Hi folks,

For what it's worth, I find a combination works best. I work out my themes/motifs on paper with a note about what instruments might take them, then do the various inversions, retrogrades etc. and possible alternative harmonies on paper. I also try and hear the orchestra in my head before I actually start putting it into the computer.

As I use Logic, I tend to work in the score window and treat it like a word processor for music. in this way, I may not be using calligraphy, but I'm still using musical notation.

If I remember I put in dynamics and slurring as I go, and can put in automation for the midi tracks to change the articulation at the same time. Once you get the hang of it it becomes quite quick. The advantage is that if you then find you have to print out parts for a real performance, it's not such a slog to edit what you've done. However there are times when it gets impossible because of time constraints and the playing in the lines becomes the best way forward.

It's been really interesting finding out how others work though - glad to see we seem aware of the downside to putting it directly into the computer directly, even if laziness or time constraints still lead us to to do it that way. It's sad that the art of paper writing is on the decline, but so understandable given the nature of the music business. Ho-Hum.

Nick

Hello All:

This brings up a question I've had since starting in on the virtual orchestra path. Do you think that, by not writing down your pieces first, the music is affected either positively or negatively or at all? Does it make it more clear to hear it "live" as you go rather than in your head the way you would if you wrote it down? Or do you think the form and structure might be stronger if written first? Also, by writing direct to sequencer, how much do you write to the samples rather than to the music in your head?

Of course, when you have Film/TV deadlines (I don't) speed is of the essence. I have no idea whether, with serious, non-commercial pieces, one or the other way would be better. Likely, it depends on the person

I've only been involved the sample library/virtual orchestra world for about 18 months now and I've still got an incredible amount to learn. At the same time as I started with it, I also started learning Sibelius which I use a lot now.

The large part of my music is going to be played live so, I have to notate it. This has forced me into the habit of putting everything down first and making sample mock ups afterward (if I have time).

I'm afraid that, if I ever want to work on my own serious music, I might not be so industrious about it. So, I wonder whether people think it really makes any difference.

Be Well,

Poppa

I think about that at times. Of course people can work in different ways, but I wonder if composing for samples directly makes you weaker as a composer. Because you do not have to imagine the sound - it is all right in front of you. And so your musical mind becomes lazier, with all those wonderful sounds distracting you from the fact that what you just wrote is a piece of shit.

@William said:

I think about that at times. Of course people can work in different ways, but I wonder if composing for samples directly makes you weaker as a composer. Because you do not have to imagine the sound - it is all right in front of you. And so your musical mind becomes lazier, with all those wonderful sounds distracting you from the fact that what you just wrote is a piece of shit.

I think that this is a direct result from people improvising and thinking that this is the same as composing. Sure the "greats" used to do this, but they could actually play the instruments that they were improvising on. I try very hard not to compose this way, because if I do, I tend to write what my hands find easy to play, rather than what actually is good and even a tad original. [[:|]]

DG

@William said:

I think about that at times. Of course people can work in different ways, but I wonder if composing for samples directly makes you weaker as a composer. Because you do not have to imagine the sound - it is all right in front of you. And so your musical mind becomes lazier, with all those wonderful sounds distracting you from the fact that what you just wrote is a piece of shit.

Absolutely! I discovered this years ago when I first started working with MIDI gear. Prior to that, it was just the piano, pencil and score paper. I got excited about being able to play all my parts into the computer and have it spit out written parts. Fast, easy and no writer's cramp.

But it didn't take long to realize that my music was not benefitting...in fact it was suffering. I wondered why. Then it hit me. I was trying to arrange and orchestrate before I composed anything! I got so distracted by all those cool sounds, I was putting the cart before the horse. I resolved then...and I stick by it to this day...I don't go to the computer until I know where I'm going compositionally. Even though I don't always write the parts down first, I pretty much hear them all before I start sequencing. That's not to say that I don't occasionally noodle around when I want to try out some things. But that usually happens when I'm a good way into a piece and am experimenting with different doubles and such.

So most of the time, I need to hear it in my head fully realized before the computer comes into the equation. The exceptions would be electronic/textural things where sounds or rhythms are the conceptual anchor point. Playing around with different colors can inspire compositional ideas.

But like I said...when the deadline looms - you tend to do whatever it takes! [:)]

Fred Story

These replys are real food for thought. I wonder, outside of deadlines, is it simply more of a satisfying experience to go directly to the samples when working? Are you able to keep the whoe structure of larger pieces in your head when you do that?

I certainly won't say one way is better than the other without a lot more experience. Like many of you, I have been a pencil and paper composer for many years and am now transferring that to computer notation. I notice, even with Sibelius, sometimes hearing the playback as I write can effect my work flow. I sometimes turn it off because it makes it easier for me to just work. Not all the time because it definitely helps with some things but, the experience lends credence to the points you all are making. Hmmm.

Be well,

Poppa

I don't think we should live with the guilt of not notating our music on paper with a feathered pen, that's a tradition of the past. When jazz came around recording existed and that was the essential part of keeping the music alive, I can't imagine Art Tatum notating every note and although there was a lot of improvisation done I think the focus was shifting to a new way of doing music: recordings, if Tatum and Charlie Parker would of had to write all their music down we never would of had these great geniuses, so which do you want, good musicians theoretically or real music? I think if one can notate all his music without being in the way of his creativity flow then that's even better but how much is that actually feasible in today's time where computer knowledge is as time consuming as anything else?

a couple of pennies worth.

Guy:

For myself, the issue is not whether you use pencil and paper but whether you notate first, in any form, or simply go right to the sound library. I do most of my notating with Sibleius now and it is just as fast and easy as with pen and paper, and you don't have to copy all the parts out for the orchestra. For me, this is a HUGE benefit. I also don't have a strong opinion that notating first is significantly better or not. I really think it probably depends on the person and maybe even the type of music you're doing. I tend to think that for large scale orchestra works, it might be better to work things out with notation but I could be wrong about that as well. Basically, I was just wondering what different ideas people had about the subject.

Be well,

Poppa

For me it's not a matter of whether or not I write it down before going to the computer, but simply hearing things clearly in my mind.

I liken it to the difference between a painter who starts sloshing paint on the canvas hoping a picture will emerge...and one who clearly sees an image - either in front of them, or in the mind's eye - before the brush goes into action.

Interesting results can be acheived either way. If you're painting a portrait, still life or landscape I would think the latter method applies. If a Pollock-like abstract is the goal - well, slosh away!

(For some fun, go here.) http://www.jacksonpollock.org/

Fred Story

Guy, what you said about jazz music being much better for it's lack of theory is probably very true. But (in my young opion), I would think that the techniques used for writing a jazz piece or a classical piece are incomparable. Just my opinion.

BTW, I am very glad that you guys chose to pursue this subject, as it has been very thought-provoking.

Colin,

Explain to me how they are different?

Yes, these are interesting answers. Actually I think some people work best one way, some the other. Also if you are on a deadline you probably won't be carefully noting down your ideas with beautiful calligraphy on parchment by candelight.

Jazz (unless I am mistaken) is focused on improvisation, taking a chord progression and running with it through different phases. Classical is very structured, and planned out. We will see of the jazz greats are the same, but I believe that this is much of what seperates classical from other more contemporary forms, and gives it it's timelessness. It is perhaps less focused on what sounds good, but on what is right for the structure of the piece. In this way classical is less popular, but, somehow in the back of people's minds, they know that it is better. But I might be completely off with this, so tell me if I am.

Well, I would not say it is better. Some people think jazz is better than classical. It is true though what you say about classical being structured, and jazz not as structured. Unless we are talking about Big Band, a favorite of mine, which is highly structured. Though the entire idea behind jamming is that a new structure is created spontaneously, instead of being (basically) the same every time.

OK, let me add a "in my humble opinion" after that "better". And I know that there is a structure to jamming with chord progressions, and the spontaneous can give you some great ideas to structure later. But the spontaneous should not necessarily be the end product, IN MY HUMBLE OPION. [:)]

Oh, and I hope that I NEVER have to use a repeat sign (well, maybe that is a bit drastic). I usually try not to put a repeat in any of the pieces I write. Even if it is the same idea, I change the way it is expressed. So classical does not to have to be the same everytime. And I understand that you are probably talking about live performances, and that it will never sound the same when performed. But I believe that it is the same with classical, just on a much smaller scale, depending on the place of performance, the conducter, the musicians, the mood of the conducter, the mood of the musicians, etc.

I'm not a jazz guy, and always do everything with extreme, obsessive structure. But that is what those cats tend to think about it. Though yes, it is true that each classical performance in a sense makes the music new.

There are certain pieces that use repeats and it is good - like a Strauss waltz, or a Sousa march. Did anyone ever notice that those two guys, J. Strauss and J. P. Sousa, are remarkably similar in their musical genius, though from radically different countries/eras?

I happen to be "orchestrating" (for band) a march in the style of Sousa so am thinking about those two very nationalistic as well as brilliant composers.

@ColinThomson said:

But the spontaneous should not necessarily be the end product, IN MY HUMBLE OPION. [:)]

That really depends on the quality of the improviser, the same way among thousands of classical composers some are bad, but when we take the greatest improvisers I get a blast of listening to them, music is music man, when I hear Oscar Peterson's rendition of some tunes I put them as masterpieces, when I listen to Bill Evans I hear a modern Chopin, when I hear Charlie Parker I see the same spontaneous as Mozart. Apparently Beethoven's improvisations were even more impressive than his pieces, at least that's what I remember hearing. As long as we don't debate which is better more serious or more refined they are both very close to one another.

that is absolutely true - another example is Handel, who was known to be an extreme talent in improvising. He could do a four part fugue on any subject instantaneously. Also, Bruckner, who was a great organist and when he did his improv at a final exam, all of the professors said he should have been examining them.