See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272209275

Using music software in the compositional process: A case study of electronic

music composition

Article in Journal of Music Technology and Education · January 2013

DOI: 10.1386/jmte.5.3.257_1

CITATIONS READS

3 2,024

1 author:

Daniel Nevels
University of South Florida
3 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Nevels on 01 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JMTE 5 (3) pp. 257–271 Intellect Limited 2012

Journal of Music, Technology & Education

Volume 5 Number 3
© 2012 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/jmte.5.3.257_1

Daniel L. Nevels
University of South Florida

n
Using music software in the

tio
is 12
compositional process: A case
bu
rd 0

study of electronic music

fo ct 2
tri

composition
ot e
N tell

Abstract Keywords
In

1. This study explores the compositional process of writing a song, using arranging, music
2. multitrack recording, amplifier modelling software and the student experiences of software
3. music composition in a non-conventional classroom. This case study centred on one electronic music
4. student’s experiences with composition and music software. The student was 15 years composition
5. old and studied guitar for four years. He received music theory instruction and education
6. composition lessons with the goal of increasing musical knowledge throughout the music technology
7. process. The application of the techniques acquired during weekly lessons were imple-
8. mented by the student in the creation of the composition. The student was restricted
9. from the use of commercial tracks or loops but to focus on the student’s creative prod-
10. uct. The music teacher facilitated the student throughout the project offering guidance
11. and suggestions. The student was allowed to compose freely without regard to the
12. finished product by the teacher. The assignment of the composition project was to
13. create an instrumental pop song. The student and the teacher reviewed the compo-
14. sition, discussed the various aspects of its design, and explored the construction of
15. the finished product. The study concluded with the construction of a professionally
16. recorded song with the use of quality sampled instruments from different music soft-
17. ware programs. Recording the final song completed the student’s assignment.

257

JMTE_5.3_Nevels_257-271.indd 257 12/8/12 2:35:53 PM

 Daniel L. Nevels

Introduction 1.
The use of technology in a compositional environment is not a new idea. Many 2.
research articles expound on the use of music technology in education (Berk 3.
2008; Hewitt 2009; Johnston and Edmonds 2004). The practical application of 4.
various music technologies has advanced immeasurably with recent progress 5.
in technical developments of software and hardware. New software applica- 6.
tions allow greater freedom to construct complex arrangements. The software 7.
advancements have also allowed the musician to achieve greater creativity. The 8.
modern musician has access to technology to record and distribute music. This 9.
distribution can be local or extended globally through the use of the Internet. 10.
It is in this field that innovations are made as the boundaries for new prod- 11.
ucts are being mapped. During the past decade, software music companies 12.
have made great advances in multitrack recording, software instruments and 13.
digital audio workstations (DAW). Given the rapid rate of these advances, it 14.
is impossible to keep abreast of all the different types of music software. One 15.
can only become specialized in a few of the software packages. Although, 16.
some software applications take a considerable amount of time to learn due to 17.
their complexity, most are user friendly and intuitive. With the varied choices 18.
that are at the disposal of the music teacher one can choose a system that will 19.

n
aid the student and create a more optimal learning environment. 20.
21.

tio
Some of the developments in digital hardware include personal comput-
22.
is 12
ers, audio interfaces, MIDI keyboards (Colwell et al. 2002: 416–18). The price
of the personal computer has decreased over the past decade allowing acces-
bu 23.
sibility by a larger user base. Its prevalent use has allowed many to adapt the 24.
25.
rd 0

computer as a tool in creating music.

Audio interfaces have shown remarkable improvement over previous 26.
fo ct 2
tri
designs. These enhancements have improved the sound quality for the musi- 27.
cian (Dean 2009: 65). The sound systems within a personal computer only 28.
meets the minimum requirement for producing sounds such as playing music. 29.
30.
ot e

It does not have the sophistication to record higher quality audio.

Innovations in keyboard controller design during the past decade have 31.
N tell

exhibited both new and powerful MIDI control units, thus creating a multi- 32.
modal device that interfaces with the music software. Current MIDI keyboards 33.
can be a remote transfer control for a digital audio workstation. 34.
In

The software available covers a range of applications such as loop base, 35.
notation base and DAW. These applications aid in different ways to in the 36.
process of composing music. While the software is very advanced in its design, 37.
it is still merely a tool and should be treated as such in the compositional proc- 38.
ess of facilitating music creativity. There are no short cuts to creating music. 39.
Even with the most modern technologically advanced software, the musician 40.
is still responsible for making the decisions in the compositional process. 41.
The music teacher has the opportunity to guide the student into differ- 42.
ent avenues of the music creativity and at the same time allow the student 43.
freedom to express the intent of the original piece. In the field of composi- 44.
tion, the most influential person is the teacher (Burnard 2006; Randles 2009). 45.
Barrett (2006) indicated that in a tertiary institution, compositional instruc- 46.
tion is provided by the relationship of a composer teacher and the student 47.
composer. The music teacher changes roles to a music mentor that allows 48.
music creativity to flourish. 49.
In modern electronic/pop music composition, changing roles by the music 50.
teacher is necessary to assist in the creativity and composition by the student. 51.
52.

258

JMTE_5.3_Nevels_257-271.indd 258 12/8/12 2:35:53 PM

 Using music software in the compositional process

1. In this process, the teacher will be the facilitator. In a study, Ruthmann (2007)
2. outlines a model classroom where the student is learning to compose music.
3. Rather than teaching the musical elements of composition, Ruthmann’s study
4. allowed the student the freedom to create music and explore personal musical
5. creativity. This is similar to the informal learning model introduced by Green
6. (2008:1). Facilitating can be accomplished by the suggestion of a different
7. chord sequence or a different type of sound or timbre relating to the electronic
8. instrument.
9. Another thread of research is sound design or timbre. Moorefield (2005:
10. 95–97) commented on a number of artists who composed music by match-
11. ing the sound they heard within their head to the sound being created in the
12. studio. This type of composition describes how Michael Jackson, composed
13. music in his studio by recording beats from a drum machine and using
14. synthesizer sounds. In this context, sound design or timbre becomes sali-
15. ent to the artist as they try to replicate in the studio, what they hear in their
16. head. Thibeault (2012) pointed out that students creating music in the studio,
17. should make decisions about the sound early in the creative process. Sounds
18. or arrangement of sounds in the studio contribute to the texture of the song
19. and adds emotional content to the recording (Zak 2001: 32–34).

n
20. Evidence of this concept is the use of modern amplifier modelling software,
21. an innovative type of electronic sound design. This type of software allows an

tio
22. electric guitar to sound like different combinations of electric guitars and
is 12
23. amplifiers. Recent interest in software for the electric guitar began a number
bu
24. of years ago when Line 6 offered digital modelling. While artificial intelligence
25. is a research discipline in music technology, algorithmic programming in this
rd 0

26. case is used to model an acoustical environment. Great advances were made
fo ct 2
tri
27. in the guitar acoustical modelling that a number of major software companies
28. have products that produce sounds that are considerably close to the original
29. guitar/amplifier setup.
30. This software design is called amplifier modelling. It uses algorithms to
ot e

31. replicate the sound that the amplifier makes in a studio. There are three major
N tell

32. companies that produce this type of software. They are Line 6’s POD Farm,
33. Waves’ GTR and Native Instruments’ Guitar Rig. With the recent updates to
34. the software package, it is difficult to choose one, as all are extremely accurate
In

35. at what they accomplish. For example, if I wanted my guitar to sound like a
36. Fender Telecaster guitar from the 1950s connected to a Fender tweed ampli-
37. fier, there are a number of patches (or preset sounds) that modify the param-
38. eters within the modelling software to create that sound.
39.
40. Purpose
41.
The purpose of the study was to explore the compositional process of the
42.
student in the recording studio. Since the student will be making musical
43.
decisions, the study investigated the activities while recording the composi-
44.
tion during studio sessions. The design of the study will be qualitative and
45.
explorative. Case study design was chosen for the framework of this research
46.
(Patton et al. 2002). The data collected consisted of journals, informal inter-
47.
views and observational notes. The question that guided this enquiry; how
48.
would music software aid the student in the compositional process?
49.
The study used students from a private studio. About 31 students attended
50.
the studio, with about sixteen learning electric guitar while the others are
51.
studying piano. The lessons for those studying electric guitar are 30 minutes
52.

259

JMTE_5.3_Nevels_257-271.indd 259 12/8/12 2:35:54 PM

 Daniel L. Nevels

each week with instruction in technique, songwriting and improvising. These 1.

lessons continue yearly depending on the level of experience they had before 2.
joining the studio. The students are middle school to high school students that 3.
are not enrolled in a music programme at their public school. The student in 4.
this study was selected from a group of students (n=11) that attend the studio’s 5.
advanced technique and song writing group. The selection of the student for 6.
this study was based on the completion of the assignment. The other students 7.
completed the assignment after this study was completed. 8.
9.
Method 10.
11.
Each student was given a song writing assignment that consisted of writing a
12.
pop song that included a chord chart and an improvised melody or riff for the
13.
song. The requirement for the song structure included a verse, chorus and a
14.
bridge, and to function as a pop song. The students could choose from differ-
15.
ent musical forms such as ABA or ABAC, for the musical structure of the song.
16.
The students had six weeks to produce the chord chart and other elements for
17.
the song.
18.
The decision to use software was to eliminate the music teacher’s extrinsic
19.
incentives on the influence of the student during the creation of the composi-

n
20.
tion. The incentives encourage the student to create for the teacher disregard-
21.

