# Why are so few of us using Sibelius or Finale?



## Vik

http://vi-control.net/community/thr...ram-for-work-with-orchestral-libraries.43016/

Looking at the above poll, only 0,7% of the composers/voters on this forum use Finale/Sibelius. Why do you think the number is so low?

Also - I've seen and heard a quite a few composers (who use virtual instruments) who are very curious about Steinberg's upcoming score app, but what would it take for composers who don't use Sibelius or Finale to use another score app instead?

My feeling is that dedicated score apps need to be a little more.... "DAW like".
It's eg. complicated to work with virtual instruments without proper articulation control, or without lanes for automating controllers. What do you guys and girls think?

ETA: Ooops, this thread should probably have been posted in another subforum!


----------



## Lassi Tani

I haven't used Sibelius for long, and in my opinion, Sibelius has a very inflexible user interface. It's seems to be stuck in a very old way of doing things. Though this opinion might come from not using Sibelius for a long period of time.

Also DAW's and notation programs are different animals, at least at the moment. Sibelius makes great scores, but it's way too much work to make it sound good, at least for me. I usually start with Sibelius, because with it I can see harmonies easier, and then continue and finalize the song with Cubase.

I'm one those curious people, who's waiting for Steinberg's upcoming score app. They were talking something about connecting the DAW and the score seamlessly together..


----------



## Infiniquity

Sibelius/Finale are very good in doing what their intended for: Score edition. They can't compete with DAWs when it comes to what they are not intended for: Music rendition.


----------



## Vik

Exactly. But which DAW features would a notation program need in order to be usable for making both music and proper notation? I read recently that there are 14 people in Steinberg working on their new score app, and wonder (seeing e g how little development there has been in Logic lately); can such a large staff be justified if all they want to address are people who want a "pure" score app, in other words - if all they want is to compete with Final and Sibelius? If only eg Sibelius had been, say, "10% more DAW like", and not had such an outdated workflow (in many cases), I'd probably prefer it over a regular DAW, at least if I could automate controllers, use any 3rd part libraries I want, and have an easy-to-use articulation control. 

Steinberg's upcoming app _could_, in theory, become such a program - but not if they aim at only addressing the wishes of those who use Finale or Sibelius only. I could be wrong, but my feeling is that a lot of composers would compose in a program that had proper notation if it was a little more "DAW like" than Sibelius and Finale are today.


----------



## Daryl

Quite a few reasons:

1) Some Media composers don't read music very well or at all.
2) Composing for Media is often not about proper orchestration, it's about using the products well.
3) Real orchestrations are sometimes too time consuming to sequence adequately.
4) Often composers are not writing orchestral music or music written for acoustic instruments.
5) Getting a good performance from a notation program is much more time consuming than with a DAW

For me, I always do a rough Piano version in Nuendo, to make sure timings are correct, and to sequence any synths and then do the rest in Sibelius. However, I don't have to worry about what products sound good, because they will all be replaced by players.

I'll be moving to the new Steinberg app when it's released.

D


----------



## Rodney Money

I guess for me to answer that question, I need to know how many people here are writing for live performers who require sheet music to perform. I've used Finale since 1999 and to me there are two main issues concerning the sound that makes it unnatural: too quantized because the score snaps everything into place and dynamics with set values that take away from the little nuances found by performing live with the mod-wheel. I've only used Cubase now since this summer, but I quickly learned that DAWS are for sound and notation software is for scores. Here is a sample of the last piece I rendered with Finale: https://app.box.com/s/mcmzv6s408cbwdeo8b8o9jg7rokfhdzs Of course I can still hear issues concerning sound, but I personally believe that after that recording I pushed Finale to its limits and had to start using a DAW.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Rodney Money said:


> but I quickly learned that DAWS are for sound and notation software is for scores.



Well that is not entirely true Rodney. I have created literally thousands of parts and scores in Logic over the years.


----------



## Rodney Money

EastWest Lurker said:


> Well that is not entirely true Rodney. I have created literally thousands of parts and scores in Logic over the years.


Great job, my friend. In my own experiences, my publishers have only asked for either Finale or Sibelius files to be sent to them for editing.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Rodney Money said:


> Great job, my friend. In my own experiences, my publishers have only asked for either Finale or Sibelius files to be sent to them for editing.


 Yes, that is true.


----------



## stonzthro

I've rendered audio out of Finale as a joke only - really - it was to send to someone as a joke. I use Logic's score editor for short term purposes but would never typeset in it - not in a million years. Finale looks much cleaner, gives you far more control, and has many workflow enhancements that Logic (and likely most DAWs) just do not have.

Everyone I have worked with composes in their DAW and print from Finale or Sibelius when it is something that needs to look publishable. I'm not sure there will be a change to make DAWs more traditional-composition-pencil-and-paper friendly since that is not the direction the market seems to be heading - that said I'll be interested to see this new Cubase app. I have long dreamed of software that I could write the music on notation software and be able to hear it sound as good as a DAW rendition - we certainly aren't even close yet - not to my ears.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

There is a difference between what publishers need and what session players/conductors need. That said, myself, Peter Schwartz, Daniel Hamuy, and a few others can definitely turn out publisher grade scores in Logic Pro for most music. I would not want to try to notate Sinfonetta or Grupen with Logic's score editor but I definitely could do a John Adams score with it.

But yes, Finale gives you more control and looks more elegant.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

BTW, there are some things that are actually _easier_ in Logic than Finale. I taught a two day seminar on using Logic Pro's score editor about 8 years ago and people were blown away by how capable it is if you really know it, the way guys like myself, Peter Schwartz, and Doug Zangar do.


----------



## Daryl

Jay, do you have an example of a full score (symphony orchestra) done in Logic? That might help your argument. The only point of reference I have is the sh*tty scores that most Logic users seem to produce.

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Daryl said:


> Jay, do you have an example of a full score (symphony orchestra) done in Logic? That might help your argument. The only point of reference I have is the sh*tty scores that most Logic users seem to produce.
> 
> D



Buy my book


----------



## Daryl

Hah. Not likely.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Daryl said:


> Hah. Not likely.



Cheapskate


----------



## Daryl

EastWest Lurker said:


> Cheapskate


Hey, one doesn't get to be a multi millionaire by supporting the little people, you know.

D


----------



## chrysshawk

Maybe it's the chicken and the egg; many composers nowadays don't read music well because DAWs cannot read it at all. If any DAW would support this in a good way, I would personally go right back to scores since the DAW layout is terrible to read when track count explodes.

At the moment I use paper and Cubase, naturally hoping more than anything that Steinberg will implement this in a sane way in the future.


----------



## jacobthestupendous

Daryl said:


> Quite a few reasons:
> 
> 1) Some Media composers don't read music very well or at all.
> 2) Composing for Media is often not about proper orchestration, it's about using the products well.
> 3) Real orchestrations are sometimes too time consuming to sequence adequately.
> 4) Often composers are not writing orchestral music or music written for acoustic instruments.
> 5) Getting a good performance from a notation program is much more time consuming than with a DAW


Nailed it.

Proper music notation is a game played by intellectual elites in a world where technology is democratizing everything. 

[edited to include winky face because people aren't reading to the 3rd page before responding]


----------



## Rodney Money

jacobthestupendous said:


> Nailed it.
> 
> Proper music notation is a game played by intellectual elites in a world where technology is democratizing everything.


So is that a compliment to me or not?


----------



## pmountford

The original poll asked what daw composers use for controlling sample libraries and Sibelius isnt designed for ease of use for that task imho. As has been mentioned the daw is used so often for creating complete audio files which requires subtle midi manipulation. So using a daw that allows such midi and audio control like cubase is a necessity. Obviously when notation is needed I always compose in Cubase and import the midi file into sibelius for the players to perform. I never use the rather lame score editor in cubase. So im one of the 42% that start with cubase and one of the 0.7% who then end up in sibelius when the need arises which regretably is not often enough. However i am rather looking forward to the new cubase scoring app which i hope will make sibelius redundant.


----------



## KEnK

jacobthestupendous said:


> Proper music notation is a game played by intellectual elites in a world where technology is democratizing everything.


Please! 
There is nothing "elite" about simple literacy
and there is nothing "democratic" about simple illiteracy.

I work w/ "real" musicians regularly-
There is no faster more efficient method of conveying musical ideas than w/ notation.
I've worked w/ musicians who "won't" read. (note- I said _won't_ instead of _can't_)
It takes exponentially longer for everything no matter how good they are.

I write better music much faster w/ a pencil-
I have been exploring & enjoying Notion lately
But if I want it to sound decent I use a daw.

k


----------



## Peter Costa

I use Sibelius for writing short score, usually 8 staves. I use different pianos for each pair of staves. Once I've gotten the whole piece finished I print out the score, make orchestration notes and then bring it over to Cubase to sequence. I can get about 5 minutes of music within 2 days of a full orchestra, and another day for small tweaks and CC input. This method just works better for me for the style of music I wish to compose. I don't think there is anything wrong with not using notation applications for composing media music in our current day. I think there are plenty of composers out there who have no formal training who make great music for media. Now if you're talking about actual concert hall music than I would say a DAW won't cut it, Finale or Sibelius are the two notation programs that are the standard today. I could make a list of things that drive me crazy about Sibelius, but in the end it's pretty versatile and I'm able to produce a clean score for players at the end of the day.

The only thing I'm hoping on for the new Steinberg notation app is that it will have some sort of flexibility in going back and forth between Cubase DAW features and the notation features while having the same project open. I really hope the it's better than Avid having the "Send to Sibelius" function inside of Protools.


----------



## JohnG

Proper music notation is nothing more or less than an agreed means of communicating with live players and conductors. It is not a "game" and there is nothing elite about it. If you want music played accurately by live players with as few interruptions and questions as possible, it's necessary. 

The top dogs in film music, both those who do and don't have a lot of formal training, use orchestrators and copyists that know all these rules and, moreover, have the time to put them into a score.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

JohnG said:


> Proper music notation is nothing more or less than an agreed means of communicating with live players and conductors. It is not a "game" and there is nothing elite about it. If you want music played accurately by live players with as few interruptions and questions as possible, it's necessary.
> 
> The top dogs in film music, both those who do and don't have a lot of formal training, use orchestrators and copyists that know all these rules and, moreover, have the time to put them into a score.



Exactly, and I am getting real sick of people who possess specific skills getting called elitist, as if it was a dirty word, for maintaining that knowledge of something is better than lack of knowledge of something. It is the McDonaldsization of artistic endeavor.


----------



## Daryl

Rodney Money said:


> So is that a compliment to me or not?


I'm taking it as a compliment. 

D


----------



## Vik

So, composers who don't use notation much, or aren't good sight readers, and don't plan to become good sight readers/writers (because they don't deal with other musicians or plan to have anything played by acoustic instruments) won't rely on a score program when they compose... even if Sibelius have several good composing oriented features which still would be useful for these people, this makes sense, kind of.

But why are there so many composers who read/write music relatively OK who still prefer eg Cubase or Logic, including those who don't use just Omnisphere or Alchemy, but who own and use several orchestral libraries, and would love to have their music read and played my actual musicians? 



> Getting a good performance from a notation program is much more time consuming than with a DAW


 Sure. However, this could change with new or better programs; either eg Steinberg's new app or if some DAW would beef up it's score editor.


----------



## Daryl

EastWest Lurker said:


> It is the McDonaldsization of artistic endeavor.



And McDonald's is going bust as well. Allegedly...


----------



## Vik

Infiniquity said:


> Sibelius/Finale are very good in doing what their intended for: Score edition. They can't compete with DAWs when it comes to what they are not intended for: Music rendition.


I kind of agree in the first part (but both Finale and Sibelius seem quite outdated to me), but again: what would such apps need in order to be very usable for people who rely on advanced string libraries, automation of CC1 and CC1 all over the place etc?


----------



## Daryl

Vik said:


> But why are there so many composers who read/write music relatively OK who still prefer eg Cubase or Logic, including those who don't use just Omnisphere or Alchemy, but who own and use several orchestral libraries, and would love to have their music read and played my actual musicians?


Because it's quicker, and the demo rules. If the demo doesn't sound great, there is no way you're going to get the budget for live players with most producers, because they don't have the experience to read between the lines.

D


----------



## Vik

I know several composers (who read and write music well) who still rely on others for the final (written) score. If this becomes even more common than it is today, maybe the market for dedicated score apps will shrink, because the same few people will take care of a lot of written scores on behalf of a larger number of composers. That seems like yet another reason to improve the score editors in programs like Logic (the list of unimplemented wishes from score users is very long and old) – and also for make score apps more DAW like, doesn't it?


----------



## Vik

Daryl said:


> Because it's quicker, and the demo rules. If the demo doesn't sound great, there is no way you're going to get the budget for live players with most producers, because they don't have the experience to read between the lines.
> 
> D


Wouldn't that mean that a good solution for a lot of people would be a program which both can handle notation very well and be fully capable of producing great demos?


----------



## Jaap

For all my commercial library work I just use Cubase. Though I prefer working with writing notes, it just takes up too much time and it's much quicker to write and produce straight into my DAW. However for my music that will be performed live, I use Finale and don't even bother to start up my DAW (unless they want a demo or something)


----------



## Rodney Money

Vik said:


> I kind of agree in the first part (but both Finale and Sibelius seem quite outdated to me), but again: what would such apps need in order to be very usable for people who rely on advanced string libraries, automation of CC1 and CC1 all over the place etc?


I cannot speak for Sibelius since I don't own it, but there is nothing about Finale being outdated when it comes to producing scores.


----------



## Daryl

Vik said:


> Wouldn't that mean that a good solution for a lot of people would be a program which both can handle notation very well and be fully capable of producing great demos?


In the short term that is a big ask. What would be better would be for two applications that can run seamlessly in tandem. However, I agree that if it was all one application, it would be good.

D


----------



## Jaap

Rodney Money said:


> I cannot speak for Sibelius since I don't own it, but there is nothing about Finale being outdated when it comes to producing scores.



I completely agree with this. I am still using Finale 2011 and doesn't feel outdated or limited at all when it comes down to creating scores. I must admist I never tried to make Finale run any vst or to make a realistic playback file with it. I use Cubase for that. Finale is for scores and Cubase for produced music.


----------



## Daryl

Jaap said:


> I am still using Finale 2011 and doesn't feel outdated or limited at all when it comes down to creating scores. I must admit I never tried to make Finale run any vst or to make a realistic playback file with it. I use Cubase for that. Finale is for scores and Cubase for produced music.


It all depends on what level of the industry you are working at. Every film I've worked on has been notated in Sibelius, and I'd be surprised if many of the blockbusters that one sees down at the local multiplex have had scores notated in Cubase, or any other sequencer for that matter. In order to be outdated, there would have to be something better. The days of engraving in SCORE for film are certainly gone, but at the top level it's Sibelius or Finale.

D


----------



## KEnK

EastWest Lurker said:


> It is the McDonaldsization of artistic endeavor.


HEY!

Isn't that something I say all the time??


k


----------



## Christof

Finale vs.Sibelius= Cubase vs.Logic.


----------



## sleepy hollow

A quote from the movie Twelve Monkeys:



> Don't mock me, my friend. It's a condition of mental divergence. I find myself on the planet Ogo, part of an intellectual elite, preparing to subjugate the barbarian hordes on Pluto. But even though this is a totally convincing reality for me in every way, nevertheless Ogo is actually a construct of my psyche. I am mentally divergent in that I am escaping certain unnamed realities that plague my life here. When I stop going there, I will be well. Are you also divergent, friend?


----------



## pkm

Vik said:


> Wouldn't that mean that a good solution for a lot of people would be a program which both can handle notation very well and be fully capable of producing great demos?


I have no desire for a hammer that can make blueprints.


----------



## Peter Costa

pkm said:


> I have no desire for a hammer that can make blueprints.



maybe Hammer with a pencil at one end? leads to very bad Carpal Tunnel. 

However uncomfortable it might seem, I'd actually really benefit from this hybrid application and I know many others who anticipate the same.


----------



## jacobthestupendous

Rodney Money said:


> So is that a compliment to me or not?


Definitely a complement.


----------



## Vik

Jaap said:


> I am still using Finale 2011 and doesn't feel outdated or limited at all when it comes down to creating scores. I must admist I never tried to make Finale run any vst or to make a realistic playback file with it. I use Cubase for that. Finale is for scores and Cubase for produced music.


Yes, this somehow illustrates what I'm trying to say... IMO I'd rather have one app which does it all, with a brilliant UI, than to have to learn two sets of key commands, to different "workflows", jump back and forth if further editing is needed after I had ported my piece from one app to another - and so on. I totally understand why many people use two apps, the reasons are currently very obvious. But after having gotten used to good sounding libraries, I don't think I could work in a notation program and be more or less stuck with their often limited sounds.


pkm said:


> I have no desire for a hammer that can make blueprints.


Neither do I.  But I'd rather have a new version of Logic with proper notation and better composing features than one without. And if I go for the Spreadbury app, I really hope that it's designed to deal what virtual instruments - and not planned around the idea that people want to use two different apps instead of one.
Having said, that, maybe the idea of apps as isolated entities as such is more or less outdated. In the future, maybe we'll just buy a "frame", from Apple or someone else, and buy fully integrated audio editors, score editors etc from those who are best at making such software. Apparently this already works quite well with Sonar/StudioOne and the polyphonic Melodyne version, which can be opened as an editor inside these DAWs (and not just as a plugin on a channel strip). 

I can already use Steinberg's Bravura font in Logic, or use Music XML to export things to another app, but I'd like to double click on a region in my DAW and this way open up the best score editor that's available - inside Logic, fully integrated. Maybe the new Steinberg app will make me want something else, but that's only if it becomes some kind of hybrid between what we today define as score editors and What we call DAWs. As an example, it would be great to record - or at least insert - some audio tracks into a score editor, or insert processor or instrument pluigns the same we can can do in all DAWs today. This should be fully doable without adding a lot of clutter.


----------



## williemyers

15 years ago, I used three main apps: Digital Performer for all things midi, ProTools for all thing audio and Sibelius for all notation. I chose them because I felt that they offered me the very best combination of pro quality & speed of use in their respective strengths. Today, 15 years later, I still use Digital Performer for all things midi, ProTools for all thing audio and Sibelius for all notation. simple reason? While all three of these have tried to "crossover" and offer the strengths of the other two, none (imho) have succeeded. But they all do what they do extremely well, so I stay with them.


----------



## wst3

I think better (musically anyway) with standard notation. I'd even go so far as to suggest I think best with a pencil and manuscript paper, but the truth is I am a terrible copyist, and end up rubbing holes in the paper, so Finale is my tool for standard notation. In Finale I can see music horizontally and vertically. That helps me.

It won't help everyone. Which is fine.

I agree with Jay and others that it makes no sense to assign the label "elitist" to someone that chooses a specific path, even if that path uses older tools. Those tools would not still be around if they served no purpose. It also bothers me that we tend to celebrate mediocrity, but I'm not certain that exact argument applies to this particular issue. I guess it could, especially when used to defend a lack of education that is perceived, by those who choose not to study, as an insult.

But that is wandering off topic...

Standard notation was developed, and continues to evolve, as a way to record a musical idea, and as a way to communicate that idea to other musicians.

MIDI sequencers record events (e.g. note-on/note-off), and there is a relationship between those events and notes on a page, but it is NOT 1:1. That's a problem.

And DAWs record MIDI events and audio - which is really useful, but further muddies the waters.

In my workflow I often start with standard notation, and then import or play in the result so that I can work with the piece in an environment that is better suited to music production. That's what works for me. I don't suggest it is a better way to work.

And if I were fortunate enough to need parts for players I would hire a copyist! I did my own parts for two shows where I did get to work with live players. I've played in pit bands for more years than I'll admit, but when I made my parts I forgot all sorts of stuff (the first time - I can learn from my mistakes!)


----------



## jacobthestupendous

Whoa, definitely touched a nerve with my "elitist" comment! I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings. Sorry if elitist was too strong a term. I didn't say it was good or bad; you guys read that in and took offense (except for Daryl).

There is definitely a divide between people who have devoted the time and resources to learn the very specific written language of classical musicians and everyone else, hence the word "intellectual" before the word "elitist". DAW's are made for everyone else. Editing MIDI notes, lengths, and velocities visually makes it possible to affect sound without knowing that music language. 

The process of enabling any moron with a MacBook Air and $199 to make music would almost certainly count as democratization.



EastWest Lurker said:


> Exactly, and I am getting real sick of people who possess specific skills getting called elitist, as if it was a dirty word, for maintaining that knowledge of something is better than lack of knowledge of something.


Jay, you are an unapologetic elitist. I've seen you defend a position that music should be _harder_ to make so that fewer deluded morons would think they could do it. 

Again, to be clear, I'm not saying that elitism is bad. There's a legitimate discussion to be had over whether every moron should have access to things, and it's not a new subject on this forum.


----------



## jacobthestupendous

This is my fault; I should have included a  on my original post.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

jacobthestupendous said:


> Whoa, definitely touched a nerve with my "elitist" comment! I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings. Sorry if elitist was too strong a term. I didn't say it was good or bad; you guys read that in and took offense (except for Daryl).



My feelings were not hurt. But the whole "elitism" thing is becoming a cliche' for those (not necessarily you) not to feel that they are inferior because their knowledge base or skill is inferior.

It's like me saying "looks don't matter" to a girl when I am standing next to George Clooney


----------



## KEnK

jacobthestupendous said:


> Whoa, definitely touched a nerve with my "elitist" comment! I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings. Sorry if elitist was too strong a term. I didn't say it was good or bad; you guys read that in and took offense (except for Daryl).


Jacob-

A couple of months ago there was an 18 page thread called "Why do they want to be Epic".
It started out for the 1st half as an amazingly civil discussion,
very different philosophical viewpoints were elegantly and respectfully expressed.
Then a couple of people got involved- calling everyone who didn't think like they did "elitist",
and using the term "subjective" to negate any opinion they didn't agree with.
Needless to say, it quickly went to hell.
That's why the term "elitist" is loaded.

I've been reading Jay's posts for as long as I've been a member here, more than 4 years now.
He's no elitist by any stretch. He's one of the most helpful and humble people here.
But he enjoys a good debate.
This is no flaw.

It's interesting to me that you use the term "moron" to describe someone who is not interested in learning.
"Moron" implies an inability to learn, but what's really at issue is an unwillingness to study.
And also a kind of nihilist preoccupation w/ ignorance as a thing of genuine value.
One thing the internet has done is to make knowledge incredibly democratic.
All human knowledge is just a few clicks away.

You can learn to make an atomic bomb, a pecan pie, or figure out how write a fugue.
All it takes is the willingness to study.

k


----------



## jacobthestupendous

KEnK said:


> Jacob-
> 
> A couple of months ago there was an 18 page thread called "Why do they want to be Epic".
> It started out for the 1st half as an amazingly civil discussion,
> very different philosophical viewpoints were elegantly and respectfully expressed.
> Then a couple of people got involved- calling everyone who didn't think like they did "elitist",
> and using the term "subjective" to negate any opinion they didn't agree with.
> Needless to say, it quickly went to hell.
> That's why the term "elitist" is loaded.
> 
> I've been reading Jay's posts for as long as I've been a member here, more than 4 years now.
> He's no elitist by any stretch. He's one of the most helpful and humble people here.
> But he enjoys a good debate.
> This is no flaw.
> 
> It's interesting to me that you use the term "moron" to describe someone who is not interested in learning.
> "Moron" implies an inability to learn, but what's really at issue is an unwillingness to study.
> And also a kind of nihilist preoccupation w/ ignorance as a thing of genuine value.
> One thing the internet has done is to make knowledge incredibly democratic.
> All human knowledge is just a few clicks away.
> 
> You can learn to make an atomic bomb, a pecan pie, or figure out how write a fugue.
> All it takes is the willingness to study.
> 
> k



Regarding "elitism", I understand. I will endeavor to avoid academic words that also carry potential (or likely) pejorative weight.

Regarding "moron", I understand. I will endeavor to avoid pejorative words that also carry a potential (if unlikely) academic weight.  I have heard that _morons_ used to be clinical term, on the same spectrum with _idiots_ and _imbeciles_, but I don't think it's been used that way in a long time, at least in any official sense.

I know Jay is a stand-up dude. I also have enjoyed reading his thoughtful discourses on various subjects. 

You say that all human knowledge is just a few clicks away, implying strongly that laziness and nihilistic love of ignorance are the only reasons anyone wouldn't have learned to write music like Bach intended. Maybe that's true. I'm curious how many people on this forum learned to read and write music notation purely online and not by what I imagine are the "normal means" (learning an instrument, taking music theory classes, or taking composition lessons). Did anyone here learn notation by a "just a few clicks" and "the willingness to study"?


----------



## jacobthestupendous

To expand on my original post (that was on topic), I agree with Daryl, especially on his first and second points regarding the technologically assisted prevalence of composers who can't use notation and don't need to. DAW's with piano roll MIDI editors, adjustable grids, and high quality virtual instruments make it possible for someone to get the instant gratification of writing music without the years of work learning the special language used to precisely communicate every musical nuance to performers such that they produce what you hear in your head. DAW's make you able to produce music by drawing colored boxes and arranging them, which couldn't be simpler.

