Is Professional Notation Output Important to you?

I would like to know if a "professional looking" output is one of your priorities in music notation. Thanks for taking the poll.

Of course it is! I am constantly entering my compositions to contests and it must look professional!

Absolutely. If it weren't for wanting to print out decent-looking parts, I wouldn't even use a computer for my compositions.

it's especially important when approaching someone to play your works. If you score doesnt look professional, it will be that much harder for the conductor, etc.

I don't really give a crap what the result looks like.

I don't intend for my pieces to be played because a computer can do much more than that of a real player.

I don't intend for my pieces to be played because a computer can do much more than that of a real player.

also the computer can do much less than a real player. i always would prefer the real player personally.

Im the same, professional looking music is important if the music isnt just for yourself.

however with what caltech said, i find it useful to use the computer to hear how it sounds after ive written it, if im working on paper.

Im the same, professional looking music is important if the music isnt just for yourself.

Music is for listening, not for looking. :whistling:

Whether the piece of music on a paper looks nice or not doesn't affect the actual music itself. We'll all come across a time where you'll find that finding real players is a difficult problem.

Modern music is done mostly through the use of a computer.

Incorrect - most modern music is still - initially - played by hand. Then it is transferred to CD, manipulated, etc. But still, mostly done by hand first. As such, scores are important.

Incorrect - most modern music is still - initially - played by hand. Then it is transferred to CD, manipulated, etc. But still, mostly done by hand first. As such, scores are important.

Modern = pop, rock, soundtrack, new age, contemporary, techno...

When is finding real players likely to be difficult? Right now there are more professional musicians than the market can sustain...

sure there are...

but hiring an entire orchestra ain't cheap.

is it worthwhile to hire?

Also music is modified over and over through time. Real players will tend to be problem.

That's where community and university orchestras come in. Of course they are not of the same standard as professional orchestras, but they tend to be quite receptive to new music, and professional orchestras do sometimes pick up music that was previously premiered by an amateur or university ensemble.

Provided, of course, that campus politics doesn't get in the way... :cool:

Modern = pop, rock, soundtrack, new age, contemporary, techno...

Pop: still uses acoustic and electric guitars. Keyboards must be played by hand before they can be looped. Backup vocals must be sung before they are mixed. Drums are played by hand.

Rock: electric guitar. Drums are still played by hand, though now they use electric pads, which input computer sound directly. Vocals still are sung.

New Age: all instruments are acoustic, or keyboarded, which requires analog playing.

Soundtrack: most soundtrack music uses a full orchestra of acoustic instruments.

Contemporary: I assume this means contemporary classical - most is still acoustic instruments. Electro-acoustic music does use mostly computer.

Techno: this I will not argue with - though vocals are still recorded from a live artist.

The point is this: though all these styles USE a computer, they still require a readable, professional-looking score in order to be played.

Pop: still uses acoustic and electric guitars. Keyboards must be played by hand before they can be looped. Backup vocals must be sung before they are mixed. Drums are played by hand.

Rock: electric guitar. Drums are still played by hand, though now they use electric pads, which input computer sound directly. Vocals still are sung.

New Age: all instruments are acoustic, or keyboarded, which requires analog playing.

Soundtrack: most soundtrack music uses a full orchestra of acoustic instruments.

Contemporary: I assume this means contemporary classical - most is still acoustic instruments. Electro-acoustic music does use mostly computer.

Techno: this I will not argue with - though vocals are still recorded from a live artist.

The point is this: though all these styles USE a computer, they still require a readable, professional-looking score in order to be played.

Obviously all vocals are previously recorded. But same way, computer instruments are all previously recorded unless otherwise wave-shaped from a raw file.

Pop - Almost all record albums are done on computer. The things you hear on radio are mostly computer sequenced even though originally done raw, but on occasions of live, real instruments are used. But you'll still find live performances where only the drums are being played by hand since the other sounds can't be done on instruments.

Rock - Again, live ones are are done on by real players. With this rock category, I'm also refering to rock music you hear in video games, anime themes, movies. Generally these unlive performances are synthed through computer. Although the electric guitar isn't something easily done on the computer so that may been amped through the computer.

New Age - go look up the definition of New Age. These are music characterized by dreamy textures and pads. Not accoustic instruments, although depending on the composer, accoustic may be used but still mostly pads and synths.

Soundtrack - There are probably more computer soundtrack composers than orchestra composers. And the trend is more synth composers than orchestra. Hans Zimmer, John Powell, Trevor Rabin, Danny Elfman, Nobuo Uematsu, Harry-Gregson Williams... Composers who actually use full orchestration are probably very famous currenty (they can afford it) like John Williams, Randy Newman, James Horner... But new composers will tend to avoid the cost.

Contemporary - Not just classical. Generally Contemporary chamber generally has 1 acoustic instrument while supporting sounds and themes are synthed.

No, not all needs a readable score to be played. Fact is... you don't need a PROFESSIONAL-LOOKING score to be played.

Generally film composers don't have to pay the orchestra. The studio does that.

But that just means less pay for the composer.

But for an Orchestra you cannot achieve the same quality unless a real one is playing it, certain techniques and interpretations just can't be represented by the computer currently such as playing closer to the bridge of a violin or closer to the fingerboard, etc.

And myself think that one should always strive to keep your sheet music professional looking because you should always do things for where you want to be not where you are at now. If you want to be a professional then create a professional looking sheet music.

But for an Orchestra you cannot achieve the same quality unless a real one is playing it, certain techniques and interpretations just can't be represented by the computer currently such as playing closer to the bridge of a violin or closer to the fingerboard, etc.[/b]

coming close.

Yep. Not only do music notation programs ensure that musicians don't have to read my horrible handwriting, but once you know your way around, it is faster than writing by hand.

You're right, but they are

coming close.[/b]

Well put.

Tell composers such as Ligeti, Penderecki, and Lutaslowski that notation is not important :(

Precise notation is extremely important, especially if you are going to want your music published, which even most pop musicians today want it published and sold as sheet music, just another way to make some money.

I had a lengthy conversation with my composition professor just the other day about this very subject.

No matter how good synthesizers get, I think resorting to a computer is basically the equivalent of resigning oneself to never getting real performances... and that's a sad thought. To me, at least, the audience's recognition in a live concert is more important than anything that can come from distributing recordings.

Also, I don't like the idea of the composer producing a definitive recording - it kills other interpretations of the same music. Today people can argue all day about what the best recording of a Beethoven symphony is. And sometimes even the composer can decide that someone else's interpretation is better - consider Rachmaninoff's response upon hearing Horowitz play his 3rd piano concerto.

I see composition as a way of expressing something, such as ideas or emotions. As far as that is concerned, a computer playing does nothing for me. No matter how amazing a piece of music, I have not yet been moved by the accurate, yet expressionless performance of a computer. I don't understand the point of composing something that will be forever lost behind the wall of meaningless the computer seems to inflict.

Also, music actually composed at a computer screen in my experience loses sight of the musicians abilities, and tends to be difficult, if not impossible for a human to play. It's a big no no in my book. Music is for performers to perform.

The only time I use the computer in composition is to either record it, or to make a score - yes, as professional as possible! It needs to be professional and detailed enough to be handed to a performer, understood easily and consequently performed with appropriate meaning and expression.

There - that's me done.

I know this is slightly off topic, but I must agree that there is nothing better than real players. I use sampled instruments - I have to, for short films. The budget's just don't allow for orchestras.

But one day I want to remove my use of samples. Who cares how good they get, do you honestly want to sit in your studio/room and write all alone with no-one to intepret your work? Too lonely for me. I like the idea of sitting and watching/conducting an orchestra - there's just something there that no matter who you are, cannot be achieved with a computer.

Anyway, currently samples are lacking expression. They're getting there, but it's not enough. It's those little things real players do that bring the piece to what it is.

-Chris

going with the "no" side here, i think the quality of the music is much more important than anything else.

i mean. who in the heck goes and appreciate a composer's scores?

i think many people are blinded behind the use of notation softwares. i may be wrong in this but, notation softwares can only go so far to achieving realism as opposed to sequencers. on the page, you're only going to see forte. but people play forte differently, and chances are, it's not going to turn out the way you heard it in your head when you wrote it. thus leading to the belief that computer is inferior to the real orchestra, NOT the orchestra is better than the computer.

i've only a few months of experience in this composing thing. but my experience with sequencers showed me that control over each instrument is a lot better than notations. whether or not computers can do more than the orchestra depends on the type of music.

but weighing out the differences, a computer (in terms of sequencers) does not make mistakes. it'll play whatever you write every single time. a computer cannot get sick. they'll always show up for you. computer has no variable skills. you don't need to audition a computer to get it to play music. a computer does not hate the conductor (namely you). in case of conducting, you risk having that drunk clarinet player burn your house down for pulling on his nerves.

this list can go on.