# The Notated Score



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 1, 2017)

I am asked occasionally why I don't put phrasing, bowing, breathing and dynamic markings in my scores. For a long time I did. But then I realized I am creating music that is realized via computer technology and MIDI, there are seldom live players involved. Since I embed all of the above information profusely in the MIDI sequence, it is redundant to include them in the score. Occasionally, when I publish a piece for live players, I add all of the necessary markings that players require. 

Do other composers do things differently or similarly? 

When we look at a score from Bach's time, we see there are no dynamic, bowing, breathing or phrasing markings. These symbols were communicated verbally during rehearsals. 

Though my scores might seem "incomplete", for my purposes they are as complete as they need to be. The amount of time I spend sequencing dynamics, phrasing, attack and release times, articulations and patch changes caused me to eventually understand that adding that information into the score is only necessary if live players are to be involved. 

The score serves to help me find mistakes and correct them, it serves as a visual means to aid in my teaching practice and it also allows me, at a later date if I want to, get a live performance if that is what I want. 

Does this make sense?

Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com


----------



## dcoscina (Jun 1, 2017)

If I'm composing something in Notion, I do put all traditional indications in. Just a habit and the eternal hope that the piece will get performed one day. If I'm directly composing into a DAW then no. Unless of course I have a chance to get the mock up performed I. Which case I have the laborious task of importing the midi file into Sibelius and doing a lot of tweaking.


----------



## Jaap (Jun 1, 2017)

A bit the same here. My commercial music is mainly sample based and the final result is that what comes out of the computer and I don't add any musical markings at all (often I don't even make a score anymore).
I tend to do my sketching and idea generation moments though 90% of the time still with pen and paper and I add markings there for my own sake when I start to work with it later.

I also have now and then commisions for my classical work and then of course I go all the way with the markings and deliver a complete score with everything on it.


----------



## Tatu (Jun 1, 2017)

I wondered that, because after all it's a part of a Symphony, so I assumed you'd care to craft it fully on paper, wether it's meant to be performed live or not. I believe it should be a natural part of the passion of writing and to be honest, it devalues your work in my eyes, because I have to ask; "As complete as it needs to be" - Does he even care about his own work, especially on a symphonic scale?

Comparing this (your 9th) to classical era works doesn't really seem justified, since the world - and compositions and performing techniques - have changed quite a bit. You could've left out instrument names as well then.


----------



## Saxer (Jun 1, 2017)

I only make scores when I compose for live players. For pure mockups I work in the DAW and sometimes paper and pencil. But the live players get every marking they need (style, tempo, articulations, ties, dynamics).


----------



## fixxer49 (Jun 1, 2017)

As an assistant, most of my work will end up going to a live orchestra. I rarely – if ever - use dynamic markings. In fact, nowadays I basically just turn in heavily quantized MIDI files. (The orchestrator’s preference.)


----------



## mverta (Jun 1, 2017)

The difference between a phrase and a phrase marked with a slur is night and day. We are free to let orchestrators and other people make guesses about what we intend by listening to our mock-up approximations, but this is more work, unnecessarily obtuse, and will lead to errors. Correcting things on the dubbing stage which might've been clarified with a pencil mark is amateur and disrespectful to the production. If our work will never appear in front of live players, I suppose we're free to do anything we wish, though personally I don't write dynamic marks and articulations merely for players, but for myself, as they are an integral part of the intent of the music. I cn wrt wrds wtht vwls nd ppl cn stll rd thm, bt I pt thm n nywy. I like to stay in the habit of being a competent, literate, clear communicator.


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 1, 2017)

Tatu said:


> I wondered that, because after all it's a part of a Symphony, so I assumed you'd care to craft it fully on paper, wether it's meant to be performed live or not. I believe it should be a natural part of the passion of writing and to be honest, it devalues your work in my eyes, because I have to ask; "As complete as it needs to be" - Does he even care about his own work, especially on a symphonic scale?
> 
> Comparing this (your 9th) to classical era works doesn't really seem justified, since the world - and compositions and performing techniques - have changed quite a bit. You could've left out instrument names as well then.



It seems a bit anal retentive to labor over something that doesn't add one whit to the final outcome of the recording. For me the difference is simple and obvious: There are no players. No players means no instructions to the players.


----------



## pmcrockett (Jun 1, 2017)

I write performance markings even when the score is only for a mockup. If I try to handle these interpretive aspects only during the recording/editing stage, I'll have forgotten what I originally wanted and also run the risk of making conflicting decisions that I may not catch in the moment (e.g. different phrasing in a doubled or repeated line).


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 1, 2017)

mverta said:


> The difference between a phrase and a phrase marked with a slur is night and day. We are free to let orchestrators and other people make guesses about what we intend by listening to our mock-up approximations, but this is more work, unnecessarily obtuse, and will lead to errors. Correcting things on the dubbing stage which might've been clarified with a pencil mark is amateur and disrespectful to the production. If our work will never appear in front of live players, I suppose we're free to do anything we wish, though personally I don't write dynamic marks and articulations merely for players, but for myself, as they are an integral part of the intent of the music. I cn wrt wrds wtht vwls nd ppl cn stll rd thm, bt I pt thm n nywy. I like to stay in the habit of being a competent, literate, clear communicator.



Mike Verta wrote:
"The difference between a phrase and a phrase marked with a slur is night and day."

This is ONLY true when using live players. When I sequence and take care with note lengths, velocities, location relative to the beat, attack and release times, articulation and sample-set, I am, in essence, creating phrasing. You can hear it. that's what good sequencing is all about. 

My recordings are not "mockups". They are not substitutions for anything. There is no "dubbing stage" as I left soundtrack work years ago and have no need to write mf, mp, fff, etc. for myself just to prove I know what I am doing. As I said in my first post, _the intent of the music via dynamics, phrasing, articulation, bowing, etc. is all there_, but it's in the MIDI sequence rather than the score. I've given workshops at NAMM and elsewhere and know I am a competent, literate, and clear communicator. Ask any of my students about that...

Being a slave to tradition is not my thing. When I write a concerto for a real player of course I add all the necessary markings. But since my medium is electronic there is no reason to do that in terms of how the recording sounds. If it made even the slightest difference in terms of the final outcome I would have a different approach. "That's the way it's been done in the past" is not good enough for me, there's got to be a reason that makes sense.

Jerry Gerber
www.jerrygerber.com


----------



## Tatu (Jun 1, 2017)

Yes, because tradition and because we don't live in the 17th or 18th century anymore - like I already said; a lot have changed in the orchestral world since then. We even have vibrato now.

I understand why you leave that stuff out (like most midi people do), it just seems unpassionate work as such to me.


----------



## mverta (Jun 1, 2017)

Jerry, as I said, if it's just for us and there are no live players/the sequence is the final thing, who gives a f what you do? I think the confusion arose when you said that you don't include markings "in the score." What score? Are you saying you sequence and that's the thing, but you _also_ make a score, but for nobody, so you don't mark it up? Perhaps I'm failing to understand the point you're making, but it seemed you asked us what we do. If it's: "I make a score for my sequences but don't mark them up because nobody will see them, but if I write for players I do mark them up. How about you?" Then I think that's been answered. If I bother to make a score at all, it's marked, to stay in the habit and because I find it useful. But you don't. So what? Different strokes. No?


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 1, 2017)

Tatu said:


> Yes, because tradition and because we don't live in the 17th or 18th century anymore - like I already said; a lot have changed in the orchestral world since then. We even have vibrato now.
> 
> I understand why you leave that stuff out (like most midi people do), it just seems unpassionate work as such to me.



Calling me "unpassionate" (which isn't even a word, it's _dispassionate_) makes me laugh.


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 1, 2017)

mverta said:


> Jerry, as I said, if it's just for us and there are no live players/the sequence is the final thing, who gives a f what you do? I think the confusion arose when you said that you don't include markings "in the score." What score? Are you saying you sequence and that's the thing, but you _also_ make a score, but for nobody, so you don't mark it up? Perhaps I'm failing to understand the point you're making, but it seemed you asked us what we do. If it's: "I make a score for my sequences but don't mark them up because nobody will see them, but if I write for players I do mark them up. How about you?" Then I think that's been answered. If I bother to make a score at all, it's marked, to stay in the habit and because I find it useful. But you don't. So what? Different strokes. No?



I compose in my DAW, not in Sibelius or on paper. I spend thousands of hours sequencing phrases meticulously and when I finished with a piece or a movement I export to Sibelius and create the score. I do this because in creating the score I correct mistakes that I have overlooked and I also use it to clarify ideas. I also use the score when I teach and do workshops to better explain to my students details regarding composition and orchestration. In essence, the score has evolved over the years to serve a different purpose other than communicating precisely to players. I still find creating a score useful, but for what I am doing now, it is totally redundant to add markings which tell the player how to play a given passage. But the score still has value to me as a composer, so I continue to do it. The only time I do not create a score is if I am only writing for softsynths.

Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com


----------



## mverta (Jun 1, 2017)

jsg said:


> I still find creating a score useful, but for what I am doing now, it is totally redundant to add markings which tell the player how to play a given passage. But the score still has value to me as a composer, so I continue to do it. The only time I do not create a score is if I am only writing for softsynths.
> 
> Jerry
> www.jerrygerber.com



And? I mean, that's great. Sometimes I do this, too. And then you asked, "Do other composers do things differently or similarly?" And the answer, so far, is: Both. So far so good.


----------



## dcoscina (Jun 1, 2017)

I studied a lot of Mahler in university and became anal retentive since then when I'm composing in notation to put as much as possible. The rare opportunities I've had with live musicians has benefitted from them having clear instructions with which to play my music. If I'm printing anything out, it gets everything.

I'm having a mess of a time now because I started sketching out a work using Cubase and sample libraries but have gotten such good feedback that I have to adapt it into a written playable score in Sibelius- which will take some work since I used OT Metropolis Ark I & II and Spitfire Phalynx horns that contain such huge resources that a local orchestra could not summon- good one, eh?.


----------



## Tatu (Jun 1, 2017)

jsg said:


> Calling me "unpassionate" (which isn't even a word, it's _dispassionate_) makes me laugh.


Alrighty then. I shall just say that "the end product matches the written documentation.".

Putting some "life" to paper could help sort out whatever shortcomings come from a midi performance, but if that's the kind of "symphonies" you prefer to write, then go for it.


----------



## mverta (Jun 1, 2017)

Tatu said:


> Alrighty then. I shall just say that "the end product matches the written documentation.".
> 
> Putting some "life" to paper could help sort out whatever shortcomings come from a midi performance, but if that's the kind of "symphonies" you prefer to write, then go for it.



I think you may be conflating some issues. I didn't see him complaining about shortcomings in his MIDI performances (after thousands of hours, I would sort of hope not!), just that people ask him why the scores he makes from the MIDI don't have markings in them. The reason, he's said, is that his scores are essentially just error-checking-devices; not a source of performance for any live players, so he doesn't see the point. That's his process. Some of us do it differently. For some of us, markings help us get clarity and "error-check," and we like to stay in the habit of thinking like and about live players, so we mark our scores no matter what. It seems to me it doesn't matter either way as these are individual preferences and choices. What he sees as a waste of time I see as indispensable. But who cares? Different strokes...


----------



## desert (Jun 1, 2017)

I was always taught to write as if someone would play the piece someday. If I'm notating my music, I'm writing in EVERYTHING.

Hope this answers your question because it seems like you are, once again, taking opinions personal...


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 1, 2017)

mverta said:


> I think you may be conflating some issues. I didn't see him complaining about shortcomings in his MIDI performances (after thousands of hours, I would sort of hope not!), just that people ask him why the scores he makes from the MIDI don't have markings in them. The reason, he's said, is that his scores are essentially just error-checking-devices; not a source of performance for any live players, so he doesn't see the point. That's his process. Some of us do it differently. For some of us, markings help us get clarity and "error-check," and we like to stay in the habit of thinking like and about live players, so we mark our scores no matter what. It seems to me it doesn't matter either way as these are individual preferences and choices. What he sees as a waste of time I see as indispensable. But who cares? Different strokes...



