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.

I can live with that, Guy. [:)]

And I, too, love listening to most kinds of music.

Also, Guy, I really like you're new alto sax demo of themes from Charlie Parker.

So all that to say that I rarely notate my music. [[;)]]

And thanks for the alto sax demo appreciation!

@Another User said:

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.

Surely sounding good would be the general goal of all music, no? Because there's a technical word for music that doesn't: "crap." [:)]

Anyway, as soon as you get away from "play the head, then take turns soloing, and then play the head again," it's actually very difficult to define what jazz is other than an attitude. In any case, all good jazz (all good music for that matter) has a very definite structure - even free jazz. And composing is improvizing to a great degree too.

OK, than:

All that to say: I would be more apt to notate classical music than jazz. But that is just my opinion.

Nick, have you ever listend to a piece that you know is a classical great, and been, quite frankly, bored. But then, as you listen to it more it grows on you and you see the genius behind it? This is what I mean by classical being less popular because it does not sound as good, or, perhaps a beter way to put it would be: it does not tickle the ears.

@Nick Batzdorf said:

My fingers find things my ears don't and v.v.

For me, this sums it up succinctly.

Fred Story

Colin - I must have had that experience at one time or another, although I don't know that there's anything special about classical music to increase the likelihood of that being my reaction. But we all hear music differently - I think, anyway - and of course some music takes a while to grow on you.

And sure, some music is more "difficult" to listen to, e.g. a pointilistic percussion ensemble piece is likely to take more work than smooth jazz.

@Nick Batzdorf said:

My fingers find things my ears don't and v.v.

For me, this sums it up succinctly.

Fred Story

Yes, and your painter comparison earlier in this thread was interesting as well, siince I don't think that there are these two antipodes. Also the concrete painter will be influenced by the feedback of his painting process.

This question of workflow - what/which to do first etc. - is a constant nag on my brain.
Very interesting reading all the comments here.

In the light of all the fantastic technology we have to hand.. sample libraries, soft samplers etc. - I've found it worthwhile to keep in mind something Boulez once said:

"The idea must be compatible with the material, and the material compatible with the idea".

I take that to mean that it's pointless beginning and progressing with a composition until you have at least a) an instinct of what the piece might be "about" - even if only in an abstract sense - and b) you have sound material/instrumental forces in mind that are likely to be well-suited to the exploration of a).

That may seem sort of self-evident, but I try and remind myself of it every time I sit down in front of a bunch of sample libraries, samplers, endless other bits of distracting music tech gear, and start getting intimidated about how I'm going to write and what I should do first (improvise on sounds? doodle on paper? etc.)

So these days I don't start writing at all until I have at least a sense of *why* I'm about to write.. i.e. what the purpose is. That purpose can be a deadline, or just something I'm excited to explore - but there has to be that something.

The very next thing I do is try loosely, freely and non-judgementally, to play around with sound material and instruments. Twiddling around on the keyboard etc., but with my choices of sounds guided only by the purpose I have in mind.

Only once I have those two pre-requisites - the idea and the appropriate material - do I feel that sitting down and writing dots on paper/Sibelius or going to straight to sequencer, makes any sense.

Adrian

What Mathis said is something I momentarily thought of - how interacting with the materials at hand can be a composing process. The exact opposite of writing everything out ahead of time.

@mathis said:

Yes, and your painter comparison earlier in this thread was interesting as well, siince I don't think that there are these two antipodes. Also the concrete painter will be influenced by the feedback of his painting process.

I'd be interested in having you elaborate on this.

Fred Story

Well Mathis has his own ideas but mine would involve how some great painters such as Tanguy, one of my favorites, had no idea of what they were going to paint prior to doing so. And yet the final painting is highly perfected, not at all messy or disorganized. And so that was part of what inspired him - to actually discover what the work was about as it was being done. It is quite possible to do music this way, and of course samples facillitate this approach immensely.

@Another User said:

When you are recording it, do you usually play the melody, or harmony first?

I record the tracks first who are relevant to play/record the rest with the right time and feel. Or I start at the top of the score with the piccolo going down to Cb's. As long the number of tracked instruments is low, a click will give the musician and player the information where he is, later, the recorded tracks will replace the click, the click gets muted, or is taken down in volume. Many of my earnest orchestra works have a driving rhythm section, playing irrational rhythm and odd time signatures and compound meters. If the percussion is the heart & pulse of the work, then I may record the percussion first, so the recording keyboarder and wind controller player can adjust to the pulse and groove. I record the percussion with a Mallet-KAT and the Drum-KAT percussion controllers.

http://www.katpercussion.com/

.

I would think that a composer of any talent would know (or find out soon enough once he's started writing) whether or not he needs to work things out on paper or not most of the time. If there is an established groove that things are going to be layered over then why write it down? Conversely you could construct the groove in midi and then compose a highly polyphonic four part texture over it that would only come together if carefully composed on paper. A less complicated polyphonic texture however could be put together without writing it down.

I think I'm saying that one should use the most effective technique in order to achieve a specific sound. Many film composers today just don't have real composition chops like Williams or Goldsmith or Herrmann or North et. al. So they don't get that particular sound that only comes from a certain compositional/structural integrity. If your not after that sound I wouldn't sweat it. If you are then writing it down is probably the only way. I would site the Fuge in Jaws or the Passacaglia in The Blue Max as extreme examples. These things are the result of real hard writing that would (I think) be more difficult if not impossible to do with a midi approach than on paper.

Improvisation IS Composition but reallyfast.

Composition IS Improvisation but rrrreally slow.

These days, the question is not “What you can do,” it’s “What can you do in two hours?”

Lots of times I’m working really really fast, just winging in parts, so naturally the orchestration and part writing is not as “Classically Legit.”

It’s NOT a fault of the process, it’s just that my mental toolset (and my computer setup) doesn’t work that fast. Composers that DO have super fast arranging and orchestration chops tend to use paper for a lot of stuff, because:

1. They were trained that way so that is their comfort zone,

2. They are typically in demand so they can get a budget and a live ensemble so why sequence?

A friend of mine is just this kind of person. When composing a big band chart, for instance, he goes straight to a transposed score. When composing a jingle, he’ll do all the rough tracks in his sequencer to get client approval then replace parts or all of it (depending on budget) with live musicians later.

SO, my point is:

All my stuff stays in virtual form. No live musicians. So there is no need to write stuff down. Therefore, all intricate part writing is sequenced as well.

So, Dave, I must respectfully disagree with you. "Real hard writing" is unique to the process, not a result of something like pencil and paper.

Multi-voice fugues are easily manipulated in the matrix window and I can copy, drag and transpose themes and do all the things that paper does but better and faster. Plus, I get instant feedback on how it all sounds. I can make orchestration/arrangement decisions while this is happening as well, avoiding wasted time away from the “canvas.”

The Boulez quote and the "interacting with the materials" idea is right on the money. If the composition is meant to remain a virtual orchestration, then I would strongly urge the composer to train themselves away from paper.

The ONLY reason I would use paper is if I had a really slow computer system (or if I was writing for live ensemble).

Clark