The Composer as an Expensive Hobby

[Sylvester Wager]

Are we selling ourselves out?

 

I've written music since about 1979. I did not know anyone else who did it: I had no support. Paper and pencil & an upright piano that cost $75. Things got more expensive, but always within thrifty reason. Music was cheaper than painting, in those days.

 

Then, in the 1990s, I purchased Finale, and a digital harpsichord, and a Proteus Orchestral sequencer. All consternating, and a waste of money. I wrote stuff - which now sits in a box. It will never be looked at again. The entire set-up (with PC) came to over $2,000.

 

After 1999, I have had no more of high technology in music. But I paid attention enough to see that all that I bought was worthless. I went underground for a while.

 

In 2007, I decided to have fun with video. It started as an exhilerating hobby. I found YouTube, and made lots of dumb vloggy things: few survived my mood swings. I'm hot on the delete button.

 

I decided that I had a new use for music: I could play in "public" - and I could play my own compositions. If I got 100 views that might be more than a real concert attendance. In a way, that strategy worked. YouTube, Dailymotion, Vimeo are all free. The cost was in the cameras, and some editing software. My ambition led me to spend $1000, at least. Over 3 years, it has really been more like $3000 for video/recording stuff.

 

So I have decent mics, and a good prosumer HD camcorder. A good laptop. And then, I discovered composers on the Internet. Digital orchestras still sound horrible, for the most part. But those who spend a little extra, or have the latest, and spend time tweaking the scores: the sound is almost useful for a personal filmscore. I became enchanted.

 

[I almost don't notice that I pay $50 per month for cable Internet.]

 

If I choose to "upgrade" and buy notation software and the rest, I will be spending a lot of time and money. And it makes me awfully nervous. Part of me pulls away - and I fantasize about going Offline. Just check my email at the public library, a few times a week.

 

More important to me than whether I buy anything: who benefits from the expense? And how creative is it really, after all? Using someone else's algorithms... 

 

Why do I need to write for orchestra? Who seduced me into that fantasy?

 

The costs will never end: and they will remain at the top shelf of what we can afford - we, the average. Upgrades are a must.  But worse: I am annoyed that so few composers, videographers, photographers, musicians have even noticed that they are in perpetual debt.  

 

Finale, Sibelius, Garritan, Adobe, Windows, Apple - they don't care a fig for my produce. They care that I remain addicted to their product. And addicted to a dream. Costly - unnecessarily costly.

 

There are cheaper ways to do this. For now, I write for piano, or organ, with paper/pencil. I play my own works. I use free publishers, like YouTube. If I was so wonderful, I would have been discovered 20 years ago. I lost some money: corporations won it. But they will not get everything.

 

How expensive is composition supposed to be?

  

[18dhek5g8wf53]

Taking a view here as an amateur. I can honestly say that that the investment I’ve made in my studio equipment has made my life immeasurably richer.

I was never formally taught any of the instruments that I play, I just picked them up and found my way, and this lead to a good life as a gigging musician that lasted the best part of 35 years. In all of that time I absorbed the wisdom of my peers when I could, grew my ear, and through years of improvisation with good players, grew the ability to compose instantly, on the spot; so to speak.

I can’t ever imagine being able to write using manuscript paper and pencil, or to have the time to study the development of western music from year dot to understand that whole theory journey. I’m too impatient and I’m not trying to emulate the greats. Sadly in academic terms I’m the one at the back asleep, I find it really difficult.
But, If I need specific skills relating to a piece that I’m writing, then I’ll look that stuff up, fiddle around and explore, or ask for help. It fascinates me.

Similarly this forum informs me hugely on a regular basis. Thank you, to you all for that.

So in summary of all of this self-indulgent babble. My ear and imagination are the source, and the studio medium is my manuscript paper. So it’s about whatever gives me the confidence and supports my ability to create, If it costs money, well I don’t mind too much as long as I can spare it. It’s an investment in my creative life, and a bargain considering the personal contentment that I get from it.

Incidentally, I know plumbers and electricians who probably spend £20k setting themselves up to work freelance, and then more big money each year to maintain that skill set. No real difference to the demands on the professional composer that I can see? Just a different way to bring home probably less bacon.

The only downer is that I don’t get as much fishing done as I used to … but Hey Ho, the Trout and Grayling won’t complain too much about that.

