will notation programs be phased out?

[jeffh]

your opinion of me is of absolutely no moment, particularly as it will be based on this thread and that you can't hold your own in the conversation. Go yell at your parents.

LOL, and that's why you've churned about 20 paragraphs of response out, because you don't care about my opinion, and because I'm not "holding my own" in this conversation. You've written WAY longer posts than my 2 minute off-the-cuff no-spell-or-grammar-check rants. FAIL

Then the attempts to somehow belittle my maturity and grammatical errors... As is I don't intellectually dwarf you in real life, where I'm constantly being recruited by every major tech company in the world to help develop famous products, and you probably give people low cost music lessons and volunteer at band camp...

[DevonB]

I had a conversation a couple years ago with a friend who's a top-notch arranger - sickeningly good. He told me that he had done composing/arranging in a DAW for a while, but went back to scoring on paper because he found it to be much quicker. At first I was a little skeptical about his claim, but he explained that the ability to hit the play button to instantly hear what you've just written is a huge distraction and time-waster, and over time I've come to totally agree with him. I still do some composing/arranging in the DAW, but I've been doing a lot more scoring on paper lately, and it's a nice way to work - a very different paradigm. For one thing, it exercises the DAW in your head, which might be gathering dust because you forgot it's there. The ability to "hear" (in your head) what's written on your score, is a very valuable skill. It goes hand-in-hand with your transcription muscles - your ability to write down what you hear. Neglecting these skills doesn't make you more modern or relevant, it makes you deficient. IMO, it's like deciding you don't need your legs anymore, because you can buy a wheelchair instead (wheelchairs are much more modern, don't you know).

Being able to transcribe music you hear into sheet music can be a valuable skill. Just like being able to be able to play multiple instruments is a valuable skill. Writing/composing in a different method opens up musical avenues that you might normally not go down. However, if you can only write in one way, or don't compose music in the method you proscribe, doesn't make you 'bad'. That's like saying there's something wrong with you if you can only speak fluently in one language. Now, if you can speak multiple languages fluently, it opens other opportunities, like you have obviously experienced. It might make YOU a better composer, yes, but I'd be hard pressed to force someone else into a different paradigm that might not work for them. I certainly wouldn't criticize them for not seeing or doing it 'your way'. I don't 'hear' music in my head before I write it. I am an improv musician and hear it as I am writing, not before I write it. Should I say someone is deficient for not being able to do improv? To me, that's a valuable skill.

Devon

[stanlea]

where I'm constantly being recruited by every major tech company in the world to help develop famous products

hey, he's the bitwig guy ! Respect !

[ghettosynth]

I had a conversation a couple years ago with a friend who's a top-notch arranger - sickeningly good. He told me that he had done composing/arranging in a DAW for a while, but went back to scoring on paper because he found it to be much quicker. At first I was a little skeptical about his claim, but he explained that the ability to hit the play button to instantly hear what you've just written is a huge distraction and time-waster, and over time I've come to totally agree with him. I still do some composing/arranging in the DAW, but I've been doing a lot more scoring on paper lately, and it's a nice way to work - a very different paradigm. For one thing, it exercises the DAW in your head, which might be gathering dust because you forgot it's there. The ability to "hear" (in your head) what's written on your score, is a very valuable skill. It goes hand-in-hand with your transcription muscles - your ability to write down what you hear. Neglecting these skills doesn't make you more modern or relevant, it makes you deficient. IMO, it's like deciding you don't need your legs anymore, because you can buy a wheelchair instead (wheelchairs are much more modern, don't you know).

That's all well and good, but I read the OP's assertion as largely an issue simply from the product perspective. It has nothing at all to do with musicianship or one's ability, or lack thereof, to exercise the DAW in their head and transcribe work to paper.

It's simply a question of whether CUSTOMERS of software are sufficiently interested in the feature to justify it over other features. It used to be the case that all major sequencers included some form of notation and if you go back and look at the ads it was always prominently displayed. Now there are several packages that have none at all. I would say for the most part that it was the tools that started out catering specifically to the EDM market that started the trend of not having notation abilities. The pre-alpha Reason was called "tiny-techno", Fruity Loops was just a simple drum sequencer, Sonic Foundary Acid (before Sony bought them) sequenced only loops, as did Live when it came out.

All of these packages catered largely to the EDM producer and when they expanded beyond their humble beginnings they added the features demanded by their users and that fulfilled the company's need to differentiate themselves.

So, now many packages, that didn't initially, have the ability to sequence audio and midi and we lump them all into the category of DAW. So, the question of whether or not notation is going away in software is simply a function of who are the daw producers selling to, who is there customer?

The established companies that have been selling to musicians for at least a decade before techno and hip-hop producers stopped using MPCs et al. and went ITB, still consider it important enough for their customers to include the feature. I suspect that some small percentage of Reason and Live, etc, probably consider it important and wished that their tools had it, but, are able to use external tools to fill that need. The majority of EDM producers, however, probably don't use notation at all because it's largely not necessary. Note, I did not say top, or best, or the successful. It's simply a numbers game. That said, I've seen quite a few "in the studio" videos with top producers and I've yet to see a one use notation for anything, even whey they use software that supports it.

It comes down to which is the bigger market. Obviously Cubase has realized that they need to sell to EDM producers. Not that some EDM producers don't use Cubase, hardly, but simply that to be competitive that they have had to introduce things like their funky arrangement track and their beat tools.

Whether the demand from the non-notating segment trumps the demand from the notating segment isnt' a question about music at all, it's simply a business question about how the company will survive and whether the choice to upgrade, enhance, and/or focus on notation tools will generate enough income to make it worthwhile.

And I think that all the OP was getting at wrt "music theory", and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that he, like many EDM producers started out trying to take a formal music-centric approach to producing EDM and found that the time investment didn't yield sufficient reward to justify the expenditure. The skills for producing/performing EDM are really more production skills than music skills. Really, many many many successful EDM producers have come to the same conclusion. So, I think that all he's saying is, hey, I don't even read music worth a damn, so I'm certainly not concerned with the notation tool and I'm not going to pressure the Props, or whatever company makes his daw, to implement it.

So, actual prediction follows: You will continue to see the major entrenched companies consider it an important feature for their customers. The majority of EDM focused tools will not bother at all. Some of the bigger EDM focused tools that think are very mature may consider adding such capability to expand their market. I think that the props might think about it at some point in conjunction with some sort of "music education" strategy. Just a guess, it's worth what you payed for it. That said, it's probably always going to be the case that specialized products will be available that offer more detailed output and control than the daw based tools.

YMMV.

[rp314]

Were there musicians who began to experiment with different forms of notation before the computer became popular? Indeed there were.

But, what we've apparently come to find out is that for certain kinds of composing the old, silly way has its advantages. Different strokes and all that. No need to attack anyone who doesn't get it unless he or she will determine how things go. And, once again, the composing techniques of certain fairly successful folks seem to suggest otherwise.

Now if the question was "Will developers continue to invest more in improving other components and hide the notation feature even further back in their DAWs?", well, maybe it would be best to think of it as just a way to subsidize the whole thing for the few who still use standard notation.

[vurt]

where I'm constantly being recruited by every major tech company in the world to help develop famous products

hey, he's the bitwig guy ! Respect !

:cat pic!:

[rockstar_not]

So, I didn't read the first 5 pages - has anyone mentioned Hummingbird notation? It looks like an attempt to combine various 'traditional' notation, with some elements of piano roll, and some other clever visual cues.

http://www.hummingbirdnotation.com/

Keep in mind that piano roll type of notation arguably existed prior to what is considered traditional notation. Some early music 'charts' look as much like piano roll as they do modern/traditional notation.

-Scott

[Dewdman42]

music notation has been around a long time and its not going anywhere. its still the best way to represent music in a way that is easily digestible quickly. Try site reading a piano roll sometime. Notation is not easily digestible for people that haven't spent some time learning how to read it, but that is still an active part of music training and will remain so for decades or centuries to come. I play in a beatles band now and I score out all the vocal parts for clarity and so that we remember them all correctly.

Unfortunately most of the band has a visceral negative reaction to my ultra simplistic one pager scores. They are all on the verge of vomiting and will not even try to look at them or figure out how to read some simple musical lines. They will say things like "The beatles didn't know how to read music", etc.. justification and rationalizations to avoid what would take them about 2 hours to learn how to read well enough to make their life easier. It baffles me a bit, but fear can do that to people.

Aside from Finale and Sibelius, both of which are going strong, but are rather geared towards publishing, there are many other offerings which include standard notation as part of a music-creation process, such as sequencing. I do not think this is going away, and I certainly hope I am right.

The author of Overture is working on a new version which is going to include notation and piano roll integrated together, the screen shots I've seen are pretty sweet. Its like a hybrid between sequencer and notation. Has all the midi editing and VST hosting, etc...but also can print out very high quality scores.

Notion is another notional program that can print out decent scores but also does a damn fine job of rendering the sounds.

Most of the big name sequencers still include notation though its true that they have not kept up with improving the notation, perhaps for the reasons some have claimed, that the vast majority of sequencer users are like my band members, they are too intimidated by notation to know what to do with it. But I can say that the Digital Performer notation is actually pretty decent. Its certainly good enough to use for looking at the music while I work on it, though its not really good enough for printing out a score that I would share with anyone.

(which by the way is still the best way to communicate the music you want played by other musicians, whether they be studio musicians, fellow band members or anyone else).

[Dewdman42]

(which by the way is still the best way to communicate the music you want played by other musicians, whether they be studio musicians, fellow band members or anyone else).

And by the way, that includes communicating my own musical ideas to MYSELF as I go through the composing mental process. Once you know how to read music, I really can't think of a better way to communicate the musical ideas: chords, scales, phrases, melodies, etc.. so that you can listen to it and LOOK at it as you go and get your brain crunching on how to expand the ideas or develop the music.

Piano roll, is an effective tool also, this is not either/or, but IMHO, piano roll is better for editing and understanding an actual "performance" with all of the nuances of a real performance. Its not ideal for the mental process of understanding the music.

Maybe some people have learned how to read piano rolls or schenker diagrams or whatever for this mental process I speak of, but they are by far the minority. 99% of musicians that have learned how to portray music in a visible way, which separates out the music from the performance; have been trained to use standard music notation. It is ancient yes, but still very much current.

[JoeCat]

Underneath it all, the essence of music:



Skryllex is one of the most popular bass-music producers for a reason.

Having raised three kids to college, two of whom are classically trained musicians, I can say with certainty: as many of the the children at their schools listen to Bach and Beethoven as dubstep. As a matter of fact, they are usually the same kids...

This thread is and I hate myself just a little for participating.

[herodotus]

@herodotas: I'm not going to attempt to quote your entire post and respond to specific points, but let's just define relevance:

Relevant: Popular today

Popular: Many (most?) people like it

You realize, of course, that the entirety of Linux audio is 'irrelevant' by that definition, do you not? Personally, I think that would be kind of harsh, as there is value, and therefore relevance, in all kinds of different working environments.

Notation: Not in any way necessary for modern composition in a DAW using plugins

Unless, of course, you want actual human beings to perform it later; or maybe you just want them to perform part of it, but in any case this sort of thing still happens a great deal in the world.

Old music theory: We are living in what is referred to as the "dissonant era" because dissonant melodies from early Jazz took the world by storm and dominate nearly all music.The old stuff is the polar opposite of dissonant, so I will personally choose to throw away all 300 years of it because nobody currently living likes the way it sounds, thanks... but I'm sure that sitting around rubbing elbows with the prince of Austria listening to young Beethoven was quite an experience for it's time...

You know, a while back I saw you take a guy to task for his simplistic conception of why Linux is useless for making music....it was quite entertaining because you were right, and it made me take a look at your work, which I find interesting.

But trust me when I say that what you have written here about music history is at least as misinformed as what that guy wrote about Linux audio.

[vurt]

linux? is he the one with the blanket?

[fmr]

I just find the entire idea that the acquisition of knowledge is somehow restrictive to creativity to beyond ridiculous. Maybe it's just the information age that allows these myopic and decadent views of education to seem to be proliferating. But, damn it seems actual knowledge and the pursuit of it is under attack everywhere.

So, why don't we quit using written language as a means of communication? It's clearly old school. And, just like musical notation, it is both effective in some scenarios and lacking in others.

Kids already did it somehow. Did you ever read the text messages on your kids phones(assuming you have them)? They didn't stop writing AT ALL, they just cutted it by half, more or less

[jeffh]

You realize, of course, that the entirety of Linux audio is 'irrelevant' by that definition

YES!!! LINUX AUDIO ***IS*** COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!!! I WHOLLY AGREE!!!! NOBODY USES LINUX TO MAKE MUSIC, AND RIGHTFULLY SO!!!!!

I don't have delusions of grandeur about it like the rest of the Linux audio developers.

My sense of self-worth is tied to many accomplishments, but my fledgling Linux audio project that's just over 1 year into development isn't really one of them. In fact, the rest of the Linux audio community hates me because:

1. I stated forthrightly that Linux audio is currently irrelevant
2. I suggested that it would stay irrelevant until certain things changed
3. I proposed changes that could be made to make it relevant
4. When those self-important, incompetent, underachieving nitwits didn't get on-board with my plan, I took matters into my own hands and wrote my own DAW+plugins


Of course, items 1-3 are well known by anybody who ever tried Linux audio, and #4 was what really made me unpopular with the old guard... They really don't want anybody proving that it isn't as hard as they make it look

[seacouch]

That's all well and good, but I read the OP's assertion as largely an issue simply from the product perspective. It has nothing at all to do with musicianship or one's ability, or lack thereof, to exercise the DAW in their head and transcribe work to paper.

Yes your honor, my comment was tangential. Guilty as charged. I'm hoping for a lenient sentence.