Sharing methods of working

[sistermusic]

Hi,

Thanks to all for a very rewarding forum.
I\'m on the edge of plunging into the world of possibly GPO.

I\'ve been, like many of you, writing orchestral music on computer for the last 4 years or so.
I love what I\'m hearing about GPO and it\'s interesting to compare with other products.

Just one question to you all about how you go about recording your scores.
Here\'s what I do

1/Write the music, with good old pencil, paper and piano. (the ppp method!)
2/ Orchestrate using Sibelius (the programme not the man)
3/ Play each part of the score live into Sonar. Trying to acheive the expression, balance etc. as much as I can as I go. At the moment I\'m using a whole mix of samples.
Mostly from EMU Proteus module. (That\'s a whole \'nother post!)
4/I then mix and add reverb, closely following the score and my original vision.
5/ Master

So much for me. But it struck me, is that how others do it?
Or do most people use more midi play back ( I have occasionally used this especially for percussion, or as a guide track if some rhthym is foxing me)

I\'d love to hear peoples techniques.


/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I Just Love creating Music!! <font color=\"blue\"> </font>

[trentpmcd]

In the past I would pretty much improvise the parts in. I would write notes and block things out, but mostly play until it sounded right and then record. I’d do each part this way.

Lately I’ve been using the good old pen, paper and piano method. Sometimes I hear things in my head and work it out at the piano, but mostly I start at the piano with just an idea of what I want to do.

I then record into Cubase. Lately I’ve been using GPO almost exclusively.

I record just one track for each sound as I work out the parts.

I do some correction and improvise some parts in after I hear the sketch on Cubase/GPO.

When the orchestration seems complete I “make my sections”. Sometimes I am surprised how it sounds with all of the instruments and have to do some correction.

I have been putting in one short section at a time.

I only add reverb right before I mix (or export to wave since I’ve been neglecting my mix).

I haven’t done much mixing, but that is last.

Export to wave.

[Mike Kelley]

See, you both work with P and P -- because you are both trained and can work that way.

To me, the biggest advantage to GPO is it enables even someone like myself, who has zero talent, to create music because we can hear what we are doing while we do it.

For those of us who are not musically gifted GPO provides the musical \"ear\" that you have.

So... how I work:

1) Compose the whole thing in Finale -- sometimes I start with an instrument playing the main melody line and harmonize it there, sometimes I\'ll lay down timpani for a beat, sometimes I\'ll program the string quartet laying down all the different lines as I go... or sometimes a combination of this and many many other techniques. In essence, I\'m writing the entire orchestra score as I go, and best of all, I can hear exactly as it will sound.

2) Export as midi file and bring into Sonar for final mixing cleanup. Very little is needed.

[Ira Kraemer]

When I started composing music while at Mannes College of Music in N.Y.C. we had no other choice than pencil and paper, and that pencil needed a good eraser. When the pencil draft was completed then came the teadious task of transferring the score to \"onion skin manuscript transparencies.\" These were sheets of staff paper from which a blue print company could reproduce your score. The year was 1964 and there were no photo copy machines avilable to the working musician. If you needed to produce a set of parts you had to copy those as well onto onion skin. It was a huge job and caused many composers to not complete works and loose out on performances. After all of that work you still weren\'t sure of how the work sounded until it went into rehearsal. Sometimes a pleasant surprise and sometime a rude awakening.

I gave up the pencil and paper in 1987 and have never looked back. Today with such programs as GPO, Sibelius, Finale, Overtue, those of us who were trained in notation based composition have life a lot easier. Even if a composer writes a large orchestral work and never has the opportunity to have it played live, that composer can still have a very accurate idea of how the work actually sounds. What is also quite an advantage is that a composer who writes an orchestral work can present to a prospective orchestra board or conductor a sound recording of the work under consideration.. Conductors love it because it helps them to learn the piece quicker. Quite Remarkable !!!

Ira Kraemer

[sistermusic]

Interesting to hear about others\' experience.

My advice to my students is that the number one rule of composing is get something down, whether on paper or computer or tape. The inspiration only then comes as you work with what you already have. Change it, transform it, reject it: but you still need to begin with that block of marble to work with. Then it\'s all chipping away to complete the sculpture.
Bad metaphor.
At times composing feels more like finishing a tricky crossword puzzle!

Most of my work with pencil and paper ( sorry forgot eraser!) is really sketch work, and Sibelius has become a great tool for expanding the sketch.

For me I have to have it 98% all there in Sibelius before I record when it\'s anything Orchestral. I try to be disciplined in this as I would have to be with a live orchestra.

It\'s different with a fully improvised work; then Sibelius is bypassed!
Although improvising is no less than composing without the black dots.

[Cerrabore]

1. Mess around with the piano until I\'ve got a good tune going
2. Start typing it out in Overture SE
3. Go to sleep or something
4. Try again a couple weeks later
5. \"Hey, I came up with a better idea!\" *deletes old one*

I don\'t get much done.

[trentpmcd]

I want to expand a little bit about why I work the way I do – it’s mostly because I am inexperienced, not the other way around.

I’ve tried using a few notation programs and have had an awful time – I work twice as fast with pen and paper. I haven’t tried Sibelius, maybe it would help.

When I use paper I can usually get a little more complex. It makes me think more about the harmonies I am using (I write basic chords above each measure as a guide). It also makes me think about the rhythms – I am awful with rhythm but do a little better getting rhythms right when I read them compared to just playing the notes from my head. I also need paper to insure my performance is the same every time – important with GPO when I might record the same part four times to make my section.

I use pen because it is easier for me to read than pencil. Also I don’t have to worry about sharpening it. If there are some mistakes on the page I just read right over them without a problem.

Actually, most of my paper work is closer to what sistermusic does – it’s mostly sketch work. I fill in a lot of the parts in Cubase once I have the basics in.

[CallMeZoot]

My method changes from piece to piece, but this is pretty typical of what I do:

1- Begin AWAY from computer or piano. Usually a park bench, driving aimlessly in my car, or sitting in my \"shrine\" (a comfortable chair in my bedroom facing the bay windows, surrounded by 8x10 photrographs of Stravinsky, Tom Waits, Beethoven, Gil Evans, Bartok, Charles Mingus, Arvo Paert, and Maria Schneider). No instrument, no singing, just hear whatever I can in my head. Write what I hear without using notes (sometimes I\'ll notate basic melodic contours, rhythms, textures, etc, but I usually try to keep my notations to text, pictures, etc). I may do this a number of times until I have a general sense of the piece.

2- Depending on the requirements of the piece, I\'ll move to a piano to sketch things out. If it\'s well beyond my piano chops or too dense to make sense at a piano, I\'ll move straight to SONAR (now using GPO, if the piece requires orchestral instruments). In SONAR I\'m essentially \"coloring in\" the piece I\'ve already developed--I already have a sense of the rhythms, contour, stucture, etc--I\'m basically just choosing the notes! Almost invariably I do some brainstorming in SONAR--trying out different textures, instrumentation, harmonizations, cutting and pasting sections, etc.

3- Usually I write about a minute of music in a feverish spurt, then I lose interest and work on something else or don\'t write any music at all for a month or so.

4- Much later, I get curious as to what this SONAR file on my computer is. I listen to it and say \"oh yeah, that.\" Then I add another minute or so to it.

5- A year or so later, I find out that an ensemble wants to perform my music and they need it a week from now.

6- I spend 5 days thinking \"wow, I really should finish that piece\" and whining about how I\'m not inspired.

7- I spend 2 days finishing the piece and remember that waiting for \"inspiration\" isn\'t half as effective as just doing it.

8- I call the ensemble and say \"The piece is done, but I haven\'t scored it out yet--can I bring it to you tomorrow?\"

9- I save the SONAR file as a MIDI file, import it into Finale, and stay up all night fixing all the stupid little errors Finale has made transcribing my rhythms. Then I add dynamics, articulations, performance instructions, etc. etc. etc. until the score is complete. I extract the parts and spend another few hours tweaking them until they are presentable.

[10a - In the past, I would run to Kinkos to copy and bind the scores. Now I own a binding machine and 11x17 printer, so I can do it all myself]

10b- 15 minutes before the ensemble\'s rehearsal, my printer jams while printing the last few pages. I curse and run about, then re-print the part and sprint to my car.

11- I show up at the rehearsal 5 minutes late, unshaven, unshowered, out of breath, and hand the scores/parts over to the performers.

12- Mid-rehearsal, I decide that I want to change one little section, which means I\'ll have to re-print everything next time someone performs the piece. For now, they\'ll just have to pencil it in.

Sadly, this is fairly accurate.

sigh.

chris.

[Styxx]

After seven years of music college, five at a university and 20 years playing, I still find myself just sitting at the keyboard and playing in whatever comes to mind. Sometimes I\'ll record a beat at the drumset and then play (record) other instruments with it later. Most of the time I plan, prepare, exicute, then evaluate. Lately I find myself using the three p\'s and then playing it into Home Studio XL where it seems to write more acutate than Cubasis.
If I may add, you can see (hear) from the Demos of all the users hear that however they compose the outcome has been awesome! (present company excluded). Up until a month ago I always use an external sequencer and sound module. Still do for some projects but GPO is slowly changing this.

\"I\'m on the edge of plunging into the world of possibly GPO.\"
What are you waiting for? Do it! We want to hear your music!!

[Jamie_L]

I can\'t do this yet, but I always wanted to just be able to sit and write, [2 p\'s, no piano]. I even remember hearing a quote either bach or someone said that the piano is a distraction. I know that\'s true with me [well any instrument]. If I hear something in my head, I will play it. Once in a while Ill play something different or not quite what was in my head and my musical idea takes on a new form, either better or worse, and I can\'t get back that orginal idea. It\'s kind of like counting at high numbers and someone comes in saying \"14, 5, 256, 2, 756, 325\", you kind of get mixed up in your head. This can be a good or bad thing, so like I said, SOMETIMES, I would like to just sit down and jot down ideas and write so that anything I hear, is what is in my head and only in my head [and hopefully on paper].

this book has helped me get on my way [I got far into it but I never finished though, but am trying to pick it back up, it\'s been one of the best music books Ive read, just been falling into some stressful and busy times]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0962949671/qid=1082960422/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-4849409-2440916?v=glance&amp;s=books&amp;n=507846 (\"http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0962949671/qid=1082960422/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-4849409-2440916?v=glance&amp;s=books&amp;n=507846\")

Also, the David Lucas Burge ear training for perfect pitch has also helped. I only got half way through that as well but I have noticed a difference for what ever reason. I was very skeptical about that as well, but it has done things for me. I am no where near perfect pitch, but I can tell you I am a lot closer than what I was before starting this.

-jamie

PS. I know I know, I mentiond and praised two things I said I never finished, but it\'s just hard to find time these days, but things are getting better and Im getting back on track [and besides, if I see positive effects by only completing half of it, that\'s a good sign /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif] =P

[Junkmonkey]

Hi Jamie

I\'m curious as to how well that Gorow book worked out for you. You said it helped you \"get on your way.\" I read the sample pages on Amazon and I might as well have read nothing. It kept saying \"SOON I WILL TEACH YOU THIS! AND SOON YOU WILL LEARN THAT! AND SOON! SOON! YES.. SOON!\" ... you\'d think they would select more informative pages *sigh.

Both customer reviews praised it highly.

That said, let\'s get back on topic here. My method of work:

<ul type=\"square\"> Find a muse (usually a very attractive girl I \"have the hots for\" who wants nothing to do with me /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif) from which to draw inspiration.
Review the cue sheet to see what music has to be written for the video game.
Decide on what style/genre the piece is going to be in.
Decide on the instrumentation (full orchestra? small orchestra? no orchestra?)
Load an appropriate template from within Sonar.
Talk with the boss about what type of sound he wants: Powerful? Dynamic? Pastoral? Peaceful? Suspenseful? Clumsy? Angry? full of sorrow/regret/elation/empathy? Yea, when we discuss the songs, we use those descriptions. We stay as far away from musical terms as possible.
I guess there\'s a tiny period of meditation where I develop the theme, work out the structure, decide what I want and where I want it.
Notate! Often what I\'ll do is find the tempo, then record the RHYTHM via my keyboard then I\'ll move the notes I recorded to their appropriate places. This helps with the humanism!
The rest is history. From here I just flow. *shrug, yea not scientific (which is strange, because outside of my music-world, I\'m a math/chess guy). [/list]

I\'m sure that did not help anybody, hehe. Oh well!

- Junk

P.S. I rarely write music that is not for the video game (check out the link below). I used to write music \'for myself\' all the time - but this is more challenging and rewarding. Being forced to write for many different styles really helps /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[FossMan]

It looks like a lot of us compose the same way. This is my variation on the same theme:
<ul type=\"square\">
I think up a melody (short or long, it doesn\'t really matter).
I try to give the melody some texture by sketching it out on paper and then playing block chords to it on the piano.
After I have the basic chord structure down, I then go to Finale and start orchestrating.
[/list]
One of these days I am going to be able to completely write an entire sketch for an orchestral work at the piano. But with my piano chops as lousy as they are right now, I tend to just get frustrated and jump on over to Finale.

[Junkmonkey]

Pft, don\'t waste your time with the pencil! Sequencing from start to finish is, imo, more efficient (and easier once you learn the intricacies of your sequencer).

- Junk

[Styxx]

I have to make a confession here.
Really, all I do is through a handful of magnets against a music blackboard here at school and copy down where they end up on the staff. You know, the method that avant-garde artist use?
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Mike Kelley]

You\'re joking, of course, but don\'t forget that Markelford here composes (at least partly) by using his computer to program the music following certain sets of algorhythms. Not so different than throwing up some magnets on a board, assuming the board itself was magnetized to move the thrown notes into certain patterns.

It\'s the new kinds of compositional techniques that most interest me -- I strongly suspect someday soon we\'ll look on composing with pen and paper the same way we might look at calligraphy nowadays: still interesting and unique and providing something that can\'t be done on a computer, but far from the \"norm\" in terms of creating output.

[Styxx]

Yeah! He posted before right? Awesome and interesting music.

[FossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Pft, don\'t waste your time with the pencil! Sequencing from start to finish is, imo, more efficient (and easier once you learn the intricacies of your sequencer).

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not want to start a flame war, here, but I honestly do not believe composing on a sequencer is a very good idea. Someone once told me that anyone can take a sequencer, put together some notes, and call themselves a composer. A composer, however, understands the theory/nuances behind the music. He understands how to notate, how to spell chords (e.g. c-sharp, e, a-flat should be spelled as d-flat, f-flat, a-flat for a d-flat minor triad). Using a sequencer, the \"composer\" can lose sight of just how easy or difficult a particular line is for an instrument. Also, it is extremely common for someone who uses a sequencer to exceed the range of the instruments he uses or to unrealistically use the extremes of that range (i.e., using brass at the top of their register for extended periods of time).

Now, I speak from experience. For the longest time I used purely Master Tracks Pro and wrote some pretty good stuff, IMHO. However, once I started going to school and learning how to honestly compose, my work has started soaring and I will never likely turn back.

[Mike Kelley]

Um, I can easily disagree with this with a very simple analogy:

One could, by your same logic, say that someone who never studied painting (say, Grandma Moses) was not a painter. Give me a break! While there are some legitimate and valid reasons for studying an art form, there are also tens of thousands of artists creating art better than anyone who has ever been schooled in it.

This is just the kind of pomposity that passes for education nowadays -- the old ivory tower syndrome. Yes, learning and studying your craft is very important, but someone had to come up with those theories in the first place, and who is to even say they are valid (or still valid)?

I will absolutely never agree with anyone who insists you can\'t create unless you have a degree -- and that is the logical extension of your argument. Art (like talent) knows no boundries, obeys no rules, has no limits.

[FossMan]

Agreed. Schooling will never take the place of talent. However, no artist should be satisfied with his efforts alone. If you are not challenged (school is one of many methods of challenging yourself), then you\'ll not grow and merely become stagnant.

[Styxx]

Mike,
Here! Here! I studied music all my life and still use my \"ear\" more than the book.

[Junkmonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone can take a sequencer, put together some notes, and call themselves a composer. A composer, however, understands the theory/nuances behind the music.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don\'t assume that because I or anybody else uses a sequencer that we do not understand the \"theory/nuances\" of music. Why would somebody who uses a sequencer be more likely to go out of a particular range of an instrument? In most libraries nowadays there are usually cut-offs where the programmer stopped sampling the instrument, and that \'cut-off\' is usually about the natural range of the instrument. If anything, it beats referring to the old textbooks.

That aside, my point was simply that sequencing is faster and neater. If you\'re fluent with your sequencer, you will be a much more efficient composer.

In the world of film music (or TV music, or video game music), where deadlines are tight and there are often many people who want to hear or see mock-ups of your work, sequencing is clearly the better choice.

Just some thoughts.

- Junk

[CallMeZoot]

I\'ve known some seriously exceptional composers who don\'t know a thing about theory, can\'t play an instrument, and can\'t even read music. If it weren\'t for sequencers (or tape splicing, or a set of turntables, or some sticks and buckets), their talent would never be discovered.

Music was around for centuries and centuries before people started writing it down and studying it academically. Thousands of years ago some caveman picked up a few rocks, smashed them together repeatedly, grunted along in rhythm, and the resulting sound pleased him and his caveman friends. I see no reason why an untrained person nowadays shoiuldn\'t smash some sounds together in a sequencer in a pleasing fashion.

Ultimately, composing is just *playing with sound,* and theory is only useful in that it helps you to write music that fits a particular language and lineage. Our simple little language of 12 pitches, a handful of harmonic and rhythmic patterns, and a small assortment of plucked, bowed, blown, or struck instruments has a great deal of variety and potential, but it doesn\'t even come close to encompassing all of the various ways that sound can be organized and arranged.

This certainly doesn\'t mean that every schwag who can operate a sequencer is a great composer, but it\'s nice that there\'s technology out there that allows people to *play with sound* whether they speak the language of Western Classical Music or not.

Whew, not quite sure how I got on this tangent...

chris.

[Mike Kelley]

Chris,

Absolutely -- you elaborated on what I was trying to say.

Everyone interested in their craft follows a different path (thank goodness). Studying theory and harmonization might be perfectly fine for some, for others it might not make any sense at all. The real bottom line is what you produce, not what you needed to know to produce it.

I do understand that learning about underlying techniques can definitely improve your music -- or it might make it so stilted you lose something original you had. Studying a John Williams score can reveal nuances and techniques that can make your own come alive -- or it can make you into a clone that doesn\'t add anything to the mix.

Orson Welles did not attend film school, nor did he ever study camera composition. Yet he invented many of the film techniques used in just about any movie made nowadays.

In short, no one should be put down for what they do and don\'t know, or how they arrive at their art. The tools like GPO are changing the way a lot of people will generate terrific art and in the future even the Universities may recognize this and alter their curiculum. The foundations of music have constantly changed through the millennia, and there\'s no reason to suppose this will stop anytime soon.

[Joseph Burrell]

[ QUOTE ]
I\'ve known some seriously exceptional composers who don\'t know a thing about theory, can\'t play an instrument, and can\'t even read music. If it weren\'t for sequencers (or tape splicing, or a set of turntables, or some sticks and buckets), their talent would never be discovered.

...
chris.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Someone finally said it...

A mediocre musician can study theory until the day he dies and he\'ll only get \'better\', but he\'ll never be a genius. But a genius, well, they\'re just born with it. Study can only make you better, it has no bearing on whether you\'ve \'got\' it or not.

[Jamie_L]

I think you can always tell the difference between the \"composers\" who just throw some loops together in Acid compared to the ones that show some effort, direction, and a plan with their music. I think that defines the musician/artist. Which I guess Im saying, pretty much breaks it down to talent and your internal ear.

[ QUOTE ]
I strongly suspect someday soon we\'ll look on composing with pen and paper the same way we might look at calligraphy nowadays

[/ QUOTE ]

I don\'t know about that though. Could be, depending on how small computers get and how accesible they are. But to me, caligraphy was just a fancy artform for writing. Music notation, isnt really fancy, it\'s just a language for writing our your ideas. I think it\'s slowly becoming a lost language in a way, because now you can use your computer for sketching out your ideas. However, knowing notation is still useful, caligraphy [imo] is not a very useful thing in terms of expressing ideas whereas notation still is no matter what.

Junkmonkey, the book is maybe not the BEST book in the world, but it teaches in a very different way that I haven\'t seen in too many other music books. I didn\'t look at the amazon pages that you refered to, but I agree, if that\'s all they say, they should have picked better excerpts. The book contains [I think] very good exercises in ear training (as well as ideas on how to \"open your ear\" a little better), and gives some good ideas on how to jot down your musical ideas without writing every detail down on paper. They always have this book in the book stores. Next time you\'re at borders, I suggest just picking it up and skimming through it.

-jamie

PS. One example for eartraining [and this was a while back before I really had a more developed sense of relative pitch], was how it explained the difference between a perfect 4th and perfect 5th. It explained the golden ratio [didn\'t get too into it, but it explained it enough to give you the point] and how an octave is split up in terms of frequencies. In other eartraining exercises, they just tell you to hear the difference and sometimes will mention that when decending a 5th, the lower note sounds more like the tonic and accending 4ths, the upper note will sound like the tonic. but this books showed WHY it is, and for some reason, it made it easier to visualize. Basically the book is just an interesting read, even if you\'re way above the game, but for someone starting out who likes to dive in DEEP, then I think this book is great. [I dont know if this was really that great of an example, but it was just one that stood out in my mind. Had nice pics to go along with it,and this was just in the first chapter or so].

I just realized too [I know long post], I didnt really mention my method of creation. I guess like many, it depends.

Sometimes Ill get some kind of sound, either with something I have in my room, or just some weird loop Ill make automating some plugins with some sampled sound.
From there I kind of hear the rest and I just throw parts on top of parts.
I then start to arrange the song
I usually work on multiple songs at once so when I come back to the other, I have a \"fresh\" ear.

I haven\'t done this in a long time, but sometimes Ill write in notes in the staff, random ones wherever I want. then listen back at different speeds [VERY slow, or VERY fast, or just 120].
I listen for parts that kind of \"tickle\" me, I dont know how to explain it, and then Ill arrange the other notes if they dont fit as well, and just sort of \"sculpt\" the notes around till I get what I like. then I go back to my first set of methods I mentioned.

-jamie

[Eric G]

Look, isn\'t this really pretty simple?

Will live players perform the final product, either in public or in the studio? Then notate, don\'t sequence. Even if you need a convincing mock-up, it will be faster to resequence the parts that need it, even it\'s the majority of the parts, than it will be to clean-up an imported midi file in a notation program, or to pencil it all.

Will the final performance of the product be rendered by the computer/synth/module/whatever? Then sequence! In this case, notation is the \"middle-man\" and is unnecessary. The exception is if the composer doesn\'t have the playing chops to render a good performance. In that case, hours of tweaking probably lie ahead, and the easier/faster question is moot.

Aren\'t I just pointing out the obvious?

Of course, this assumes the composer is notation-literate. Some aren\'t, and that\'s okay if the music won\'t be played live, or if the composer has the luxury of assitants/orchestrators/copyists or the like. All other things being equal, though, any composer has an edge if s/he is notation-literate.

Another tangent: I worked for a while as a keyboard session player in my small little market. I showed up for a session once, expecting to be handed charts as usual. Instead, the client proceeded to teach me the material by rote! I have a decent ear, so it was okay, but I was shocked at how much money was ticking away on the clock. Then I wondered how many sessions I\'d get called for if the client produced charts for me, and I looked back and said, \"Ummm....can you show me how this goes?\" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

--Eric

[Mike Kelley]

Eric,

You have a good point -- although, strictly speaking (as I keep saying) there isn\'t any one way of doing anything.

I use a notation program for composition despite the fact none of my stuff will ever be played by \"humans\" because I was trained that way. For me it\'s far easier to read notation and compose where I can see the notes than a sequencer has ever been. It\'s not that I don\'t get computers -- I get them. It\'s just that notation was the language I first learned and feel most comfortable with.

I can well imagine someone who is just the opposite -- never learned notation but is composing for humans and must use a sequencer. In that case he simply turns around and drops the output into a notational program (or uses the one built in to the sequencer) to come up with something usable. As these programs get more sophisticated it\'s more than possible the final output would be quite acceptable to musicians (and muscians themselves will have to adapt or perish, just like dinosaurs).

I really wish I did have the chops to sit down at a keyboard and compose -- would certainly be faster than how I do it. But at least I\'m having fun (and not particularly creating art but that\'s due to a lack of talent).

[Junkmonkey]

Pft, Mike - never say you possess a lack of talent.

That said, I suppose it is interesting how some \"composers\" (like myself) never EVER notate their music. A long time ago, I used to use Sibelius (in my high school years). Then a friend of mine got me my first sequencing software, and I sorta never turned back. The midi notation tools were very primative compared to today\'s standards, but I actually could \'flow\' a little better writing on the piano roll than I could actually notating. I remember the biggest element of sequencing was the ability to control exactly where a note stopped, something of a circus when notating.

My notation skills have pretty much deteriorated, but who cares - everything I make uses the wonderfulness of sample libraries like GPO. In other words, it is as has been said, that I am not writing music to be performed. My superiors care only about the sound - not the proper spelling of triads.

- Junk

P.S. I hope I don\'t sound too anti-notation. It obviously has it\'s uses and if I could write my music for a live orchestra instead of a fake one, believe me, I would be pro-notation.

[Styxx]

If anything, A lack of time but not talent!

[Joseph Burrell]

My technique you ask? Utter trial and error in Overture and Cubase. But hey, it does it for me. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[kensuguro]

Well, in terms of paper/pencil versus sequencing, I\'m sort of stuck in the middle. My entire musical career up \'till now is heavily based on sequencing, as all I needed to output were finished sound files. (although I don\'t have much of a \"career\" to speak of) I\'ve learned much theory, and understand atleast some of it... but still chose sequencing because it was just quicker to work with.

But, the problem is that I can\'t collaborate effectively with anyone. There\'s no quicker way of transfering what is in my head, to the player. It\'s obvious when you have a player right in front of you, waiting for you to tell him what to play. The missing link? Notation, obviously. So, I think notation is extremely important in terms of having your stuff performed live.

In terms of work tho, sequencing is much quicker for me. Probably because I suck at notation writing.. Probably because I\'m so used to hearing what I compose, and checking along the way.

Anyhow, for GPO, I work like this:
1. Lay down basic harmony
2. Lay down basic bass parts
3. Lay down melody
4. Harmonize
5. Go back and funk up the bass parts if necessary
6. rework the harmony to bring out the bass countor and melody contour
7. Have other sections colorize the main passage
8. mixdown using a template mixer setting (usually works)

Usually I don\'t apply any serious mastering to my GPO mixes as it seems to ruin the great dynamics of orchestral writing. But, I do overdrive the master mix a bit to make it a bit hot.

[Mike Kelley]

Something else to consider (and something that I have at least a little more understanding than music, since I majored in communication) -- the ability to use more than one way to compose expands your compositional skills.

In communication we see this in language skills. There are certain cultures, for example, that have no words for the act of murder... and so it doesn\'t take place. Truly (it\'s weird), if you can\'t express the idea (even in your head), you can\'t perform the action.

Or to bring it back to a place a lot of us can understand, if you are a programmer and you learn a new language you nearly always become a better programmer even in the other languages you know. You start understanding concepts that may have been difficult to understand in one language, but easier in another, and the skills cross-translate. I try and get all my programmers to diversify their skills precisely because of this.

It\'s for this reason I always wished I could \"get\" sequencing composing, because I\'m sure it would help me expand my own meager skills.

(And, BTW, I understand and accept my lack of talent -- it\'s okay, we all have limitations. Believe me, I am very happy with the music I produce given that limitation :&gt;)

[Styxx]

Do you know what the greatest part of all this is?
Think of the \"Great Masters\" and when they finished writing their works. Did whom ever the conductor was at the time really have the orchestra play their work exactly how the composer envisioned? Or, were it reinterpreted otherwise and their vision lost along the way to our ears?
Do we really know how they intended their music to be heard? Sure, some of them conducted their own works with an orchestra but how was it recorded? Who recorded every nuance of a first performance in musical terms? And if so, were they musically trained or just reporting?
This is a very arguable subject I concur. Maybe you already know what I am driving at hear. YOU! You as new composers presenting your work as close to the way you envisioned and anticipate the world to hear! That\'s why there is so much controversy over what is right and how to balance this and you should this and that! You take a piece from any one of you, have it performed by seven different conductors and each will have his or her own way of interpreting how it should be performed.
This is only one of the reasons I feel this forum is so great! It is filled with virgin music from extremely talented well-rounded gifted musicians untouched by others who might obscure the true meaning you desire everyone to hear! Sure we have all the dynamic markings of modern day composition but the interpretation is subjected to extreme personal differences and individuality! A fortissimo for example, may be more or less from one person to the next! Yeah, you could be there to oversee what happens but all the time for every rehearsal leading up to a performance?
Today, you are even luckier than your predecessors with the advent of the computer, digital recording, notational software and now GPO.
Man, think what it would be like to have an original recording of the first moment Mozart, Beethoven or Debussy performed their works. I’ll bet it would be just like how yours sound to me….pure.

Forgive me if I went off on a tangent in any way. Something struck me to write this this morning and it had to come out.
You have no idea what YOU all mean to me. Tremendous work within all of you and not one of you has mentioned your direct line of conceiving your ideas. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[FossMan]

Wow. I guess I\'ve started a pretty in-depth discussion. A lot of very good and formidable viewpoints. I never meant to \"slam\" sequencer composers. I know it came across that way, and I apologize--one of the curses of internet communication is that we loose body language and tone of voice; two very important aspects of human communication.

I guess where I was coming from was that every piece of music I write I intend for someone (or multiple someones) to perform live--this requires notation. I use GPO (or any sound font / module) to help me better orchestrate, and to give my performers/conductors an idea of what the piece is about. I haven\'t really tweaked my MIDI chops because it hasn\'t really been stressed so far in my life. Perhaps I should start looking at it harder. But even if I do, I still would rather live performers to digital ones.

[CallMeZoot]

I agree that the \"instant gratification\" of sequencing is nice, and the ability to tweak until it\'s played exactly as you want is great for creating mockups.

But personally, I do my composing for humans--as much as I love GPO\'s subtlety, nuance, and realism, nothing will ever compare to the \"feeling\" of people living and breathing your music through their instruments. GPO is now my favorite tool for mockups, but still, they are just mockups.

I come from a theatre background, where once a playwright finishes his work, it belongs to the director and production staff. Then, when the director is done directing and the play goes into performance, it belongs to the actors. No matter how intricately a playwright writes a character, it\'s ultimately the actor who breathes life into it.

As a composer I feel the same way--I just draw the blueprint, but the actual life of the music is in the hands of the conductor and performers. When someone performs my work differently than I imagined, I don\'t stomp off in a huff because they\'re not \"realizing my vision\" -- on the contrary, it gives me a little thrill that what I wrote gave them their own vison. It\'s exciting to know that next time someone else plays the piece, it may have a completely different vibe (just go see any two productions of the same Shakespeare play--the words will be the same but I guarantee it will be a completely different show!)

Electronic music is a wonderful genre in that it gives people an opportunity to *play with sound* as I mentioned in a previous post. But even when I compose electronic music, I prefer to include a live element so that the piece doesn\'t get stagnant.

In conclusion, I hope the emergence of realistic sample libraries like GPO doesn\'t encourage people to avoid real musicians just because they won\'t be as \"accurate.\" We should avoid thinking of GPO as the \"final product,\" and think of it instead as a middleman, a device to help us compose and communicate our needs to performers. (Of course in the case of low-budget film scoring, GPO is a great tool for simulating an orchestra--but then again, film is a \"frozen\" genre where the work doesn\'t change from viewing to vieiwng, so it\'s acceptable for the music to be \"frozen\" as well).

Music is alive and needs to breathe.

Phew, I\'ve been jumping off on wild tangents these last few days... Excuse me for waxing philosophical.

chris.

[Mike Kelley]

[ QUOTE ]
I come from a theatre background, where once a playwright finishes his work, it belongs to the director and production staff. Then, when the director is done directing and the play goes into performance, it belongs to the actors. No matter how intricately a playwright writes a character, it\'s ultimately the actor who breathes life into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or screws it up. I have the same background, and I can\'t tell you how many times I\'ve wanted to come up on stage and strangle those guys (part of the problem is I\'ve always been a much better performer than those who perform the things I\'ve written and directed -- no ego here, just the facts, as I am brutally honest about my lack of musical talent). There was one memorable time when we were in the Western states regional one-act play finals (play written and directed by yours truly) when all three of my actresses, the most accomplished in the state, went up for nearly two solid agonizing minutes. Afterwards (after we had lost) the judges said \"You know, there was a bit of a slow period during the climax\" and I screamed \"that\'s because all three of them forgot their friggin\' lines!\"

One more reason I love directing film -- then I can control things. Give me one good take and who cares how much they muck up the rest of the stuff, I\'ll fix it in post. Stage work absolutely drives me nuts (my wife would say it\'s a short trip).

So I can only imagine how frustrated I would be to hear something I composed totally munged by a group of performers thinking they were \"breathing life\" while they were actually misinterpreting what I wanted. Luckily this can\'t ever happen (I could never write anything musically that would be worthy of anyone to perform).

[Shazbot]

[ QUOTE ]
My method of work:

<ul type=\"square\"> Find a muse (usually a very attractive girl I \"have the hots for\" who wants nothing to do with me /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif) from which to draw inspiration.
Review the cue sheet to see what music has to be written for the video game.
Decide on what style/genre the piece is going to be in.
Decide on the instrumentation (full orchestra? small orchestra? no orchestra?)
Load an appropriate template from within Sonar.
Talk with the boss about what type of sound he wants: Powerful? Dynamic? Pastoral? Peaceful? Suspenseful? Clumsy? Angry? full of sorrow/regret/elation/empathy? Yea, when we discuss the songs, we use those descriptions. We stay as far away from musical terms as possible.
I guess there\'s a tiny period of meditation where I develop the theme, work out the structure, decide what I want and where I want it.
Notate! Often what I\'ll do is find the tempo, then record the RHYTHM via my keyboard then I\'ll move the notes I recorded to their appropriate places. This helps with the humanism!
The rest is history. From here I just flow. *shrug, yea not scientific (which is strange, because outside of my music-world, I\'m a math/chess guy). [/list]

You forgot...

Ripoff Shazbot.

Ouch! Hey sorry, I couldn\'t resist that... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

In terms of composing orchestral/GPO stuff, the three or four pieces I\'ve either started or worked on or developed (the Viking saga being by far the most significant and involved at this point), everything has been created largely through improvisation. I might dial up a few different instruments and just mess around until something sounds interesting to me (like the trumpet phrase at the beginning), and then develop and structure further from there. But even in terms of structuring something, it\'s usually pretty organic as opposed to \'planned out\'. Sometimes, the \'mistakes\' I make when I\'m trying to phrase something a particular way will suggest an intriguing new place to go with it. And arranging is much the same way, or more of a chip away at the stone thing (or adding to the stone?). There\'s a point when it sounds more or less right with the instrumentation and doesn\'t need anything else. Then again, you never know when adding something else might add to it, but if it gets to sound \'cluttered\', then I move on.

I record GPO straight into Cubasis, and then export individual tracks and reinsert them into Adobe Audition (or as Prince might call it, the audio program formerly known as Cool Edit Pro) for slight volume/EQ tweaks on individual tracks, and then mix, master and export the whole piece from there.