Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:27:41 EST
From:         Mark Simon <TIP@CORNELLC.BITNET>
Subject:      Paperless composing

Back in December we were having a big discussion/argument about philosophies
of composition. One of the issues involved composing on paper vs. directly on
the sequencer. Many were of the opinion that the former is obsolete. As a
classically trained musician, I felt that notation was the more natural, dare I
say it, intuitive way to go. Others on the list, though, were more fluent with
their software and let me know that's legitimate too. After something like 25
years of reading music, and only two of playing with computers, I had to admit
that my sequencing skills were lagging far behind my traditional music skills.
They probably always will, too. However I was determined that, unlike an old
dog, I might pick up some new tricks. So I resolved to create a piece without
once resorting to notation.
     I decided to start from the ground up. I laid down a bass line several
measures long using a string patched beefed up with a sine wave (let me tell
you now that my rig is extremely modest, a Roland S-50 sampler, a Proteus/1
and a MacIIsi running Performer). I wanted to see what kind of stuff I could
put on top of the bass line so I put it on infinite loop "temporarily" while
I improvised over it. Well, silly me, before I knew it, that permanent loop
was part of the piece. Okay, so now I've got a ground bass going. How about
some percussion? I played a rhythmic pattern using only the lighter sounding
drums in one of the Proteus' drum patches, and I looped it, but only for a
few passes. Somewhere in the middle of the piece I copied the pattern and
doubled its speed, and then looped that. More excitement, you know. I also
had some samples, one of my friends talking like Donald Duck, and another
friend saying her name, Carol Jean, which I fixed so that the end of it
would sustain on one pitch. I brought in an electric guitar solo in a couple
of places, and since it was Christmas Eve, "Oh Come oh come Emannuel" made
an appearance. I made a volume console and faded the various elements in
and out as I saw fit, and voila, I had 5 minutes worth of generic New Age
music that sounded like 1000 other New Age pieces I've heard.
     Actually I had fun making it, my wife likes it, perhaps it would appeal
to other New-Age-ophiles, but it sure doesn't hold a candle to anything I've
been writing with pencil and paper. I think the difference is that, since I
didn't have to think about each and every note, I didn't think about any of
them, and the result sounds rather mindless.
     So the question is, how do you sequencer-based composers avoid the
noodle syndrome? I suppose the first answer to this question is never use
loops in your sequences. But besides that how does one get one's ideas to
mesh together in an organic, logical whole in a manner analogous to the
very notation-based creations of, for instance, Haydn. I mention Haydn
because someone on the list cited the quote from him where he says he gets
all his ideas by improvising. Of course the improvising was only the first
step. He then went and worked his ideas over until they presented a logical
well thought out progression of ideas. Haydn never noodles. He gets right
to the point, every note counts, and it's always just the right note. Do
any of you set this same ideal for yourselves? Please write in and tell
me what you do to acheive it.

                         --Mark Simon
                           tip@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU