Computer or pencil & paper

[Smeagol 0]

What happened is that electronic music created a demand in the market. Remember when a low budget horror flick Creature from the Black Lagoon had an actual live orchestra? Now, those movies all have electronic scores. So the composer is left to completely create all the sounds that you hear in the film. I have written pieces on paper, but I am a commercial composer and my clients hire me to fully create the music without the help of any other musicians. The projects I work on are extremely low budget. Even if I were to work on the next big blockbuster, I would be demanded to preview the work using realistic sounds. The only reason JW gets away with it is because he created demand for his skills before the time of sequencers. Even composers like Beltrami who use pencil today have assistants creating the mock-up.In many ways, it can be quite handy to "press play" but to make deadlines you can't second guess yourself all the time. There still has to be a discipline of "no turning back". I have to write at least a minute per day to feed my family.

Agreed... My only point was that I don't think that being able to hear if what you just wrote is right or wrong makes electronic created music better than pencil and paper... I understand what you say about low budget movies and the necessity of working fast, etc etc and like I said, thats ok, im not criticizing that... Just that it makes it sound... I don't know how to explain it, when someone says that they need electronic music so they can immediately hear what they wrote to know if it sounds good or not... because in my opinion, if you're a trained musician and composer, that shouldn't be a problem

[Jeshopk 8]

Agreed... My only point was that I don't think that being able to hear if what you just wrote is right or wrong makes electronic created music better than pencil and paper... I understand what you say about low budget movies and the necessity of working fast, etc etc and like I said, thats ok, im not criticizing that... Just that it makes it sound... I don't know how to explain it, when someone says that they need electronic music so they can immediately hear what they wrote to know if it sounds good or not... because in my opinion, if you're a trained musician and composer, that shouldn't be a problem

I see what you're saying. I think whether you can hear it in your inner ear or not, it is gratifying to hear it. Composers who often get their music performed for real have at least the gratification within a few months of hearing it in the open air, outside their head and off the piano. I'd really like to ditch the computer sometimes. I try not to use it as a crutch. Piano can be a crutch as well. Prokofiev only wrote his Classical Symphony away from the piano. I think anything has to be used as a tool and not as a crutch.

I do not have perfect pitch, so I'd need the piano or a computer. Maybe I could develop it if I had no option.

[Smeagol 0]

Agreed... My only point was that I don't think that being able to hear if what you just wrote is right or wrong makes electronic created music better than pencil and paper... I understand what you say about low budget movies and the necessity of working fast, etc etc and like I said, thats ok, im not criticizing that... Just that it makes it sound... I don't know how to explain it, when someone says that they need electronic music so they can immediately hear what they wrote to know if it sounds good or not... because in my opinion, if you're a trained musician and composer, that shouldn't be a problem

I see what you're saying. I think whether you can hear it in your inner ear or not, it is gratifying to hear it. Composers who often get their music performed for real have at least the gratification within a few months of hearing it in the open air, outside their head and off the piano. I'd really like to ditch the computer sometimes. I try not to use it as a crutch. Piano can be a crutch as well. Prokofiev only wrote his Classical Symphony away from the piano. I think anything has to be used as a tool and not as a crutch.

I do not have perfect pitch, so I'd need the piano or a computer. Maybe I could develop it if I had no option.

It is indeed very gratifying to hear it... last time I had a couple of small piano pieces of mine performed and recorded live and man... it is awesome to be sitting in the audience and hear what you wrote come to life! I can't wait for the time when i can get to hear some orchestral work of mine performed or recorded, so I agree completely there..

I don't have perfect pitch either, but two years ago I decided that I would try to develop the ability to write at least simple melodies and harmonies without the help of the piano... out of frustration actually, because I kept having these amazing ideas for melodies miles away from a piano, and i would forget them by the time i got to one

the turning point was, like said, a couple years ago. I was at this funeral and I started hearing (in my head of course) the most amazing funeral march I had thought of so far. The funny thing was that there was a beautiful grand piano in the same room as the dead guy, but I couldn't start playing the piano to write it down right there.

Anyways, I managed to hum the thing for a couple hours until I got home and I could write down most of it there. But from that moment on I carry a small sheet music notepad and a pencil everywhere I go and force myself to write stuff down without going to the piano.

The initial results were horrible, but it slowly got better and better, and now I feel like I can write whenever the inspiration comes, even when there's no piano around

[Jeshopk 8]

Because I don't have perfect pitch I actually carry a small digital tape recorder to hum the ideas I get when I'm out. I really care about key. I could write things down in a key close to what I want, but I wouldn' be positive when I got home whether I wrote it in the right key. I've written things in C and C minor when there was no tape recorder, but I hate not knowing if it is in the right key - how I initially had it in mind - when I get down to actually writing the music. I don't feel so bad using the tape recorder as a jotter because Goldenthal did it a lot for his Batman scores. And Elfman.

[Damo 0]

Either way I can use pencils and paper instead of computers. However using the computers can playback your own compositions so you get the idea what the composition going to sound like if it going to sound good or bad.

So what happened to the "inner ear" and to being able to look at a piece of printed music and immediately listen in your head everything that's going on?

I don't think that the reason given by Damo above is valid to prefer the use of notation programs or sequencers instead of pencil and paper... it just sounds... kinda lazy to me..

Here's why: I don't know what the most experienced composers around here might think, but I'm from the group who thinks that an ability that every competent composer should have, is to be able to sit down and write a piece of music without having to push the play back button every two seconds to see if what he just wrote "sounds good or bad" (holy schintzel.. that's a long sentence)

c'mon guys... before the invention of this type of software composers had to rely solely on their ability to listen to the music in their heads when they were composing... what happened to that?

yes, notation softwares and sequencers make things faster, (I use them myself) but at what cost? I've met people who can't write two measures without the playback button because they have no idea if what they just wrote sounds good or bad. Not because they're not talented, not because they're better or worse composers than me, but just because relying sooo much on the softwares made their inner ear lazy...

So, I understand it if you have to create a mockup of your score for let's say a producer or a director because they might not have the same musical training as you, and might not be able to imagine what the final result (with the orchestra) would be by having them listen to you playing the themes on the piano...

But in my case I prefer to write with pencil and paper (and most of the times away from the piano) just because i consider that a great way of training my inner ear, of forcing my brain to listen to turn into sounds the "black dots and lines" like someone else said in a previous post...

it is very hard, and im still learning and my brain still can't hear everything I write without me checking it first on the piano... but im geting better at it and that's something that I just like to be geting better at... that way i don't have to depend on the piano or the playback button so often. I also can't carry my computer everywhere, but I can carry sheet music and pencils wherever i go.

so if I wake up in the middle of the night with a great melody in my head, I can grab a piece of sheet music and write it down, and be sure that i will not forget it, without having to turn the computer off, or waking everybody up with the piano...

so that's my two cents... whatever works best for you to write your music, use it whether is pencil and paper or sequencers, with that I'll agree with many here, the result is what counts... but don't tell me that the playback button makes sequencers better... any competent composer should be able to listen, understand and write down the music in his or her head without using playback to check if what they wrote is right or sounds good or bad.

It doesn't matter if you use head to imagine what the piece is gonna sound like. I just wonder why the people who created the music notation softwares on the computer in the first place and the whole purpose of it? You don't have be lazy using the notation software. I can't see why some people think you can be lazy using the software. I can strictly write music for each instrument in sibelius the way I want it be without even the need the intilligent copy and pase arrangment thing just as if I writing on a piece of paper with a pencil.

I sometimes something comes into my mind and yeah and I write it down. I do have to ability as a composer not to use computers and just use pencil and paper. But the whole purpose of using notation software is to make thing easier but it doesn't mean you can be lazy because of it.

[Frosty 0]

The way I think of it (and maybe someone said it above) I use Finale notation software like someone would use a word processor. It gives me a quick approximation of what I am hearing in my head. I don't have the patience to write things out by hand, although I have done my share of it. It doesn't mean that an author can't write because he doesn't do things long-hand. Mostly I use it for ease of movement. People who use paper and pencil have just been trained to use it and feel comfortable with it. Goldsmith used both. He would write things down by hand and then use synths and stuff to give an approximation.

I don't use Finale to create ideas, I use it to get my ideas down quicker. John Adams uses Cakewalk when he composes, but you can't exactly blame him for not knowing what he is doing.

Just a thought.

Frosty

[AI 0]

Jeshopk, I just meant your sound is not that cool.

Why is this so hard for anyone to underdstand? It sounds thin, weak. Maybe it would sound great played by an orchestra, but It likely wont. You dont have the orchestators and mixers that can make your music sound as phat as fuck, like zimmer gets. have you listened to an orchestral arrangement of Crimson Tide, and compared it to the original version?

It's all about the production. Even in the case of Williams. Mixers make it sound like "the shit". Your demoes dont have that edge.

[skyy38 21]

No matter WHAT you use to produce the final result,pencil and paper ALWAYS come first.

I don't think it is necessarily a good thing when a technology can enable composers to write 6 minutes a day and major studios take advantage of it by compressing post-production schedules.

Technology doesn't enable anyone to do anything-it's still the person who has to propel the technology and him or herself.And even the top composers like Williams rarely get more than 2 minutes of music down a day.

[Jeshopk 8]

No matter WHAT you use to produce the final result,pencil and paper ALWAYS come first.

I don't think it is necessarily a good thing when a technology can enable composers to write 6 minutes a day and major studios take advantage of it by compressing post-production schedules.

Technology doesn't enable anyone to do anything-it's still the person who has to propel the technology and him or herself.And even the top composers like Williams rarely get more than 2 minutes of music down a day.

Bah@! My point is that composers took advantage of recording MIDI track upon MIDI track in realtime and letting a team of orchestrators flesh it out - not just vertically, but horizontally. Full 1 and 2 hour symphonic scores created in 10 to 20 days. The result has not been artistically satisfying for anyone but the most ardent throwaway film music collectors, passing-fancy movie watchers and misguided time-management-challenged filmmakers. A schedule of 1 to 2 minutes of orchestral music per day is the ideal amount of time to give a composer - not 6 per day. Williams is slow compared to most composers - because he and guys like Elfman - people with clout and integrity - put it in their contracts. Horner and Zimmer and JNH will compose 6 even 10 minutes per day, and it takes a village at that rate - they can't really claim artistry. And... were you just saying you think all composers use pencil and paper before going to the computer? No..

Jeshopk, I just meant your sound is not that cool.Why is this so hard for anyone to underdstand? It sounds thin, weak. Maybe it would sound great played by an orchestra, but It likely wont. You dont have the orchestators and mixers that can make your music sound as phat as fuck, like zimmer gets. have you listened to an orchestral arrangement of Crimson Tide, and compared it to the original version? It's all about the production. Even in the case of Williams. Mixers make it sound like "the shit". Your demoes dont have that edge.

Whether it is "cool" or "phat as f*ck", I am afraid we're very different when it comes to what we value in music appreciation, production and orchestration. What do you think of the JW "by Request" recording? It's one of my favorites. Not as fat or close, but clean and airy. I strive for that. When someday I simply compose and orchestrate and leave the rest to an actual orchestra and recording engineer, I'll steer them away from heavy mastering. A natural, classical sound is what I'll strive for. For the most part, I leave my samples alone and don't mess with any EQ. Players were already recorded "in position" in a great hall. I don't like Crimson Tide. Sure, it sounds "cool" as in cool like pop/rock, but it is nothing compared to a lean Shostakovich string quartet recorded with 2 microphones and no remastering. So basically you have a problem with my mastering and orchestration beef percentage. That's just a difference of opinion, and I have no idea what that has to do with the argument here. Using Zimmer as a point of reference for quality, or even saying the mastering in JW soundtracks of today are that great - you're not going to find a large unified group to agree with you - at least not JW fans. Many here feel - as I do - Shawn Murphy is a muddy and overly-commercial sounding mixer and Eric Tomlinson was a genius. I'm sure my music might benefit from a professional sound engineer and would certainly benefit from a real orchestra - big game budgets would allow for that - but what does that have to do with notation?

[David Coscina 3]

Jeshopk, I just meant your sound is not that cool.

Why is this so hard for anyone to underdstand? It sounds thin, weak. Maybe it would sound great played by an orchestra, but It likely wont. You dont have the orchestators and mixers that can make your music sound as phat as fuck, like zimmer gets. have you listened to an orchestral arrangement of Crimson Tide, and compared it to the original version?

It's all about the production. Even in the case of Williams. Mixers make it sound like "the shit". Your demoes dont have that edge.

I know guys on crack that make more sense than you do!

[AI 0]

Whether it is "cool" or "phat as f*ck", I am afraid we're very different when it comes to what we value in music appreciation, production and orchestration. What do you think of the JW "by Request" recording? It's one of my favorites. Not as fat or close, but clean and airy. I strive for that. When someday I simply compose and orchestrate and leave the rest to an actual orchestra and recording engineer, I'll steer them away from heavy mastering. A natural, classical sound is what I'll strive for. For the most part, I leave my samples alone and don't mess with any EQ. Players were already recorded "in position" in a great hall. I don't like Crimson Tide. Sure, it sounds "cool" as in cool like pop/rock, but it is nothing compared to a lean Shostakovich string quartet recorded with 2 microphones and no remastering. So basically you have a problem with my mastering and orchestration beef percentage. That's just a difference of opinion, and I have no idea what that has to do with the argument here. Using Zimmer as a point of reference for quality, or even saying the mastering in JW soundtracks of today are that great - you're not going to find a large unified group to agree with you - at least not JW fans. Many here feel - as I do - Shawn Murphy is a muddy and overly-commercial sounding mixer and Eric Tomlinson was a genius. I'm sure my music might benefit from a professional sound engineer and would certainly benefit from a real orchestra - big game budgets would allow for that - but what does that have to do with notation?

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against your sound, per se. I understand what you are going for. I am saying, as far as demoes go, and particularly for Game soundtracks, since your post earlier was about wanting to score a particular game, you would do well to have a better sound. It can only help you, because the people that listen to the demos, can't really distinguish between the musical content and the aural effect.

If you like that classical recording sound, the purity of it, then perhaps you should focus on composing concert music? Your music will be judged under a different set of parameters in that setting. But if you want to compete with all the other composers in games and films for the same job, you should make sure your sound is the best it can be, without going to extreme compression, etc.

The better (sounding) your demo is, the better chance you have, it's that simple. The same applies to any genre of music. It's not neccesarily the best situation, but that's how it is.