On Partch and notation, for William and Carl...

William,

{you wrote...}
>I must remember my smileys!

Oh, hell, I just need to remember how inadequate ASCII text is for meaning!
While I believe strongly in some of the stuff, it's hard to know
(sometimes) when it's "tongue-in-cheek" or "fist-in-air"! Hope I didn't
seem to take too much offense...

>but I have deep suspicions about anyone who complains about
>the excessive abstraction of plainchant. My own feeling is that the
>best musical system has some balance between abstraction and
>corporeality.

I would view the point as being: that is what makes sense to you, but not
necessarily to someone like Partch. While some cast him as merely 'cranky',
it is more the case that he was almost completely uncompromising in his
beliefs, *where his music/work was concerned*. I might not agree with him,
as well, but I certainly don't mind someone clearly defining their own
aesthetic boundaries.

And he *did* go out of his way to *not* tell anyone else what they should
do, though he railed against the status quo almost non-stop for decades.

>I've not seen anyone here endorse what I take to be Partch's strongest
>statements regarding corporeality.

Well, I probably would! :)

---[ And now, Mr. Carl:
>What do you want to do? I confess I've never done percussion parts with
>them, but other than that...

Great, buddy: you haven't done them, but you're willing to propose that the
electronic equivalents of copying music can do everything. How do you know
that?

>Saving time? It's just like the difference between word processing and
>writing. If you're going to edit, it's much faster.

*Once* a file is in, it is possible to edit and tweak and print out with
comparable results with hand work. OTOH, sometimes getting in a score, and
putting in all the nuances (dynamics, expressions, etc.) can take a whole
lot of time. And then there is the layout...

>If you're just going to put it in and print, it depends on your typing
skills.

Not if the program insists on making the music appear one way when you want
another. Good copyists have a sixth sense about how to lay out the notes on
a page, spacing, planning page turns, etc. The automation of part
extraction is still not completely there. As for having to actually read
this stuff (and I don't mean practicing it for days or weeks, but having to
sight read and then record), some of the page layout can be abominable. It
is comparable to badly justified text in a word processor, with bad text
kerning and font spacing, as compared to a good publishing program (or
layout artist) that can do correct proportional text alignment -- such a
delight for the eyes and mind.

All that said, I use Finale regularly, but I also know when *not* to use
it, as well as ask a producer for room in the budget for a professional
copyist.

And I have all faith that the notation programs *will* get there, but also
have parallel doubts that, by virtue of market, they won't include the
esoteric features that some of the composers on this list might like to see.

Now go input Varese's "Ionization" into Finale and report back when done... :)

Have a nice weekend, folks!
Jon

`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Jonathan M. Szanto : Corporeal Meadows - Harry Partch, online.
jszanto@adnc.com : http://www.corporeal.com/
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`

>Great, buddy: you haven't done them, but you're willing to propose that the
>electronic equivalents of copying music can do everything. How do you know
>that?

What can't they do?

>>Saving time? It's just like the difference between word processing and
>>writing. If you're going to edit, it's much faster.
>
>*Once* a file is in, it is possible to edit and tweak and print out with
>comparable results with hand work. OTOH, sometimes getting in a score, and
>putting in all the nuances (dynamics, expressions, etc.) can take a whole
>lot of time. And then there is the layout...

If you know ahead of time you're going to want to change things, as
sometimes you do when composing, then it is faster.

Why do you assume that every automatic feature that can be used must be
used when inputing a file? Sibelius and Finale allow arbitrary amounts of
user intervention. I've spent hours hand-spacing notes in Encore.

>>If you're just going to put it in and print, it depends on your typing
>>skills.
>
>Not if the program insists on making the music appear one way when you want
>another.

What feature are you finding impossible to turn off?

>Good copyists have a sixth sense about how to lay out the notes on
>a page, spacing, planning page turns, etc.

And this sense mysteriously disappears when they sit down in front of a
computer?

>It is comparable to badly justified text in a word processor, with bad text
>kerning and font spacing, as compared to a good publishing program (or
>layout artist) that can do correct proportional text alignment -- such a
>delight for the eyes and mind.

True, but what of the other side of things? Have you ever sat down in
front of a hand-written part that you couldn't read? I have. Tiny little
notes, sitting half-way between line and space, un-evenly spaced ledger
lines, on a 1st trumpet part crammed on the same staff with the 2nd trumpet
part. The score entry program gives the composer a chance to improve his
hand writing.

-Carl

Carl,

>What can't they do?

One thing I remember was multiply-nested tuplets and custom-grouped
tuplets. Another was multiple meter signatures running concurrently in
different staves (i.e. changing metrics in each part, not coinciding
vertically). And it is very possible that some of these can be done (and
maybe in the newest versions). But it was *way* more trouble and time than
the old way.

Though I love them for quick-and-dirty arrangements.

>Why do you assume that every automatic feature that can be used must be
>used when inputing a file?

I don't.

>I've spent hours hand-spacing notes in Encore.

I've got better uses for my time on this planet; the notes would have been
spaced properly the first time, for me, by hand. I thought it was a time
*saver*?

> >Good copyists have a sixth sense about how to lay out the notes on
> >a page, spacing, planning page turns, etc.
>
>And this sense mysteriously disappears when they sit down in front of a
>computer?

No, but very frequently it is more difficult (in the current generation of
notation programs) to duplicate the art and finesse of good music
reproduction. I'll restate: the current generation of notation tools is
*not* at the same production-level use as DTP, such as Quark.

>True, but what of the other side of things? Have you ever sat down in
>front of a hand-written part that you couldn't read?

Yes, copying can be butchered by hand. I have suffered through that as
well. My point is that many people today believe slapping a CD-ROM into the
computer and loading a program will solve their problems, and it won't; we
need healthy, objective looks at all of these panacea(s). It all started
with the statement that Finale, et al, can do anything. That is too broad a
statement at this stage of the game.

And now we are way OT for the tuning list, so let's go off-list if you want
to discuss more. I can even get a full-time copyist involved, who cranks
out Finale scores day in and day out...

Best,
Jon
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Jonathan M. Szanto : Corporeal Meadows - Harry Partch, online.
jszanto@adnc.com : http://www.corporeal.com/
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`

>One thing I remember was multiply-nested tuplets and custom-grouped
>tuplets.

That's now standard.

>Another was multiple meter signatures running concurrently in different
>staves (i.e. changing metrics in each part, not coinciding vertically).

Even Encore does that.

>>I've spent hours hand-spacing notes in Encore.
>
>I've got better uses for my time on this planet; the notes would have been
>spaced properly the first time, for me, by hand. I thought it was a time
>*saver*?

It's still faster than spending hours copying parts out every time I make a
change in my score. Also, the midi performance gives performers something
to go by. Encore is also about the worst as far as autospacing goes.

>Yes, copying can be butchered by hand. I have suffered through that as
>well. My point is that many people today believe slapping a CD-ROM into the
>computer and loading a program will solve their problems, and it won't; we
>need healthy, objective looks at all of these panacea(s). It all started
>with the statement that Finale, et al, can do anything. That is too broad a
>statement at this stage of the game.

That wasn't my statement. I said score entry programs, and I actually
meant it in principle, not with respect to any "current generation" of
software. But I've been arguing that anyway, because I think the current
generation is quite good for anybody that (1) has half a brain (2) already
knows how to write music and (3) is willing to spend the first month of use
learning it. Current generation software has provisions for putting
anything on the page I could want, so far as I know today. It doesn't have
provision for turning that into sound, yet, as I mentioned originally in
this thread:

>First to check are LIME <http://datura.cerl.uiuc.edu>, Sibelius
><http://www.sibelius.com>, and Finale <http://www.codamusic.com>.
>
>None of these can do what I want exactly, so let me no if you turn up
>anything else.

>And now we are way OT for the tuning list,

Rubbish! :)

-Carl