tio
ing their own ideals. Removing this expectation and reassigning the focus to
22.
is 12
the compositional use of software should encourage personal musical creativ-
23.
ity. Furthermore, the process of creating music will be guided by the music
bu 24.
teacher when needed insuring that creativity would not be obstructed. In this
25.
rd 0

environment, the music teacher is acting as a facilitator in the compositional

26.
fo ct 2

process.
tri
27.
The studio consisted of a Windows PC running version 7. The audio
28.
interface used in the studio was a Focusrite Pro 24 DSP. The two software
29.
programs used in this study were Band in a Box, and Ableton Live version 8.
30.
ot e

An internal virtual studio technology (VST) module from Line 6 called POD
31.
Farm was used in the application of amplifier modelling. While other software
N tell

32.
exists in the studio such as sample instruments, they are identified during the
33.
narrative.
34.
In

35.
The story 36.
The participant in this study was a 15-year-old student. I have assigned the 37.
name David to insure his anonymity. David has been playing the electric 38.
guitar for about four years. During the first interview, he indicated that his 39.
first guitar teacher taught him a number of cover songs. His mom disclosed 40.
that he was never taught an entire song. He could only play the first 30 41.
seconds of four or five cover songs. David was disappointed with his progress 42.
and wanted to learn more advanced playing techniques. He was interested in 43.
playing songs that had an outstanding lead part. He listened to songs writ- 44.
ten in the 1970s and 1980s. The electric guitar was a major part of the genre 45.
of that period. He had certain songs that he wanted to play but could not 46.
play them because of their complexity. ‘Crazy Train’ by Ozzy Osborurne, 47.
‘Stairway to Heaven’ by Led Zeppelin, and ‘Back in Black’ by AC/DC were 48.
some of his favourites. His interest varied across different types of genre, 49.
but it is the lead parts that brought the most inspiration. It was during the 50.
interview that I discovered that he had this interest and that he had a strong 51.
desire to create music. 52.

260

JMTE_5.3_Nevels_257-271.indd 260 12/8/12 2:35:55 PM

 Using music software in the compositional process

1. David has been my student for over three years and has learned to read
2. notation and guitar tab. He can successfully read a guitar notated sheet of
3. music and play it with few mistakes. His skills as a musician have improved
4. that allowed him to play entire songs. His interest in writing music started
5. when I saw him improvising in the studio. I asked him to explain what he was
6. doing. He played a song that he composed himself. I was surprised how
7. well it sounded. We spent the following lessons working on the song. David
8. notated the song, and we made a recording of it. In the subsequent lessons,
9. we studied the possibilities of writing a guitar lead part over the song. After
10. several attempts he finally concluded with a lead part that he thought would
11. work with the piece. David then practiced this part of the song by playing over
12. a recording of the rhythm part of the song. When he was finally satisfied with
13. the results, we made a recording for him to take home and practice.
14.
15.
16. Compositional process
17. I decided to bring the project into the studio and allow David to complete the
18. composition and record his work. The studio experience was new to David.
19. He has never been in a studio before, and at first, it was somewhat over-

n
20. whelming. However, after I explained the different components of the record-
21. ing system he gained a basic understanding of how it worked, he was less

tio
22. apprehensive.
is 12
23. David had written the chord sequence on a chord chart. The chord chart
bu
24. contains the chord sequence for an ABA form structure. His song was simple
25. but the way he envisioned it was more like a ‘beach song’. Enquiring further,
rd 0

26. he wanted his song to sound like Bob Marley or Jimmy Buffett. David and
fo ct 2
tri
27. I discussed styles and what they would sound like in his song. David also
28. discussed the lead sound. He wanted a sound like an electric guitar similar to
29. rock bands in the 1950s or 1960s.
30. In the studio, there were a number of software programs that we could use.
ot e

31. I decided to use Band in a Box, created by PG Music. It is an advanced soft-

N tell

32. ware program that allows users to create an arrangement of a song based on
33. style types. While I could suggest different styles or even arrange a bass track,
34. it would have my style or reflection on David’s music. Therefore, this piece of
In

35. software was chosen because the teacher’s involvement in the composition
36. process was not necessary. Given that Band in a Box was an arranging type
37. of music software, it contains a number of different styles that would allow
38. David ownership of the decision process. One of the advantages of this type
39. of software was that one could change the style while the music was playing.
40. This offered a great advantage to make the song sound like, or close to, what
41. the musician is looking for.
42. Studio time was scheduled the following week and David brought his
43. guitar and music into the studio. My studio is setup to audition guitar
44. patches (or preset sounds). Some of them range from the type one would
45. hear in pop songs to more experimental types that are heard in movie
46. soundtracks. The popular sounds are the ones heard on songs from the
47. late 1950s to the 1980s. There are electric guitar patches that sound like a
48. Gibson Les Paul connected to a Marshall amplifier. Other patches include
49. the sound of the lead guitar in AC/DC’s ‘Back in Black’. These sounds are
50. almost known by name by a number of the students in the studio. They
51. have listened to these songs and read how the artist has constructed the
52. setup to produce that sound in the song. Since David and other students