Are there situations where it is necessary to communicate every musical nuance to performers? Of course there are, but arguably, those situations are far less common than situations that just involve a jerk like me making a commercial jingle on my MacBook Pro to play under a local chiropractor's commercial. If you don't think that John Williams, Hans Zimmer, and company are more elite (in every sense of the word) than me and my MacBook, then you are categorically mistaken.


----------



## KEnK

jacobthestupendous said:


> I'm curious how many people on this forum learned to read and write music notation purely online and not by what I imagine are the "normal means" (learning an instrument, taking music theory classes, or taking composition lessons). Did anyone here learn notation by a "just a few clicks" and "the willingness to study"?


While I did learn much from having studied w/ various teachers,
I also learned much on my own, via the internet, books or videos.
Among these things are having learned to play jazz, classical and flamenco guitar,
erhu, accordion and various "ethnic" percussion.
My understanding of composition has increased and still does as I continue to study.
I've also learned how to cook a lot of very involved fanciful dishes.
I have an inlaw who has recently become a beekeeper.
(soon I'll tackle that pecan pie)
It works

k


----------



## Vik

jacobthestupendous said:


> DAW's make you able to produce music by drawing colored boxes and arranging them, which couldn't be simpler.


Yes and no... simply playing the idea in real time is often easier, and if you work with musicians who are going to play your ideas on real instruments, recording things into your DAW and printing out the result to a musician is often both faster and simpler, except if your DAW often fails to print things out the way the musician excepts to see it. Sibelius is, for instance, much better than any DAW in terms of displaying accidentals/chords, proportional spacing etc etc correctly out-of-the-box. That's an argument for using a proper score program right there.
I think our main tool when making music is our ears, not our DAWs. And again - if you have recorded some ideas, and change one note in a chord, I think most musicians and composers want to be able to have the same experience as they have when they work eg. on a piano: you want to hear all the notes in that chord - which is easy on a musical instrument: on the piano, move on of your fingers and then press down all the fingers again. IN most DAWs, if you change the pitch of one note, you'll hear that note alone, and not along with the other chord notes (unless you rewind, press Play etc). Likewise, if I use my left/right arrows to go from one chord to another in my DAW, it won't play those chords; it will play only one note at a time. That's three arguments pro using something more advanced than Logic right there. 
But the main thing I miss (by not having Sibelius as my main tool when I make music) is this: 
If DAWs would have something similar, I would never have to worry about finding back to ideas in old songs, worry about these old songs not being open-able in the current version, worried about not being able to open the needed version of Logic to open those old projects (due to OS or hardware compatibility problems) and so on. 

Music is based around ideas and inspiration, and if one use a DAW mainly to compose (in the more traditional meaning of the word, with or without notation), Sibelius (and maybe Finale as well?) have several solutions which AFAIK don't exist in DAWs in terms of editing and storing these ideas.


----------



## wcreed51

By that reasoning, soon people who know how to capitalize or punctuate a sentence will be shunned as intellectual elites...


----------



## Rodney Money

wcreed51 said:


> By that reasoning, soon people who know how to capitalize or punctuate a sentence will be shunned as intellectual elites...


Boom.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Vik said:


> Yes and no... simply playing the idea in real time is often easier, and if you work with musicians who are going to play your ideas on real instruments, recording things into your DAW and printing out the result to a musician is often both faster and simpler, except if your DAW often fails to print things out the way the musician excepts to see it. Sibelius is, for instance, much better than any DAW in terms of displaying accidentals/chords, proportional spacing etc etc correctly out-of-the-box. That's an argument for using a proper score program right there.
> I think our main tool when making music is our ears, not our DAWs. And again - if you have recorded some ideas, and change one note in a chord, I think most musicians and composers want to be able to have the same experience as they have when they work eg. on a piano: you want to hear all the notes in that chord - which is easy on a musical instrument: on the piano, move on of your fingers and then press down all the fingers again. IN most DAWs, if you change the pitch of one note, you'll hear that note alone, and not along with the other chord notes (unless you rewind, press Play etc). Likewise, if I use my left/right arrows to go from one chord to another in my DAW, it won't play those chords; it will play only one note at a time. That's three arguments pro using something more advanced than Logic right there.
> But the main thing I miss (by not having Sibelius as my main tool when I make music) is this:
> If DAWs would have something similar, I would never have to worry about finding back to ideas in old songs, worry about these old songs not being open-able in the current version, worried about not being able to open the needed version of Logic to open those old projects (due to OS or hardware compatibility problems) and so on.
> 
> Music is based around ideas and inspiration, and if one use a DAW mainly to compose (in the more traditional meaning of the word, with or without notation), Sibelius (and maybe Finale as well?) have several solutions which AFAIK don't exist in DAWs in terms of editing and storing these ideas.




"ready made ideas"? Seriously, someone would use that? I think it is time for me to retire and learn how to play Chess better.


----------



## Daryl

EastWest Lurker said:


> "ready made ideas"? Seriously, someone would use that? I think it is time for me to retire and learn how to play Chess better.


Why are you shocked? Loop libraries have been going strong for years. Don't you have pre-packaged loops in Logic? Or is it an add-on from Apple?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Daryl said:


> Why are you shocked? Loop libraries have been going strong for years. Don't you have pre-packaged loops in Logic? Or is it an add-on from Apple?



Yes, but I don't use them. They are mostly all for pop genres and I will now get called an elitist again, but I guess I still expect more from trained musicians than non-trained ones and presumably Sibelius is mostly for trained musicians as they are generally the ones who are notation oriented.


----------



## Daryl

EastWest Lurker said:


> Yes, but I don't use them. They are mostly all for pop genres and I will now get called an elitist again, but I guess I still expect more from trained musicians than non-trained ones and presumably Sibelius is mostly for trained musicians as they are generally the ones who are notation oriented.


Sibelius is also a tool for school kids, and I can see using pre-packaged ideas for lessons on arrangement.

However, I agree with you that for a professional it seems rather strange. Particularly as a professional should be able to come up with better material....!

For me it is quite useful to store little ideas that have custom beaming or rests, because it saves having to re-create from scratch every time or hunt through the score to find the previous time I used it.

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Daryl said:


> Sibelius is also a tool for school kids, and I can see using pre-packaged ideas for lessons on arrangement.
> 
> However, I agree with you that for a professional it seems rather strange. Particularly as a professional should be able to come up with better material....!
> 
> For me it is quite useful to store little ideas that have custom beaming or rests, because it saves having to re-create from scratch every time or hunt through the score to find the previous time I used it.
> 
> D



That makes sense, Daryl.


----------



## Rodney Money

So here is an example of how I use both Cubase and Finale in my life. This past summer I wrote a marching band chart for Central Florida University. I used Cubase to render the sound creating a demo for the directors and used Finale to produce the score so the musicians could perform it live. Simple, simple, easy, easy. Here's what it looks like in Cubase: https://app.box.com/s/9hm0fkqn4h81g15jdwd22soapoe27j0wAnd here's what the score looks like: https://app.box.com/s/ozxcmzksa7jkllgg1toutmw7wmr9u2kw


----------



## cmillar

Calling composers 'elitist' for actually understanding the basics of musical notation is like calling mathematicians 'elitist' for knowing how to write an equation.

Hell, my 6 year old daughter is learning the basics of how to read music in her beginning piano lessons. 

Will she be called 'elitist' by in the future for simply having learned (while loving the process!) of how to get some thoughts out of her brain into a form that others can understand through a shared common language?

Really? Let's put the word 'elitist' out of our vocabulary.

Was using a pencil for sketching beneath Picasso? Was using a pencil for sketching his buildings beneath Frank Gehry? Was notation beneath Mozart? Beethoven? James Horner? Hans Zimmer? etc. etc. Was knowing how to write an equation beneath Einstein? Was writing out chord changes (in some form or another) beneath Paul McCartney and John Lennon? 

We're humans, and we all use our tools to the best way we can... in our case, to create music.

Please.... lets' cut the 'elitist' crap!!


----------



## jacobthestupendous

wcreed51 said:


> By that reasoning, soon people who know how to capitalize or punctuate a sentence will be shunned as intellectual elites...


This is happening today. Weirdly, most people on Facebook do not think a "Grammar Nazi" is a person they want to hang out with.



cmillar said:


> Please.... lets' cut the 'elitist' crap!!


I already apologized for my flippant use of this offensive term. I also edited my original post to include a  to prevent others like yourself from reacting without reading to the third page of comments. Henceforth, instead of the term elitist, I'll use "intellectual in-crowd", which hopefully has less emotional baggage.



cmillar said:


> Calling composers 'elitist' for actually understanding the basics of musical notation is like calling mathematicians 'elitist' for knowing how to write an equation.


That's perfect! Mathematicians are perfect examples of people who possess non-intuitive but attainable knowledge that is expressed in its own otherwise useless language. In that respect, they are also in an intellectual in-crowd, just as you are and your daughter will be.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I think "intellectual in crowd" is worse than "elitist." Both imply that the person is somehow thinking they are superior people for their greater knowledge, which is not the case. Speaking for myself, I certainly do not feel superior as a person or even necessarily as a composer to someone whose knowledge base is not as deep as mine. Nor do I feel inferior s a person or even necessarily as a composer to someone whose knowledge base is deeper then mine. And if i am what passes for an "intellectual" we are all in deep doo-doo 

But I DO feel that it may make the more knowledgeable person's opinion on certain specific subjects or issues more valuable than the less knowledgeable person's.


----------



## jacobthestupendous

Vik said:


> if you work with musicians who are going to play your ideas on real instruments


That's just the thing, Vik. _If you work with musicians who are going to play your ideas on real instruments_ captures the majority of my argument. The VI in this forum name stands for Synthetic Musicians, which are good enough for a lot of purposes. Notation is perfect for communicating to real people, without which it is largely unnecessary for a lot of people.



Vik said:


> Yes and no... simply playing the idea in real time is often easier


That's true. 



EastWest Lurker said:


> I think "intellectual in crowd" is worse than "elitist." Both imply that the person is somehow thinking they are superior people for their greater knowledge


Holy cow, dude! I thought intellectual in-crowd was very neutral. It just says that there is some knowledge that some people possess and others don't. "Elitist" has the -ist suffix which often indicates a preference for or against a thing, so I can understand people resisting the association to other -ists, racist and sexist, for instance; "in-crowd," on the other hand, only implies differentiation of some sort--no value judgement. Perhaps you would prefer the term "people who possess non-universal knowledge", though that will take a long time to type everytime I think the word "elitist".


----------



## EastWest Lurker

How about not needing a label and just dealing with their views as individuals?


----------



## Vik

EastWest Lurker said:


> "ready made ideas"? Seriously, someone would use that? I think it is time for me to retire and learn how to play Chess better.


I hadn't seen that particular Sibelius demo clip, which I now know emphasizes that Sibelius comes with some factory "ideas". What I like about the Idea Hub is that it seems like very easy way to create a pool with (multitrack) user ideas, accessible in all songs.


----------



## Rodney Money




----------



## Vik

jacobthestupendous said:


> That's just the thing, Vik. _If you work with musicians who are going to play your ideas on real instruments_ captures the majority of my argument. The VI in this forum name stands for Synthetic Musicians, which are good enough for a lot of purposes. Notation is perfect for communicating to real people, without which it is largely unnecessary for a lot of people.


Well, the virtual instruments are... virtual. But most people I know who use virtual instruments use them mainly for composing music for real instruments, real musicians.


----------



## jacobthestupendous

EastWest Lurker said:


> How about not needing a label and just dealing with their views as individuals?


Fair enough. Apologies again to anyone who felt marginalized or personally attacked by my implication that they are part of a group that knows anything that not everyone else does. I will instead address the initial question this way: Sibelius and Finale are tools to accomplish specific tasks. Perhaps the pool of people who need to accomplish those specific tasks is smaller than the original poster's experience would lead them to expect.



Vik said:


> most people I know who use virtual instruments use them mainly for composing music for real instruments, real musicians.


I'm truly a noob to all of this. My only experience with all of this is secondhand through less than a year of research and dabbling, so perhaps I am mistaken in the understanding that a majority of non-big budget television, video game, and movie music is done almost entirely virtually. I'll defer to your firsthand experience to the contrary. If most music is performed by real instrumentalists, then the communication software _should_ be much more prevalent.


----------



## JT

The title of this thread: 
"Why are so few of us using Sibelius or Finale" 

If by "us" you mean users of this forum who write for various media then you'll get one answer.
But if by "us" you're describing composers in 2015, then you'll get a different answer.


----------



## Shubus

I neglected to take part in this poll, unfortunately. As I use Sibelius to write my pieces, as it's much quicker than paper and pencil -- and export to Logic.

Am holding out hope that somehow Steinberg's new app will devise a way that once in the DAW, we can edit easily from score--I hate the bloody piano roll editor but it's the state of the art now. Somehow these things need to be linked together.


----------



## JT

I have a feeling that the new Steinberg app will have better DAW integration than Fin & Sib do, but I believe that the focus of this app will primarily be the printed page. The fact that the first public presentation of this app just occurred in NY and a presentation was given to publishers, not media composers. Reading Daniel's blog about this journey and all of the subtle nuances they're giving attention to, makes it clear that this app will produce high level output.

http://www.sibeliusblog.com/news/daniel-spreadbury-previews-steinberg-software-in-new-york/

I use Finale and Sibelius now as well as Logic. I'm sure I'll get the Steinberg app to stay compatible with clients. Nothing wrong with using the best tool for the job. I do wonder though, will Steinberg's notation app be a standalone system, or will it be integrated to work with Cubase.


----------



## Daryl

Initially there will be no integration, but I think that somewhere down the line this is bound to happen. The question is what form will it take? At this stage I'm sure that even Daniel doesn't know.

D


----------



## wcreed51

It will use Cubase's audio engine, and support expression maps, etc


----------



## Vik

Daryl said:


> Initially there will be no integration, but I think that somewhere down the line this is bound to happen. The question is what form will it take?


If you asked 100 Cubase composers (or Logic composer etc) about how they would like to see the integration between a standalone score editor and their favourite DAW, I'm pretty sure they'll all give them the same answer: Please make it appear as if it was a score editor built into the DAW.... double clicking on region should open that editor as if it were the DAWs own editor, and changing a note in that score editor window should be reflected in the other editors, in the track list and so on. Likewise, an edit in the piano roll should also change what happens in the score window, automatically (at least as an option).




> At this stage I'm sure that even Daniel doesn't know.


 If they would like full integration between the two programs the way I just described, I guess they should plan that... now?

Since the DAW market is much bigger than the engraving nerd market, wouldn't the best thing they probably could do – from a commercial point of view – be to make a standalone score program which could not only be 100% integrated with Cubase, but with any other DAW?


----------



## prodigalson

Just kinda skimmed the last few pages but think I got the gist.

Here's my 2 cents for the OP:

I have degree in jazz composition and performance (whatever the fuck that means) and am a working composer and orchestrator so I have had more than my fair share of experience with Finale and Sibelius and I have definitely found that the amount of time that I spend saying "Fuck you, Finale" while working is directly proportional to the amount of time I say "my god, I love Sibelius" when working in that. 

Sibelius is just so much more intuitive and just makes sense. 

Unfortunately, I work in the New York City scene and Finale is definitely the standard...


----------



## Daryl

Vik, I don't disagree with you, but it is early days yet. I'm not sure that you understand the complications of what you are describing. Perhaps if they waited another 3-4 years, it might be possible, but I'm sure that Yamaha will want a return on their investment somewhat sooner than that.

As far as integration with other DAWs, I doubt that this would be a priority for Steinberg. I have no insider knowledge, but if I was running things I would actually make sure that the standalone application wiped the floor with Finale and Sibelius (already pretty much sure to happen) and then make sure that integration gave Cubase and Nuendo users an advantage. This way one wouldn't lose users from the standalone, but might well poach users for Cubendo.

D


----------



## Hannes_F

I bought a full version of "Cubase Score" back in the ninetees or so. It was around 500 EUR then which was a lot of money for me in this time. It promised to have "perfect notation" and came with a serial cable dongle as big as a phone. When I opened the manual I found lots of information about the midi protocol and stuff but nothing about notation. Phoned up the support line in Hamburg and talked to Mr. Steinberg himself. When I explained the situation he said "well, notation, that's a problem. Why aren't you using Finale."

I felt very steinberged then and left the Cubase camp forever. So more than 15 years later they promise to include notation again ... would not hold my breath for it.

BTW when it comes to a hybrid between notation and DAW then Overture was quite something for a while. It was/is a one man show though and the owner/programmer seems to have issues with his workflow. If he had sold it in time into able hands it could have become a great tool.


----------



## KEnK

cmillar said:


> Calling composers 'elitist' for actually understanding the basics of musical notation is like calling mathematicians 'elitist' for knowing how to write an equation.






jacobthestupendous said:


> Henceforth, instead of the term elitist, I'll use "intellectual in-crowd", which hopefully has less emotional baggage.


Jacob-
I do get that you haven't meant to insult anyone, and of course I note your apologies,
but I don't think you've made an offense that merits one.
You've just innocently waded into a sore spot that's simmering beneath the surface here at all times.
A few more words about that-

If a person is literate enough to simply read or write a grocery list,
it doesn't make them an intellectual.
It means only that they have at their disposal an effective and accepted communication tool.
Basic literacy.
Certainly some people w/ the ability to write said grocery list may very well be "intellectual".
They may write long winded pompous crap of no value, or something a bit clever,
a few may write some great works.
Most people w/ this ability will only write grocery lists or things of that nature.

Being able to read and write music notation is no different than that.
It's a communication tool w/ implied syntax, grammar and even dialect variations.

It does seem that the only people who make a value judgement on the use of this tool
are the people who are very defensive about not having learned to simply be "literate".
Often they have even been overtly hostile
to those of us who do what musicians have been doing for centuries now.
It's very bizarre to me to be refereed to as an "elitist", (or an "intellectual")
or in some way "snobbish" because I know how to write a grocery list,
or a love poem, or an essay etc.

As to what the "VI" means in VI-Control, there are many kinds of musicians/composers here.
The largest subset by far are would be media composers trampling each other in a rat race w/ little reward.
I do think though that most people here who make music w/ VI's do have real world musical experience.

I'll close by saying I listen to and am inspired by a lot of so-called "World" music 
that has no use at all for Western Notation.
Some of these people are master virtuosos who can't read a single note and don't need to.
But they are incredibly dedicated to their craft.
The work they put into it can be heard w/ every phrase they play.

Point is there is room for many perspectives.
What you learn or not is up to you.
But I will say (leaving out dynamic markings etc.) 
there are less symbols in music notation than in any written language.
It is not some mysterious "insider's club"
You are welcome to join at any time.

_milk
bread
eggs_
It's that easy
k


----------



## Vik

Daryl said:


> Vik, I don't disagree with you, but it is early days yet. I'm not sure that you understand the complications of what you are describing. Perhaps if they waited another 3-4 years, it might be possible, but I'm sure that Yamaha will want a return on their investment somewhat sooner than that.


My feeling is that the best way to succeed in software sales is to spend a lot of time planning, starting things out the right way, and combine this with mainly go for what they think is the absolute optimum/ideal and most future proof solution. Maybe it takes several years to do that? Don't know. They already spent 2-3 years, and I certainly don't think that the first version of the new Steinberg app will offer full integration with Cubase, let alone work as a "plug-in editor for all DAWs". 
How long time did Melodyne spend on developing ARA? I don't know that either, but so far it has been implemented in Sonar and Studio One, and users of Cubase/Reaper/Logic etc are known to want ARA support in their DAWs as well. So if this is the best solution (or at least the most realistic, since eg. Logic has been around for more than two decades only to demonstrate that their policy so far has been to slow down the score development), someone should IMHO aim for making a good solution which can be used inside all DAWs, and certainly _inside_ Cubase (of we tak about the "Spreadbury app").

Btw, making a score editor, say "15% more DAW like" wouldn't be dumbing it down. On the contrary, it would - as far as I can tell - make life a lot easier for all user groups, and especially those who would like to compose music with the best sounds that are available out there, in environment which is strongly focused on composing features, and which most of all have the main things DAW users miss from Sibelius and Finale. 

The easiest thing for me, as a Logic users, would of course be if Apple would develop it's own score editor properly - but how realistic is that? Steinberg has 14 people working on a score editor (in addition to coders who are responsible for the current score editor in Cubase, I guess). If Apple isn't interested in the education market, and not interested in developing their score editor, maybe they actually would be very happy to add support for a 3rd part score editor which can be used fully integrated in Logic. Of course, that would be some kind of admittance of failure, but maybe they don't care, as long as they can keep pushing EDM, rap and hiphop grooves in Logic and their online radio station.

Apple apparently paid $3 billion for beats - a company which makes headphones that aren't that great and had two people who should be a major part of developing Apple Music, which isn't that great either. For a fraction of that they could have put a lot of resources into improving the score and composing features in Logic, but didn't, and btw - this is the main reason I'm really interested in what happens in Steinberg.


----------



## Daryl

Vik, I think that the most important thing for you to realise is that traditionally sequencers and notation programs are opposites. In a sequencer the notation is derived from the MIDI information. In a notation program the MIDI is derived from the notation. This is a big thing to solve if you want them to be more alike.

However, I also think that you underestimate the work involved to make a fully integrated standalone of something as complicated as a notation program that will work in a professional environment. It is no accident that sequencer notation is not very good. It takes a huge amount of time and expertise to code something that gives you good looking and clear notation as a default, but also that has enough flexibility for engravers.

Whilst I agree that it would be great if it happened in the first release, commercial reality will ensure that it doesn't. The most important thing is actually that it blows both Sibelius and Finale out of the water. this I'm sure it will do.

D


----------



## Vik

Daryl said:


> In a sequencer the notation is derived from the MIDI information. In a notation program the MIDI is derived from the notation.


Hmm.... in both programs, the event that is created both function as a MIDI event, and in both programs, that event can be given certain attributes which are notation related? 



> I also think that you underestimate the work involved to make a fully integrated standalone of something as complicated as a notation program that will work in a professional environment.


 I don't think I've said much, or anything (?) about how much work it implies (?), I'm just saying that when such a rare thing as 14 people working several years together to build a new, pro score application from scratch (the development of both Finale and Sibelius was started in the 1980s, wasn't it?), planning full integration with Cubase must be worthing spending a lot of time on, and from a totally egoistic point of view  (in case I stick with Logic), I mention that I think many users would be extremely happy if the first major score app startup in 30-40 years would be planned to also be able to develop as a score editor "in place" in other DAWs. That doesn't mean that I expect this to happen... maybe it won't happen for another century or two. But I'm pretty sure it will happen, because it appears to be a good idea. 



> It is no accident that sequencer notation is not very good.


 In the beginning, the score part in Logic was afaik developed by only one person, and is probably still being developed by a very small staff. Still, I that many will agree with me that if one knows Logic properly, the score editor is actually very good in many ways. For instance, it already supports Steinbergs new SMUFL font (Bravura), which makes things look a lot better than they do with the built in font. 

Logic also has some serious shortcomings when it comes to score editing, but for many Logic users (including composers who write for orchestras), it's often only some probably minor tweaks that would have to be added in Logic for the score workflow and results to become much better.


----------



## cmillar

KEnK said:


> Jacob-
> I do get that you haven't meant to insult anyone, and of course I note your apologies,
> but I don't think you've made an offense that merits one.
> You've just innocently waded into a sore spot that's simmering beneath the surface here at all times.
> A few more words about that-
> 
> If a person is literate enough to simply read or write a grocery list,
> it doesn't make them an intellectual.
> It means only that they have at their disposal an effective and accepted communication tool.
> Basic literacy.
> Certainly some people w/ the ability to write said grocery list may very well be "intellectual".
> They may write long winded pompous crap of no value, or something a bit clever,
> a few may write some great works.
> Most people w/ this ability will only write grocery lists or things of that nature.
> 
> Being able to read and write music notation is no different than that.
> It's a communication tool w/ implied syntax, grammar and even dialect variations.
> 
> It does seem that the only people who make a value judgement on the use of this tool
> are the people who are very defensive about not having learned to simply be "literate".
> Often they have even been overtly hostile
> to those of us who do what musicians have been doing for centuries now.
> It's very bizarre to me to be refereed to as an "elitist", (or an "intellectual")
> or in some way "snobbish" because I know how to write a grocery list,
> or a love poem, or an essay etc.
> 
> As to what the "VI" means in VI-Control, there are many kinds of musicians/composers here.
> The largest subset by far are would be media composers trampling each other in a rat race w/ little reward.
> I do think though that most people here who make music w/ VI's do have real world musical experience.
> 
> I'll close by saying I listen to and am inspired by a lot of so-called "World" music
> that has no use at all for Western Notation.
> Some of these people are master virtuosos who can't read a single note and don't need to.
> But they are incredibly dedicated to their craft.
> The work they put into it can be heard w/ every phrase they play.
> 
> Point is there is room for many perspectives.
> What you learn or not is up to you.
> But I will say (leaving out dynamic markings etc.)
> there are less symbols in music notation than in any written language.
> It is not some mysterious "insider's club"
> You are welcome to join at any time.
> 
> _milk
> bread
> eggs_
> It's that easy
> k



This is all absolutely correct. Thank you for writing this.

