Computer or pencil & paper

[Richard Penna 3,686]

This is something that I've wondered for a long time about many composers - do they write using a computer, or do they still do everything with pencil & paper, or at least do that before it goes into synth?

Obviously there are several composers we know... Williams with pencil, anyone from MV, JNH and the Newmans with computers. I was also surprised to learn about several young-ish composers who use old-school - Beltrami and Young.

I think my interest comes from the fact that I know zero musical knowledge, and am therefore totally amazed when I listen to a complex Williams piece like, to quote a good example, The Quidditch Match, and know that it was written using pencil & paper. In fact, when I saw the auction of the pencil he used to write Star Wars, I just thought...wow.

So who else of whom do we know writing methods? I'm specifically curious about George Fenton and Danny Elfman.

[Ollie 1,059]

I think it's a mixture of both.

[Richard Penna 3,686]

I think my original wording wasn't great - I know some use synths and some use pen & paper - I'm just wondering who does what.

[Marcus 390]

Being a pen and paper guy myself, I know that even amongst other contemporary classical composers, and not only film composers, music is mostly written digitally, even if only through notation program like Finale or Sibelius, which is of course still completely different from what the MV composers and others are doing, which cannot really be labelled "writing", but merely "playing".

As to pen/pencil, Williams is the only film composer I know of who works this way presently, and of course John Corigliano. I would imagine that also Goldenthal and Fenton might work at times with only pen and paper.

As far as complexity is concerned, I think it is generally true that those of us who stick to pen and paper tend to write more complex material simply because the nature of a computer, and even a notation program, can be strangely limiting: I´ve seen good composers become worse ones, simply because you can easily start to believe in the playback functions of your notation program, or fall prey to the accessability and efficiency of copying and pasting, etc.

When you sit there with only the pen and the sheet of paper, you are forced to think "This really matters. This is for real". Editing is much more of an arduous task.

Also, if you work away from the sound source, you force your mind to become more sonically alert, awake and creative. It isn´t so hard to grasp how Williams`complex passages were written; it is simply a matter of hard work and knowledge of compositional craft.

[Richard Penna 3,686]

I'm not familiar with Final or Sibelius - can you elaborate on what they are? I've always associated writing with synths as a guy sitting with a computer and a keyboard but from what you've said, there's obviously a difference.

I think that my amazement at complexity comes down to this: how can someone look at a piece of paper with 10 different instruments all doing different things at once, and imagine what the finished product will sound like before it's performed?

You'll have to excuse my musical ignorance

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

To claim that using software makes you carefree with your writing contradicts having to think harder using a pencil and paper.

Think about it, if you are actively aware that a trapping of digital writing is the editing process, then your great mind has to again be actively attempting not to fall into that trap. If you're carefree enough to fall into the trap, then you certainly won't have the capacity to comprehend the "finality" of writing with pecil and paper.

Second, there seems to be a HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY misguided opinion around JW-Fan that editing or going back to something is some sort of a sin and that a composer gets it right the first time, and only the first time is the great one.

Utter nonsense, as revisiting any completed work is the single most important part of the creative process.

stick to pen and paper tend to write more complex

There is not a shred of evidence to support this.

I'm not familiar with Final or Sibelius - can you elaborate on what they are? I've always associated writing with synths as a guy sitting with a computer and a keyboard but from what you've said, there's obviously a difference.

Sibelius is basically a notation program. You have a toolset of notes, and various other tools to help you create readable music, and you go into the staves and place notes etc. And set up the music. Everything you do on paper, only done on the computer.

I think that my amazement at complexity comes down to this: how can someone look at a piece of paper with 10 different instruments all doing different things at once, and imagine what the finished product will sound like before it's performed?

You'll have to excuse my musical ignorance

It's not at all very difficult or complex, it's just a matter of creativity or natural talent. You either have it, or you don't. If you don't, you can train yourself, but it's usually very difficult because your brain is not wired that way, and you'll never achieve the same caliber as someone who naturally has that talent.

It's no different than say a painter seeing the finished painting before putting the first drop of paint on the canvas. Some people can train that as a skill, but that's what it becomes, a skill, not a talent.

Finally, John Williams doesn't avoid writing digitally because he fears it'll hamper his talent, he does it because he has zero aptitude with computers. For him, it is much more efficient to write music with a piano, pencil, and paper, than to run around in circles with a computer.

[Marcus 390]

To claim that using software makes you carefree with your writing contradicts having to think harder using a pencil and paper.

Think about it, if you are actively aware that a trapping of digital writing is the editing process, then your great mind has to again be actively attempting not to fall into that trap. If you're carefree enough to fall into the trap, then you certainly won't have the capacity to comprehend the "finality" of writing with pecil and paper.

Second, there seems to be a HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY misguided opinion around JW-Fan that editing or going back to something is some sort of a sin and that a composer gets it right the first time, and only the first time is the great one.

Utter nonsense, as revisiting any completed work is the single most important part of the creative process.

stick to pen and paper tend to write more complex

There is not a shred of evidence to support this.

I'm not familiar with Final or Sibelius - can you elaborate on what they are? I've always associated writing with synths as a guy sitting with a computer and a keyboard but from what you've said, there's obviously a difference.

Sibelius is basically a notation program. You have a toolset of notes, and various other tools to help you create readable music, and you go into the staves and place notes etc. And set up the music. Everything you do on paper, only done on the computer.

I think that my amazement at complexity comes down to this: how can someone look at a piece of paper with 10 different instruments all doing different things at once, and imagine what the finished product will sound like before it's performed?

You'll have to excuse my musical ignorance

It's not at all very difficult or complex, it's just a matter of creativity or natural talent. You either have it, or you don't. If you don't, you can train yourself, but it's usually very difficult because your brain is not wired that way, and you'll never achieve the same caliber as someone who naturally has that talent.

It's no different than say a painter seeing the finished painting before putting the first drop of paint on the canvas. Some people can train that as a skill, but that's what it becomes, a skill, not a talent.

Finally, John Williams doesn't avoid writing digitally because he fears it'll hamper his talent, he does it because he has zero aptitude with computers. For him, it is much more efficient to write music with a piano, pencil, and paper, than to run around in circles with a computer.

Here is the problem: It is not that editing is a sin, not at all, and I can tell you, no-one gets it completely right the first time! But: The amount of labour that it will take for me to white-out, say, a whole bar of complex orchestral music (let´s say ca. 30 staves) is of such a nature that I naturally, and wise from having faced such throes before, try to deeply contemplate what I actually put down on paper initially. I will also say this: Finale and Sibelius CAN make you lazy. It doesn´t have to, certainly, but I´ve seen good composers take a turn for the worse using it.

On the other hand, unless you have a publisher (which I thankfully do), writing out parts by hand is a daunting, laborious and terribly boring task, and this is the great forte of notational programs, I think, and part of what draws so many of my colleagues to it. I hear it´s still not easy to get good parts extracted (I mean, they never look beautiful the way beautifully printed parts do!), but it ends up saving time, and doesn´t promote tendonitis to quite the same extent.

The skill of reading a score, and the ability to comprehend and create densely layered music, belong to the craft of a trained classical composer. Talent or aptitude is certainly part of it, but much more prominently, active interest, dedication and hard work!

I have been doing this professionally for over ten years now, and I can tell you: It get´s easier, and you get better at it, and eventually, it does become second nature.

And it isn´t as mysterious as it might seem; writing sophisticatedly layered, harmonically complex music, well- it is a matter of technique! John Williams didn´t start out at the level he is now, he built his chops over time, as did Bach and even Mozart.

You simply evolve, and with more experience comes greater imaginative powers, and certainly better ability to realize that which was imagined.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

The skill of reading a score, and the ability to comprehend and create densely layered music, belong to the craft of a trained classical composer. Talent or aptitude is certainly part of it, but much more prominently, active interest, dedication and hard work!

Absolutely.

And it isn´t as mysterious as it might seem; writing sophisticatedly layered, harmonically complex music, well- it is a matter of technique! John Williams didn´t start out at the level he is now, he built his chops over time, as did Bach and even Mozart.

But so can a computer with advanced mathematical computations. It's the inherent talent of those figures that makes their music not just sophisticated and complex, but meaningful, and that is ultimately what makes music truly music.

Anyone can train themselves to write something with enough flourishes and embellishments and complexities to sound sophisticated, but very few can do it with meaning or very well for that matter.

The point I'm trying to make is that training can bring out the inherent gifts of a person in any field, and it's a must. But it's not going to make someone without a natural aptitude toward that field beyond passable or good.

By that same token, using a tool for a certain job isn't going to make someone who isn't good any better. Writing with pencil and paper is in your head. It's not the tool, but your ability to utilize that tool that matters.

[Datameister 2,042]

I think that my amazement at complexity comes down to this: how can someone look at a piece of paper with 10 different instruments all doing different things at once, and imagine what the finished product will sound like before it's performed?

I think the problem with your thought process is you're assuming that the music "comes" as the composer writes it down, or that the composer writes it down and then looks over the written music to analyze and improve upon it. There are generally two camps of composers, from what I understand, though it would of course be ridiculous to assume that everyone always falls neatly into just one of these: those who compose at the piano (or, much less commonly, another instrument), and those who compose purely in their heads. Composing at the piano is somewhat more accessible for a lot of people, since it demands slightly less mental gymnastics whilst thinking about the sound of the music. It makes experimentation a bit easier, but it can also make it harder for the composer to hear the intended timbers of the different instruments and there are pianistic limitations to what can be played. These limitations have caused some talented composers to simply "listen" to the music in their heads and then notate it immediately afterwards, without spending much or any time at an instrument.

So now your question becomes, how can anyone hear 10 different instruments doing 10 different things at once in their head? Well, keep in mind that most music does not consist of that many totally unrelated voices. In a lot of orchestral music, you'll find a melody, along with harmony that follows chords the composer has studied and can imagine in his head, in addition to the possibility of one or more contrapuntal lines--basically secondary melodies. Where these all come from is anyone's guess, but as a musician who's dabbled in composition far less than he would like to have done, I can tell you that music really can just pop into your head, especially when you have some sort of idea in mind and you exert a kind of mental pressure on the toothpaste tube of your musical imagination. Then sitting at the piano (or in a very quiet room) can allow you to tweak and experiment with that idea, develop it, notate it, and so on. It's pretty weird, and it's a skill that very much sits at the crossroads of God-given talent and years of training.

[ChuckM 1]

I'm certainly not an expert at transcribing, and my composing skills are pretty much nonexistent, but I couldn't imagine doing even the little that I do without a notation program.

[Neimoidian 14]

There's also another issue that I think should be elaborated. When it comes to people like Williams and Spielberg for instance, they have formed a certain amount of trust, so S. may just listen to the piano piece and be sure that it will sound great on full orchestra. Generally, however, producers and directors expect a composer to bring them a demo music which should sound as close to the final product as possible and if it doesn't meet their expectation, they may sack the composer and hire a new one. That's why the composers - who are also restrained by time limits - decide to use computers, which not only make their work faster, but also in the same time allows them to deliver their bosses an orchestral mock-up of their music.

[Marcus 390]

Yes, especially in the world of film music, this is a good and important point.

And this is a problem for me , personally, as I always have to rely on the trust of a director and a producer, the times I dabble with film scoring ( a new short this October/November!), and even when I do music for theatre.

Once upon a time, though, being able to read music was simply part of a general education... Where are the 1600´s to ca. 1915 when you need them?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Once upon a time, though, being able to read music was simply part of a general education... Where are the 1600´s to ca. 1915 when you need them?

Of course no one coulf afford general education.

[Marcus 390]

Well, if you belonged to the part of society that would afford an education (or in art, and apprenticeship, till ca. late 1700´s)...

Anything resembling the kind of milieu we´re talking about here, the kind of context, would have been amongst the upper class/ upper middle class (later), etc.

Our tradition is ever so non-proletarian in its premises, unfortunately. Even if composers were simply servants, as they still are in the world of film music...

[Datameister 2,042]

I'm certainly not an expert at transcribing, and my composing skills are pretty much nonexistent, but I couldn't imagine doing even the little that I do without a notation program.

Why not? I understand that it makes things easier...but a computer can't compose or transcribe for you.

[ChuckM 1]

Because I need that instant playback to know for sure if it's sounding correct.Also, pen and paper is just so tedious. And then you still have to put it into the computer later to make a good-looking copy.

[Richard Penna 3,686]

So do these notation programs actually play back what you've 'written', or are they literally a computer version of pencil & paper?

[Jeshopk 8]

It is not pencil versus computer, it is notation versus sequencing. I use notation on the computer. Sequencing is just a bunch of funny lines and you don't see your arrangement. You just hear it and fill in by ear, usually in realtime performance, which means not very idiomatic writing - hence MV.

Zimmer sees something like this during his creative period:

I see something like this during my creative period

[AI 0]

That may be so, jeshopk, but your music doesn't sound cool to my ears.

Williams can make an orchestra sound cool, because he writes from his gut. And so does Zimmer.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

John Powell dislikes having to use sequencers, he feels they limit what he can write because he´s limited to the machine´s capibilities.

[Jeshopk 8]

That may be so, jeshopk, but your music doesn't sound cool to my ears.

Williams can make an orchestra sound cool, because he writes from his gut. And so does Zimmer.

I tend to write more from the loins than anything else.

[Simon R. 10]

Jeshopk, actually Zimmer uses Cubase But who cares if you use pencil or computer? It's the result that counts, and you can get good results both ways. It's about your talent and your abilities. To glorify pencil and paper is just plain old "ooooh it was all better in the good old days" way of thinking. The computer doesn't do the writing for you, remember? And actually it doesn't make you better that you see the music in notation form when you write it, that doesn't really matter. The difference isn't so big. When Williams writes something, he will play back and check his work so far on the piano - someone using a computer will press play on his sequencer.

John Powell dislikes having to use sequencers, he feels they limit what he can write because he´s limited to the machine´s capibilities.

That is his view. He must be referring to the limitations of the samples he uses. And yes, you need to use your imagination as well to get past what the samples can do, and think "oh, this will sound great with a real orchestra", because not everything can be done right with samples.

[Richard Penna 3,686]

I know it's not a big deal. I just find it curious which composers sit there with a piano and paper, and which sit in a dark room with flashing lights all around them and at least 20 computer screens

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That is his view. He must be referring to the limitations of the samples he uses. And yes, you need to use your imagination as well to get past what the samples can do, and think "oh, this will sound great with a real orchestra", because not everything can be done right with samples.

Also, because in today's industry, producers and directors want to hear demo's of everything before it's actually recorded. So it's harder to get away from the limiting capibility of what the computers can do.

[Simon R. 10]

I know it's not a big deal. I just find it curious which composers sit there with a piano and paper, and which sit in a dark room with flashing lights all around them and at least 20 computer screens

Actually, a dark room is not so good on your eyes, so I prefer a medium lighted room

You don't need 20 screens either. 2-3 should do:)

[Richard Penna 3,686]

[JoeinAR 1,949]

That may be so, jeshopk, but your music doesn't sound cool to my ears.

Williams can make an orchestra sound cool, because he writes from his gut. And so does Zimmer.

I've always felt that zimmers music was from the lower colon.

[Richard Penna 3,686]

You need to listen to more Zimmer, a lot more.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Oh, he will listen if you ask him to. But he won't listen.

[Ollie 1,059]

You need to listen to more Zimmer, a lot more.

Why should he?

It doesn't take one long to recognize crap. No sense in continuing to suffer.

[Morlock 11]

Well, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Too bad you weren't taught 'Zimmer' when you were younger. Sure, not as useful or as good as 'Williams' or 'Goldsmith', but dogs who know the 'Zimmer' trick tend to have and be more fun. Ah well. One can certainly get good marks at the dog show without a 'Zimmer' up his sleeve (although I don't think they give 'Best in show' if you haven't learned any new tricks since 1991),

Morlock- who (on a different note) is a big Zimmer fan, and even he think Zimmer rarely gets his orchestra to sound cool, even when he has cool music for it to play.

[Smeagol 0]

im farily new around this place so maybe that's why I may seem uninformed about this but... I don't remember many topics that doesn't (at some point or another) turn into some kind of zimmer bashing fest, hehe is it always like that around here?

[Morlock 11]

Yup, pretty much. I mean, there's certainly a lot to criticize about Zimmer. But there are a few people here who think there are also good things about him. And, of course, there are the hypocrites, who bash Zimmer for everything, with the exception of The Lion King, because they happen to love the film, when it a score that is composed in the exact same way as many other Zimmer scores.

[ChuckM 1]

im farily new around this place so maybe that's why I may seem uninformed about this but... I don't remember many topics that doesn't (at some point or another) turn into some kind of zimmer bashing fest, hehe is it always like that around here?

Yes.

What program is that?

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Zimmer bashing makes insecure people feel better about the state of their declining John Williams.

[Ollie 1,059]

Well, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Too bad you weren't taught 'Zimmer' when you were younger. Sure, not as useful or as good as 'Williams' or 'Goldsmith', but dogs who know the 'Zimmer' trick tend to have and be more fun. Ah well. One can certainly get good marks at the dog show without a 'Zimmer' up his sleeve (although I don't think they give 'Best in show' if you haven't learned any new tricks since 1991),

Morlock- who (on a different note) is a big Zimmer fan, and even he think Zimmer rarely gets his orchestra to sound cool, even when he has cool music for it to play.

I was taught Zimmer when I was younger but after a short while realized it wasn't going to get me anywhere and I moved on to bigger and better things.

[Morlock 11]

Like I said, one can certainly go far in life without knowing 'Zimmer'. But, undeveloped as it is, it can be very fun to do every now and then (there are some times when it's just the right touch).

[Jeshopk 8]

Like I said, one can certainly go far in life without knowing 'Zimmer'. But, undeveloped as it is, it can be very fun to do every now and then (there are some times when it's just the right touch).

Why don't we just throw Michael Jackson in the mix? Does anything JW wrote sound as cool and fun as "Beat it"? Music should sound cool and fun. I likes to move my feet!

[Delorean90 42]

im farily new around this place so maybe that's why I may seem uninformed about this but... I don't remember many topics that doesn't (at some point or another) turn into some kind of zimmer bashing fest, hehe is it always like that around here?

Yes.

What program is that?

I'm pretty sure that's Sibelius (which I plan on purchasing very soon).

[Jeshopk 8]

What program is that?

Overture 4

To me, it matters whether I use notation. I have used sequencers and I have used notation. I like Overture because it is a notation-based sequencer. If I were just interested in notation or publishing, I'd get Sibelius, but I like to control all the parameters like you do in sequencers, while not abandoning traditional methods of arranging harmonies and orchestral colors.

[Joe Brausam 214]

I can't understand Sibellius. Whebever I do transcriptions and arrangements I'll always work with Finale, it's what I've known for a few years now, and I'm not quite open minded enough to try something different.

[ChuckM 1]

I've used Midinotate Composer for a while, and like it, but it's missing some more advanced features.

[Jeshopk 8]

To glorify pencil and paper is just plain old "ooooh it was all better in the good old days" way of thinking. The computer doesn't do the writing for you, remember? And actually it doesn't make you better that you see the music in notation form when you write it, that doesn't really matter. The difference isn't so big.

Entering 7 notes in time of 4 or something just seems much more easy to me in notation. Plotting a counter melody is easier in notation for me. Arranging my chords amongst various groups is easier.

There are just many advantages to using notation-based sequenceing versus "piano roll view" sequencing for me. If my musical ideas were not based in traditional orchestral writing, it would not make much of a difference, but I am a traditional composer and I work best using traditional methods.

I have written chamber music using performer, for instance, but what I found is that I just don' t get the bird's eye view of how it is all working together. And just hearing it isn't the same as seeing it all in front of you like a conductor. I even used step entry on a Korg M1 way back in the day, and did a pretty nifty jazz piece. I could write Brad Fiedel type music very easily that way. But when you are dealing with ideas such as lush orchestration and dovetailed woodwind groupings, I feel it is just much better to use notation to see what you're doing. My 5 cents anyway.

I don't hate Zimmer either. I like Thin Red Line, from what I heard. For that writing, sequencer did not limit in any way. I just don't see how busy orchestral music can be laid out as easily as with notation. It can be done of course, but let us face that most film composers using sequencers "perform" their music in real time and then have lots of help turning it into something idiomatic for orchestra. And I'd agree with some things people say around here and FSM boards, when they say that it is not so good when something sounds like it was written on the fly by improvising on a synth.

Of course, to each his own, and if you love Zimmer, you should love non-notation-based sequencers, because they encourage that type of writing.

[Morlock 11]

Like I said, one can certainly go far in life without knowing 'Zimmer'. But, undeveloped as it is, it can be very fun to do every now and then (there are some times when it's just the right touch).

Why don't we just throw Michael Jackson in the mix? Does anything JW wrote sound as cool and fun as "Beat it"? Music should sound cool and fun. I likes to move my feet!

You're absolutely right...but I was talking in terms of film music, silly.

[Simon R. 10]

To glorify pencil and paper is just plain old "ooooh it was all better in the good old days" way of thinking. The computer doesn't do the writing for you, remember? And actually it doesn't make you better that you see the music in notation form when you write it, that doesn't really matter. The difference isn't so big.

But when you are dealing with ideas such as lush orchestration and dovetailed woodwind groupings, I feel it is just much better to use notation to see what you're doing. My 5 cents anyway.

Of course, to each his own, and if you love Zimmer, you should love non-notation-based sequencers, because they encourage that type of writing.

You can write both "types" of music (if we really have to define it so roughly and primitively) with sequencers or with notation software. And btw, in sequencers you can see your stuff in a notation view if you want. Of course not as sophisticated as n Sib/Finale, but you can get an idea. I think it says more about the composer than the software if he/she isn't able to compose "that kind" of music in a sequencer. Music should be able to live in your imagination/head, who cares about how the little black dots look like? If you know what you want to create, whether you have it recorded in a sequencer or a notation program shouldn't do much of a difference UNLESS you can't see beyond the samples you are using -- which was my original point actually. So what about "Prince of Egypt" - you think Zimmer had to turn to a notation program to do this, because it is a more traditional orchestral score? Or "Simpsons The Movie", or "As good as it gets"? I am sure he used the same tools for those as he does for "The Rock" and all the other typically MV scores.

And whether or not you need help from an orchstrator to make your music recordable, is that a problem? I am in that situation myself now - everything is recorded in a well-sounding mockup which will hopefully, eventually be recorded by an orchestrator. I turn in a carefully looked through/condensed down to each instrument MIDI file, and the orchestrator quantizes it and extracts all the different parts necessary. It's not like the result is going to be a totally different piece of music.

[Damo 0]

Every composer has their own method of ways of composing music if it is using computers or pencils & paper or whatever. Since technologies changes throughout the years things just change because of it. Hey we are living in the 21st century!

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.

[Jeshopk 8]

You can write both "types" of music (if we really have to define it so roughly and primitively) with sequencers or with notation software. And btw, in sequencers you can see your stuff in a notation view if you want. Of course not as sophisticated as n Sib/Finale, but you can get an idea. I think it says more about the composer than the software if he/she isn't able to compose "that kind" of music in a sequencer. Music should be able to live in your imagination/head, who cares about how the little black dots look like? If you know what you want to create, whether you have it recorded in a sequencer or a notation program shouldn't do much of a difference UNLESS you can't see beyond the samples you are using -- which was my original point actually. So what about "Prince of Egypt" - you think Zimmer had to turn to a notation program to do this, because it is a more traditional orchestral score? Or "Simpsons The Movie", or "As good as it gets"? I am sure he used the same tools for those as he does for "The Rock" and all the other typically MV scores.And whether or not you need help from an orchstrator to make your music recordable, is that a problem? I am in that situation myself now - everything is recorded in a well-sounding mockup which will hopefully, eventually be recorded by an orchestrator. I turn in a carefully looked through/condensed down to each instrument MIDI file, and the orchestrator quantizes it and extracts all the different parts necessary. It's not like the result is going to be a totally different piece of music.

I don't want to criticize your methods. I basically agree with you, but I think the different methods can encourage different types of writing when time is of the essence. It is not impossible to write old fashioned orchestrations like Star Wars theme in a sequencer, but why would anyone prefer it over writing it in score? All those ornamentations, etc. I'd rather enter a nice quantized triplet from the start and indicate the stacattos. I like to be very hands on with my orchestrations. I like to use the articulations that the musicians will see to trigger different samples. If I put in a tremolo symbol on a note, it switches automatically to the tremolo sample of that instrument. I have control over the accents and what the players will see when it gets performed. Maybe I am a control freak

I figure if the same exact thing can be done with a notation sequencer, why would I want to put in "cc1=80" rather than just put an mf symbol there. Why would I want to carefully place little blocks of grace notes (or worse try to perform them) rather than just use an actual gracenote that attaches to the note and automatically plays in the proper timing before the note? Why would I want to put in a keyswitch for a trill rather than just write the trill normally, with a tr symbol over the note (which automatically triggers the keyswitch.) Why would I want to look all the way over to the left (piano graphic) to see which notes are playing rather than just look at which lines they fall upon on the staff? Why would I not want to be able to glance and see if all my woodwind players are getting enough breaths or whether my brass section is arranged nicely? There are just too many reasons for me to use notation-sequencer for the same exact features of another sequencer, some other features that have been honed over hundreds of years and have been used to produce the best music in the world. Yes, I am a traditionalist computer composer... I guess that is pretty oxymoronic of me, but I can't help it. If a person simply is not as comfortable with notation during the creative process, I see no problem not using it.

You're absolutely right...but I was talking in terms of film music, silly.

Truth be told, I am not actually as big a fan of film music as I am of classical music. The top few favs happen to be film composers, but the list of composers I like is overwhelmingly classical. So, it is pointless for me to talk about Zimmer. I only wanted to illustrate a difference in working methods using examples.

[Simon R. 10]

Jeshopk, the problem I have is that it seems you have the attitude that you are a better composer, because of the way you do it. You seem to feel superior to composers using sequencers. Like, you are a better composer than Hans Zimmer, simply because you do it "the traditional way". Maybe I am reading too much between the lines:)

Working with sequencers you have pretty much as much control as you have. Staccato notes are clearly marked in a separate staccato track, pizzicato in a pizz track, trills in a trill track and so on, so the orchestrator knows what to do, AND he has a great sounding mockup to lean on, so he can always listen if he is in doubt.

To glorify one way over the other is silly. It's not the tools, it's the result.

[Smeagol 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.

[Jeshopk 8]

Jeshopk, the problem I have is that it seems you have the attitude that you are a better composer, because of the way you do it. You seem to feel superior to composers using sequencers. Like, you are a better composer than Hans Zimmer, simply because you do it "the traditional way". Maybe I am reading too much between the lines:)Working with sequencers you have pretty much as much control as you have. Staccato notes are clearly marked in a separate staccato track, pizzicato in a pizz track, trills in a trill track and so on, so the orchestrator knows what to do, AND he has a great sounding mockup to lean on, so he can always listen if he is in doubt.To glorify one way over the other is silly. It's not the tools, it's the result.

If I came off as arrogant or superior, that was not my intention. The title of the thread begged discussion on the subject. No hard feelings. If we can agree on one thing, we can probably agree that there has been some music composed for film on extremely tight deadlines using live sequencing which have suffered as a result of the availability of making a really quick mockup. 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. I'd rather see short deadlines scale back in scope, such as Chinatown - rather than trying to squeeze a fill orchestral score out in a breeze - and using ghost writers - as happened with King Kong. Is the music from King Kong bad? No, but it is because they had a team. Other times, you can more easily hear the rush rush. And with a traditional composer, like John Williams, you simply can not rush him.Now Danny Elfman is one who uses the non-notation sequencer properly. He's a hero of mine, and he is not a notation sequencing guy. He is a 1:30 to 2 minute per day composer, and any composer using a sequencer at that rate has plenty of time to be detailed. I have complete respect for him and believe he puts just about as much thought and detail into his work as John Williams. As far as your work goes, I have nothing bad to say about it! You're better than Zimmer and even JNH in my opinion! :)My point is that non notation encourages quick and thoughtless writing in many cases, but not in your case - not in Elfman's case, and sometimes not even in Zimmer's case. Do I like my own music better than I like Zimmer's? Yes I do. I'll be honest about that. But if someone else thinks he is better, that's true for them.

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?

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.