[James Semple]

Apologies Kristofer I hadn't disagreed with that point. You are right that people all too often try to fix bad arrangements in the mix.

I didn't feel you dismissed production skills in any way. In fact I think this thread has been highly respectful. It's nice to see.

As ever I'm just trying to be as honest as possible and talk about the situation as I've found it.

Incidentally (and I believe this is relevant) my wife and I put a time limit on my 'startup period' as a composer. I have invested a lot of time and energy into composing whilst maintaining a full time job. Effectively this means I am working two jobs and clearly this is not a tenable situation for the long term. We basically put a time limit and said I had to be able to make a career of it by whenever. If that had not happened then this would just be a hobby for me and I would spend far less time and money on it. I love music but I also love my wife and daughter.

Perhaps this is useful because we accepted in the short term that this was a business and we were investing for the future. I often feel people spend way too much on this as a hobby because at the back of their mind they would like to do this for a living. We decided to be very clear on whether this was a hobby or potential career.

[Andrew Gleibman]

Yes Michael, I agree a Music Academy should not be formed from the idiots from Politburo. But the history besides music knows examples of not money-driven committees with mainly positive influences. Nobel and Fields committees are examples. If scientific development and approval institutions were money-driven only, then we probably would not have today astronautical industry, satellite television and GPS. Music, however, today is money-driven only, and this results in the catastrophic sounds we hear in the nearby cars and clubs.
Any civilisation has, and had, something authoritative besides money - for the good or for the bad. Sometimes it's faith or the military or the politburo. Sometimes it's an academy consisting of best educators and professionals.

BTW, I don't think money was the main bottom line for Beethoven, but I am not knowledgeable enough about this.

Michael Tauben said:

Andrew Gleibman said:

Sorry Michael, I do not completely understand what exactly is a mad lie here. Maybe I am a bit naive. I agree a professional committee can be biased. But it's exactly the bias and madness of money made Zimmer produce this loud track for "Inception", which is as precise, technologically proficient and expressive as a water-flash device in a toilet. For a professional committee, which evaluates music, to be biased towards money only is much much worse than "making a value judgement on music that is informed by its own prejudice".

As the result we have these crowds of people shaking their bodies and belching under dull music loops of ideal mechanical quality. Welcome to the world of loud inexpensive music loops, available to milions for 1 cent or even for free. Farewell Bach, Beethoven Shostakovich, Stravinsky, whose music needs a Music Academy for promotion and explanation!

Well Andrew, perhaps you can define 'good' music. We live in a splintered or fragmented cultural reality. It is possible to like Beethoven and a good techno track, and a good jazz performance and a good pop song. As long as you judge them on their own terms.
And I am afraid that money was the bottom line for Mozart et al as it is for Hans Zimmer. I would no more expect Zimmer to produce a masterpiece in the symphonic tradition than I would expect a Yo Yo Ma to do a great version of Giant steps.
I'm all for educating the young to appreciate the jewels of western art music but in Beethoven's day and since time immemorial 'art' was and always will be a minority interest.
I don't want an idiot in the 'Polit Bureau telling me I shouldn't listen to Jay-Z or Lady Gaga! Or for that matter some academic self interested pressure group telling me that serialism or tonal composition or this structure or that style is better. How would they know?

[Michael T]

Andrew Gleibman said:

Any civilisation has, and had, something authoritative besides money - for the good or for the bad. Sometimes it's faith or the military or the politburo. Sometimes it's an academy consisting of best educators and professionals. BTW, I don't think money was the main bottom line for Beethoven, but I am not knowledgeable enough about this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? I definitely prefer a civilisation that is not guided by faith, the military or the politburo!! That way leads to doctrine and oppression for those who don't follow it. Much better the pluralist society where people are free to be head-bangers to the metal music they love and others are free to writhe around in ecstasy to the strains of Tristan.

In Beethoven's day there was the kind of music he wrote which was commissioned by patrons, the Church, nobles, courts or a publisher who could sell the music to a very select and privileged number of aristocratic musicians. Then there was the kind of music 'ordinary' people sang and danced to- folk music.
Quite a few very eminent and respected composers, critics and commentators at or soon after the time of Beethoven's death, dismissed his late works as incomprehensible and suspect. Had these 'experts' been part of a panel of judges they would have thrown out arguably the greatest, most profound instrumental music produced by European civilisation.

