‘Composition’, a word that is thrown around a lot in the music industry. However, the method of composition itself can vary in different forms. So, let’s define the word composition. Composition, noun: a creative work, especially a poem or piece of music. The definition of composition doesn’t mention the method or form in which composition is used. This is because composition does not need to be one way or another. With varying methods and techniques, the steps in which the composition is carried out is purely up to the preference of the composer. This, however, does not eliminate the fact that there are methods of composition that are favoured by different majority groups of composers. Two of these favoured forms of composition are Digital Composition and Traditional Composition. Some would argue that these two methods are the umbrellas for composition methods and varying techniques usually fall under either of these two composition types. While there is very little point in debating which method is superior, the discussion about the differences between composition form is usually welcomed. This article will be exploring both Digital and Traditional Composition in music as methods themselves, inquiring questions about the forms of composition and, of course, the differences between Digital Composition and Traditional Composition. I will also be including a bonus Q&A I did with Silkwood School Music Educator, Melanie Creamer, about things such as preferred methods and techniques, common assumptions made in this area and a range of other exploring questions.
During the 20th and 21st century, as technology has developed, the use of digital composition as a method of composition has become increasingly popular. Digital composition is composition that involves or mainly consists of technology. This means using items of technology like computers to support different programs: DAWs (Digital Audio Workstation), MIDI, sampling etc. falls under the umbrella method of digital composition. Some would argue that this method of composition is easier to adapt to and learn as a skill or as a temporary use. Digital composition can be achieved by many. With DAWs as simple as Garage Band, and the ability to run these programs on most everyday devices, it makes composing accessible to everyone. While any genre and style of music can be achieved using digital composition, more techno genres are easier to create.
Why is digital composition typically dominated by the same techno genres, and is it really dominated? After some research into the topic of composition, specifically digital composition, I came across this commonly asked question relating to dominating genres in the digital methods. While we can ask the question of why it is dominated by specific genres, we must also ask if digital composition is dominated or if this is an assumption that has been made. After discussing this inquiry with some more experienced composers in both traditional and digital composition, I concluded that while, in digital composition, techno genres such as house music, disco, industrial etc. are more typically used with this method, it isn’t purely dominated by these genres. Although, these genres are growing due to use and development of looping and sampling. Digital composition is accessible to all composers and their preferable styles, whether that be techno genres, classical etc.
As a part of my research for this article I interviewed Melanie Creamer, Silkwood School Music Educator, via email. I received some very interesting and informative answers that assisted with my understanding of methods of composition and composition itself. The following is my Q&A with Melanie Creamer.
Q: Do you think that digital composition is mainly dominated by genres such as: Techno, House Music, Disco, Industrial etc. if so/if not please explain why.
A: “Not necessarily although these are growing genres that exclusively use digital composition as well as sampling and looping etc. With programs such as Sibelius however, digital composition is available to all and more and more composers from all genres are using them.”
Q: How would you best explain the difference of methods between digital and traditional composition?
A: “Digital composition just requires an understanding of the technology – actually playing a musical instrument or having a thorough musical education is not required (however obviously helps in creating good, musical compositions). Traditional composition does require either one or both of these elements – a thorough understanding of musical theory and often keyboard skills are an integral part of the composition process.”
Q: How would you best explain the difference in outcome between digital and traditional composition?
A: “As explained in the previous answer, traditional composition usually requires a deeper understanding of musical theory and playing an instrument. I guess the main ‘outcome’ of digital and traditional compositions would centre around genre for example composing for an orchestra verses creating a Techno track – they clearly lend themselves to one compositional style or the other.”
Q: What is your personal preference when it comes to composition? If you don't have a specific preference, please explain why.
A: “I personally use both styles depending on what I have available – I often like using Sebelius for orchestral compositions as I can hear the composition as I am building it, albeit in a digital sounding rendition. I do also like using the piano, manuscript paper and a pencil for more organic compositions both for instrumental ensembles and traditional song writing. I will also use guitar for basic song writing – and have experimented with loops and sampling too - in short I like to mix it up.”
Q: Which method of composition do you think more people should learn about?
A: “I think that all music students should learn basic musical theory and an instrument as it will enhance their musicianship and ultimately help those that want to compose, create richer, more interesting compositions. However, in this modern age, an understanding of the main digital programs that can be used is also essential – so I think both have their place.”
Q: With growing ease of access to digital technology, do you think digital composition will start dominating the music industry?
A: “I think that the digital format will ultimately dominate but that doesn’t mean that it will be used exclusively for genres such as techno/house music etc. these days many traditional composers use the programs available for all types of musical genres and instrumental ensembles.”
Q: What are some typical assumptions that are made about traditional composition?
A: “That it’s outdated and that students need to have a large amount of musical theory to do it well. Also, that it is mainly used for orchestral, choral and instrumental ensemble compositions.”
Q: Given your experience as an educator and a student of composition, what would you say are the challenging elements of both?
A: “I think that having the confidence to create is always a challenge, however, that students should be encouraged to compose and experiment with all the options available. Playing a musical instrument is not only excellent for brain development but can also be inspiring when it comes to composition. It is not essential though in terms of digital composition and if students ultimately prefer this then that too should be encouraged – all composition and being creative is a good thing!”
Q: You are involved with the music industry, what are some typical assumptions that non-musicians make about digital composition?
A: “That you don’t have to be a ‘real’ musician to do it you just need to be able to use the program. Also, with sampling, looping etc there is an assumption that composers are ‘ripping off’ other musicians work, and finally that it’s not ‘art’ or original.”