261

JMTE_5.3_Nevels_257-271.indd 261 12/8/12 2:35:55 PM

 Daniel L. Nevels

have spent a considerable amount of time listening to these songs, they are 1.
able to tell me if the sound that I selected is close to or exactly what they 2.
wanted. 3.
David brought the chord chart and I typed them into Band in a Box. After 4.
all of the chords were entered we played it with the default style, Standard 5.
Rock. It was obvious that the style did not fit that song. We narrowed it down 6.
to Reggae and Rock Ballad. The style ‘Reggae_2’ was chosen for the rhythm 7.
part of the song. It was similar to Bob Marleys’ ‘One Life’. After the correc- 8.
tions were made and the song followed the chord sheet, David started to play 9.
the lead part over the song on his electric guitar. He was amazed that it fit 10.
so well. Since Band in a Box was not a multitrack recorder, we needed to 11.
move the song to a music software application that had multitrack recording 12.
capabilities. 13.
I exported the MIDI from Band in a Box and imported it to Ableton 14.
Live. I use Ableton in the studio for compositional projects and for multi- 15.
track recording. Within Ableton there are a number of instruments that allow 16.
experimentation with the song and enable the student to listen to the changes 17.
and to produce the final product. 18.
When the MIDI was imported into Ableton, David did not like the way 19.

n
it sounded. Band in a Box separated each track into bass, guitar rhythm, 20.
keyboard, strings and drums. When I played it for him, Ableton was using 21.

tio
the general MIDI sounds for play back. With his disapproval over the sounds, 22.
is 12
I decided to change each of the tracks to a more realistic sound, either using
bu 23.
Ableton’s sampled sound library or one of my studio libraries. 24.
The drums were the first to change. I found a rock kit in one of my studio 25.
rd 0

libraries to substitute the general MIDI sound. The rock kit had a weak snare 26.
fo ct 2
tri
drum. I changed the snare drum to another snare with more punch. This 27.
allowed the snare to come through the mix and add to the rhythmic texture 28.
of the song. 29.
I changed the keyboard to a piano patch that made the piano sound 30.
ot e

more like a real piano sound. This improved the sound, creating a more 31.
N tell

realistic sonic landscape. This started to bring the song together. I did the 32.
same with the bass and strings. The rhythm guitar, however, became an 33.
issue. The patches in my library did not sound real enough to make the 34.
In

rhythm guitar track stand out. David decided to play that part of the track 35.
live. We recorded the track with David performing on his acoustic guitar. 36.
When he completed the song, he noticed a mistake in his performance. 37.
However, I insisted that it would not interfere with this song as a whole. 38.
I reminded him that many professional performers make mistakes in songs 39.
and they are produced that way. An artist could spend a year trying to bring 40.
the song to perfection. 41.
With the rhythm track completed, we reviewed the song again. David was 42.
satisfied with the results and it was now time to move to recording the lead 43.
part that he wrote. I used software from Line 6 called POD Farm to make the 44.
lead guitar sound. After a few patches, I suggested a 1970s Electric Guitar 45.
patch. We modified it to match the style and to fit in the mix that we had 46.
completed. David recorded the lead part twice to make sure there were no 47.
mistakes in his performance. 48.
David was happy with the results and we mixed the tracks down to a 49.
stereo wave file. I converted the file to an MP3 so that I could e-mail it to his 50.
mother. She was so excited about the finished song; she e-mailed it to every- 51.
one in her family. They responded with overwhelming accolades. 52.

262

JMTE_5.3_Nevels_257-271.indd 262 12/8/12 2:35:56 PM

 Using music software in the compositional process

1. Discoveries regarding the compositional process

2. The completed project brought great joy to the student and his family. Many
3. of the stakeholders believe that the project was a success upon listening to the
4. song and comparing it to a commercially produced soundtrack. This project
5. proved the following three points that otherwise would not have been discov-
6. ered by David: (1) the possibility of a professional sound, (2) the sounds of
7. other instruments (3) and the impact of different types of guitars sounds.
8.
9.
10. Possibilities of professional sound
11. It is possible to produce a student’s project to the level of a professional sound
12. track. Although, with all of this effort, the student may still see the composed
13. song as an amateur attempt, the professional sound can be achieved, as we
14. discovered in the studio. The use of digital signal processing, which included
15. compressors, equalizers and signal delay software, functions to replace some
16. of the expensive hardware equipment in a professional studio. In modern
17. commercial studios, the equipment is unique to the needs of the studio
18. owner. However, the music that is produced has a similar commercial feel
19. (Collins 2007:27–28). It is not feasible to have all of the hardware equipment
that a commercial studio contains therefore the use of digital signal process-

n
20.
21. ing allowed the production of the music to sound as if it was recorded in a

tio
22. commercial environment.
is 12
23. bu
24. The sound of other instruments
25.
rd 0