On the contrary, you misunderstood what I said, a complete score is an absolute necessity in any commercial scoring session with live players or a live performance. I was trained that way and have written many pieces where I write out the bowing, dynamics, breathing/phrasing, articulation marks, slurs, etc. Since the composer I admire the most is Mahler, that should tell you something about how I value a score complete with such detail. But if one really understands (and accepts) the computer-based medium of the virtual orchestra, it is obvious that this information, conveyed visually in a score, is the same information that is input into a MIDI sequence in the form of controllers for attack and release, velocity, note length, note position relative to the beat, sample-set and articulations within sample-sets. I call these various parameters "phrase-shaping". When the MIDI-based recording is an artistic end in itself, the written symbols in the score that tell players not what to play, but how to play it, are not important, but _the meaning they represent is of paramount importance_. The composer conveys to the computer _how_ to play a note in the sequence, just as a notated symbol conveys that information to a player. 

One person said he could not relate to the symphonic movement I posted (although he liked what he heard, so he said) because the "score was incomplete". What I hear him saying is that he doesn't understand the craft of the medium I work in. If he did, he would immediately hear that the details, the nuance, the expression, the dynamics, phrasing and accents are all there, but they are in the MIDI sequence, not the written score.

Another way to think of it is like this: When we give a part to a player, we are giving it to a sentient being, someone who knows what music *feels* like. But when we program a DAW, the computer doesn't feel anything at all. It plays the way it's programmed to play. Is this some kind of artistic treason? Not really. How about a camera, a photographer snaps a photo of a wedding, the two married people are joyous and kiss. Years later the photo evokes in the couple strong feelings, happy or sad, depending on how the intervening years unfold. But does the camera feel the scene? Does the camera know the meaning of what is transpiring? Does a paint brush feel the emotion an inspired and skilled painter is injecting onto the canvas? My point is that when approaching the issue of expression in computer-based orchestration, we have to be be aware that we are working in a new medium, comparisons with live orchestras and live players can only go so far before we are really in new territory. When I compose I work in SMN in the DAW's staff view. Notation is indispensable to my creative process, but _redundant symbolization of details that exist in the sound, sequence and recording is not. _

Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com


----------



## Tatu (Jun 1, 2017)

One big difference is that I look at it from a conservative point of view, when it comes to such deep and grand as a Symphony.

But I totally understand Jerry's approach. But still.. if you put thousands of hours in to thinking and doing and you know what happens where, then what would it take.. 5min/page at most to ad some flesh around those noty bones?

And with that you'd get another way to look/approach your work.


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 1, 2017)

Tatu said:


> Alrighty then. I shall just say that "the end product matches the written documentation.".
> 
> Putting some "life" to paper could help sort out whatever shortcomings come from a midi performance, but if that's the kind of "symphonies" you prefer to write, then go for it.



Aaron Copland commented about "paper music", music that looks really good on paper that sounds like crap. You seem to not know know very much about the craft of the medium I work in. You're making the score into a fetish, forgetting that music is first and foremost sound. A MIDI performance is not dependent upon a fully complete score, those same symbols, or rather what they represent, are programmed into the MIDI sequence: velocity, attack and release, note length, position of the note relative to the beat, sample-set and articulation within the sample-set--these ARE those written symbols you're obsessing about. The detail, the expression, the nuance and the intricacy is in the sound, in the recording and in the sequence, not in the score. Perhaps you see MIDI as a mockup for another medium and I do not, which explains what said at the opening of this paragraph, you don't seem to comprehend the craft of the medium I work in. I am trying to be helpful and not to offend anybody, I really am.


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 1, 2017)

Tatu said:


> One big difference is that I look at it from a conservative point of view, when it comes to such deep and grand as a Symphony.
> 
> But I totally understand Jerry's approach. But still.. if you put thousands of hours in to thinking and doing and you know what happens where, then what would it take.. 5min/page at most to ad some flesh around those noty bones?
> 
> And with that you'd get another way to look/approach your work.



The "flesh" is the SOUND, not the SCORE. Yes, you are definitely conservative. When Bob Dylan came out on stage with an electric guitar at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965, folk musicians were really angry with him, as though he betrayed some sacred tradition that electric guitars and folk music are wholly incompatible. Too bad they couldn't lighten up a bit...


----------



## Tatu (Jun 1, 2017)

jsg said:


> The detail, the expression, the nuance and the intricacy is in the sound


The problem is, that there's not that much of those said things in your sequence. It'd help to fool the brain a bit if there were some cresendos etc written on the score. I repeat: Putting some "life" to paper could help sort out whatever shortcomings come from a midi performance.


----------



## Tatu (Jun 1, 2017)

jsg said:


> You seem to not know know very much about the craft of the medium I work in.


When you put it like that, then I can surely comment from my narrow minded perspective of an average to no good listener, that your work - albeit it has some good sounding ideas - sounds like it was done by an enthusiastic young hobbyist, who got himself a Garritan SO Sibelius soundset.


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 1, 2017)

Tatu said:


> The problem is, that there's not that much of those said things in your sequence. It'd help to fool the brain a bit if there were some cresendos etc written on the score. I repeat: Putting some "life" to paper could help sort out whatever shortcomings come from a midi performance.



No there are, I put them there, I cannot be responsible for what you're not hearing. There are many crescendos and decrescendos all over my work, but you seem to be focused on the score, not the sound. Weird...


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Jun 1, 2017)

jsg said:


> You seem to not know know very much about the craft of the medium I work in.... Perhaps you see MIDI as a mockup for another medium and I do not, which explains what said at the opening of this paragraph, you don't seem to comprehend the craft of the medium I work in. I am trying to be helpful and not to offend anybody, I really am.



Hey Jerry,
While I understand everybody has different opinions I sometimes feel though I think you don´t do it intentionally, but sometimes I feel a slightly snobbish undertone in such comments which can take people of. Maybe I also don´t understand the craft of the medium you are working in quite right, but just let others their opinion without beeing a judge of their fundamentals, even if you think they might not come from your level of experience.


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 1, 2017)

Tatu said:


> When you put it like that, then I can surely comment from my narrow minded perspective of an average to no good listener, that your work - albeit it has some good sounding ideas - sounds like it was done by an enthusiastic young hobbyist, who got himself a Garritan SO Sibelius soundset.



Ooh! You're so kind, so observant, and so knowledgeable. Hmm, your lack of knowledge of sample libraries is showing...


----------



## Tatu (Jun 1, 2017)

jsg said:


> score, not the sound


No, I tried to give them both a chance and I can see/hear a theme and there's some development and that pulsing string accompaniment is something I really like (reminds me of some of the work by Sibelius, who often used staccattissimos on strings to keep things in motion). But the samples you're using don't seem to perhaps behave as they should. Especially the brass, which sounds quite bad (just commenting the samples, not the writing).


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 1, 2017)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Hey Jerry,
> While I understand everybodys has different opinion I sometimes feel though I think you don´t do it intentionally, but sometimes I feel a slightly snobbish undertone in such comments which can take people of. Maybe I also don´t understand the craft of the medium you are working in, but just let others their opinion without beeing a judge of their fundamentals, even if you think they might not come from your level of experience.



Alexander, I don't mean to come across arrogantly, I really work on it. But Tatu says to the effect "I cannot take your work seriously because you don't write out your dynamic markings, etc." that kind of sets me off. Why? Because a curious person, a serious person, an intelligent person, would ask me "So, why don't you write out dynamics and bowing in your scores? They'd ask before they judge, they'd inquire before they dismiss. People generally either can't, or won't do that, some do, but many do not. 

I admit I am not a great guy to have around a forum, I am much better with people in person and one-on-one. But I still try.


----------



## Tatu (Jun 1, 2017)

jsg said:


> So, why don't you write out dynamics and bowing in your scores?


You started this thread after I asked this very question.


----------



## Tatu (Jun 1, 2017)

jsg said:


> Hmm, your lack of knowledge of sample libraries is showing


Hahaha well that's true.


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 1, 2017)

Tatu said:


> You started this thread after I asked this very question.



If you read my reply to Mike you may discover that I have answered this, I've been explaining it clearly, I really have. I am trying not to be confrontational, to blow it off when you say I am not passionate about my work (anybody who has ever met me would know immediately what a false statement that is). I cannot be responsible for how others hear my work, but I know the expression, detail, phrasing and dynamics are all there. Perhaps my music just sounds different to you. Most people are most comfortable with the music they know well, not so much with unfamiliar work or work that is different.


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 1, 2017)

Tatu said:


> The problem is, that there's not that much of those said things in your sequence. It'd help to fool the brain a bit if there were some cresendos etc written on the score. I repeat: Putting some "life" to paper could help sort out whatever shortcomings come from a midi performance.



How does adding symbols to a score improve a MIDI performance? That makes no sense, the programming of the MIDI sequence is how you improve the recording -- the sound -- not by adding redundant symbols in a score that is designed to give expression to _what_ is being played, but doesn't express _how_ it is being played (the *sequence* does that).


----------



## Tatu (Jun 1, 2017)

Yes, you did give the answer and I've stated twice that I understand your approach. Still - and this my opinion - it's not symphony worthy music as is, unless you bleed on the paper a bit. It's just some music that you wrote, good or bad. But, like I mentioned before, if that's how you wish to do it, then by all means do it. Nothing wrong with that, I just think you could do a little better.


----------



## Tatu (Jun 1, 2017)

jsg said:


> How does adding symbols to a score improve a MIDI performance?


Psychology. Do not think about kittens right now.


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 2, 2017)

Tatu said:


> Yes, you did give the answer and I've stated twice that I understand your approach. Still - and this my opinion - it's not symphony worthy music as is, unless you bleed on the paper a bit. It's just some music that you wrote, good or bad. But, like I mentioned before, if that's how you wish to do it, then by all means do it. Nothing wrong with that, I just think you could do a little better.



Everyone can do what they do better, no issue with that. But I still believe, and I don't say this with any sense of superiority or arrogance, you're not understanding the medium because you're stuck in a comparison with a live orchestra and a score for a live performance. What in the world does "bleed on the paper" even mean? How about bleed at the DAW? You seem to be romanticizing musical creativity quite a bit, as though I don't suffer enough over the music I write or in my life? I honestly do not understand where you're coming from.

It's probably partly unfortunate that I call my symphonies "symphonies". The word has so much cultural baggage, it can mean the hall, the event, the orchestra, the players, etc. I should call my symphonies a new name. I got it!
How about: "Part One of a Multi-Movement Composition for Virtual Instruments, #9"?


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Jun 2, 2017)

We're just discussing how we scribble out our own music, for our own benefit, right?
I mean, i write out a reduction with my surface pro on a manuscript PDF. Jerry tidies up the midi in Sibelius.
Neither of them are a finished score. Though I personally feel a reduction with dynamic markings better expresses the intent behind the music than a full orchestration with no dynamic markings.
For me, the whole purpose of notation is to represent what the music is doing. To be able to look at the score (no matter how rough) and know what it's saying. Whether it's for real players or not, virtual instrument can and will still crescendo. In THAT aspect, I'm a big fan of the extra markings.
But it's all contextual. Some moments will need them more than others.


----------



## Tatu (Jun 2, 2017)

jsg said:


> Everyone can do what they do better, no issue with that. But I still believe, and I don't say this with any sense of superiority or arrogance, you're not understanding the medium because you're stuck in a comparison with a live orchestra and a score for a live performance. What in the world does "bleed on the paper" even mean? How about bleed at the DAW? You seem to be romanticizing musical creativity quite a bit, as though I don't suffer enough over the music I write or in my life? I honestly do not understand where you're coming from.


Bleed on the paper, if you can't make it sound like you've bleeded at the DAW (not literal bleeding, but an end result that validates statements such as "thousands of hours"). That 9th 1st movement sounds like it's 95% exactly what you present on paper; Just notes with no heart whatsoever, some fragments of potential.

So what exactly is your medium here? A fully realised symphony (or a movement from one), great midi performance or both?


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 2, 2017)

Tatu said:


> Bleed on the paper, if you can't make it sound like you've bleeded at the DAW (not literal bleeding, but an end result that validates statements such as "thousands of hours"). That 9th 1st movement sounds like it's 95% exactly what you present on paper; Just notes with no heart whatsoever, some fragments of potential.
> 
> So what exactly is your medium here? A fully realized symphony (or a movement from one), great midi performance or both?



I have heart, I write music, my music has heart. I can't help it if you don't hear it...


