# Is notation-based composing a dying art?



## SaintDufus

The more I look around, the more composers I see doing MIDI mockups: using a MIDI-keyboard, a DAW, sound libraries, and other effects to generate their musical compositions.

This relatively new (and quite exciting) technology is, of course, a departure from centuries of composing tradition, i.e. writing notes into scores.

Many MIDI composers don't even know how to read or write music--which is undoubtedly one reason they're so attracted to MIDI.

The last bastion of the "old-fashioned way" seems to be those of us who use notation programs like Finale, Sibelius, Notion, etc. But it seems to me we are already well in the minority.

Do you feel that notation-based composing is a dying art?


----------



## David Story

If you have to ask, you don't know the strengths and limitations of the two techniques. They are different and complimentary.


----------



## proxima

It's probably true that as a fraction of music recorded in written form, less is notated in the traditional way than 30 years ago. But there's a lot of music being written, and it's easier than ever, so I'm not sure that there's less of it in absolute terms. Does that make it a dying art? I don't think so.

Also, a great deal of (non-orchestral) music historically was composed without any writing whatsoever, passed on via communities. Just look at the massive amount of traditional music in Ireland, for example.


----------



## Justin Miller

Composing by notation is a dying art because there isn't much of a point unless you commissioned to write and have access to players that will play your charts. The vast majority of composers don't have that so it doesn't really have a very high return and doesn't really help your income unless you are an orchestrator/copyist.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

For me there's a point, because I need to scribble to work some things out. I wish I could just play everything in in real time, but I can't.

It used to be considered totally wimpy to use pencil instead of ink directly to the score. And of course there was no such thing as an untransposed score.

People have argued over whether Stravinsky was cheating by playing everything on the piano.


----------



## windshore

I believe that new technology almost by definition, makes old technology obsolete. That is what is happening in music. (-as well as other fields)

If most commercial music production - that means TV, Film, Ads etc. - doesn't use live players because technology allows it to be done faster and cheaper without, then those skills that were needed for working with live players become less and less valuable. 

Technology will replace the composer/ producer for much of the work-a-day business of music at some point. This is only the first stage.


----------



## Jacob Cadmus

Is notation a dying art in media music? Maybe. But in general (education, live performance, etc.), not in the least bit.


----------



## Stephen Baysted

I don't use Sibelius or Finale so it's pencil and paper for me all the way if I'm writing concert music. If it's to picture, then an assistant would normally sort out parts and conducting scores etc. 

Nothing better than sitting at a piano with a good pencil and manuscript paper and sketching ideas out though.


----------



## Rob

No


----------



## FriFlo

windshore @ Fri Oct 03 said:


> I believe that new technology almost by definition, makes old technology obsolete. That is what is happening in music. (-as well as other fields)
> 
> If most commercial music production - that means TV, Film, Ads etc. - doesn't use live players because technology allows it to be done faster and cheaper without, then those skills that were needed for working with live players become less and less valuable.
> 
> Technology will replace the composer/ producer for much of the work-a-day business of music at some point. This is only the first stage.



There will always be a market for music written and played by human beings, because there are things that computers will never manage to do, that human beings are!
I see the trend in libraries getting more sophisticated (at least they make you believe that). But music generated like that will never reach the level of a score written to picture.


----------



## Daryl

Whilst it maybe true that notation is used less and less by media composers, it will always have a place, as long as people still want to hear the sounds of traditional instruments. So no, it's not dying.

D


----------



## clarkus

If it's not dying, it's looking a bit green & is short of breath. 

I continue to use pencil & sketch things out, but have spent almost ALL my time this year composing on a laptop with a DAW, which is (for me) a complete reversal. It came about for the reasons someone mentioned here: it's very hard without a stream of commissions to get your music played & heard.

If you DO write for real, living musicians (which I still do), it's great to have notation skills. That thing that Logic calls a "score" is a pretty sorry facsimile.


----------



## KEnK

I mostly play music w/ human beings.
Midi files are of no use to them.

Music made at a daw is analogous to cg movies.
They're not real. 

k


----------



## clarkus

To KEnk, I would just add that - as this is a Forum for sample-based music - you'll find that music libraries are often looking for tracks that have the "sheen" of perfection & high production values that sample libraries provide. I am not making a value judgement. I like music where the stands creak from time to time and you hear breathing and page turns. But in commercial music we need to make things quick and inexpensively that sound good. Live players are an occasional luxury.


----------



## wst3

One more "No" vote...

I find that technology has provided me with new avenues, but these do not replace the old.

There are times when I simply can not reason out a passage without pencil and paper (ok, I do not use a pen, guess I'm a wimp?). There are other times when I can play (almost) exactly what I hear in my head, and that usually goes straight into the sequencer, although sometimes it goes into Finale so I can see it as well as hear it.

For a while I used a guitar-to-MIDI interface frequently, but I became frustrated with the limitations. I need to get back to that.

And if I am preparing charts (two of my recent projects were written for live players, I consider myself fortunate) I use Finale because the musicians can read that - no one can read my chicken scratch I'm afraid.

So for me there are good reasons to use all the tools available:
- pencil and paper
- computer based standard notation
- MIDI sequencing
- audio recording

And more often than not I end up using them all.

Horses for courses?


----------



## windshore

Jacob Cadmus @ 10/3/2014 said:


> Is notation a dying art in media music? Maybe. But in general (education, live performance, etc.), not in the least bit.



We live in different worlds I guess. Over the last 15-20 years the amount of work for live players in the LA area has diminished exponentially - I'm including recording along with public and private gigs.

Education is also making it less of a priority. The notation program at UCLA is being discontinued due to a lack of students who believe they need these skills to write music for film etc. Schools end up making business decisions to generate money and attract students.

Things change. Most people don't read the newspaper to get their news now. It doesn't mean paper newspapers will disappear it just means that they are a novelty.


----------



## KEnK

clarkus @ Sat Oct 04 said:


> To KEnk, I would just add that - as this is a Forum for sample-based music - you'll find that music libraries are often looking for tracks that have the "sheen" of perfection & high production values that sample libraries provide. I am not making a value judgement. I like music where the stands creak from time to time and you hear breathing and page turns. But in commercial music we need to make things quick and inexpensively that sound good. Live players are an occasional luxury.


Hi Clarkus-

I've been coming to this wonderful forum for years, I'm aware of the orientation.
But I often see people forgetting that there's something other than a DAW,
or film music for that matter. 
The perspective can be pretty narrow here sometimes.

I get the sense that the op comes from an orientation of too much time alone at the computer.
All I'm saying is, when you work w/ those luxury real world musicians, they'll prefer notation.
Especially if the music is structurally advanced.

k


----------



## Hawkes

windshore @ Sat Oct 04 said:


> Jacob Cadmus @ 10/3/2014 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is notation a dying art in media music? Maybe. But in general (education, live performance, etc.), not in the least bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We live in different worlds I guess. Over the last 15-20 years the amount of work for live players in the LA area has diminished exponentially - I'm including recording along with public and private gigs.
> 
> Education is also making it less of a priority. The notation program at UCLA is being discontinued due to a lack of students who believe they need these skills to write music for film etc. Schools end up making business decisions to generate money and attract students.
> 
> Things change. Most people don't read the newspaper to get their news now. It doesn't mean paper newspapers will disappear it just means that they are a novelty.
Click to expand...


I think that Jacob's point was that there's a whole other world of music aside from music for media. I agree. Much of it needs written music as much as ever. Seems like your two examples are still related to music for media.


----------



## Saxer

in music production for media music becomes a product. this will be done in the most (cost-)effective way.
some actual styles can be done completely in a daw. other styles with more complex structure need notation even for the composition work (like a melodic part written as a 4-voiced brass section). we all know how fast 'modern' styles change. everything might be different in ten or fifteen years.

and there's still music beside 'media'. lots of private-, school-, company-, amateur-, radio-, opera- and a lot more-orchestras, -marching bands, big bands, choirs etc.
everywhere are musicians who WANT to play. and they never ask if their music could also be done by a mockup just because it is not relevant at all. and a lot of them want to play new music. so there will always be a market for written music. even if this music was composed in a daw.


