Composing: Play 1st and THEN Write it? or Write 1st and Play 2nd?

[pianoplayerstar]

When you compose, you like to play your piece 1st to experiment and THEN compose it as you write?

Or do you write it 1st? (this method would require you to have a strong sight-reading ability to able to play the usic in your head.

What's best? and How do you do it?
pps

[visitor]

it depends on what one wants to compose. for the most part having a plan or an idea of what one wants to express helps or you just end up with a  lot of wishy washy bad new age type written out improv.
get in a car and want to go some where, you sort of want to have idea of the streets, highways, north, south, length of trip, do you have enough gas, what about stops to rest, etc.

i  cannot see how someone outside of a genius mind (even then might be a stretch) could write something like a fairly   conforming (to basic composition guidelines and traditions and adherence to form and thematic treatment) passacaglia or well thought out fugue or counterpoint without knowing the theory and some basics of that is about to go down. usually the best result , for many composer pianists is to sit and play and write out back to back as it's mapped out and refined. usually some planning before hand will lend itself to a better result.

[awesom_o]

I prefer to write it first, then play it later.

[adodd81802]

I think this is completely personal.

For example as you're probably aware, Beethoven was completely deaf and still composing.

I believe Chopin was known to experiment with riffs and develop them, this is also obvious from his manuscripts you can see complete sections crossed out where he changed his mind.

I think the difficulty isn't whether choosing to write or play first, but how well you can convey the ideas in your head to paper.

I also think sometimes you can take an idea one day, review it another and have a totally different outlook, so it all depends on how much you believe in the initial idea.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

It depends on the nature of the piece. When I write paraphrases on themes, it is largely done by improvisation and then selecting and editing from the various improvised figures. When I'm dealing with actual development of thematic material (as opposed to concocting pianistic embellishment and variation) I will be more inclined to do that process away from the piano - not necessarily on sheet music, but often thinking it through in my head. Structural aspects I tend to work through in a brief summarised written form - writing the formal aspects of the structure out (e.g. A / B / A developed / A+B combined , etc.) after considering different possibilities. The final material will probably be a heavily edited version of my initial sketch!

[pianoplayerstar]

i like y'all's views on this; i still think music and composition is an art more so than a technic; perhaps, both.

i can't imagine Chopin saying everytime: wow, now i will plan out this composition of creating RAINDROP and now create a piece.... instead, I believe:

HE WOKE UP.. SAW THE PARISIAN RAIN... SAT DOWN.. BEGAN TO MINDLESSLY PLAY.. THEN AS HIS IMPROVISATIONAL GENIUS CLICKED IT,, HE THOUGHT "WOW, THIS SOUNDS LIKE A RAINDROP.. THE TYPE OF MOOD I'M IN TODAY" [OF COURSE, THIS IS TOTAL SPECULATION]

I do appreciate some of you saying that it's better to plan out what you're going to write before you write it.... HOWEVER,

"Isn't it much more satisfying to just sit down and begin making things up, and think to ourselves:  WOW, I REALLY AM A GENIUS" ----> I'm sure we all think like this, only to realize that Geniuses don't become one with a 2 minute arbitrary improvisational sit-down exercise, but rather, they've played for years and years and hours and hours... up to the point where those 2 minutes become a FRUITION of all their previous hard work?"

.. depends on how you look at it i guess.

what would you say?

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Since you mention it, I doubt the Raindrop Prelude required much thinking out, in any structural sense. It's simple ABA form and it might well be that if someone did some analysis the B could turn out to be related to the A (they both have repeated note "raindrop" motifs, just he's changed the hand it's in, mood, and major v minor, which is effective, but not hugely complex). What it does require is having the initial motific idea in the first place. Something like the 4th Ballade is much sophisticated. I think that some pieces of music to a certain extent self-compose once you have the basic idea(s) in place. Stuff like the fourth Ballade, the Hammerklavier and the Liszt sonata - I doubt it and am sure they were worked over at considerable length. Inspiration v perspiration, perhaps.

[ted]

As I have never had a desire to create music for anything except the piano,  writing things out first has not been viable. Firstly, I get far too many ideas too quickly; if I had to write them out first I'd be dead before I got to enjoy more than a thousandth of them. Secondly, piano music has a very strong haptic component for me, meaning the physical aspect has become an integral part of the creative act, and thereby of the music itself. Writing out first would sever this connection altogether and I find it hard to imagine how anything could result from it. I could easily have ended up the other way had I been musically trained or had I enjoyed writing for other instruments, it's just how things unfolded.

My teacher, a highly regarded professional composer and pianist, used to tell me I had "something missing" because I could not write music out first. I worried about it for some years but then realised that I far preferred my own prolific output done the "improper" way to his few piano pieces done the "proper" way. I really don't think the generative process matters as long as we enjoy our music. I am much more of a happy pig than a wretched Socrates I'm afraid.

[pianoplayerstar]

all i can picture is all those movies of composers: mozart, beethoven... sitting at the piano.. humming and writing, and NOT playing 1st.

This is why (assuming TV depicts HOW composers composed), i think it's amazing how some (or many?) can simply get a sheet of paper and begin writing it down BEFORE playing the piece.

That's astonishing.. or i just need more experience and practice to train my ear.

[elainemusic369]

I tend to play first then compose, I've tried the other way round and it was ok but playing first (experimenting while playing) came more naturally to me. Plus, there isn't the hassle of deleting notes on the computer.

[pianoplayerstar]

the time it takes to delete notes yes, makes computer composing a pain (every split second counts in may opinion as to the brain's function)... it breaks the genius-creativity... i believe the hand-written method might be better for creativity purposes.. and it's music about creativity?  anything else would make music a SCIENCE, and NOT an ART.