[Sylvester Wager]

Thanks, friends, for giving opinion. This is a sensitive topic, and depressing for some/many; but it's necessary to be able to see what is happening. ... For those who are happy to have spent, as I generally feel over some large expenditures: it's great to have an enhanced life. And that is the worth of the cost of the hobby.

I'd like to keep this thread focused on how much it costs to be a composer. I'd like to remind at least myself that the software, and sound libraries, the technology remain a depreciating asset.

I have at least part-ownership in a very expensive piano. I think it was a foolish purchase, considering the abilities of the two of us who bought it. No matter. If the need arises, it can be sold. The same goes for my nephew's violin, worth over $20,000, guaranteed by a certificate/appraisal. The composer's studio has no such value. And so, that Holst quote comes quite in handy!

When I was young, I thought that I "had" to be a musician. I was romantic about it; and I pursued the thing with a tenacity that I'm really happy about, today. I play decently, and I take most of the credit for that.

As a composer, I saw the writing on the walls early-on. I was not going to follow the University directive. Vincent Persichetti panned my works. The only thing that saved me, in 1989, was a kind word said by a teacher whom I have respect for, since he was a "successful" (working/paid) composer. I believed him. There was "something" in at least some of my work. But how much "something?"

It was not until this Internet explosion occurred that I began to discover just how much talent I do not have. That comes as a great relief! But not without serious struggles - even suicidal feelings over this technological spiral/matrix.

For now, I have decided to look carefully at how much I spend on music. I want to give vent to my urge to write, as all of you do. I do not want to rue a period in my life, where I spent thousands of dollars on technology that I would not have the time to properly use. And I do not want to set myself up for a Great Disappointment (confer: Adventist Church in 1844(!)).

I'll submit that writing music can well be done for under $1000 per year. Someone may like to convert that figure to Pounds Sterling/Euros. That includes everything, including Internet connection (mine costs $600/year [!]). In that case, a woman/man needs to be clever, and perhaps popular. A patron helps - and yes, they still exist. (I have one.)

But I will bet that most of us have spent >$1000, per year; and we may spend more than we have. And this is where my real concern is. Who wants me/you to spend that money? Will the expense enhance our lives? Will it become a burden? And when is it time to say, enough spent! Remember: fame finds the famous. Good luck to everyone. I understand the desire, deeply. Work hard.

[Simon Godden]

Michael, I respect and agree with a lot of what you say, but can I just stress something here? The sort of people that I send music to actually demand a well written score (and parts), and are also very able to 'hear' what is written down. So your quote "It is very hard for the newbie to break in without some digital assistance." isn't necessarily true in all regards when it comes to writing concert music.

However, the ability to 'hear' the music as one reads it demands such tremendously precise and intricate skill that no matter what the reputation of the musical director of any orchestra is, I'm sometimes a tiny bit sceptical as to just how good at 'hearing' that music they actually are. I personally can 'hear' music as I read it, if it is diatonic and written for minimal forces such as a piano or string quartet , but even then I doubt that I am able to catch absolutely every single note in its primary function (especially if it's one of Beethoven's later piano sonatas or something equally rich). So when you imagine what skills are needed to 'hear' a highly detailed pantonal work for a full scale orchestra with a multitude of transposed instruments, you can't help struggling to believe anybody, no matter who they are, when they say they can 'hear' it.

But the fact remains, all 'musical directors' of all orchestras demand nothing but a score.

However, because of my heavily ingrained scepticism, I will accompany it with an audio device (CD).

But if we can get back to the topic in question. As a hobby (as opposed to an attempt to further one's career), composition is extremely rewarding to me, and becomes even more rewarding if I can hear the music I have written. And technology today gives me the opportunity to develop my orchestration skills (more than anything) and also make corrections to the work I initially wrote down if it doesn't sound right.

In Beethoven, Mozart and Schubert's time (Haydn had an orchestra at his immediate demand, which blows away any technology that is even yet to be invented), the way to actually hear one's orchestral music was to reduce their orchestral work to such forces whereby two pianists could play the whole thing on one piano. They also had an advantage over composers of today in that by hearing their rendition on the piano played by two pianists, they could hear all the human nuances that make music so exciting, like proper crescendos and rubato, no "machine-gun" effects etc. That was the way that composers were able to 'correct' their work and play it to people prior to handing it in for performance or publication. Lizst was able to reduce his (and other's) orchestral work, so that just he could play it on the piano. Mind you, his hands were enormous. He's even written and had recorded his piano reductions of all of Beethoven's symphonies. I have a recording of them.

However, the advantage we have today is that we can hear our music as they did, except we have the advantage through technology to be able to hear all the different timbres that have been written as a result of our orchestration.

And it isn't a particularly expensive hobby. Nearly every major household in the Western world has a computer anyway. All that is needed to give a working result of one's orchestral efforts is $149:

http://www.garritan.com/index.php/products/personal-orchestra

So, as you can see, to compose as a hobby isn't expensive. What is expensive is not being able to resist the temptation, spending unlimited funds on improving the quality of the samples and the hardware needed to accommodate them.

However, as a means of attempting to break into the media music market, (writing for films, TV and games), technology is expensive, because technology is such that it can produce an 'acceptable' end product that can be used instead of recording a full orchestra (obviously not for the big Hollywood blockbusters, but for games and some TV, sure). So the people that potential media composers are trying to impress can demand a full working audio output that can be used immediately, and unfortunately, in order to produce such output, for the composer, costs an arm and a leg.

But that isn't a hobby.

Michael Tauben said:

I think that the word processor metaphor is a little misleading.
You see, if one presents a score to a film director or a song publisher or a choreographer or whoever, they won't be able to 'hear' it. Whereas, a dissertation or essay, whether hand written or typed is understood by everyone, obviously. It's like a playwright having to record the voices of his characters on to a tape to play to a director or publisher because they can't read the manuscript. Most people are, in a word, illiterate as far as musical dots are concerned. This has always been the case. No complaints about that. However, once upon a time every publisher had a piano in their office and a film composer could play to a producer or director the main themes on a piano and say this will be brass, that will be strings etc. What the 'virtual' instrument software has done has made it so nothing can be left to the imagination- unless one is a well established writer with a good working relationship with said directors, choreographers etc. It is very hard for the newbie to break in without some digital assistance.
I agree with Nick C though. It is impossible to write anything in any genre if it doesn't 'float your boat'.

In the end the best (for me) 'classical', 'concert' or non 'applied' music is that which is written down and then performed by good musicians. However, many fans of music concrete or electronic sound design will disagree on that!


Simon Godden said:

I think I come somewhere in between the two extremes of this discussion. The people I want to sell music to are only interested in the score, and that's it........... or so they say.

When I was at university and we were given an essay or dissertation to complete, it was accepted that we could hand in handwritten work (as opposed to word-processed work). However, somebody close to me made light of the fact that although the various professors who mark the work say that handwritten work is perfectly permissible, they may subconsciously mark up work that is better presented and easier to read, even if they don't mean to. When I render my work into audio format (comparitively economically to a lot of composers), I can honestly say that I do it for myself to listen to, not only for my own personal pleasure, but also to make adjustments necessary to fulfil my satisfaction that the standard of music is high. However, when I have finally notated it to the very best of my ability and I am happy that the visual work is as perfect as I can possibly make it. I will submit an audio recording of it to accompany the score, as I am well aware of the above analogy concerning "word-processed" homework. By the way Michael. That's a great quote from Holst: 'Never compose anything unless the not composing of it becomes a positive nuisance to you'. It sums me up.

[Michael T]

Actually, Simon, I may have given the wrong impression. I was really referring more to applied music than to concert music. And I would be the last person to claim to be able to 'hear' a complex chromatic or atonal score although I know people who can. I guess my point is this:
The technology is a fantastic tool but the down side is that it is easy to let it also become a crutch. I am as guilty of using it as a crutch as anyone else.
If you are making music for TV or film then you have to have command of large amounts of gear and will forever be upgrading and updating in order to keep up with what is demanded. One must view this stuff not as instruments but as consumables like ms or pencils.
In the realm of concert music, I think the only bit of equipment needed is a brain and some pen and paper.



Simon Godden said:

Michael, I respect and agree with a lot of what you say, but can I just stress something here? The sort of people that I send music to actually demand a well written score (and parts), and are also very able to 'hear' what is written down. So your quote "It is very hard for the newbie to break in without some digital assistance." isn't necessarily true in all regards when it comes to writing concert music.

