Anything Wrong With Composing On The Computer?

Hey, I've heard from people on this forum that "real composing is done with pencil and paper" and other such things like that.

The thing is, I find that almost impossible, seen as I have no idea how it will sound until I get it into Reason. Another thing is that even though I start on paper, soon I will type up what I have written to see if it sounds OK, and then I normally end up composing a lot more on the computer, just chopping and changing and trying different things. It's a lot quicker and I can actually hear what I've composed and decide, yes or no.

Is there anything wrong with this? Like will it teach me bad habits in the long run? And how do you learn to compose on paper?

Cheers.

Hey, I've heard from people on this forum that "real composing is done with pencil and paper" and other such things like that.

The thing is, I find that almost impossible, seen as I have no idea how it will sound until I get it into Reason. .

..chopping and changing and trying different things. It's a lot quicker and I can actually hear what I've composed and decide, yes or no.

Is there anything wrong with this? Like will it teach me bad habits in the long run? And how do you learn to compose on paper?

Cheers.

I don't think there's anything wrong with using computers. It's just different. Personally, I use computers solely as a notational aid - to produce better looking results. For my purposes, hearing a scrafty MIDI playback hinders my progress.

Also, I doubt many people compose solely with pencil and paper. There's likely a piano involved as well. Using a piano + an active and experienced imagination will help realize a work; using a surrogate sounds (i.e. MIDI, samples, whathaveyou) is really just a different way of doing it. Synthesized sounds simply don't work for me - you lose too much of the crucial acoustical phenomena; the temptation of copy/paste is too great...

SO,

Use what works best for you... And, to learn to get away from the computer, just practice. ;)

The only shortcoming I could think of is that the ear can get trained to expect things, while listening, while the brain doesn't. So, you could end up repeating yourself, or the same stuff whilst using your ears, but overcome any barrier, by using your brain alone. That is of course when you can understand what you're writing.

But, even with the above:

"real composers": bullshit

"pencil and paper": again.

I'd say that it's more a traditional way. The thing is not to let your habbits get in the way of your creativity. Only that. ;)

Personally I prefer composing with pen and paper, and checking the harmonies and stuff on the piano, as that gives me a more "abstract" sound where I'm not tempted to hear the computer output as the actual intended sound. As long as you don't rely on the computer output though and develop your own ear for how it will sound when played by actual musicians, it may be very fine to compose solely on a computer. It just may take a little more effort to separate what you hear from your musical intentions.

But we're living in the 21st century now, so I guess it's time we get used to the difficulties, dangers and opportunities composing with a computer offers us. I see nothing wrong per se with only writing on a computer.

I write my music in Cubase. I don't think there is something wrong with this, too. I feel more comfortable this way because I see things sorted nicely, plus, sometimes editing is faster. If there is any downside at all, it's probably that working with pen and pencil can make some people to think harder and help them to concentrate better.

The only shortcoming I could think of is that the ear can get trained to expect things, while listening, while the brain doesn't.

Could you explain what you mean here Nikolas? It sounds interesting, but I don't understand.

Yeah I perhaps wasn't too clear, all my composing is done primarily on piano, that's where the creativity begins to flow. For piano solo pieces it's fine to just go straight onto paper, but for other things I find the orchestration difficult.

Using a piano + an active and experienced imagination will help realize a work.

Any advice for developing imagination? I tend to hear ideas in my head, but they're not clear. I can imagine the feeling that I want, but I can't make out texture or specific instruments and notes. It normally takes me a bit of fiddling on Reason before I get something that feels right.

Cheers everyone.

Any advice for developing imagination? I tend to hear ideas in my head, but they're not clear. I can imagine the feeling that I want, but I can't make out texture or specific instruments and notes. It normally takes me a bit of fiddling on Reason before I get something that feels right.

That stuff comes with time.

And, yes...fiddling with Reason will help, too. You have a sound in your head, tweaking on the computer will help figure it out; now you know what it is, and how to produce it.

An easier (better) route would be to study score of the Masters. Listening A LOT, you'll hear things you want to decipher. Get the score, figure it out.

...But, this can all be chalked up to experience.

I can thank computer notation programs for a lot of what I've learned. I haven't read any textbooks, never studied harmony or counterpoint, or orchestration... none of that. Instead, I've put things into the computer and observed the results. If some harmony just sounded WAYY off, I'd change it. If things started to sound dry, I changed it. With all these changes I make, I am learning what NOT to do, and in essense teaching myself anything a textbook or teacher could teach me, just with the added experience of having first figured it out myself.