In the studio, we discovered the sound of other instruments. For example,

26. general MIDI drums sound thin and weak. Current pop songs normally have
fo ct 2
tri
27. a large drum sound. Sounds like these are created in a studio environment.
28. When the decisions came for which drum set to use, David wanted that large
29. drum sound. I believe that most students would choose this over other drum
30.
ot e

sounds because they spend so much time listening to the beat of the song.
31. Those beats have strong bass drum sounds and are a major reason for listen-
N tell

32. ing to a song.

33.
34.
Different types of guitars
In

35.
36. The Line 6 POD Farm instrument has a large number of patches. Some of
37. the more favourite ones are the retro sounds from the 1970s. A number of
38. my students are avid listeners of music from the 1960s and 1970s. This soft-
39. ware contains guitar sounds from that period. In the studio, it became difficult
40. to find patches that worked. The stock ones were great and it became ardu-
41. ous to make a decision on one type of sound. We finally resolved to modify
42. one of the patches that came close to the sound that David wanted. Besides
43. the extensive library for guitar sounds, the software allows changes to the
44. parameters for each component in the audio chain (i.e. compressor, distor-
45. tion, reverb and amplifier) that is contained in that patch.
46. In concluding the project, the student had the final decision in the proc-
47. ess of each step. It was rewarding to the student to have the sound that he
48. envisioned produced in the final product. The process was enlightening to
49. the student. He now has an appreciation of the processes that are involved in
50. producing a pop song.
51. While the motivation behind writing the song was the student’s
52. responsibility, the recording and production was the responsibility of the

263

JMTE_5.3_Nevels_257-271.indd 263 12/8/12 2:35:57 PM

 Daniel L. Nevels

music teacher. The recording session was the place that many of the decisions 1.
took place that resulted in the production of the final recording. 2.
3.
4.
Discussion 5.
David experienced a number of things during this process. In his survey 6.
responses, he was surprised as to how all of the pieces came together. When 7.
the assignment was completed, he felt inspired to write another one. One of 8.
his discoveries was the speed at which the changes can be made to the song 9.
with different instruments used in the mix. The use of technology allowed 10.
rapid changes to be implemented. Given that the software has a library of 11.
instruments to choose from, the selection process becomes more straight- 12.
forward. Factors affecting the process were driven by the student’s creative 13.
impulse. 14.
David’s responses to the interview revealed the progress he made while 15.
composing and producing the song. When asked about his reaction to the 16.
completed song, he replied, ‘I was surprised at how well it all came together, 17.
and I felt inspired to write another song’. He was very proud of what he had 18.
accomplished. 19.

n
I asked if he shared the song with others and what they said. 20.
My Aunts, Uncles and Grandparents. They were impressed that I had 21.

tio
written the entire song and that it sounded like I was playing with a whole 22.
is 12
band.bu 23.
I enquired if he believed that he had grown from this experience, and what 24.
this did for his music abilities. 25.
rd 0

26.
fo ct 2
tri
I have matured as a musician because it opened up new opportunities 27.
for me as a performer and as a songwriter. 28.
29.
Thinking about other students that would attempt this project, I asked him 30.
ot e

what he would say to others that would produce a song in the future. He had 31.
N tell

great advice. 32.

33.
Have a good idea of what you want the song to sound like, so that you 34.
In

are not overwhelmed by the large amount of instruments and styles that 35.
can be used in the song. Also, try to incorporate lyrics into the songs. 36.
37.
While his answers outlined the progress he made in the studio, some tasks 38.
presented difficulties. The idea of recording in a studio could be overwhelm- 39.
ing. The decisions that were made during the recording were just as important 40.
as those made during the compositional process of the assignment. When 41.
asked what the hardest part of writing the song. 42.
43.
Thinking of the music for other instruments. 44.
45.
Therefore, for the student the procedure to write for other instruments 46.
could become a complex undertaking. Especially if one was relying totally 47.
on the sound of the music. This could become an obstacle if the teacher and 48.
the student could not write for other instruments. Then it becomes salient 49.
for the teacher to suggest using prerecorded loops or creating the music 50.
for the track. Without the proficiency of writing for other instruments, the 51.
choice to use loop based software became prevalent. In this study, while 52.

264

JMTE_5.3_Nevels_257-271.indd 264 12/8/12 2:35:57 PM

 Using music software in the compositional process

1. using the MIDI from Band in a Box, Ableton’s MIDI editor allowed the
2. student to make changes and listen to the music at the same time. This
3. made the difficult experience less stressful and allowed the changes with
4. minimum effort from the student.
5. With the current music technology, it becomes clear that a student may be
6. overwhelmed by the number of instruments and the many styles from which
7. one can choose. After this experience, David wanted to incorporate lyrics
8. into the song. This was an indication that growth had occurred. His desire to
9. verbalize his thoughts into a musical form had become the next objective in
10. his learning development. When asked how he felt about this entire exercise,
11. his reply was enlightening.
12.
13. This was a very special experience that taught me how to apply every-
14. thing I have learned throughout my career playing guitar to create this
15. song. I feel more confident as a musician and I feel inspired to write
16. more songs.
17.
18.
19. Implications for music education

n
20. The studio has grown to become part of the musician’s personal musical
21. environment. Musicians now use the studio not only to record the music,

tio
22. but also to construct and assemble the product. This has become trend for
is 12
23. many professionals since the late 1980s. The evolution of the studio environ-
bu
24. ment continues today as the studio moves from a sole commercial venture
25. to an extension of the musicians practice space. Thus allowing the musician
rd 0

26. to interface with the studio and accept it as a meta-instrument (Moorefield

fo ct 2
tri
27. 2005: 54).
28. In its simplistic form, the studio consists of a computer, an audio interface
29. and software that consist of a sequencer program. The use of the sequencer
30. in the compositional process will enable a transfer of knowledge and skills
ot e

31. used to create music (Folkestad et al. 1997). Thus, the sequencer functions
N tell

32. as a tool to explore musical ideas, while being transparent in compositional

33. process. Through engagement of the software as a whole, the student was
34. able to verbalize his thoughts and rational about the decisions made towards
In

35. to final product. This agrees with conclusions of Tobias’ study of songwriting
36. and technology (2010).
37. As a teacher, one must be aware of the music technological advances.
38. Current music trends dictate the type of digital technology that could be used
39. in the studio and the classroom. While some of the technology is simplistic,
40. some of the more recent software developments encompass a large learning
41. curve. Time is needed to explore the software and its application in a class-
42. room environment. It is in this context that the knowledge of the technology
43. will be of great benefit to the musical instruction of the student.
44. While the completed project was a success for the student, I however,
45. encountered a different set of circumstances in the studio. Most of the issues
46. I had in the studio were focused on the reduction of the number of deci-
47. sions. While we decided on bass guitar, rhythm guitar and drum instru-
48. ment sounds, there were actually more than enough choices from the library
49. that came with the studio software. We had to come to a compromise, to
50. make decisions on a basis of elimination. This presented the student with
51. fewer choices, while elucidating the direction of the song. This finding, fewer
52. choices leading to more creative student products, supports similar research

265

JMTE_5.3_Nevels_257-271.indd 265 12/8/12 2:35:57 PM

 Daniel L. Nevels

in the area of children’s musical creativity where sound exploration does not 1.
produce musical result (Kratus 1994; Younker 2000). The first step in the 2.
compositional process involved exploration. While no music was composed 3.
in the exploration period, this period was needed to outline the characteristic 4.
of the final product. 5.
6.
Conclusion 7.
8.
Reviewing the original research question, how would music software aid
9.
a student in the compositional process? It can be concluded that the soft-
10.
ware did provide assistance in the compositional process that led to a final
11.
product. We able to produce the song the student had envisioned. From the
12.
notes of the interview and the survey, the student commented that he had
13.
indeed succeeded in reaching that goal. However, from this perspective,
14.
an exploration of the interaction of music software and the processes that
15.
the student encountered while producing the final musical product will be
16.
addressed.
17.
While the software was indispensable in this project and enhanced the
18.
elements of the composition, it also became an impetus to the next stage in
19.
the compositional process. The software allows for quick changes in the sound

n
20.
facilitating the experimentation of the music production process. This led to
21.

tio
quicker decisions about texture, timbre and the total mix.
22.
is 12
While the software was a great aid in creating the product, some hindrances
23.
were encountered. It appears that the software library presented too many
bu 24.
options to the musician. Indeed, when software engineers create applications
25.
rd 0

that meet the needs of the majority of musicians, the decision process becomes
26.
fo ct 2

increasing complex and inconclusive. However, given certain parameters, the

tri
27.
hindrances can be minimized and the process becomes unproblematic and
28.
manageable. In commercial studios if the musician did not make a decision,
29.
the producer will. And in other cases will bypass the musician in the produc-
30.
ot e

tion phase. This keeps the studio time to a minimum and the focus of the
31.
artist on the performance of the song.
N tell