Melanie Creamer, given her years of experience as a school music educator, has given some very detailed and helpful answers to the questions I asked her via email. All of her responses are backed with information that she has acquired through experience and her own love for and involvement in the music industry. She is a talented educator and musician and she has served as a great mentor for myself in my own pursuit of music. Throughout her responses she has shown that while there is a great difference between the two methods of composition (digital and traditional) there is much value in both techniques. I will be referencing responses made by Melanie Creamer throughout the remainder of this article to emphasis points that I think her information supports.
When I use the term traditional composition, I am generally referring to musical notation and score work. This form of composition has been a commonly used form of composition for centuries. The earliest example of music publishing dates from about 1465. Music printing didn’t become a popular method until mid-15th century, this was when mechanical techniques for printing music were first developed. The method itself was, and still is, used mostly for classical pieces used by either individual instruments or orchestral arrangements. Of course, more modern pieces and genres of music can be written as or transferred to sheet music. However, when people think of traditional composition methods, they typically think of classical genres of music since that is what this form of composition is typically used for given its history. I suspect this is due to the lack of recency for the method. With digital composition, everything is new and recent, therefore, more modern genres of music are used more in this method of composition. Since there is great history of classical music associated with traditional composition, that is the genre that people usually assign to the method. This, however, does not eliminate the methods ability to write modern music. With traditional composition comes a lot of important terminology as well that is vital in someone’s process of composition if they choose this method. Words, that usually originate from Italian language, such as Legato (in a smooth flowing manner, without breaks between notes.), Staccato (performed with each note sharply detached or separated from the others.), this terminology being used to instruct how a piece might be played. There is terminology used to communicate the volume of pieces: Piano P (quiet), Forte F (loud), Pianissimo pp (very quiet), Mezzo piano mp (moderately quiet), Mezzo forte mf (moderately loud) Fortissimo FF (very loud). There are more extremes you can go to with that terminology to reach more extreme volumes as well. All this and more is used to accomplish a traditional written composition.
A question that I personally find is very interesting and should be discussed further is the question ‘Should traditional composition be as commonly practised as digital methods of composition?’. To reference a question and response made in my Q&A with Melanie Creamer (Music Educator) I asked the question “What are some typical assumptions that are made about traditional composition?” to which she responded with: “That it’s outdated and that students need to have a large amount of musical theory to do it well. Also, that it is mainly used for orchestral, choral and instrumental ensemble compositions.”. Melanie makes a good point in this response, that I think relates well to the question I stated previously. She points out that people assume that traditional methods of composition are reserved for more specific forms of music arrangements. I agree with her when she says that the assumptions are incorrect. Which relates well to the question ‘Should traditional composition be as commonly practised as digital methods of composition?’ because while many people can use the traditional methods of composition, it is a skill that needs some assistance to learn and then use. So, to answer this question, I think that the traditional methods of composition like notation work and written music should be taught and practised more commonly since it is an asset to any aspiring or current musician.
We have finally reached the part of the discussion where we compare the two methods of composition (digital and traditional) or rather then compare, simply discuss the differences, of which there are many. To reference back to my Q&A with Melanie Creamer, I asked the question “How would you best explain the difference of methods between digital and traditional composition?” and her response being “Digital composition just requires an understanding of the technology – actually playing a musical instrument or having a thorough musical education is not required (however obviously helps in creating good, musical compositions). Traditional composition does require either one or both of these elements – a thorough understanding of musical theory and often keyboard skills are an integral part of the composition process.”. She points out that the skills you require to perform traditional composition are harder or require a longer process to acquire. Digital composition is, arguably, a more achievable skill to acquire since the majority of aspiring composers and musicians, in this new age of technology, have at least a basic understanding of the technology involved in the practise of digital composition, or find it easier to learn. So, this means that the skills set required, depending on whether you want to achieve digital or traditional composition, have many differences. The processes the two methods use are completely different themselves. Using extremely different products and following different steps, there are few similarities between the two methods besides the shared end goal of creating a piece of music.
My personal experience with both methods varies quite a bit. I’ve had more experience and exposure to traditional composition, this is due to my years participating in an orchestral setting and recently using my knowledge in a course I am participating in for music. During the course I also have acquired digital composition skills that I did not possess previously. Given my experience with both methods I believe that, personally, digital composition is an easier skill to acquire, while traditional composition takes significantly more time to master or even simply understand the process. When it comes to my personal preference, I could easily say that I prefer digital composition due to the simplicity of it to some degree but at the same time I have more exposure to traditional composition for longer and have found appeal in it. So, I do not have a specific preference between the two methods. This, however, means that this article is in no way biased. Something I like about digital composition is for one, it’s simplicity which makes it more accessible to more people. As for traditional composition, I like its complexity. This is because it makes it more satisfying to achieve if you have the opportunity to learn the skill. Assumptions made about both methods are interesting because they ask valid questions in themselves but do require a simple explanation to prove if they are correct or incorrect. Most of the assumptions I have heard as a student, when it comes to both digital and traditional composition, have been incorrect, or purely, are due to misguided opinions developed due to lack of information. While everyone is within their rights to have their own opinion, some assumptions need to be reassessed.
In conclusion, digital and traditional composition are both commonly used methods. Digital composition used typically for more techno genres but is not closed off to classical genres as well. Traditional composition uses more complex terminology and skills but is also not closed off to genres outside of classical. There are benefits that come with both methods of composition along with challenges. During my Q&A I directed with Silkwood School Music Educator, Melanie Creamer, via email, I acquired a lot of important information, interesting opinions and points that were made relating to digital and traditional composition. Overall, I think both methods of composition are important skills to possess for a composer and/or musician and that more people should be familiarising themselves with the techniques and process of both methods.