.. on a different note,

WHEN SIGHTREADING A MODERN POP SONG OR EVEN A NEW AGE TYPE OF PIANO SOLO, WHY DOES IT SEEM LIKE THE INITIAL SIGHTREADING SEEMS TO BE 'SO SO' DIFFICULT, AS IF THE ORIGINAL COMPOSER REALLY IS EITHER

(1) TRYING TO TRICK THE AUDIENCE WITH SOME KIND OF COMPLEX COMPOSITION (A LA MOZART'S INTERJECTIONS OF TRICKS AND FOILS IN HIS SONATAS - A PERSONALITY DECISION),

OR

(2) NOT A GENIUS, BUT JUST PLAYED A TUNE ON THE PIANO 1ST, AND THEN COMPOSED IT, .. OR ... HAD SOME PROFESSIONALS REVIEW AND EDIT, AMEND, EDIT, AMEND.. MAKING THE FINAL COMPOSITION SEEM LIKE SOME KIND OF GENIUS WHERE ONLY FINGERS FINGERS LIKE THAT OF HOROWITZ COULD PLAY WITH LONG OCTAVE FINGER REACHES, AND ALL KINDS OF SIMULTANEOUS KEYBOARD REQUIREMENTS.

.. i don't know, but the other answer is:

The dude just sat down, started tinkering on the piano -- something sounded great! --- then either used the computer to compose the skeleton, OR hand-wrote it to compose the skeleton, and THEN let someone else or himself add the meat and potatoes to the score.

[themeandvariation]

hey pianostar!,
 you say:  "he time it takes to delete notes yes, makes computer composing a pain (every split second counts in may opinion as to the brain's function)... it breaks the genius-creativity... i believe the hand-written method might be better for creativity purposes.. and it's music about creativity? "
oi… why not submit something you've written by hand, (as you state you 'believe' it is a better method, one Must conclude you've tried - to Some extent)? That way we can respond more specifically and directly..
If you're curious about composition, why not give it a try?
btw, your last post, you copied on another thread as well. 
you a troll?
Best,
T.
 

[dcstudio]

I play first  or improvise until I figure out a form melody and progression then I write it.  To write first seems weird. I remember throwing compositions together at the pc when in was in school and they sounded boxy.I wouldn't consider the fingering and a lot of the time I just chose pitches that followed the rules of partwriting. Most of the time I didn't really know what it sounded like until I played it on the piano a few times. I have seen so many people throw a bunch of notes on a staff and believe it's music   '      I am far more creative at the piano then at the computer.

[pianoplayerstar]

i tried to use the computer.. it's actually impossible.. at least for now; there is NOTHING LIKE drawing the quarter note, 16th note and the like THAN using a mouse to CLICK and DRAG and SAVE and DELETE.

COMPUTER COMPOSING GOOD FOR:  ___ SAVING___ & ___DELETING___

CLICKING & DRAGGING 'DOES-NOT-EQUAL' COMPOSING.

Did Yanni use a computer?  Did Mozart? Beethoven? .. and these are actually THE GREATS! (I know, some of you are laughing because I'm noting Yanni... I only note it because he composes this new age stuff in the 90's and it was a huge hit.... NOW....)

... there are guys like

YIRUMA (?) - his works sound nice and quite honestly, TOO SIMPLE.. however, playing his pieces are a COMPLEX ENDEAVOR... except for HOROWITZ.

BRIAN CRANE () - I think his composition is very basic, but many like it and that's what it's all about; if the audience likes it, then YOU'VE GOT A HIT!

Agree?

[dcstudio]

Yanni used lots of computers considering every one of those keyboards is wired in. Did you really put yanni on the same par with Mozart and Beethoven?

[vaniii]

Using a computer is not the real issue here.

There are some wonderful pieces of art created using MS Paint that would make even the most 'pure' minded artist say, wow that's nice.

There are also some people who use adobe suite professional level products who produce the most abhorent detritus known to man.

You are looking at it wrong; the message received can only ever be as good as the messenger or message itself.

Music is no different; the great composers had something to say that was, more importantly, worth saying.  People listened and we are still trying to emulate the message because it touched us in ways most cannot express with words.

Composers, or more correctly, some composers of this contemporary, have little to say, and say it in a way that is not accessible to most people; not to mention that the message they convey favors them as 'artist' on an ivory tower, for little more than ego and 'I'.

Before ca. 1950, music was for the people; now it for profit or the artist's vanity.

[quantum]

[...] and say it in a way that is not accessible to most people; not to mention that the message they convey favors them as 'artist' on an ivory tower, for little more than ego and 'I'.

Somehow, I have a feeling a number of Beethoven's contemporaries thought the same thing.

[ahinton]

Whilst I know that this is a piano forum, it appears to be iumplied, though not actually stated, that what's under discussion here is piano composition only and the question is being asked of pianists only.

What about those who write for piano but cannot play it (or have developed little skill in doing so)? What about writing for any other instruments that the composer does not play?

When I write for the piano I do so, as when writing for any other forces, away from the piano and therefore wholly undistracted by it. I can get around the keyboard OK but am not a pianist, so when I've written a piano work I can do no more with the finished article at the piano than check through it - I can't actually play it.

I do believe that it's important for composers to be capable of writing away from an instrument, not least because there might not always be one easily available when writing.

Best,

Alistair

[dcstudio]

Using a computer is not the real issue here.

There are some wonderful pieces of art created using MS Paint that would make even the most 'pure' minded artist say, wow that's nice.

There are also some people who use adobe suite professional level products who produce the most abhorent detritus known to man.

You are looking at it wrong; the message received can only ever be as good as the messenger or message itself.