I think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a computer to compose as long as the user/composer is aware of what is going on, and is aware that composing at a computer brings about certain habits such as the copy-paste syndrome and obssesive-compulsive need to hear everything in MIDI before things are finalized. That last bit is a habit I am trying to break. In writing on paper, the only advantage is that you can hear things the way you intend them. The only problem is that many problems come as an expense: slower work, harder to hear harmonies, and the odd chance that what works in your head won't work in the physical realm.

Also, I've found that composing in the dry MIDI sounds of Finale 2002 has helped me expand my musical vocabulary by wanting to make things sound more interesting. So I feel that with a little logic and reason involved (the ideas, not the programs,) computers can be an invaluable aid to the beginning composer.

I think what anyone could possibly mean by "pen and paper" is that it helps to know how things will sound without any aids, so that basically you can pick up other scores from other things and also know how they will sound like.

Something I do like to recommend is composing "on the table", not on a piano or computer, for the sake of actually trying to have an idea of what it'll sound like, reflect on the overall piece, and such. Alternatively, taking a score you've done and sitting in silence with it, and then imagining it from start to finish how it should sound and etc, is a recommendable process.

It's really alright to use a piano or computer to help imagine how something should sound when that something should be played on live instruments that aren't a computer or a piano, but the problem is that sometimes that practice takes over the actual composition process and influence what you're actually writing.

There's also all sorts of techniques and things you can't really properly reproduce unless you go to great lengths, and even then it's not the same. Take for example all the junk you can do with a string instrument like sul ponticello or ricochet, etc etc. There's also the thing with the sharps and flats sounding different on instruments like strings (sometimes human voice, though that's arguable.)

For a totally self referential example; that piece I posted here in the forum for recoders, I had absolutely no way to listen to the graphical notation parts other than in the actual instruments, but I had enough of a grasp on how it sounded overall that when I heard it live it there were no real surprises or any of that, and it was pretty much what I had in mind.

That piece I wrote "On the computer", but without the proper means to have useful artificial playback. So really? It's not about computers or pianos, it's about making good use of the tools available without letting those tools tell you what to do, so to speak.

People who say stuff like "real composing is done with pencil and paper" are most often people who feel the need to uplift themselves by demeaning others, which the feeling of being different and more 'hardcore' will fulfill.

I personally find it difficult to write on paper, I don't write fast enough to cover what is in my head. I use the piano and computer mostly.

But also I find that using such medium will help your inner ear and eye memory develop which makes composing straight onto paper easier.

Do what feels right for you. We're in the 21st century, to not use the technology we have to help ourselves would simply not makes sense.

It's not about computers or pianos, it's about making good use of the tools available without letting those tools tell you what to do, so to speak.

Between that and some of the things Helgarr said, I don't think it could be put any better. Cheers, mates. :thumbsup:

I have actually tried composing by the "on the table" method you mentioned... it turned out fairly unsuccessful on both occasions for me. I haven't tried it in quite a while, though, it's been about a year. Now that you mention this (I was thinking about it before you posted), I might start a thread in the Games forum... ask people to write something on paper only and see what they get, as sort of an exercise. A lot of people never bother to try this.

The only thing I would say is not to get dependent on your computer/software. I agree that being able to hear what you are working on played back in real time helps considerably when composing, but if you are going entirely of off what sounds good on your computer it can have drastic effects on the actual sound of your piece. Live music sounds surprisingly different from synthetic music. So long as you're sticking to your theory and writing what you know will work, not just saying "Hmmm, that sounded kinda cool on my computer", writing on a computer works fine.

I almost never use paper. The only exceptions are when I wake up in the middle of the night with an idea and need to write it down before it fades away. I have my laptop set up next to my piano, with my synth keyboard on the other side and I write as though I were writing on paper that can play back the notes! :)

A good way to make sure you're not getting dependent (trust me, its very easy) is to write out an entire phrase before playing it back.

Between that and some of the things Helgarr said, I don't think it could be put any better. Cheers, mates. :thumbsup:

I have actually tried composing by the "on the table" method you mentioned... it turned out fairly unsuccessful on both occasions for me. I haven't tried it in quite a while, though, it's been about a year. Now that you mention this (I was thinking about it before you posted), I might start a thread in the Games forum... ask people to write something on paper only and see what they get, as sort of an exercise. A lot of people never bother to try this.

That'd be way fun! I'm totally in. It would have to be based on the honor system, but most of us are young, underpaid, starving musicians all looking to make it big in a incredibly small industry anyway...what do we have to lie about? :ermm:

The only shortcoming I could think of is that the ear can get trained to expect things, while listening, while the brain doesn't. So, you could end up repeating yourself, or the same stuff whilst using your ears, but overcome any barrier, by using your brain alone. That is of course when you can understand what you're writing.

