Voces8 Sound Of Silence Sheet Music
Rosamunda Froats
In the 48 hours since we posted the Lux Aurumque Virtual Choir video soaringleap.com has seen an extraordinary number of new visitors. (Thank you to everyone who has taken an interest and linked here, especially mashable.com and Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish). I thought I would take this opportunity to welcome everyone, and give a brief explanation as to how the Virtual Choir came to be.
I was thrilled (it actually sounded like music!), and I wanted to see if we could push the concept to the next level. So this time, I made my own conductor track, filming it in complete silence, hearing the music only in my head. Then I watched the video and played in the piano accompaniment part to my conductor track:
A transcriber's nightmare? A composer's delight? I know that our notation system has gone through revisions since it's inception. Stockhausen made a strange departure in notation. I'm kind of intrigued by the idea of addressing foundational weaknesses in our system and how it might be improved by degrees.
The Clairnote system seems to do this, with it's more accurate distancing of pitches on the staff. The modification to the staff is only slight. Clairnote might be a good system to get children started on reading and writing music. Can the two programs (Musescore and Clairnote) be merged? They are both open source, but someone said that it's foundational system, Lilypond, is not compatible. How long would it take to develop an interface?
To put my interest in context, Steve jobs once said that he thought that the Microsoft Word program was competitive because he designed it with a selection of fonts. For me, the inclusion of different systems is like the choice of fonts. To be able to view and work with your music in an alternative universe, yet with translation between those worlds. I think such options would give Musescore a competitive edge over even the commercial products out there.
Transcribers can still preserve the works of the past in the traditional system. I alert you that we are in a transition from transcriber to composer software, so expect many issues to arise that come from composers and for different ways of thinking about this program in the years to come.
Interesting - it's scheduled to come to an end in 2640. Is Cage making some kind of socio-political statement? Wouldn't this be better performed using digital technology? Maybe we should start our own performance?
Maybe Cage was trying to say "My music will be around for a lonnnng time?" As opposed to the Stones? I think one could make the point that classical music is different than pop in that it holds the interest much longer.
It is, yet it was probably developed with the authoritative direction of transcribers. We'll look into this some more. It's another thing to develop this project further with the direction of composers. And we are probably headed for a bit of a culture clash between the two groups. That's the reason for me wanting to back up and take a bigger, larger or general view of things.
Right. We are moving from notation for transcribers to a system that is more focused upon composing. That means we need to talk about a Composer's Wizard. I believe that The Wizard was designed primarily by and for transcribers. That's fine. Now we need to revisit those notions.
What the heck is a "transcriber"? Is that an "othering" word used by haughty composers to minimize all other users of music software? (Yes, I have transcribed music from one instrument to another, but I don't think that's what you mean). Or does it mean a "copyist" such as myself (at times) who copies music from printed sheet to digital "sheet"?
It seems to me that there are three types of users:
1. Engravers. Someone who is "type setting" a score and parts for publication.
2, Transcribers. Someone who is (for example) rewriting piano music for orchestra.
3. Composers: Someone intent on creating new music.
I am referring to processes. I have done my share of transcription. Does anyone specialize in one or the other? Or are we all transcribers/composers? Meaning that we transcribe and compose. Because the processes are not the same.
Sorry to blur this distinction. But when I prepare scores of Baroque ensemble music, I always have to use my skills as a composer not only to compose a continuo realization, but to recognize textual errors (e.g.., wrong notes) and invent and justify solutions. Of course reading a book out loud is not the same as making an address of your own, but the two processes are intimately connected (i.e., how'd you learn to think and speak).
I think I said elsewhere that the most prolific composers determine what is "good." This work by Cage makes him the most prolific composer to ever have lived. In comparison, Bach wrote a mere 175 hours. This piece is extremely difficult to perform live. Wait until we hear the section of staccato notes!