32.
However, during the studio time the focus was no longer on the student
33.
and the lesson, but on producing the song and ways to improve the sound or
34.
timbre. Every change that was implemented to improve the product the ques-
In

35.
tion was asked, ‘Can we do better?’ This mindset to produce and improve the
36.
music became salient. In the studio, the production of the music evolved into
37.
a team effort. The ears of the student and the technical knowledge of the
38.
teacher working in unison to improve the texture of the music and bring the
39.
quality of the sound to a production level.
40.
For all of the work involved, it was rewarding to hear the comments
41.
from those who listened to the song and gave great encouragement. The
42.
completed song, distributed throughout the family, became prominent in
43.
their discussions. The parents were impressed that their child could create
44.
music on this level. It is believed that we reached a professional studio
45.
level in the production of the song. Additionally, it was a great recording
46.
of someone who had passion for his music and it was demonstrated in
47.
the song.
48.
There is a final point that needs no explanation from the teacher or the
49.
student. When the song was finally completed in the studio and there were
50.
no more changes to be attempted, we played the song one last time. Did
51.
I see a smile on the face of the student? Perhaps.
52.

266

JMTE_5.3_Nevels_257-271.indd 266 12/8/12 2:35:58 PM

 Using music software in the compositional process

1. References
2. Barrett, M. (2006). ‘Creative collaboration’: An ‘eminence’ study of teaching and
3. learning in music composition’, Psychology of Music, 34: 2, pp. 195–218.
4. Berk, R. A. (2008), ‘Music and music technology in college teaching: Classical
5. to hip hop across the curriculum’, International Journal of Technology in
6. Teaching and Learning, 4: 1, pp. 45–37.
7. Burnard, P. (2006), ‘Understanding children’s meaning-making as composers’,
8. in I. Deliège and G. Wiggins (eds), Musical Creativity : Multidisciplinary
9. Research in Theory and Practice, England and New York: Psychology Press,
10. pp. 128–49.
11. Collins, N., & Escrivan Rincón, J. D. (2007), The Cambridge companion to electro-
12. nic music, Cambridge: New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–28.
13. Colwell, R. and Richardson, C. P. (2002), The New Handbook of Research on
14. Music Teaching and Learning: A Project of the Music Educators National
15. Conference, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 416–418.
16. Dean, R. T. (2009), The Oxford Handbook of Computer Music, Oxford and
17. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 65.
18. Folkestad, G., Lindström, B. and Hargreaves, D. J. (1997), ‘Young people’s
19. music in the digital age’, Research Studies in Music Education, 9: 1, pp. 1–12.

n
20. Green, L. (2008), Music, Informal Learning and the School: A New Classroom
21.

tio
Pedagogy/Lucy Green, Aldershot, Hampshire, UK and Burlington, VT:
22.
is 12
Ashgate, p. 2.
23. Hewitt, A. (2009), ‘Some features of children’s composing in a computer-based
bu
24. environment: The influence of age, task familiarity and formal instrumental
25.
rd 0

music instruction’, Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 2: 1, pp. 5–24.

26. Johnston, A. and Edmonds, E. (2004), ‘Creativity, music and computers:
fo ct 2
tri
27. Guidelines for computer-based instrumental music support tools’, ACIS
28. 2004 Proceedings.
29. Kratus, J. (1994), ‘Relationships among children’s music audiation and their
30.
ot e

compositional processes and products’, Journal of Research in Music

31. Education, 42: 2, pp. 115–30.
N tell

32. Moorefield, V. (2005), The Producer as Composer: Shaping the Sounds of Popular
33. Music/Virgil Moorefield, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 54, 95–97.
34. Patton, M. Q. (2002), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, third edition,
In

35. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

36. Randles, C. (2009), ‘Students’ expressed meaning of composition with regard
37. to culture’, Music Education Research International, 3, pp. 42–53.
38. Ruthmann, A. (2007), ‘The composers’ workshop: An approach to composing
39. in the classroom’, Music Educators Journal, 93: 4, pp. 38–43.
40. Thibeault, M. D. (2012), ‘Wisdom for music education from the recording
41. studio’, General Music Today, 25: 2, pp. 49–52.
42. Tobias, E. (2010), ‘Crossfading and plugging in: Secondary students’ engage-
43. ment and learning in a songwriting and technology class’, Ph.D. disserta-
44. tion, IL, USA: Northwestern University, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I
45. (publication no. AAT 3402496), http://search.proquest.com/docview/30521
46. 2166?accountid=14745. (305212166). Accessed 2 June 2011.
47. Younker, B. A. (2000), ‘Thought processes and strategies of students enga-
48. ged in music composition 1’, Research Studies in Music Education, 14 :1,
49. pp. 24–39.
50. Zak, A. (2001), Poetics of Rock: Cutting Tracks, Making Records, Berkeley:
51. University of California Press, pp. 32–34.
52.

267

JMTE_5.3_Nevels_257-271.indd 267 12/8/12 2:35:59 PM

 Daniel L. Nevels

Appendix I: Screen shots 1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

n
20.
21.

tio
22.
is 12
bu 23.
24.
25.
rd 0

26.
fo ct 2

Figure 1: Band in Box screen shot.

tri
27.
28.
29.
30.
ot e

31.
N tell

32.
33.
34.
In

35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
Figure 2: Ableton screen shot. Band in a Box MIDI import tracks into Ableton Live. 52.

268

JMTE_5.3_Nevels_257-271.indd 268 12/10/12 2:46:50 PM

 Using music software in the compositional process

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

n
20.
21.

tio
22.
is 12
23.
Figure 3: Final song mix.
24.
25.
bu
rd 0

26.
fo ct 2
tri
27. Appendix II: Survey questions for student
28.
29. 1. What was your reaction to the finished song?
30. I was surprised at how well it all came together, and I felt inspired to write
ot e

31. another song.

N tell

32.
33. 2. Did you share this song with others?
34.
Yes.
In

35.
36.
37. 3. Who?
38. My aunts, uncles and grandparents.
39.
40. 4. What were their reactions to your song?
41.
42. They were impressed that I had written the entire song and that it sounded
43. like I was playing with a whole band.
44.
45. 5. Do you think that you have grown as a musician because of this experience?
46.
Yes. I have matured as a musician because it opened up new opportunities
47.
for me as a performer and song writer.
48.
49.
6. What did you learn the most?
50.
51. I learned how to create and blend different parts of the song and how to
52. write solos that fit into the song.

269

JMTE_5.3_Nevels_257-271.indd 269 12/10/12 3:41:21 PM

 Daniel L. Nevels

7. What was the hardest part of writing your song? 1.

2.
Thinking of the music for the other instruments in the song.
3.
4.
8. What did you think of the music technology used in the studio to create
5.
your song?
6.
I was surprised and fascinated by how much detail went into each instru- 7.
ments part and how all of the pieces of music could be combined to form 8.
the song with only the click of the mouse. 9.
10.
9. Did you believe that the technology existed to create parts of your song? 11.
12.
I knew it existed, but I didn’t think Mr Nevels had it in his house, or that 13.
I would ever use it. 14.
15.
10. Now that the song is finished, what would you do different for the next 16.
song you write? 17.
I would try to think of lyrics and try to come up with more complex chords 18.
sequences to make the song sound even better. 19.

n
20.
11. What would you do different in the studio? 21.

tio
22.
is 12
I would listen to the music throughout the creation of the piece more often 23.
now that I know it’s easy to fix any mistakes.
bu 24.
25.
rd 0

12. What do you have to say to those who will do this in the future? For exam- 26.
fo ct 2
tri
ple what advice would you offer them? 27.
I would tell them to have a good idea of what they want the song to sound 28.
like, so that they are not overwhelmed by the large amount of instruments 29.
and styles that can be used in the song. Also try to incorporate lyrics into 30.
ot e

the songs. 31.

N tell

32.
13. Use this page for any comment you would like to share – 33.
34.
In

This was a very special experience that taught me how to apply everything 35.
I have learned throughout my career playing guitar to create this song. 36.
I feel much more confident in myself as a musician and I feel inspired to 37.
write more songs. 38.
39.
40.
Suggested citation 41.
Nevels, D. L. (2012), ‘Using music software in the compositional process: A 42.
case study of electronic music composition’, Journal of Music, Technology & 43.
Education 5: 3, pp. 257–271, doi: 10.1386/jmte.5.3.257_1 44.
45.
46.
Contributor details 47.
Daniel Nevels is a third year doctoral student studying Music Education at the 48.
University of South Florida. His research interest includes music technology, 49.
software composition and education. He received a B.A. from the University 50.
of Tampa (2008) and a M.M. in Composition from the University of South 51.
Florida (2010). 52.

270

JMTE_5.3_Nevels_257-271.indd 270 12/10/12 3:41:56 PM

 Using music software in the compositional process

1. Contact: School of Music, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Ave.,
2. MUS 101, Tampa, FL 3362, USA.
3. E-mail address: [email protected]
4.
5. Daniel L. Nevels has asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and
6. Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work in the format that
7. was submitted to Intellect Ltd.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

n
20.
21.

tio
22.
is 12
23. bu
24.
25.
rd 0

26.
fo ct 2
tri
27.
28.
29.
30.
ot e

31.
N tell

32.
33.
34.
In

35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.

271

JMTE_5.3_Nevels_257-271.indd 271 12/10/12 3:42:09 PM

View publication stats