# Your thoughts on composing at the piano vs. in your DAW



## visiblenoise (May 3, 2021)

Recently, I've been thinking about my inability to write music at the piano. I'm not the type of person to be really bothered by my means of getting to good ideas, but I do respect you folks here, and in my mind I imagine a lot of you to be geniuses who can write decent music with just pencil and paper. Whether that's actually true or not, it just sounds really cool and I wish I could do that.

I'm curious about your thoughts and experiences on the value of being able to write music with just a piano, or less. I can find melodies and super basic bass note harmonies, but then I open up the DAW and often find more exciting ideas just from noodling around and iteratively adding parts. Does this differential really ever go away? My process is swayed so much by the infinite textures of sounds on my computer, that I can't imagine it.

Also, some tips on what to focus on when learning to use the piano as a composition tool would be really helpful too!


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 3, 2021)

With regular practice you can develop your inner ear. Using midi, you could create training exercises by recording intervals, chords, melodic leaps etc, pop them on an mp3 player and listen to them as you nod off. Constant repetitive exposure to these basic building blocks over a time will begin to mentally stick and then one can draw on them in the imagination.

Failing that, (but really, you should develop that inner ear), piano/DAW is fine to write with. Just be careful about falling into the trap of being limited by the pianos physical restrictions when scoring for orchestra - the two mediums are utterly different in scope, but particularly regarding the distribution of notes. I personally work on 40-ish stave manuscript which acts like a physical representation of the acoustic space available to an orchestra. Basically writing at the piano for orchestra (if that is your preferred genre of course), still requires as much knowledge as possible if one is to do it well.

Oh and the better a pianist you are, the more you will be freed from restriction - less time spent on fumbling around and restrictive technique, more time spent on freedom, confidence and competence to improvise. In fact that applies to composition technique too - the more you know etc.

Practice training your inner ear, it's not beyond anybody musically competent and who can apply themselves with an autodidactic determined application.


----------



## mopsiflopsi (May 3, 2021)

Personally I've found my happy place with Staffpad. My ears are not good enough to just go with piano and pen&paper, and the DAW environment is too distracting with so many knobs and things to play with. Staffpad gives me the right dose of being able to quickly test how something will sound without distracting me from the process of writing.


----------



## visiblenoise (May 3, 2021)

mikeh-375 said:


> With regular practice you can develop your inner ear. Using midi, you could create training exercises by recording intervals, chords, melodic leaps etc, pop them on an mp3 player and listen to them as you nod off. Constant repetitive exposure to these basic building blocks over a time will begin to mentally stick and then one can draw on them in the imagination.


Yea, it makes intuitive sense that having a good inner ear is king. I can't really identify the harmonies in most of the music I listen to without really laboring over it. I dunno if I'll actually record my own training program...but spending more time just learning more chords and chord voicings seems worthwhile.


----------



## visiblenoise (May 3, 2021)

mopsiflopsi said:


> Personally I've found my happy place with Staffpad. My ears are not good enough to just go with piano and pen&paper, and the DAW environment is too distracting with so many knobs and things to play with. Staffpad gives me the right dose of being able to quickly test how something will sound without distracting me from the process of writing.


I suppose you were decent at reading music before you started using Staffpad?


----------



## Arbee (May 3, 2021)

I love "noodling in my DAW" like most of us, but at some stage with every piece I reduce my noodling to score and pull it apart structurally on paper/screen and at the piano. If I don't do that I find it too easy to end up with just well produced noodle. My inner ear is coming along but still has a long way to go.


----------



## mopsiflopsi (May 3, 2021)

visiblenoise said:


> I suppose you were decent at reading music before you started using Staffpad?


Nope, not at all. Proper notation was something I’d put off for a long time but made the leap of faith with StaffPad. Now I’m feeling stupid for not having done it sooner. I can’t say I’m 100% fluent in reading yet (taking a second or two to orient myself to a different clef still) but it took surprisingly little time to get good enough to compose faster than I used to on my DAW.


----------



## GtrString (May 4, 2021)

Composing literally means putting things together, so adding parts is part of the process. A process you can sequence any way you want, btw. You can add a part, then move it to where you like it or want it. Start with the end, and finish with the beginning. You are still at the piano in your daw (hint, you are not really «in» your daw). Just let the creative work be messy, and then use craft to patch it together and clean it up.

You seem to put emphasis on the media tools rather than just composing. It doesnt matter how you come up with things, what matters is to compose something that works for you & the listeners in the context you aim at, whether it is an orchestral score, a pop song or something else.

Rather than trying to adopt other peoples’ workflow and tools, try to refine your own approach instead. There are no universal «right» ways, standards or certificates that will solve anything. The mess is not a problem. Just discover and do more of what works for you, and remember to enjoy the musicking.


----------



## PaulieDC (May 4, 2021)

mopsiflopsi said:


> Nope, not at all. Proper notation was something I’d put off for a long time but made the leap of faith with StaffPad. Now I’m feeling stupid for not having done it sooner. I can’t say I’m 100% fluent in reading yet (taking a second or two to orient myself to a different clef still) but it took surprisingly little time to get good enough to compose faster than I used to on my DAW.


That sounds exactly like me. Ok, FINE, no more putting it off, time to get farther with notation skills. I know without a doubt that StaffPad would work for me too and I've got the ginormous iPad for it.
Just wish StaffPad would go on sale once in a while!


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 4, 2021)

GtrString said:


> Composing literally means putting things together, so adding parts is part of the process. A process you can sequence any way you want, btw. You can add a part, then move it to where you like it or want it. Start with the end, and finish with the beginning. You are still at the piano in your daw (hint, you are not really «in» your daw). Just let the creative work be messy, and then use craft to patch it together and clean it up.
> 
> You seem to put emphasis on the media tools rather than just composing. It doesnt matter how you come up with things, what matters is to compose something that works for you & the listeners in the context you aim at, whether it is an orchestral score, a pop song or something else.
> 
> Rather than trying to adopt other peoples’ workflow and tools, try to refine your own approach instead. There are no universal «right» ways, standards or certificates that will solve anything. The mess is not a problem. Just discover and do more of what works for you, and remember to enjoy the musicking.


That all seems reasonable...except.
For orchestral composing, there are some 'universal right ways' (ie.better), but obviously that paradigm is contingent upon the market you are aiming for as you say. Honestly, whatever the genre you are in, it stands to reason that the less you know about scoring and more pertinently, actually composing for an orchestra, the more compromised are your creative options. So imv, it's best to learn as much as you can from repertoire and texts until you feel as though you have enough for your own voice. As always YMMV.


----------



## cet34f (May 4, 2021)

In short:

*DAW*
Sound: Samples
Notation: Piano Roll
Sync: Real-time Video Playback

*Notation Software*
Sound: Samples & Inner Ear
Notation: Staff
Sync: Timecode

*Paper*
Sound: Inner Ear
Notation: Staff
Sync: Marker

So, the questions are:
Do I need to hear samples?
Do I need to see staves?
Do I need to see the video?
etc.

Your answers will make the decision for you.


----------



## youngpokie (May 4, 2021)

visiblenoise said:


> I can find melodies and super basic bass note harmonies, but then I open up the DAW and often find more exciting ideas just from noodling around and iteratively adding parts. Does this differential really ever go away?


One way to think about the big picture differences is this:

- composing via improvisation. This is the "on the piano" approach, and it depends on muscle memory, trying things out and some understanding of harmony and patterns

- composing via imagination. This is about imagining music in your head and then either writing it down on paper or first playing it on the piano and then writing it down. This depends a great deal on inner ear and the ability to recognize the intervals and rhythm you hear, as @mikeh-375 points out.

It's important to mention all of the greats combined _both_ approaches. If you're interested in self-study, let's understand how these two are taught in school:

- a harmony course requires playing "this week's chord" in all keys and then playing it as part of progressions that include "previously learned chords" - also in all keys. This can be easily done on your own and is remarkably effective for improvisation and inner ear.

- a course in solfeggio includes singing and writing down, by ear, melodies played by the instructor on the piano, without seeing the keyboard. There are online tools that act as these "instructors" and offer all sorts of complexity levels. This is harder because it can be a bit boring but requires intense concentration at the same time.

To come back to the quote from your post:

what you're describing is improvisation-based, more than likely because you spent more time with fingers on the keyboard and trying things out in DAW. And so now it's now easier to be improvisational with keyboard/DAW than with pen and paper. Hence, better results.

And no, this difference in proficiency won't go away unless you deliberately practice capturing what you imagine, either by picking it out on keyboard or by writing it down on staff.


----------



## b_elliott (May 4, 2021)

I can't locate it now, but just a month ago while I was doing some research on one of Bach's canons, I ran across a page of Bach's: a note laying out ideas for a sequence of canons (number sequences alongside brief explanations) but no music notation.

That surprised me since I use a sheet of paper to jot down my concepts for a song I am working on. The notes involve things like "sound #7 (beginning) low raspy", chord progression/modulations I've spotted from another source, song references which relate to my sketch, imspl pdf score(s) that relate, etc.

I have no piano skills, so, for me it is a combination of jotting my concepts down, then I go to the DAW to recreate. When I listen back to stuff in progress, I jot down other ideas that come to mind on the same sheet of paper. That page stays around until I am done.

It was nice to spot that the maestro used notes as well, albeit on a level of mastery.


----------



## InLight-Tone (May 4, 2021)

mikeh-375 said:


> Oh and the better a pianist you are, the more you will be freed from restriction - less time spent on fumbling around and restrictive technique, more time spent on freedom, confidence and competence to improvise. In fact that applies to composition technique too - the more you know etc.


^^^ THIS!!! ^^^


----------



## youngpokie (May 4, 2021)

b_elliott said:


> ...a note laying out ideas for a sequence of canons (number sequences alongside brief explanations) but no music notation.


Nice story - and a wonderful illustration of the point: you don't "compose with pen and paper", you just use them to write things while you compose.

The same is also used for orchestration, using one or two staves to write down orchestration schemas/ ideas (this harmony by woodwinds, this melody by these instruments but this countermelody by those).


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 4, 2021)

Well… It’s a lot better than using a guitar 😉😈


----------



## Leandro Gardini (May 4, 2021)

You don't need to be a genius to write music with a piano only. It's just a matter of adaptation and practice.
From my experience, there's nothing better than being able to compose without the aid of technology. With practice, our minds can become much more inventive than tons of virtual instruments.
Right now, I am in the process of emancipation from the piano and compose in silence directly on the notation software. It's surely not an easy task, but everything you do to improve your mind will always be best for improving your music. It's an inside-out process!


----------



## CT (May 4, 2021)

I like the feeling of freewheeling inventiveness that jamming with the DAW gives, but find that I am more satisfied with what I do when I've worked it out on paper with zero thought of VIs/mock-ups intruding on the writing process. Sometimes I need to "check" things on the piano during that process, and sometimes I can internalize it well enough. 

Whatever works best for the task at hand, though; some flavors of music are of a nature that seems to benefit more from that live touch than meticulous notation, and vice versa.


----------



## emasters (May 4, 2021)

I find with a DAW, my focus is more on recording, editing, sounds, arrangement, structure, sonic adjustments (effects). What's difficult for me in a DAW, is visualizing voice leading, part interaction, lines and counter-lines. Clearly the data is available in the DAW's piano roll or score editor, but not as clear as reading an orchestral score for many simultaneous instruments. I've rarely watched composers live-stream composing with a DAW, where the result feels like the effort was musically complex across many parts (they get good results, but the parts can be basic and limited in scope). Yet someone like HZ works in a DAW and the result is very musical and full of complex detail. Anything moderately complex, is difficult for me to grasp how the parts fit together, working only in a DAW. By contrast, StaffPad is a fast (ready to go in seconds) and an effective way to write and visualize parts that work well together, and it sounds good enough to not be distracted by the quality of playback (using 3rd party libraries). Of course, it lacks the creative freedom one gets with a DAW, to try new sounds and approaches, and modify at will. And StaffPad (currently) lacks the ability to play/record parts from a midi controller. Still waiting for something to bring it all together... In the meantime, using both StaffPad with a DAW is a good place to be.


----------



## Stringtree (May 4, 2021)

For me, the DAW and its alluring sounds is seldom helpful for composing.

It’s really good for finishing a solid idea that has parts already worked out.

So many good perspectives here. Isn’t it fun to descend on a Mellotron patch and feel like you’re the whole show? Of course it is. It’s probably a hypnotic thing that distracts and makes me forget I need to innovate. Beautiful sounds distract.


----------



## Dave Connor (May 4, 2021)

If you’re working professionally where you have to deliver quality writing _and _quality mock-ups (not easy since both can take lots of time) most folks work in the DAW to get things done as quickly as possible. That is: the time you take to write things down on paper must then be repeated as you eventually must input it to midi - a time consuming extra step. Unless you are using staff pad and can import the midi quickly but that’s relatively new. Many of us are just used to working straight into the DAW. Consider that while you’re trying to come up with the next creative idea you could be improving the mock-up while ideas gestate. Efficiency tends to rule the process as long as you can also deliver artistically.

In other scenarios I will write free hand with pencil and paper or into a notation program. Ultimately I prefer pencil and paper but that becomes a luxury if the clock is ticking.


----------



## ScarletJerry (May 5, 2021)

I use a piano patch when composing on my DAW. So which one am I really using? 

Scarlet Jerry


----------



## youngpokie (May 5, 2021)

ScarletJerry said:


> I use a piano patch when composing on my DAW. So which one am I really using?


Me too!

In my case, 90% of how I write comes from improvising at the piano. I play around until I find an idea that I like, usually it's just one or two bars of a melody that fires up the imagination and puts me in a flow. I've done it like this for so long, they come quickly now. And fortunately, I am disciplined enough that I can hold on to the idea and work on the rest of the melody, countermelody, the harmony and the structure, it's part of the flow and I actually enjoy it. And the other thing I love about the piano approach is that it's easy to revise/improve/embellish if a better detail or a variation comes along...

Once the piano version sounds coherent enough, I record it into Cubase to be my "guide track" and make a separate audio render to build a tempo map. It's only after this that I start with orchestration (i.e. samples).

And it's at this point where I feel truly envious of @Mike T @Stringtree @muk and everyone who's fluent in notation. I feel like orchestration is another phase in the compositional process (especially melody), but I am not fluent enough in notating rhythm and interval to be as quick as I like to be.

I imagine orchestrating via notation must be a breeze because all you do is write/copy/paste/delete and repeat. Fast and easy! Maybe it's the case of "grass is greener on the other side", but it's a painful process for me to orchestrate in a DAW (I separate orchestrating and mocking up, too, lol).

The way I orchestrate is by making multiple mini-sketches of a few bars each, with samples, to try things out. For example, versions of instrument combinations (for coloring the melody, etc) or making several variations of the melody to be used as a layer (for accents, rhythm, etc), creating counter melodies, coloring the harmonies, pedals, figuration, etc, etc, etc...

I like to keep them all because they can be really useful later on. But there's a lot of them and making them is cumbersome in a DAW because even a copy/paste here takes time. And an even bigger issue - _where_ do I keep these sketches? I imagine with notation you just print these scraps out and use them as you need them. What a blessing this must be...

Anyway, I don't mean to derail the thread, but I would love to learn how you guys orchestrate with notation. What's your process? Do you sketch? where do you keep the sketches? Thanks


----------



## CT (May 5, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> Anyway, I don't mean to derail the thread, but I would love to learn how you guys orchestrate with notation.


I don't often have musical ideas that aren't tied to some kind of orchestral color already. Even when I've done what you're describing, putting together a piano track and then blowing that up into a fully orchestrated thing, all in the DAW, while I'm doing the initial piano sketch I have some idea of what's what. Usually while writing by hand I'm doing three to maybe six line sketches, again with everything already conceived and marked from an orchestral angle. 

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're asking, but if I'm understanding you, I think it's more a question of planning your orchestration and hearing everything you do in those terms from the start than it is necessarily a benefit of notation.


----------



## muk (May 5, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> I don't mean to derail the thread, but I would love to learn how you guys orchestrate with notation. What's your process? Do you sketch? where do you keep the sketches? Thanks


The sketching I do with paper and pencil/at the piano. When the writing is finished, I then go to notation software (Sibelius in my case). I do input the notes and orchestration in one go. I usually have at least a rough idea how I want to orchestrate during the writing process. So that's where I start with the orchestration. NotePerformer is a great help here. It gives immediate feedback if something doesn't work right out of the notation program. No need to create a mockup first. It's then easy to tweak and try other things directly in Sibelius. If I come up with an orchestration that I want to use later on in the piece, I usually just copy it and insert in front of the piece. If I have more than two or three of these ideas, I'll create a new document and name it orchestration ideas for piece xy or something.