I'm speaking from my own experience. I began with Musescore by transcribing theory books and my own notebooks. The New Score Wizard is ideal for transcription and probably for composing in the style of previous periods. But I subscribe to 21st Century common practice, and now that I am using Musescore more for composing, I find that the Wizard is an obstacle.
So let's compare notes. What are your processes for composition? Transcription work is a different process. 21st Century practice requires the Wizard to have a modified set up or a "Composer's Mode." That's the way I see it. But I spose you see it differently. So shoot.
He's referirng to the New Score Wizard (Ctrl+N or File / New). I still haven't managed to understand how it could be considered an obstacle to have an opportunity to enter a title and select instruments/key/meter no matter what kind of music one writes, but this claim has been made elsewhere.
Marc - You are a composer? I think that is what you said. But you do not seem to be a fan of 21st century common practice. So what is that? The development of the New Score Wizard does not seem to be informed by the latest processes. How do you go about composing?
Think about how we composed with paper. All I needed to do was put a pencil to the staff and I could fill in whatever i wanted, in any order that I wanted. For me, the last item I consider is a title. That could come months later. I don't need it, and it's an obstacle for me to have to fill out. This could be fully automated and make more sense. All I need is a one step button for a grand staff, and automated filing. I don't need anything else. If I do need something like a key or time sig, I can drag that into the score when I'm ready. These are not the first things I consider.
The very first thing that I consider is a campaign to amass a large number of miscellaneous items, such as melodic and rhythmic motifs, and chord progressions. I need hundreds and thousands of items before I even get anywhere near a plan. I have a choice. I can notate these items with a system that is composer friendly, such as a Tascam handheld DR40 linear PCM recorder or Musescore. i would like a composer's wizard that functioned more like my DR40. My DR40 does works by hitting one button. It sets up a score for me which will allow any instrument or sound on the planet to be accurately recorded. And it automatically files it for me with the date and serial number.
Don't sarcastically ask why I need Musescore. I don't think I should be forced to use one or the other. I would like both. I would like all of my mscz files to be able to be copied into a folder along with my dated audio scores and for them to all fall into order together. The format is for today would be 200908 with a running serial number: 200908_0000. It is incredibly convenient and logical. I can find stuff easily. I can scan these lists of numbers and tell where I was and the types of projects I was working on at the time. It's a general listing and coding that informs me of where all of these thousands of scraps of information are. I can tell by scanning with my eye that a file dated 140724_1957 was recorded in Mexico City in 2014, in the latter part of July, and that I was almost 2000 items into a project.
I would also like these files to be able to be joined together and the dates transferred into the text above the staff. Then I am ready to sort stuff into titled projects. The final score is going to be assembled in a DAW. This is 21st century common practice. Talk to professional musicians and this is how we do it. Scored parts come to the composer randomly to be assembled later.
I need Musescore for other things like transcription of ideas and theories and analysis. But when I am writing and recording, I mostly use it to generate sound clips for manipulation in a DAW. Every time I get an idea, I have to go through this score setup with the Wizard, thus it's an obstacle for me.
Of course, if this is not your experience, then you won't understand. I can understand why you would think that the New Score Wizard is sufficient when you have a completed score or you are composing a full score for performers to read. I just don't work that way. I have produced lots of compositions, but I have no full written scores. For each work, the completed score is in the DAW. The written score is now only a tool for getting a documented audio score. Like the Beatles, who scored their works directly on audio tape.
The entire scoring or notation process was upended by Les Paul in the 1950's. The individual instrument staves are replaced by audio tracks. We study the Beatles in theory classes using not only written scores, but by listening to the individual audio tracks. Just like we learn to listen to Bach by singling out bass lines, melodies, and voices from the contrapuntal texture. For modern works, the audio score is the primary source and the final word on what should be played. The Analogues are a band that faithfully reproduce the Beatles catalogue. they get the best information from the audio recordings. this is 21st century common practice.
c80f0f1006