Is Professional Notation Output Important to you?

if not impossible for a human to play

I'd like to consider that a beauty with using a computer.

I don't know about you

But whenever I hear synthesized sounds, especially the more obvious ones like eighties pop music and modern New Age, I feel sick to my stomach

Actually, whenever I hear synthetic instruments, I get a clammy feeling.

Especially if I watch a television show that uses synthesized orchestras, like the early seasons of STARGATE SG-1 or Magnum PI, or anything of that sort, even video game music that doesn't use real, human instruments.

It's just gross.

When I compose, I always have the intention of someday having that work performed by real people. Otherwise, what really is the point in composing when there's nobody to hear it or play it? Sure, it's good to express yourself, but to whom?

Synthesizers are a bad thing, and should only be used when all other options are unavailable.

Concerning more modern film scores.

I can't stand Hanz Zimmer and his prodige, Clause Whatsisname, because of their insesent desire to enhance the sound of their orchestras with synthesizers. In particular, Hans Zimmers annoying bass in gladiator. Ever notice that Hans Zimmer is a horrible orchestrator? Here's why. He's overly reliant on the strings and brass sections, and he seems to only use the woodwinds sections because he has to have them do something. He also uses exotic instruments when they are not necessary, and I hate it how these composers who were wiened on synthesizers always have to have some low male choir going ooh and ah to make even the most mundane thing dramatic. I mean, look at the Great Gates of Kiev by Modest Mussorsky. That WAS grand, and all he used was a standard symphonic orchestra. Many of these synthesizer composers really have no sense of orchestration. I know, they're making lots of money, but its disgusting.

I can't stand Vangelis either. I HATE that man. He is the biggest scam artist ever. He definitely did not deserve an Oscar for Chariots of Fire, when there are some well-trained, professionals out there, such as John Williams' Raiders of the Lost Ark. Has anybody heard Alexander's soundtrack? Most dull, most mundane, piece of music ever. Why? Because Vangelis exclusively used synthesizers, because he doesn't know any harmonic practices he doesn't have a vocabulary for interesting chord progressions, he has no sense of lietmotifs, hell, he has NO real skills as a composer. Having a good ear is not enough, you have to train your ear and your other skills to become a great composer.

Synthesizers can be a good learning tool and composing tool, but as a performing instrument, I must say that I detest them like no other. Synthesizers take away from the organic sound of a human being, and no matter HOW GOOD a sample might sound, even on Garritan Personal Orchestra or anything like that, they will never compare to the nuances of a man or woman's performance.

Ouch...Synth isn't that bad, Jesus man.

I mean, when you don't have unlimited amounts of money to throw at a studio filled with people who come out of their daily lives just to play YOUR notes, samples like Garritan are a GOOD alternative. While I think that the musical interpretation of a piece, and knowing that the notes were played by a real human being using an instrument that humanity has made for the pase several centuries adds to the flair of such an ancient art of musical expressionism, I still think none of that really matters when it comes to melody. I mean, why would a music box move you more than a full orchestra can? All it's doing really is hitting little springs with a tiny metal utensal (I know. I smashed one open with a mallot once) - it's a wind up toy that's so incredibly inferior to the might of gathering all those people to play. I know why. It's the MELODY and the EXPRESSIONISM - those are the most important parts of an orchestra - Not how it's played or whose playing it or what you use to composed, none of that matters. Saying it does contradicts the entire point of musical orchestration.

I DON'T compose for the sole perpose of letting others hear it. I could CARE LESS (well, not really). I compose mostly because the voices in my head tells me that it keeps me sane. It's my own personal talent that gives me pleasure. It doesn't matter if it sounds 'convincing' to what the real instrument sounds like. In the end, a synthesized song with a good melody is far better than listening to a crappy song in concert.

I HATE that man. He is the biggest scam artist ever.

I don't know this guy or have heard any of his music but surely you don't HATE him - I mean, hate is a strong word you know. I can understand you dislike the fact that he got a little lucky at the Oscars - you're letting these things bother you too much IMO. I mean, if you like it, why does it matter if a bunch of guys at the OSCARS like it - I mean, the oscars are pretty crap anyways. Traditionalism is pretty cool but still, you have to admit that pointing and clicking - being able to get a rough idea of what you're composing IS pretty nifty. Besides, so many sounds nowadays arent really synthesized so much as they are pieces of munipulated pieces of recordings straight from the actual instrument.

As for notation - It's a good idea to have accurate notations of all your works - especially if you're serious about this field of musical artistry. I know that so many of my orchestral compositions are SO impossible in real life it's hilarious - violins playing notes that don't exist - but that can be fixed if I just change it up a bit. Remember, melody. Traditionalism is nice but, considering all, it's rather pointless if the only difference in utilizing th computer is that it's easier.

Heya!

monkey man, welcome to the new world buddy! Same with all the rest of you. :)

whenever I hear synthetic instruments, I get a clammy feeling.

Maybe you're more amphibian than mammal then, perhaps newtsinturd? ;)

what really is the point in composing when there's nobody to hear it or play it? Sure, it's good to express yourself, but to whom?

Well now there's a funny concept. So pretend I'm a composer and I don't have the kind of money to spend on getting people to perform my work, but I hate synths so I end up with a nice bit of sheet music that people aren't going to hear until I get it performed. Then let's pretend I'm not and idiot and have used synths, at the highest quality I can afford, to create a passable (if not very good) rendering of my piece which everyone can hear. Then, when I want to get someone to play it, perhaps it'll be easier, they'll have something to listen to, if they like it. Your logic doesn't make sense to me...which is fine, you keep waving that sheet music around and I'll keep using synths and we'll see who goes where.

On the point of humans and expression, yes you're perfectly right, interpretation for the most part is still better with real people performing the music rather than having it synthesized. On the other hand, if I've written a piece which I want to sound a certain way, then I don't want to hear peoples' interpretations, I want it to sound exactly one way and the only way I can ensure that without spending a lot of time and money is by using synth instruments and adjusting them to play just the way I want it.

I can't stand Hanz Zimmer and his prodige, Clause Whatsisname, because of their insesent desire to enhance the sound of their orchestras with synthesizers. In particular, Hans Zimmers annoying bass in gladiator. Ever notice that Hans Zimmer is a horrible orchestrator? Here's why. He's overly reliant on the strings and brass sections, and he seems to only use the woodwinds sections because he has to have them do something. He also uses exotic instruments when they are not necessary, and I hate it how these composers who were wiened on synthesizers always have to have some low male choir going ooh and ah to make even the most mundane thing dramatic. I mean, look at the Great Gates of Kiev by Modest Mussorsky. That WAS grand, and all he used was a standard symphonic orchestra. Many of these synthesizer composers really have no sense of orchestration. I know, they're making lots of money, but its disgusting.

I don't have too much to say about this bullshit. Basically, you should be fair because the synths aren't what you dislike, it's their style of composing. Which is fine, it's called modern. Remember that word, it's important.

These people are composing on a budget for a very specific subject or scene and they usually pull it off very well. I also don't see what's wrong with enhancing an orchestra's sounds with synths, much less using exotic instruments. So now you're getting angry at them for wanting their music to sound appropriate and dramatic? And what's wrong with exotic instruments? No originality either? You seem rather closed-minded.

The second paragraph which I didn't even bother quoting is also rather judgemental. Just because a composer isn't classically trained and doesn't follow your rigid rules of musical form and structure you're calling him a bad composer? That hardly seems fair but hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

One thing that's glaringly obvious to me is that you haven't heard much use of good samples. Garritan Personal Orchestra for one happens to be one of the most simplistic and bad-sounding of all the sample libraries available today. It sounds good enough for someone like me who can't afford to get something better for the time being, but in the general scope of things it's the lowest end there is. You can listen for example to the following recording of the piece you mentioned (which I don't find all that grand at all but that's just me) as well as many others made with a more prestigious sample library called Vienna Symphonic right here.

The realm of synthesized sounds allows composers to explore a bit and break free of simple things such as intrument range and other human limitations. Sure, some pieces are meant to be performed and the performance may sound better than any synth recording. On the other hand, what if the piece is meant to be synthesized? What if the composer intended it to sound like that? Intended to exaggerate the drama and enhance the sound? Intended to have portions that aren't playable by any human being but which sound wonderful? Does that make them bad, untalented composers?

In the end, a synthesized song with a good melody is far better than listening to a crappy song in concert.

Well said.

I'd like to consider that a beauty with using a computer.

Perhaps. But then that could just make you a present-day counterpart to Conlon Nancarrow.

Even with humans playing the music, a good listener can tell when they're playing mechanically. A friend who listens to a whole lot of music once said he couldn't stand listening to the Alban Berg Quartet play anything... he claimed they sounded like "an octopus playing four instruments", and despite their precision they seemed to lack any kind of interplay between musicians. There's an obvious link to computers here. Discuss.

Monkeysinfezzes. you people that compose 16th century to early 20th century music make me sick. get with the program. late composers in the baroque period couldn't make it big because the classical age took over. same with romantic period taking over the classical period. this is 2006.

you can't hate a composer just because he/she uses synthesizers. john william, jerry goldsmith, and many elder film score composers uses the conventional orchestra. synthesizers create just as good of a music. hans zimmer doesn't depend on any particular instrument to write his music. you just don't watch enough movies or hear enough soundtracks. they use certain instrumentation to suit the movie. they don't write so that you can dress in some fancy cloth so you can sit in on a concert. classical music cannot be used as modern film music. seriously. try adding any of those music to any recent film.

synthesizers are essentially the same thing as real orchestra. samples are recorded from real orchestral instruments. they're no different than a real instrument except one is in software form.

i'm not all for synthesizers, i still love the conventional orchestra. but Monkeysinfezzes, you make me sick.

Whoa. Hans Zimmer doesn't ALWAYS layer his music with synth, and actually, most film composers don't do their own orchestration, David. Just MIDI/sheet sketches. Even John Williams does an 8-line sketch (which is more than Hans Zimmer does).

I'd like you to imagine writing a film score with extreme pressure. Now let's see how well you orchestrate or write. You can critisize Hans Zimmer all you like, but at the end of the day he's making far more money than us, he's famous, and he writes good music - especially considering the tough deadlines.

As for the topic of computers - it is really sad to hear that some people would rather just use a computer. That's a lonley thing. It's a GREAT feeling to have your music played by an orchestra...you don't get that feeling when you're sitting in a dark room at home. Yes it's fine when you can't have an orchestra (I love garritan and other sampling technology), but if I had the choice, I'd drop samples today.

-Chris

I'm thoroughly disgusted at Monkeysinfezzes's view.

Actually, whenever I hear synthetic instruments, I get a clammy feeling.

Greetings Martian, do you come in peace?

Okay, so you don't like synthesizers, that's fine. But you make it sound like synthesizers are just pure evil tools established by Lucifer himself. Also, synthesizers have a technical definition for those of you who may have a misconception.

Synthesizers are "electronically" generated sounds. This means simply taking a simple wave (sine, saw, square..) and manipulating them with preprogrammed functions.

Samplers are "prerecorded" sounds that are then played according to your sequence.

Two different things.

What is your definition of Orchestration? Monkeysinfezzes. Because there isn't really one. Your statement on Hans Zimmer being a bad orchestrator is impaired. He's the composer, he chooses what instrumentation he likes to use. Using brass and string is his style. And when is an "exotic instrument" necessary? There's no rule when to use it or not. As for the choir, I think sometimes it's overly exaggerated, but for the most part, it's really effective for cinematic expressions. Hans Zimmer is a film composer, not your average daily make music for pure enjoyment composer. His music is MEANT to be in a film. He makes a lot of money because the music he composed for films are effective. Since you believe that he has no sense of orchestration, it must mean you are much better than him to know that he's not a good orchestrator. Is there a reason why he's up on the top while no one's ever heard of you?