----------



## mverta (Jun 2, 2017)

I have re-read your replies three times now and I confess I don't see how there's any misunderstanding left. You said you don't mark your scores because they're not for anybody to play from/it's redundant when the end product is MIDI, unless they _are for somebody to play from_ in which case you _do_ mark them up. You seemed very clear on these points, and since they're personal preference I can't see how somebody can disagree with them - merely choose to do it differently, as some of us do, for the reasons we've stated because you asked us to.


----------



## Tatu (Jun 2, 2017)

jsg said:


> I have heart, I write music, my music has heart. I can't help it if you don't hear it


How about you fill one or two pages? Just to show your original sequenced thoughts realised on paper? Would love to see that.


----------



## d.healey (Jun 2, 2017)

I always mark my scores and have them as complete and polished as I can. A few simple reasons - 

Archive: audio formats change, document formats change, a PDF, Music XML, and a printed copy of my score, fully marked, is a more reliable archive of the piece as I intended it than a MIDI or Audio file.
There is always the possibility that an opportunity will arise to have a piece performed that I actually only intended to use as a mockup. If I come back to a piece a month or more after I initially wrote it it is unlikely I will remember my intentions for every part of the piece. Going through the MIDI data for every track of an orchestral piece to try to work out what dynamics and phrasing I wanted is a pain, it's much easier and faster to just enter it in the score as I go along.
One day I will be dead (yes even me) and my dying wish is that someone will still want to perform my music, it will be easier for them if I leave fully marked scores for them than if they have to transcribe some audio.


----------



## Fer (Jun 2, 2017)

I dont understand why you dont use expression symbols on your score. I also dont understand why you writte scores. If everything is embebed in the midi file and you are not writting for real players altough for computers, why you still want to writte the music in paper? You could answer… because i want my music in paper for myself. But then why not to add simbols in the score just for you to see how all the midi data should be peformed since it is an essential part of the music that you composed? If you want to mockup again your music in the future you might find it useful.

If musical expression is an essential part of the whole composition, and you composed not only notes, altough shaped phrases, textures in which dynamics are essential etc. and you want to save in paper what you wrotte then why not to add expression symbols also? I dont get it.


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 2, 2017)

mverta said:


> I have re-read your replies three times now and I confess I don't see how there's any misunderstanding left. You said you don't mark your scores because they're not for anybody to play from/it's redundant when the end product is MIDI, unless they _are for somebody to play from_ in which case you _do_ mark them up. You seemed very clear on these points, and since they're personal preference I can't see how somebody can disagree with them - merely choose to do it differently, as some of us do, for the reasons we've stated because you asked us to.



There isn't. I made a mistake by calling my multi-movement, multi-timbral virtual instrument compositions "symphonies" in the first place. It is almost impossible to try and talk people out of their deeply-embedded associations. The term "symphony" is just too loaded, it has so much history and can refer to so many different aspects of the experience, including the composer, the hall, the orchestra, the experience, the conductor, etc. I associated the term "symphony" as simply a multi-movement, multi-timbral work. Naming and titles, for better and worse, can really affect how a piece is received. Live and learn as the saying goes....


----------



## muk (Jun 2, 2017)

@Fer, there are composers who prefer to compose in musical notation still. Either paper and pencil, or a notation program. This technique actually has some benefits over composing directly into a daw, at least for some people. If you are classically trained you are probably more versed with traditional music notation than with reading a piano roll. I, for instance, can't imagine writing a fugue, or a sonata form, or any complex musical structure in a piano roll. Much easier, quicker, and possible at all for me on paper/notation program. Proper voice leading/part writing is much easier too for me to figure out on paper than in a piano roll. In that case it is actually quicker to write a score, and then create a mockup afterwards than composing directly in a daw. Well that's not entirely true. For me, some things are only possible to compose on paper at all. No chance of doing it in a daw for me. I'm not Jerry, but I could imagine it's similar for him.


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 2, 2017)

muk said:


> @Fer, there are composers who prefer to compose in musical notation still. Either paper and pencil, or a notation program. This technique actually has some benefits over composing directly into a daw, at least for some people. If you are classically trained you are probably more versed with traditional music notation than with reading a piano roll. I, for instance, can't imagine writing a fugue, or a sonata form, or any complex musical structure in a piano roll. Much easier, quicker, and possible at all for me on paper/notation program. Proper voice leading/part writing is much easier too for me to figure out on paper than in a piano roll. In that case it is actually quicker to write a score, and then create a mockup afterwards than composing directly in a daw. Well that's not entirely true. For me, some things are only possible to compose on paper at all. No chance of doing it in a daw for me. I'm not Jerry, but I could imagine it's similar for him.



I've been composing exclusively in a DAW since around 1993. I have never once in all these years used the piano-roll view, it is absolutely useless for counterpoint and voice-leading (for me, not speaking for others). I use the notation editor in the DAW and always have. There's a reason music notation has evolved over the past 1000 years. It's one the great achievements of western music, without notation none of the greatest compositions in classical music would have been created. I can do everything I need to do regarding composition and orchestration in a notation editor in a DAW, it's the same for me as writing with paper and pencil, as I did for many years, except of course that I can hear my ideas as I notate them.


----------



## Fer (Jun 2, 2017)

muk said:


> @Fer, there are composers who prefer to compose in musical notation still. Either paper and pencil, or a notation program. This technique actually has some benefits over composing directly into a daw, at least for some people.


Yes of course, i totally agree with you @muk. My point was in relation to the decision of the OP to exclude expresion symbols of the written score...because expression in my view is a part of the composition. The fact that the ultimate performer of the music is a machine and not a human being is not changing anything imo.


----------



## desert (Jun 2, 2017)

jsg said:


> I've been composing exclusively in a DAW since around 1993. I have never once in all these years used the piano-roll view, it is absolutely useless for counterpoint and voice-leading (for me, not speaking for others). I use the notation editor in the DAW and always have. There's a reason music notation has evolved over the past 1000 years. It's one the great achievements of western music, without notation none of the greatest compositions in classical music would have been created. I can do everything I need to do regarding composition and orchestration in a notation editor in a DAW, it's the same for me as writing with paper and pencil, as I did for many years, except of course that I can hear my ideas as I notate them.


Dude, you need to learn how to accept change and embrace it.


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 3, 2017)

desert said:


> Dude, you need to learn how to accept change and embrace it.



When change is actually an improvement, when it is an evolution of something earlier, absolutely, change is great. But *DUDE*: the piano-roll view is inferior to SMN in pretty much every way, unless you're doing music that almost 100% rhythmic-based, and even then the rhythmic symbols of SMN are far more detailed.


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (Jun 3, 2017)

Fer said:


> Yes of course, i totally agree with you @muk. My point was in relation to the decision of the OP to exclude expresion symbols of the written score...because expression in my view is a part of the composition. The fact that the ultimate performer of the music is a machine and not a human being is not changing anything imo.



It changes everything. The expression is notated in the event list, not in the score. Different mediums require different techniques.


----------



## Tatu (Jun 3, 2017)

@jsg aside from whatever philosophical differences we have regarding scores.. we agree on this


----------



## d.healey (Jun 3, 2017)

jsg said:


> the piano-roll view is inferior to SMN in pretty much every way.


I agree with this from a composing point of view, but for creating a realistic mockup the piano roll can definitely help - actually it's more the CC lanes than the piano roll but the piano roll can be helpful, a simple example is overlapping notes to trigger legato transitions, not so easy in a score view but very easy in the piano roll.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jun 3, 2017)

As Mike Verta has pointed out a few times now, this is sort of a non-issue as it's a statement of preference where a score isn't vital to the ultimate goal of the undertaking. That's a personal issue and not at all universal such as: _When working with live players, to what extent do you indicate your intentions in the score? _Even that will have various answers to at least some degree depending on the context (Film vrs., Records can be quite different with markings deliberately lacking in the latter on say a Rock track. Conversely, a Broadway recording arrangement may indeed look as detailed as Mahler - all depends.)

The word _Score _is probably the source of misunderstanding as most assume it to mean a completed, detailed indication of the numerous musical parameters found in scores traditionally.

Just a couple of days ago I was explaining to a young composer that I deliberately put as many indications as I could in the score of an indie Pop track (knowing the players were all trained to read them) to save as much time as possible at the session. That approach worked very well in it's efficiency, while also allowing for verbal instructions that invariably come even in a Mahler rehearsal.


----------