Agree with the wise music man.

I compose using the three methods, Computer, keyboard and on paper. Generally is with the computer since is faster for me to get all ready, if not with my keyboard then typing it here or recording it. If is not those then is on paper but that is when I am away of home.

For me writing on paper is very appreciable since those people understand what they are writing as Nikolas said, They know how each instrument will sound and how will work.

When I started to write on paper without the help of a piano I didn't know exactly how things would sound and lots of times I ended getting cool things but not what I had in my mind but they were fresh and good for me. Once when I knew not much I was trying to write something 'Baroque' and when I typed it on my computer it sounded like American patriotic music! and in other I was writing something that was suppose to be "angry' and ended being a cute child piece. Haha

At least I improved ;)

I use both computers and paper to compose. Using paper helps in that I can get it down faster, edit things really easily, and thus work faster. In addition, it helps ingrain my music in my head, as well as forcing me to imagine how I want it to sound. However, using the computer is good, especially for music that is not intended to be performed.

That's just how I roll though.

there's nothing wrong composing via computer if you use your head right and the way you want. plus, if you can't write notes, there's no other choice...or, well, you might make graphic stuff like cardew :)

hell, it's nothing wrong if you compose something you didn't expect to compose. a joy of discovery.

Well, I guess there are two, or three, or even four sides to every story. Firstly, it depends on your composing style. If you are anything like me, you compose your piece and just keep adding and recreating and making it to your visionary. I agree...pencil and paper is not really the way to go for me. It takes forever, and then I have to check my work, etc. etc. However, when I attempt to put it on the computer, it is even harder, not only because I have just Finale Notepad (I do not recommend this software at all), but because I let the computer control what I write down. The best option for me is to hook up my computer to a keyboard, get some software, and play away. If you get a good software, it should write down what you want pretty close.

Now, of course, you could be the kind of person who is a computer composer. That's fine. For some people, composing on the computer allows them to hear what they want without the hassle of knowing the instrument. However, that is where the problem lies. Say you play the violin, but want to compose for trumpet. First, your software must be able to write it in concert pitch so it transposes to what you want. The main problem, however, is if you are not terribly familiar with the instrument, you do not know, oh, if this is ackward or hard for the player, or if that note is too high or too low. Yes, some softwares have tools to prevent you from composing too high or low for certain instruments, but without at least some background with the instrument you are composing for, you are shooting in the dark in terms of difficulty. For example, someone who plays the flute may not realize that on violin, from a low A note on the G string to a 3rd or 4th octave A note on the E string is somewhat ackward to hit.

As far as I know, I can't imagine a computer hurting your musicianship. But, on the other hand, I'm still 2 years from college, and another 4 before I become a composing major.

Emmy

Pencil and paper takes forever and you need to copy it into Finale or Sibelius anyway if you want it performed. I think it's safe to say that even the best handwritten parts no longer satisfy modern performers, especially orchestras.

Computers are hands-down more efficient... with a synthesizer. You have to learn the method though. In Finale Simple Entry, one hand on the synth plays the notes, the other on the computer keyboard specifies the note lengths and adds dots and ties. For a bar that's full of notes (let's say an accompanying figure of sixteenth note triplet chords) I just set the note value to "sixteenth triplet" and quickly tap the piano keyboard the right number of times - done in 7 seconds.

It has nothing to do with getting dependent on sounds, you can set the synth to piano. It's a bad idea to rely on playback because even Finale 2007 GPO has horrible instrument balance.

The way I compose is:

1. Doodle on piano until I get an idea.

2. Activate Simple Entry and play it onto the page.

3. When I read over my scores I play them with my own mental sound library recorded from playing in orchestras for years :) I think this is the best orchestration education a composer can have. It's definitely better than listening to recordings or concerts because there you're just hearing one performance (and usually a good one). In rehearsals you hear dozens of different performances; you can tell what passages players are fastest and slowest to learn; you can tell what passages are naturally balanced and where the orchestra has to exert great effort to create balance - and believe me, Mendelssohn/Brahms/etc works are full of "less adequate" orchestration. More positively, you get a sense for the idiomatic roles of each instrument and family and how they interact, in a way that's as valuable as reading scores.

I'm not sure I like the idea of composing "onto the table." Music can never be divorced from the instruments designed to play it. IMO orchestration is the key to composition and I aim to be as extreme as Tchaikovsky, who said he composed by hearing color before he decided what that color would play.

