Week-02
Overview
This session focuses on assessing where everyone stands with their production workflows. Each composer will compose a short piece in real-time while the class observes and provides feedback on technical efficiency, creative decision-making, and overall workflow.
Learning Objectives
By the end of this session, composers will be able to:
- Demonstrate their current composition workflow under observation
- Identify workflow bottlenecks and inefficiencies in their own and others’ processes
- Articulate specific areas for technical improvement this semester
- Provide constructive feedback on peers’ production approaches
Session Structure
Part 1: Live Composition Sessions (90 min total, ~30 min each)
Each composer takes the “hot seat” and composes/produces a short original piece (1-2 minutes) in real-time while the class watches. This is not about the final product—it’s about observing and discussing workflow.
The Setup
- Composer connects their laptop to the projector/display
- Opens their DAW with a blank session
- Receives a simple creative prompt (see prompts below)
While Composing
- Composer narrates their process as much as comfortable
- Class observes silently (no interruptions during creation)
- Instructor takes notes on workflow observations
After Each Session (5-10 min discussion)
- Composer self-reflects: What went well? What felt clunky?
- Class feedback: What did you notice? Any suggestions?
- Instructor observations on efficiency and technique
Creative Prompts
Choose one prompt per composer (or let them draw randomly):
- “Tension Rising” — Create a short cue that builds tension, as if leading to a reveal in a thriller
- “Peaceful Morning” — Compose something calm and ambient, suitable for a nature documentary
- “Victory Moment” — Write a brief triumphant piece, like a level-complete or achievement sound
Part 2: Group Reflection & Goal Setting (10 min)
Discussion Questions
- What workflow patterns did we see across all three sessions?
- What tools or techniques did you see that you want to try?
- What’s one specific workflow improvement each person wants to make this semester?
Individual Goals Each composer identifies one concrete workflow goal to work on throughout the semester.
Live Session Performance Rubric
Use this rubric to score each composer after their session. Scores will be tracked throughout the semester to monitor growth.
Scoring Scale: 1 = Needs Development | 2 = Emerging | 3 = Competent | 4 = Proficient | 5 = Exemplary
Workflow Efficiency (Score: __/5)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Gets sound playing immediately; fluid keyboard shortcuts; organized preset/template system; zero wasted motion |
| 4 | Quick startup; mostly keyboard-driven; good organization with minor hesitations |
| 3 | Reasonable pace; mix of shortcuts and mouse navigation; some searching for tools/sounds |
| 2 | Slow to get started; primarily mouse-dependent; frequently hunting for plugins/presets |
| 1 | Significant delays; unfamiliar with DAW navigation; no evident organization system |
Observations:
Creative Flow (Score: __/5)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Immediate creative direction; sketches ideas rapidly; pivots smoothly when stuck; maintains momentum throughout |
| 4 | Clear initial concept; good sketching pace; recovers from blocks with minimal disruption |
| 3 | Finds direction after some exploration; reasonable pace; occasional stalls but works through them |
| 2 | Struggles to find starting point; gets stuck on details early; visible frustration with blocks |
| 1 | Unable to establish direction; paralyzed by options; blocks halt progress entirely |
Observations:
Technical Proficiency (Score: __/5)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Complete DAW mastery; fast/accurate MIDI editing; intuitive mixer navigation; sophisticated effects use |
| 4 | Strong DAW comfort; efficient MIDI work; solid routing knowledge; effective processing choices |
| 3 | Adequate DAW skills; functional MIDI editing; basic mixer awareness; standard effects application |
| 2 | Hesitant with DAW features; slow MIDI editing; confused by routing; limited effects knowledge |
| 1 | Struggles with basic DAW operations; unable to edit MIDI effectively; no mixer/routing awareness |
Observations:
Production Quality (Score: __/5)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Professional sound selection; excellent balance and clarity; thoughtful arrangement; polished output even in sketch form |
| 4 | Strong sound choices; good mix balance; clear arrangement logic; near-professional quality |
| 3 | Appropriate sounds for the prompt; acceptable balance; coherent structure; demo-quality output |
| 2 | Generic or mismatched sounds; muddy or unbalanced mix; unclear arrangement; rough quality |
| 1 | Poor sound selection; no attention to balance; incoherent structure; unusable output |
Observations:
Total Performance Score
| Category | Score |
|---|---|
| Workflow Efficiency | __/5 |
| Creative Flow | __/5 |
| Technical Proficiency | __/5 |
| Production Quality | __/5 |
| Total | __/20 |
Formula: (Workflow Efficiency + Creative Flow + Technical Proficiency + Production Quality) = Total Score
Strengths:
Areas for Growth:
Recommended Focus for Next Session: