|
Learning to compose with notation programs instead of staff paper.
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Anxieties |
Are there any serious disadvantages to beginning a composition on the computer?
Purists seem to be against composing on the computer, and recommend beginning with instrument and paper. You input what you've composed into the program, you are not to begin there. But why? I can't know if this some kind of collective quirk rooted in respect for tradition, or if it's a substantial concern that new composers should heed.
I find the computer to be so much more convenient than staff paper. Composing the traditional way seems quaint to me. I also find it absurd to think I have to learn to compose on staff paper before I use a notation program. Why can't I learn on the program first? Then, if I ever need to use staff paper, I'll easily be able to do so.
The only reason this is even an issue is because of my uncertainty. I have the impression that, for some vague reason, if you compose on staff paper, your composition will be stronger. The argument I've read for this is that staff paper forces you to consider your ideas with more care, while the luxury of the computer with its undo/redo button will make you sloppy and spoil you in a creative sense. I've seen a similar argument made by poets against typing poetry. The second argument was that certain unused ideas on paper can one day grow to be something, while everything bad gets deleted on the computer. The second argument I disagree with wholeheartedly, because I save all my musical projects even if I don't like them -- one day I might be able to incorporate them elsewhere.
What's the verdict on this? I'm learning music theory and I'm going to use a notation program almost exclusively. I will be doing all the exercises on the computer. I already make music, but I do so by ear and I've been frustrated by my inability to create more ambitious works. I just want to be able to notate my ideas, so I'm going to be ear training and attempting to compose "legitimately." If I ever need to use paper in the future (let's say I'm traveling and don't have a laptop, or can't use a laptop), I think I'll do fine. |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| For me it's all about the end result. Use whatever you feel like. People will always tell you you're doing something wrong, but as long as you are getting stuff done the way you want it to be what does it matter what they think? |
|
|
| floyd741 |
| You could just not compose anything at all, and instead throw things at your keyboard (while recording, of course) for about half an hour (more if you're feeling inspired that day), then see if you got anything good. That is, after all, HOW THE PROS DO IT. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
When I first started getting into production years ago, my natural tendency (having a background in music performance and theory) was to want to compose everything using the staff/notation editor, but I quickly realized that the notation editors in most DAWs were pretty inept at the time, and haven't improved much from what I've seen. So, I begrudgingly learned to adapt to the piano roll view. That said, the dedicated notation editors are much better, from what I've heard/seen.
More importantly, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find any EDM producers who use notation software. That's not to say that you can't or shouldn't use notation software, it's just that it's much more common to use a DAW's piano roll view, track view, and/or step sequencer. Those are by-and-large the tools that EDM was started and evolved with, going back to the days of hardware sequencers, so you'll notice right away that almost all producers and tutorials use them pretty much exclusively and if you try to follow a tutorial or have a discussion regarding notation, it will definitely be in your advantage to be familiar with the piano roll view. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
For me it's all about the end result. Use whatever you feel like. People will always tell you you're doing something wrong, but as long as you are getting stuff done the way you want it to be what does it matter what they think? |
I'm the same. In most cases, the important thing is the end result. How you got there, in most cases doesn't really bother me. |
|
|
| Kysora |
| I don't buy that it makes your compositions better at all. It just depends on how much effort you put into it and as long as whatever your medium is doesn't hold you back then your writing will be as good as it can be. |
|
|
| J.L. |
| "Pros" tend to be trained, educated and experienced to compose using staff paper. But I'm sure if you gave Mozart a computer instead of paper to score music, he'd do a great job at it as well. |
|
|
| Mad for Brad |
Using a computer is just faster , less messy and really unless you like the art of calligraphy, makes notation paper completely obsolete unless I suppose you are notating something short hand that you are trying to transcribe or maybe just an idea in your head. Some old people still do it that way but it is like how your grandma sends written letters instead of typing a letter. In 5 years, except for learning , nobody will be using staff paper.
The reason you start learning by using paper is that there are very strict arbitrary rules regarding how music should look and notation programs don't always do things right. In fact there is no notation program yet that actually does everything for you in terms of formatting and there is quite a bit of proofing , adjusting aesthetic things so it looks right but had you not first learned with normal paper, you would not realize these things. So think of it like spellcheckers. ing handy but have you noticed how your spelling has gone to because you know you can roughly type the word and your computer fixes it for you ?
That is why. So you basically do some sort of exercise and you have your notation book with all the rules , trust me it is a big book with so many rules that are completely arbitrary and traditional with no practical reason but musicians expect it and you will really change a performance if your music does not look write. Players read 8 measures at a time and if something is a miss, like your note stems are not pointed the right way or your beams look a little wonky , it interferes with their ability to sight read. They train themselves to notice patterns and anything you do that is not what you would expect after years and years of reading well formatted music will decrease the performance. I mean if it is easy music, no big deal but a really fast piece where you have a few takes and there are alot of notes, well the way it looks really makes a huge difference.It is rather impressive how well some musicians can sight read. Like glance at a sheet of paper and how it memorized. I used to be rather good but I don't really keep up at it and i'm a little slower. I still do 1 hour of sight reading a day just to warm up my brain but it isn't to sound perfect like you have been playing the piece for ages but rather a brain crunching exercise where I basically convert an orchestral score to a piano reduction in my head and try to play it at a tempo slightly faster than I can handle. It never sounds great but it really does make your brain work.
A typical orchestral score uses many different clefs so lets say a treble clef, the C is on the first line below the bottom. And an alto , middle C is right in the middle, and tenor clef, middle C is on the 4rth line, and then to make things even more complicated, some instruments might use a treble clef but the instrument does not play at concert pitch. For example, horns sound a perfect 5th lower, Clarinates usually sound a major second or minor 3rd depending on the type. Now if that wasn't confusing enough, there are times when an instrument that does not use concert pitch then uses a different clef so you have transpositions you have to do for each note in your head. And that is only 1 of 10s or 20s lines.
Now imagine looking at all this information and being able to play it i mean not well but basically make your way thru it doing all these calculations in your head. I suppose it is still sight reading but ya, I do that because you start seing an entire orchestral score and you read it like a book. You can look at 10 lines and know how it sounds. This sort of practice will make you a ninja.
In fact I was hired by a well known orchestrator and he seemed busy and not really interested in talking and by this point I felt like I just had to be a little more aggressive so I just put it out there and told him I will sight read anything you put up there and he loved the cheekiness of it. I'm just glad he din;t reach for some obscure atonal piece with 30 staff lines. Anyways, after 3 pages of his own work , he said ok your hired. Then started grabbing other scores and trying to find my breaking point. And then he said for me to orchestra a brahms sonata for orchestra for tomorrow. That took 21 hours. He then laughed at how tired I was and said get used to it. He then talked about what he is working on and what he needs help with and I was given an assignment. Nothing too important and then he asked me to get him a latte. lol so there you go. Even the people that actually are paid still sometimes have to get the lattes.
But yes, all these little things matter as a pro would notice a score that didn't look right and there is just no room for babying people around. There is room for learning but there is this base level at which you have to be at. |
|
|
|
|