I don't think you need to be terribly familiar with the instrument to orchestrate well, you need to be familiar enough, which comes with your knowledge on instrumentation and orchestration, it will tell you whether this or that note is too high or too low, and so on. To be terribly familiar almost means that you should be able to play it and very very few composers can play the full orchestra - some don't play at all, such as Schoenberg. Nowadays, the software and its transposing abilities is not really a problem.

Something I do like to recommend is composing "on the table", not on a piano or computer, for the sake of actually trying to have an idea of what it'll sound like, reflect on the overall piece, and such. Alternatively, taking a score you've done and sitting in silence with it, and then imagining it from start to finish how it should sound and etc, is a recommendable process.

That's a nice recommendation, I think, so I wanted to repeat it. I try this myself - to write music in the head; to imagine the music (or portion of it) before hearing it from the computer.

And as we can see from this thread (again), there are ways to compose, not the way to compose. :)

There is no problem. Some people do not have adequate aural skills (possibly not there own fault), it is silly to force them to rely on something poor. If you use midi enough AND LISTEN TO ENOUGH RECORDINGS!!!, you can get over the MIDI sound. So much so that when the MIDI plays a violin, you can actually imagine a good violin, not a trumpet.

That said, if you can do it without the need of MIDI, don't use MIDI, just use notation softwares as notation softwares, not composer tools.

It has nothing to do with getting dependent on sounds, you can set the synth to piano.

It's a bad idea to rely on playback because even Finale 2007 GPO has horrible instrument balance.

It has a lot to do with the sounds. You said it yourself. Who cares if you set it to piano, or trombone, or frigging bagpipes. The sounds are fake, and will NEVER come close to replicating the extremely complex relationships between sounds.

If you get used to how something (anything) sounds on a computer, you will be surprised at how different it sounds in real life...sometimes good, sometimes bad.

I disagree, Robin.

Sampled sounds can be very, very realistic nowadays, and they're only getting better and will only continue to get better until no difference can be discerned.

Don't use GPO in Finale. If you want, you can use GPO in a sequencer, but it's just too variable to adjust the things in realtime, and without EQ and reverb (Ambience, I know, but that's it) and all that. I always use the midi standard: it's perfect for sketches. Of course I can imagine how it'll sound, but whether you compose on piano or computer, you're not going to know for sure how it sounds until it gets in front of an ensemble!

So basically, I'm a fan of the computer notation world, partly because I do electronic music and partly because it's just faster and more efficient for me. In the end, use whatever makes you happy and makes the best music. That should be common sense.

I disagree, Robin.

Sampled sounds can be very, very realistic nowadays, and they're only getting better and will only continue to get better until no difference can be discerned.

I'll concede this. BUT, it takes a considerable amount of time and money to get realistic representations. You certainly don't compose this way...or maybe people do? I would have expected the composing to be long complete before starting to properly render it using samples and such.

BUT, I dunno.

Either way, I don't expect I'll EVER hear a sample that can accurately demonstrate the inherent acoustical phenomena in instrumental sounds. There's too much lost in the translation. The rub between minor 2nds; the glorious shimmer of open fifths in low trombones; sympathetic resonance; overtones... It can't be done. ...yet. :whistling:

I'll concede this. BUT, it takes a considerable amount of time and money to get realistic representations. You certainly don't compose this way...or maybe people do? I would have expected the composing to be long complete before starting to properly render it using samples and such.

BUT, I dunno.

Either way, I don't expect I'll EVER hear a sample that can accurately demonstrate the inherent acoustical phenomena in instrumental sounds. There's too much lost in the translation. The rub between minor 2nds; the glorious shimmer of open fifths in low trombones; sympathetic resonance; overtones... It can't be done. ...yet. :whistling:

If we're talking about live acoustics, in a concert, or just plain live, then sure. There's a whole thing about how sound is produced and blah blah blah. But if we're talking about a CD or a recording? Then, well, it's not such a long way between a speaker playing a sample or a live recording.

After all, samples ARE live recordings. Otherwise, it's a synthesized sound, and that's a whole other thing. Just how thorough you record an instrument's sounds depends on how much time you're willing to recreate that instrument in samples. Or just what you need really. I've called friends of mine to record specific noises and junk out instruments because I needed to use this in an electronic piece.

For some self-reference: Right now I'm writing something for female voice and a recording. The recording has samples from the singer herself. Old fashioned, I know, but there you go. It's a live piece, and it'll be performed, and the whole idea behind it is exactly that. Samples vs live, and all sorts of middle grounds in between.

So I don't know, when it comes to that, it's like I said before. So long as the stuff helping you don't own you, it's all good.