My way of composing and why.

[Rosqvist]

About the joy of composing in a sequencer by drawing lines faster than a Finale user can find the crotchet. I claim that the combination of mouse and drawing quantized (1/8, 3/4, 4/4) notes is considerably faster then the interface of most sheet music-making programs.

I wrote something in the post of a new thread (with a new composition) in Work in progress!

The reason i seldomly use programs for writing sheet music as my first choice and instead in a sequencer is because of the interface. Entering notes (drawing lines) goes 2-3 times faster than what I imagine a skilled Finale-user would manage.

Of course I write music very fast.
I prefer making sheet music AFTER I composed the work. MuseScore is fine for me when I convert to a score, by having both the sequencer open and MS open in two windows. Transfering note by note.

And also; I just can't stand the artificial sound of Finale and Sibelius (even with Ewql as part of the product?).. It sounds awful, and kills creativity and is simply not as fun as getting a result that sounds more realistic!
(For me that is, if Sibelius is great for people here and they are satisfied with it, I will not even attempt to argue about that. Whatever works.)

Of course I understand that it is easer to analyze when there is a visual representation. I understand if it is a 5 part fugue, but not simpler works.

[Ed Sharpe]

I have always stated that each of us must find our own way of doing things and what works for one person is not right for another.

That said I suspect my way of composing is even faster than yours, which is to write with staff paper and a pencil! I do not use a piano to compose, I prefer to sit somewhere with my paper and pencil and write, and what I write is what I hear in my head. I have been doing it this way since I was 12. It is not the way for others, it is simply my way. (Stravinsky always wrote at the piano, nothing wrong with that.)

I do put my music into Sibelius, but that is transferring it from the hand written paper to the computer. And I usually do that with the sound turned off! Also I use a Midi keyboard to "play in" the parts into both Sibelius and Sonar (DAW) that is faster than drawing with a mouse, even without using the midi keyboard where are fast ways to input notes into Sibelius than drawing with a mouse.

The issue I have with DAWs is they tend to be tightly coupled with quarter notes as the main reference point. Perhaps you know away to do it, but I have not found a way that I can do 5/8 time in the Sonar Step Sequencer, I can do 5/4 but not 5/8.

Also like you said you quantize to regular divisions of the beat, but how easy is it to divided the beat into 5 or 7 subdivisions? But then perhaps your musical language does not require such divisions, and that is fine.

What I am trying to say is that all three methods (DAW/Notation Software/Paper) all have limitations in what you can do with them. It is up to us to be aware of them and to not let it limit our musical vision.

[Rosqvist]

I think I agree with everything you wrote.

I also prefer paper and pencil before notation software!

[Kevin]

Wouldn't I love to be able to write in such a way!

[Joseph]

why is the process a concern? Do you suppose one method over another to be more organic? Truer? The value isn't so much on the page or how it gets there, is it? And why is speed a concern? To be perfectly frank, my penmanship sucks so the digital page is a welcomed tool.

[Kevin]

Carting a laptop around for one!

[Ed Sharpe]

Jul 17, 2013 18:03:27 GMT Joseph said:

why is the process a concern? ...

I do not think it is so much of a concern, but us simply sharing our process. I expect no one to follow my process.

[Kevin]

Can your way be learnt at all? I suppose perfect pitch would be needed?!

[Ed Sharpe]

I did not learn to compose the way I do it is simply the way I have always done it. Just something inate.

I do not have perfect pitch just good relative pitch.

[Kevin]

And obviously a vast knowledge of harmony and orchestration as well.

[Deleted]

It matters not what method is used. What matters is the result attained.

Not much else needs to be said!

Richard

[Kevin]

Jul 17, 2013 18:46:13 GMT @richard said:

It matters not what method is used. What matters is the result attained.

Not much else needs to be said!

Richard

Not so sure about that Richard. I really would not have a clue without my notation software. I am in awe of people that can just write to paper and get what they are looking for, only using software to publish the finished product.

[Deleted]

The thing I don't understand is how writing with pen & paper first is quicker. If I tried to, it would certainly be slower. The number of times I would need to rewrite & recheck till I was confident the blobs on the score and the sounds in my head actually corresponded to each other . . . no it doesn't bear thinking about!

Using a mouse & the computer keyboard is admittedly very slow & tedious compared to inputting words, it's true, but the instant playback more than makes up for that.

[Rosqvist]

Jul 17, 2013 18:03:27 GMT Joseph said:

why is the process a concern? Do you suppose one method over another to be more organic? Truer? The value isn't so much on the page or how it gets there, is it? And why is speed a concern? To be perfectly frank, my penmanship sucks so the digital page is a welcomed tool.

Good for you.
It's an individual choice and what works, works.

So please continue. "Organic", "true" where did you find those words in my text?

[Joseph]

Jul 17, 2013 22:23:35 GMT Rosqvist said:

Good for you.
It's an individual choice and what works, works.

So please continue. "Organic", "true" where did you find those words in my text?

Well, first off, I hope I didn't offend you, my comments were not meant to do so (that's not what this forum is about IMO).  

Now then on to your inquiry.  I did not suggest you provided the words organic or true, they were mine alone. I was simply seeking to understand your position.  I agree that everyone uses the tools that best represent their efforts.  But your post just felt like you had issues with notation software and I am simply curious as to why the tool should matter.  Discourse is all I seek, I wouldn't presume to pass judgement on anything or anyone.  If I may borrow a bit, the way Tevye might've put it, as the 'Good Book says, "Judge not lest you be judged."' (really, that's a joke!)

Joseph

[Rosqvist]

I get what you mean.
There is always the risk of misunderstanding written text on the internet. And I probably could have written the first post in a more diplomatic way, it could be interpreted as if I was writing general truths.

Irony and humour are especially risky.

[Deleted]

Writing music in a piano role editor is remarkably fast, and I have no prejudice against it. Nevertheless, for what I want to write, standard music notation is so important because of the literary tradition behind it. (Yes, literary tradition.) Composition of classical music (anyway) always was and always will be a literary pursuit. Studying scores, reading scores, comparing scores, writing scores, etc. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that with Sibelius I can listen as I enter music notes (at least using Kontakt 5.0.2 or before; later versions are not compatible with Sibelius "play as you enter notes" feature; if I'm wrong, please correct me!).

I find "play as you enter notes" immensely helpful and a feature that not only speeds up the writing process but even enhances my creativity. I am not averse to anything new when it
comes to music and technology. And I have dabbled using the piano role editor to edit and tweak notes. Yet I find I cannot dispense with traditional notation because of the need to refer to other scores written before the modern technical age.

Now one thing that does intrigue me, though, is using the Sibelius program's stave's more like sequencer tracks for the purpose of more accurate and realistic playback. You can learn more about what I mean from the "Getting strings to sound more realistic - Two" tutorial series freely available at my YouTube channel:

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbJ3UqfveVHWwvMyd0I-g3mRp58y00flA

especially in videos #16 and 17. Essentially, by enhancing the fidelity of Kontakt's sample playback one can make articulations and dynamic markings in a measure much more fine-grained, enabling the kinds of fine tweaking previously only possible in a piano role editor. Check out about 4 minutes into this video:

Al Johnston, Getting string samples to sound realistic, part 17