Music is no different; the great composers had something to say that was, more importantly, worth saying.  People listened and we are still trying to emulate the message because it touched us in ways most cannot express with words.

Composers, or more correctly, some composers of this contemporary, have little to say, and say it in a way that is not accessible to most people; not to mention that the message they convey favors them as 'artist' on an ivory tower, for little more than ego and 'I'.

Before ca. 1950, music was for the people; now it for profit or the artist's vanity.

Plz support your sweeping generalizations with facts. 


@Alistair.  Great point.  We are pianists  (or wannabes in some cases) and I am the first to admit our tendency to forget that there are great musicians who don't play our instrument. 

[vaniii]

Plz support your sweeping generalizations with facts. 


@Alistair.  Great point.  We are pianists  (or wannabes in some cases) and I am the first to admit our tendency to forget that there are great musicians who don't play our instrument. 

What are you referring to?

I think I have been adequately clear; the recording industry has hijacked music and harvested all but the creative component.  The focus of music, in any form today being the spectacle and ability to stimulate sales.

Prompted by the previous discussion, Chopin created music for love, he never named any of his pieces outside of formal designations, they were very much constructions.  You have fallen into the publishers trap of romanticising the creative process; much the same with the student’s trap of romanticising performance.

The ‘raindrop’ prelude was not named by Chopin, and so it’s title is irrelevant; as with many of his pieces, it is formulaic.  In fact, none – with few exceptions – of his music had formal ‘Programmatic’ titles.  The titles of his pieces refer to forms and structures of composition; them being: prelude, walts, nocturne, mazurka, sonata, etcetera.

Music composition does not have to only include pure-breed classical musicians.  Even ‘skrillex’, a world famous ‘Dub-Step’ artist could be considered a composer; that is, he creates music that is not improvised, for repeat performance at the enjoyment of a paying audience.  His use of a computer is not relevant.

The classical pure-breed may not approve of the medium, method or message, nonetheless, it can be un-mistakably be referred to as music; thus, its creator is a composer.  Perhaps, distinction is what is needed: he is an electronic-music composer.

To say thier method is better or worse is no different from saying “Usain Bolt is not an athlete because he cannot swim like Michael Phelps.”  Both compete; both are at the peak of their game; neither will excel in the others field; both world champions nonetheless.

Whether, or whether not, we like it is irrelevant, causing nothing by subjection.

[dcstudio]

What are you referring to?

I think I have been adequately clear; the recording industry has hijacked music

Chopin created music for love,

.  You have fallen into the publishers trap of romanticising the creative process; much the same with the student’s trap of romanticising performance

We can start here.  How do you know what Chopin did it for love?  To accuse me of romanticism after making that claim is pretty funny. Oh how I love you youngsters and your desire to appear so educated.

So post something and show us you can play maybe then I can lend some credence to your opinions. 

[vaniii]

I do not need to post a video online to prove myself to you.

My words obviously rung true enough for you to make it personal, and condescend me.

You know not my age, experience or academic exploits to take that tone.

If you are the a musician of caliber you claim to be, you would read past the first few sentences, and not react to me with your egocentric posturing.

[perfect_pitch]

The classical pure-breed may not approve of the medium, method or message, nonetheless, it can be un-mistakably be referred to as music; thus, its creator is a composer.  Perhaps, distinction is what is needed: he is an electronic-music composer.

[dcstudio]

I do not need to post a video online to prove myself to you.

My words obviously rung true enough for you to make it personal, and condescend me.

You know not my age, experience or academic exploits to take that tone.

If you are the a musician of caliber you claim to be, you would read past the first few sentences, and not react to me with your egocentric posturing.

You didn't answer my question
. how do you know what Chopin did for love?
When did I say I was a musician of caliber?  
Why are you so hostile?
Why do you insist on pontificating all over the forum?
Do you honestly think that makes you appear more knowledgeable?

You should post a vid because you claim to be a very successful teacher...You must not think you are very good...or you are a poser. People who can play or think they can play...post.

If you could play you would have shown the forum already. I don't need to post a vid because everyone here knows me. I have been here ten years but you can click the link below should you be curious . Your words are the same as all the others who come through here believing they can fool the forum.

You have that blame shift thing down. Lol

[vaniii]

You didn't answer my question. how do you know what Chopin did for love?

Read books and his letters from the personal accounts of his exploits.

When did I say I was a musician of caliber? 

Your very statement: “Oh how I love you youngsters and your desire to appear so educated.” suggests that you are experienced in either age or calibre.

Why are you so hostile?

I am not hostile; I simply state what I observe.  This intimidates people who like to shroud themselves in falsities.

Why do you insist on pontificating all over the forum?
Do you honestly think that makes you appear more knowledgeable?

You should post a vid because you claim to be a very successful teacher...You must not think you are very good...or you are a poser. People who can play or think they can play...post.

If you could play you would have shown the forum already. I don't need to post a vid because everyone here knows me. I have been here ten years but you can click the link below should you be curious . Your words are the same as all the others who come through here believing they can fool the forum.

Interesting choice of words.

I have witnessed you do this previously to others on several occasions; it is as if you believe it to be some sort of ritual.  I do not have to post anything; in fact, I do not have to do anything you say.  From previous encounters, you have appealed to the person’s insecurities “Post a video or you are a phoney”.  For the children who it usually concerns, this challenges their wafer thin shroud of self-esteem: “Oh Noes … if I do not post soon, they will think I am bad at piano!!!”.

You have that blame shift thing down. Lol

It does not matter whether or whether not people on a forum think I can play piano.  If my posts resonate true, give advice, or bring insight, so be it.

---

If you do not mind, don't you think this thread has been derailed enough by you.

[keypeg]

Simply because it bugs me   - to the starting to get OT "dis-communication" DCstudio/Vanii.  