However, the ability to 'hear' the music as one reads it demands such tremendously precise and intricate skill that no matter what the reputation of the musical director of any orchestra is, I'm sometimes a tiny bit sceptical as to just how good at 'hearing' that music they actually are. I personally can 'hear' music as I read it, if it is diatonic and written for minimal forces such as a piano or string quartet , but even then I doubt that I am able to catch absolutely every single note in its primary function (especially if it's one of Beethoven's later piano sonatas or something equally rich). So when you imagine what skills are needed to 'hear' a highly detailed pantonal work for a full scale orchestra with a multitude of transposed instruments, you can't help struggling to believe anybody, no matter who they are, when they say they can 'hear' it.

But the fact remains, all 'musical directors' of all orchestras demand nothing but a score.

However, because of my heavily ingrained scepticism, I will accompany it with an audio device (CD).

But if we can get back to the topic in question. As a hobby (as opposed to an attempt to further one's career), composition is extremely rewarding to me, and becomes even more rewarding if I can hear the music I have written. And technology today gives me the opportunity to develop my orchestration skills (more than anything) and also make corrections to the work I initially wrote down if it doesn't sound right.

In Beethoven, Mozart and Schubert's time (Haydn had an orchestra at his immediate demand, which blows away any technology that is even yet to be invented), the way to actually hear one's orchestral music was to reduce their orchestral work to such forces whereby two pianists could play the whole thing on one piano. They also had an advantage over composers of today in that by hearing their rendition on the piano played by two pianists, they could hear all the human nuances that make music so exciting, like proper crescendos and rubato, no "machine-gun" effects etc. That was the way that composers were able to 'correct' their work and play it to people prior to handing it in for performance or publication. Lizst was able to reduce his (and other's) orchestral work, so that just he could play it on the piano. Mind you, his hands were enormous. He's even written and had recorded his piano reductions of all of Beethoven's symphonies. I have a recording of them.

However, the advantage we have today is that we can hear our music as they did, except we have the advantage through technology to be able to hear all the different timbres that have been written as a result of our orchestration.

And it isn't a particularly expensive hobby. Nearly every major household in the Western world has a computer anyway. All that is needed to give a working result of one's orchestral efforts is $149:

http://www.garritan.com/index.php/products/personal-orchestra

So, as you can see, to compose as a hobby isn't expensive. What is expensive is not being able to resist the temptation, spending unlimited funds on improving the quality of the samples and the hardware needed to accommodate them.

However, as a means of attempting to break into the media music market, (writing for films, TV and games), technology is expensive, because technology is such that it can produce an 'acceptable' end product that can be used instead of recording a full orchestra (obviously not for the big Hollywood blockbusters, but for games and some TV, sure). So the people that potential media composers are trying to impress can demand a full working audio output that can be used immediately, and unfortunately, in order to produce such output, for the composer, costs an arm and a leg.

But that isn't a hobby.

[Simon Godden]

I guess it depends what you mean by 'crutch'. I use technology, but it is strictly for playback as opposed to an aid for composition. I have written music ("Alphabet Green" on my profile page) with just a ''pencil and manuscript" paper (didn't even have immediate access to a piano unless I walked across the forecourt to the Queen's School of Music building) and heard it successfully performed by the BBC Ulster Orchestra. Nowadays however, I use the technology for the simple reason is that it is there.

I think one can only really be accused of using it as a 'crutch' if they are recording music that has already been arranged such as some of the presets on Symphobia etc (a bit like the rhythm presets they used to have on keyboards). My view is that, as long as every single note comes directly from your brain on to paper (or DAW interface), then it doesn't matter what you use, you're a bone fide composer.

Michael Tauben said:

Actually, Simon, I may have given the wrong impression. I was really referring more to applied music than to concert music. And I would be the last person to claim to be able to 'hear' a complex chromatic or atonal score although I know people who can. I guess my point is this:
The technology is a fantastic tool but the down side is that it is easy to let it also become a crutch. I am as guilty of using it as a crutch as anyone else. If you are making music for TV or film then you have to have command of large amounts of gear and will forever be upgrading and updating in order to keep up with what is demanded. One must view this stuff not as instruments but as consumables like ms or pencils. In the realm of concert music, I think the only bit of equipment needed is a brain and some pen and paper.



Simon Godden said:

Michael, I respect and agree with a lot of what you say, but can I just stress something here? The sort of people that I send music to actually demand a well written score (and parts), and are also very able to 'hear' what is written down. So your quote "It is very hard for the newbie to break in without some digital assistance." isn't necessarily true in all regards when it comes to writing concert music.

