For me, more composing happens during editing than at the first sitting.
The PBS series Art:21 shows visual artists discussing their creative routines. Their work methods clearly change over time. They say things like, "I've tried other ways of doing this, and this suits me." Or, "Lately I'm excited by this new method of working." I'm going to share some details of my composing process. Perhaps reading it will be helpful to others doing creative work.
Like the artists in the PBS series, I've tried and discarded different ways of working. Here's what my routine is like now:
I write music using the piano, manuscript paper, notation software and recordings. I usually start by improvising at the piano. When I'm interested by an idea I'll write it down and play it many times, refining it as I play. Details might appear and disappear, but if I record everything I'm faced with too much listening. I prefer to get something defined, no matter how many possibilities are lost.
I prefer notating to recording audio because I can look over the page and see what comes before and after. If I try to compose at the computer, it slows me down. Also, I'd rather hear a piano as I work -- the charm and the richness of the sound affect my writing.
I use 10-stave manuscript, not 12-stave. That gives me room to write chord symbols or alternate rhythms above the music. My notation is quick, motivated by not forgetting what I have. I write in lead sheet style, using chord symbols, but I also write out voicings and inner lines. I've gotten very good at knowing what needs to be on the page to represent the music. I took a music calligraphy class once and I have worked as a copyist. Those experiences are very helpful to me in my writing and arranging.
Next I'll put the idea into Sibelius, my notation software. I'll work on the formatting, getting it to look good. Then I print what I have and play through it at the piano, writing revisions in pencil onto the printout. I'll enter the revisions and print again. This usually happens a few times.
Years ago, I had a facility for creating short pieces but no ability to make revisions. I'd stare at my idea on the page, not knowing how to find alternatives. Later, I did some film scoring and I could see the importance of editing. I started forcing myself to make changes. Gradually I became better at it.
If music is for a group, I think a lot about what will make sense on the page, what will 'lay well' on the instruments, what would inspire a jazz soloist. Writing with specific players in mind is called "Ellington-style arranging." Personally, I wouldn't know how to compose or arrange without considering specific instruments and players. The "limitations" of each instrument are inspiring, they help me to make composing choices. Also, I often try a piece in different keys. I might change the harmonies afterwards, or prefer a new key to the original.
Living with music for a few days (or months) seems to be necessary. If a song goes through many versions, I'm always interested in the last one. Other versions just go to "the Land Of The Misfit Toys."
For me, more composing happens during editing than at the first sitting. I might add or remove sections or write new lines at any point in a piece's history, even after it's been recorded on an album.
I've become very easy on myself about time. I find that taking "too much time" on something actually ends up being "faster" because I often like the result better. I'd rather just "keep writing till it gets writ" than become impatient with myself.
Like the artists in the ART:21 series are doing, continually revising our creative methods can help us to stay interested and enjoy the process more.
You can play jazz easy or you can do it the hard way. It depends whether the band has the swing or not. And it differs from night to night.
– Turk Murphy
Approximento: a musical entrance that is somewhat close to the correct pitch.