Vanii first responded to pps (the OP) and the question.  The main points I get out of it are:

the message received can only ever be as good as the messenger or message itself.

Vanii was trying to respond to pianoplayerstar, which is a hard thing to do, because the post he was responding to was sort of rambly and I couldn't quite follow.  The idea being that if somebody (Chopin) plays the piano for a really long time then the act of playing for a really long time will make them a good composer.  Or maybe, that writing music down as a first step makes you a weak composer.

In view of this, I would tend to agree that how good a composition is has a great deal to do with the abilities of the composer himself, rather than which process is used.  DCstudio, I cannot see you disagreeing with this part.  

But it continues with a statement about modern composers vs. the older ones, negatively toward modern composers, and I assume these are the "sweeping statements".  Yes, they are too sweeping.  I agree with DC if this was being referred to. In fact, it's the antithesis of the first premise, that a good composition depends on the individual doing the composing.

DC then wrote a single line:

Plz support your sweeping generalizations with facts.  

and from that question we suddenly have a statement  by vanii that DC "romanticizes" music.  Huh?  There is, in fact, romanticizing, by the OP, who uses all caps in entire paragraphs to imagine Chopin being inspired by the rain, with his years of having played the piano making this rain imagery trickle sonorously from his fingers.  Maybe, vanii, you thought dc's one-liner was a defense of the OP's picture? One cannot get romance out of "please support your generalizations".

I assume that DC meant the generalizations about modern vs. older composers, (but didn't define what was being objected to), and you defended the OP's idea of Chopin letting raindrops trickle musically from his fingertips.

Those generalizations also bother me. Composers are individuals, and you can't put them all in one basket.  Additionally, as somebody else pointed out, composers throughout history wrote music that their contemporaries found "inaccessible" and throughout history, composers were also constrained by commercial considerations.  Bach was thrown in jail for offending local sensibilities.

Meanwhile I saw Vanii quoted by DC. Vanii had written:
"Prompted by the previous discussion, Chopin created music for love, he never named any of his pieces outside of formal designations, they were very much constructions."
and this got truncated in the quote to
"Chopin created music for love," followed by ".  You have fallen into the publishers trap of romanticising the creative process;" from a different paragraph, I assumed in order to pursue the red herring of Vanii's about "romanticizing" (i.e. "love" vs. "romanticizing") which shouldn't have been there in the first place.
And at this point any chance of following ideas is killed completely.  To me the important thing is the part that was left out in the quote "...he never named any of his pieces outside of formal designations. where I would think (?) you would both be close to the same page.  The OP had created the vision of Chopin being inspired by rain, and the rest, and it is indeed a fact that Chopin did not invent that name, and I don't know whether he was "inspired by rain" to write the piece.  It is part of marketing for publishers to try to put a spin on things so that they will sell.

Why not address actual factual things, and ask for clarification of specific points, so that there can be communication instead of mis- and dis-communication, and so that the rest of us can follow a progression of ideas. You both seem to have interesting things to say, and it's falling apart.

[keypeg]

Back on topic. Initially I didn't post because I am not a composer or close to a professional musician, and any music I have invented over the years are relatively short, created for my own pleasure.  But maybe that doesn't matter, if we're discussing our processes.
Since childhood I have heard music in my head, and have played with bits of music, like "motifs", in my head and maybe humming them from time to time.  The only formal thing at that time was the bit of solfege singing in about grade 2, and that gave me an underlying aural structure on which these experiments rested.  That, and just having heard music, absorbing its structure, like a toddler picks up grammar.  Sometimes I'd want to write the bits down, which I mostly did (for melodies) in Solfege shortcut (m l s d = mi la so do, in any key) and as long as I had a tonic that could also be written after a fashion in notation.
So for me, there was no instrument in sight.  I did have a keyboard for longer periods, but so no reason for referring to any musical instrument.  At best, I might try what I had already worked out mentally.  It is possible to start without an instrument, and to write things down without one.
This worked with diatonic music, especially melodies.  I could also sing along with someone and weave a second voice in and out in thirds, sixths, etc. and could write, combining head and paper, some simply polyphony.  The first SATB theory studies much later were second nature.

There is ALSO the role of musical structure: theory,"grammar", form, which we may have internalized subconsciously.  I memorized the first thing I created at age 8, and it contains the structures I later learned in theory.  If you don't have that in you somewhere, then your compositions will be just random notes and not make sense.
Working at the piano also plays a role for me these days.  Even when I was 8 and had my first keyboard, there was some noodling, which developed into things.  These days I might start with an idea in my head, and develop it further by exploring harmonies, what sounds cool.  Or it might start via noodling.  Somebody else wrote in here about underlying structure, planning out and mapping the music, which for more complex works makes sense.

There are also different genres.  I started a coursera course on improvisation which moved too rapidly the first time round, but I got far enough to experience a way different process, but structure and such were also inherent in these things.

I would venture that there are three elements: what you hear in your head or the role that your inner ear plays, the grammar or structure of music, working things out on an instrument, especially one that lets you play more than one note at a time.
In regards to Chopin, he knew his instrument intimately, and his music also exploited the potential of that instrument, as well as being playable because it was written by a pianist.  I have seen violin compositions written by pianists where that kind of element is missing.

[vaniii]

In answer to Keypeg:

Yes, I should have specified in my original post; it obviously was not clear and led to confusion.

Originally, yes, I was referring to the OP, who was suggesting that all of Chopin’s compositions were a moment of fleeting creativity, and not arduous crafting.

I did indeed become defensive when DC posted, and for that I apologise; to her and you all.

To clarify:

My generalisations about accessibility are referring to ‘high-brow’ art music not being accessible to the lay-person.  Contemporary classical music has largely two schools:

(1)   new-age composition, made up largely by compositions similar sounding to Yiruma or Einaudi.  Every teenage student, that I teach, at some point or another will bring me ‘The river flows in you’ and say this is the most beautiful piece of music ever written.
(2)   Academic experimentation, where university students intellectualise music down to the piano making noises that would not resemble music or something pleasant for a listener.
This was what I meant by ‘accessible’.

My comment on vanity was referring to a breed of composer who puts dots on a page; notes and sounds are secondary.  I had the misfortune of being present as performer in a workshop performing the compositions of undergraduate students.  A young fresh-faced composer had written a piece for piano and violin.  The violinist – a seasons world class performer – asked the composer why it was entirely necessary to put this triple-stopped-chord at a particular point; safe to say, it was sufficiently unplayable.  To which, the young composer simply said: “yes, it’s to catch you out”.  The violinist refused to play it after that bombshell; quite rightly so.

Music did not come into it; I do not condone pre-judging people or methods, but after substantial time spent with ‘new music’ composers, it is hard not to conclude that the vast majority do not know what they are doing; furthermore, they seem to write music for no one but Finale or Sibelius.

On the other hand, you have ‘composers’ who sit vamping chords that are semi-pleasing to the ear, with a few ‘musical-moments’.  They record videos, and showcase to the world their creation only to meet disinterest because they discovered and ‘A minor arpeggio and diatonic scale-pattern’.  To the composer, they just discovered the wheel, to the rest of the musical world they found it years ago and are now trying to invent levitation technology.
--
In answer to Perfect_Pitch:
I agree, I would not consider ‘Skrillex’ a composer in the true sense of the word, however to an alien who just landed on earth, they would not see any difference: the lenses of personal bias dictates our perception of such things.  To a person with cultural conditioning, they might even consider Dub-Step a superior form of expression.

I always have wondered, what would Beethoven be composing if he had access to modern technology; he was still progressive, however much his respect for tradition.

[keypeg]

Vanii, thank you for your response.  In regards to the topic about modern and older composers, I can't help but wonder whether you have been getting some keyhole views (more than one keyhole) and have extrapolated these to include the whole room.  Like dcstudio, the generalizations leave me uncomfortable and they may be somewhat "off".  I don't doubt that you had those specific experiences and observations, but that brings me to the keyhole analogy.
When you talk about accessibility historically, while my own studies in music are not as complete as I would like, I have learned quite a few things.

My generalisations about accessibility are referring to ‘high-brow’ art music not being accessible to the lay-person.

Historically this seems to have been the trend.  In early music, there were the church singers who needed 10 - 15 years of training before they had memorized all the chants, a thing that was greatly shortened through the invention of solfege (as practised then) and written music.  Ordinary people invented their dance music and fun stuff - little is known about it since it wasn't considered important.
One period in particular struck me, I think at early Renaissance or maybe a bit before, when monophonic chants gave way to polyphony that became ever denser.  With more voices they had to organize rhythms and timing, and at that point they went hog wild with complicated interweaving of rhythmic patterns while the text was in several languages and more than one topic at once.  The professional musicians loved outdoing each other in what complexity they could handle.  This was no music for lay people!
Later you had the "Renaissance man (and woman)" and this involved nobility, who were expected to master the arts, and who hired composers and musicians to their courts.  Again you have exclusive clubs from which the general populace gets shut out.  They continue making their own fun music.  The two engines driving the music we read about are the church and nobility.  These also exercise control over what the composers can write.  Bach, as you may recall, was jailed because of what he chose to write.
When church and the feudal system both broke down, it is then that music began being created for the new emerging middle class, who did not have the careful upbringing of the Renaissance man and woman.  I think (?) this happens somewhere between the Baroque and Classical eras.

So when you write of exclusivity as a recent phenomenon, that cannot be correct.  In the outline that I gave, it has always existed.  I would think that in present times music has split off into a lot of directions, maybe with unparalleled freedom. With diversity and freedom you'll get a wild mix of good and bad, things suiting your tastes and not.   There is also a greater chance of musicians in different areas of music getting to hear other types of music, and for musicians (and wannabe musicians) to get their music "out there".  In the past it would have to get published and promoted somehow, with the publishers themselves acting as censors.  What percentage of compositions in the past never saw the light of day?
That is sort of why generalizations, especially if they seem factual rather than "based on what I've seen, my impression has been", can make one uncomfortable.

[keypeg]

Meanwhile I'm afraid that the original topic is getting lost.  I also wrote about the actual question and that post might have gotten buried through my decision to discuss the somewhat off topic "debate".

[vaniii]

Keypeg, you should not worry about the topic of discussion; cumbersome is written and spoken language that we have to elaborate to a point until the debate seems tangential.

Unfortunately, to make sense of the original question we have to discuss such things.


You are correct in all that you have written.

A natural evolution has occurred that we are still looking for the next step. This is particularly so in western classical music; the standardised fundaments of music (I, IV and V), from which all modern forms are based came about in this time, ca. 1600 – 1850.  Not immediately, but derivatively composers experimented until they found something that worked. In short, stepping stones.

Imagine, if Bach or Pachelbel decided to write music using a twelve not tone row that was highly dissonant; it would have ruined their careers as composers and musicians in their time.  In fact, when Mozart used diminished sevenths, it was considered sufficiently avant-garde; tolerable for the traditionalists, yet, new and exciting for the progressives.

Imagine if Beethoven got the bright Idea to write music using only chords with added sevenths; for a start, it would not be signature to Beethoven, but more so, it would have again, ruined his career, because society was not ready for it.

The music of Bach was not played by people of his time apart from Bach’s family and students; it took Mendelsohn and others in the Bach Society to revive interest almost 100 years later; without that delayed interest, we would not have such interest in Bach as we do now.

However, this does not take away from the fact that the great masterpieces since the dawn of what we called western classical music, were all created by master-craftsmen.  They knew their instruments, they understood music, and they were smart enough not to push too much so the music remained accessible to the audience.

Joe public, that is anyone who is on the receiving end as audience, does not like change.  A large number of concert goers, students and patrons know what they like.  It is the reason why so many ‘learning’ musicians want to play ‘that’ piece, as if it were the only piece of music created.

Referring to the original topic, master orchestrator Sibelius, would write music by hand and simply send it to the copyist.  Beethoven was similar, in fact so was both Haydn and Mozart.  Chopin would make copies of his pieces at request for his patrons after concerts and other functions with out aid of a copyist.  On the other hand, they would all be able to improvise music at request during those same engagements.  That is not to say they wrote without playing, or played without writing it down, however I think, we have needlessly separated these skills as though they are not one in the same.

During my undergraduate studies, we had three hour exams where we had to complete orchestra score extracts, and dictation from music on cassette tape.  Times change and as most things do, it is a reflection of society.

These days, we are far more open to the personal freedoms of the individual, meaning, we no longer expect people to conform with the prevailing ideology, and encourage people to create their own. “I have my way”, with often translates to “I will do it my way”, ‘their way’ being vamping and then notating, or notation without ever playing it.

I prefer to do both, or rather what the situation requires.

[keypeg]

I'd like to get back to the original question.  I took time to give my thoughts on it, and rather regret having also addressed the "derailed" topic.  I'd like very much for that part to get some responses, and for the topic to get back to it.

[keypeg]

Since this is staying firmly off-topic - this is the post that got me to write on the topic (the post that I buried by responding to the OT thing first).

I play first  or improvise until I figure out a form melody and progression then I write it.  To write first seems weird. I remember throwing compositions together at the pc when in was in school and they sounded boxy.I wouldn't consider the fingering and a lot of the time I just chose pitches that followed the rules of partwriting. Most of the time I didn't really know what it sounded like until I played it on the piano a few times. I have seen so many people throw a bunch of notes on a staff and believe it's music   '      I am far more creative at the piano then at the computer.

Dc studio, I pondered both how it has worked for me, and also how you described things.  I think that "writing first" is a different process for either of us.

I described how as a young child I was given solfege singing in a school grade, and how this created an aural map - from then on I heard music on that map of major / minor scales, and invented music in my head along them.  My ability to read music was based on that map, "finding do" and if I tried to write music likewise.  It was diatonic mostly, melodic type music, and infrequent.  But I did this music in my head, sometimes humming snatches.  I might then try to write down what had come to me.  If there was any "noodling", it was all done mentally.  Perhaps the solfege was my piano. It is not necessarily weird to do it that way.
When you describe the "writing first" process, including calling it "boxy", I can relate to that too. When I finally studied formal music theory, I went through the writing exercises, which were mostly via four part harmony.  A caveat is that since I already thought like a singer for a lifetime, the melodic aspect of the four voices still came out as before, because I would hear them in my head and play with them in my head, as always. I had no need to sit at the piano to hear how the melody would sound.  I could also picture the interplay, because I used to sing with others and invent a second voice a pleasing interval above or below.  But it was artificial.  I imagine that if I did not have that ability already, that I might depend on the rules learned in harmony, and have to discover how it sounds only by playing it at an instrument.
There is this line:

I am far more creative at the piano then at the computer.

Writing music down, to me, is not related to the computer at all.  So at first I was puzzled.  I do know that programs like Finale and Sibelius let you hear what you are writing down.

These days I am not in any one world.  There are times that I might noodle at the piano and develop things that way.  It's more like a back and forth flow between music heard in the head, things heard at the instrument, a sense of the "grammar" and structure of music floating in the back of it all, and everything interplaying together. 
I'm presently taking two Coursera courses relating to improv.  I'm in a less familiar structure and genre of music, a different way of thinking, and so the way of doing it is shifting again.

[pianoplayerstar]

.. ok, so it appears you all are discussing whether composers PLAY FOR THEMSELVES OR THE MASSES.

ANSWER:  THEMSELVES

ANSWER [to my Post]:  PLAY 1st

__________________________________     

          ... This seems to be the only way CREATIVITY IS TRULY DESIGNED.

I do like how many of you said one should PLAN OUT/MAP OUT 1st.. and then Write.

However, I do believe Chopin Played 1st Arbitrarily and then perhaps began to compose.

Money ($) and CONTRACTS with Publishers CAN actually motivate a composer to create amazing awesome works (just like Mozart did)... even artists today do that.

The problem is, we don't have a Mozart or Beethoven these days.. unless the current Bill Joel will become the 'Modern' Beethoven in POP music after 200 years from now... seriously.. it's possible.

Beethoven never actually was popular during his time.. neither was Bach .. they were popular in their own right.... until the whole world, U.S., ASIA began to listen to these guys and realized: "GENIUS. PURE GENIUS!"

So, Composing Great Music Starts with:  PLAY A RANDOM PIECE 1st... THEN create a composition FROM IT.

I can't picture a composer waking up and picking up a pencil and notebook 1st BEFORE she/he SITS DOWN ON THE PIANO BENCH.

No, they'd have to SIT DOWN 1ST and begin PLAYING... before going to the drawing pad.

[keypeg]

.. ok, so it appears you all are discussing whether composers PLAY FOR THEMSELVES OR THE MASSES.

Nobody has discussed any such thing anywhere in this thread.

[keypeg]

More succinct:  There is nothing "weird" about writing first if that's how you're wired.

[ahinton]

More succinct:  There is nothing "weird" about writing first if that's how you're wired.

Well, that's a relief!

Best,

Alistair

[pianoplayerstar]

Mr. Hinton: is this a joke?!?!

..... or are you "THE" Ali Hinton?

[ahinton]

Mr. Hinton: is this a joke?!?!

No. Composers will be bound to "write first" for the piano if they are not pianists.

..... or are you "THE" Ali Hinton?

I have no idea what if anything that might be supposed to mean.

Best,

Alistair

[dcstudio]

More succinct:  There is nothing "weird" about writing first if that's how you're wired.

It feels weird to me...I didn't mean it is weird in general. Sorry about that.  Who cares which comes first as long as music is the final product.  It's not like you can tell by the score...or anything else.  I play first because I rather enjoy throwing my hands out there and improvising...but I am a jazzer.  I love stumbling upon new ideas that way. 

[keypeg]

It feels weird to me...I didn't mean it is weird in general. Sorry about that.  Who cares which comes first as long as music is the final product.  It's not like you can tell by the score...or anything else.  I play first because I rather enjoy throwing my hands out there and improvising...but I am a jazzer.  I love stumbling upon new ideas that way. 

I found your post interesting above all, and it made me think about my own process - by now processes.  The thread was drifting into abstract philosophical issues which don't seem that useful, and I was also trying to prod things back.
I've mentioned that I was following two coursera courses on improvisation (one from Berklee btw). In the more hands-on of the two, we were given the "ten most useful scales (the 7 modes plus 3 others) and then were assigned playing those scales in random order, to be graded by each other based on things like rhythm and correct notes. I thought more like a composer and more classically I guess, and so I thought "How do I make C Locrian sound Locrian, and not like Db major?" so I stressed certain intervals and came back heavily on the tonal center C.  The really jazzy jazz players whose "homework" I listened to just flowed all over the place.  The teacher is vibraphonist Gary Burton, and he flows like that.  I talked to someone in this area of music, and "Locrian sounding like Locrian" happens through the underlying harmonies, so you can just groove I guess.  It's a different thinking and a different feel.  I'd say for me it will be like "switching mentalities" and it would be cool to flow from one mentality to the other at will.

[keypeg]

I can't picture a composer waking up and picking up a pencil and notebook 1st BEFORE she/he SITS DOWN ON THE PIANO BENCH.

No, they'd have to SIT DOWN 1ST and begin PLAYING... before going to the drawing pad.

Two things. I remember reading at least one story where Mozart was out somewhere, and whatever he was hearing or thinking engendered musical ideas.  If I, as a totally untaught person once upon a time could compose melodies in my head to write down later, why shouldn't well taught highly talented musicians from musical families be able to do that?
Secondly - when Beethoven became totally deaf, how could he have sat down at the piano to listen to and sketch out ideas, depending on hearing it on the piano.
I'm not in the music profession, yet I know a few people personally who can look at a score and comment on how nice or ugly it "sounds".  We can compose thoughts in our heads and later write them down.  Why not music?

[visitor]

Two things. I remember reading at least one story where Mozart was out somewhere, and whatever he was hearing or thinking engendered musical ideas.  If I, as a totally untaught person once upon a time could compose melodies in my head to write down later, why shouldn't well taught highly talented musicians from musical families be able to do that?
Secondly - when Beethoven became totally deaf, how could he have sat down at the piano to listen to and sketch out ideas, depending on hearing it on the piano.
I'm not in the music profession, yet I know a few people personally who can look at a score and comment on how nice or ugly it "sounds".  We can compose thoughts in our heads and later write them down.  Why not music?

i have read anecdotes as well on famous composers, one may have been Mozart come to think of it, that studies of his manuscripts in some instances show little in the way of changes , that is a lot of what he wrote is exactly what he wanted to write, the first time. then there are instances where complex and large compositions were done at the last minute (i think there was an overture to an opera that he sort of threw together in the hour/hours leading up to it's performance).  mozart's genius was his 'command of the language of music' just like someone who is good at speeches or speaking  eloquently can sit down and pen down their thoughts before 'talking it out loud' it is similar for some musical minds to know exactly what and how to express what they have created and simply write it down. in either final or pretty much final form/draft

[pianoplayerstar]

Mozart's tendency to walk around Vienna and philosophize about sounds and musical techniques or new operas sounds quite interesting...

..HOWEVER, does that mean when someone walks around and thinks of an amazing philosophical idea and it constantly comes at them, they can say "wow. i'm actually a genius aristotle thinker... i don't think ANYONE thinks like me- i must be a Gifted Thinker --- okay, i should now write a book.

...-- but then again, I don't know if everything has these thoughts or just some.. or just 1 or 2 out of every 100.

if so, that means, the Mozarts and the True Composer ACTUALLY DOES THINK THE MUSIC AND THEN WRITES IT DOWN 1ST, AFTER WHICH SHE PLAYS IT --- this is true genius then.

.. because anyone, even with no piano experience.. just an interest/love of music can tinker with the piano for fun, and then stumble upon a great phrase, and then use Sibelius or Finale to do the rest to help the creative neurons link automatically... and voila!  "I'M A GENIUS!"

.. so the question must be qualified to say either

(1) do geniuses compose by writing 1st and then playing? ANS: YES

or

(2) do non-geniuses compose by writing 1st and then playing?  ANS: some, but not most; ANS:  Non-Geniuses Like to play 1st on the piano and tinker.. AND THEN and ONLY THEN do they begin to sit down and WRITE & COMPOSE.

... doesn't this sound right?

[dcstudio]

Mozart's tendency to walk around Vienna and philosophize about sounds and musical techniques or new operas sounds quite interesting...

..HOWEVER, does that mean when someone walks around and thinks of an amazing philosophical idea and it constantly comes at them, they can say "wow. i'm actually a genius aristotle thinker... i don't think ANYONE thinks like me- i must be a Gifted Thinker --- okay, i should now write a book.

...-- but then again, I don't know if everything has these thoughts or just some.. or just 1 or 2 out of every 100.

if so, that means, the Mozarts and the True Composer ACTUALLY DOES THINK THE MUSIC AND THEN WRITES IT DOWN 1ST, AFTER WHICH SHE PLAYS IT --- this is true genius then.

.. because anyone, even with no piano experience.. just an interest/love of music can tinker with the piano for fun, and then stumble upon a great phrase, and then use Sibelius or Finale to do the rest to help the creative neurons link automatically... and voila!  "I'M A GENIUS!"

.. so the question must be qualified to say either

(1) do geniuses compose by writing 1st and then playing? ANS: YES

or

(2) do non-geniuses compose by writing 1st and then playing?  ANS: some, but not most; ANS:  Non-Geniuses Like to play 1st on the piano and tinker.. AND THEN and ONLY THEN do they begin to sit down and WRITE & COMPOSE.

... doesn't this sound right?

[dcstudio]

Mozart's tendency to walk around Vienna and philosophize about sounds and musical techniques or new operas sounds quite interesting...

..HOWEVER, does that mean when someone walks around and thinks of an amazing philosophical idea and it constantly comes at them, they can say "wow. i'm actually a genius aristotle thinker... i don't think ANYONE thinks like me- i must be a Gifted Thinker --- okay, i should now write a book.

...-- but then again, I don't know if everything has these thoughts or just some.. or just 1 or 2 out of every 100.

if so, that means, the Mozarts and the True Composer ACTUALLY DOES THINK THE MUSIC AND THEN WRITES IT DOWN 1ST, AFTER WHICH SHE PLAYS IT --- this is true genius then.

.. because anyone, even with no piano experience.. just an interest/love of music can tinker with the piano for fun, and then stumble upon a great phrase, and then use Sibelius or Finale to do the rest to help the creative neurons link automatically... and voila!  "I'M A GENIUS!"

.. so the question must be qualified to say either

(1) do geniuses compose by writing 1st and then playing? ANS: YES

or

(2) do non-geniuses compose by writing 1st and then playing?  ANS: some, but not most; ANS:  Non-Geniuses Like to play 1st on the piano and tinker.. AND THEN and ONLY THEN do they begin to sit down and WRITE & COMPOSE.

... doesn't this sound right?

True composers? Genius? 
This is what happens when someone who really doesn't understand the process tries to explain it.  Chopin often improvised his compositions at parties then went home and wrote them down. He played first...Bach improvised during church services then would later write it.  they are non-genius by your definition then?  Just try saying that on the forum.
You make it sound like jazzers just pound on the keys and hope they hit something pleasing to the ear.  Like we don't have a clue about what we are playing or that we have no ideas we are developing.  The vast majority of pianists learn the traditional way and remain within those confines.  Few cultivate the art of improv because it is exceedingly difficult.  Even accomplished pros can be humbled by jazz or improv.  You also don't consider the fact that we are able to take what we play and notate it.  We see the complete form and progression at a glance...and we can translate that to works that can be played by others.

We have had more than a few would be geniuses here at ps.  Generally speaking not one had a clue what they were talking about

[mjames]

I find it very hard to see how someone can learn how to compose [good music] without or before learning how to play an instrument to a high degree. Hearing and playing music in your head is one thing [I'm pretty sure everybody, or at least the average person can do that], knowing how to translate that into the real world is another. Like Visitor said, that requires a great understanding of how music "the language"/theory works.

My ability to improvise got better as I learned more and more pieces of musics. A few years back I struggled to write a single bar of melody, and now I'm struggling to write coherent/interesting small pieces of music. I sit and play, come up with a few ideas, get frustrated and quit. A few days or weeks later I'll replay the new material in my head over and over and then I'll go like "ah, that sounds ok", and then I'll write it down so I can try it out on the piano later in the day.

So my answer would be both ways. I also feel like becoming an instrumentalist is pretty much essential for composition, and a gateway to writing for other instruments. I feel like being able to improvise grants you the ability to write away from the piano. However there are quite a few rare cases of composers with very low expertise or none at all in playing instruments being able to write great music.

I mean Chopin never had the chance to play his last composition, even though he was an awesome improviser. These are honestly not mutually exclusive skills, so I don't really see the point of this debate....llol

[ahinton]

That's all very well, but what if the composer has little or no natural ability to play an instrument? Should he/she lay down his/her pen? Of course improvisation is a vital skill and one that all the great composers possessed in spades but, in your view, might its absence and/or the absence of natural ability to play an instrument bar someone from being able to compose meaningfully?

Best,

Alistair

[keypeg]

Mozart's tendency to walk around Vienna and philosophize about sounds and musical techniques or new operas sounds quite interesting...

I can't recall anyone talking about "philosophizing about" anything.  You create the music in whatever manner you create it, including while walking around.  You're not thinking philosophical thoughts about - you create, and later write down that creation.
Perhaps you don't do music yet yourself.  I may have missed those posts.  So something closer to home: Some people may plan what they are going to write in a post while taking a walk, and then go to their computer and write it.  You created it while walking.

[mjames]

That's all very well, but what if the composer has little or no natural ability to play an instrument? Should he/she lay down his/her pen? Of course improvisation is a vital skill and one that all the great composers possessed in spades but, in your view, might its absence and/or the absence of natural ability to play an instrument bar someone from being able to compose meaningfully?

Best,

Alistair

Meh, for an average joe learning how to play helps a lot. However if you can write compose great music without having to learn an instrument or improvising then good for you. Good music is good music.