For me that's the quickest way to orchestrate. It's faster than creating a mockup and trying various things. And copy pasting and moving things around is super quick and simple.

When the orchestration is finished, I'll then export the score and parts and create a mockup from the parts. Sometimes I'll find a few small things to change/correct in the orchestration during the mockup process. But NotePerformer is really quite accurate in terms of balance and colours, so usually I don't have to change much if anything at all.


----------



## youngpokie (May 5, 2021)

Thank you guys, this is super helpful! 

I am going to research notation based approach to orchestration. First because it seems the workflow moves a lot faster. And second because it gives immediate feedback while also eliminating the mockup-style performance steps, such as playing parts in, riding/drawing CCs and assigning articulations. Is this right? I really hope I am not misunderstanding you on this point!! Because it's this mocking up in the middle of orchestration that is like a drug I can't quit.


----------



## PeterN (May 5, 2021)

visiblenoise said:


> Recently, I've been thinking about my inability to write music at the piano. I'm not the type of person to be really bothered by my means of getting to good ideas, but I do respect you folks here, and in my mind I imagine a lot of you to be geniuses who can write decent music with just pencil and paper. Whether that's actually true or not, it just sounds really cool and I wish I could do that.
> 
> I'm curious about your thoughts and experiences on the value of being able to write music with just a piano, or less. I can find melodies and super basic bass note harmonies, but then I open up the DAW and often find more exciting ideas just from noodling around and iteratively adding parts. Does this differential really ever go away? My process is swayed so much by the infinite textures of sounds on my computer, that I can't imagine it.
> 
> Also, some tips on what to focus on when learning to use the piano as a composition tool would be really helpful too!


Assuming you mean working in the piano roll on the DAW.

Piano is *soul*, you can control tempo and velocity with your emotions. The DAW restricts the tempo and velocity changing - of course you can fix it afterwards - but its not the same. DAW compositions are soulless - as a generalisation. If its a piano song, the DAW will kill it.


----------



## tebling (May 5, 2021)

@youngpokie, you and I are completely aligned on this. I do the "piano patch in the DAW" thing as well, but have been meaning to try out the notation based approach for ages.



youngpokie said:


> And second because it gives immediate feedback while also eliminating the mockup-style performance steps, such as playing parts in, riding/drawing CCs and assigning articulations.


On the other hand - to play devil's advocate - it seems to me the "riding/drawing CCs and assigning articulations" is a completely optional step in the DAW until you've worked things out and are entering mockup phase. And playing parts in shouldn't be slower, assuming you're using a template and have the instruments ready and waiting. No?


----------



## youngpokie (May 5, 2021)

tebling said:


> On the other hand - to play devil's advocate - it seems to me the "riding/drawing CCs and assigning articulations" is a completely optional step in the DAW until you've worked things out and are entering mockup phase. And playing parts in shouldn't be slower, assuming you're using a template and have the instruments ready and waiting. No?



Thanks (especially for playing devil's advocate!)...

Yes, riding CC etc is optional at that phase. But I find it's psychologically almost impossible for me not to use it if it's available. I think it's because a big chunk of orchestration has to do with sound color, which inevitably moves my focus on how things sound, expression.... And once I start on that path it's impossible to stop. So in a way, I am hoping that a notation program sort of forces me to focus on what's more important (instrument combinations + melodic/rhythmic variations).

The same applies to playing parts in. It's probably all in the mindset too, but here again the performance part is so ingrained that it's very hard for me to break it. Does this make sense?

EDIT: I use Cubase's Score Editor sometimes. And I notice that it does reduce this "performance" tendency to some degree. But this keyboard based note entry (Dorico too, I think) is just not something I enjoy... so I'm looking at Staffpad


----------



## muk (May 5, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> And second because it gives immediate feedback while also eliminating the mockup-style performance steps, such as playing parts in, riding/drawing CCs and assigning articulations. Is this right? I really hope I am not misunderstanding you on this point!!


That's right.

The standard notation software playback is pretty horrible and does not give proper feedback though. NotePerformer is a much more reliable tool and works well for this feedback purpose. For me, playing in parts and fiddling with cc comes once the composition and orchestration are finished. Only then to I proceed to creating the mockup. So yes, during orchestration I don't fiddle with cc messages or tempo or anything. It's just inputting notes into a notation software.


----------



## tebling (May 5, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> The same applies to playing parts in. It's probably all in the mindset too, but here again the performance part is so ingrained that it's very hard for me to break it. Does this make sense?


Yes, that completely makes sense and I suffer from the same malady.

However, when I consider the cost of trying out a new DAW habit of playing everything in first, _before_ proceeding to the "tweak the sound" phase, vs trying out a completely new approach (with new software and longer ramp up time, involving an export / import phase, etc, etc) - I feel I should probably try the former first to see if it hits kind of a hybrid best of both worlds.

I really appreciate this conversation! I hadn't really considered doing this until now. It will certainly take some discipline, but assuming the result is a speed improvement then hopefully that's all the incentive I'd need. Will try soon


----------



## youngpokie (May 5, 2021)

tebling said:


> However, when I consider the cost of trying out a new DAW habit of playing everything in first, _before_ proceeding to the "tweak the sound" phase, vs trying out a completely new approach (with new software and longer ramp up time, involving an export / import phase, etc, etc) - I feel I should probably try the former first to see if it hits kind of a hybrid best of both worlds.



@tebling this is very true!! Break a habit or spend $ and learn new software - to break a habit, right?

But, sometime ago, I tried to break it: balanced template, CC1 set at 64, play in + quantize and that's it. Mentally, it was really hard, especially when any kind of doubling was involved. _Does this bassoon a2 and cello part blend together or are my bassoons a little quiet_? (reach out for CC)....

I also tried it when I was studying my orchestration books and wanted to quickly reproduce some notated examples. If those examples didn't sound "performed", it was very hard to accept that particular orchestration technique and internalize it, so I felt almost forced to go back to tweaking so I could really "hear" the effect...

But the other, different problem is that doing these things in DAW in the first place feels very cumbersome. Instead of quickly writing a line with a pen, I have to enter notes via keyboard or physically record MIDI. This is a whole other pain point, especially when trying out more complex orchestrations with multiple instruments and textures. Playing in, dragging around MIDI parts, articulations that don't match between instruments, or different dynamic layers. It was such a pain I found myself avoiding mocking up examples from those books or avoiding sketching my own ideas because it was just so incredibly tedious and painful.

So, I guess in some way I feel like I've tried enough to mitigate the issue and at this point I'm looking at notation as something that will solve all of the world's problems! I'm not very fast with notating something from scratch, but I can import MIDI into Staffpad and approach notation more from the editing standpoint, if that makes sense


----------



## Living Fossil (May 5, 2021)

visiblenoise said:


> I'm curious about your thoughts and experiences on the value of being able to write music with just a piano, or less.


Personally, when i write for musicians and no mockup is needed i prefer the good old pencil and paper method. Also, when i'm off studio for a couple of days i make sure that i have some staff paper.

However, when working in the DAW i usually only write things down if they exceed my brain's storage capacity. This may be the case where lots of independent voices are involved or if the assignment to players - usually with a non statical instrumentation - get complicated.

For the usual stuff i don't feel it's necessary - I guess it's also a matter of routine and the inner hearing.

One thing i would recommend you if you want to start to work with notation is the following:

Take a score you like and make a [not necessarily playable] piano reduction of some parts (in my case, i did a lot of Berg's Lulu, Ravel's Daphne, some Puccini and some others in my late teens instead of playing in a Rock band)
This exercise helps a lot in developing an imagination how textures translate to the piano and vice versa.
One aspect that deserves special attention is how the registers of different instruments relate to each other and if they maintain the "felt" register on the piano.
(Fortunately my teacher for composition as well as my teacher in instrumentation focussed a lot on these aspects)


----------



## Stringtree (May 5, 2021)

Today I reached a block in the notation, so I went to the DAW. A happy accident showed me I could do a "round" with a melodic idea, and it suddenly sounded like angels singing words they knew together. 

I'm too stupid to do that myself, so I went with it, then went back to the stuff on paper, wrote that in, erased out some terrible stuff, and got really excited about the piece again! 

No reason a couple of methods can't work concurrently.


----------



## CT (May 5, 2021)

Something that's really majorly important is to rely as little as possible on samples, even really well-performed and balanced samples, to judge how an orchestration works. You might be able to get a good idea of most of what you do, but I think for anyone interested in wielding the orchestra as skilfully as they can, puting in the time to pore over scores and internalize as much of it as possible is worth it. Sometimes samples will lie to you and it's good to have external knowledge to always check against. 

Notation software, which I don't use because it just feels awkward to me, is likely even worse about this given how poor audio playback tends to be with those. I am not familiar with NotePerformer but I remember some demos sounding pretty solid.


----------



## borisb2 (May 5, 2021)

Living Fossil said:


> Take a score you like and make a [not necessarily playable] piano reduction of some parts (in my case, i did a lot of Berg's Lulu, Ravel's Daphne, some Puccini and some others in my late teens instead of playing in a Rock band)
> This exercise helps a lot in developing an imagination how textures translate to the piano and vice versa.


+10 .. it reveals so many insights into orchestration

other than that I can highly recommend using StaffPad .. best of both worlds


----------



## Arbee (May 5, 2021)

Stringtree said:


> No reason a couple of methods can't work concurrently.


Hold that thought . I'm envious in a weird kind of way that the great composers of the past "only" had a piano, chamber group or orchestra/choir to write for. Introduce sound design, synths, rhythm section "groove", drums/percussion etc on top of all that and my brain explodes. I'd love it if my inner ear could work in all those compositional and sonic dimensions simultaneously, but for now I have to bounce back and forth between DAW, piano and paper/Sibelius.


----------



## muk (May 6, 2021)

Some interesting insights in a new interview with John Williams about how he composes and orchestrates:









'More Universally Understood' — John Williams - Steinway & Sons


John Williams, our greatest living film composer, holds forth on his musical language, influences, Star Wars legacy, and his new Steinway Model D.




www.steinway.com


----------



## youngpokie (May 6, 2021)

muk said:


> Some interesting insights in a new interview with John Williams about how he composes and orchestrates:



This reminds me of Tchaikovsky 4-step process (I read a long paper on that not long ago):
1: multiple scribbles to write down ideas
2: turning _some _of the scribbles into sketches to outline instrumentation and texture approach
3: turning _some_ of the sketches into detailed draft(s)
4: final draft for publication

Seems very similar overall with only a few exceptions: Tchaikovsky rejected piano improvisation in principle and composed 100% in his head, only using the piano to verify what he wrote on paper and to make piano reductions of his works. He revised extensively and at every stage of the process - even making changes in his copy of his own published score, which is a huge problem for Urtext editors. And he made complete orchestrations by himself.

Anyway, to circle back to earlier posts, I am leaning towards getting Staffpad today or tomorrow and seeing if I can integrate it for orchestration. 

Thanks again to everyone, this thread has been motivational, to say the least.


----------



## Vik (May 6, 2021)

IMO there's a big difference between having a goal and a direction. If someone wants to be a composer, that's a gold and maybe not as useful as having a direction; a desire to make music which is si important that Ione actually is making music. And since composing in a DAW doesn't exclude composing in DAW and vice versa, there isn't, IMO really a need to choose one method over another. By doing both for a while each of us will find out what works best.

"Also, some tips on what to focus on when learning to use the piano as a composition tool would be really helpful too!" if you already play piano and know notation (reading/writing), I's try to start with writing down simple stuff, and take it from there. If you're curious about harmony etc, there are many ways to learn more. It sounds like a cliche, but 'go with the flow' is often a very useful cliche. 

"I can find melodies and super basic bass note harmonies, but then I open up the DAW and often find more exciting ideas just from noodling around and iteratively adding parts."

Which of the methods (making music on a DAW vs making music with a piano and a pencil) do you think would inspire you the most to nit just get ideas, but to develop and finish them? 

Btw, I support the idea of composing with a piano sound in a DAW. That's a quite 'attractive' method for me, especially after having been lost in too many string presets which sound so good that you don't really need to do much more than improvising. Any combo of improvising, recording and editing (with notation, piano roll or something else) may work work.

Piano tip: if you read music, find some pieces you really love and try to figure out what happens in those pieces. That process may give you ideas that you can develop into whatever you want.


----------



## cmillar (May 7, 2021)

Here are some thoughts about composing from Eric Whitacre.

He wrote this back in 2008, but still entirely appropriate food for thought:









Advice for the Emerging Composer, Part I: Notation – Blog, Advice for the Emerging Composer – Eric Whitacre


I don't believe there is a 'correct' way to compose, or even a 'best' way to compose. As a composer you've ultimately got to invent your own method -




ericwhitacre.com





(He's not a fan of composing in the DAW for very valid reasons which he states)


----------



## Danilebob (May 7, 2021)

Do I hear what I want to write before I've written it or after I've heard it?
I just try to be intentional about it. That's not for everyone though (@John Cage).


----------



## cet34f (May 7, 2021)

cmillar said:


> Here are some thoughts about composing from Eric Whitacre.
> 
> He wrote this back in 2008, but still entirely appropriate food for thought:
> 
> ...


I am all for pencil and paper, but sooner or later, we need to "import" our composition into a notation software, right? I mean, I can't just keep building physical file containers and expect the papers to last forever.

I do like the idea of keep using pencil and paper until I absolutely need to switch to a notation software, so this article is quite helpful.


----------



## cmillar (May 7, 2021)

cet34f said:


> I am all for pencil and paper, but sooner or later, we need to "import" our composition into a notation software, right? I mean, I can't just keep building physical file containers and expect the papers to last forever.
> 
> I do like the idea of keep using pencil and paper until I absolutely need to switch to a notation software, so this article is quite helpful.


Agreed... I need to see more score paper in front of my eyes than is offered by a computer screen, or even a 27" monitor with Sibelius.

I would also very much agree with Whitacre when he says that it's far too easy to just 'cut and paste' music, which leads to pretty poor compositions (unless you're after nothing but ostinatos or pure minimilistic ideas).

I think its' a great essay that Whitacre wrote, and I'm glad I found it many years ago when I was trying to justify to myself that it's OK to be 'old-school' and use pencil and paper the way I did before I even had Sibelius (in my case). (...it's still a great reminder to me if I feel 'I've lost my way'!)


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic (May 7, 2021)

I compose at the piano in my DAW :D


----------



## re-peat (May 7, 2021)

It depends a bit on one’s definition of what composing music is, doesn’t it? If by ‘composing music’ you mean that you should be able to write down, as accurately as possible, all the essentials that define a piece of music (its notes, timbres, tempo, dynamics and such) — i.o.w. the traditional, conventional idea of what composing music is all about — than yes, I can imagine that pencil and paper (or some satisfying digital equivalent) would be the first and most important stage of the composing work.

But this being the 21st century and all, and our tools to make music with having developed, changed and expanded on enormously in recent decades, ‘composing music’ might well have come to mean something very different for some people. Me, I sort of lean towards the definition: _filling a time slot with audio organized in a way that makes musical sense to me_. And audio, in my definition, can be _anything_. Likewise, ‘musical sense’ is a very broad term.

I have pieces that combine traditionally composed sections (often originating during piano playing sessions) with material that can only be generated (following my instructions) by a well-stuffed DAW and that can’t be written down in any of the existing musical codes either. Composing, to me, can just as well mean opening a filter, inserting a delay, picking a pulse wave instead of a sawtooth wave, or distorting a reverb ..., than writing a melody, deciding on an harmonic progression, laying out the structure, orchestrating a rhythm, or writing some counterpoint. And in my view of what composing music is or can be, there’s no musical hierarchy between any of these skills or creative activities either.

I think one, being totally honest with oneself and guided by one's own personality rather than by some prevailing norm or tradition, should choose and learn the tools — whatever these may be — that help prevent the contingency of being unable to express oneself or getting in a creative cul de sac. If that means learning to play the piano well, then that’s what you gotta do. No mercy, no excuses. If it means studying the theory of composition and orchestration, then study you must. In earnest. If it means becoming intimately familiar and comfortable with the ins and outs of, say, Omnisphere or NI Reaktor, then that is where the challenge lies that you have to face. Again, and always: with complete commitment.

I mentioned ‘being honest with yourself’ in the previous paragraph: the great thing about this is that it will make the road, or roads, which you have to follow unignorably visible.

_


----------



## robcs (May 7, 2021)

I have what I guess might be considered an odd workflow (or maybe just inefficient?). First, I can't write cold into a DAW, so I always make a notation sketch first. Usually, I'll start with a melody, which I can enter in the notation program with just a mouse. 

Then I'll use the keyboard to try out harmonies - only because if I don't, I know I'll end up just using some variation of I/IV/V/vi . Noodling around on the keys opens me up to trying harmonies I wouldn't have thought of unaided (and which I couldn't name if my life depended on it!).

I know I could probably make things a lot simpler by training my inner ear better!


----------



## Living Fossil (May 7, 2021)

cet34f said:


> I do like the idea of keep using pencil and paper until I absolutely need to switch to a notation software, so this article is quite helpful.


Why i still prefer paper & pencil to solutions like Staffpad etc. is the visual and haptic aspect. 
I can keep different versions of an element on a sketch and i can lay lots of sheets on my carpet when i need orientation.
Sometimes i also like to mark parts of sketches with crayons in different colours.
This is something that usually is more relevant for longer pieces that have lots of thematic transformations and mutations. I simply don't think that this workflow works in a similarly good way on the monitor...


----------



## jmauz (May 7, 2021)

My thoughts are if I composed on a piano, wrote it down, and THEN started working in my DAW I'd never make a deadline. 

Moreover, working in the DAW from start to end is essential for me when writing to picture and trying to come up with ideas that fit well with the action. I can replay a scene instantly over and over, zoom in frame by frame if needed, and edit the shit out of the cue until I get it just right. I admire the 'old school' composers who wrote cues without this luxury. I simply do not have that level of talent.

Maybe someday I'll have interns and/or staff whom can take my sketches and match them to picture. Until then, every day starts and ends in the DAW.


----------



## borisb2 (May 7, 2021)

jmauz said:


> Maybe someday I'll have interns


you dont have interns?


----------



## GNP (May 7, 2021)

I write using a piano in my DAW. Does that count lol


----------



## clarkcontrol (May 8, 2021)

If you are interested in composing in the late romantic symphonic style and wish to use piano as a way to germinate a full orchestra piece, I suggest the following:

Liszt made a piano solo reduction of every Beethoven symphony. Using this as a model, you can decipher ways to articulate the orchestra through pianistic gestures and see what materials he abridged and how he shrunk the orchestrations. 

Search for “symphonic transcription” and “symphonic reduction” and you will find lots of material to glean further methods. 

Take simple pieces from Bach like inventions, preludes, or something from the French suites. A courante or minuet would be good to test yourself on how to explode a piano piece to a chamber orchestra. Scarlatti would work well also. 

Some Chopin nocturnes lend themselves well to orchestrations. 

Beethoven sonatas are very symphonic (the moonlight is a good start)

By breaking up the process, you free yourself from the pressure of composing AND orchestrating AND interfacing with the technology. 

Even if you want to eventually migrate to a more 20th century style of music, the romantic and earlier styles are great (and necessary) for building this foundation.


----------



## jmauz (May 8, 2021)

borisb2 said:


> you dont have interns?


You got some I can have??


----------



## Alex Fraser (May 8, 2021)

Some wonderful tips above.

I always go straight to DAW (tick, tick, tick), but sometimes have a piano “scratch track” running in tandem with the main arrangement. I use it to sketch out rough ideas or throw down a quick idea which I don’t want to forget.

Also assorted random half brained ideas scribbled on the back of envelopes.


----------



## borisb2 (May 8, 2021)

Alex Fraser said:


> I always go straight to DAW (tick, tick, tick), but sometimes have a piano “scratch track” running in tandem with the main arrangement. I use it to sketch out rough ideas or throw down a quick idea which I don’t want to forget.


thats pretty much how I work as well..

But .. I would be interested - and this question goes out especially to all who did pop/edm-music as well - how much do you see composing/arranging in DAW forces or limits you to think and work in clear block elements/sections/harmonies vs thinking more linear? Coming from pop (meaning only working in DAW in the past) I always used to think in clear structures and blocks - and the hope using something like StaffPad (or notation) would be to free myself from that, thinking and working more linear. Am I overthinking that? Is that limit just happening in my head?


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (May 9, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> Once the piano version sounds coherent enough, I record it into Cubase to be my "guide track" and make a separate audio render to build a tempo map. It's only after this that I start with orchestration (i.e. samples).


Why do you need an audio render to create a tempo map? I usually do it with the midi. Really curious about that.


----------



## Alex Fraser (May 9, 2021)

borisb2 said:


> thats pretty much how I work as well..
> 
> But .. I would be interested - and this question goes out especially to all who did pop/edm-music as well - how much do you see composing/arranging in DAW forces or limits you to think and work in clear block elements/sections/harmonies vs thinking more linear? Coming from pop (meaning only working in DAW in the past) I always used to think in clear structures and blocks - and the hope using something like StaffPad (or notation) would be to free myself from that, thinking and working more linear. Am I overthinking that? Is that limit just happening in my head?


I understand where you're coming from. After years of writing in standard song form, I still lean towards that structure if I'm not writing to picture. 

I spent quite a while working with manuscript whilst studying music many moons ago, but it's a skill I've long since abandoned - I haven't needed to pick up a pencil since. To say I'm rusty would be an understatement.


----------



## clarkcontrol (May 9, 2021)

borisb2 said:


> thats pretty much how I work as well..
> 
> But .. I would be interested - and this question goes out especially to all who did pop/edm-music as well - how much do you see composing/arranging in DAW forces or limits you to think and work in clear block elements/sections/harmonies vs thinking more linear? Coming from pop (meaning only working in DAW in the past) I always used to think in clear structures and blocks - and the hope using something like StaffPad (or notation) would be to free myself from that, thinking and working more linear. Am I overthinking that? Is that limit just happening in my head?


I think it might be (for me anyway). I remember those pre printed sketch pads with 4 bars per line. It made for easy musical organization for commissions that wanted arrangements for big band or pops orchestra type music. 

Writing odd number phrases and things on those pages wasn’t a giant hurdle when I think about it; I just had to make extra rehearsal markers and double bars to let my eye see the end/beginning of each section if it landed in the middle of a page somewhere. 

The daw is almost better for oddness than the page since the arrange page is one giant “staff” no page turns or anything. I can drop in a different time signature anywhere at anytime, super super convenient, don’t have to worry how it works out on the page if it was a paper conductor score.


----------



## youngpokie (May 9, 2021)

Markus Kohlprath said:


> Why do you need an audio render to create a tempo map? I usually do it with the midi. Really curious about that.


I was never able to make a truly convincing tempo map by drawing lines (my style is orchestral Romantic, probably very old-fashioned and exaggerated for a lot film music folk, with molto vibrato and whatnot).

What I record is a piano version that's of course more simple than the final orchestration, and I view it as MIDI "performance" where I can let go and play freely and "with feeling". The resulting tempo is more organic, slowing down naturally just a tad at phrase endings, accents, speeding up at arcs, and so on. 

Of course, solo piano tempo and orchestral tempo are not the same but in Cubase, it is possible to have multiple versions of tempo maps, so this becomes my "tempo guide", which gets refined and where tempo variations get wider or narrower depending on orchestrations.


----------



## youngpokie (May 9, 2021)

borisb2 said:


> I always used to think in clear structures and blocks - and the hope using something like StaffPad (or notation) would be to free myself from that, thinking and working more linear. Am I overthinking that? Is that limit just happening in my head?


"Classical" music is also based on clear structures and blocks. They are 4, 8 or 16 bar segments, depending on style, that have rather rigid internal organization (beat-driven chord changes, cadences, repeating segments).

In a sense, pop music is a genre of infinite instrumentations of the handful of "cliché" patterns from classical music. Especially modern pop chord progressions which are almost always the descendants of the cadential-like progressions in classical music from the 1800s...

In pop music, 100% of musical material is forced to rigidly follow the pattern - by design. Chords, phrases, arcs - everything.

But in classical music, the intent is contrary - to disguise the pattern. This is done by developing more variation in melody (compared to pop), harmony (tonicization, modulation) and polyphony (countermelodies, etc). Pedal point is especially powerful in creating the sense of unfolding despite a clear pattern structure underneath.

I don't think you're overthinking it at all, but the solution is in creativity and technique, not software.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (May 9, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> I was never able to make a truly convincing tempo map by drawing lines (my style is orchestral Romantic, probably very old-fashioned and exaggerated for a lot film music folk, with molto vibrato and whatnot).
> 
> What I record is a piano version that's of course more simple than the final orchestration, and I view it as MIDI "performance" where I can let go and play freely and "with feeling". The resulting tempo is more organic, slowing down naturally just a tad at phrase endings, accents, speeding up at arcs, and so on.
> 
> Of course, solo piano tempo and orchestral tempo are not the same but in Cubase, it is possible to have multiple versions of tempo maps, so this becomes my "tempo guide", which gets refined and where tempo variations get wider or narrower depending on orchestrations.


You probably didn't understand my question. If I play a piano track I play it often with my tempo without a click as you do. Then I adjust the tempo map to my played tempo. A very common boring but necessary procedure. I do it with the time warp module by hand most often in the midi editor. What I didn't understand is what the advantage is to bounce it to audio. If there is one e.g. to speed up the process because of better tempo detection I am curious to hear.


----------



## youngpokie (May 9, 2021)

Markus Kohlprath said:


> You probably didn't understand my question. If I play a piano track I play it often with my tempo without a click as you do. Then I adjust the tempo map to my played tempo. A very common boring but necessary procedure. I do it with the time warp module by hand most often in the midi editor. What I didn't understand is what the advantage is to bounce it to audio. If there is one e.g. to speed up the process because of better tempo detection I am curious to hear.


I do it like this so I can then quantize the MIDI part for use in orchestration (and the score editor in Cubase) and treat the audio part only as a source of the tempo map. Any changes to MIDI, like harmony etc, will always be on the grid and won't affect the tempo track. Perhaps not the most elegant solution, but it works quite well for me.....


----------



## muk (May 9, 2021)

Markus Kohlprath said:


> I do it with the time warp module by hand most often in the midi editor.



In Cubase there is a method that is quite a bit faster than that. Search for 'Merge tempo from tapping' in the manual. It'll produce the same result in half the time.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (May 9, 2021)

muk said:


> In Cubase there is a method that is quite a bit faster than that. Search for 'Merge tempo from tapping' in the manual. It'll produce the same result in half the time.


Thank you, I have to try it out. Didn't know this feature


----------



## youngpokie (May 11, 2021)

So.... I claimed I was getting Staffpad, but it turned out Fate wanted me to get Dorico. And so I did. 

- It works with VEPro. I can use the same exact VEPro template for both Dorico and Cubase and I can pre-mix groups/busses in VEPro to have identical sound. None of my libraries are wasted or need to be duplicated. Dorico expression maps are new but already a little more interesting than Cubase.

- speed of note entry. Someone swore to me that note entry in Dorico is a) faster than any other program, b) faster than paper and pen, and for sure c) faster than Staffpad; and with just a few of hotkeys I can already see a massive speed jump. 

- If you make a mistake on paper, you have to delete and/or rewrite. In Dorico, you don't rewrite anything, you use hotkeys to fix right over it. So far everything I've tried I can do faster than paper and pen. 

And the logical flow of steps in this software is beautiful. I have a piece in 4 parts, already written and need to orchestrate it, and following Dorico's suggested steps feels just right - choose your orchestra steup for this music and any of its parts, input the notes you have, etc.

Pretty incredible, so far...


----------