I mean, look at the Great Gates of Kiev by Modest Mussorsky. That WAS grand, and all he used was a standard symphonic orchestra.

"All he used..." Sure, I'm just going to whip out a symphonic orchestra right off my shelf and start using it. It's all too simple.

When I compose, I always have the intention of someday having that work performed by real people. Otherwise, what really is the point in composing when there's nobody to hear it or play it? Sure, it's good to express yourself, but to whom?

Yes, that's called a luxury. It's not something everyone can have. So keep dreaming.

Vangelis, scam artist? All I see here is you being whiney little fox who can't seem to get those tasty grapes. Listen, there is a reason why it's called MODERN ORCHESTRA. Now unless you are 200 years old, you need to adapt or otherwise, don't scallop about it.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

Wow wow wow.

K all I did was state an opinion

Personally I compose in a modern style to.

I admit that saying I hate Vangelis might have seemed a bit too harsh, but geeze, this page suddenly turned into a flame war against me.

But anyway, let me just continue with what I said.

Basically, I PERSONALLY believe that synthesizers should be used as a tool and nothing more. They are good at recording demo cds, and even as gifts, but I believe that its always best to have a real, acoustic recording as well.

In fact, this is what I mean by synthesizers:

To me, a SYNTHESIZER is a replication of a real acoustic instrument. This I have a problem with because people begin to rely on them to much over real flesh-and-blood musicians.

HOWEVER, say, an electric guitar. An Electric Guitar is NOT a synthesizer. It is an electronic instrument, designed to be something completely different, with a completely unique sound compared to everything else. Same goes with some synth pads, such as, say "Goblin FX". This is ok, because it attempts to create a new original sound. MY only problem is when SYNTHETIC acoustic instruments such as a Violin synthesizer is treated as if they are on par with a real violinist.

I did not say that there is no point in composing if there's nobody there to hear it. WHAT I MEANT is that one should compose for themselves, but at the same time for others. When we express ourselves through art, would you rather have your art meaningful to just you, or to everybody else? It's like talking to yourself.

It's great that you compose for yourself. Hell, that's how alot of people, myself included, compose, to begin with. But when I'm done composing for myself, I want to show it for others, and sometimes, in fact, USUALLY I show them a recording done by a sequencer, because its instant, but I would always like to have my works performed by real human beings as much as possible. Therefore, I give it to my school band to have a readthrough, or go to my community band, just for a readthrough to share it with the other bandmembers.

It's just my personal drive, but I want to excell at composing because I want others to like what I do, and that will make me happy because my music makes them happy AS WELL as making me happy.

NOW let me tell you about what I seem to have got miscommunicated about Vangelis. I simply said his music was boring and mundane, and from listening to it, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. I personally thought, "Oh my God, this music is so lame." And by saying that, you guys are accusing me of being a bastard.

See, when people ask for criticism, they really want praise. Go ahead, blast my music as much as you want. Or praise it. But never just be polite. Be honest about what you think. Therefore, I was being honest.

Now, I'll admit, I own the Gladiator CD, and I like that very much, BECAUSE Hanz broke from his traditional mold TO A DEGREE. What I DIDN'T LIKE was his King Arthur recording, and that shows everything that I was "scalloping" about. I also liked his Lion King.

Sure, right in your style. Go ahead.

I write jazz and classical, and some pop. I want to become a professional composer, maybe a teacher, I want to perfect my art. I want to spread my art into the world, as I think a lot of people do. Nothing wrong with that.

