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.

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