# Writing things down



## wonshu (Oct 23, 2007)

Hey guys,

Since graduating from college I have hardly written any music down since I've only had a couple of projects that had the luxury of real players and god did I love those!!!!

Anyway, so since I'm not writing it down, it also happens that I have to be way more focused because I'm not keeping track as much of the harmonic progressions that I used.

How do you guys deal with it? Do you write it into your sequencer? Do you keep a seperate piece of staff paper nearby and take notes (yikes... I know I'm gonna loose those... plus I know I'll be moving again and I always like to limit the junk I have to move...)

What are your techniques?

Best
Hans


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 23, 2007)

Sketchbooks.

You can use your computer as a sketchbook, but beware of data loss.

I stick with pencil and paper as I do not trust digital storage after countless failures.


----------



## wonshu (Oct 23, 2007)

The coolest thing would be if entering the chords into Logics global chord track wouldn't transpose everything that way I could use that, but then I always have to make sure that "no transpose" on all the instruments.

But that way it would just be in front of me with the song.

Perhaps I'll just turn no transpose on in my templates...

Anyone use this technique? What happens to Apple Loops if the transpose track contains transpositions?


----------



## aeneas (Oct 23, 2007)

wonshu @ Tue 23 Oct said:


> I'm not keeping track as much of the harmonic progressions that I used.
> 
> How do you guys deal with it?


I don't really get it... What exactly happens? How do you loose track of your harmonic progression since you said you have them written down?

EDIT - Oops, sorry - you are NOT writing them down! Then maybe you should.


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 23, 2007)

I have a little book and sketch weird symbols and glyphs :D
Also I use my cellphone to record a beat or a melody ... but sitting down and writing an idea into the sequencer or using notation ... no!

I think the action, to grab a little book or a recording device is faster than open the sequencer and start caring about with which instrument you start.


----------



## synthetic (Oct 23, 2007)

Did you create your own sketch pad or do you use a commercial one? I'm still trying to find a good sketch format, one with enough staves to get creative but not too many that I get hung up in details during the writing phase. 

I've done everything from writing it completely out to just a melody. I think my music is better when I write it down, when I go right into the sequencer there are too many repeats without variation. If I see that written out it looks boring and I have to change it, which is better for the music. Lately I've been just writing lead sheets and working from there, but at least I have chord symbols to start from.


----------



## wonshu (Oct 23, 2007)

See, this is where it gets tricky with me.

I know how to write with pencil and paper and usually I like the results much more, but if I then go to the sequencer and try to program that I waste time trying to create something that a musician would do in 1 take but I just don't have the right samples for it.

That's why I like writing with what I've got and cater the writing to that. Stifling of course, but time and budget doesn't permit otherwise atm.

I think I'm gonna just start and put blank regions into my arrange and label them with the chords so I can see the progression, but the transposition isn't affected. I had to take a shower to come up with that one that's the kind of idiot I am...

Best
Hans


----------



## homebilly (Oct 23, 2007)

synthetic

i made i myself with FreeHand. it took a bit of experimenting but i got something that i like


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 24, 2007)

wonshu @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> See, this is where it gets tricky with me.
> I know how to write with pencil and paper and usually I like the results much more, but if I then go to the sequencer and try to program that I waste time trying to create something that a musician would do in 1 take but I just don't have the right samples for it.



I personally wouldn't mind if samples and computers just disappeared and we went back to all real performances.


----------



## wonshu (Oct 24, 2007)

Oh god yes, me too!!!!!

I loved conducting the orchestra.

If only the producers would realize how much more they could achieve by investing more....


----------



## aeneas (Oct 24, 2007)

wonshu @ Wed 24 Oct said:


> If only the producers would realize how much more they could achieve by investing more....


I think they are well aware of that when they see big budget films. But they may be also aware of the fact that only great (expensive) musicians can play that great, and that samples mock-ups can sound better (while less expensive) than 'less-than-great' musicians.


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 24, 2007)

aeneas @ Wed Oct 24 said:


> wonshu @ Wed 24 Oct said:
> 
> 
> > If only the producers would realize how much more they could achieve by investing more....
> ...



That's really dependent on "writing down" to the samples. I guess that's fine since very few film scores nowadays do anything interesting that would challenge samples.


----------



## wonshu (Oct 24, 2007)

Slides?

In-time-whole-tone-movement incl. dynamics?

Swells (in tempo!)?

Come on... with your knowledge you should know the limitations.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 24, 2007)

I play a piano part (or reduction) into the sequncer (as a sketch) and save the midi file for later. If you want to write it down, print out the part.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Oct 24, 2007)

Synthetic,

You might try this link. It has a few things in that category. I don't know if they will work for sure for you but they might be close. 


http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/store/smp ... 0744533852

Edit - 
Hmm.. I notice the link doesn't include the search data. Try 'score paper' or 'manuscript paper'. There were about a half dozen that were dual system and differing numbers of staves. It kinda sounds like what you were looking for. They also have a CD of pdf files with differing configurations that you can print out yourself. 


.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 24, 2007)

The problem for me in writing things down is that inevitably I write something that there's no way in hell can be done convincingly with samples. So I end up changing everything anyway.

Also, I don't have the heart to chart to the limitations of samples. So I just fire up the DAW and start sequencing. As far as remembering progressions and stuff it's pretty easy. Just keep it in your head and use your ears.

Jose


----------



## synthetic (Oct 24, 2007)

I printed some of my own once, but it was too many staffs and I didn't like it. I'll probably try again, and the six-staff idea sounds pretty good. Or maybe 8... (here I go again...)


----------



## wonshu (Oct 24, 2007)

josejherring @ Wed Oct 24 said:


> As far as remembering progressions and stuff it's pretty easy. Just keep it in your head and use your ears.



Thanks for rubbing it in.... 

Anyway, you're right.

As I said before, I'm going to use dummy regions and name them with the chords going on.

And again: I could (should) have thought of that right away...


----------



## synthetic (Oct 24, 2007)

> The problem for me in writing things down is that inevitably I write something that there's no way in hell can be done convincingly with samples. So I end up changing everything anyway.



Well, part of it is writing something that you wouldn't naturally play, so that you break out of your motor memory/canned licks/voicings/etc.


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 24, 2007)

This all seems overly complicated... just think up the music and write it.


----------



## wonshu (Oct 24, 2007)

VonRichter @ Thu Oct 25 said:


> This all seems overly complicated... just think up the music and write it.



hehe... good one.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 24, 2007)

Jeff, how about paper with just a bunch of lines and no staves? Then you can bracket three, four, two, whatever lines as you see fit. These days any notation program should be able to print that out for you, or you can just generate it in a graphics program.

Or here - I just did a search:

http://www.musictheory.net/utilities/html/id96_en.html


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 24, 2007)

Go to the Custom tab - you can remove the website address from the bottom and set it up however you like.


----------



## synthetic (Oct 25, 2007)

Sure, I've done this too. I'm just gathering info to figure out how many staves my next chart should have. There's a section in "On The Track" that mentions this, "Williams uses x staves, Goldsmith uses y..." I'll have to look that up.


----------



## clarkcontrol (Oct 25, 2007)

LOL

My thoughts exactly. The "Media Ventures/Remote Control/whatever its called this week" sound is a good example of what happens when you don't keep close track of harmonic and melodic development, just keeping everything diatonic, tracking in two-fisted string parts then adding brass and perc.

That's what it sounds like to me. But they have to work real fast so I'm sure it's great considering the circumstances.

I use the piano track to sketch but I HAVE to know where its going arrangement-wise before composing. Otherwise I'm putting the cart before the horse.

Because: One must know the limitations of their samples inside and out to know what to do/avoid when composing for virtual orchestra.

I call it "Musical Tetris."

So, unfortunately, this requires a lot of memorization to get fast (well, that's how I do it, anyway).

So, what I'm saying is I have to hear it in my head first, as complete as possible. NOT as a real orchestra, but as samples, featuring their strengths while hiding their shortcomings. Think Beethoven and his brass writing.

Clark


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 25, 2007)

synthetic @ Thu Oct 25 said:


> However, I cannot do complex harmonies and counterpoint in my head like Mozart and Hans can do, so my stuff sounds better if I plan it out on paper first.



I tend towards constructing complex fugues and so on in my head, usually while either pacing around, or in the bathtub with running water, or while driving. Having an unconscious physical distraction is a big help in clearing the mind for working multiple voices, especially in our noisy and distracting modern world. 

*1: *Many, many of the greatest moments in the history of harmony/counterpoint have been conceived while walking.

But working out voice leading in the brain is certainly not a necessity or the only/best way to go about it. Having tactile feedback is just as good, so long as a person doesn't let it start dictating their writing (for example, how 99% of mainstream rock songs fall into straight-jacket guitar cliche, because the writer only uses what falls most easily under the fingers)

*2: *Many, many of the greatest moments in the history of harmony/counterpoint have been conceived while "jamming" on an instrument.

It's all a bit of fiction anyway. The Mozart myth is just that. In reality he used a keyboard all the time and made alterations and corrections, and did plenty of down and dirty whittling.

Most composers I've ever met or studied use a variety of means to achieve their end product.

At the end of the day, even using written or sounding reference, all composing takes place in the brain. The composer decides what sounds good out of his/her materials. 

Even jamming out with friends is composing. We have to will our hands/breath/etc to sound certain notes at a certain point in space/time. 

All of us are brain composers by definition.

But back on track now...

The big place where working solely in the brain comes to the fore is overall construction and form, the overall balance, progression of ideas, sections, etc. This isn't much of a factor in soundtrack scoring, since the film more or less dictates the overall structure, but in a stand alone piece, stepping back, taking an objective view and playing through the piece in the brain is a good way to make sure everything is working as a whole. In my own concert pieces I typically run through them hundreds or even thousands of times to make sure nothing unintentionally "patchy" gets through. The overwhelming advantage of the brain here is that you can instantly reorder and edit everything at speeds and complex intuitive conceptual levels that real-time physical playback (sequenced or otherwise) would never allow.

Even geniuses have screwed up on that part... witness the final pages of Tchaikovsky's 5th symphony... it just doesn't work, even though the entire rest of the piece is flamingly inspired. His awesome Manfred symphony (a personal favorite) is an even better example, as the final pages bear no resemblance to anything else in the piece, and I don't mean that in a good way. 

Listening to the Manfred is like "yessss... yessssss! HARDCORE! Yesss.... Genius... yes........ WHAT THE [email protected]#$%^&!?!?!?!?!"


----------



## aeneas (Oct 25, 2007)

VonRichter @ Thu 25 Oct said:


> The overwhelming advantage of the brain here is that you can instantly reorder and edit everything at speeds and complex intuitive conceptual levels that real-time physical playback (sequenced or otherwise) would never allow.


A great argument! So - you DO believe in the overwhelming powers of the brain. Then, here is my objection: how come you don't believe in the opposite process, in the brain's powers of PROJECTING a piece of music directly into its perfect form, like Mozart most often did? (albeit not always) In other words: not 'playing-back' in your mind, but 'recording' there a perfect 'take'?

I am no musicologist, but at some point I came across some facsimiled Mozart manuscripts. I know that my limited experience is no scientific evidence, but I will give an account of it anyways, for what I have seen has really blown me away. I don't speak the quality of music here. I am talking about the guy's crystal-clear mind that was coming out from those scores. There was an obvious superior intelligence that was shining there. Of course there were notes and even entire passages crossed out and changes here and there (extremely few, indeed), but I have also seen consecutive dozens of pages with no change at all. Not to speak the balanced overall forms.

I have seen piano concerts for which Mozart has never written the score, only the parts! (where were those scores if not in his mind?) I learned that those concerts were intended for only one performance that he also conducted, so he didn't bother to write out the score. I learned about one of those concerts that, for some reason, he did not write his own piano part, and just played it at that venue from memory! A whole piano concert!! It sounds like a myth, but it is true. IMO, the Mozart myth is probably the closest to reality of all. In any case, I have absolutely no doubt - Mozart was one of the greatest minds human race ever produced, a man with an almost perfect control over his (outstanding) musical thoughts.

So I ask again - it never happened to you to just come up with a piece, albeit short and simple, that came out of the blue and which needed no further touch? Because, I am saying it in all humbleness, it happened to me once (or twice). That is not to say that I have produced perfect music - only that my conscious musical powers proved unable to improve it. It seemed like written by someone else, and all the changes I tried only damaged the music. o 

(no, I don't believe in paranormal...)

I have some reasons to believe that we all have, to different extents, Mozart's power to conceive and finish music directly in mind. We just didn't (and we don't) cultivate it as he did. And we are not as intelligent. The length of this post is a proof that I, for instance, ain't. ~o)


----------



## tradivoro (Oct 25, 2007)

I think familiarity with Oscar Peterson, Chick Corea, Herbie Hancock and Keith Jarret would put some of you in touch with the present day Mozarts...  You'll see that wisdom alive and well and being used on a daily basis... guys who come up with amazing pieces of music without ever having a score...


