# Is there anyone out there still writing by hand???



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Greetings fellow composers!:tiphat:

I would like to find out from you all if anyone here composes by hand. This is actually a copy of a thread that I started in two other forums. I'd like to see the results here. I have
always written my compositions by hand and I think it is a far better way of
composing for the following reasons:

1. Developing your inner ear and being able to hear the composition in your head
2. Far more freedom in what you can do e.g. Graphic notation, complex polyrhythms
3. It's cheaper
4.I find it quicker.

None of the 130 something compositions I have written (I have been composing
for almost four years now) were written entirely on Sibelius or Finale or whatever.

This post i'm writing isn't saying that notation software is bad, cos I think that they can be great for making parts and scores, but I think that everyone would
benefit from using the good old fashioned quill and parchment (or pencil and
paper) from time to time.


----------



## AmericanGesamtkunstwerk

always. I have a sketch and a draft or two by hand but after that I punch it into sibelius. I avoid the sibelius playback like the plague. When jamming a part with a musician beyond myself, I almost never give them a handwritten part (almost). I use it strictly for formatting, convenient revisions, copying... I have been rather disappointed at times that i felt Sibelius had influenced the process and these days that is very very minimized. 

i'd like to hear some of your stuff, man.


----------



## Kopachris

Ahem... we already have a thread about this. It's even a poll. 

http://www.talkclassical.com/14359-do-you-write-music.html

Oh, and if you're interested in graphic notation and polyrhythms, you might want to think about learning LilyPond (http://www.lilypond.org) and using it for your finished scores. Beautiful, powerful, text-based notation software. Hit up http://lilypond.org/examples.html for a few examples of what it can do.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Kopachris said:


> Ahem... we already have a thread about this. It's even a poll.
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/14359-do-you-write-music.html
> 
> Oh, and if you're interested in graphic notation and polyrhythms, you might want to think about learning LilyPond (http://www.lilypond.org) and using it for your finished scores. Beautiful, powerful, text-based notation software. Hit up http://lilypond.org/examples.html for a few examples of what it can do.


Thanks. Sounds interesting. I might give it a try.


----------



## Couchie

I really can't believe pen and paper is faster than computer input with a midi keyboard...


----------



## Kopachris

Couchie said:


> I really can't believe pen and paper is faster than computer input with a midi keyboard...


It is if you can't play a keyboard instrument.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Well I don't have a midi keyboard. I find it much easier to manage pencil and paper than computer screen, mouse and keyboard.


----------



## AmericanGesamtkunstwerk

Couchie said:


> I really can't believe pen and paper is faster than computer input with a midi keyboard...


The thing is though the computer interface and the temptation to immediately play things back while you're in the middle of writing... can be damaging.

oh and Kopachris... i just lost a few hours dealing in LilyPond... i might be hooked... i don't have time for this, but THANK YOU. very very cool. i'm glad i found this. I complain about the limitations of sibelius so much haha.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Sibelius is the reason I use graph paper when writing music entirely in graphic notation!


----------



## Kopachris

AmericanGesamtkunstwerk said:


> The thing is though the computer interface and the temptation to immediately play things back while you're in the middle of writing... can be damaging.
> 
> oh and Kopachris... i just lost a few hours dealing in LilyPond... i might be hooked... i don't have time for this, but THANK YOU. very very cool. i'm glad i found this. I complain about the limitations of sibelius so much haha.


Glad I could help. :tiphat:


----------



## Klavierspieler

Couchie said:


> I really can't believe pen and paper is faster than computer input with a midi keyboard...


Never mind.


----------



## Rasa

Honestly, Sibelius with computer keyboard only is still faster than pen and paper and arguably not a lot faster than with midi controller.


----------



## Couchie

Rasa said:


> Honestly, Sibelius with computer keyboard only is still faster than pen and paper and arguably not a lot faster than with midi controller.


Is that an invitation to a duel? I accept!


----------



## Polednice

Each to their own, but I don't think I would ever benefit from writing on paper. It's too time consuming for me, not because it's hard, but because I'm so **** and have to have everything look perfect even if it's only a sketch.


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> Each to their own, but I don't think I would ever benefit from writing on paper. It's too time consuming for me, not because it's hard, but because I'm so **** and have to have everything look perfect even if it's only a sketch.


I used to be that way, too. Then I took a look at the greats' manuscripts. :lol:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

My manuscripts are starting to get messier. When I began composing, they were very messy. They got neater after two years, and now two years after that, they aren't as neat as they were then.


----------



## Billy

I resist learning about computers and software, but they have been a big help to me when I compose. I used to write some earlier music by hand, but I play live and use live MIDI recordings to then edit and publish. When it comes to writing in general, because I am also an author of over 160 short books, see www.lulu.com under "Billy McBride" if you are interested, I only write with my black Energel Pentel pen, and then copy it on a word processor. However, for music since I cannot read it and play at the same time on the keyboard, it is either I print it silently, or play and record it live on MIDI for editing afterward. In either case I do not regret too much not knowing how to read music, but maybe I it would be something I can use at some time in the future.


----------



## rborganist

I always do my first draft by hand at the piano (my undergraduate degree is a Bachelor of Music with majors in organ and voice), then when I am satisfied I will transcribe it into Finale. However, I don't have a MIDI keyboard, so I have to click and drag one note at a time, so for longer pieces I get a friend who does have a MIDI keyboard to do that and email it to me as a PDF file. I'm saving up for my MIDI keyboard.


----------



## Tomposer

I often do rough sketches by hand, but quite quickly they end up on the computer, mostly because of the efficiencies afforded by part extraction. I don't think it's _that _much quicker to compose on a computer than straight to a score, but it certainly is quicker to do parts on a computer. Other good things about the computer is the ease of moving things around.

One of my old teachers only wrote by hand, but he also owned a photocopier. He made extensive use of the photocopier - it actually affected his style, I believe. He would be more inclined to write a section which might be loopable, or if not, then some part of it could be repeated... all due to the photocopier. Any item of technology may have any benefit or none, depending whose hands it resides in.


----------



## kamalayka

I don't consider myself to be handsome, athletic, or a genius in any capacity.

The ONE thing I do have, however, is perfect pitch. It's a double-edged sword, but at least it allows me to write music down wherever I am.

To answer your question, I do write by hand.


----------



## BurningDesire

I will contend with your claim that its quicker  It isn't quicker. I still do write by hand often when I am making sketches. Its much easier to just write a small idea down or record it than it is to create a whole score file and input it.


----------



## PetrB

By hand, also computer.

The advantages of the computer are obvious, taking down a random improv via midi, quick sketches, trying various instrumentation. Most 'saving' is either inserting or deleting a measure or more of the score, and changing the instrumental parts, an ocean of time by hand, rapid by comparison in a computer.

In Literature, the change from hand-written to typewriter allowed a greater more rapid production of text, that leapt forward again with word processors -- and then we began seeing 'epic' fantasy / sci-fi stories in trilogy, quartet, and serial digits far beyond, six-hundred page novels, etc. None of that is any assurance of quality, though, which leads me to my most important point:

Writing by hand, even quick and fluent, allows for more time to really think about and consider what is being written. Until I, and others, train themselves to still take that time at the computer, I prefer to work by hand, or take the computer original, print it, and start working on that copy by hand.

There is still no substitute for a well-written page, or the hand-engraved score. Computer software allows just so many limited tweaks of the arc of a phrase symbol, for example, and always looks clunky to me. Ditto for a lot of justified spacing done on the computer -- lacks not only grace, but the overall 'set' of the page which makes reading it a ready 'take.'


----------



## Ramako

I too only work by hand for sketching, unless the computer is unavailable.

It is miles quicker to use Sibelius unless you want to do unusual things with the score, that a composer of Avant garde might want to do though of course 

Also, I like the playback thing. It makes life simpler and easier, and I don't see any need to challenge myself beyond the already extremely challenging process of composing. If I want silence, and I sometimes do, I turn off the sound - it's as simple as that.


----------



## jani

kamalayka said:


> I don't consider myself to be handsome, athletic, or a genius in any capacity.
> 
> The ONE thing I do have, however, is perfect pitch. It's a *double-edged sword*, but at least it allows me to write music down wherever I am.
> 
> To answer your question, I do write by hand.


I don't see anything negative at PP, why you think its a double-edged sword?


----------



## clavichorder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Greetings fellow composers!:tiphat:
> 
> I would like to find out from you all if anyone here composes by hand. This is actually a copy of a thread that I started in two other forums. I'd like to see the results here. I have
> always written my compositions by hand and I think it is a far better way of
> composing for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. Developing your inner ear and being able to hear the composition in your head
> 2. Far more freedom in what you can do e.g. Graphic notation, complex polyrhythms
> 3. It's cheaper
> 4.I find it quicker.
> 
> None of the 130 something compositions I have written (I have been composing
> for almost four years now) were written entirely on Sibelius or Finale or whatever.
> 
> This post i'm writing isn't saying that notation software is bad, cos I think that they can be great for making parts and scores, but I think that everyone would
> benefit from using the good old fashioned quill and parchment (or pencil and
> paper) from time to time.


Berlioz would have agreed. I currently mostly work on things at the piano, but I'm trying to make the shift.

I think ultimately, after hand written composition gets more comfortable, I'll want to make the shift to the computer.


----------



## trajcep

I appreciate the thing that someone still use hand writing. Its the old fashioned way, but seems so powerful and authentic. Except that it's better in many aspects than the software which is used nowadays all over the world.


----------



## hannahmartin

I write all my compositions by hand  Some of my greatest ideas have come from when i've sat on my bed with some manuscript paper and hearing what I want in my head and then attempting to write it down with out a piano. At first it was trial and error, but now I feel that after a lot of practising I have developed my inner ear. Writing music is an art, it doesn't have to "look" perfect and it doesn't matter if the lines are a bit wobbly or the don't match up, because that's not what it's about!!

I haven't got any sort of music writing software, just because at the moment I don't need it. Maybe one day if I need to sell copies of the score then I would have to write it up on a software. 

But I would never use it for actually composing the compositions, it ruins the creative flow.

And before anyone calls me old fashioned, I'm 18.


----------



## laeo222

Yeah i totally agree with you that composing the very hard and tough job but i follow your idea..Specially write the spell in correct form which is the basic and reliable thing in the composing...


----------



## oogabooha

I think that the intent of the composition, what the composer does while writing, etc., are all part of "things that are kept between the composer and the music, period". It's a waste of time to discuss it like it's an aesthetic and most of the time provides an ego trip rather than an insight into somebody's music or musical ability.

Now, the argument can be made that writing with computers can desensitize the composer, because every measure you add is going to be in the same time signature/key as the one before it _unless you change it yourself._ I had a master class with Derek Bermel in which he was talking about how this pressures the composer to be at the hands of the computer.

however, even then, there's still a person writing. authenticity or sincerity is out of the question, because it's too subjective


----------



## Crudblud

*Re: Computers*



oogabooha said:


> Now, the argument can be made that writing with computers can desensitize the composer, because every measure you add is going to be in the same time signature/key as the one before it _unless you change it yourself._ I had a master class with Derek Bermel in which he was talking about how this pressures the composer to be at the hands of the computer.


If someone wants to use a computer as a score writer, that's one thing; if they want to use a computer to actually make music, it's almost an entirely different discipline. If you tell a computer to play "allegro con spirito" it won't know what to do (unless the term is a software-specific frontend representation of a precise value) so you have to tell it exactly how many beats it should play in a minute. A computer is not an interpreter, it is bit-exact, whatever information you give it is all it has to work with. Mahlerian attention to detail is absolutely necessary in all aspects; all parameters (tempo, meter, CC etc.) must be correctly set, sometimes to within 1/128th of the spectrum (esp in CC values); all pitch values correctly placed, sometimes to within one 128th of a bar; any custom triggering data must be set precisely, and this all can become rather complicated even with a single instrument if you choose to work on that level. It's definitely not for someone who is looking for the lazy way out, contrary to what many seem to imply when they dismiss the idea of computer aided composition*. The composer is only at the hands of the computer if they allow themselves to be.

*To differentiate from "computer music" i.e.: music generated by an artificial intelligence.


----------



## Guest

Yes, computers used purely for notation is one thing (a very laborious thing, finally, depending on detail and complexity), and computers used as tools for composing another. One need only check out composers as varied as Denis Smalley, Gareth Loy, Kaija Saariaho and Jonathan Harvey (recently RIP) for evidence.


----------



## aleazk

Basically, my way of work is the following: first of all, I go to the piano. On the piano I work several and _very general_ things (i.e., not the full piece at all, just some ideas, sometimes not even themes!). I write all that by hand. Then I go to the software. Then I write the full piece. I use software for two reasons: I have a very bad and "dirty" calligraphy and second it's fast, at least for me. Usually my writting is highly "rational", i.e., driven by theoretical ideas and not so much by the ear (the ear part was done in the first step with the piano. Also, I prefer to not hear what I'm doing, since I tend to be more audacious in the composition in that way. I use the playback when I have doubts on very subtle points, though. I write the score with normal indications (i.e., if a human reads the score, then it will sound in the way I want). 
Once finished, if I render the audio, it always sounds terrible, because the software reads some of the indications in a very crude way, as Crudblud says. 
So I work on a second, "parallel" score, with all kinds of crazy indications made in such a way that the sound produced by the software resembles what I want.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> Basically, my way of work is the following: first of all, I go to the piano. On the piano I work several and _very general_ things (i.e., not the full piece at all, just some ideas, sometimes not even themes!). I write all that by hand. Then I go to the software. Then I write the full piece. I use software for two reasons: I have a very bad and "dirty" calligraphy and second it's fast, at least for me. Usually my writting is highly "rational", i.e., driven by theoretical ideas and not so much by the ear (the ear part was done in the first step with the piano. Also, I prefer to not hear what I'm doing, since I tend to be more audacious in the composition in that way. I use the playback when I have doubts on very subtle points, though. I write the score with normal indications (i.e., if a human reads the score, then it will sound in the way I want).
> Once finished, if I render the audio, it always sounds terrible, because the software reads some of the indications in a very crude way, as Crudblud says.
> So I work on a second, "parallel" score, with all kinds of crazy indications made in such a way that the sound produced by the software resembles what I want.


Thank you Aleazk for that posting. It's always the question, isn't it : how much you 'really hear' when composing on paper and the physical (sonic) rendering of what you've written. We are not Beethoven, even though we may consider in our arrogance to be close. So I often write on paper (or computer software such as Finale), but these instances are 'easy to hear internally' pedagogical exercises. When it comes to actual creative work (beyond common practice teaching practices), I rely a lot more on playing through on the piano, this depending on the idiom.


----------



## aleazk

TalkingHead said:


> Thank you Aleazk for that posting. It's always the question, isn't it : how much you 'really hear' when composing on paper and the physical (sonic) rendering of what you've written. We are not Beethoven, even though we may consider in our arrogance to be close. So I often write on paper (or computer software such as Finale), but these instances are 'easy to hear internally' pedagogical exercises. When it comes to actual creative work (beyond common practice teaching practices), I rely a lot more on playing through on the piano, this depending on the idiom.


Yes, well, the majority of my later pieces are in a "free chromatic" style, in terms of harmony I mean. Also, they are very dense in terms of polyphony. The final harmonic texture comes from the interaction of all these voices. So, I have little chances of getting in my mind a very well shaped notion of how it will sound, in purely harmonic terms I mean.
Also, I don't think counterpoint (in my compositions) in terms of harmony. I have two terms: _free polyphony_ and _coherent polyphony_. In both cases, the harmony is totally free, but in the second, the voices manage to interact in such a way that they form a general texture perceived as "coherent". In the first case it sounds more chaotic. All this is part of a general framework I explain here http://www.talkclassical.com/23172-piano-concerto.html#post421605.
I wrote all that in order to show that I don't have a general method for working, i.e., a fixed method which I apply to all my compositions. Instead, I adapt my working method according to the music I want to do.


----------



## laeo222

laeo222 said:


> Yeah i totally agree with you that composing the very hard and tough job but i follow your idea..Specially write the spell in correct form which is the basic and reliable thing in the composing...


Yeah i totally agree with you that composing the very hard and tough job but i follow your idea..Specially write the spell in correct form which is the basic and reliable thing in the composing.


----------



## laeo222

laeo222 said:


> Yeah i totally agree with you that composing the very hard and tough job but i follow your idea..Specially write the spell in correct form which is the basic and reliable thing in the composing...


any comment?

Pallet Scale


----------



## Novelette

I frequently write musical sections by hand whenever I'm away from home.

I keep in my car a notebook of sheet music to jot down ideas as they come to me. I have a second such notebook on my piano to jot down any improvisations that I wish to remember.

I often find that my best sections begin in this way, guided purely by inspiration and theory.


----------



## hreichgott

Novelette said:


> I keep in my car a notebook of sheet music to jot down ideas as they come to me.


That must be good for your composing, but what does it do to your driving??


----------



## Novelette

hreichgott said:


> That must be good for your composing, but what does it do to your driving??


Oh no, I didn't mean it like that.  I don't even talk on the telephone while driving. I keep it in my car so that it is as accessible as possible when I'm out and about. If it comes to me while I'm driving, I usually just let it pass. I'm too lazy to carry a bag with me everywhere, so I keep it in my car as a second-best expedient.


----------



## aleazk

hreichgott said:


> That must be good for your composing, but what does it do to your driving??


Are not pianists famous for their capability for doing two things at the same time?.


----------



## hreichgott

That was a joke. I was not actually worried. Although if a particularly absorbing idea comes to you, maybe we should worry...


----------



## Novelette

hreichgott said:


> That was a joke. I was not actually worried. Although if a particularly absorbing idea comes to you, maybe we should worry...


Being predisposed to obsessiveness, I've gotten fairly good at suppressing absorbing ideas--temporarily at least.


----------



## rborganist

Suggestion for Hannah: My composition teacher got me to try using a 3x5 card to get my notes lined up correctly. Go ahead and form the notes, then put the card against them to make the stem and to line up the staves with one another. I write a lot of four part music, sometimes SATB, sometimes TTBB, always with a keyboard reduction, and when I'm dealing with six staves it is much 
easier to keep things lined up. You can also use it to keep your text straight and under the right notes, then use a six inch ruler to make the measure lines. If someone is inputting your music for you, this will make his/her job much easier, and until I get a MIDI keyboard, anything over about 15 measures has to be done my a friend who has one; clicking and dragging one note at a time for a very long piece is very labor-intensive. My men's quartet is accustomed to my manuscripts, so I don't get every piece done. Another thing which will make your manuscripts easier to read is to get an art gum eraser and use it to erase; it is much cleaner--it erases more completely and without smearing. My favorite equipment for composing are some pencils I get at my local music store; they have multiple points, when one gets dull, you just pull it off and press it into the hole in the top and a new one pops up. They have 5 or 6 points each and they only cost ninety-nine cents


----------

