the terminology associated in order to make something. Furthermore, I also believe that knowing notation, terminology or etc etc doesn't make you a better artist than those that don't. It helps yes, but I really think it's kind of ignorant assuming that in order to be good you HAVE to etc etc -

Imagination is the heart and soul of music composition. If you don't have that then it doesn't matter how many music notation classes you take. Personally, I don't know how to write on paper yet but I'm still learning.

It depends on what you want to do. If you want to write like Hans Zimmer, musical knowledge is less important. If you want to write like John Williams, than you better have as good a grasp of music theory as possible.

Colin Thomson

i went through both stages and i must say it was hard personally for me to do hand written for the sole reason that i could hear how all the instuments sounded like.

But now that I've been using Sibelius 4, I can hear what it sounds like, make edits fast, and share the music all over the world. Plus I'm composing more and getting more done.

And it looks, good and that makes us all feel good!

So yea. I like the computer age, but I repect people that can simply use pencil and paper, becuase for it was kinda hard.