NOW, as we are SUPPOSED to be talking about neat notation, I believe that it is imperative to have neat notation IF YOU WANT TO HAVE IT PERFORMED OR READ BY SOMEBODY ELSE.

If you DON'T CARE, then GO AHEAD, MAKE A MESS, as long as YOU YOURSELF can read that mess.

Sorry if I offended anybody, shees...

Oh, and by the way, there is a reason about why Hanz Zimmers at the top and I'm at the bottom. He's experienced, he has connections, he's worked hard. I, however, am quite a few years younger.

See, I hate message boards when the people start throwing rocks at other peoples thoughts.

There's a difference between Opinion and Criticism.

There's no "what synthesizers" mean to you. That's the technical definition.

Simply put.

Synthesizers are from scratch.

Samples are prerecorded.

Oh, and by the way, there is a reason about why Hanz Zimmers at the top and I'm at the bottom. He's experienced, he has connections, he's worked hard. I, however, am quite a few years younger.

Good, maybe you understand now that you shouldn't judge his work or his style.

Hey, I don't like his work

I can judge his work because I don't like it

Sure he works hard, I just don't like his style.

And I was criticising synthesizers BECAUSE of my opinions.

Now, my friend, you seem to love synthesizers. And you have your reasons, I have my reasons for not liking them. There is a nitch for everybody.

Same thing goes for New Age music. I don't like it, because its boring. But, then again, New Age Music is SUPPOSED to be boring, for meditation and that stuff.

Music, in my opinion, is about expressing the human soul, something that a computer may appear close to, but will NEVER reach, unless it were to become human itself.

But that's enough about synthesizers. Lets talk about neatness.

here's my take on neatness. who gives a crap whether you write an essay in blue ink, black ink, pencil, highlighter, or even if you type it out from a typewriter. what people want to see is the content of the essay, not how well the essay looks. that's my analogy.

i thoroughly disagree with the statement that

something that a computer may appear close to, but will NEVER reach, unless it were to become human itself.

in the world of technology today, computers can do anything better than human. (all with the exception of emotion). but that's me. i'm an engineering student.

Actually, since most of these composers have those years on you.

You shouldn't judge him whether or not you like it.

You can obviously say whether you like his stuff or not and why you like it or not.

But saying things like

"Ever notice that Hans Zimmer is a horrible orchestrator"

"He is the biggest scam artist ever"

"because he doesn't know any harmonic practices he doesn't have a vocabulary for interesting chord progressions, he has no sense of lietmotifs, hell, he has NO real skills as a composer"

"Many of these synthesizer composers really have no sense of orchestration."

that's why I was disgusted at your post.

True, in an ideal world. But let me ask, if you were given a score for the some symphony and the Fortissimos are clustered together, or that there's no beaming between the notes, or its just a whole lot of scribbles and typos, would you rather look at that as opposed to a symphony that is all nice and pretty? Let's say that you've never heard these symphonies before, so you're only way at judging them is by looking at the scores. Personally, I'd feel that the first symphony is unproffessional and shlock, while I'd go for the next one, and the first one will fall into obscurity when it could have been a real masterpiece.

P.S. heh yeah in retrospect I was a tad harsh. I should have said, he is overrated, and this whole mess would have been cleaned up.

to answer your question. i'd have to say that i wouldn't make any judgements based on the scores. i'm not that talented and i don't have that kind of orchestra in my brain to play for me when i read from the staff. but the question to you is, why would you have a score with fortissimos all clustered together in the first place anyway? a sheet of paper has a LOT of white space.

Basically, I PERSONALLY believe that synthesizers should be used as a tool and nothing more.[/b]

hmmm....

Well, that's the thing - it's not that anyone prefers sampled sound over "real" sound. When people use sampled sound, they're not saying "I'm using this sound because I think it will produce BETTER results than a full orchestra!". We live in a society where NOTHING is HANDED to you. The studios, especially in telivision, will not pay for full orchestras to compose music for EVERY episode in the series, heck, they will even re-use cues - In fact they do this often. I'm pretty sure, if given the chance, any exec or music producer for television will use a symphonic orchestra if they could - actually even this I doubt. Harsh deadlines and streneously hard workflow make the idea of taking time to bring a whole symphonic orchestra, (over 90 people) into a room to perform cues for 26 episodes a season...thats just...no. Overkill. No one's willing.

