jlc@atux01.UUCP (J. Collymore) (04/26/88)
For those of you who have been looking for a sequencer/notation package that does NOT require mechanical precision in your playing to allow you to get a relatively accurate musical score generated, perhaps you might be interested in looking into this product...Finale by Coda. I read about this in the May issue of MacUser magazine, and then called the 800 number to have them mail me more info. Here is basically what it does. "Finale, an integrated sequencer and notation package that includes rudimentary artificial intelligence features, such as the ability to automatically follow changes in tempo (a hold, a rubato passage or just plain human imperfection); Finale displays what you meant to play instead of producing unreadable garble showing the exact imperfect rhythms you actually played. Sequences in Finale appear instantly on the screen in standard music notation, eliminating the need to convert sequenced files to notation files." From the brochure I requested from Coda I got this info: "Features include Cross staff beaming, binding of chord symbols and lyrics to notes, custom page sizing, angled beaming, custom beaming, reverse stemming, cross staff stemming, custom stemming, complex time and key signatures, analysis and trasposition of chord symbols, programmable repeats that playback, dynamics that can be customized and played back, note clusters, and hundreds of other utilities..." "Requires a Mac Plus, Mac SE, or Mac II. A MIDI compatible instrument and MIDI interface are recommended, but not required." This Finale program sounds pretty awesome to me, and it's just what most of us imperfect players, who wish to preserve our music notated on paper, have been dreaming of for a long time. However, there is a catch. The cost of this software is $1000 (one thousand dollars)!! It will be available in July, so I'd suggest you start putting money aside NOW! For more information, contact Coda, 1401 E. 79th St., Minneapolis, Minn. 55425, or call: 1-800-843-1337 or 1-612-854-9554. If any of you out there do buy this package, please let us know how well it works. Jim Collymore
czei@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu (Michael S. Czeiszperger) (04/28/88)
In article <673@atux01.UUCP> jlc@atux01.UUCP (J. Collymore) writes: >This Finale program sounds pretty awesome to me, and it's just what most of us >imperfect players, who wish to preserve our music notated on paper, have been >dreaming of for a long time. However, there is a catch. The cost of this >software is $1000 (one thousand dollars)!! It will be available in July, so >I'd suggest you start putting money aside NOW! > If this program functions as advertised, and I really doubt that it would work with anything more complicated than the typical rock tune, then I hope it will stop this strange facination with musical notation. Learning music notation doesn't make you a musician or composer any more than learning how to type makes you a novelist. -- Michael S. Czeiszperger | "The only good composer is a dead composer" Systems Analyst | Snail: 2015 Neil Avenue (614) The Ohio State University | Columbus, OH 43210 292- cbosgd!osu-cis!accelerator!czei | czei@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu 0161
jlc@atux01.UUCP (J. Collymore) (05/06/88)
music References: <673@atux01.UUCP> <157@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu> In article <157@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu>, czei@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu (Michael S. Czeiszperger) writes: > >imperfect players, who wish to preserve our music notated on paper, have been > >dreaming of for a long time. > > > If this program functions as advertised, and I really doubt that it > would work with anything more complicated than the typical rock tune, > then I hope it will stop this strange facination with musical notation. > Learning music notation doesn't make you a musician or composer any more > than learning how to type makes you a novelist. > > > > Michael S. Czeiszperger | "The only good composer is a dead composer" > Systems Analyst | Snail: 2015 Neil Avenue (614) > The Ohio State University | Columbus, OH 43210 292- > cbosgd!osu-cis!accelerator!czei | czei@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu 0161 If you read the May (?) issue of Keyboard magazine near the front there is an article on DMS (Disposable Music Syndrome). The author asserts that most of the music nowadays (because of the heavy use of sequencers and computers) does NOT require (and he's right) that the composer of the music know how to read or write music. This is not as good for the composer's (or the society's) posterity as it may seem. He observes that most magnetic storage media (computer disks and tapes) have a life expectancy of about 25 years before they deteriorate. This means that since most novice/aspiring composers these days can expect that many copies of their music will only be a fading memory in a few decades (unless they are lucky enough to have their music recorded on longer lived vinyl records). So sayingly, such composers are willingly making their music "disposable." And by so doing, these composers are saying they don't care if their music doesn't survive beyond their own lifetime (they are creating disposable music). It gives no musicians (or non-musicians) in the future the opportunity to hear, enjoy, or play your music. We are able today to hear, enjoy and perform the music of 500+ years ago primarily because SOMEONE took the time to learn, and then write down, the musical notation. Because of this, even obscure composers of the past (the equivalent of our "garage" rock bands today) are having their music played even today, up to half a millenium later! Some of these people may not even have had their music performed publicly THEN, but people know, admire, and respect their music NOW! WHY? In part, because they took the trouble to learn, or get someone who knew how, to WRITE IT DOWN! Now if all you're interested in is short-term fame and fortune while you're alive and don't give a damn about being remembered a generation or more after your death, fine. But if you'd like to possibly have the fruits of your musical labors and talent live on, either learn to read and write music, or at least get someone or SOMETHING that can write it down for you!! Don't applaud and promote ignorance, history doesn't. Jim Collymore
landman%hanami@Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman) (05/10/88)
This doesn't belong in comp.sys.mac anymore, so I've directed followups to rec.music. >In article <157@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu>, czei@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu (Michael S. Czeiszperger) writes: >> I hope it will stop this strange facination with musical notation. >> Learning music notation doesn't make you a musician or composer any more >> than learning how to type makes you a novelist. In article <678@atux01.UUCP> jlc@atux01.UUCP (J. Collymore) writes: >If you read the May (?) issue of Keyboard magazine near the front there is an >article on DMS (Disposable Music Syndrome). The author asserts that most of >the music nowadays (because of the heavy use of sequencers and computers) does >NOT require (and he's right) that the composer of the music know how to read >or write music. Brian Eno once observed (in a talk at UC Berkeley a few years ago) that prior to the advent of recording technology, the composer was in the position of the architect. That is, he couldn't create music himself, he could only create instructions for *other* people to create the music. Standard musical notation is thus somewhat like an architect's blueprints. You have to trust to the skill and intelligence of the performer (builder) and hope that they can correctly implement your concepts. With recording, this becomes unnecessary. The composer is now in the position of a sculptor or painter, and is able to directly work with sound itself. As one rather extreme example, there is a "dub" producer in Jamaica who made a master rhythm tape containing several different drum and bass tracks, and who has made literally dozens of different records from this same master. By varying the speed, mixing differently, adding a dash of reverb here, some echo there, and then putting different lyrics and singers on top of it, he has produced songs that are nowhere near identical to the ear. As another example, in two different songs Eno recorded multiple guitar solos for the same break (e.g. in "China My China" with Phil Manzanera), one in each octave, and then rapidly and randomly switched between them. The result is a solo filled with 2-octave leaps that could only be played by someone with 20-inch-wide hands! It would be possible to write this down on paper, but what would be the point? With computer programs it becomes even easier to compose music which no human could ever perform. >most novice/aspiring composers these days can expect that ... their music >will only be a fading memory in a few decades (unless they are lucky enough >to have their music recorded on longer lived vinyl records). CDs are far longer lived, and writable CDs and DAT are just around the corner. So this problem is going to go away long before it even really becomes a problem. Even now, you can have 500 CDs complete with folder and packaging made for under $3,000. How much would it cost to hire someone to transcribe 40 to 60 minutes of music from watching the performers? How long would it take? >We are able today to hear, enjoy and perform the music of 500+ years ago >primarily because SOMEONE took the time to learn, and then write down, the >musical notation. This is because the primary way that music was transmitted in that time was through musical notation. Earlier, the primary means was essentially oral tradition (you listen, you play). Clearly we have to be grateful that any music from this period survived at all. But we now have much better methods of transmittal available, and the period when musical notation was useful is ending. Today, the primary way the music is transmitted is through recordings. In the future, it may be something like MIDI scores or even computer software. I consider Wilhelm Furtwangler to have been a master conductor of Beethoven, and Bruno Walter an inept bungler by comparison. Yet by your standards, they're playing exactly the same music! Doesn't this tell you that musical notation is missing something? As an exercise, try writing the first few seconds of "Reflections" as performed by Diana Ross & the Supremes, or the bells portion of "Time" by Pink Floyd (Dark Side of the Moon), in standard musical notation. >Now if all you're interested in is short-term fame and fortune while you're >alive and don't give a damn about being remembered a generation or more after >your death, fine. But if you'd like to possibly have the fruits of your musical >labors and talent live on, either learn to read and write music, or at least >get someone or SOMETHING that can write it down for you!! This is fine advice to someone who lived 100 years ago, but it just doesn't make much sense today, and it won't make any sense at all 20 years from now unless something like nuclear war drives us back to middle ages. As much as I enjoy detailed tablature of songs by The Grateful Dead and Missisippi John Hurt, or the score of Beethoven's 9th, I would far prefer to have them in some kind of machine-readable format. The main reason to write in musical notation today is to communicate with classical musicians, or make use of them. If this is important to you, like it is to Frank Zappa, then fine. Otherwise, there's not much point. Howard A. Landman landman@hanami.sun.com UUCP: sun!hanami!landman
dudek@csri.toronto.edu (Gregory Dudek) (05/12/88)
In article <52563@sun.uucp> you write: >>In article <157@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu>, czei@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu (Michael S. Czeiszperger) writes: [ lots of stuff deleted here & there ] >>> I hope it will stop this strange facination with musical notation. >>> Learning music notation doesn't make you a musician or composer any more >>> than learning how to type makes you a novelist. > >In article <678@atux01.UUCP> jlc@atux01.UUCP (J. Collymore) writes: >>If you read the May (?) issue of Keyboard magazine near the front there is an >>article on DMS (Disposable Music Syndrome). The author asserts that most of >>the music nowadays (because of the heavy use of sequencers and computers) does >>NOT require (and he's right) that the composer of the music know how to read >>or write music. > > >>We are able today to hear, enjoy and perform the music of 500+ years ago ======= >>primarily because SOMEONE took the time to learn, and then write down, the >>musical notation. > >This is because the primary way that music was transmitted in that time was >through musical notation. Earlier, the primary means was essentially oral >tradition (you listen, you play). Clearly we have to be grateful that any >music from this period survived at all. But we now have much better methods >of transmittal available, and the period when musical notation was useful is >ending. Today, the primary way the music is transmitted is through recordings. >In the future, it may be something like MIDI scores or even computer software. > ... > >The main reason to write in musical notation today is to communicate with >classical musicians, or make use of them. If this is important to you, >like it is to Frank Zappa, then fine. Otherwise, there's not much point. > What baloney! The advantage of written musical notations is, to a large extent, so someone else can PERFORM the music EITHER for their own satisfaction or to express in in new ways. This implies the very satisfying process of playing the process "manually." For this, written musical notation is still desirable and has no real contenders. Your argument would have us do away with books and written media since all plays and texts could just be acted out & videotaped by the author. Furthermore, MIDI, for one, just doesn't allow certain types of expression to be transmitted. Don't forget there's a lot in the interpretation of a piece of music. As an art form, much of the art is on the part of the performer(s), as well as the composer, and many such artists don't compose at all. Would you claim these non-composing performers are now obsolete? For some further reflections this theme, check out: F. Richard Moore, "The Dysfunctions of MIDI", Computer Music Journal, 12, 1, Spring 1988. Followups should probably be directed to rec.music.misc (or rec.music.synth?) Greg Dudek -- Dept. of Computer Science (vision group) University of Toronto Reasonable mailers: dudek@ai.toronto.edu Other UUCP: {uunet,ihnp4,decvax,linus,pyramid, dalcs,watmath,garfield,ubc-vision,calgary}!utai!dudek ARPA: user%ai.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net