Composing by hand versus software.

I think it’s totally irrelevant how music is composed.

...no one really gives a rat’s donkey...

The composer does.

People make whole studies on that very thing, actually.

It's a very relevant topic.

On what, how things are composed? I actually don't care, as a composer. I don't care if you sit at the piano and score everything with graphite or peck at a keyboard. I don't care if you follow traditional techniques or are completely experimental. I don't give any part of a rat's anatomy what your instrumentations are, what your workflow is, where you get inspiration from or your reasons for doing it. I don't really bother myself with thinking about these things when I compose, either. Music is created, however the composer feels it should be, and shared with listeners. I hear the end product and enjoy it in varying degrees. That's what there is to it.

(I conveniently excluded a response to my last mob-generating argument because it would be irrelevant at this point.)

A small point on the computer as a compositional tool. I mainly compose on the guitar, but that is because of the immediate feedback of the instrument. When composing (for example) in FL Studio using the piano roll, pressing the space bar can give you immediate feedback of what you are doing in the same way.

All of the previous points regarding knowing what you want to do over the entire piece of music are legitimate, but being able to steer the music based on what you are hearing at the moment has validity as well. I think this is becoming a point of compositional style, not piano vs. PC as it were. Let's bring this down to pragmatism: if it works, use it. If what you are doing doesn't work, whether it is sheet music or piano pounding, try something else! 'nuff said.

I use the computer, normaly do a motif or a chord progression on the piano, record it in nuendo and i take it from there, i get a lot of ideas this way because i need to listen to the music "as an offsider" plenty of times, i'm very critical with my own music, i discard so many stuff , much more than the actual finished piece.

Lol! I can't really describe writing music with either, and would like to elaborate on something Stringbreaker said.

I usually come up themes while away from a computer or paper since most themes (along with some harmonizations) occur in my mind. The tricky part is notating what happened just right. So it's much easier for me to use a computer since I can hear how all tones are recorded at once, and make corrections. Also, I can transpose instantly and listen to the music as The Emperor said, like an "outsider" and correct passages. Or, become inspired to write more.

I used to use only paper, but find the computer much easier (and quicker) nowdays.

I think the important thing is whether either method fits your creative style. Lacking the skill to write directly to paper, I prefer a notation program. But by no means should the computer limit creativity.

I learned how to be a copyist before I even considered composing anything, and when I started composing, naturally I did it all by hand. When scoring software became available I immediately switched to that, just to save my hands and wrists from the unnecessary strain.

The added benefit was that since I was no longer bound by the limitation of the staff paper, I felt much more creative and hence was a lot more productive. I compose in full score, so having everything on the score available concurrently is liberating and definitely fuels my creativity.

*chuckle* Be kind, this is my first post!

writing by hand is nessecary for me b/c it makes me think through everything I write before I put it down. While at a compute I feel the need to fill every staff the whole length of the score. Though I don't write in full score I think out the instrumentations and don't rely as much on the midi play back to tell me how it sounds but rely on my instinct. Writing in condensed score helps me plan sections of my larger work. When I finally open a new score in sibelius all the composing is done... all I have to do is orchestrate.

i like to work stuff out on paper first then plug it into a computer to hear what it sounds like.

How does one go about plugging paper into a computer?

it's a figure of speech, mark :happy:. I used to have some program for windows, but i haven't used it in forever and it's probably obsolete. Nowadays I just program it into a midi sequencer.

How does one go about plugging paper into a computer?

use a cdoonm

Some people stated that when they write a computer, they're not as careful.

I guess it all comes down to personality and discipline. When I write at the computer, I'm just as mindful of the orchestration rules and harmonic practices as I am when I draft on manuscript. While this is an interesting debate I think some are forgetting that many composers in this day and age are working for companies that have tight deadlines and budgets. At my job, I'm hired to be able to make original compositions (both small and large scale) on the computer, produce it into a professional quality audio file and give it to the company in a timely manner. I might only have a few days to work on a project sometimes, so I simply don't have the luxury of hand drafting a work, then transporting it to the computer, then programming the MIDI and VSTi to sound right, then bouncing out each track to audio, then mixing the over all audio session to the right sound and balance needed.

If I'm writing a piece for fun, at home, then sure I might draft on paper...but to be honest, I'm much, much faster on the computer and usually get better results. (And no, I'm not one of those cut and paste composers :) )

Bach, Mozart, Tchaikovsky... any other composer you care to mention (I can't be bothered to write them all) all composed by hand. OK, so computers weren't invented then, but it clearly didn't do any harm, did it?

I personally can't concentrate on a computer screen. Among other reasons, it tends to be vertical, whereas I prefer to look down at something flat. Also, computer screens strain your eyes.

Actually, I tend to compose first in my head, so I get a general idea of what I'm trying to achieve and what tecniques I'm going to use before I even touch the paper.

It is annoying though, that I don't have any manuscript paper in my house, and since I can't be bothered to go out and buy some, I actually have to draw the lines on a blank piece of paper in pencil, then go over in biro, then wait for that to dry before I start composing (in pencil obviously!). Which can be very tedious.

That last statement is just oozing idiocy so much I have to point it out. You can't be bothered to go out and get some manuscript paper but you can be bothered to spend ages drawing your own? And you have access to a computer and don't print some out? Ok, you might not have a printer, but it's still not difficult to get hold of proper manuscript paper.

:)

I have lots of feelings on this issue. I think that quite frankly, students who start composition should start on paper. I think that it is a tool that should really only be used once you've got the basics down, because it's too easy, as has been said previously, to just play around with notes until you fluke something that sounds interesting. I think that you should start with a pencil and a piano, just figuring things out, only moving to the computer when you can comfortably write something without it.

currently, I tend to sit at the piano, and improvise until I find something I like (talking about jazz for a second here) and when I get a good idea, I play it a few more times through. then I might write down a chord progression. once all of that is done, and I have a framework , I will go to the computer.

I think, in summary, that you can get into a lot of trouble with a computer, because you might get the impression that you are great at composing, when really, you just figured out how to cut and paste. by hand is the way to go for beginners.