However, the ability to 'hear' the music as one reads it demands such tremendously precise and intricate skill that no matter what the reputation of the musical director of any orchestra is, I'm sometimes a tiny bit sceptical as to just how good at 'hearing' that music they actually are. I personally can 'hear' music as I read it, if it is diatonic and written for minimal forces such as a piano or string quartet , but even then I doubt that I am able to catch absolutely every single note in its primary function (especially if it's one of Beethoven's later piano sonatas or something equally rich). So when you imagine what skills are needed to 'hear' a highly detailed pantonal work for a full scale orchestra with a multitude of transposed instruments, you can't help struggling to believe anybody, no matter who they are, when they say they can 'hear' it. But the fact remains, all 'musical directors' of all orchestras demand nothing but a score.

However, because of my heavily ingrained scepticism, I will accompany it with an audio device (CD).

But if we can get back to the topic in question. As a hobby (as opposed to an attempt to further one's career), composition is extremely rewarding to me, and becomes even more rewarding if I can hear the music I have written. And technology today gives me the opportunity to develop my orchestration skills (more than anything) and also make corrections to the work I initially wrote down if it doesn't sound right.

In Beethoven, Mozart and Schubert's time (Haydn had an orchestra at his immediate demand, which blows away any technology that is even yet to be invented), the way to actually hear one's orchestral music was to reduce their orchestral work to such forces whereby two pianists could play the whole thing on one piano. They also had an advantage over composers of today in that by hearing their rendition on the piano played by two pianists, they could hear all the human nuances that make music so exciting, like proper crescendos and rubato, no "machine-gun" effects etc. That was the way that composers were able to 'correct' their work and play it to people prior to handing it in for performance or publication. Lizst was able to reduce his (and other's) orchestral work, so that just he could play it on the piano. Mind you, his hands were enormous. He's even written and had recorded his piano reductions of all of Beethoven's symphonies. I have a recording of them.

However, the advantage we have today is that we can hear our music as they did, except we have the advantage through technology to be able to hear all the different timbres that have been written as a result of our orchestration.

And it isn't a particularly expensive hobby. Nearly every major household in the Western world has a computer anyway. All that is needed to give a working result of one's orchestral efforts is $149:

http://www.garritan.com/index.php/products/personal-orchestra

So, as you can see, to compose as a hobby isn't expensive. What is expensive is not being able to resist the temptation, spending unlimited funds on improving the quality of the samples and the hardware needed to accommodate them.

However, as a means of attempting to break into the media music market, (writing for films, TV and games), technology is expensive, because technology is such that it can produce an 'acceptable' end product that can be used instead of recording a full orchestra (obviously not for the big Hollywood blockbusters, but for games and some TV, sure). So the people that potential media composers are trying to impress can demand a full working audio output that can be used immediately, and unfortunately, in order to produce such output, for the composer, costs an arm and a leg.

But that isn't a hobby.

[Albert De La Vega]

Hello Sylvester, very interesting discussion indeed. At the end of the day, what do you want to get out of your compositions? Apparently, it seems that it has worked out for you that you may NOT require all of the bells and whistles, but the simplest of compositional gear (mind, piano, pencil & paper).

Personally, I spend my money on all things related to music and new gear because even though I am a hobbyist (with no real desire to score a film, or land any composing related gigs) I ACTUALLY enjoy the aspect and practice of trying out new gear and sounds.

In many cases, an actual new piece of music was inspired by the new sound itself and quite possibly would not have occured with only piano, pen and paper. Out of practice, however, I keep pen and paper next to my bed because most of my ideas come in the middle of the night or as soon as I wake up. I also keep and treasure Rimsky-Korsakov's book on Composition and Orchestration as my "bible" of sorts.

In my specific case, as I cannot comment on the compositional techniques and requirements of others, I enjoy all related aspects of gear: researching and listening to audio demos of new gear, trying them out with previous compositions and being able to hear the difference and life new sounds can give old compositions, new inspiration and putting everything together in the final mix.

I can see and appreciate all of the other contrasting points indicated by the other composers, but at the end of the day, FOR ME, new gear is part of my composition process, especially because my forte rests in the composition and not the performance.

[Sylvester Wager]

Thanks for the lively discussion. It's helpful to take a reading of how content composers are, in 2010. There are myriad possibilities for the process. The performance of work: well, we know that can be frustrating.

I'd like to close this thread, now. Anyone is free to take up any of the ideas - and there are lots of them! peace to all.