It's always okay to have an opinion but really, when I read your post, it felt like your grasp on reality in the industry was limited and thus you knew too little about the work behind getting a symphonic orchestra to compose a piece to form a very fair opinion and critisism on things. You complain about it - like you know how to make it better or you know how to insantaneously purify the musical entertainment industry by producing these symphonic orchestras out of thin air. It's just that you seem to not realize how expensive full orchestra is. No, the computer isn't replacing the hand made orchestra - we're not choosing it over the "real" orchestra - samples were INVENTED BECAUSE OF the lack thereofsometimes.

To me, a SYNTHESIZER is a replication of a real acoustic instrument. This I have a problem with because people begin to rely on them to much over real flesh-and-blood musicians.[/b]

Back to my above statement. When people use samples - This is not "relying" on. We are using samples for what they were invented for. "Use when symphonic orchestras aren't (and often) unavailable". You never really seemed to consider that sometimes, just MAYBE, samples were an ONLY resort.

See, when people ask for criticism, they really want praise.

Hmmm....well...you see....No.

When people ask for critisism....THEY WANT CRITISISM. Maybe YOU don't, but artists whose SOLE perpose is to improve their orchestrations don't CARE much for the attention they get because they're too preoccupied with their work. Ya see, when I read your posts I end up not liking you - I don't really know you personally so I can't....NOT act civil to you, but your view on musical expressionism COMPLETELY contradicts everything that I, as a musician, stand for. You can't say you fully devote composing for the sake of yourself if afterwards you ask people for critisism (Or, in your very own definition, praise). People come here to seek opinions. I'm a film composer (that's my musical format anyway). You get a second opinion, exchange theories, and exchange critisism, ALL in attempts to better one's musical strongpoint. Praise and attention do not so anything for anyone and they CERTAINLY do not play a role in this theorum. Your motives are simply in the wrong place.

As a final thought on samples and synth, In the end - It's ALL noise. It's ALL sound. A violin is nothing but a bunch of horse hairs on a piece of wood scratching against other hairs in order to bend air a certain way in order to produce a certain sound. Traditionalism and history aside, look at it - That's ALL it is. A computer speaker is a small discular piece of technology that, today, allows us to vibrate the air to produce the sound in the exact same frequency. Thats all it is. Wood, silicon, look at it - when they both produces the same sound it really doesn't matter. There's one thing you have to understand about musical expresionism. It's not the violin thats expressing the human emotion. It's YOU and YOU entirely.

Okay, thats it for my rant:

________________________________________________

Notation - I guess it's really up for interpetation. If you plan on taking any of your music to any profesional level naturally you should have a very profesional product. However, if the audio track is all that's needed then notation matters for not in all honesty..

Amen.

here's my take on neatness. who gives a crap whether you write an essay in blue ink, black ink, pencil, highlighter, or even if you type it out from a typewriter. what people want to see is the content of the essay, not how well the essay looks. that's my analogy.

That is true... BUT if you ever want to have your music performed by real musicians, it would be nice for them to actually be able to read the notes, don't you think?

in the world of technology today, computers can do anything better than human. (all with the exception of emotion). but that's me. i'm an engineering student.

And as you study engineering more and more, you will become more acutely aware of the limitations of computers. I went to Caltech, and it convinced me that machines cannot substitute for real human beings. Especially not in the arts. To me, well-written music is about as close as you can get to pure distilled emotion, and that's where synthesized orchestras can't cut it. This is even more the case with chamber music, where every nuance of expression played by every solo instrument is critical - but even in an orchestral setting, wind solos are very common, and IMHO a good approximation isn't enough.

Personally, I have no problem with criticism. I prefer criticism, actually, to a degree. If somebody just says, "it sounds good," I want to know why it sounds good.

When I said that alot of people when they ask for criticism, they just want praise, I was being cynical :unsure: for a lot of other people

You've probably met people in your life like that. We all have. But everyone can grow.

Thanks for your imput though.

I never really implied ever saying that you can create an orchestra out of thin air. Well, of course not. What I'm saying is, as you can agree, is that nothing can beat the sound of real instruments. For example, if you were to go see a professionally-done musical, would you be just a little bit upset if they had no live band, or even just a piano player, and just relied on "canned" music? A professional musical?

I'm sure I wouldn't. Not that the musical is bad, I just would be disappointed that they didn't make the effort to even use a pianist, and I mean, there are many talented pianists who can do musicals!

I don't know, but personally, I'd try as hard as I could to get major works performed by real human ensembles, in order to help further my career. If I were to only rely on samples, then I would understand that it would be because of the limitations of a budget. But whenever even the slightest opportunity for live music comes, I'd jump to it. The thing about music, I personally believe, is the humanity that it comes from, not just from the composer, but from the performer, and if one of those aspects is missing, something is missing from that piece.

UNLESS...

That piece was SPECIFICALLY composed for a computer to perform. For example, a techno song.

ALL I'M SAYING is that nothing can truly beat the sound of a real, human, musician, no matter how far technology progresses.

You can say a similar thing for CGI vs Models. Sure, you can do so many more things with CGI than with models in a movie. Look at the recent star wars. But still, even though they're doing so many things, I don't know, but watching the closing scene in the Robot factory or whatever from Attack of The Clones looked as if I was just watching a video game, and I had very little sympathy for the major characters. On the other hand, a movie such as, "Clash of the Titans," though by todays standards the animation may look a bit hokey, by using predominantly models - in fact, only models - it added that bit of depth that I feel was missing in, say, the recent Miramax "Godzilla."

Just a personal feeling. Technology is not bad, in fact, without Sibelius I probably wouldn't have composed half of much as I have, though technolog can't, in the end, be better than a human being.

Well, I honestly believe that technology will one day surpass human beings.

Technology is constantly being enhanced... upgraded... renovated.

Humans can't.

As of now, yes, technology can't beat humans. And most of you agree on this fact. But at 90% of similarity or ability to imitate humans is not just satisfactory. It's a privilege for most of us. Sure, if I ever have a chance to get it performed... I would. But like I previously stated, live performance is considered a luxury.

Now as for notations... the MAIN topic.

But let me ask, if you were given a score for the some symphony and the Fortissimos are clustered together, or that there's no beaming between the notes, or its just a whole lot of scribbles and typos, would you rather look at that as opposed to a symphony that is all nice and pretty?

The question was for a Professional Looking Notation... As far as I'm concerned, most people who voted "no" meant that we don't need to spend extra time on the notation just to make it look nice and pretty. As long as it's readable, it's fine. We don't mean that we don't care about notations at all.

"Well, I honestly believe that technology will one day surpass human beings.

Technology is constantly being enhanced... upgraded... renovated.

Humans can't."

If you're talking about instrumental technique, you might want to read a history book.

If you're just talking about humans in general you're just wrong.

In my opinion anyway. I won't explain my reasoning but it should be obvious.

I don't think computer performances will ever surpass human ones.

Alot of the good music you hear done with samples has hours upon hours of human input into the actual playback of it to make it sound real.

An example of where computers try to do this but fail, is using the Espressivo function in Sibelius. I've forgotten if that's exactly what it's called, but it tries to use some rubato etc to simulate a humans touch.

The result is stupid bumbling around to be quite honest.

Although on the other side of things, I played a game (knights of the old republic) and for a while i didnt actually realise that the music was done with samples.

This could have been because i wasnt paying attention to it, or because i expect music to be of lower quality in a game, but still, i didnt notice it.

For practical purposes it was close enough.

Though I very much hope they don't start introducing the same practise into films.

On that note, any of you who have seen the recording of the orchestra for Star Wars will see how highly valued human musicians are. The huge amount of them just to play for that when they could use samples and save all the money of hiring them, and not have to do any retakes etc.

Well, I honestly believe that technology will one day surpass human beings.

They already have....

Not that this matters. There are so many elements in human orchestration that, by order of physical and mental sciences, a computer cannot produce - and really, when we do it we don't really mean to do it ourselves "hence why it cannot be replicated". This is style of interpretation. No song played twice is ever the same this way - not on perpose - it's just that the PC is just a much better music player than humans are - it can do the exact same thing a second time exactly how it was done the first time (OMG instant replay!) and thats what makes going to a concert so interesting.

Also, the Compy wont replace instruments not because they will never become better but because no matter how good they get the power of traditionalism is always going to be stronger. Most guys here will naturally disagree that something so inhuman could replace a century (several century actually) long traditions with the masters of the past.

"Well, I honestly believe that technology will one day surpass human beings.

Technology is constantly being enhanced... upgraded... renovated.

Humans can't."

If you're talking about instrumental technique, you might want to read a history book.

If you're just talking about humans in general you're just wrong.

In my opinion anyway. I won't explain my reasoning but it should be obvious.

I don't think computer performances will ever surpass human ones.

Alot of the good music you hear done with samples has hours upon hours of human input into the actual playback of it to make it sound real.

An example of where computers try to do this but fail, is using the Espressivo function in Sibelius. I've forgotten if that's exactly what it's called, but it tries to use some rubato etc to simulate a humans touch.

The result is stupid bumbling around to be quite honest.

Although on the other side of things, I played a game (knights of the old republic) and for a while i didnt actually realise that the music was done with samples.

This could have been because i wasnt paying attention to it, or because i expect music to be of lower quality in a game, but still, i didnt notice it.

For practical purposes it was close enough.

Though I very much hope they don't start introducing the same practise into films.

On that note, any of you who have seen the recording of the orchestra for Star Wars will see how highly valued human musicians are. The huge amount of them just to play for that when they could use samples and save all the money of hiring them, and not have to do any retakes etc.

I was refering to general skills.

Robots can do tasks with precision. So can humans only if they are well trained. Plus, robots can be task specific. They don't need to be a complete human... We can teach a robot to read scores and play a violin. Who knows, maybe one day, you can actually build a robotics orchestra. It's probably even possible to do that now... but who the hell would want to watch a bunch of robots playing a piece of music?

If you told me to read a history book because of instrumental techniques are being developed... you've misinterpreted my point. My point was that computers can be taught to do similar tasks that a human can do. Maybe it can't now... but a future upgrade will make it possible.

That is one reason why I don't use Sibelius. And most of you argue the lack of expressions a computer can do. That's because most of you use notation softwares... where the control is very limited. More technological approaches to certain styles can be achieved with more advanced softwares like sequencers. I don't understand the cores of Sound Engineering, and most of you probably don't either. But you don't know the possibilities.. if you actually understood sound manipulation.

I still beg to differ on samples vs. the real thing. Again I'm going to cite the same friend that I mentioned before, who happens to be a pretty hardcore audiophile. He claims that no system he has ever seen, no matter how expensive, has been able to even play back a recorded violin sound accurately. While a Stradivari violin still sounds great recorded, my (good but far less distinguished) violin sounds very similar, live and in person, to the best recorded Stradivaris; and a Stradivari played live sounds far better.

But we've gotten away from the topic again.

I still believe that professional-looking notation is a must. So what if live orchestras are a luxury? That does not mean you should abandon all hope of getting a live performance; and if an orchestra does come calling, you should by all means give them professional-looking parts.

I'll start worrying about notation once I've get a chance to get it performed. :thumbsup: