As I often write orchestral or small ensemble works, I use the computer primarily as a notation tool (i.e. Sibelius). I probably listen to sampled performances of in progress work a bit too much as hearing a computer play a piece too many times can actually change the way you hear it yourself. When someone else hears it for the first time, they go, what the heck was that? Sometimes transposing the music up or down a minor 2nd can give a fresh hearing of it, so you can sort of tell if you go harmonically haywire somewhere, but I think its probably best to write it all in your head first. If you get good at it this way (or naturally are...not me) a live performance will be an anticipated event, not a relief from synthesized insanity.

Quote: Compare Mozart's Sonatas with Beethoven's. Beethoven's rape Mozart's anyday because they're so much freer and are full of emotion rather than style and cultural influence; Beethoven's came from the heart!!

So not true. I like Beethoven sonatas, but Mozart's invoke plenty of emotion. His creativity is albeit harder to identify, but his music does not fall into the category of bland stylistic perfection. As a more appropriate example of this extreme I would offer Phillip Glass (and I don't dislike his music either). The point is, music cannot be perfected, different composers tap into emotions differently, and tools can sometimes get in the way of this.

Quote: Original post by Muzo72
In the game world, some of my clients do write on pencil and paper, however most seem unable to write without a computer handy. It really makes you wonder what kind of future there is for game music when so many game composers lack the basic ability to simply compose without tons of supporting equipment. Guess that's why people on this board talk about bland game music. When the machine determines one's ability to write, it's also dictating what that person can write.

But is that really any different from the guy above who said, "Hmmm... it still amazes me how people can write songs on the guitar."? If you think of the computer as just another instrument rather than some sort of anti-instrument, it's a different proposition. Personally I can write music on the computer or the guitar, but not on a keyboard. And both keyboards and sheet music have their own idiosyncrasies that lend themselves far more to certain types of music than others. So I'd be less quick to consider someone who writes only on a computer as being any worse than someone who writes only on a piano. (Though someone with both skills is obviously likely to be superior to either of them.)

Quote: Original post by Kylotan
If you think of the computer as just another instrument rather than some sort of anti-instrument, it's a different proposition.

I don't think it's any sort of discrimination against the use of a computer as an instrument, it's more "can anyone writing music for games still write/read music that's not on a piano roll?" or, alternatively, are said skills still necessary?

In response to the second, there are several people who've already posted, including yours truly, who agree that 'real' music (i.e. not piano-rolled, quantized and pitched to perfection by a computer) will never be surpassed by its all-too-perfect, computerised equivalent. Using the computer as a notation tool as an alternative to a piece of manuscript is equivalent to writing a story by hand rather than using Word. No-one will tell Stephen King he's a crap writer because he uses the computer to typeset is work - you still have to have the skill in there somewhere.

However, somehow, to us 'old fashioned' musicians, the use of a piano roll and/or quantization and other niceties that computer music software provides, cheapens the experience of music. When you hear an orchestra play, not everything is in time - those sixteenth notes being played by the cellos are bound to be a little too long or a little too short every now and again, and real composers (I'm definitely not one!) write for that; they expect it to happen and it livens the music.

In the end, a computer, I believe, will never be able to play an instrument better than a human. Now there's an interesting alternative to the Turing Test - a human and a computer play an instrument separately and then another human must tell which one the computer was.

I think this thread has gone off track in some ways from the OP. For example, why are people trying to compare Beethoven and Mozart sonatas and see which one is more "emotional"? I guess some people don't realize that Mozart was a classical composer, where there were strict rules of composition and performance and Beethoven was a romantic composer with some classical influences mixed in. The romantic period of music threw out the rigid rules of the classical period and strove to just convey emotion. So people are actually comparing apples and oranges because Mozart's music is very emotional for what the classical period would allow and Beethoven's music is very emotional for what the romantic period would allow. It is almost like me comparing Hot Jazz (which is from the 1900-20s) to Free Jazz (which is from the 1960s) and trying to figure out which one is better. They're from completely different phases in music, with different rules and performance practices.

Back to the main subject: How do you create music?

There have been some really interesting posts in this thread. I was especially interested in the story about the guy that couldn't write music with pianos and manuscript around and had a pressing deadline! Some one else stated "maybe he was a guitar player and couldn't play piano?"

I think this thread, in some ways, has turned into a computer music bashing, which isn't really fair. There are many people that create incredible music on the computer. There are also those that can create terribly stale music on the computer. Guess what? The same thing happens when writing out the music on manuscript. Just because you're writing out the notes doesn't mean your music will be better or have more emotion. In both undergrad and graduate school I studied music composition and theory and had to attend many, many composition recitals. Some of the music was awesome, and some of it sucked!

Sometimes people get more involved in the "tools" they're using, instead of how to use what tools you have to make the best music. This isn't limited to composition, it is musicians as well. I know so many saxophonists (my major instrument) that spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to buy the next big fade for the mouthpiece, reeds and such. Some of these tools sounds cool, but they didn't make them master saxophonists. I sounded better or on par with many of them and I was using a standard mouthpiece that was 10 years old.

I think composers should be able to do both: create music using the computer software AND be able to create music the traditional way. I know MANY professionals who use the computer as a tool that write incredible, award winning music. Sean Beeson makes some great music via his computer and samples. I've worked with Will Loconto who has made some great music with his computer and samples. I've been told many times, my music is very emotional and inspiring and it was created on a computer. The trick is to find ways to make the music realistic. Make the music feel humanistic. I play most of the parts in directly, then edit and polish. I'm always searching for ways to make my music better and have more impact. Not all computer based composers (especially the younger ones) do this and perhaps this is why computers get this stigma.

Going back to my original post: there are reasons why many studios (both in the film and video game industries) look for composers who can write music on the computer. It is cheaper because they pay one person and get music that sounds like it was performed by many. It is faster and easier to make revisions, additions and changes.

So focus on the music you're creating using whatever tools you have. Focus on your talent and knowledge of music theory, history and performance. And please don't get into the attitude that just because you're doing one thing, it automatically makes your music more worthy or better. It doesn't- only the MUSIC does. :)

Just my $0.02!

Thanks,

Nathan

Quote: Original post by NickHighIQ
In response to the second, there are several people who've already posted, including yours truly, who agree that 'real' music (i.e. not piano-rolled, quantized and pitched to perfection by a computer) will never be surpassed by its all-too-perfect, computerised equivalent.

Several people agreeing it, doesn't make it true. ;)

It's actually quite easy to write a piece in a piano-roll that is neither quantised or perfectly pitched - it just takes a bit of knowledge of the equipment, or should I say instrument.

But anyway, all around the world people are listening to and enjoying completely electronic music right now, and who is to decide what is better and what is worse? Who decides what surpasses what?

Beside which, an argument against a piano roll is much like an argument against the addition of frets to stringed instruments! Quantised pitch has been with us for centuries, if not millenia.

Quote: However, somehow, to us 'old fashioned' musicians, the use of a piano roll and/or quantization and other niceties that computer music software provides, cheapens the experience of music.

You could also argue that texture-mapped graphics cheapens the experience of art, or that television cheapens the experience of film. Or that aeroplanes cheapen the experience of travelling and paperbacks cheapen the experience of reading! As progress makes certain crafts easier, these things will inevitably happen, and hoping they will not is like King Canute trying to hold back the sea. Your choice is in how to you choose to adapt to these changes.

The choice I've made is to try and get different benefits out of each of the different approaches. Mostly I just use the computer as a recording device, but if it can quickly give me a drum track which I can then rework, that's great, and if it can lay out a minor 7th chord at one press instead of me needing to remember how to play one (even though I know when to use one), that's also great, freeing me up for creativity in other areas.

Quote: Now there's an interesting alternative to the Turing Test - a human and a computer play an instrument separately and then another human must tell which one the computer was.

I hear there are already many TV shows with the orchestral scores being done entirely or almost entirely by samples such as the East West Symphonic Orchestra. And virtually nobody can tell the difference.

Quote: Original post by Kylotan

Quote: Original post by Muzo72
...When the machine determines one's ability to write, it's also dictating what that person can write.

...If you think of the computer as just another instrument rather than some sort of anti-instrument, it's a different proposition... So I'd be less quick to consider someone who writes only on a computer as being any worse than someone who writes only on a piano. (Though someone with both skills is obviously likely to be superior to either of them.)

Great discussion. I actually have some time off today, so if you'll indulge me...

I agree that computers are just another tool in the process. I use computers every day in my own work whether it be orchestrating, composing, creating parts, whatever.

I think the real problem is that for some composers the sequencer becomes a substitute for real musical knowledge. This happens because it's very easy to create something that is just barely "good enough" without any real knowledge in a sequencer. This can and will come back to bite composers if they end up in situations where real musical skills are required. I've had the unfortunate experience of seeing it happen to some composers in the studio. You can only do so much to help somebody when they are hit with problems that are beyond their ability to solve. Even if you can save them, the mask has already come off and the damage has been done. That first big job can become the last.

The skills I'm talking about are
- the ability to hear and understand what is going on rhythmically, melodically, and harmonically
- the ability to communicate that infomation to others (or just save it for yourself) through common accepted notation and terminology (words like "octave," "vibrato," "diminished," "stacatto")

Working with a guitar or piano and paper requires both those skills. Simply playing into a sequencer doesn't preclude these skills but doesn't require them either. Don't read this as "sequencer-" or "computer-bashing". Sequencers are amazing tools, and I use them for a variety of musical tasks. The problem is that without the skills mentioned above a composer's ability to manipulate music in a sequencer is severely limited. By extension her creativity can also be limited.

For me, the bottom line is this: The choice of tool when composing music is secondary. What is most important is the skills and ability of the composer to hear the music in her head and translate that into a format that can be understood by both the composer and any others who may need to reference it.

Sequencers and recorders are powerful tools, but don't take the place of real musical skill. This is why people study an instrument and harmony/theory.

Quote: Original post by Kylotan

Quantised pitch has been with us for centuries, if not millenia.

Don't mean to be confrontational, but this is incorrect.

The use of "quantized pitch" really only came about with synthesized sound. Today it's most common usage is the "auto tuner" or "pitch correction" algorithms in many pop vocals. Even those allow for some variation in pitch to sound more "natural".

Most all musical pitches performed live have slight variations which are a result of the performer constantly making tiny corrections to the intonation. Furthermore, the overtones are constantly shifting. In addition, there is always a slight bend of pitch when there is a transition from one note to another. How slight depends on the style of music and skill of the performer.

Try holding your arm parallel to the floor and keeping it pefectly still. It's impossible. You will be constantly making tiny involuntary movements to maintain position. This physical movement basically the same thing that happens when a pitch is sung or played on a wind or stringed instrument (even with frets). Add to that the natural minute changes in pitch due to the vibrations and tiny changes in the shape of the instrument as it is played and you have nothing near a "quantized pitch".

In addition, many human-created sustained pitches use some amount of vibrato which is a rapid bending of the pitch by a very small amount.

We don't consicously hear these pitch variations as such. We just perceive them as the color or character of the sound.

tuning is used in every genre. from folk to rock to pop. reason being, people simply dont like listening to out of tune stuff. and strangely enough 99% of the general public dont even care. they dont even KNOW that vocals can be tuned. its suprising really. but when im out with my non-musician friends they dont even notice the production things that i flinch at...

my point being. dont get hung up on how the music is made. just enjoy it like the rest of the public. your heart will thank you later...

i write my music on guitar, to establish some structure but i do not always HAVE guitar in the final product. i dont know if that was the question or not. but usually anybody that has been in the business long enough goes thru the lengths of humanizing their music to make it sound more natural.. thats just the curse of the musician. know what i mean?

Haven't posted here in a while, but thought I'd chime in.

I think that one important thing to realize is that computer literacy and traditional compositional skills are not mutually exclusive. I hear alot of the pencil and paper crowd claiming that computers are ruining musicianship and the 1s and 0s composers asserting that music doesn't need ink or staves to be effective, and their both right. The simple fact is that the quality of commercial music isn't dictated by composer's, it's dictated by producers who are having a harder time everyday as the technology and expertise develop exponentially, to justify budgets for live musicians when electronic production is a "good enough" solution that is so economically and logistically viable, and one that can be plenty convincing for the general public. Most composers have adapted and altered their skillset and workflow accordingly, whether it is to their detriment musically or their advantage creatively is a matter of perspective.

While the technology is often utilized as a way of circumventing traditional skills, it has also afforded alot of people the opportunity to work with a decent virtual emulation of an orchestra, which certainly has its own merits, for both composers like myself, the producers on the project's budget, and, ultimately the viewing/gaming/listening public.

Their needs to be a distinction made between the quality of a composition and quality of a performance, composition is only an abstract concept which requires interpretation, be it computerized or conducted, to be heard. Any piece of music realized "virtually" is almost always going to pale in comparison to its competently performed human counterpart, but this is only a comment on the realization and not the musical concept itslef, as someone alluded to earlier, its like criticizing one of Stephen King's stories for having an unattractive font.

The bottomline is that pencils and piano rolls are both just tools meant to aid in the same end result, a musical translation of a composers intention, I doubt the Eroica would have the same impact with VSL that it would with the LSO, but it certainly doesnt diminish the validity of the musical content, only the messenger.

Just my .02 cents

Quote: Original post by Muzo72

Quote: Original post by Kylotan

Quantised pitch has been with us for centuries, if not millenia.

Don't mean to be confrontational, but this is incorrect.

The use of "quantized pitch" really only came about with synthesized sound. Today it's most common usage is the "auto tuner" or "pitch correction" algorithms in many pop vocals. Even those allow for some variation in pitch to sound more "natural".

I think you are being a bit too specific with this. To quantise is just to group things into discrete groupings. It doesn't mean everything in that grouping has to be identical to the others to the nearest millisecond or megahertz. Having keys on a piano or frets on a guitar is quantising pitch in the same way that sequencers quantise time. Frets on a guitar, relative to a violin, are performing a similar function to 'snap-to-grid' on a sequencer's piano roll, relative to an instrument without that. Both are just conveniences to help the performer meet an arbitrary theoretical expectation - key and intonation in the former, rhythm and tempo in the latter.

I don't think there's been a sequencer on the market for a long time where quantising notes actually meant each one was necessarily rounded to the exact microsecond, and even where notes are entered in that way, there are humanise functions to undo this.

Quote: Most all musical pitches performed live have slight variations which are a result of the performer constantly making tiny corrections to the intonation. Furthermore, the overtones are constantly shifting. In addition, there is always a slight bend of pitch when there is a transition from one note to another. How slight depends on the style of music and skill of the performer.

Or the instrument - there's barely any variation at all on a harpsichord, or a harp, or a glockenspiel, etc. Does a harpsichord cheapen music? J.S. Bach may disagree. :) Sure, there can be slight variations to dynamics or timbre as you play, but (a) that's not really pitch, and (b) that's easy and common to do electronically as well.

Thus, I can't agree that quantisation 'cheapens' things, unless we somehow decide that rhythm is more sacred than pitch!