----------



## dcoscina

I don't know about the art part but for orchestral composing, I have an easier time using Notion first to work on the music and orchestrating aspects of the piece. I have been playing piano since I was 11 and I'm 46 now but I don't have the chops to play I'm real time what I hear in my head. Also, and this has been discussed numerously, playing lines into a sequencer in real time usually means the phrasing is pianistic ally centric rather than endemic to that instrument. If one looks at a full score they can see that 8 tied whole notes at tempo 60bpm in the upper range of the flute means that the player will run out of air- unless they have mastered circular breathing.

Maybe a silly example but the organization involved with lines and multiple instruments works better if the composer can visualize it. And hey, my sight reading is abominable. I'm very slow at reading music but on a pure graphic level, seeing a full orchestral score helps a lot. And it gets rid of the hassle of worrying about production and mixing various libraries.


----------



## JohnG

Based on what my own media composing and orchestration work, admittedly a very narrow perspective, I'd have to say it's very much a dying art in media. (I also sing in a choir and go to live performances regularly, so that's another matter).

New media composers sometimes are well schooled and able to translate their ideas into musical notation. Some can orchestrate.

But I've had a good bit of work over the years -- more with each passing year, I'd say -- with composers who clearly have never had the chance to write for live players and learn what succeeds and what doesn't.

And that I assume is part of what we're discussing. There is no major reason to lovingly notate music if it's not going to be played by a live musician.

When I started, one of the barriers to entry for most TV and movies was an ability to read music and orchestrate. Those who couldn't were scorned as "hummers." But that era is looong gone. And not just for gifted composers like Danny Elfman.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

There are three different conversations here.

David Story summed up the first one, the original question, right at the beginning:



> If you have to ask, you don't know the strengths and limitations of the two techniques. They are different and complementary.



dcostina and wst3 make exactly the same point in their words, and so do I.

Notation is just like writing words or at least a sketch for a speech or talk. Audio and video recording - now nonlinear, originally linear - didn't eliminate writing or make it a dead art. It's a way of conceiving the structure of what you want to say, whether it's words or music.

Fingers and ears find things you don't find by writing the notes down, and v.v. Again, David said it all: they're complementary. Notation isn't only for other people to read.

***
Then you get to the music business, which of course has changed. Sequencing everything doesn't require a score or parts for players, so that's dying. And certainly music preparation - with electric erasers (the main tool!) and pens, anyway - is a dying art.

***
And then there's the effect of technology. It replaces, changes, ruins, and enhances different things in music - as it does with most other things.


----------



## mverta

I can compose directly into a DAW, or notate on paper with equal facility. From that vantage point I can say that for me paper is unquestionably faster and produces better results, regardless of whether it's going to be done live or not. Writing on paper has helped me bury an awful lot of competition in the last 20 years, who simply couldn't keep up the pace or generate the quantity of ideas in the same time. If one is not fast on paper for lack of practice, then writing to a DAW will obviously be better. Just hope you're not coming up against someone with old-school skillllzzzzzz.

So, is it a dying art? I say, YES YES YES! Please! Send me your notation pads and pencils.


_Mike


----------



## Peter Alexander

> There is no major reason to lovingly notate music if it's not going to be played by a live musician.



John, I apologize, but I respectfully disagree. Finding a copy of Beethoven's Sketchbook (Dover) would clearly illustrate that the value of writing on paper is the freedom to develop ideas and go back to them any time to develop them some more. And I don't think it matters whether it's performed by samples or people. See link below:

http://www.discourses.co.uk/beethoven.php4

On the other hand, Bach drilled his students so that what they developed and heard in their musical imagination they could write down. Those who needed a keyboard (like me!) he called his Harpsichord Knights.


----------



## JohnG

I don't draw quite the sharp distinction between playing something in and writing it out that some do, but to each his own. I don't find my own experience comports with David Story's view that they are such different techniques or yield markedly different results, but some people say that and for them maybe it's correct.

It is certainly true that it's faster to write it out than to start keyboarding every part in, but part of the reason is that notation is such an approximate art -- there is so much more you really can't write down. When you write "staccato," just how short do you want the notes? How loud is forte for a given piece? When I conduct, I often find myself singing bits of the piece to convey just what phrasing we are seeking.

Like many here, I have spent a lot of time in my life slaving to get all the notes, dynamics, stems, etc. perfect, both for my music and others'. Maybe I'm leaning away from the romance of writing everything out now because I spent too much time a slave to exact changes to picture and constant editing, maybe it's because nearly all the music I've done for quite some time has had at least some electronic element to it so "free" tempo is not realistic, maybe it's something else.

Maybe I'm a little sick of orchestrating.

As far as Beethoven's sketch book and Bach's drills, while I would never in many lifetimes compare anything I do musically to Beethoven or Bach, it is also true that they didn't have a good alternative way to record musical thoughts.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I use both - play, scribble, play, scribble.


----------



## cmillar

Proper notation, and having great musicians who can sight-read anything in any style, will ultimately save you a lot of time and money when you are in any recording situation where you're using real, live people.

There is nothing more frustrating or time-wasting than having to 'hum' parts to someone or working with a rhythm section that doesn't even know how to read a chart.

You really need to have a grasp of proper notation (score layouts, parts, lead sheets, etc.) to work with real musicians that expect professional work.

(I'm not talking about working with garage bands or self-contained musical units.)

Music notation is a common language for humans to work with. 

When you work with people that can read music, there's less talking about how to 'do it' and much more productivity in the studio or rehearsal hall.

DAW's and sample libraries are truly fantastic, because most of us don't get the budgets to work with orchestras or chamber groups for recording purposes very often.


----------



## cmillar

Oh yeah..... I think what is dying (or should die) is trying to have a software notation program transcribe your MIDI 'noodling' and turn it into proper notation.

World's biggest waste of time!

Programs like Sibelius and Finale excel at creating great looking scores and parts only when you know how to notate music already.

Really, if you expect the programs to 'do all the work for you', then you'll be forever frustrated, except...

A DAW like MOTU's Digital Performer can do a great job at transcribing some MIDI input, and it can actually make sense of what you've done and then notate music that's a good enough sketch or enough of a part for a musician to work with for a recoding session.

But, you do need to know what a barline is, what a time signature is, what a rest is, what real instruments can or can't do, etc. before you check out the parts and dare to give them to any real musicians.


----------



## Dave Connor

I thought for some period of time that the complexities of writing things on a score pad mitigated against the natural tendency of sample/DAW writing achieving the same. It has been true in my own experience and confirmed in a way by midi written compositions which never seem to contain the sophistication of Williams, Goldsmith, Morricone and other old school guys. My opinion changed entirely when working in the booth with score on some Van Dyke Parks sessions. His music which had been written entirely in Digital Performer was downright Stravinsklan in every way a score can be analyzed (rhythm, harmony, counterpoint et. al.) I think he composed in the notation window of DP and not in the midi window (not positive) so I'm not sure what category that falls in as far as this discussion is concerned. My view on the issue completely changed after that experience because this was world-class writing.

It depends on who the composer is no doubt.


----------



## Peter Alexander

The advantage of paper - it doesn't crash and doesn't need electricity to let you do your work.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> I think he composed in the notation window of DP and not in the midi window (not positive) so I'm not sure what category that falls in as far as this discussion is concerned.



Notation as far as I'm concerned.

Speaking of Stravinsky or having everything he had, Richard Grayson is just amazing. The audience gives him a tune and style - Can Can in the stye of Stravinsky is the first link - then he thinks for a second, and off he goes. Some of it is actually real keeper music. And he's humble, when he has every right to be totally full of himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH8AxdJEEyY

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... stravinsky


----------



## JohnG

cmillar @ 4th October 2014 said:


> Proper notation, and having great musicians who can sight-read anything in any style, will ultimately save you a lot of time and money when you are in any recording situation where you're using real, live people.
> 
> There is nothing more frustrating or time-wasting than having to 'hum' parts to someone or working with a rhythm section that doesn't even know how to read a chart.



hey, cmillar,

I don't think anyone here is advocating being ignorant or putting sloppy work in front of professionals. 

It's a provocative situation, as we see an increasing number of successful media composers arrive on the scene with limited experience of live players and sometimes limited facility with notation. Does that change what's being written? Is something valuable being lost? Or is it just the latest situation in which the old school guys say "you can't do that!" and the new guys go right on breaking rules and mixing the "wrong" things together and creating something new.

As you may know, there is a whole cadre of people around now who translate the work of these unschooled geniuses -- arranging / orchestrating and otherwise massaging it so that it can be played effectively and efficiently.

In the course of that process, certainly, many conductors end up singing phrasing to players to convey precisely what is meant by the notation. I've seen it plenty of times with conductors far more experienced than I. Some famous ones, even.

As far as how much formal training you "need" to write music, that is also a matter of some debate. Personally, I am in favour of it, because I think the more you know, the more tools you have. 

Besides, I spent a lot of time on it -- so it has to be worthwhile!


----------



## kmlandre

Peter Alexander @ Sat Oct 04 said:


> The advantage of paper - it doesn't crash and doesn't need electricity to let you do your work.



But you are TOTALLY SCREWED if your candle goes out!!! 

Kurt
https://www.SoundCloud.com/kmlandre


----------



## Peter Alexander

kmlandre @ Sat Oct 04 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Sat Oct 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The advantage of paper - it doesn't crash and doesn't need electricity to let you do your work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you are TOTALLY SCREWED if your candle goes out!!!
> 
> Kurt
> https://www.SoundCloud.com/kmlandre
Click to expand...


Go to bed and write when it's daylight...


----------



## cmillar

JohnG @ Sun Oct 05 said:


> cmillar @ 4th October 2014 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1......breaking rules and mixing the "wrong" things together and creating something new.
> 
> 2. Personally, I am in favour of it, because I think the more you know, the more tools you have.
Click to expand...


Hi John, this is all a debate for the 'ages' for sure. 

1. I too believe in what you wrote above, as today's equipment helps us create entirely new worlds of sound and music.

2. And, I totally agree that the more one knows, then you have many more tools to work with. There aren't enough hours in the day to learn what I want to know and keep up with! 

(Also, I speak as both a composer and a player (trombone), one who is well-trained and schooled and able to function in any virtually any professional musical situation.
So, I'm probably considered 'old-school' by many in this forum ..... heck, I actually read music and can use a pencil and paper to compose music.... what a concept!)

For the people who believe that music notation is 'passe', or perhaps irrelevant to creating music...... well, they're only partially entitled to hold that opinion.... not fully 
entitled, and certainly not very well-travelled.

Music notation will outlast us all. 

A blast of magnetic radiation could wipe out a whole generation of musical output! Gone!


----------



## SaintDufus

I'm gratified by the large number of responses here--I wasn't sure this would be a topic of interest to others, but clearly many people here have things to say on the subject.

And what a wide array of differing views--a fact which once again underscores the great value and diversity of this forum.

I have to say that, while I recognize the validity of all the perspectives here, my heart is with the "oldest" of the "old-school" practitioners: those who still write by hand. Long live you guys! You're still carrying on the tradition in its pure form.

It's interesting that some people approach this question from the perspective of a commercial orientation, i.e. in terms of what the market wants, what makes money, etc. From this point of view, notation-based composing might seem unnecessary (since one can now submit MIDI recordings to prospective employers), but as some here have noted, this is not the only perspective. 

There's a tradition to notation-based composing which may be worth preserving, in the same way the tradition of (for instance) calligraphy might be worth preserving.

The contrary view is probably summed up by this remark:

"There is no major reason to lovingly notate music if it's not going to be played by a live musician."

As one who finds pleasure in the act of composing into a scoresheet, I must respectfully disagree with this point of view. For me the process of notating often feels analogous to that of a painter, slowly and patiently applying a nuanced brush-stroke here or there, in his/her quest for beauty or artistic mastery. Often I find myself hunched over, peering closely at the score, searching for the exact place where I know I need to change the MP to a MF, or lengthen a note by a fraction, or some other bit of minutiae.

This level of focus and attention to detail feels like a cross between art and Zen to me. It's highly enjoyable and gratifying--even if it has no pragmatic benefit in the commercial arena.


----------



## murrthecat

I feel that the technology I use influences my writing, whether it is pencil and paper, notation software, sequencer, because it comes with its own limits and merits. 

So, I try to choose the best method for each composing task.

That said, I have seen that my mockups are more lively, better-crafted composition-wise, if I sketch them out on paper. The more hard work I put on paper, the better are my counterpoints, harmonies, even melodies, perhaps because paper is a little bit more 'silent' than samples.

Regards,
Ale


----------



## AC986

Because all I do is media music that is usually in 2 to 3 minute pieces, I play all of it in. Then I change it on the fly. Generally I'm not using anything like a full orchestral amount of instruments. Once I have the amount of instruments I'm roughly going to use, I don't normally change it. I usually work it all out on a piano first and then take that to the computer.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

cmillar wrote:



> Music notation will outlast us all.



Yes. That's right.

There's absolutely nothing "old school" about notation. It's highly evolved and we're lucky to have the system we have!

Furthermore, its imprecision is part of the beauty of it!


----------



## JohnG

SaintDufus @ 5th October 2014 said:


> "There is no major reason to lovingly notate music if it's not going to be played by a live musician."
> 
> As one who finds pleasure in the act of composing into a scoresheet, I must respectfully disagree with this point of view. For me the process of notating often feels analogous to that of a painter, slowly and patiently applying a nuanced brush-stroke here or there, in his/her quest for beauty or artistic mastery. Often I find myself hunched over, peering closely at the score, searching for the exact place where I know I need to change the MP to a MF, or lengthen a note by a fraction, or some other bit of minutiae.
> 
> This level of focus and attention to detail feels like a cross between art and Zen to me. It's highly enjoyable and gratifying--even if it has no pragmatic benefit in the commercial arena.



Hi SaintD,

One of the guys I sing with also composes, and he pretty much said the same thing as you when last I saw him. He also does engraving professionally now and then, so he's deeply into it. An amazing singer and musician as well.

While at one level I am sympathetic to the Zen / art of almost any activity one could imagine, I'm kind of tired of this particular exercise, myself. I started out hand writing scores, using those special pens final scores that draw exactly the same width line every time -- what a pain those were -- and even though I bought Finale 1.0 as soon as it came out, I kept up with pencil and paper for a long time, well into the mid / late 1990s.

For me, the thrill is gone.

I still use Finale or Sibelius when I have live players, and I have a screen open to the notation window in DP while I'm working, but the days when I spent a lot of time getting the curve of every slur just so -- not only because it is clearer to the player but because I just wanted it that way -- are over. It still has to be perfect -- the mp and mf have to be just where they belong -- but it's just a chore for me.


----------



## rgames

If notation includes piano-roll-type editors then no, it definitely is not a dying art. If by notation you mean old-school notation, pencil and paper, then the answer is less emphatic but still no.

To me, piano roll editing is more like old-school notation than not. You can still see the vertical and horizontal structure of the music and manipulate it in the same manner that you would on a traditional five-line staff. I believe most masterpieces in the classical repertoire could very well have been conceived in a MIDI piano roll editor. The essence of the music is captured in that editor. The presentation is a bit different but conveys the same information.

Now, of course you're not going to hand a piano roll to a performer. So, for music production, traditional scores have no substitute. But for composition, I think it's a fine substitute.

rgames


----------



## cmillar

rgames @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> If notation includes piano-roll-type editors then no, it definitely is not a dying art. If by notation you mean old-school notation, pencil and paper, then the answer is less emphatic but still no.
> 
> To me, piano roll editing is more like old-school notation than not. You can still see the vertical and horizontal structure of the music and manipulate it in the same manner that you would on a traditional five-line staff. I believe most masterpieces in the classical repertoire could very well have been conceived in a MIDI piano roll editor. The essence of the music is captured in that editor. The presentation is a bit different but conveys the same information.
> 
> Now, of course you're not going to hand a piano roll to a performer. So, for music production, traditional scores have no substitute. But for composition, I think it's a fine substitute.
> 
> rgames



Well said!

Having used DP now for 20 years and using the piano roll editing, it becomes like second-nature, just like hand notation.

Would be lost without piano roll editing now! A great thing about software!


----------



## artur

rgames @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> If notation includes piano-roll-type editors then no, it definitely is not a dying art. If by notation you mean old-school notation, pencil and paper, then the answer is less emphatic but still no.
> 
> To me, piano roll editing is more like old-school notation than not. You can still see the vertical and horizontal structure of the music and manipulate it in the same manner that you would on a traditional five-line staff. I believe most masterpieces in the classical repertoire could very well have been conceived in a MIDI piano roll editor. The essence of the music is captured in that editor. The presentation is a bit different but conveys the same information.
> 
> Now, of course you're not going to hand a piano roll to a performer. So, for music production, traditional scores have no substitute. But for composition, I think it's a fine substitute.
> 
> rgames



exactly. piano roll (key editor) is nowadays notation-based composing. 
the whole system of putting notes on the staff on paper is so obsolete and so far from convenient for anyone without a formal music education that it should have died out decades ago when there was no better alternative to this. 

let's face it - it is hard to read even if you have full blown orchestra notated, you can not clearly see what is doubling what unless you do some piano reductions (at least in you head). 

go ask nowadays great composers like Hans Zimmer, Klaus Badelt, Lorne Balfe, etc if they notate their compositions outside midi editors  

if i have to notate on paper i will use a midi editor kind of grid for this anyway - this is way more logical and intuitive even for kids.

also to be honest the whole idea of dividing "an octave" into 12 rather then into 10 is another obsolete absurd but too hard to get rid of nowadays. why on earth they were dividing everything into 12 in middle ages ? now we need to live with all that nonsense :(


----------



## rayinstirling

Since when was composing ever notation based?
I've always thought of notation being a way of recording an abbreviation of the music to be played so as it can be repeated. I say abbreviation because unless it is marked to the degree that it's hard to see clean paper, the result from reading it will still depend on personal input from the performer.
What is music? It is something we hear whether directly from instruments, played back from speakers or simply something in out head. I'm sure it came first and notation followed.


----------



## Daryl

artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> exactly. piano roll (key editor) is nowadays notation-based composing.
> the whole system of putting notes on the staff on paper is so obsolete and so far from convenient for anyone without a formal music education that it should have died out decades ago when there was no better alternative to this.


So what would people use to play music from then? If you need to learn to read music, then just do it. Stop being lazy.



artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> let's face it - it is hard to read even if you have full blown orchestra notated, you can not clearly see what is doubling what unless you do some piano reductions (at least in you head).


Score reading is a skill, like any other. It is far easier to read a full score than a MIDI editor.



artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> go ask nowadays great composers like Hans Zimmer, Klaus Badelt, Lorne Balfe, etc if they notate their compositions outside midi editors


So because a few Media composers choose not to use notation, all the great concert composers should follow suit?



artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> if i have to notate on paper i will use a midi editor kind of grid for this anyway - this is way more logical and intuitive even for kids.


Your choice. I type a full orchestration. My choice.



artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> also to be honest the whole idea of dividing "an octave" into 12 rather then into 10 is another obsolete absurd but too hard to get rid of nowadays. why on earth they were dividing everything into 12 in middle ages ? now we need to live with all that nonsense :(


You still get this dividing into 12 with a MIDI editor. There are plenty of other alternate scales in places other than the Western world. It just so happens that this is our tradition.

D


----------



## Daryl

rayinstirling @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> Since when was composing ever notation based?
> I've always thought of notation being a way of recording an abbreviation of the music to be played so as it can be repeated. I say abbreviation because unless it is marked to the degree that it's hard to see clean paper, the result from reading it will still depend on personal input from the performer.
> What is music? It is something we hear whether directly from instruments, played back from speakers or simply something in out head. I'm sure it came first and notation followed.


Yes, this is correct. Just the same as the written word came after collective aural memory.

The beauty of notation is that it is partly based upon historical experience. Whilst there are differences in interpretation, players have all been through the Western repertoire, and therefore have a sort of universal understanding of how to read this notated shorthand. Without this understanding, things could sound very different. In fact, even with this understanding there can be huge variations on how things are played. Just listen to Prokofieff playing Mozart...!

D


----------



## artur

Daryl @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly. piano roll (key editor) is nowadays notation-based composing.
> the whole system of putting notes on the staff on paper is so obsolete and so far from convenient for anyone without a formal music education that it should have died out decades ago when there was no better alternative to this.
> 
> 
> 
> So what would people use to play music from then? If you need to learn to read music, then just do it. Stop being lazy.
> 
> it's way easier to read midi-roll print-outs,
> u instantly see where which note starts, ends, doubles other notes, everything looks clear. you can explain this to a kid in few minutes, or would you subject a kid to years of learning the obsolete system to do the same thing in the end which is music being notated and read?
> 
> 
> 
> artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> let's face it - it is hard to read even if you have full blown orchestra notated, you can not clearly see what is doubling what unless you do some piano reductions (at least in you head).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Score reading is a skill, like any other. It is far easier to read a full score than a MIDI editor.
> 
> easier?
> after few years it may be possible at all
> 
> 
> 
> artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> go ask nowadays great composers like Hans Zimmer, Klaus Badelt, Lorne Balfe, etc if they notate their compositions outside midi editors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So because a few Media composers choose not to use notation, all the great concert composers should follow suit?
> 
> this says a lot i think
> 
> 
> 
> artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if i have to notate on paper i will use a midi editor kind of grid for this anyway - this is way more logical and intuitive even for kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your choice. I type a full orchestration. My choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> also to be honest the whole idea of dividing "an octave" into 12 rather then into 10 is another obsolete absurd but too hard to get rid of nowadays. why on earth they were dividing everything into 12 in middle ages ? now we need to live with all that nonsense :(
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still get this dividing into 12 with a MIDI editor. There are plenty of other alternate scales in places other than the Western world. It just so happens that this is our tradition.
> 
> true, this tradition is a burden for nowadays human beings
> 
> D
Click to expand...


----------



## Rob

well said Daryl


----------



## Daryl

*artur*, I understand your viewpoint, but you seem to ignore the fact that a MIDI Editor cannot provide the same information as a score. I also don't see any problem with subjecting people to the discipline of learning to read. Without this skill, 500 years of music becomes inaccessible.

D


----------



## Rob

here are two representations of the same musical material, which one gives more information about the music? (sorry for the low quality, but you get the idea)


----------



## amordechai

I do not want to discredit people that cannot or do not want to write in musical notation. That's perfectly fine if it's working for them, and I bet a lot of them can write far better music than mine. 

I sometimes also notate directly in the midi roll. But only if I feel like doing it. If there are people that use this method all the time it's wonderful for them and I respect that. For each it's own.

HAVING SAID THAT...

Reading music is not a "burden" anymore than reading written words is. 

Does reading music have limitations? Yes.
Does it come from an epoch that's far away from us and towards we feel disconnected? Sure.
Could it be improved? Of course!

But you you could say exactly the same things to our latin alphabet that our colleagues, the writers, use for writing their work. 

Please, find a forum of screenwriters where they think our latin alphabet is a "burden"! 

This is because we have the luck and the opportunity to have grown up in countries that forces their children to study and to learn to read. Sadly, it's not the case for music notation. Not everybody has the luck of learning to read notes from a tender age.

This is why if you can't read music fluently, score reading or writing is going to be a very frustrating experience.

I repeat, I do not want to discredit those people. My issue is when those people start to champion the cause of musical illiteracy.

- A.


----------



## artur

Rob @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> here are two representations of the same musical material, which one gives more information about the music? (sorry for the low quality, but you get the idea)



Thanks Rob
Why not include controler lane curves eg for articulations and why not colour code sections/instruments ? 

U can notate exact articulation curves not just eg crescendo, ppp, mf etc
So this is more info and easier to write/read 


Also in key editor you can switch between sections/instruments interactively which gives instant info on doublings and or orcheastration so you can analize any piece much faster


----------



## cmillar

As I said before, 'Music notation will outlast us all.'

And, ignorance is NOT bliss.

Let's cut to the chase..... a lot of people are too lazy to put in the time to learn what proper musical notation is.

We shouldn't be celebrating the fact that some people think that there is no need for being able to read music when needed.

That's all just a 'cop-out'.

This is a wonderful time in human history for creators/composers of music!

We should all be celebrating that there is so much to learn! (....whether it be how to read music or how to use our amazing software!)


----------



## artur

Daryl @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> *artur*, I understand your viewpoint, but you seem to ignore the fact that a MIDI Editor cannot provide the same information as a score. I also don't see any problem with subjecting people to the discipline of learning to read. Without this skill, 500 years of music becomes inaccessible.
> 
> D


Daryl, i think you can get more info in key editor and faster actually

The most timeless part of the 500 years of music is becoming available in midi fortunately


----------



## artur

cmillar @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> As I said before, 'Music notation will outlast us all.'
> 
> And, ignorance is NOT bliss.
> 
> Let's cut to the chase..... a lot of people are too lazy to put in the time to learn what proper musical notation is.
> 
> We shouldn't be celebrating the fact that some people think that there is no need for being able to read music when needed.
> 
> That's all just a 'cop-out'.
> 
> This is a wonderful time in human history for creators/composers of music!
> 
> We should all be celebrating that there is so much to learn! (....whether it be how to read music or how to use our amazing software!)



The proper music notation is midi, lets face it 
Lets spend time learning useful skills, life is too short


----------



## JohnG

Daryl @ 7th October 2014 said:


> In fact, even with this understanding there can be huge variations on how things are played. Just listen to Prokofieff playing Mozart...!
> 
> D



This is example illustrates the limitations of traditional notation.

This facsimile of Brandenburg Concerto no. 5 has very little direction for the players. There is a little, and of course there is scholarship that tries to tease out the performance practices of the day, but the score itself is limited.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonwein ... otostream/

I am all for knowledge and I do love the art of the finely-prepared score, but it is interesting that the scores of some of the avant garde pieces I hear (going to one tonight) have sometimes paragraphs describing the specific techniques they want the players to use. John Williams also puts into his scores lengthy descriptions of just exactly what he wants.

So notation is far from complete.

Not only that, and apologies to those whom this irritates, but the piano roll actually does have extra information and more precise information (in Digital Performer anyway) than the notation does. How short are the staccatos? How much, if any, do the basses decrescendo? Is there more or less space between the notes?

For quite some time in the 1950s and well into the 1980s (in some cases today as well) there was a vogue for all kinds of experimentation that explicitly rejected traditional notation and even tried to escape the idea of the composer's intention and control over the performance.

As a traditionalist myself, I sympathise, but notation is what it is -- part of a glorious tradition, an art in and of itself, an excellent means of communicating with others, and (maybe most important) a source for younger composers to learn from other composers, but I can't find it in myself to reject or censure composers who aren't good at it, if their music is good enough.


----------



## Daryl

artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> Daryl, i think you can get more info in key editor and faster actually


Nonsense. Nobody can just open the Key Editor with a whole score selected and get all the MIDI information from it without clicking around, opening numerous controller lanes, checking what sample library they are from and then trying to figure out what they do. Obviously if you are writing really simple music it may not matter much, but I doubt that it would be much use on a Mahler symphony. 



artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> The most timeless part of the 500 years of music is becoming available in midi fortunately


Even if that was true, how would you get those MIDI files if people couldn't read music.

D


----------



## Daryl

JohnG @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> As a traditionalist myself, I sympathise, but notation is what it is -- part of a glorious tradition, an art in and of itself, an excellent means of communicating with others, and (maybe most important) a source for younger composers to learn from other composers, but I can't find it in myself to reject or censure composers who aren't good at it, if their music is good enough.


John, I don't think that anyone is trying to censure or reject composers who can't, or choose not to use notation, but the leap from that to saying nation is unnecessary is far too great a leap, IMO. I also remember you saying that you had rejected numerous musical ideas over the years because you couldn't do them successfully with samples. In those cases a MIDI file would be pretty much meaningless.

D


----------



## cmillar

artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> cmillar @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, 'Music notation will outlast us all.'
> 
> And, ignorance is NOT bliss.
> 
> Let's cut to the chase..... a lot of people are too lazy to put in the time to learn what proper musical notation is.
> 
> We shouldn't be celebrating the fact that some people think that there is no need for being able to read music when needed.
> 
> That's all just a 'cop-out'.
> 
> This is a wonderful time in human history for creators/composers of music!
> 
> We should all be celebrating that there is so much to learn! (....whether it be how to read music or how to use our amazing software!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proper music notation is midi, lets face it
> Lets spend time learning useful skills, life is too short
Click to expand...



If one has the 'luxury' of only working by oneself with your computer (or if you only want to work by yourself and never have the need to work with other musicians, who will most likely be players who you might want to read and record your music), then sure.... you might consider having to learn music notation a burden.

But, if you ever want to interact with musicians who do know how to read music and understand traditional notation, then you better have a clue as to what's going on... or, have some very patient and good friends who you can hire to help you out.

That's all I'm getting at... this is a great time to learn all that we can about music.

Why limit yourself?


----------



## JohnG

Daryl @ 7th October 2014 said:


> John, I don't think that anyone is trying to censure or reject composers who can't, or choose not to use notation, but the leap from that to saying nation is unnecessary is far too great a leap, IMO. I also remember you saying that you had rejected numerous musical ideas over the years because you couldn't do them successfully with samples. In those cases a MIDI file would be pretty much meaningless.
> 
> D



Well, Daryl, you and I generally agree on valuing the old ways, so I don't think we are really that far apart. 

I have to differ gently with you, however, when you write that you "don't think anyone is trying to censure or reject" composers who don't read notation. cmillar scolded people who are "too lazy" to learn "proper" notation. amordechai warns against those who "champion the cause of musical illiteracy." You yourself wrote, "stop being lazy."

It's not all laziness, at least in media. It's many things, including insane deadlines. Editors never lock picture anymore, so the exercise of "proper" orchestration just can't always be managed. I have heard that on some very big budget productions the composers are now simply writing 20-30 minutes of music, recording the live bits, and handing the stems over to music editors who really create the score. (not sure quite how that's directly relevant, but it's emblematic of the impossibility of keeping up with all the picture edits, wild dialogue lines thrown in, and so on).

I don't quite see how it bears on the notation question but anyway, I have, as you wrote, rejected many musical ideas that I am 100% sure would sound great played live, because they sound feeble or ineffective in sample-land. But that's because of the media landscape in which I work and the limitations of samples to execute everything one would wish. 

In my world, in order to coax the guys with the money into hiring live players / orchestras, one has to demonstrate one's wares. Unfortunately, while there are exceptions, in general producers can't really hear past the demo. If the demo is just not that great, they want you to try again.

Of course, if one is not going to get an orchestra, then the inability of samples and synths to be effective is definitive.

Out of ego and vanity I suppose, I can't help feeling somewhat superior to those who can't hear past a mockup, let alone read my score and imagine what it will sound like, but it's an impediment to getting my hands on an orchestra.

I just bought "Harmonielehre" to study, because I'm reading John Adams' autobiography and I want to get further inside what he does. Naturally, understanding notation is important for that exercise so I'm really glad I had the training. 

But I've played with plenty of musicians who can blow my doors off in performance who can't read well, if at all, and there are lots of guys out there getting jobs I'd love who don't know what I know about orchestration for traditional instruments. I know -- I've worked for some of them!


----------



## Daryl

JohnG @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> Daryl @ 7th October 2014 said:
> 
> 
> 
> John, I don't think that anyone is trying to censure or reject composers who can't, or choose not to use notation, but the leap from that to saying nation is unnecessary is far too great a leap, IMO. I also remember you saying that you had rejected numerous musical ideas over the years because you couldn't do them successfully with samples. In those cases a MIDI file would be pretty much meaningless.
> 
> D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Daryl, you and I generally agree on valuing the old ways, so I don't think we are really that far apart.
> 
> I have to differ gently with you, however, when you write that you "don't think anyone is trying to censure or reject" composers who don't read notation. cmillar scolded people who are "too lazy" to learn "proper" notation. amordechai warns against those who "champion the cause of musical illiteracy." You yourself wrote, "stop being lazy."
Click to expand...

Yes, but on my part that was a specific point. In any case I think that letting people think that notation is optional when studying is closing far too many doors too early, IMO. I will always be employable, as long as people want to hear orchestras. There are gazillions of would be composers out there who are risking having to get a proper job, simply because they don't have skills, other than noodling about with a sample library. FWIW I am equally harsh towards universities that frown on commercial music and computer skills. Both sides need to be studied in order to ensure lifelong employment, as far as I'm concerned.

D


----------



## JohnG

Fair points, Daryl -- enjoyed going over it.


----------



## Rob

artur @ 7th October 2014 said:


> Rob @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> here are two representations of the same musical material, which one gives more information about the music? (sorry for the low quality, but you get the idea)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Rob
> Why not include controler lane curves eg for articulations and why not colour code sections/instruments ?
> 
> U can notate exact articulation curves not just eg crescendo, ppp, mf etc
> So this is more info and easier to write/read
> 
> 
> Also in key editor you can switch between sections/instruments interactively which gives instant info on doublings and or orcheastration so you can analize any piece much faster
Click to expand...


Well, I don't want to convince you, but to me notation is far more efficent in presenting the important info about the score... I could add colors and controller lanes, but I'd end with a congested screen with lots of irrelevant information. Of course, if I'm preparing a mockup I'll watch carefully all the cc curves etc, but that's a different kind of job. And, personally, I see a value in tracing music signs on a paper by hand... I get much more creative and the mental processes activated are different than when playing in the daw. Again, this is my personal preference...


----------



## Daryl

JohnG @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> Fair points, Daryl -- enjoyed going over it.


Funnily enough I've been going over all this sort of stuff myself recently, as I'm now doing some Uni lecturing, but on courses where notation is not the be all and end all of everything, so the advantages and drawbacks are foremost in my mind.

D


----------



## dcoscina

I agree with John on several points. If I were doing music for a living and working in film, DAWs would be a natural tool to use because of the logistics that are endemic to this field now. 

Concert composers have a bit more luxury of time (unless they procrastinate on a commission until the last couple weeks) and hence can utilize a notation program or traditional paper and pencil. Plus, they know they are getting real humans to perform. 

Truthfully and JN Howard raised this in a 2000 KEYBOARD interview, trying to write for samples in the manner of writing for real musicians doesn't often yield the best quality music because humans can do things with their instrument that samples still cannot do. 

So it isn't as cut and dried a topic as one might assume. I use the piano roll more in DAWs than the notation editor but generally start off a piece in Notion which is notation-based.


----------



## artur

cmillar @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cmillar @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, 'Music notation will outlast us all.'
> 
> And, ignorance is NOT bliss.
> 
> Let's cut to the chase..... a lot of people are too lazy to put in the time to learn what proper musical notation is.
> 
> We shouldn't be celebrating the fact that some people think that there is no need for being able to read music when needed.
> 
> That's all just a 'cop-out'.
> 
> This is a wonderful time in human history for creators/composers of music!
> 
> We should all be celebrating that there is so much to learn! (....whether it be hokw to read music or how to use our amazing software!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proper music notation is midi, lets face it
> Lets spend time learning useful skills, life is too short
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If one has the 'luxury' of only working by oneself with your computer (or if you only want to work by yourself and never have the need to work with other musicians, who will most likely be players who you might want to read and record your music), then sure.... you might consider having to learn music notation a burden.
> 
> But, if you ever want to interact with musicians who do know how to read music and understand traditional notation, then you better have a clue as to what's going on... or, have some very patient and good friends who you can hire to help you out.
> 
> That's all I'm getting at... this is a great time to learn all that we can about music.
> 
> Why limit yourself?
Click to expand...


With eg. Cubase you can easily convert your midi into a traditional notation for musicians to play etc.

Also This way you can remove what they dont need as traditional notation = less data


----------



## artur

Rob @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> artur @ 7th October 2014 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> here are two representations of the same musical material, which one gives more information about the music? (sorry for the low quality, but you get the idea)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Rob
> Why not include controler lane curves eg for articulations and why not colour code sections/instruments ?
> 
> U can notate exact articulation curves not just eg crescendo, ppp, mf etc
> So this is more info and easier to write/read
> 
> 
> Also in key editor you can switch between sections/instruments interactively which gives instant info on doublings and or orcheastration so you can analize any piece much faster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't want to convince you, but to me notation is far more efficent in presenting the important info about the score... I could add colors and controller lanes, but I'd end with a congested screen with lots of irrelevant information. Of course, if I'm preparing a mockup I'll watch carefully all the cc curves etc, but that's a different kind of job. And, personally, I see a value in tracing music signs on a paper by hand... I get much more creative and the mental processes activated are different than when playing in the daw. Again, this is my personal preference...
Click to expand...


Fair enough. When composing with a pencil for years you get used to this process but also you could well pencil boxes/curvrs on a grid on paper and after few years this process could feel similarly familiar presumably?

In key editor you can easily show/hide/filter info you need to see
Or printout = no data overload problem


----------



## Daryl

artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> With eg. Cubase you can easily convert your midi into a traditional notation for musicians to play etc.


However, if you don't understand notation this is no good.

D


----------



## AlexandreSafi

In the world of composition, Yes
In the world of instrumentalists, No, ever!

All tools are to be respected, they are all highly valuable, but i think the most troubling and too frequent case is that computers & samples are now employed as a replacement & excuse for not reading music, not playing an instrument, a cause for less studying, and the biggest one being the replacement of the imagination... All of which, i think, are all probably based on the modern belief that music itself, because it's everywhere, is just something that you just "express", can make money with, but need not study, unlike science or literature...


----------



## rayinstirling

Daryl @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> rayinstirling @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when was composing ever notation based?
> I've always thought of notation being a way of recording an abbreviation of the music to be played so as it can be repeated. I say abbreviation because unless it is marked to the degree that it's hard to see clean paper, the result from reading it will still depend on personal input from the performer.
> What is music? It is something we hear whether directly from instruments, played back from speakers or simply something in out head. I'm sure it came first and notation followed.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is correct. Just the same as the written word came after collective aural memory.
> 
> The beauty of notation is that it is partly based upon historical experience. Whilst there are differences in interpretation, players have all been through the Western repertoire, and therefore have a sort of universal understanding of how to read this notated shorthand. Without this understanding, things could sound very different. In fact, even with this understanding there can be huge variations on how things are played. Just listen to Prokofieff playing Mozart...!
> 
> D
Click to expand...

Yes, I take your points as I agree with them. I have nothing against the use of notation. My comment was more fundamental in asking whether studying and using notation creates better compositional ideas. I would suggest that for most, studying scores of everything done before just increases one's chances of creating good or even great parody and not necessarily something fresh and different enough to stand above the crowd.


----------



## germancomponist

Notation will never die! As long as musicians will or have to play together, like orchestras e.t.c. .


----------



## Daryl

rayinstirling @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> I would suggest that for most, studying scores of everything done before just increases one's chances of creating good or even great parody and not necessarily something fresh and different enough to stand above the crowd.


In my experience people who don't study scores usually end up re-inventing the wheel. Badly. Of course I'm only talking about genres where music is normally notated.

D


----------



## rayinstirling

Daryl @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> In my experience people who don't study scores usually end up re-inventing the wheel. Badly. Of course I'm only talking about genres where music is normally notated.
> 
> D


But there is no need for that surely?
Someone with great ideas but little understanding of notation only need collaborate with an orchestrator. It's a given, certainly in my lifetime, that any named composer/song writer receives and uses ideas from those around the process of creating and recording music without them ever being publicly credited for the input. A home studio can be a bubble but it doesn't have to be that way.


----------



## Synesthesia

artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> Rob @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> artur @ 7th October 2014 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> here are two representations of the same musical material, which one gives more information about the music? (sorry for the low quality, but you get the idea)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Rob
> Why not include controler lane curves eg for articulations and why not colour code sections/instruments ?
> 
> U can notate exact articulation curves not just eg crescendo, ppp, mf etc
> So this is more info and easier to write/read
> 
> 
> Also in key editor you can switch between sections/instruments interactively which gives instant info on doublings and or orcheastration so you can analize any piece much faster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't want to convince you, but to me notation is far more efficent in presenting the important info about the score... I could add colors and controller lanes, but I'd end with a congested screen with lots of irrelevant information. Of course, if I'm preparing a mockup I'll watch carefully all the cc curves etc, but that's a different kind of job. And, personally, I see a value in tracing music signs on a paper by hand... I get much more creative and the mental processes activated are different than when playing in the daw. Again, this is my personal preference...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough. When composing with a pencil for years you get used to this process but also you could well pencil boxes/curvrs on a grid on paper and after few years this process could feel similarly familiar presumably?
> 
> In key editor you can easily show/hide/filter info you need to see
> Or printout = no data overload problem
Click to expand...


Artur, it seems you are after the most precision in notation. However, imho, the magic *always* comes from inviting another person's creative soul into your music, and trad notation is a wonderful way to achieve this as it has an element of imprecision built in.

Firstly when you notate you indicate your intention, and then the player can interpret your intention in the context of the rest of the parts/composition and their own musical taste.

The whole then becomes much greater than the sum of the parts.


----------



## murrthecat

Rob @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> And, personally, I see a value in tracing music signs on a paper by hand... I get much more creative and the mental processes activated are different than when playing in the daw. Again, this is my personal preference...



I am with you Rob on this, as I believe each 'technology' leaves traces of its use on the music created using that technology. And I even like the feeling of having a pencil in my hand and 'draw' the music on the empty score. Another aspect is that I don't find computer monitors good for me to design the 'form', the 'arch' of a piece, especially if it is a longer form.

At the same time, in some styles there are things are that cannot be notated. I am thinking about jazz of course, as you know very well but also the electronic elements used in contemporary music. 

How do you notate some of those elements? Probably you don't, you just record them or play them. In this case, as with oral traditions, the recording might be the most faithful representation of that music.

On another level, it is wonderful to leave some of these 'uncertainties', if controlled, and get a feedback from the performers, both technically and emotionally. 

Baroque music is another type of notation that leaves plenty of responsibility to the performer.


----------



## Daryl

rayinstirling @ Wed Oct 08 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience people who don't study scores usually end up re-inventing the wheel. Badly. Of course I'm only talking about genres where music is normally notated.
> 
> D
> 
> 
> 
> But there is no need for that surely?
> Someone with great ideas but little understanding of notation only need collaborate with an orchestrator. It's a given, certainly in my lifetime, that any named composer/song writer receives and uses ideas from those around the process of creating and recording music without them ever being publicly credited for the input. A home studio can be a bubble but it doesn't have to be that way.
Click to expand...

Most of these "great ideas" are re-inventing the wheel. Again, I can only speak from my experience. There are exceptions; people who listen to lots of music and take the trouble to dissect them aurally, but they are exceptions.

D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Again again again, David Story said it all in the first post after the one that started this thread: sequencing and notation are complementary techniques.

JohnG wrote:



> So notation is far from complete.



As are Newtonian physics and General Relativity!

To me Rob's posts showing the score and piano roll are the perfect BOOM. And there you have it.


----------



## JohnG

I'm not quite following you, Nick


----------



## SaintDufus

JohnG @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> SaintDufus @ 5th October 2014 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no major reason to lovingly notate music if it's not going to be played by a live musician."
> 
> As one who finds pleasure in the act of composing into a scoresheet, I must respectfully disagree with this point of view. For me the process of notating often feels analogous to that of a painter, slowly and patiently applying a nuanced brush-stroke here or there, in his/her quest for beauty or artistic mastery. Often I find myself hunched over, peering closely at the score, searching for the exact place where I know I need to change the MP to a MF, or lengthen a note by a fraction, or some other bit of minutiae.
> 
> This level of focus and attention to detail feels like a cross between art and Zen to me. It's highly enjoyable and gratifying--even if it has no pragmatic benefit in the commercial arena.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi SaintD,
> 
> One of the guys I sing with also composes, and he pretty much said the same thing as you when last I saw him. He also does engraving professionally now and then, so he's deeply into it. An amazing singer and musician as well.
> 
> While at one level I am sympathetic to the Zen / art of almost any activity one could imagine, I'm kind of tired of this particular exercise, myself. I started out hand writing scores, using those special pens final scores that draw exactly the same width line every time -- what a pain those were -- and even though I bought Finale 1.0 as soon as it came out, I kept up with pencil and paper for a long time, well into the mid / late 1990s.
> 
> For me, the thrill is gone.
> 
> I still use Finale or Sibelius when I have live players, and I have a screen open to the notation window in DP while I'm working, but the days when I spent a lot of time getting the curve of every slur just so -- not only because it is clearer to the player but because I just wanted it that way -- are over. It still has to be perfect -- the mp and mf have to be just where they belong -- but it's just a chore for me.
Click to expand...


I understand where you're coming from, John. Each person has their own unique experience, their own reasons why they feel one way or another. 

That's what makes this discussion (and this community) so interesting to me: the broad spectrum of experience and opinion.


----------



## SaintDufus

Daryl @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> artur @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what would people use to play music from then? If you need to learn to read music, then just do it. Stop being lazy.
> 
> Score reading is a skill, like any other. It is far easier to read a full score than a MIDI editor.
Click to expand...


I agree with you, Daryl...but who knows, maybe if I didn't know how to read music, I'd be more likely to take the other side.

One thing I will say: just because something is "hard" or "inconvenient," I don't think that's a good enough reason not to do it. Indeed, often the challenge of learning something new makes it *more* worthwhile. 

Every skill worth learning is challenging at first: that's part of the learning/growing process.


----------



## SaintDufus

amordechai @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> I repeat, I do not want to discredit those people. My issue is when those people start to champion the cause of musical illiteracy.
> 
> - A.



I agree, amordechai.

MIDI is a fantastic innovation, and many MIDI composers do amazing work.

But that doesn't mean we should abolish notation, any more than the invention of the automobile meant we had to abolish horseback riding.

I think we should preserve the art and craft of notation, so that we don't lose this beautiful tradition--a tradition which, after all, links us to the likes of Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, and all the other genius composers whose shoulders we stand on.


----------



## SaintDufus

Daryl @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> rayinstirling @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that for most, studying scores of everything done before just increases one's chances of creating good or even great parody and not necessarily something fresh and different enough to stand above the crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience people who don't study scores usually end up re-inventing the wheel. Badly. Of course I'm only talking about genres where music is normally notated.
> 
> D
Click to expand...


This point (which has also been made by others here) is perhaps one of the strongest arguments in favor of notation.

Currently I'm reading books by Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and Rimsky-Korsakov. All three books are replete with copious notated examples, which elucidate the instructions in the text.

Without knowing how to read music, a reader would perhaps get a 60% understanding of these books--and that might be a generous estimate.

If someone responds "Why do I need to read a book by Beethoven?" then I would echo Daryl's point above, about reinventing the wheel; but such a question strikes me as a form of denial more than a legitimate point.

A similar argument can be made for studying a John Williams score--which anyone here who has had the pleasure of doing so can attest is a highly illuminating experience. No amount of MIDI expertise will help you understand how the Maestro did what he did. You can try to figure it out by ear (admittedly a useful exercise), but you'll never fully understand how he did it.


----------



## almound

I think the conversation is similar to those who insist print media is passe' now that TV/video is here. (Were there conjectures that talking would become a lost art once writing became commonplace?) There are strengths and weaknesses to *both* visual and auditory communication. 

Notation is a "language" of sorts (in that it is a common means of communication). It is much more convenient for non-linear assessment; one just flips the "pages" be they electronic or printed. The format lends itself to such useful research activities as concordancing, indexing, and parenthetical reference. For better or worse, notation provides categorizable records that can be easily found a long time after being filed, and so replaced oral tradition. Corporations, law courts, and music for many players in lengthy formats (i.e symphonies, opera) require notation to realize their function.

Audiovisual files are also a "language" (in that it is a common means of communication). It is capable of conveying the content of a score as concrete information, i.e sound and/or images. The format lends itself to representations that reproduce reality with immediacy, which lends itself to sonic/visual realizations of abstract symbols, and to conveying non-referential intentions (i.e instructions how to drive, for instance, or how to phrase a melodic line). Pantomime and plays were much more important than writing at one point. Policing, air traffic control, and audiovisual displays involving remote locations and/or many actors in lengthy formats (i.e movies, television series) require the manipulation of audiovisual files to realize their function.

Literature expanded widely due to its convenience (as mentioned above). Audiovisual files are expanding widely due to their convenience. 

I find that I can't do without either. My audience will be pretty limited if I expect them to be able to read an orchestral score and hear it in their head as though they were listening to a performance. And likewise, I have no hope of my music being given the sensitive "reading" of professional musicians if I don't produce a competent score. 

At least today there is an alternative to the politics and the hit-or-miss chance of a live performance that used to be the lot of even famous musicians. Now all it takes is money, an intimate knowledge of computers (or more money), and the time to overcome the inarticulate manuals and quirky interfaces of the software, hardware, and instrument samples required to do MIDI mock-up. (And no amount of money seems capable of overcoming this point.)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I have no idea what I was thinking when I wrote that either, John.

(He says as if eight months hadn't passed.)

I think what I was getting at is that notation's imprecision is a feature, not a bug - it leaves a lot to interpretation.


----------



## JJP

Anyone who says notation is dead or passé doesn't fully understand what notation is or why it is useful.

Notation is a language for communicating music with others. It's able to convey large amounts of musical information faster than real-time. That's why it's an essential skill for working with other performing musicians. It's remarkably efficient.

Just as you can read a book faster than you can speak the words or listen to a recording of them, you can read notation much faster than it is played in real time or on a recording. Music notation works for performers because they can read faster than they can play. It works for analysis because you can convey all the simultaneous information on a single page in a unified system.

If you don't know notation and you want to work with people who perform music, you'll have to hire someone who does. It's not going away anytime soon because there is no better system to replace it.


----------



## David Story

Well said!


----------



## InLight-Tone

I agree notation has it's place but in the modern world it doesn't convey timbre and such at all when working with synths and such. 

That being said, the piano roll with controller information and keyswitches is a much more complete description of the timbre that will come out. Working with note information only, is missing half of the picture unless you only want to compose for real world players and instruments.

Most importantly, we really should not be riding horses anymore, a mountain bike is far better for you and said horse...


----------



## Daryl

InLight-Tone said:


> That being said, the piano roll with controller information and keyswitches is a much more complete description of the timbre that will come out. Working with note information only, is missing half of the picture unless you only want to compose for real world players and instruments.


Actually that's quite not the case. Without the actual synth used being present, and detailed knowledge of what the controllers actually do, the Piano Roll is equally useless. 

D


----------



## neblix

InLight-Tone said:


> I agree notation has it's place but in the modern world it doesn't convey timbre and such at all when working with synths and such.



Neither does MIDI. MIDI is a computer information language and doesn't have any facilities in it to describe sound. There is no existing method to describe actual timbre other than pure audio recordings.



InLight-Tone said:


> That being said, the piano roll with controller information and keyswitches is a much more complete description of the timbre that will come out. Working with note information only, is missing half of the picture unless you only want to compose for real world players and instruments.



(I'm going to preface this with a clarification; I am talking about communicating and describing music here, not optimizing instructions for the computer playback. Of course notation isn't used for mock-up creation, but I'm talking about reading a score vs. reading the piano roll and being able to imagine what something sounds like.)

The piano roll, controller information, and keyswitches have nothing to do with the timbre that comes out. If I screen shotted a piano roll for you complete with keyswitches and controller information, you'd have no idea which controller corresponds to what function in the virtual instrument, nor would you know which keyswitch corresponds to which articulation (nor would you know if a keyswitch even is going to an articulation or some other parameter). You wouldn't even know if my DAW was transposing the MIDI by a perfect 5th before sending it to Kontakt.

Consequently, if I showed you a score, you could gather exactly what the performance sounds like, because of articulation markings, slurs, pp/p/mp/mf/f/ff markings, trills, etc.

Saying controller information and keyswitches are part of "the picture" is inappropriate. They're programmatic, generic methods that carry absolutely no meaning until they are hooked into a synth or sampler. CC numbers vary wildly by library, some of them even invert the mod wheel function, not to mention every synthesizer is completely user mappable, so you're more likely to have absolutely no clue what CC is doing what if you open up someone else's DAW. Keyswitches are freely mappable as well in newer libraries, and no one organizes the order of articulations the same, nor do they always include the same amount of types.

Some libraries have legato speed linked into note velocity, others have note length (stacc half/quarter/eighth).

The list goes on. I could basically write an entire MIDI performance that sounds nothing like what it looks like using clever programming. This is because MIDI is digital information that has no standardized meaning. Notation has standardized meaning, and when the hundreds of markings are not enough, composers will just write real words in the margin to convey their meaning.

MIDI hardly describes timbre if it can't even reliably describe notes or their durations.



InLight-Tone said:


> Most importantly, we really should not be riding horses anymore, a mountain bike is far better for you and said horse...



Riding horses is fun, educational, and physically rewarding. Travel efficiency isn't always the game we're trying to play.


----------



## dsmo

It all depends on why you write music. If you just want people to hear your music, all you need is a daw. Notes don't have to enter into it, if the end result you're after is pure sound as realized by a computer. But if you want live musicians to perform your work, of course you need it to be notated (and the music needs to be playable, of course). But even if you're in the first category, It's not a bad idea to have a score. That way, your music has more chances of being performed. Notation will never die out, because the history of classical music is so rich, so much a part of our culture, that people will not allow it to die. There will always be a market for real musicians playing in an orchestra. And musicians will always need scores to play from. As long as people are not genetically modified to prefer robots performing and composing music, notation will be there.


----------



## almound

And so we need MIDI updated!

Oh wait, ... uh, nobody is going to do that. Its too old for one thing (45 years?). Nobody can agree on a format, for another. Hmmmm, I doubt whether MIDI would be much improved even by doubling CC numbers to 256. It didn't do much for the character table format known as ASCII, and there would need to be sooooo many more numbers were MIDI to include the potential to encode timbre.

Its nice to day-dream, but as far as I can see we have to work with what we've got. I'm using a notation program as a front-end for my sequencer to avoid quantization issues and my crappy keyboard technique. With a bit of patience, I find that I can write (and read) musical notation that a machine can use to recreate a performance the way some live musician would play it, complete with such moods as "swing" and "bop" (ala' Frank Zappa). Rather than work the piano roll tool, I write the nuanced rhythms and pitches in a notation program.

For the complaining live musician who balks at the complexity, the notation program will simplify what I write automatically or else I just write it and then afix the little moniker "swing" to the upper left-hand corner. Can't think what might help with the timbre issue, though, other than by some miracle the music industry gets their act together.


----------