Plus, I won't let this quote go without a response:

"That's perfect! Mathematicians are perfect examples of people who possess non-intuitive but attainable knowledge that is expressed in its own otherwise useless language. In that respect, they are also in an intellectual in-crowd, just as you are and your daughter will be."

To the person who wrote this... I actually hope that my daughter doesn't grow up to be someone as narrow-minded as you. I wish for her to grow up to appreciate all the arts, and to understand the history of all the arts in all their glory.

Don't worry... she won't be part of an "intellectual in-crowd" or an "elitist".

She'll just be an open-minded citizen of the world who can appreciate that there are "different strokes for different folks."


----------



## jacobthestupendous

cmillar said:


> I actually hope that my daughter doesn't grow up to be someone as narrow-minded as you. I wish for her to grow up to appreciate all the arts, and to understand the history of all the arts in all their glory.
> 
> Don't worry... she won't be part of an "intellectual in-crowd" or an "elitist".
> 
> She'll just be an open-minded citizen of the world who can appreciate that there are "different strokes for different folks."


Good on you for wanting better for your daughter! Whether you want to admit it or not, your investment in her is a significant advantage for her in a world where lots of children have dads that are either absent or uninvolved. Whatever you want to call it, she is advantageously different from other people. Her piano lessons are developing parts of her brain that will help her think more mathematically in the future, and she will be advantaged because if it, and also they are teaching her to be literate in written music. Certainly, she will be more capable of musical communication and thought in the future because of the lessons you are providing for her now. That fact will make her part of a literate musical community, which she would not otherwise be a part of were it not for your investment. Rage against the terminology all you want, but the basic truth is not hard to understand, even for someone as narrow-minded as myself. 



KEnK said:


> If a person is literate enough to simply read or write a grocery list,
> it doesn't make them an intellectual.
> It means only that they have at their disposal an effective and accepted communication tool.
> Basic literacy.
> Certainly some people w/ the ability to write said grocery list may very well be "intellectual".
> They may write long winded pompous crap of no value, or something a bit clever,
> a few may write some great works.
> Most people w/ this ability will only write grocery lists or things of that nature.
> 
> Being able to read and write music notation is no different than that.
> It's a communication tool w/ implied syntax, grammar and even dialect variations.


I like this, and I understand what you are saying, but in a population of people who do not know the syntax, grammar, or dialect, the few who do possess Basic Literacy _are_ intellectually differentiated. And in a world where you can increasingly accomplish convincing groceries without knowing how to make your fancy-shmancy lists, you can understand why the illiterate masses (and even some in the literate subset) might begin to think the expensive and occasionally difficult-to-use list-making software was unnecessary. 



KEnK said:


> But I will say (leaving out dynamic markings etc.)
> there are less symbols in music notation than in any written language.


That's true, even including the batty Percy Grainger tempo markings.



KEnK said:


> It is not some mysterious "insider's club"


I never said any of it was mysterious.



KEnK said:


> You are welcome to join at any time.


Thanks for the invite, but I'm already a member.


----------



## Elephant

Orcel said:


> I compose music for film and music for "repertoire" as my 2 piano concerto. I use logic and virtual instruments to compose and find the right harmony and right colors. After that, I start to write the score with "Finale". It's 2 different steps because it's impossible to get the best of sound banks using several tracks for all articulations, or moving region to adapt to long attack (specially for East West Sounds) just with a link between final and Kontakt or Play. To improve my mastery of my virtual sound bank, I do the contrary. I take a score and play each staff.But after playing the score I had to adapt , move notes, chose de best sound for different line (1er Violon part is a mix of O.T , Spitfire and East West HS) , mix level of each instrument as a conductor etc.



Hi Cyril ! I am not sure I fully understand why you use the Finale step if you can work out the harmony with the piano roll. Is it because you find you get a better result by playing the lines in, and find it easier to play them in from sheet music ? Would you be able to explain your process a bit further, especially what you do between the first step in Logic and what you do in Finale ? I use a notation package , and am exploring alternative workflows atm, especially combining a DAW and a notation package. Thanks v much and welcome btw


----------



## KEnK

jacobthestupendous said:


> And in a world where you can increasingly accomplish convincing groceries without knowing how to make your fancy-shmancy lists, you can understand why the illiterate masses (and even some in the literate subset) might begin to think the expensive and occasionally difficult-to-use list-making software was unnecessary.


Software has nothing to do with what I'm talking about-
pencil, paper and understanding a few symbols are all that is required.
I play music w/ human beings for human beings in places where human beings gather.
I enjoy the 2 dimensional illusions I can create w/ my computer,
but it is neither my only or primary means of music creation.
A computer may aid in music creation in various ways,
but when it replaces the principle thing music has always been about (direct human interaction)
something truly profound is missing and perhaps lost.

I suppose there is in fact another subset of people here who's only musical interaction is w/ their computer.
To me this is like thinking that porn is actual sex.
It just isn't

k


----------



## jacobthestupendous

KEnK said:


> A computer may aid in music creation in various ways,
> but when it replaces the principle thing music has always been about (direct human interaction)
> something truly profound is missing


Agree 100%.



KEnK said:


> I play music w/ human beings for human beings in places where human beings gather.


Congrats on living the dream! If you are writing music to be played in a precise way by other human beings, then notation is the language you should be using to communicate with them.



KEnK said:


> Software has nothing to do with what I'm talking about-


Perhaps not, but software has everything to do with what the original post was inquiring about. Why don't more people use notation software? There is no one answer, but I wanted to strengthen the ideas put forth by Daryl that many people don't know notation and, thanks to other software, don't need to. 

There are obviously other considerations also, like the inherent complexity of programming useable notation software that generates engraver-ready output, making it costly to produce and skewing the cost/benefit proposition for companies that might undertake such a project. 

Another big consideration is the inherently quantized nature of notation, which performers naturally fudge slightly (computer programs usually call this "humanizing" the playback); DAW's working with MIDI can be unquantized down to an absurdly specific level to achieve whatever level of humanization you prefer. Any program that attempts to marry DAW functionality with true Notation capability will have to give you the ability to express intent with the notation while also allowing you to alter the unique MIDI triggering. I need to be able to adjust the start by 29 milliseconds and not have it mess up the notation, and I imagine that's not simple to program.

Another consideration is the business and politics of different companies trying to get into the workflows of a handful of composers, though this mostly affects the supply side of the equation.


----------



## jacobthestupendous

KEnK said:


> I suppose there is in fact another subset of people here who's only musical interaction is w/ their computer.
> To me this is like thinking that porn is actual sex.
> It just isn't


You imply that there is no real satisfaction to be had from making music on a computer, as if to say "if you aren't composing music that a real orchestra will play, then you're just pretending, and you're not a real composer." Who's the elitist now? 
Put in your terms, no one thinks that porn is actual sex, but to someone who is unlikely to win the affection of an actual woman, porn seems like a pretty decent runner up.


----------



## Elephant

Thanks Cyril. The last piece I did in Sib was an Afrocuban piece which used piano, guitar, bass, drums, percussion, and 4 wind instruments. And the live runthrough sounded 50x better than the Sib mockup. As of course it should, but still the voicings needed changing, for exactly the type of orchestration reasons you mentioned. I am interested in doing mockups primarily in order to convince myself and others that it's worth giving a piece to live players. i.e. Demos. They help iron out a lot of bugs.


----------



## KEnK

jacobthestupendous said:


> You imply that there is no real satisfaction to be had from making music on a computer, as if to say "if you aren't composing music that a real orchestra will play, then you're just pretending, and you're not a real composer." Who's the elitist now?


I'm not actually speaking about an orchestra-
Just a clear communication of musical ideas between a group as small as 2 individuals.
As to the intent of what I've been saying regarding not relating to the original post-
I just wanted to let you know why declaring musicians who can read as elitists or intellectuals tends to piss people off.

I also don't think that saying "virtual reality" is not the same as "real reality" is elitist.
It's a caution or suggestion to remember what music is- human interaction.



jacobthestupendous said:


> Put in your terms, no one thinks that porn is actual sex, but to someone who is unlikely to win the affection of an actual woman, porn seems like a pretty decent runner up.


That person needs to turn off the computer and get out of the house.


----------



## jacobthestupendous

KEnK said:


> As to the intent of what I've been saying regarding not relating to the original post-
> I just wanted to let you know why declaring musicians who can read as elitists or intellectuals tends to piss people off.


I see. Thanks! When did it become inflammatory to be called an intellectual? I fancy myself intellectual from time to time, and I find your implication that there's anything wrong with intellectualism to be frankly offensive. 



KEnK said:


> I also don't think that saying "virtual reality" is not the same as "real reality" is elitist.
> It's a caution or suggestion to remember what music is- human interaction.


Fair enough. You are merely identifying two categories which are differentiated mainly by education, experience, relationships, and access to other musicians. That's not at all how I was describing the situation.


----------



## jacobthestupendous

Orcel said:


> What is interesting to watch when play a classical score with your sound in Logic, is the number of lining. To keep the balance between lines, composers was obliged to multiply lines to get it strong enough. When you play all the staff with virtual sounds, first of all, you think that it's to much, you don't need all that lining. But If you play with a real orchestra exactly what you compose with your virtual sounds (and you just print the score) you will be very surprised and disappointed.


This is absolutely true, and it is a real challenge for someone to approximate real sound balance in a computer, especially if they do not have the personal experience with the instruments in ensemble settings. This issue has popped up on various threads in this forum. Unfortunately, this is still a challenge whether you compose on paper, in Sibelius, or in Cubase; as you suggest, the only way to really be sure of your orchestrations (if you are not already a master) is to hear an actual orchestra perform it. You can use microphones to mix the performance differently than it sounds naturally in the acoustic performance space, but this is less helpful if you are composing for a live performance, and it will not save you at all if you are following Dvorak. 

Of course, anyone who follows a Dvorak symphony with a Jacobthestupendous symphony is planning to fail.


----------



## KEnK

jacobthestupendous said:


> When did it become inflammatory to be called an intellectual?


Well... You saw the reaction of a couple people on page 3 or 4.
But we do understand each other's perspectives and we're starting to go in circles now-
So I'm just going to leave it at that so the thread can remain on point.

nice talking w/ you

k


----------



## cmillar

Everyones' own music experiences and demands are so different.... which is great!

Speaking for myself, I do use Sibelius... with parameters.

Sibelius is only used when I have to prepare parts for actual musicians to read and play. That's all I use it for. 

Again, personally, I don't use it to actually compose in or to notate my immediate musical thoughts. That's far too slow and, to me, counter intuitive to me getting anything actually done. 

But, I was trained to use pencil and scorepaper. For me, it's still much faster, more 'linear' to my way of getting from point 'A' to point 'B', and I don't have to try to remember various key stroke combinations.... I just pick up the pencil and eraser and go. (... if it was a good enough method for Beethoven and the other Masters, it's good enough for me!)

Should I try and use Sibelius exclusively to replace the pencil? Guess that I'd probably get pretty fast at it. But, the beauty of paper is that I don't have to turn on the electricity just to sketch out a musical idea if the particular idea isn't wedded to a particular software instrument or synth. Or, I can just take a portable battery keyboard and go sit in the forest or coffee shop if I want to have a keyboard as a reference for musical ideas and I can sketch out ideas with pencil and paper anywhere. Old school?.... whatever!.... it works for me.

But, when I compose and record directly into my DAW, I rarely use notation. (I might refer to or have a little pencil sketch or two of some ideas or musical thoughts to go by though for my initial inspiration so I don't get thrown off course!)

For most things I have to do, I just play the music in using the chosen virtual software instruments or synth sounds. Mix, mess around with effects, etc..... just like any other electronic /computer /studio based composer working on media projects these days.

I love having a notation editor built into my DAW, though, so that I can check on something that I might have played to see what a particular bass note is or some chord or something that I might have played in the 'heat of the moment' and need to know what I actually came up with in order to double the line with another instrument, or to know what tonality I'm now composing/sound designing in. 

Thank god for having built-in notation to the DAW! (... in my case, Digital Performer). Not used all the time, but I'm glad it's there when I need to find out what I just 'wrote'.

So, for the original thread question, Sibelius really isn't even thought about or used by me except when I need to prepare parts for some real musicians to play.


----------



## almound

I chose to learn to read and write musical notation during the same school grades that I learned to read and write English. (There was no talk about elitism by those who didn't so choose, I might add.) Children are most receptive then and learning music was a pleasure, not a chore. I encourage everyone to support school music programs. If they weren't being discontinued in more and more areas, we probably wouldn't need to concern ourselves with the question.

I get the impression that people like the spontaneity of a DAW because they can get quick results. In fact, it may be that they spurn musical notation because it is viewed as standing in the way of immediacy. Actually, I spend 60% to 70% of the time thinking and studying about what I should write before I begin to do so in Sibelius. The actual writing is only about 30% of the time, it moves along quickly thanks to computerization, and is mainly a matter of experimenting how to write the draft so that playback is best. But the bulk of the work is mental. Time spent thinking about what to write is not valued it would seem, by many here. Not that what they create is for that reason unsuccessful, mind you.

You already know what I think about notation programs and sequencers.

*Sibelius as scoring editor for Studio One using Kontakt*
(https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbJ3UqfveVHWxm4wsaSpo_qa_BhZL1Nc0)


----------



## pinki

Hannes_F said:


> BTW when it comes to a hybrid between notation and DAW then Overture was quite something for a while. It was/is a one man show though and the owner/programmer seems to have issues with his workflow. If he had sold it in time into able hands it could have become a great tool.



Well it _finally _seems to be happening:
http://sonicscores.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=15429

Is this the DAWSCORE software people have been waiting for?


----------



## Vik

pinki said:


> Well it _finally _seems to be happening:
> http://sonicscores.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=15429
> 
> Is this the DAWSCORE software people have been waiting for?


Maybe, but my feeling is that Dorico is closer to what I need. 
https://www.steinberg.net/en/products/dorico.html


----------



## dcoscina

jacobthestupendous said:


> You imply that there is no real satisfaction to be had from making music on a computer, as if to say "if you aren't composing music that a real orchestra will play, then you're just pretending, and you're not a real composer." Who's the elitist now?
> Put in your terms, no one thinks that porn is actual sex, but to someone who is unlikely to win the affection of an actual woman, porn seems like a pretty decent runner up.


I totally didn't get that from his post. And I interpret it when talking about orchestral music- as good as VIs will get there's a world of difference between samples and 80 real musicians who have dedicated their lives playing an instrument. If you think they are the same or its elitist to subscribe to this notion than I've got nothing more to say...


----------



## dcoscina

On this Topic I actually use Notion and don't bother with third party samples. I usually just export the file and finesse or reinterpret the score for better samples in Digital Peformer. The writing I do in Notion is strictly for live performance and some of the techniques would sound bad if I just literally had the piece played as is even with top drawer samples. It's a very different discipline for me. Note I'm qualifying this as a personal statement and my experience. I will say my writing is better when composing notationally but I learned old school so that's probably why


----------



## jononotbono

I am about to start learning how to use Sibelius. I'm actually learning music theory at the minute and I'm going to take the plunge and buy Sibelius after Christmas. I'm going to need it for my TS course and I think just using it all the time will help me get better at Theory and reading music. Can't wait till my theory and theory application is good enough to begin studying and analysing scores because that's when I will no doubt learn so much more about music than I already do. Luckily I'm now friends with some amazing people who are studying on my course that actually Teach Theory for a living so I trade Cubase Tips with them for Theory Lessons. Like a Musical Delboy at the minute and working out rather splendiferously.


----------



## wst3

I encourage anyone that asks to purchase a scoring/notation tool, and I don't make a recommendation of which one. If pressed I acknowledge that I use Finale, largely because when I made my purchase (2000?) it suited my needs better than Sibelius, although I've always been a fan of both.

But mostly I tell them that it is more important to become familiar with, if not fluent in, standard notation. And pencil and paper might be the best approach (maybe?), but a scoring tool like Finale or Sibelius or Notion is a pretty close approximation thereof.

That's what I believe. I too think my writing is better, more disciplined at least, when working from notation. I'm also older, and was trained long before virtual instruments existed - both of which absolutely affect my choices.

I am using the Notion demo right now, in Studio One and as a stand-alone. I'm struggling, but I've been using Finale and Sonar for a LONG time, so it doesn't surprise me that a new approach will require an adjustment, and some learning time. I hope it is as well integrated as it appears, it would be a major step forward for me.


----------



## jononotbono

wst3 said:


> And pencil and paper might be the best approach (maybe?)



That's exactly why I have just bought a new printer. So I can print off manuscript.


----------



## wst3

jononotbono said:


> That's exactly why I have just bought a new printer. So I can print off manuscript.


Too funny!

But I understand...


----------



## wcreed51

?? This thread is from a year ago...


----------



## Vik

wcreed51 said:


> ?? This thread is from a year ago...


...and?


----------



## wcreed51

And Dorico isn't exactly news, etc


----------

