Rac

hel Aberdein

7713QCM

Assignment 1

Rachel Aberdein

1883260
 2
Rachel Aberdein

What is the Usefulness of Music Notation Software to Composers?

Abstract

This essay investigates the usefulness of music notation software to composers. It finds that while

music notation software is a useful tool due to the ease of editing afforded by it and the fact that it

may increase motivation to compose, its comes with pitfalls that composers should be aware of,

such as a tendency to copy and paste rather than develop ideas, and difficulties with the visual

aspects of scorewriting.

Introduction

Since the first scorewriting software appeared in the 1980s1, music notation software has offered

increasingly sophisticated and user-friendly ways for composers to notate and store their music. It

has also offered a potential avenue into creative music-making for those with little or no prior

musical experience (Webster, 2002, p7.).

This essay will examine the usefulness of music notation software to composers.

Literature Review

The sources reviewed were taken from journal articles, studies, blogs and “question and answer”

sites. Very few empirically conducted studies were found, with the majority of sources being

opinion pieces or anecdotal evidence. Most of the studies done were on a small scale and their

results have yet to be replicated. This lack of replication seems to stem from a lack of research

rather than from any invalidity of the results already found.

The attitudes of the sources toward music notation software were typically positive, with 12 taking

a positive view, 8 taking a mixed view and only 5 holding a negative stance. Interestingly, many of

Scorewriter. (2010) Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorewriter.

 3
Rachel Aberdein
the disadvantages of the use of notation software were pointed out by musicians; often experienced

composers (Kac, 2008.), (Kayali, N.D.), (Nagel, 1997.), (Peterson and Schubert, 2007.).

The largest advantage pointed out was the convenience afforded by the software. Numerous sources

(Kayali, N.D.),(Reese, 2001.), (Tang, 2006.), (Viss, 2010.) mentioned the ease of error correction

and the fact that the copy/paste and drag/drop functions permit editing in ways that would be time-

consuming when using paper.

Another oft-mentioned advantage was the ease with which notation software helped composers to

hear and share their work (Tang, 2006, p2.). An equal number of mentions were made of the idea

that notation software could help people with limited musical ability to compose, as well as helping

to introduce non-musicians to the compositional process (Webster, 2002, p7.).

A smaller number of sources mentioned that notation software offers an environment in which

composers can explore and make decisions regarding their music (Webster, 2002.).A similar

number pointed out that notation software could help increase student motivation to compose, both

by giving them access to tools in a familiar medium and by showing that the teacher is willing to

meet them in their sphere of interest (Tang, 2006, p8.), (Viss, 2010.).

The most commonly cited disadvantage was that notation software is cumbersome and costly. This

ostensibly contradicts the many sources pointing out its time-saving aspects; however, the

complaints tended to focus not on editing but on learning to use the software. Numerous composers

complained of having to “fight the program” to achieve certain effects, particularly when writing in

a modern idiom (Belkin, 1994, p5.), (Kayali, N.D.).

 4
Rachel Aberdein
Perhaps surprisingly, a smaller number of sources noted that the use of notation software does not

make one a better composer; and that the playback can give an unrealistic picture of what

instruments can do (Kac, 2008.). It was claimed that the use of the cut-and-paste function can lead

to repetition rather than development (Kayali, N.D.).

A few sources claimed that notation software had a socially isolating effect and that its use was

often unconnected to other musical activities (Kwami and Pitts, 2002, p.2.).

Only one source complained about the poor quality of playback, claiming that it sounded

“inhuman” (Kayali, N.D.).

Few of the sources reviewed attempted to take an unbiased viewpoint. All but five focussed on

either the negative or positive aspects of music notation software, either ignoring the aspects of the

software that did not support their arguments, or referring to them only in brief. There is a need for

more objective and balanced literature on this topic.

Convenience

The most commonly stated advantage of music notation software was its convenience and time-

saving aspects. One chief time-saver is in score layout. Two of the most highly regarded notation

programs, Sibelius and Finale, will automatically arrange chosen instruments into correct orchestral

score order2 and place instrument names on each page, they will also automatically place key

signatures, bar lines and bar numbers, as well as organising the spatial layout of the score. The

effect of this is that time previously spent on the page layout of a score can now be dedicated to

developing one’s musical ideas. As Kayali (N.D., Online.) states “Indeed, by removing many of the

Chamber music may require the composer to rearrange the order of instruments, but this is simple
and requires only a few mouse clicks.
 5
Rachel Aberdein
cumbersome aspects involved in composing music by using paper and pencil, composers can devote

more of their time and energy to perfecting their music(...)”3.

Other time-savers are the copy/paste and drag/drop functions offered by many programmes. As

http://www.girlmusic.info/ (2010) states

Music notation software has made it easier for you to go through and correct mistakes than it was
with pen, ink and paper. Using computer monitor and keyboard is less nerve-racking than the old
backbreaking method of staring too close at the paper and using pencil/pen to rectify the mistakes in
notation4.

The most sophisticated programs allow bars to be inserted anywhere in the score, thus allowing for

the easy insertion of new material. These functions are far quicker and easier than recopying entire

passages by hand, or, if the composer has decided to interpolate new material in between existing

notes, erasing and rewriting what may be a substantial amount of music. Kayali (N.D., Online.)

notes that “By comparison to paper and pencil, Finale makes certain processes such as cutting and

pasting phenomenally easy. The insertion of new measures in the middle of a passage is now

painless (...)5”

Time-Consuming and Difficult

Perhaps contradictorily, the most commonly cited disadvantage of notation software was the time

wasted using it. However, these complaints focused on different aspects of the software, being in

the main about the time required to learn the software and the time and effort required to make
3

Kayali, F. (N.D.) Music Notation Software: A Composer’s Best Enemy? Retrieved March 5, 2010,
from http://www.usc.edu/libraries/partners/resonance/2009%20Spring/Kayali/indexkayali.html

Benefits of Music Notation Software. (2010). Retrieved March 7, 2010, from

http://www.girlmusic.info/.
5

Kayali, F. (N.D.) Music Notation Software: A Composer’s Best Enemy? Retrieved March 5, 2010,
from http://www.usc.edu/libraries/partners/resonance/2009%20Spring/Kayali/indexkayali.html
 6
Rachel Aberdein
graphical scores look right. Belkin (1994, p4.) states that the Finale notation software has often been

criticised for a difficult user interface6. It is likely that the former complaint was made by people

who do not have a great deal of general computer experience, as the two most highly regarded

notation programs, Sibelius and Finale, are user-friendly and make use of many computer

conventions such as right-click menus and common keyboard shortcuts. The keyboard shortcuts

that are music-specific and thus not common to most Microsoft or Apple programs are typically

logical and easily remembered7.

The latter complaint is more valid. When writing graphical scores, and, to a lesser extent, scores in

standard notation, much time can be spent positioning elements on the page. This does not happen

with handwritten scores, as every element goes where the composer decides to put it, rather than

where a program has decided the default position for said element should be. Kayali (N.D.Online.)

states that in Finale, writing complex graphical scores is “so “non-idiomatic” and time-consuming

that a composer may save time by handwriting the score.8” In addition to having to move symbols

from their default position, Sibelius tends to connect symbols not to page locations, which makes

the most sense for graphic scores, but to bars, beats and notes, which means that carefully placed

elements move as the program attempts to optimally configure the bar layout.

Allows To Hear Playback

Another notable advantage of music notation software is that it allows composers to immediately

hear what they have written (Kayali, N.D., Online.), (Tang, 2006, p2.). This removes the need for
6

Belkin, A. (1994). Macintosh Notation Software: Present and Future. Computer Music Journal, 18 (1),
53-69. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from JSTOR database.
7

For example, inserting an expression marking in Sibelius is done by pressing Ctrl+E, then Ctrl+f for
forte, Ctrl+P for piano, and so forth. .
8

Kayali, F. (N.D.) Music Notation Software: A Composer’s Best Enemy? Retrieved March 5, 2010,
from http://www.usc.edu/libraries/partners/resonance/2009%20Spring/Kayali/indexkayali.html
 7
Rachel Aberdein
access to musicians to be able to hear one’s ideas, making the process of refining one’s work more

convenient. Of course, having a well-developed inner ear also allows for easy refinement of one’s

music, but being able to see music and know exactly how it will sound is a skill than can take years

to develop. For composers who are not yet proficient in this skill, the playback offered by notation

software can be very useful.

Can Be Used As a Crutch and Give Unrealistic Ideas

However, it is important to develop one's aural imagination and not to use the software playback as

a crutch for poorly developed aural faculties. Hearing computer-generated sounds through speakers

or headphones is not the same as hearing actual musicians in real performing spaces, and the over-

use of software playback may lead to writing for the computer rather than for instruments. It may

also cause composers to neglect to consider how performance spaces may affect the sound of their

works.

Conclusion

In this essay, I have investigated the usefulness of music notation software to composers. I have

found that it offers many advantages, notably increased convenience and the ability to hear one’s

ideas immediately, which may lead to greater motivation to compose. However, the use of music

notation software also entails certain disadvantages. The overuse of the cut/paste and drag/drop

functions may lead to less creative, well-planned compositions that make use of repetition rather

than development. Over-reliance on the software’s playback to hear ideas may hamper the

development of the inner ear. Additionally, learning the software can be time-consuming, and for

certain styles of music, much effort is required to make the music look as required. In conclusion,

music notation software can be a very useful tool for composers; however, it will not compensate

for a lack of compositional ability, and its use comes with pitfalls that composers should be aware

of.
 8
Rachel Aberdein

Bibliography

Belkin, A. (1994). Macintosh Notation Software: Present and Future. Computer Music Journal, 18
(1), 53-69. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from JSTOR database.

Benefits of Music Notation Software. (2010). Retrieved March 7, 2010, from

http://www.girlmusic.info/.
Byrd, D. (1994). Music Notation Software and Intelligence. Computer Music Journal, 18 (1), 17-
20. Retrieved March 2, 2010, from JSTOR database.

Criswell, C. (2010). MIDI and its Many Uses. Teaching Music, 17, (4), 26. Retrieved March 8, 2010
from ternational Index to Music Periodicals database.

Freedman, B. TI:ME Essay: Notation Software. (2009). Retrieved March 12, 2009, from
http://musicedtech.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/time-essay-notation-software/

Hickey, M. (1997). Teaching Ensembles To Compose and Improvise. Music Educators Journal,
Vol. 83, (6), 17-21. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from JSTOR database.

Kac, S. (2008). Composing With Notation Software. Retrieved March 7, 2010, from
http://fickleears.blogspot.com/.

Kayali, F. (N.D.) Music Notation Software: A Composer’s Best Enemy? Retrieved March 5, 2010,
from http://www.usc.edu/libraries/partners/resonance/2009%20Spring/Kayali/indexkayali.html

Kennedy, M. (2002). Listening To The Music: Compositional Processes of High School Composers.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, (2), 94-110. Retrieved March 5, 2010, from JSTOR
database.

Lugert, S. (2009). Music Composing Software- Benefits. Retrieved March 8, 2010 from

http://www.articlesbase.com/software-articles/music-composing-softwarebenefits-929401.html.
Moore, B. (1992). Music, Technology and an Evolving Curriculum. NASSP Bulletin, 76, 42-46.

Retrieved March 14, 2010 from http://bul.sagepub.com

Mawuena Kwami, R., and Pitts, A. (2002). Raising students' performance in music composition
through the use of information and communications technology (ICT): a survey of secondary
schools in England. B. J. Music Ed. 2002 19(1), 61-71 from Cambridge Journals.

Nagel, J. (1997). Computer Music- Notation Software. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from
http://eamusic.dartmouth.edu/~wowem/hardware/notation.html
 9
Rachel Aberdein
Peterson, J., and Schubert, E. Music Notation Software: Some Observations on its Effects on
Composer Creativity (2007). University of New South Wales. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from
http://marcs.uws.edu.au/links/ICoMusic/Full_Paper_PDF/Peterson_Schubert.pdf

Reese, S. (2001). Tools For Thinking In Sound. Music Educators Journal, 88, 42-53. Retrieved
March 6, 2010 from The National Association For Music Education.

Smithers, B. (1998). How To Choose The Right Notation Software. Music & Computers 4 (4), 33-34,

36-39. Retrieved March 12, 2010 from ternational Index to Music Periodicals database.

Tang, P. (2006). Enhancing Students’ Experiences In Music Composition Through Music Notation
Software. Australian Online Journal of Arts Education, 2 (3), Retrieved March 15, 2010 from
Australian Online Journal of Arts Education.

Vaggione, H. (2001). Some Ontological Remarks about Music Composition Processes. Computer
Music Journal, 25 (1), 54-61. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from JSTOR database.

Vennemeyer, J. (1999). Orff + Technology = Composition For Kids. ternational Index to Music
Periodicals database.

Viss, L. (2010). Add A Lab To Your Lesson. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from
http://www.musicteachershelper.com/blog/add-a-lab-to-your-lesson/.

Webster, P. (2002). Historical Perspectives On Technology and Music. Music Educators Journal,
Vol. 89, (1), 38- 43 + 54. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from JSTOR database.

Technology For Teaching (2009). Music Educators Journal, 96, 22-23. Retrieved March 14, 2010

from http://bul.sagepub.com