----------



## aeneas (Oct 25, 2007)

Oh, improvising... I have great respect for those guys, they are all excelling as piano improvisers. I was talking about the ability to compose finished orchestral scores in mind, which I see as a different mental ability than improvising. From what I have observed, improvising relies a lot on combining learned patterns, technical abilities, and 'serendipity'. :wink: 

... and an uncluttered mind, which is the mark of truly great musicians. Yes, I agree, the type of musical wisdom of those guys is somewhat similar to what I was talking about - and Mozart was a great improviser too!


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 26, 2007)

Aeneas, most of your debating points I already addressed in my long post above, so i won't repeat them here. I maintain that *all* human composing takes place in the brain, unless you believe we are puppets and have no free will of our own. Even if you bang "randomly" on a piano, you have to send the electrical impulse to your hands and arms to do so.

I've often gotten entire movements fully constructed in a single hot flash. That's nice, but it's not a prerequisite for composing music.

******************

Onto Mozart...

Your Mozart information is inaccurate. His papers were selectively destroyed to create a false superhuman image.

There are plenty of letters where he complains first hand about working out pieces. The problem is that the only ones surviving were out of the hands of those who "edited" his leftover life information. Most correspondence between his family, especially his father, where he was so brutally honest that his personality rides high and clear to this day, were heavily edited and tampered with, and huge portions were destroyed intentionally and methodically.

His sketches met a similar fate. He indeed made sketches and so on. Many finished manuscripts were misrepresented after the fact as "first drafts". It's unfortunate that this deception has persisted right until this day on an internet forum post.

He was certainly a _very facile_ composer, but then, there _were_ and _are_ many composers who are just as facile. Not all geniuses, obviously, but that's not the point here.

Also consider the simplistic orchestration and harmony of Mozart's time. Mozart is a genius, but not much of a rebel overall (in spirit and person he was, of course, but I'm talking about his music from a technical standpoint here). The arrangements typically fit basic standard molds. Very few second thoughts or careful balances are required with typical classical era arrangements. It's a piece of cake, to put it bluntly.

There were many guys just as facile and prolific as Mozart. Mozart's music survives because he is a creative genius, not because he's prolific and/or fast.

The idea that only one guy born XYZ hundreds of years ago is the only one with great facility is starry-eyed silliness. Many people have had Mozart's level of facility. 

Can you seriously claim that Bach for example is not equally or more facile than Mozart? I would say Bach had a musical brain that was quite powerful and prolific. And that's just an easy example. 

Think of all the people you've never heard of with that skill level, who simply lack the genius to make it all worthwhile.

*Superhuman craftsmen and prodigies are FAR more common than geniuses.*

***********

Now, perhaps we should move on to Beethoven, where 99% of common knowledge about his life is complete and total bollocks.


----------



## wonshu (Oct 26, 2007)

VonRichter @ Fri Oct 26 said:


> Now, perhaps we should move on to Beethoven, where 99% of common knowledge about his life is complete and total bollocks.



Now here's a rock'n'roller through and through... first freelance composer not employed by some royal soggy bottom and compositions that scream of struggle. Struggle with the fact that he couldn't come up with melodies as easily as Mozart, so he had to work double hard to get his stuff into a form that would sustain the ages.

BTW: I like where this conversation is going!


----------



## José Herring (Oct 26, 2007)

VonRichter @ Thu Oct 25 said:


> Aeneas, most of your debating points I already addressed in my long post above, so i won't repeat them here. I maintain that *all* human composing takes place in the brain, unless you believe we are puppets and have no free will of our own. Even if you bang "randomly" on a piano, you have to send the electrical impulse to your hands and arms to do so.
> 
> I've often gotten entire movements fully constructed in a single hot flash. That's nice, but it's not a prerequisite for composing music.
> 
> ...



He was prolific and he was fast. Consider the output for somebody that only lived to be 35 and you'll see straight away that he must have been fast.

I think a lot of your facts need checking. Certainly your conclusions are a bit off imo.

Pieces like the Wind Serenade, Don Giovanni, Cosi Fan tutti, just to name but a fraction are masterpieces in every single way. Cosi Fan Tutti is unbelievably well orchestrated.

If anybody is to credit Mozart is for breaking away from the traditional classical period stuff especially with pieces like the Dissonant Quartet and the Clarinet Quintet. 

Mozart wrote more meaningful music in the short time that he had than just about anybody else. And it was good too.


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 26, 2007)

Jose, by your post, it almost seems like you think I'm bashing Mozart. In fact I'm a big Mozart fan!
He was my first love composer wise and easily my biggest direct influence.

I said he was a genius over and over.

In fact I've been talking to him in recurring dreams for many years, and also made him the main character of my second novel.

My conclusion is merely rational. That there are and were people just as inherently prolific as Mozart. And LOTS of them.

That Mozart's music is commonly performed and known due to his _creative_ genius besides the point.

*******************


Do you _really_ think facility has some correlation with _creative_ genius?

Unfortunately, and fortunately, it has nothing to do with creative genius.

Lot's of guys in Mozart's time and before *pumped out the pieces like a damn factory*. People probably still do to this day.

Why is that such a big problem that it's cause to argue?
I don't understand how this infringes on Mozart's work.
His work is his work, it's going to be great even if he had only composed a fraction of the pieces he did.


Mozart is a _human_ with _human_ capacities.

I don't want to rain on anyones idol worship parade, I'm simply adding a little rational perspective.

I don't want people to sit around in awe, I want them to say "hey... I can do that" and push themselves higher


Cheers,
-VR


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 26, 2007)

wonshu @ Thu Oct 25 said:


> VonRichter @ Fri Oct 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Now, perhaps we should move on to Beethoven, where 99% of common knowledge about his life is complete and total bollocks.
> ...



Mozart tried to go freelance but unfortunately the climate wasn't quite right for him to pull it off yet. Perhaps if he had lived... 

Mozart's late works already start encroaching on "romantic" territory... interesting to ponder if he would have made a major stylistic upheaval and blown the lid right off the Classical era. It's entirely possible... Mozart's personality is very individualist, and his music steadily grew more so right until the end. Now we'll never know.

Anyway onto Beethoven...

Most importantly, we have to toss in the trash any and all biographies that used the now-thoroughly-debunked Schindler as a factual source. Most of the Beethoven fiction comes from that jackazz. Nothing but a mere clinger-on trying to milk someones genius for his own ego inflation. Schindler is one big fat liar and has created mountains of difficulties for would-be Beethoven historians.


----------



## aeneas (Oct 26, 2007)

VonRichter @ Fri 26 Oct said:


> Mozart is a _human_ with _human_ capacities.


Precisely my point! That is why I said we can all do what Mozart did, if we cultivate certain abilities. We do not cultivate _human_ abilities, like he did. /\~O 

Von Richter, you have your reasons to be skeptical, and I am too aware about some exaggerations in Mozart's biographies. But I have seen those manuscripts, and I don't believe they were counterfeit! I won't enter into a historical argument about what is or isn't true in his biographies. I would like to stay a bit on this topic of completing music in one's mind. Mozart was the absolute champion of that, I think we can all agree on that. So let us be practical - how did he do it? The easiest, and most common, answer is: "He was a creative genius. Period." That won't do, not for me.

The answer that I suggest is that he was very focused and was thinking really fast. I think he was primarily a mind-worker. Then he may have had a strong will, being able to take quick decisions and then write on paper a final result. Then, he never cared for second thoughts, improvements, etc. Never looking back - always looking ahead! Also, confidence: no doubts whatsoever about his works. And he was practical - he was doing 'functional' music, music meant to be liked by those particular Austrian (Czech, German) people. Also, always striving for the best (and the most) that can be done until lunchtime! :lol: That's how I think he did it. These are perfectly human qualities, and not even too hard to put in practice. Let's use them! 

It is true that those above do say nothing about why we like his music. But let's keep that for another discussion.

What can still be discussed on this topic is whether, at the moment of writing them down, those pieces were already finished in his mind. It is not reasonable to presume that he made sketches that were lost. I don't think he would have had time and patience to do too many sketches. Also, he was not the type of personality to care much for testing, experimenting, re-writting, etc. He was a DO-er. 

As a conclusion - I think he was a guy using his mind to a far bigger extent than most people do.That is my belief, and my explanation for his easiness to write music. So - Less sketches, less paper, more brain! Less computer, more brain! - That is my point. Let's make better use of what we have best! What we have best is not our computers, so why spending so much money and time on these stupid time-wasters? Indeed. I'm out! ~o) 

P.S. -
I believe that today, Mozart would have used a computer only to input the notes in a notation program while playing on a rig of keyboards, then to output the parts from the printer! And then - a lot of time for PARTYING! o/~ o-[][]-o o=<


----------



## Trev Parks (Oct 26, 2007)

VonRichter @ Fri Oct 26 said:


> Mozart's late works already start encroaching on "romantic" territory... interesting to ponder if he would have made a major stylistic upheaval and blown the lid right off the Classical era. It's entirely possible... Mozart's personality is very individualist, and his music steadily grew more so right until the end. Now we'll never know.



That's something I've often wondered, given the young age he died. Would he have followed (the much older) Haydn and backed away after Beethoven started hammering his way through the doors?. I doubt it. I can't imagine he'd have followed the younger generation such as Ferdinand Ries or Hummel into the glitzier side of things either. 

A number of his later works have that sense of melancholy that is peculiarly his own so I suspect you're right about the possibility of a stylistic change. Perhaps rather than something blazing he'd have followed a path to an almost Schummanesque introvertion?. As you say, who knows?.


----------



## tradivoro (Oct 26, 2007)

These guys can write orchestral scores in mind and spit it out later... Trust me, these particular guys aren't just improvisers, they're great composers arrangers and musicians... They're just better known as improvisers... 



aeneas @ Thu Oct 25 said:


> Oh, improvising... I have great respect for those guys, they are all excelling as piano improvisers. I was talking about the ability to compose finished orchestral scores in mind, which I see as a different mental ability than improvising. From what I have observed, improvising relies a lot on combining learned patterns, technical abilities, and 'serendipity'. :wink:
> 
> ... and an uncluttered mind, which is the mark of truly great musicians. Yes, I agree, the type of musical wisdom of those guys is somewhat similar to what I was talking about - and Mozart was a great improviser too!


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 26, 2007)

aeneas @ Fri Oct 26 said:


> I would like to stay a bit on this topic of completing music in one's mind. Mozart was the absolute champion of that, I think we can all agree on that.



Actually, no we can't all agree on that because it is _incorrect_.

It is a gross generalization, irrationally presumptuous, and statistically impossible.

I've met plenty of people who work 100% in-brain, without any instrument reference _at all._ 

I myself work about 98% in-brain. I write my entire concert works in mind. _The entire piece from front to back._

Sorry if it rains on your parade, but I'm hardly unique in this regard.

It's not a big deal, dude.

Mozart's music is special & unique, but his _methods_ are not.


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 26, 2007)

aeneas @ Fri Oct 26 said:


> It is not reasonable to presume that he made sketches that were lost. I don't think he would have had time and patience to do too many sketches.



It's not a "presumption". You should hit the libraries and do the hard research yourself, but here's a relevant quote from wiki :
*
"Mozart worked very hard, a great deal of the time, and finished works where necessary at a tremendous pace. When composing he often made sketches and drafts, though (unlike Beethoven's sketches) these are mostly not preserved, Constanze having destroyed them after his death."*


Like all human composers, Mozart works out pieces in the brain. The sketches are simply reminders of ideas.

It would be misleading to over-estimate the role of sketches in most composers work. A person who cannot remember large quantities of music clearly perhaps isn't the ideal candidate for attempting large musical structures.

Just try playing in a band with someone who lacks musical memory. It's a nightmare.


----------



## aeneas (Oct 26, 2007)

VonRichter @ Fri 26 Oct said:


> aeneas @ Fri Oct 26 said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to stay a bit on this topic of completing music in one's mind. Mozart was the absolute champion of that, I think we can all agree on that.
> ...


And, since their music is probably less appreciated than Mozart's, who's the champ? :wink: I completely agree, making music in your head is not a performance in itself, the degree of the performance depends on the quality of the resulted music, of course. Considering the effectiveness of the music Mozart was making, that looks to me like an unsurpassed performance. Sorry for this new _statistically impossible, while irrationally presumptuous gross generalization_. o 


> I myself work about 98% in-brain. I write my entire concert works in mind. The entire piece from front to back.
> 
> Sorry if it rains on your parade, but I'm hardly unique in this regard.
> 
> ...


I am really thrilled, seriously, to learn that you are finishing your works 98% in your head! Why did it take you so long to say it? So you are the right person to talk about it, please do share some info! For example, the initial question of the OP: how do you manage to keep track of the harmonic trends, and of all the other compositional elements? I must admit that my memory fails me, I need to write things down in order to control them (and to remember them from one day to another). Would you post a link to a composition of yours that was made exclusively in your head, with no other help (instrument, or visual)? I am very much interested in this subject. I have always thought that Mozart's capacity to be in perfect control of his musical thoughts was quite unique. (with the sole exception of J.S. Bach, I thought)


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 26, 2007)

aeneas @ Fri Oct 26 said:


> I am really thrilled, seriously, to learn that you are finishing your works 98% in your head. Why did it take you so long to say it? This leads back to the original question of the OP: how do you manage to keep track of the harmonic trends, and of all the other compositional elements? I must admit that my memory fails me, I need to write things down in order to control them (and to remember them from one day to another).



That's no problem. Mozart himself wrote things down and kept notes to remember things. He also, as pieces were completed, kept a famous "thematic index" of his pieces for later reference. By all means, keep notes. It's far better than forgetting a great idea!

As far as remembering complete works, I just do it. I build up the work in my mind. It plays back as clear as a tape recorder in my minds ear. I have a hard time considering the process noteworthy, but perhaps I'm desensitized. It's vaguely similar to an imaginary sequencer, I guess, except that the brain doesn't work in real-time, or linearly, or even forwards necessarily. 

The brain can intuitively have an entire hour-long piece in mind at the same point in time, as it's by no means a mono-focus computer. This is a big part of why most "art music" sounds like _complete mush_ on first hearing: it does not exist conceptually in strict linear time, and to fully understand the inner relations and depth of the piece, the entire thing must be "known" in the mind from the very opening measures. This is why, say, Mahler's 5th (for random example) becomes better and better the more you memorize it.

This is what I call the "4th dimension" of listening, which is the biggest obstacle to the popular acceptance of music as art. _Real masterworks cannot be understood linearly_, but the average shmoe can only process extremely short, isolated linear chunks of music at a time. _Listening to serious music is an art unto itself _and requires brain training and expansion of mental capacity. It is _extremely_ healthy for the brain. The famous cheesy "Mozart Effect", of exposing people to Mozart or other complex music to make them smarter, is not a joke. It has a sound experimental basis, even if it is practically applied in a probably misguided fashion.

Back to working out compositions in-brain...

Music is often associative, so it's easy to remember massive long developments, because the themes act as the "memory keystone". Much as it's easy to remember words if they are set to music, and vice-versa. This is the technique used by people with astonishing memories (people who can remember phone books) and sold as "boost your super memory" products. These are scientifically valid, and those products indeed can boost your memory to an impressive extent if consciously applied until they become subconscious.

Luckily, music is by far one of the easiest things to remember, as it has built-in associations almost by definition. I can't remember a single phone number, or where I put my car keys, or anything else, yet I can remember hundreds and hundreds of hours of music very clearly.

But like I said before, _everyone_ composes in brain. Otherwise they would simply be smashing a bottle of ink on a piece of score paper. Even in that case, you're aiming at some part of the paper, and thus influence the results, and thus compose to some degree.

It's hard to imagine a logical scenario where a human could _avoid_ composing in the brain.

Even taking it to extremes. You could program an algorithm, but you are still playing a part by creating the code. You can hang wind chimes from a tree, and let the wind take over, yet it was you who decided where and when to hang the wind chimes.




aeneas @ Fri Oct 26 said:


> Would you post a link to a composition of yours that was made exclusively in your head, with no other help (instrument, or visual)? I am very much interested in this subject.



I do not have any concert works online, but here is a sub-section of a piece worked out 100% in brain before a single note was written down. It's part of the "soundtrack" for the (theoretical) film adaptation of my 3rd novel:

http://kirkhunterstudios.com/audiodemos.html
(click on "Emerald Demos" then click on "No Matter Where You Go")

Most anything else you can find from me online is also primarily or completely composed in brain before writing down.


----------



## aeneas (Oct 27, 2007)

VonRichter @ Fri 26 Oct said:


> http://kirkhunterstudios.com/audiodemos.html
> (click on "Emerald Demos" then click on "No Matter Where You Go")


Nice piece, quite eclectic in style, like a journey into several cultural places, from Americana, to French Impressionism, further to a somewhat Gothic atmosphere, a short stop in Mid-East, then back to the Americana, etc. ... I have enjoyed even more your other two pieces there, 3AM and VR March - maybe it's just me but I do sense some heroic-comical intentions there... (?) Considering the complexity of those pieces, you surely must have a great memory to keep track of everything without the need of paper. That is a great advantage on your side, if it was only for the time (and paper :D ) you save!



> It's hard to imagine a logical scenario where a human could _avoid_ composing in the brain.


Of course I was talking about avoiding something else, specifically - any EXTERNAL help, like an instrument or paper and pencil. I once knew someone who was able to play blind chess, and I was in awe about that. Composing music requires of course different qualities. Yet there is something peculiar to it - call me crazy, but when I compose, I sometimes feel my imagination like a 'different' entity that comes up with some surprising 'moves', almost like playing some sort of chess. So writing things down is the only way that I can keep track of those ideas that come from out of the blue. Then, combining, developing, arranging them, giving an unifying sense, etc. the whole compositional craft is done inside my mind of course, but always with the visual help of the papers (which always look like a mess, only I can understand what is there, and sometimes that's hardly possible even for me... The very opposite of Mozart's crystal-clear manuscripts!)


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 27, 2007)

aeneas @ Sat Oct 27 said:


> VonRichter @ Fri 26 Oct said:
> 
> 
> > http://kirkhunterstudios.com/audiodemos.html
> ...



Thanks for the kind comments 

The heroic aspect you noted is right on.
The project these are intended for (not 3AM which is an unrelated thing) is a monster epic featuring a mid-apocalypse totalitarian hellhole, massive war, large jumps in time frames (It covers around 20 years). 

The novel is in 2 sections, 800+ pages in total. (It might approach on 900 pages longer after my next revision). You may or may not have noticed that NMWYG and VR March are developments of the same themes and motives. They are both from the project. Imagine a horrific near-future battle somewhat in the style of Stalingrad (the biggest, most deadly battle in human history) in WW2 and you'll get a good idea of what's going to be happening with VR March (obviously I've reworked it a bit for the version you've heard so it holds together on it's own... it's more broken up and intermixed with other things in a film context). This is planned as the biggest set piece of the film, with a full armor column, air support and urban warfare bigger than anything ever attempted in film history.

The two protagonists of the story are rarely in the same place... perhaps this sheds some light on the title "No Matter Where You Go".

Of course, I'll probably never be in a position to actually film this.  
Even if I were, the "powers that be" would butcher the ending and try to truncate all the good stuff. It's also morally ambiguous, there are no good guys or bad guys, just people caught in the middle.

Perhaps I'll be forced to use animation and rotoscoping instead.


----------



## wonshu (Oct 28, 2007)

Your name makes more and more sense...


----------



## clarkcontrol (Oct 29, 2007)

When VonRichter says

"A person who cannot remember large quantities of music clearly perhaps isn't the ideal candidate for attempting large musical structures"

This is a bit misleading (and lets not exclude the genius with a short memory!). Maybe its better to say that if you can't remember, write it down. In fact, I would say that even if you CAN remember you should write it down. This way, you have a snapshot of your work frozen on paper, sequencer, or cocktail napkin to compare against the ever-shifting version in your head.

Writing down or notating also has the advantages of seeing the work from a different perspective, opening up new creative directions from having the work realized in that particular medium.

Remember:

Memorizing musical info., technical info., etc. can streamline the creative process. It is also a muscle. The more you use your memory muscles, the greater your capacity the next time.

As Von R. points out, this is most apparent in a live context. I could fill a whole forum with stories, seeing as I gig a lot. Crazy deadlines will also reveal the strength or weakness of your ITH (in the head) versus your ITB skills.

RE: non-linear musical forms in art music: From a strict artistic view, I agree with Von 100%. However, being exposed to art music at its worst I must say that the genre is seriously compromized by composers who think that this "mush music" is their calling because they completely suck at writing high quality, artistic music in another, more commercial style. Because they can't hear that they suck at writing "mush music" they think they are good at it!

This art music has gotten a real raw deal at Universities because all the composition students think their sh!t doesn't stink and they will create the next step in the music of the world. Instead, they need to master all that came before in order to effectively compose in the newer, extended genres. Plus, students hate playing that crap because half the time the composer is writing really unrewarding, complicated, and unattractive parts for their instruments.

Ugh.

Anyway, being able to understand this style in a non-linear, 4th dimensional way is highly satisfying, akin to enjoying a movie all the more because you appreciate the skill and effort it took to do all the special effects. Von says "Real masterworks cannot be understood linearly" and this should be said of ALL masterworks. Enjoy a fugue vertically. Enjoy a big band chart horizontally.

Once again, though, this is a skill, and can be developed. The Mozart effect is a misleading concept. I personnally think that the process is backwards. Listening to Mozart only helps you if you have the cognitive muscles to build in the first place. It doesn't make you smarter, but it will accelerate the development of smart people.

Clark


----------



## synthetic (Oct 29, 2007)

I'm not sure I agree with that last post. People who skip learning what came before because it will color their own genius usually end up with cliched versions of what came before.


----------

