What's new

Composing orchestral music with score sheet vs DAW

This thread seems to be planing on different levels. MIdi can of course be 'programmed' with those notes but what GeneP (and me for that matter) is saying I believe, is that it would not represent nearly enough, music of a complexity demonstrated in his post above and the expressive reach that live musicianship and ensemble imparts to such work. In fact, the vital 'music' in a midi/sample rendition would be lost imv, much to the detriment of the great classics.

All of that is in interpretation. It's not actually on the page at all, and in fact, you are highlighting a limitation of notation that has been pointed out many times (it's actually an incredibly unexpressive medium, which is why you see a great many composers of the last 150 years actually fighting it, whether through the graphical notation of Penderecki and others, quirky performance descriptions by Satie, and so on and so forth).

What is problematic to me is where it leads; the inherent "I am a better musician than this other person because I use pen and paper" which is quite obviously nonsense but often present. Very, very, very often present, from educational establishments high and low, music critics throughout recent history, and numerous other outlets. It's an incredibly dangerous, ethnocentric (most music from the history of our species does not use Western notation) and slippery slope.

I'm not saying that that is why you are saying, or GeneP, but when I hear people say "music of XYZ complexity" it does seem a little like saying that notation is superior to midi data, which...simply isn't true when you pick it apart properly. It's factually untrue (apart from the minor enharmonic spelling point, which is true).

Just because we as people who read music then apply a degree of interpretation naturally, and hear wonderful things beyond the rigid dots on the page, no matter how inspiring, does not change that.
 
All of that is in interpretation. It's not actually on the page at all, and in fact, you are highlighting a limitation of notation that has been pointed out many times (it's actually an incredibly unexpressive medium, which is why you see a great many composers of the last 150 years actually fighting it, whether through the graphical notation of Penderecki and others, quirky performance descriptions by Satie, and so on and so forth).

What is problematic to me is where it leads; the inherent "I am a better musician than this other person because I use pen and paper" which is quite obviously nonsense but often present. Very, very, very often present, from educational establishments high and low, music critics throughout recent history, and numerous other outlets. It's an incredibly dangerous, ethnocentric (most music from the history of our species does not use Western notation) and slippery slope.

I'm not saying that that is why you are saying, or GeneP, but when I hear people say "music of XYZ complexity" it does seem a little like saying that notation is superior to midi data, which...simply isn't true when you pick it apart properly. It's factually untrue (apart from the minor enharmonic spelling point, which is true).

Just because we as people who read music then apply a degree of interpretation naturally, and hear wonderful things beyond the rigid dots on the page, no matter how inspiring, does not change that.

I'll stick to talking about western notation.
My main issue with midi/samples is the limits on creative options it imposes. The manuscript is free of restrictions other than one's own imagination and skill I believe. I work both ways btw but for me, I work best when on the manuscript as I tend to become even more aware than normal of idiomatic writing, phrasing, slurs and potential articulation subtleties and dynamics - all immediately written down with no fuss and in a state of flow. These details become creative options for me and inform my writing. Spacings and timbre take on a more physical aspect on my large 38 stave manuscript, which becomes a physical representation of the acoustic spectrum. Once music is written this way, the midi/sample programming of such becomes a little more focused and the result is more musical, at least for me and my way of working. The manuscript has a way of helping me focus in on details that could well be ignored if one is writing for samples - a potential expressive advantage or opportunity can be missed as a result. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that ms detail and an equivalent in midi are incomparable, it's just what works for me and my background. Subconsciously too, I believe it helps me create better music than I would without such focus.

I therefore disagree that the manuscript is unexpressive, in fact I find it creatively liberating to be free of physical constraints. And, for every aleatoric score or other innovative notational convention you can name in use by composers, there will be a "great many" composers who use standard notation in advanced or everyday ways and will find that it adequately translates their musical intent.

I'm not sure really what you main beef is though. I did acknowledge that complex music can be inputted via midi but that would then only churn out music such as in Gene's examples say, with a severely hampered expressive, interpretive and timbral result and in some cases, would not be able to play the articulations or techniques anyway. One can easily level the adjective "unexpressive" to midi too but admittedly that does depend on who's programming, their skill and the genre.

As to your "inherent implication" problem, well yes, one has to understand much more if one is to be a composer/ orchestrator as opposed to a synthestrator (samplestrator?). I can't do much about that, it's the way it is. That can be overcome with work and study.
It doesn't necessarily make one a better composer though and that I learnt a long time ago, when I would lose media briefs to good tracks by colleagues who could not read. Mind you, they couldn't write concertos.
For me the manuscript allows me to contemplate utilising resources I've learnt about in studies that are not available to the DAW.
 
Last edited:
I have made the experience that most people who criticise writing in a DAW are not very familiar with it.

What is problematic to me is where it leads; the inherent "I am a better musician than this other person because I use pen and paper" which is quite obviously nonsense but often present. Very, very, very often present, from educational establishments high and low, music critics throughout recent history, and numerous other outlets. It's an incredibly dangerous, ethnocentric (most music from the history of our species does not use Western notation) and slippery slope.


Welp, looks like I get to add yet another topic to The Official List of Things That Can't be Discussed Cuz Muh Sensitivities + You're a MIDI-ot + Discount Strawmen @ 3-for-a-dollar + Off-topic Axes to Grind + Virtue Signaling "You Might be an 'Incredibly Dangerous' Rayciss™ if You Prefer Notation Over Smoke Signals."

Over four months to go in the year and my 2020 VI-C play-at-home bingo card is already filled up.
 
Honestly, I have no idea what the discussion is about at this point, people mix up points and arguments.

Some talk about MIDI Notation vs traditional notation.
Others talk about how samples aren't like the real deal (duh, no shit sherlock).

My point is that composition in MIDI notation is inextricably linked to the sample libraries it triggers. Inherently the only way it works is if it is connected to a specific sample library patch. How do you notate a portamento note transition in MIDI ? Or a Rip ? If your library does not have those articulations you cannot notate it in MIDI. That’s why samples are a part of this conversation. You are limited from the very start by that capabilities of any specific library.

And that is before we get to compositional aspects that have also been discussed thoroughly in this thread, which I find is a rather more interesting discussion that the usuals ‘which is the best brass library’....
 
My point is that composition in MIDI notation is inextricably linked to the sample libraries it triggers. Inherently the only way it works is if it is connected to a specific sample library patch. How do you notate a portamento note transition in MIDI ? Or a Rip ? If your library does not have those articulations you cannot notate it in MIDI. That’s why samples are a part of this conversation. You are limited from the very start by that capabilities of any specific library.

And that is before we get to compositional aspects that have also been discussed thoroughly in this thread, which I find is a rather more interesting discussion that the usuals ‘which is the best brass library’....
If its for live players, you could fake it (so it sounds roughly like a rip)
1597688066989.png


or you put rip into the expression map, even though it doesn't change the playback
1597688135077.png

or both:
1597688512882.png


the same with portamento, you either add that into the notation when you later do the score, or you make an expression map called "portamento" and put it on there.

BUT I agree that the DAW makes you write with what you have. For me it's worth it, since I want to produce finished mock-ups. If you want to write concert music, the DAW is probably not a good choice.
 
My point is that composition in MIDI notation is inextricably linked to the sample libraries it triggers. Inherently the only way it works is if it is connected to a specific sample library patch. How do you notate a portamento note transition in MIDI ? Or a Rip ? If your library does not have those articulations you cannot notate it in MIDI. That’s why samples are a part of this conversation. You are limited from the very start by that capabilities of any specific library.

And that is before we get to compositional aspects that have also been discussed thoroughly in this thread, which I find is a rather more interesting discussion that the usuals ‘which is the best brass library’....

Yes, good interesting discussion and thread.

I think of these points:
- as Duke Ellington said, there’s good music and bad music. Hopefully, good music is composed with thoughts towards doing ones best to express something worthy of being listened to hopefully more than just once.

- 99% of the world doesn’t care whether the composer used pencil/paper either before recording their music or even handing out parts to real musicians for some music to be recorded. They just want to hear the end result.

Computers are great tools, right? They can be used to produce all kinds of music these days... good and bad.

If we all want to sound the same and produce ‘trailer/epic’ music in the style of someone else, we can do that pretty easily. (...no knowledge of notation or much of anything is needed except knowing how to cut and paste with accuracy)

But, some new expressionistic-art can be produced as well, as prove by contributor Jerry Gerber (a true veteran of the MIDI world and the “real live” music world.

I mention Jerry because I’ve bought and listened to his music. If you haven’t heard his music, then do yourself a favor if you are really interested in hearing the potential of sample libraries/synths used to create new music. Fresh ideas, fresh orchestration ideas, tried and true ideas, some synths, melodies, cool chords, some real ‘busy’ section, some real ‘ambient’ sections... all of which bear listening to if you like music.... good music I must add.

His music, as he says, is meant to be heard as music that has just utilized his computer in order to create some art that he wants to put out there.

Not to mimic someone or do another rendition of some other composers music to show off some MIDI skills... but to just compose some music...and yes, using the capabilities of what libraries/synths he has on hand.

What blows me away is that he inputs the notes with a mouse into his DAW (even though he‘s a more than competent pianist!)

...which further proves that it doesn’t matter what the heck you use to get your ideas down in order to be heard by a listener!
 
Last edited:
I'll stick to talking about western notation.
My main issue with midi/samples is the limits on creative options it imposes. The manuscript is free of restrictions other than one's own imagination and skill I believe. I work both ways btw but for me, I work best when on the manuscript as I tend to become even more aware than normal of idiomatic writing, phrasing, slurs and potential articulation subtleties and dynamics - all immediately written down with no fuss and in a state of flow. These details become creative options for me and inform my writing. Spacings and timbre take on a more physical aspect on my large 38 stave manuscript, which becomes a physical representation of the acoustic spectrum. Once music is written this way, the midi/sample programming of such becomes a little more focused and the result is more musical, at least for me and my way of working. The manuscript has a way of helping me focus in on details that could well be ignored if one is writing for samples - a potential expressive advantage or opportunity can be missed as a result. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that ms detail and an equivalent in midi are incomparable, it's just what works for me and my background. Subconsciously too, I believe it helps me create better music than I would without such focus.

I therefore disagree that the manuscript is unexpressive, in fact I find it creatively liberating to be free of physical constraints. And, for every aleatoric score or other innovative notational convention you can name in use by composers, there will be a "great many" composers who use standard notation in advanced or everyday ways and will find that it adequately translates their musical intent.

I'm not sure really what you main beef is though. I did acknowledge that complex music can be inputted via midi but that would then only churn out music such as in Gene's examples say, with a severely hampered expressive, interpretive and timbral result and in some cases, would not be able to play the articulations or techniques anyway. One can easily level the adjective "unexpressive" to midi too but admittedly that does depend on who's programming, their skill and the genre.

As to your "inherent implication" problem, well yes, one has to understand much more if one is to be a composer/ orchestrator as opposed to a synthestrator (samplestrator?). I can't do much about that, it's the way it is. That can be overcome with work and study.
It doesn't necessarily make one a better composer though and that I learnt a long time ago, when I would lose media briefs to good tracks by colleagues who could not read. Mind you, they couldn't write concertos.
For me the manuscript allows me to contemplate utilising resources I've learnt about in studies that are not available to the DAW.


Yet the notated score, just like the MIDI data, is only a set of instructions, utterly dependent upon the quality of the players or the quality of the samples. One can produce a score that is meticulous down to the last detail but the players still have to have the skills and experience to bring that score to life. And in the studio, the MIDI programming can be rich with every detail, yet still dependent upon the number of and quality of the samples. The local high school orchestra obviously won't be able to interpret the score like the NY Philharmonic can, and a library that costs $200 won't be able to interpret the MIDI programming in the same way that a $6000 library can.
 
Yes. Jerry is a good example of an exception here which is why I try to word my views accurately. I know his musical philosophy regarding samples and his conviction shows in his work. Embracing midi/samples in their own right is obviously an option.
Oh Hi Jerry, we were just talking about you.... :)
 
Yes. Jerry is a good example of an exception here which is why I try to word my views accurately. I know his musical philosophy regarding samples and his conviction shows in his work. Embracing midi/samples in their own right is obviously an option.
Oh Hi Jerry, we were just talking about you.... :)
Hi Mike, Cam & everyone! 😃
 
Yes, good interesting discussion and thread.

It is, and just to be clear, I don't think that anyone has said that really terrific music has not been or cannot be written using the MIDI Piano roll. There are some examples of beautiful compositions out there. What is being debated is whether MIDI is more constraining and limiting than traditional notation - primarily with reference to compositional technique.

Personally I believe it is (constraining), but that's just my opinion, and I am always interested in hearing alternative viewpoints...
 
Last edited:
It is, and just to be clear, I don't think that anyone has said that really terrific music has not been or cannot be written using the MIDI Piano roll. There are some examples of beautiful compositions out there. What is being debated is whether MIDI is more constraining and limiting than traditional notation - primarily with reference to compositional technique.

Personally I believe it is, but that's just my opinion, and I am always interested in hearing alternative viewpoints...

I've worked in a DAW for some 30 years and have never once used the piano-roll view. I don't know if terrific music can or cannot be created with it, that's not for me to judge. But I do know as a classically-trained and practicing composer that it's impossible for me to create effective contrapuntal music using the piano-roll. In my opinion (just my opinion folks, don't get all bent out of shape over it) the PRV cannot compete with SMN, at least for my musical purposes.

We've got several issues here: DAWs, music notation, the piano-roll, traditional manuscript, etc. etc. My recommendation is DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, and write what you want to write any way you want to write it. I can guarantee this: Whatever you write, somebody might love it, somebody might hate it and somebody won't give a rat's ass about it.
 
We've got several issues here: DAWs, music notation, the piano-roll, traditional manuscript, etc. etc. My recommendation is DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, and write what you want to write any way you want to write it. I can guarantee this: Whatever you write, somebody might love it, somebody might hate it and somebody won't give a rat's ass about it.
and that brings me back to my original question:

using the DAW for composing results for me in a way of composing where I always kind of "perform" (only) 1 line at a time. Being a piano player doesnt help in this case. No matter what sophisticated library with custom build expressionMap I have loaded up, I tend to improvise/perform/focus on one line. I would imagine, using either notation with multi staves (or piano roll/score editor with some good practise) I could more efficiently "web" on multiple musical "threads" at the same time - in other words just work more contrapuntal.

If you say you dont compose/work with piano roll .. what is your typical process when letting your ideas come to life?
 
and that brings me back to my original question:

using the DAW for composing results for me in a way of composing where I always kind of "perform" (only) 1 line at a time. Being a piano player doesnt help in this case. No matter what sophisticated library with custom build expressionMap I have loaded up, I tend to improvise/perform/focus on one line. I would imagine, using either notation with multi staves (or piano roll/score editor with some good practise) I could more efficiently "web" on multiple musical "threads" at the same time - in other words just work more contrapuntal.

If you say you dont compose/work with piano roll .. what is your typical process when letting your ideas come to life?

I still maintain that your issue is not about DAW vs traditional notation. It seems to me more about how to learn how to think as a composer, rather than an instrumentalist (actually you want to think as both). Have you taken a course on counterpoint? My own way of working is to pop notes onto the staff using a mouse, which for some might seem absurd. I might start with a motive or melody, or a rhythmic pattern, or a chord or harmonic progression. Then I go from there. I think each person has to find their own method, no one size fits all. There's many ways to use the musical tools that science and technology has given us. You'll just have to do what the rest of us are doing--experiment and find the way that works best for you. I can say that approaching this with enthusiasm, confidence and a certain kind of "lightheartedness" is helpful.
 
I still maintain that your issue is not about DAW vs traditional notation. It seems to me more about how to learn how to think as a composer, rather than an instrumentalist (actually you want to think as both).
I agree .. yet, the DAW still channels me of thinking less contrapuntal, but more in blocks / individual parts .. - guess I have to free myself from that thinking. (I have to mention, in my earlier life I used to produce EDM and pop music for years - using Emagic Logic Audio :P )
Thats why I think either using notation or the DAW in a bit different way than I used it before would be sort of a fresh start for that.
 
This thread seems to be planing on different levels. MIdi can of course be 'programmed' with those notes but what GeneP (and me for that matter) is saying I believe, is that it would not represent nearly enough, music of a complexity demonstrated in his post above and the expressive reach that live musicianship and ensemble imparts to such work. In fact, the vital 'music' in a midi/sample rendition would be lost imv, much to the detriment of the great classics.

However, I'd love for someone to try and match a live recording of the Strauss with the best available in samples to see how close we can get at present. Another thing, how would one for example perform with samples, the 5 violas harmonic glissando sul C in Gene's second example? Is there anything out there that could do this at the required dynamic and tempo?...I'm genuinely asking as it'd be nice to have a flexible, programmable harmonic gliss for all the 4 strings of each string instrument...oh with solo and divisi options too... ;)


Likewise on a different plane and getting back to the OP, a composer's creative mindset can be hampered by sample limitations and they may have to decide between writing to sample strength or write in a more unlimited way on the manuscript. Writing successfully, free of sample limitations requires more knowledge than synthestration and the decision on how to proceed (synthestration or orchestration), is inevitably influenced by how much one has an understanding of individual instrumental capability and instruments in combination with others, along with the artistic intention and/or the reason for writing. One can of course, embrace the samples for what they are and with full orchestral knowledge or not, still produce artistic worth.


A mixed approach will inevitably have to be used by those fluent in synthestration and orchestration in the absence of real performance, unless they decide not be dictated to on the ms. It's quite the artistic trap and the temptation to give in to what sounds ok in the DAW can be a limiting factor for some.


Here's another perspective: When Strauss or Mahler or whoever was composing for orchestra a hundred or 150 years ago, the orchestra was IT. That's all they had, that's what they knew, that's what they wrote for.

What is the end game here? Sure, as musicians the end game is to write the best music we can, to put our commitment, time, energy and love into what we're making. That's a given. But isn't the goal, in a more general sense to be happy, to be a reasonably content human being, to strive for, yes, of course, but also to be able to go to work and be grateful, thankful that you're alive and lucky enough to be able to even be writing music. Any one of us could drop dead any moment, get COVID, get into a car crash, whatever. Life is uncertain in every respect. The pandemic just brings it out more.

If your chief pursuit is to take a classic, say a Mahler symphony, or a Strauss opera and interpret using samples and a DAW, well, that's certainly your right to do that. And if you do, you'll probably learn an awful lot about music, harmony, orchestration and sequencing in the process. But remember: You're re-adapting a work for one medium into another medium. Strauss and the other composers of that day knew nothing of our instruments today. They wrote for their medium. Not ours.

When it comes to writing your own music, might not the wiser course of action be to decide: Am I writing for a new medium as an end in itself, or am I settling for something I don't really love because what I really want deep in my heart of hearts is getting works played well by a great orchestra (not to mention getting a good recording)? But these opportunities are really hard to get unless you're writing for film or some other commercial pursuit, which brings an entirely different set of compromises. (The politics and economics of getting works played is a whole other discussion). Remember, composers are in a profession where we're literally competing with about 300 years of dead people! Yes, most of the music played by top American orchestras is music composed by men (very few women unfortunately) who passed away decades or centuries ago. Now that's competition! :)

If your dream is to get all, some, most, or even one of your serious works played by a live orchestra, go for it! Keep on pursuing it until you get what you want. But I think comparing what samples can and cannot do relative to a live orchestra is kind of self-sabotaging. Part of the problem is in the terms we use, terms like "mockup", or "symphony" (I plead guilty) or "virtual orchestra"--they invite us (tempt us) to compare what should be a new, exciting musical frontier with a long-established tradition. I personally do not think this is healthy.

To compare a live performance in a great hall with expert musicians, an eager audience, a gifted conductor with a recording of a virtual electronic piece is, to my mind, such a futile comparison that I don't ever even go there. First of all, the psycho-social aspects of live musicians interacting with each other in real time is not duplicatable with MIDI. Even when I improvise with just one or a few other musicians, I realize there's a give-and-take component of the experience that is unique. I think we're setting ourselves up for unhappiness and frustration by comparing the old way with the new way of music-making.

So how is it I wake up nearly every morning, eager, enthusiastic and excited to go into my studio and work in a medium that will never be a real orchestra? Because I never pretended, even to myself, especially to myself, that it is that in the first place. I completely accept it as a different way to make music. Better? Worse? Good? Bad? It doesn't matter, what matters is I show up, do my best, and let the chips fall where they may. I am not seeking immortality through music, I seek it through being human. If I put meaning into my work, and I get meaning out of it, that's all that matters to me. I could be dead tomorrow and I sure as hell don't want to spend my life not appreciating what I do have and what I can do.

Mike's work is incredible. I keep urging him to post on here but he has his own reasons for not doing so and I respect that. I know he's worked with top players for years, which I am sure colors his thinking on these matters. And yet I've been listening to his MIDI interpretations of his scores and they are, by any standard, superb. Are there some moments where we might realize we're hearing samples? Sure, but so what? He' still showing great skill as a composer, orchestrator and electronic music producer and I think the hair-splitting he does regarding samples vs real players is beside the point. If you're really a good composer and you know you are, why do you care if some one picks apart your work and exclaims "Yikes! I heard a sampled instrument"! Maybe that person is unable to let themselves really sink into the music for reasons having nothing to do with you or your piece. Does that make you a fake? Illegitimate? Not a real musician? C'mon people, get some courage and self-esteem going and believe in your creativity. The medium is just a medium. It's not your entire destiny.

My philosophy has been and still is to embrace the medium I work in. There are people who love my work, people who hate it and people who are utterly indifferent. Should that matter? Just keep growing and learning. Life is short. A photograph isn't a painting, yet there are great photographs. A film isn't a play, yet there are great films. A recording made with samples and synthesizers is not an orchestra, but there are people do great work in this medium. What's the problem? I really don't think there is one.
 
Last edited:
Welp, looks like I get to add yet another topic to The Official List of Things That Can't be Discussed Cuz Muh Sensitivities + You're a MIDI-ot + Discount Strawmen @ 3-for-a-dollar + Off-topic Axes to Grind + Virtue Signaling "You Might be an 'Incredibly Dangerous' Rayciss™ if You Prefer Notation Over Smoke Signals."

Over four months to go in the year and my 2020 VI-C play-at-home bingo card is already filled up.

Ethnocentrism isn't really racism and that's not the point I'm making. It's simply that we tend to think in the western tradition that we are the be all and end all and the highest art in music. We're not, necessarily. But I'll tick the "a few people missing the point entirely" box on my card and move on.

One of the most interesting things of notation vs an oral tradition that relies on basically no notation at all for the most part can be found here; Kopatchinskaja is playing from a written out transcription. Shankar is playing it entirely from memory. The violin part is pretty much as close as you could hope to notate traditional raga, and still doesn't even get close to all the detail in some ways, but it's a truly extraordinary performance and illustrates a bit of what I mean, especially if you skip in a few minutes to the really mind bending stuff for the violinist.

 
Here's another perspective
Sounds like we're getting philosophical but that's OK. VI libraries allow lots of people to express themselves and find an audience on sites like VI-C. Many of us I'm sure find validation from feedback on the sites, but unless you're a media composer with a client it's a bit like self-publishing a book. When the relatives say "So ... how's the music coming along these days?" we'd be even more happy to say "The local chamber orchestra chose my piece to perform next month".
 
  • Like
Reactions: jsg
Top Bottom